Archives for category: geopolitics

How common sense is concealed as a state secret:

kill switch
noun
a computer function for disabling software or a device remotely: 100 percent of the French high-tech arms exports concealed a kill switch which could render the weapon useless

“Senior MPs have called for an inquiry into claims that France deliberately withheld secrets about missiles that killed 46 British sailors in the 1982 Falklands War

“The Telegraph has been told that French-made Exocet guided missiles contained a “kill switch” that could have disarmed them, but that France denied such a device existed

“Three Royal Navy ships were hit by Exocets during the Falklands conflict, two of which – HMS Sheffield and the merchant vessel Atlantic Conveyor – sank. Sailors died on all three ships

“The missiles were made by the French firm Aerospatiale and, as the Royal Navy task force sailed south to retake the islands from their Argentinian occupiers, Britain appealed to its ally for information about how they worked and whether they could be disabled

“British experts believed the Exocets contained a kill switch, which arms manufacturers sometimes secretly build into weapons so they can be disabled if they fall into the hands of a hostile state

“According to a highly-placed source, France denied that the kill switches existed, but British officials became convinced it was not telling the truth, partly as a result of investigations carried out on an earlier variant of the missile that had been bought by the UK”

knucklehead |ˈnəkəlˌhed |
noun informal
a stupid person

“Serbia plans to purchase Rafale multipurpose fighter jets from France, President Aleksandar Vucic said  … which experts saw as the latest sign of Belgrade distancing itself from its traditional military supplier and ally Russia

“”We have been negotiating this purchase of 12 new jets for a year, and we are also looking at buying another 12 used (Western) planes from another country,” Vucic told Reuters. He did not specify the type of the used planes.

“Serbia and Dassault Aviation discussed the purchase of the 12 Dassault Rafale jets, France’s La Tribune weekly reported last week

“In 2019 Serbia bought France’s Mistral surface-to-air missiles and in 2016 it acquired helicopters from Airbus

“Croatia, which is an EU and NATO member and Serbia’s wartime foe from the 1990s, also operates Rafale jets”

Right. So, Serbia will be ‘BFF‘ with Croatia & NATO and, never a worry shall arise that, when a Croatian/NATO Rafale fighter jet takes on a Serbian Rafale fighter jet, the Croatian/NATO plane will be, in every case, ‘a winner by Dassault’ .. er, excuse me, I meant winner by default (it’s the kill switch for the knucklehead with a short attention span)

So, about those Mistral missiles Serbia purchased which likely won’t touch a NATO jet; Serbia is arming up with systems that will (maybe) work against a single entity and that entity would be Russia.

And then, the preceding brings up the countless shoulder launched anti-tank & anti-aircraft missiles abandoned on the field of battle in Ukraine by Kiev’s forces as though they were useless as the NATO states pour thousands of new man-portable missile systems into the conflict and suddenly the Russians get serious about taking out the NATO supply lines. Did a Russian ‘hack’ driven software change become necessary?

A plausible WWIII footnote would be, if the French made Exocet of 1982 possessed a ‘kill switch’ and it almost certainly did, it stands to reason nearly every subsequent high-tech generation weapons system would be adapted to this ‘furtive’ technology, no matter the geo-political alignment of the manufacturer. Example given, should Russia be concerned about the S-400 system it sold to Turkey in case of hostilities with the double-dealing & back-stabbing Turkish President Erdogan? Probably not.

*

In the Western media bath of information warfare promoting panic and demonization of Russia and Russians, people should know what people ‘on the other side’ are thinking. Here is a top contemporary thinker from the Russian side. I do see the logic of what he is saying; insofar as to whether I agree with none of it, some of it or all of it, is unimportant. What’s important is the opportunity for people to consider the logic of what he is saying; to better understand the Russian point of view.

Professor Sergey Karaganov is the honorary chairman of Russia’s Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, and academic supervisor at the School of International Economics and Foreign Affairs Higher School of Economics (HSE) in Moscow. His essay of 25 February 2022:

The Putin Doctrine – Russia’s Foreign Policy Of Constructive Destruction

Constructive destruction is not aggressive. Russia maintains it isn’t going to attack anyone or blow them up. It simply doesn’t need to. The outside world provides Russia with more and more geopolitical opportunities for medium-term development as it is. With one big exception. NATO’s expansion and formal or informal inclusion of Ukraine poses a risk to the country’s security that Moscow simply won’t accept.

For now, the West is on course to a slow but inevitable decay, both in terms of internal and external affairs and even the economy. And this is precisely why it has started this new Cold War after almost five hundred years of domination in world politics, the economy, and culture. Especially after its decisive victory in the 1990s to mid-2000s. I believe it will most likely lose, stepping down as the global leader and becoming a more reasonable partner. And not a moment too soon: Russia will need to balance relations with a friendly, but increasingly more powerful China.

Presently, the West desperately tries to defend against this with aggressive rhetoric. It tries to consolidate, playing its last trump cards to reverse this trend. One of those is trying to use Ukraine to damage and neuter Russia. It’s important to prevent these convulsive attempts from transforming into a full-fledged standoff and to counter the current US and NATO policies. They are counterproductive and dangerous, though relatively undemanding for the initiators. We are yet to convince the West that it is only hurting itself.

Another trump card is the West’s dominating role in the existing Euro-Atlantic security system established at a time when Russia was seriously weakened following the Cold War. There’s merit in gradually erasing this system, primarily by refusing to take part in it and play by its obsolete rules, which are inherently disadvantageous to us. For Russia, the western track should become secondary to its Eurasian diplomacy. Maintaining constructive relations with the countries in the western part of the continent may ease the integration into Greater Eurasia for Russia. The old system is in the way, though, and so it should be dismantled.

The critical next step to creating a new system (aside from dismantling the old one) is ‘uniting the lands’. It’s a necessity for Moscow, not a whim.

It would be nice if we had more time to do this. But history shows that, since the collapse of the USSR 30 years ago, few post-Soviet nations have managed to become truly independent. And some may never even get there, for various reasons. This is a subject for a future analysis. Right now, I can only point out the obvious: Most local elites don’t have the historical or cultural experience of state-building. They’ve never been able to become the core of the nation – they didn’t have enough time for this. When the shared intellectual and cultural space disappeared, it hurt small countries the most. The new opportunities to build ties with the West turned out to be no replacement. Those who have found themselves at the helm of such nations have been selling their country for their own benefit, because there’s been no national idea to fight for.

The majority of those countries will either follow the example of the Baltic states, accepting external control, or continue to spiral out of control, which in some cases may be extremely dangerous.

The question is: How to ‘unite’ the nations in the most efficient and beneficial way for Russia, taking into account the tsarist and Soviet experience, when the sphere of influence was extended beyond any reasonable limits and then kept together at the expense of core Russian peoples?

Let’s leave the discussion about the ‘unification’ that history is forcing on us for another day. This time, let’s focus on the objective need to make a tough decision and adopt the ‘constructive destruction’ policy.

The milestones we passed

Today, we see the inception of the fourth era of Russia’s foreign policy. The first one started in the late 1980s, and it was a time of weakness and delusions. The nation had lost the will to fight, people wanted to believe democracy and the West would come and save them. It all ended in 1999 after the first waves of NATO expansion, seen by Russians as a backstabbing move, when the West tore apart what was left of Yugoslavia.

Then Russia started to get up off its knees and rebuild, stealthily and covertly, while appearing friendly and humbled. The US withdrawing from the ABM Treaty signaled its intention to regain its strategic dominance, so the still broke Russia made a fateful decision to develop weapon systems to challenge American aspirations. The Munich speech, the Georgian War, and the army reform, conducted amid a global economic crisis that spelled the end of the western liberal globalist imperialism (the term coined by a prominent expert on international affairs, Richard Sakwa) marked the new goal for Russian foreign policy – to once again become a leading global power that can defend its sovereignty and interests. This was followed by the events in Crimea, Syria, the military build-up, and blocking the West from interfering in Russia’s domestic affairs, rooting out from the public service those who partnered with the West to the disadvantage of their homeland, including by a masterful use of the West’s reaction to those developments. As the tensions keep growing, looking up to the West and keeping assets there becomes increasingly less lucrative.

China’s incredible rise and becoming de-facto allies with Beijing starting in the 2010s, the pivot to the East, and the multidimensional crisis that enveloped the West led to a great shift in political and geoeconomic balance in favor of Russia. This is especially pronounced in Europe. Only a decade ago, the EU saw Russia as a backward and weak outskirts of the continent trying to contend with major powers. Now, it is desperately trying to cling to the geopolitical and geoeconomic independence that is slipping through its fingers.

The ‘back to greatness’ period ended around 2017 to 2018. After that, Russia hit a plateau. The modernization continued, but the weak economy threatened to negate its achievements. People (myself included) were frustrated, fearing that Russia once again was going to “snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.” But that turned out to be another build-up period, primarily in terms of defense capabilities.

Russia has gotten ahead, making sure that for the next decade, it will be relatively invulnerable strategically and capable of “dominating in an escalation scenario” in case of conflicts in the regions within its sphere of interests.

The ultimatum that Russia issued to the US and NATO at the end of 2021, demanding they stop developing military infrastructure near the Russian borders and expansion to the east, marked the start of the ‘constructive destruction’. The goal is not simply to stop the flagging, albeit really dangerous inertia of the West’s geostrategic push, but also to start laying the foundation for a new kind of relations between Russia and the West, different from what we settled on in the 1990s.

Russia’s military capabilities, the returning sense of moral righteousness, lessons learned from past mistakes, and a close alliance with China could mean that the West, which chose the role of an adversary, will start being reasonable, even if not all the time. Then, in a decade or sooner, I hope, a new system of international security and cooperation will be built that will include the whole Greater Eurasia this time, and it will be based on UN principles and international law, not unilateral ‘rules’ that the West has been trying to impose on the world in recent decades.

Correcting mistakes

Before I go any further, let me say that I think very highly of Russian diplomacy – it’s been absolutely brilliant in the past 25 years. Moscow was dealt a weak hand but managed to play a great game nevertheless. First, it didn’t let the West ‘finish it off’. Russia maintained its formal status of a great country, retaining permanent membership in the UN Security Council and keeping nuclear arsenals. Then it gradually improved its global standing by leveraging the weaknesses of its rivals and the strengths of its partners. Building a strong friendship with China has been a major achievement. Russia has some geopolitical advantages that the Soviet Union didn’t have. Unless, of course, it goes back to the aspirations of becoming a global superpower, which eventually ruined the USSR.

However, we shouldn’t forget the mistakes we’ve made so we don’t repeat them. It was our laziness, weakness, and bureaucratic inertia that helped create and keep afloat the unjust and unstable system of European security that we have today.

The beautifully-worded Charter of Paris for a New Europe that was signed in 1990 had a statement about freedom of association – countries could choose their allies, something that would’ve been impossible under the 1975 Helsinki Declaration. Since the Warsaw Pact was running on fumes at that point, this clause meant that NATO would be free to expand. This is the document everyone keeps referring to, even in Russia. Back in 1990, however, NATO could at least be considered a “defense” organization. The alliance and most of its members have launched a number of aggressive military campaigns since then – against the remnants of Yugoslavia, as well as in Iraq and Libya.

After a heart-to-heart chat with Lech Walesa in 1993, Boris Yeltsin signed a document where it stated that Russia “understood Poland’s plan to join NATO.” When Andrey Kozyrev, Russia’s foreign minister at the time, learned about NATO’s expansion plans in 1994, he began a bargaining process on Russia’s behalf without consulting the president. The other side took it as a sign that Russia was OK with the general concept, since it was trying to negotiate acceptable terms. In 1995, Moscow stepped on the brakes, but it was too late – the dam burst and swept away any reservations about the West’s expansion efforts.

In 1997, Russia, being economically weak and completely dependent on the West, signed the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security with NATO. Moscow was able to compel certain concessions from the West, like the pledge not to deploy large military units to the new member states. NATO has been consistently violating this obligation. Another agreement was to keep these territories free of nuclear weapons. The US would not have wanted it anyway, because it had been trying to distance itself from a potential nuclear conflict in Europe as much as possible (despite their allies’ wishes), since it would undoubtedly cause a nuclear strike against America. In reality, the document legitimized NATO’s expansion.

There were other mistakes – not as major but extremely painful nevertheless. Russia participated in the Partnership for Peace program, the sole purpose of which was to make it look like NATO was prepared to listen to Moscow, but in reality, the alliance was using the project to justify its existence and further expansion. Another frustrating misstep was our involvement in the NATO-Russia Council after the Yugoslavia aggression. The topics discussed at that level desperately lacked substance. They should’ve focused on the truly significant issue – restraining the alliance’s expansion and the buildup of its military infrastructure near the Russian borders. Sadly, this never made it to the agenda. The Council continued to operate even after the majority of NATO members started a war in Iraq and then Libya in 2011.

It is very unfortunate that we never got the nerve to openly say it – NATO had become an aggressor that committed numerous war crimes. This would’ve been a sobering truth for various political circles in Europe, like in Finland and Sweden for example, where some are considering the advantages of joining the organization. And all the others for that matter, with their mantra about NATO being a defense and deterrence alliance that needs to be further consolidated so it can stand against imaginary enemies.

I understand those in the West who are used to the existing system that allows the Americans to buy the obedience of their junior partners, and not just in terms of military support, while these allies can save on security expenses by selling part of their sovereignty. But what do we gain from this system? Especially now that it’s become obvious that it breeds and escalates confrontation at our western borders and in the whole world.

NATO feeds off forced confrontation, and the longer the organization exists, the worse this confrontation will be.

The bloc is a threat to its members as well. While provoking confrontation, it doesn’t actually guarantee protection. It is not true that Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty warrants collective defense if one ally is attacked. This article doesn’t say that this is automatically guaranteed. I am familiar with the history of the bloc and the discussions in America regarding its establishment. I know for a fact that the US will never deploy nuclear weapons to “protect” its allies if there is conflict with a nuclear state.

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) is also outdated. It is dominated by NATO and the EU that use the organization to drag out the confrontation and impose the West’s political values and standards on everyone else. Fortunately, this policy is becoming less and less effective. In the mid-2010s I had the chance to work with the OSCE Panel of Eminent Persons (what a name!), which was supposed to develop a new mandate for the organization. And if I had my doubts about the OSCE’s effectiveness before that, this experience convinced me that it is an extremely destructive institution. It’s an antiquated organization with a mission to preserve things that are obsolete. In the 1990s, it served as an instrument of burying any attempt made by Russia or others to create a common European security system; in the 2000s, the so-called Corfu Process bogged down Russia’s new security initiative.

Practically all UN institutions have been squeezed out of the continent, including the UN Economic Commission for Europe, its Human Rights Council and Security Council. Once upon a time, the OSCE was viewed as a useful organization that would promote the UN system and principles in a key subcontinent. That didn’t happen.

As for NATO, it is very clear what we should do. We need to undermine the bloc’s moral and political legitimacy and refuse any institutional partnership, since its counterproductivity is obvious. Only the military should continue to communicate, but as an auxiliary channel that would supplement dialogue with the DOD and defense ministries of leading European nations. After all, it’s not Brussels that makes strategically important decisions.

The same policy could be adopted when it comes to the OSCE. Yes, there is a difference, because even though this is a destructive organization, it never initiated any wars, destabilization, or killings. So we need to keep our involvement in this format to a minimum. Some say that this is the only context that provides the Russian foreign minister with a chance to see his counterparts. That is not true. The UN can offer an even better context. Bilateral talks are much more effective anyway, because it is easier for the bloc to hijack the agenda when there is a crowd. Sending observers and peacekeepers through the UN would also make a lot more sense.

The limited article format does not allow me to dwell on specific policies for each European organization, like the Council of Europe for example. But I would define the general principle this way – we partner where we see benefits for ourselves and keep our distance otherwise.

Thirty years under the current system of European institutions proved that continuing with it would be detrimental. Russia doesn’t benefit in any way from Europe’s disposition towards breeding and escalating confrontation or even posing military threat to the subcontinent and the whole world. Back in the day, we could dream that Europe would help us bolster security, as well as political and economic modernization. Instead, they are undermining security, so why would we copy the West’s dysfunctional and deteriorating political system? Do we really need these new values that they have adopted?

We will have to limit the expansion by refusing to cooperate within an eroding system. Hopefully, by taking a firm stand and leaving our civilization neighbors from the West to their own devices, we will actually help them. The elites may return to a less suicidal policy that would be safer for everyone. Of course, we have to be smart about taking ourselves out of the equation and make sure to minimize the collateral damage that the failing system will inevitably cause. But maintaining it in its current form is simply dangerous.

Policies for tomorrow’s Russia

As the existing global order continues to crumble, it seems that the most prudent course for Russia would be to sit it out for as long as possible – to take cover within the walls of its ‘neo-isolationist fortress’ and deal with domestic matters. But this time, history demands that we take action. Many of my suggestions with respect to the foreign policy approach I have tentatively called ‘constructive destruction’ naturally emerge from the analysis presented above.

There is no need to interfere or to try to influence the internal dynamics of the West, whose elites are desperate enough to start a new cold war against Russia. What we should do instead is use various foreign policy instruments – including military ones – to establish certain red lines. Meanwhile, as the Western system continues to steer towards moral, political, and economic degradation, non-Western powers (with Russia as a major player) will inevitably see their geo-political, geo-economic and geo-ideological positions strengthen.

Our Western partners predictably try to squelch Russia’s calls for security guarantees and take advantage of the ongoing diplomatic process in order to extend the lifespan of their own institutions. There is no need to give up dialogue or cooperation in matters of trade, politics, culture, education, and healthcare, whenever it’s useful. But we must also use the time we’ve got to ramp up military-political, psychological, and even military-technical pressure – not so much on Ukraine, whose people have been turned into cannon fodder for a new Cold War – but on the collective West, in order to force it to change its mind and step back from the policies it has pursued for the past several decades. There is nothing to fear about the confrontation escalating: We saw tensions grow even as Russia was trying to appease the Western world. What we should do is prepare for a stronger pushback from the West; also, Russia should be able to offer the world a long-term alternative – a new political framework based on peace and cooperation.

The West can try to intimidate us with devastating sanctions – but we are also capable of deterring the West with our own threat of an asymmetrical response, one that would cripple Western economies and disrupt whole societies.

Naturally, it is useful to remind our partners, from time to time, that there exists a mutually beneficial alternative to all that.

If Russia carries out reasonable but assertive policies (domestically, too), it will successfully (and relatively peacefully) overcome the latest surge of Western hostility. As I have written before, we stand a good chance of winning this Cold War.

What also inspires optimism is Russia’s own past record: We have more than once managed to tame the imperial ambitions of foreign powers – for our own good, and for the good of humanity, as a whole. Russia was able to transform would-be empires into tame and relatively harmless neighbors: Sweden after the Battle of Poltava, France after Borodino, Germany after Stalingrad and Berlin.

We can find a slogan for the new Russian policy toward the West in a verse from Alexander Blok’s ‘The Scythians’, a brilliant poem that seems especially relevant today: “Come join us, then! Leave war and war’s alarms, / And grasp the hand of peace and amity. / While still there’s time, Comrades, lay down your arms! / Let us unite in true fraternity!”

While attempting to heal our relations with the West (even if that requires some bitter medicine), we must remember that, while culturally close to us, the Western world is running out of time – in fact, it has been for two decades now. It is essentially in damage control mode, seeking cooperation whenever possible. The real prospects and challenges of our present and future lie with the East and the South. Taking a harder line with Western nations must not distract Russia from maintaining its pivot to the East. And we have seen this pivot slow down in the past two or three years, especially when it comes to developing territories beyond the Ural Mountains.

We must not allow Ukraine to become a security threat to Russia. That said, it would be counterproductive to spend too many administrative and political (not to mention economic) resources on it. Russia must learn to actively manage this volatile situation, keep it within limits. Most of Ukraine has been neutered by its own anti-national elite, corrupted by the West, and infected with the pathogen of militant nationalism.

It would be much more effective to invest in the East, in the development of Siberia. By creating favorable working and living conditions, we will attract not only Russian citizens, but also people from the other parts of the former Russian Empire, including the Ukrainians. The latter have, historically, contributed a great deal to the development of Siberia.

Let me reiterate a point from my other articles: It was the incorporation of Siberia under Ivan the Terrible that made Russia a great power, not the accession of Ukraine under Aleksey Mikhaylovich, known under the moniker ‘the most peaceful’. It is high time we stopped repeating Zbigniew Brzezinski’s disingenuous – and so strikingly Polish – assertion that Russia cannot be a great power without Ukraine. The opposite is much closer to the truth: Russia cannot be a great power when it is burdened by an increasingly unwieldy Ukraine – a political entity created by Lenin which later expanded westward under Stalin.

The most promising path for Russia lies with the development and strengthening of ties with China. A partnership with Beijing would multiply the potential of both countries many times over. If the West carries on with its bitterly hostile policies, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to consider a temporary five-year defense alliance with China. Naturally, one should also be careful not to get ‘dizzy with success’ on the China track, so as not to return to the medieval model of China’s Middle Kingdom, which grew by turning its neighbors into vassals. We should help Beijing wherever we can to keep it from suffering even a momentary defeat in the new Cold War unleashed by the West. That defeat would weaken us, too. Besides, we know all too well what the West transforms into when it thinks it is winning. It took some harsh remedies to treat America’s hangover after it got drunk with power in the 1990s.

Clearly, an East-oriented policy must not focus solely on China. Both the East and the South are on the rise in global politics, economics, and culture, which is partly due to our undermining of the West’s military superiority – the primary source of its 500-year hegemony.

When the time comes to establish a new system of European security to replace the dangerously outdated existing one, it must be done within the framework of a greater Eurasian project. Nothing worthwhile can be born out of the old Euro-Atlantic system.

It is self-evident that success requires the development and modernization of the country’s economic, technological, and scientific potential – all pillars of a country’s military power, which remains the backbone of any nation’s sovereignty and security. Russia cannot be successful without improving the quality of life for the majority of its people: This includes overall prosperity, healthcare, education, and the environment.

The restriction of political freedoms, which is inevitable when confronting the collective West, must by no means extend to the intellectual sphere. This is difficult, but achievable. For the talented, creatively-minded part of the population who are ready to serve their country, we must preserve as much intellectual freedom as possible. Scientific development through Soviet-style ‘sharashkas’ (research and development laboratories operating within the Soviet labor camp system) is not something that would work in the modern world. Freedom enhances the talents of Russian people, and inventiveness runs in our blood. Even in foreign policy, the freedom from ideological constraints that we enjoy offers us massive advantages compared to our more close-minded neighbors. History teaches us that the brutal restriction of freedom of thought imposed by the Communist regime on its people led the Soviet Union to ruin. Preserving personal freedom is an essential condition for any nation’s development.

If we want to grow as a society and be victorious, it is absolutely vital that we develop a spiritual backbone – a national idea, an ideology that unites and shines the way forward. It is a fundamental truth that great nations cannot be truly great without such an idea at their core. This is part of the tragedy that happened to us in the 1970s and 1980s. Hopefully, the resistance of the ruling elites to the advancement of a new ideology, rooted in the pains of the communist era, is beginning to fade. Vladimir Putin’s speech at the October 2021 annual meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club was a powerful reassuring signal in that respect.

Like the ever-growing number of Russian philosophers and authors, I have put forward my own vision of the ‘Russian idea. (I apologize for having to reference my own publications again – it is an inevitable side effect of having to stick to the format).

Questions for the future

And now let’s discuss a significant, yet mostly overlooked aspect of the new policy that needs to be addressed. We need to dismiss and reform the obsolete and often harmful ideological foundation of our social sciences and public life for this new policy to get implemented, let alone succeed.

This doesn’t mean we have to reject once again the advancements in political science, economy, and foreign affairs of our predecessors. The Bolsheviks tried to dump the social ideas of tsarist Russia – everybody knows how this played out. We rejected Marxism and were happy about it. Now, fed up with other tenets, we realize we were too impatient with it. Marx, Engels, and Lenin had sound ideas in their theory of imperialism we could use.

Social sciences that study the ways of public and private life have to take into account national context, however inclusive it wants to appear. It stems from the national history and ultimately is aimed to help the nations and/or their government and elites. The mindless application of solutions valid in one country to another are fruitless and only create abominations.

We need to start working towards intellectual independence after we achieve military security and political and economic sovereignty. In the new world, it’s compulsory to achieve development and exert influence. Mikhail Remizov, a prominent Russian political scientist, was the first, as far as I know, to call this ‘intellectual decolonization’.

Having spent decades in the shadow of imported Marxism, we’ve begun a transition to yet another foreign ideology of liberal democracy in economics and political science and, to certain extent, even in foreign policy and defense. This fascination has done us no good – we’ve lost land, technology, and people. In the mid-2000s, we started to exercise our sovereignty, but had to rely on our instincts rather than clear national (again – it cannot be anything else) scientific and ideological principles.

We still don’t have the courage to acknowledge that the scientific and ideological worldview we’ve had for the last forty to fifty years is obsolete and/or was intended to serve foreign elites.

To illustrate this point, here are a few randomly picked questions from my very long list.

I’ll start with existential issues, purely philosophical ones. What comes first in humans, the spirit or the matter? And in the more mundane political sense – what drives people and states in the modern world? To common Marxists and liberals, the answer is the economy. Just remember that until recently Bill Clinton’s famous “It’s the economy, stupid” was thought to be an axiom. But people seek something greater when the basic need for food is satisfied. Love for their family, their homeland, desire for national dignity, personal freedoms, power, and fame. The hierarchy of needs has been well known to us since Maslow introduced it in the 1940–50s in his famous pyramid. Modern capitalism, however, twisted it, forcing ever-expanding consumption via traditional media at first and all-encompassing digital networks later – for rich and poor, each according to their ability.

What can we do when the modern capitalism deprived of moral or religious foundations incites limitless consumption, breaking down moral and geographic boundaries and comes into conflict with nature, threatening the very existence of our species? We, Russians, understand better than anybody that attempts to get rid of entrepreneurs and capitalists who are driven by the desire to build wealth will have disastrous consequences for society and the environment (the socialist economy model wasn’t exactly environmentally friendly).

What do we do with the latest values of rejecting history, your homeland, gender, and beliefs, as well as aggressive LGBT and ultra-feminist movements? I respect the right to follow them, but I think they’re post-humanist. Should we treat this as just another stage of social evolution? I don’t think so. Should we try to ward it off, limit its spread, and wait till society lives through this moral epidemic? Or should we actively fight it, leading the majority of humanity that adheres to so-called “conservative” values or, to put it simply, normal human values? Should we get into the fight escalating an already dangerous confrontation with the Western elites?

The technological development and increased labor productivity have helped feed the majority of people, but the world itself has slipped into anarchy, and many guiding principles have been lost at the global level. Security concerns, perhaps, are prevailing over the economy once again. Military instruments and the political will might take the lead from now on.

What is military deterrence in the modern world? Is it a threat to cause damage to national and individual assets or foreign assets and information infrastructure to which today’s Western elites are tied so closely? What will become of the Western world if this infrastructure is brought down?

And a related question: What is strategic parity we still talk about today? Is it some foreign nonsense picked by Soviet leaders who sucked their people into an exhausting arms race because of their inferiority complex and June 22, 1941 syndrome? Looks like we are already answering this question, even though we still churn out speeches about equality and symmetrical measures.

And what is this arms control many believe to be instrumental? Is it an attempt to restrain the expensive arms race beneficial to the wealthier economy, to limit the risk of hostilities or something more – a tool to legitimize the race, the development of arms, and the process of unnecessary programs on your opponent? There’s no obvious answer to that.

But let’s go back to the more existential questions.

Is democracy really the pinnacle of political development? Or is it just another tool that helps the elites control society, if we are not talking about Aristotle’s pure democracy (which also has certain limitations)? There are many tools that come and go as society and conditions change. Sometimes we abandon them only to bring them back when the time is right and there’s external and internal demand for them. I’m not calling for boundless authoritarianism or monarchy. I think we have already overdone it with centralization, especially at the municipal government level. But if this is just a tool, shouldn’t we stop pretending that we strive for democracy and put it straight – we want personal freedoms, a prosperous society, security, and national dignity? But how do we justify power to the people then?

Is the state really destined to die off, as Marxists and liberal globalists used to believe, as they dreamed of alliances between transnational corporations, international NGOs (both have been going through nationalization and privatization), and supranational political bodies? We’ll see how long the EU can survive in its current form. Note that I don’t want to say there’s no reason to join national efforts for the greater good, like bringing down expensive custom barriers or introducing joint environmental policies. Or isn’t it better to focus on developing your own state and supporting neighbors while disregarding global problems created by others? Aren’t they going to mess with us if we act this way?

What is the role of land and territories? Is it a dwindling asset, a burden as was believed among political scientists only recently? Or the greatest national treasure, especially in the face of the environmental crisis, climate change, the growing deficit of water and food in some regions and the total lack of it in others?

What should we do then with hundreds of millions of Pakistanis, Indians, Arabs, and others whose lands might soon be uninhabitable? Should we invite them now as the US and Europe began to do in the 1960s, drawing migrants to bring down the cost of local labor and undermine the trade unions? Or should we prepare to defend our territories from the outsiders? In that case, we should abandon all hope to develop democracy, as Israel’s experience with its Arab population shows.

Would developing robotics, which is currently in a sorry state, help compensate for the lack of workforce and make those territories livable again? What is the role of indigenous Russian people in our country, considering their number will inevitably keep shrinking? Given that Russians have historically been an open people, the prospects might be optimistic. But so far it’s unclear.

I can go on and on, especially when it comes to the economy. These questions need to be asked and it’s vital to find answers as soon as possible in order to grow and come out on top. Russia needs a new political economy – free from Marxist and liberal dogmas, but something more than the current pragmatism our foreign policy is based on. It must include forward-oriented idealism, a new Russian ideology incorporating our history and philosophical traditions. This echoes the ideas put forward by the academic Pavel Tsygankov.

I believe that this is the ultimate goal of all our research in foreign affairs, political science, economics and philosophy. This task is beyond difficult. We can continue contributing to our society and our country only by breaking our old thinking patterns. But to end on an optimistic note, here’s a humorous thought: Isn’t it time to recognize that the subject of our studies – foreign affairs, domestic policies, and the economy – is the result of a creative process involving masses and leaders alike? To recognize that it is, in a way, art? To a large degree, it defies explanation and stems from intuition and talent. And so we are like art experts: We talk about it, identify trends and teach the artists – the masses and the leaders – history, which is useful to them. We often get lost in the theoretical, though, coming up with ideas divorced from reality or distorting it by focusing on separate fragments.

Sometimes we do make history: think Evgeny Primakov or Henry Kissinger. But I’d argue they didn’t care what approaches to this art history they represented. They drew upon their knowledge, personal experience, moral principles, and intuition. I like the idea of us being a type of art expert, and I believe it can make the daunting task of revising the dogmas a little easier.

 

VLADIMIR PUTIN IS NOT NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN. AND I AM NOT POLLYANNA. By Russell Bentley

I say old chap, is this Minsk or Munich?

The curse of Cassandra was that she could see the future, and tell it, but no one would listen to her. These days, I think I know how she must have felt. But above the din of jabbering jackanapes, pontificating poltroons and pseudo-experts, the truth can still be heard, if you listen for it. So, listen.

Once again, Casandra is reviled, and Pollyannas rule the day. One purports to tell us that he knows “What Putin Wants” – “a peaceful transition”. Another, in spite of all the evidence, says Russia’s absolutely irrefutable ability to liberate Ukraine is “A Fiction”, and yet another, pinching “Half a Loaf” smugly and stupidly claims that those like myself, who would rather see a short, comparatively bloodless war, even if it’s on our own land, instead of one that can easily spread into Europa and even across the Atlantic, actually “predict (and are actually hoping for) the worst.” Well, here’s my actual prediction and the hope of every decent and literate human being on this planet. Listen.

“Stop hoping for the worst! Let’s all have a nice cup of tea”

What I actually do predict, and do very much hope for, is a limited and localized Russian surgical military strike in Ukraine. One that will remove the existential threat right on Russia’s doorstep, a threat not only to Russia, but to the very future of Humanity. A strike which will achieve all the strategic goals delineated by Russia in their recent collective security proposals to the US and NATO, (which US/NATO refused) while also saving tens or hundred of thousands of civilians in Donbass (including myself and my family) from genocide, and liberating Ukraine from foreign occupation and neo-nazi oppression. All with the absolute minimum possible destruction and bloodshed of civilians and soldiers (on BOTH sides) alike. As well as, and most importantly, the least likelihood of escalation anywhere beyond Ukraine’s present borders. These Pollyannas think that’s “the worst”? Well, Cassandra has a question for them…

CASSANDRA – “Do you prefer your whole country be vaporized while you sing Kumbaya”?

These self-styled pundits say that Russia should simply ignore the plethora of concrete evidence of imminent war, and waste time holding further diplomatic meetings with the same nazis who have threatened their very existence for a century, who have murdered civilians in Donbass for the last 8 years, including the 298 civilians on MH-17, (and then falsely blamed and sanctioned Russia for it) the same ones who directed ISIS cannibals to commit the false flag mass murders in Syria to create a Syrian “chemical weapons” narrative, then used the same bogus line in the UK with the laughable “Novichuk” fabrications. “Yes,” they say, “if only Russia can just sit down in friendly dialogue with their mortal enemies once again, then perhaps a “peaceful transition” may someday be achieved. We can only hope, peacefully praying and gently swaying, all holding hands together while we all sing Kumbaya.”

Kumbaya my Lord, Kumbaya… – Sing Hosanna – Kumbaya Bible Songs for Kids –

RAEVSKY, WHITNEY AND McGOVERN’S LATEST POLITICAL DISCOURSE

This is literally what they are saying, in the face of a real life and imminent Armageddon. And like Neville Chamberlain, they advocate compromise with abject Evil, in the vain hope of “peace in our time.” All while these same US/NATO nazis continue to prepare and provoke Ukraine to war, to cross Russia’s red lines of no attack on Donbass, and no offensive missiles in Eastern Europe, bringing in weapons and ammo at a rate of over 100 tons per day. Talk about “the worst” – nothing could be more fatally stupid, or more contemptible, craven and myopic. Or more certain to lead to a global conflagration, just as the appeasement of the obeisant English toady Chamberlain did only 84 years ago. Well, thanks be to God, Putin is not Chamberlain, and I am not Pollyanna.

Thomas Paine once wrote about such things, and I quote, “I once felt all that kind of anger, which a man ought to feel, against the mean principles that are held by the Tories: a noted one, who kept a tavern at Amboy, was standing at his door, with as pretty a child in his hand, about eight or nine years old, as I ever saw, and after speaking his mind as freely as he thought was prudent, finished with this unfatherly expression, “Well! Give me peace in my day.” Not a man lives on the continent but fully believes that a confrontation must some time or other finally take place, and a generous parent should have said, “If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace;” and this single reflection, well applied, is sufficient to awaken every man to his duty.” I feel that anger too. And it awakens me to my duty, and it shows me the true worth, or rather, worthlessness, of all the boot-licking cowards and historically illiterate Pollyannas who advocate begging for peace at any price. Let them keep begging, and see where it gets them. Perhaps work really will make them free this time. But we Russians, and all intelligent people, do not forget their history so easily.

Not a man or woman lives in the Donbass Republics, in Russia or Ukraine, who does not know that this war will not end without a final battle. This battle is as inevitable as the sunrise. Only fools and Pollyannas could think it would be otherwise. So, better to make it soon, short, and final, a lesson to the world, and a page in history, where the Good Guys win again, just like they did in 1945. The only other alternative is to wait, to allow the Ukronazi infection to suppurate, and become more dangerous, adding more cost, more blood, more destroyed infrastructure and wasted treasure, before the final and inevitable victory of Russia and the Donbass Republics, or perhaps leading to a war that will engulf the world, a war that no one will win.

RUSSIA – “Those who fail to learn from history will have to repeat the lesson. Russia has learned the lesson. If it must be taught again, we will teach it”

No competent or qualified person can still continue to believe in, much less continue to talk about or advocate, a “peaceful transition” or “diplomatic solution”. Of course, Putin preferred a peaceful solution. He is a most excellent Warrior and would win without fighting if it were possible in any way. That was “Plan A”, and he tried for 8 years to implement it, with almost infinite patience and forbearance, by every means possible. That is why he gave the US, NATO and OSCE a final chance to make one. But they categorically refused, so there is none, and there will be none. It is simply no longer a realistic option. If it ever was…

So, now to “Plan B”. Russia prefers a quick and decisive liberation of Ukraine over a potential world war, and has every right and every reason, and above all, the ability to make it happen. And, believe me, we will. At the next provocation. It will be up to the USA and NATO to decide if they will also escalate and engage in a war that will most certainly lead to their total dismemberment and defeat. Russia is ready for any scenario, and we will deal with it however it may be needed. And Vae victis – “Woe to the vanquished.” Now, are you listening?

I predict, with 90% certainty, that a major ukrop attack or provocation will occur before the beginning of March, and with 99% certainty before the end of March. I can say, based on impeccable sources and irrefutable evidence, that the plans and preparations for provocations and a major attack against Donbass have already been made. The ukrops and their US masters may chicken out, as they have many times over the last few years. But Russia is not a Pollyanna, not stupid enough to keep playing waiting games while their enemies build lethal force every day. Those who predict or advocate further diplomacy are fools. That Russia seems to do so is only deception and distraction. The fuse is already lit, on both sides, the detonation will occur, one way or the other, before the end of March, and maybe much sooner.

And when it does, I can assure you that the Russian response will be swift and sure, measured in minutes and (very few) hours, not days, or even one day. And Russia will not arrive (initially) on tanks and trucks, but on wings. For us in Donbass, the wings of Angels, for the nazis and terrorists who dare to attack us, the wings of instant and fiery death. Those who have failed to learn the lessons of Debaltsevo and Ilovaisk will be taught a final lesson with thunder and steel, and they will not live long enough to never forget it. They have all been warned for the last time already. The time for talking is over and done. It is time for work, Brothers. The job will not be easy, but it is simple enough. Who attacks Donbass, attacks Russia. Who attacks Russia will be vanquished. This is a warning. Listen. While you still can.

U.S. Department of State spokesman Ned Price makes his case, claiming his statement (shameless lie, actually) is in and of itself declassifying evidence while actually refusing to provide evidence and when that becomes too stupid he goes to ‘trust me, we have it’ and finally claims any evidence (that likely doesn’t exist, keep reading) must be protected.

Then have a read of the disclaimer buried in the (now thoroughly debunked) ‘Russian hack’ report by “joint US intelligence agencies”

”Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents” –ICA 2017 01 [pdf] Annex B’s “estimative language” also known as the ‘we make this shit up’ disclaimer buried in the ‘Russian election hack’ report authored by the “joint US intelligence agencies”

By Russell Bentley

This is a follow up piece to my recent article in Covert Action magazine about the upcoming war. Please share and publish where you can. The latest news here is that Russia will wait for written responses from US, NATO and OSCE before they make their move. It is a matter of days, or a week or two at most. When Russia evacuates its embassy in Kiev, and the OSCE leaves the Republics, it will be a matter of hours. I expect that Putin will make an announcement to the world shortly before the liberation of Ukraine commences. My wife and I will stay and defend our home, come what may. Good luck to all good people. May God protect the innocent, and may the rest of us get everything we deserve.

Thanks,

Russell

==================================================

THE LIBERATION OF UKRAINE AND MURDER/SUICIDE IN THE WEST

by Russell “Texas” Bentley 14 Jan 2022 Donetsk

As I am writing this on January 14th, which is the Russian Orthodox “Old New Year’s Day” based on the Gregorian calendar, I am seeing new reports of major movements of soldiers and equipment from Eastern Russia towards the southwest. This New Year will bring with it a new world. The “unipolar world” of the Western hegemon is finished. The new multi-polar world begins with the liberation of Ukraine from foreign subjugation and exploitation, but that will be only the beginning. The real war will not be fought in Ukraine.

Neo-nazis, ISIS cannibals, war crimes (21+), chemical and biological weapons, false flags and terrorism, mass murder and a war against Russian civilians, brought to the very doorstep of Russia itself by the US and their NATO minions. It is high time and no wonder that Russia has finally laid down the law, and will now back it up with its full military might. Both Putin and Lavrov have warned specifically that Russia will use force if either its citizens in Donbass or its strategic national interests are further threatened by Ukraine or NATO. This force is not just military, it is economic and political as well. The West has now fully and finally refused to heed these warnings, and soon Russian retribution will fall, like an ax, not just on the nazi collaborators in Ukraine, but on the real nazis themselves, in the US, EU and NATO. It will be, as we used to say back in the US Army, “The whippin’, screamin’ world of hurt. ” And be most assured, it will be Russia that will be doing the whipping, and Ukrainian nazis and their Western fascist masters in the US and NATO that will be doing the screaming.

PART 1 – THE LIBERATION OF UKRAINE

The key to a Russian victory in Ukraine is a pre-emptive move by Russia. Not a “strike”, just the movement of Russian military units into Ukraine, to take control, at least as far west as Kiev, just as Russia did in Ossetia, Karabak and Kazakhstan. This movement will be preceded by a warning that any platforms or positions, from any nation, firing on Russia military units will be completely destroyed, but those who surrender or are neutral will be treated accordingly. Internal Ukrainian military surveys have revealed that 75 to 80 percent of Ukrainian soldiers do not want to fight against Donbass Defense Forces, much less against the Russians. They will greet their liberators as comrades and brothers, and only the nazis and war criminals who know they will face prosecution and punishment will fight. They will quickly be neutralized and eliminated, and good riddance.

The plans and activities of Ukraine’s military forces are completely transparent to Russian intelligence. Russian SIGINT and HUMINT operations have penetrated every facet of the Ukrainian military without exception, and not only the Ukrainian’s. The Russians know the orders of Ukraine’s foreign masters before the Ukrainians do. This huge strategic advantage will be put to good use in preventing unnecessary bloodshed and destruction, both in Donbass and Ukraine.

After the failure of the Ukrainian assault against the Donbass Republics in the Summer of 2014, the Ukrainians and their masters learned a hard lesson about moving major military formations through open areas where they were vulnerable to complete destruction by artillery and MLRS strikes. The new plan for the next assault against Donbass is based on moving directly into the major cities, where the citizens of the Republics can be used as human shields against counter-strikes by Russian air, missile and artillery assets. Urban warfare is a long, drawn out affair, and precludes a swift victory by either side. It is also extremely bloody and destructive. Therefore, it is exactly the scenario that Russia’s enemies would choose. And in the absence of a preemptive and preventive move by Russia, this plan could be swiftly and relatively effectively implemented. Russia knows this, and will act accordingly. As Putin himself has said, “50 years ago, the streets of Leningrad taught me one thing: If a fight is inevitable, you must strike first.” And so he will.

About half of the entire Ukrainian Army, over 125,000 men, plus armor, artillery and equipment, are currently positioned along the 200 mile Donbass Front. This puts them within a very few kilometers of all the major cities of the Donbass Republics – Donetsk, Lugansk, Makeevka, Gorlovka, Yasynuvata, Yenakevo, in many cases literally right at the city limits. The defense lines are strong but limited by a complete lack of strategic depth. From the front line Ukrainian military bases of Pisky and Opytne to the center of Donetsk is about 10 or 12 kilometers, six or seven miles. My own home is less than 5 miles from Maryinka, where nazi flags fly over Ukrainian Army front-line positions.

Nazi flag at Ukrainian position in Marinka

The gray area is under Ukrainian Army control. The front lines are literally at the city limits of the DPR’s main cities.

The distances are the same or even less for all the other major cities. And the ukrops do not even have to make it to the center. Once they establish military positions in populated civilian areas of the cities, even in the suburbs, urban warfare becomes inevitable. A Ukrainian blitz into the cities could be accomplished in a matter of a few hours. Russian hesitation at the key moment could significantly change the cost and duration, though not the outcome, of the war. Even if the majority of Ukrainian soldiers refuse to fight or advance, there are still thousands of hard core nazis, jihadis and war criminals who may well prefer death to the trial and punishment that will surely await them if they survive. For them, the safest place might well seem to be hiding among civilians in the Republics. The Russian preemptive advance and a strong defense by Republican forces will be enough to forestall this possibility. But the swift and successful liberation of Ukraine will seem painless and almost gentle, compared to what will immediately follow.

PART 2 – THE (ECONOMIC) MURDER/SUICIDE OF THE WEST

The death of the West will not be caused by Russia. The inevitable end, the murder, of the West’s so-called “civilization” was brought about long ago by the absolute avarice, corruption and degeneracy of the parasitic ruling class, and suicided by the militant ignorance and craven submission of most of their subjects. The classic murder/suicide. Russia did not precipitate or commit these crimes, in fact, we did everything we could to prevent them. But now facing the sad and inescapable truth, Russia will administer the coup de grace.

The final meeting between Russian diplomats and representatives of the OSCE has concluded. No breakthroughs were forthcoming or expected. Russia has given its final warning, exhausted all avenues of diplomacy. The time for talk is now over. Who will not listen to Lavrov will soon hear from Shoigu. NATO, following the orders and example of their US masters, insist on shooting themselves, not in the foot, but in the face. What is certain now is that there will be war, and it was the US and their NATO stooges who chose it, and whose people will suffer the most from it. It is hard to believe that anyone can be so stupid, so it seems to me quite obvious that this choice for war was made by them on purpose.

Russian troops and armor are heading west. Remember how it ended last time?

The upcoming, and now inevitable, military confrontation will not be good or easy for Russia or the Donbass Republics, but it will be fatal for Ukraine’s neo-nazi rulers, and for the US and European economies, at the minimum. The US and EU economies are inextricably tied to each other, and if one falls, the other is finished too. The EU and especially the US economies have been mismanaged and plundered for decades, and are now unsustainable and beyond any realistic hope of salvation. Their push towards war will lead to the West’s economic destruction, and the devastation and deprivation that will befall the regular citizens will be as bad or worse than any military attack.

The US and EU oligarchs and rulers could not care less about the suffering their incompetence, theft and crimes have caused, and they are even willing to exacerbate that suffering, even of their own citizens, by forcing Russia and China to use economic warfare against the West. Again, Russia doing this is totally justified and a last resort, and nothing that the collective West hasn’t been doing to Russia for years. Western despots will blame Russia for the destruction of their economies and the suffering that follows for their citizens, but it was their own corruption and misrule that made it inevitable. To falsely blame Russia for the imminent implosion of the Western economies is the real reason behind the West forcing Russia to take the military option. Unlike the scum who rule the West, Russia will not shrink from its duty to defend itself, its people and their future. So be it. Cry “Havoc”, and let slip the dogs of war…

Russia can take as much of Ukraine as it wants, in a matter of days. No competent analyst disputes that fact. Russia can destroy the EU economy, absolutely, by simply withholding natural gas supplies, in a matter of a few weeks. Through criminal mismanagement so utterly inept that it can only be intentional, the economic and food security situations in the US leave it totally vulnerable to economic warfare that can cause hyperinflation and a famine of Biblical proportions. Think I’m exaggerating? Get back to me in a year or so.

And in the meantime, people of the West, remember, it was not Russia who did this to you – it was your own self-centered cowardice and stupidity. When confronted by the irrefutable evidence of the crimes of your masters, by ignoring them, you opted for submission and conformity, and for collaboration in those very crimes. And now, what your masters, your owners and rulers, have done to others for decades, all across the world, from Cuba to Syria, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Palestine, Afghanistan, Libya and Ukraine, what they have done there, with your own acquiescence, they will now do to you. It will not be the chickens that come home to roost on your doorstep, it will be the buzzards, and they will have their feast. And as you writhe in helplessness and poverty, do not dare to blame Russia for your suffering. That is exactly the kind of stupidity and hypocrisy that brought you to your own self-inflicted ignoble end. In the final analysis, the West was murdered by its parasite class, but it was also equally suicided by the cowardice and complacency of its working and middle classes. You have no one to blame but yourselves.

Economic warfare can be every bit as horrific as military war. Perhaps even more so. As every literate American knows, the economic sanctions of the Clinton regime against Iraq in 1997 took the lives of well over 500,000 children (567,000 according to the UN) and the malignant beast Madeline Albright said “We think it was worth it.” Every US citizen must understand that the hag Albright and the rest of her parasite class think exactly the same about you and your children too. To achieve their objective of global domination, a half million, or millions, of your children can easily be starved and sacrificed in the most horrible way, and without a second thought by the perpetrators. And now, today, as they lead you down the path to war and economic war, neither of which they are the least bit capable of defending you against, (although saving themselves is an entirely different matter) remember who it is that has done this to you. And to your children. It was not Russia. Russia is only defending itself from years of your relentless attacks. Don’t blame us when we finally hit back. And don’t say we didn’t warn you.

Russia cannot afford to wait for a ukrop assault on Donbass. Russia cannot afford to wait for the arrival of tens of thousands of NATO troops into Ukraine and the possibility of a surprise announcement that Ukraine was secretly fast tracked into NATO and is now a full member. Russia cannot afford to trust the treacherous liars and war criminals whose actions even more so than their words have proven them to be Russia’s mortal enemies, time and again. The only way Russia can defend itself from further attacks on its western borders is by a preemptive move into Ukraine – not an “invasion”, but a liberation, from the foreign occupants that have brought the once proud nation of Ukraine nothing but exploitation, suffering, degradation and death. Godspeed this liberation, and bring swift justice to all who precipitated this war. And may God have mercy on the millions of citizens who will suffer in the economic war that will follow.

The time of the “Unipolar World” is over. In fact, it has been for some years now, and all that remains is for Russia to administer the coup de grace to the fascist zombies who still imagine themselves as the masters of this now bygone era. When Russia finishes this undeclared but ongoing military war in Ukraine and Eastern Europe, the economic war will begin in deadly earnest, and may in the end prove to be as destructive as a third world war. If Russia can save the world from fascism, just as it did in the last century, the world will again owe Russia a debt that can never be repaid. But let’s hope the debt will not so easily be forgotten this time, and the gratitude, respect and support of every decent human being on the planet will be forthcoming. Good luck to all good people in the hard days ahead. May God protect the innocent, and may the rest of us get everything we deserve. Davai.

20 February 2022 update: Just as stated on 5 December, the Russian “red lines” message has become an epic communication fail.

*

“The Ukrainian Armed Forces are increasing their forces and gathering heavy equipment and personnel. The number of Ukrainian troops in the conflict zone has already reached 125,000, which represents half of the total composition of its Armed Forces” -Russian Foreign Ministry [1]

“We don’t know whether President Putin has made the decision to invade. We do know that he is putting in place the capacity to do so in short order should he so decide” -Antony Blinken [2]

The Russians fail to grasp how this second quote should be countered in media. In short, Russia is prepared to counter the upcoming Ukrainian invasion of the separatist (ethic Russian) region of Ukraine. Purely in terms of English language semantics, as employed to now, the propaganda art favors the NATO states. When Ukraine attacks the separatist region of Donbass, and Russia responds with a counter attack, the NATO states will call this a Russian invasion of Ukraine for the simple fact of so-called ‘de jure’ international boundaries, never mind the fact of the anti-ethnic-Russian bias and related criminality in this matter should be lain squarely on the shoulders of the NATO supported ultra-nationalist-neo-nazi infested Ukrainian side. [3], [4], [5] & [6]

Russia, meanwhile, has propagated three separate, and when taken together, confusing messages, the first is Russia has no intention of invading Ukraine and the second is, what Russia’s armed forces do on Russia’s territory (no matter in proximity to Ukraine’s borders) is solely Russia’s business and third, there are “red lines” the NATO states should not cross in Ukraine that counter Russia’s security interests.

This is clearly a Russian propaganda fail, and when Ukraine DOES attack the breakaway (ethnic Russian) Donbass region of Ukraine, and Russia counter-attacks to protect the ethnic Russian population, Western (NATO) propaganda will flood the Western liberal democracies’ media platforms with the (technically correct) fact Russian armed forces have ‘invaded’ Ukraine’s territory. Meanwhile in the events leading up to this highly likely scenario, with aggressive NATO exercises playing out in the Baltic region, and especially the Black Sea, Russia is losing its’ opportunity to reach the Western audience with effective message.

In short: Russia should be presenting a single, integrated message:

1) If Ukraine adheres to the Minsk accord (grants the Donbass autonomy) together with excluding NATO and there is no attack on the (ethnic Russian) separatist region but rather Kiev initiates sincere developments towards a cooperative relationship, Russia will have no interest in military intervention in Ukraine; BUT if there IS an attack on Ukraine’s ethnic Russian region and/or NATO continues developing Ukraine as its’ military platform on the border of the Russian heartland, there is NO QUESTION Russia will militarily intervene in Ukraine to protect the ethnic Russian populated areas of Ukraine and/or to fence NATO out, full stop.

This is a message that would resonate with people concerned with the related, increasing political tensions across Europe, by putting NATO squarely on the spot.

Meanwhile, going to Russia’s propaganda weakness on the Ukraine and NATO issues, revisiting Putin’s recent Valdai appearance is in order:

Putin, Valdai & Bloody Talons

“I have long observed one rule which prevents any inconveniences from such practices. It is simply this: to be concerned in no affairs I should blush to have made public, and to do nothing but what spies may see and welcome. When a man’s actions are just and honorable, the more they are known, the more his reputation is increased and established. If I was sure, therefore, that my valet de place was a spy, as he probably is, I think I should probably not discharge him for that, if in other respects I liked him” -Benjamin Franklin

This preceding statement concerning the infestation of 1780s Paris by spies during the American revolutionary alliance with France, attributed to the American Minister-Plenipotentiary to France, Benjamin Franklin, goes to his [Franklin’s] driving the French Foreign Minister, Charles Gravier (Count of Vergennes), out of his mind on a single point: Franklin refused to fire his valet who was known to be a British spy. Expanding on the quote (from reading history) Franklin’s attitude (and refusal to fire his valet) stemmed from his conviction that, given the British knowing that Franklin knew the man was a spy, everything the valet reported from Franklin’s conversations would be taken for disinformation.

We’ll come back to this.

Putin’s 2021 annual address to the Valdai Discussion Club struck me as showing a profoundly disillusioned man (in contrast to Putin projecting an oftentimes humorous, lively self-confidence in past.) Waxing philosophical, he seemed a man disabused of any notion he could believe in the olive branches offered in his polite habits of speech regarding the West, did not seem convinced in (his past conviction) a longstanding support for the primacy of international law will prevail, and seemed at a loss when advancing avenue to reasoned, stabilizing solutions when confronted with the malfeasance of NATO, and NATO’s rhetoric versus NATO’s actions (and much more.) His self confidence seems seriously eroded, or alternately stated, Putin seems resigned to understanding his many years proposed solutions of reason has been wasted and must inevitably be discarded in relation to the confounding behavior and intractable nature of those powers confronting Russia.

In a nutshell, his speech impressed as though Putin understood he were wasting his breath, finally accepting principled behaviors will find little reciprocity from the West in the 21st Century play of the “Great Game.”

The Great Misapprehension

Those embracing the misnomer “Cultural Marxism” will be jubilant at Putin’s comparing today’s Western values to the Soviet experiment at its formation. His characterization of this, although not without merit in defending a “healthy conservatism”, nevertheless embraces a cultural myopia; inter-generational socialization determines the shape of societies and Karl Marx’s utopian socialism had been birthed in Christian culture and features (however perverted in practice) early Christian ideal. Denuded of ‘God’, socialism carried secularism to extreme in application of Christian social principle where science was substituted for the mystic experience in humanity; if Marxism aspired to become the great enforcer of Jesus’ teaching “It would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom” in matters of social equity, it must be stated (in short) why this experiment failed. There was no nurturing of the Human spiritual dimension. Marxism, as put into practice in the 20th Century, originated as oxymoron; a faux, inter-generational, culturally Christian shaped cult in denial of God. As a matter of fact cultures cannot easily overthrow their social origins. Marxism, and V.I. Lenin’s launching of this phenomenon on what was to become the Soviet Socialist Republics, was, culturally speaking, a Western ‘Christian’ event from inception to demise. It was, perhaps, the greatest example of denial in modern history (and in some respects, probably still is.)

Be that as it may, Putin is spot on in his defense of a “healthy” social conservatism, and despite his (probable) lack of understanding of the Western Christian cultures’ inter-generational socialization shaping Marxism, his comparison of Soviet experiment, to the one hundred years later (today’s) Western experiment, is not that far off the mark. Both are devoid of the necessary traditions feeding the need of the human spirit. What he appears to struggle with, however unaware, is the Western cultures’ spiritual necrosis originating with Calvinism, the ‘predestination’ infection inviting discarding lived morality as a rewarded experience. This is an infection which, mutated to one form or another (like a certain virus), has crossed every social boundary and buried the ‘do no harm’ axiom across the societies of Capitalism. The root at the evil Putin senses but does not (yet) fully grasp is not actually “Cultural Marxism” but is a Calvinism rooted, Western phenomenon of society-wide psychopathy.*

“I don’t know what to do”

The “I don’t know what to do” statement by Putin about the circumstance in Ukraine concerning NATO is likely the most telling remark revealing a palpable sense of helplessness. This is where one might have expected something along the lines of a ‘zero-sum’ push-back (at the least) but that’s not what we saw. While conceding NATO showed no sign of backing off a military build-up in a context of Ukrainian citizens having little to no say over the (German & American intelligence agencies installed) Bandera putsch regime opening the door to a spear-point aimed at the heart of Russia, Putin openly admits his hesitancy. His dilemma is understandable; NATO ‘all or nothing’ approach shows no inclination whatsoever to back off incorporating to itself a military development of Ukraine and the only recourse to prevent this developing threat would be to fence NATO out with resort to combat arms. This avenue would require Putin violate international law by launching what amounts to illegal ‘preemptive war’ and it is international law Putin has been trying to rescue from obliteration by NATO and NATO aligned states. His choice? Wait the “years” it will take for the Ukrainian people/state to sort putting their house in order (defaulting to the NATO military build-up) or take Eastern Ukraine to the Dnieper river based on international law’s presumptive right of the majority ethnic Russians located there to “Self-Determination.” Putin clearly does not wish to initiate the inevitable war NATO is thrusting upon Russia; but to wait “years” (even just a few years or a year or two) is to give up strategic advantage that could cost Russia dearly. With NATO states pumping arms into Ukraine, each month that passes insures any forthcoming war will be bloodier. No doubt Sergei Shoigu will have a strong opinion in regard to NATO forcing the burden of taking this decision onto Putin.

Bloody Talons

Here we’ll conclude with the too often under-examined point of taking responsibility. It is here yours truly comes closest to outright criticism of Vladimir Putin, relating to the information wars.

This point goes to the cynicism of awarding the Nobel Prize to Novaya Gazeta’s Dmitry Muratov for “defending free speech” in the context of Russia’s recent law (mirroring USA law) requiring organizations receiving funding from abroad to register as “foreign agents.” In fact Muratov’s newspaper, Novaya Gazeta, panders to the Western political lies undermining Russia and its designation as a ‘foreign agent” is absolutely well deserved. Muratov is certainly not a Russian patriot when, as editor-in-chief of Novaya Gazeta, example given, that yellow rag publishes a hit piece pushing ‘the Russians did it’ DNC hack lie. [7], [8]

Nobel Prize for political lies? The cynicism of using non governmental organizations to embed and/or recruit agents and manipulate persons, in this case Muratov, to undermine one’s own country, is certainly nothing new in the world of espionage, where there are three basic means of penetrating and/or using an organization to one’s advantage:

1) Turning an employee through some means such as blackmail, sex, bribery or appeal to a psychological weakness such as working on someone’s conscience or ideology and convince them to become your organization’s asset (agent/traitor)

2) Using psychology and/or disinformation to convince an organization’s staff to work to your advantage and/or commit acts against its own [in this case, national] interests (false flag/sale)

3) Placing your own officer within the organization as an employee (spy)

Novaya Gazeta’s editor-in-chief Muratov STRONGLY profiles as manipulated using method 2) of the preceding, although method 1) cannot be ruled out. Coming up through Russia’s security services and fully aware of these facts, when questioned by the ‘nobel laureate’, why didn’t Putin call Muratov out at Valdai? Is it because Russia has its own filthy players in the information wars? [9], [10]

Bloody Talons

In the embedded Valdai video, Muratov questions Putin at about 1:16:00, followed by Margarita Simonyan at about 1:28:00.

Putin should have detailed why Russia hadn’t (yet) gone far enough in shutting down the poison of Western style ‘free speech’ in the information wars; but instead he deferred to the ugliest player on his team, Russian master propagandist Margarita Simonyan. What is remarkable beyond Simoyan’s obvious lust for the rank fool Muratov’s blood is her stark familiarity in her interaction with Putin on a world stage; gloating in her sense of power. Simonyan is no patriot either, Russia’s well being is not the priority here, her argument doesn’t go to the underlying facts, isn’t well thought out & reasoned, rather her first instinct is to go for Muratov’s throat. At a meta level, the premier Russian propaganda attack dog, Simonyan, profiles as a psychopath killer.

Going to the Franklin quote that introduces this essay, Putin doesn’t only carry responsibility for keeping his personal character clean, but carries responsibility for keeping a clean character within all of Russia. Putin’s professional liar, Margarita Simoyan, makes a mockery of this. A clean house does not conceal a deadly black mold in the pantry.

 

*A warning to Russia: A single generation of children left by their parents to be raised by an unfiltered internet in the 21st Century and you could be there too; it won’t require the 400 years it took John Calvin’s social dementia to overtake and finally poison the wider Western cultures’ mentality beyond redemption. It’s a different world now.

[1] https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Russia-Warns-Of-Ukrainian-Military-Deployment-In-Donbass-20211201-0005.html

[2] https://nypost.com/2021/12/01/moscow-accuses-ukraine-of-amassing-troops-near-the-border/

[3] http://johnhelmer.net/james-thurber-a-red-blooded-american-had-this-warning-for-warmakers-like-the-blin-noodle-gang/

[4] https://fort-russ.com/2019/06/of-black-boxes-dark-arts-geopolitics-a-good-time-to-revisit-mh17/

[5] https://thegrayzone.com/tag/azov-battalion/

[6] https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2021/10/18/a-message-from-the-grave/

[7] https://novayagazeta.ru/articles/2017/12/12/74883-troyanskiy-cherv-somneniy?utm_source=push

[8] https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2018/01/31/the-wheel-is-indeed-empty/

[9] https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2021/08/17/the-flip-russian-propaganda-technique/

[10] https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2021/09/12/russian-propaganda-cowardice/

*

Keep up with NATO @ https://antibellum679354512.wordpress.com/

*

%d bloggers like this: