HOW RUSSIA SHOULD DEAL WITH THE “PILBAN SYNDROME”

Written by The Saker; Originally appeared at his blog


How Russia should deal with the “Pilban Syndrome” (PBS)

A reader, SunriseState, has recently posted the following question in the comments section: “what would you say is the most optimal Russian strategy vs Poland?“.  When I read it I thought “now that is an interesting question indeed!”.  Today I will try to answer it, going step by step.

First, a diagnosis.

Saker drawing from communityThere is a Polish syndrome.  We can ascribe all sorts of causes for it, some will describe the Poles look as heroic victims, others as greedy hyenas, but for our purposes we don’t even need to dwell into history to list a series of symptoms which, when taken together, we could call the “Polish Syndrome”:

  1. Phobia (hatred and fear) for Russia and everything Russian.
  2. A strong desire to be “part of the West” (as opposed to an imaginary “despotic Asia”) while in reality having little or nothing in common with the said “West”
  3. A deep and bitter resentment at having been militarily defeated over and over again and a subsequent hope for a grandiose revanche.
  4. A deep seated inferiority complex towards both the East and the West as lyrically expressed in the Ukrainian slogan “let us drown the Poles in Russian and Jewish blood!“.
  5. A dream of finally submitting the Orthodox Church to the Papacy (or, in its latest iteration, to “consecrate Russia to the immaculate heart of Mary“)
  6. A deep insecurity about itself resulting in a neverending policy of finding external allies, including Hitler, to take on the “big guy”.
  7. A willingness to say anything and do anything to get the external ally to extend protection, threaten Russia or, even better, participate in a long-awaited “march on Moscow”.

Again, whether this is a result of centuries of Russian oppression, imperialism, violence and persecutions or the result of the Papist ideology makes absolutely no difference for our purposes.

Also, when we look at the various symptoms of our “Polish Syndrome” we immediately see that it is not unique to Poles or Poland – the Ukrainians, especially the western Ukrainians, display all the same characteristics as their Polish neighbors (as do the Balts, but they are too small, weak and irrelevant to be included here).  The syndrome we are looking at is therefore not really a “Polish” one, but an East European one, but calling it “East European” would also be incorrect.  So, for our purposes, I will simplify and call it the “Pilban Syndrome” (PBS) in honor of the two “great heroes” of the Polish and West Ukrainian nationalists: Jozef Pilsudski and Stepan Bandera.

Second, a prognosis

Friends, the Pilban Syndrome is here to stay.  For one thing, we are dealing with a syndrome with deep historical roots.  Second, years of Communist rule followed by a sudden collapse of the Soviet Empire gave this syndrome a huge boost. Third, the AngloZionist Empire, especially in its current position of rapid decline, will allocate a great deal of resources to keep the PBS alive and well.  Finally, the abject failure of the AngloZionist policies in the Ukraine and the subsequent civil war will probably lead to a break-up of the Ukraine, in one form or another, and that will also greatly contribute to the vitality of the PBS.  I would also add that while right now Poland is enjoying a much hoped for “minute of fame” (being useful to the Empire against Russia) this pipe dream will also come crashing down sooner rather than later, and that inevitable collapse with also result in a sharp rise of the PBS.  Bottom line is this: the PBS is here to stay and Russians would be naive in the extreme to hope that it will just vanish.

Third, a warning

There is nothing, absolutely nothing which the Russians could do to try to minimize the severity of the PBS.  It is absolutely crucial to understand that the PBS is deeply ideological in its nature and causes.  To think that some kind of action (short of collective national suicide, of course) would appease those suffering from PBS is delusional.  The Ukrainian case, in particular, will show that even if Russians give them loans, credits, favorable trade terms, security guarantees, etc. the Ukrainian nationalists will see that as a devious plan to try to entrap or otherwise deceive the Ukrainians.  If tomorrow the Kremlin decided to send truckloads of gold to the Ukraine or Poland, they would accept it, of course, but as soon as the last truck crossed the border the Polish and Ukrainian nationalists would resume their usual mantras about “Poland/the Ukraine not perishing yet” (they both have these paranoid words in their essentially similar national anthems) along with their usual policies.

Fourth, the big question

The big question is this: how do you deal with such hate-filled lunatics when they are your neighbors?  From a Russian point of view, these neighbors are constantly shifting their position on a spectrum roughly ranging between “minor pain in the ass” to “existential threat”, so this is nothing trivial.  If history has taught the Russians anything is that every single time Russia was weak the Poles invaded.  Every time.  The Ukrainian case is very different, since there never was any “Ukrainian state” in history.  However, since the Ukrainian nationalists display exactly the same PBS symptoms as their Polish brothers, we can assume that they too will wait for Russia to be weak (for whatever reason) to attack; in fact, the current *official* statements of the leaders of the Nazi junta in Kiev more or less promise to do exactly that).  Russia has tried all sorts of strategies with Poland, ranging from outright partitioning, to the granting of special rights, to a naive hope that a common stance against Nazi Germany would yield some degree of, if not brotherhood, then at least civil neighborly relations.  They all failed.  Clearly, a new approach is needed.

Fifth, the obvious solution

Okay so we have established that the PBS is incurable, that it is here to stay, that the Russians cannot meaningfully affect it and that past policies have all failed.  So what does that leave?  It leaves one obvious solution:

Do nothing.  Have no policy.  Give up.  Ignore them.  Bypass them.

The first principle of medicine is “above all do no harm”.  I will argue here that any Russian policy towards PBS suffering states will do harm and only make things worse.  However, doing absolutely nothing will yield huge advantages for Russia.  Think of it.  Doing nothing

  1. Gives the Polish and Ukrainian nationalists the least excuses to focus on an imaginary external threat and forces them to have to look inside, at their own internal problems.  Considering that we are dealing hate-filled ideologues and deluded politicians, they will all turn on each other like rats in a cage.
  2. Makes it possible for Russia to combine a pragmatically efficient stance with a morally correct one: no matter how hate filled and delusional Polish and Ukrainian nationalists are, it is not for Russians to judge them, educate them or otherwise deny them their freedom to live in whatever manner they choose to.  Let them build the society they want, let them keep on barking at Russia like a small dog would do behind the “NATO fence”, and let them pursue their “western dream” to their heart’s content.
  3. Makes it possible for Russia to allocate much needed resources where it matters, where Russian money, sweat and blood can yield a real return on investment.  Ignoring the PBS-states will initially cost Russia some money, true, but in the mid-to-long term it will save Russian billions of Rubles.

However, when I say “do nothing” I refer only to policies which actually involve expectations that if Russia does “X” the Polish or Ukrainian nationalists will do “Y”.  An example such mistaken policies would be to expect the Poles to buy Russian LNG gas if Russia offers better prices.  It ain’t gonna happen – give it up, Vlad!

What Russia must do, as a condition of the “do nothing” policy, is to craft a new policy towards PBS states composed exclusively of unilateral actions.  What do I mean by that?

First, Russia must secure her own security in military, economic and political terms.  Russians must look at PBS states the way the Dutch look at the North Sea: they know that if their dams break, the waters of the North Sea will immediately break and submerge a large part of the Dutch territory.  Dutch flood control never assumes that the waters of the North Sea will act differently, that somehow they could be convinced to not flood.  No, for the Dutch it is simple to the extreme: if our levees break, the North Sea will flood us.  And, here is the key, the Dutch don’t resent the North Sea for that.  Same for Russians: they should not resent the Polish or Ukrainian nationalists, they just need to make darn sure that the Russian levees (the Russian armed forces) don’t break, that’s all.

Second, Russia must completely de-couple her economy from any PBS state.  Yes, this is also what the nationalists want.  So let’s give it to them!  Let’s bring the Russian trade and investment into PBS states to exactly zero.  Modern technologies make it very simple to bypass these countries and the North Stream is the best proof that Russia and Germany can do business together without involving the crazies between them.  To those who would say that this sounds extreme, I would reply that if Russia had not allowed Polish Air Force Tu-154 to fly to Smolensk all the crazy shit we witness today would not have happened. Why interact with somebody who will always blame you for everything?  This makes no sense.  I would even withdraw Russian representations from these countries and kick their diplomats out of Russia (have the Swiss to be the representatives, like the USA with Iran or Cuba).  Why?  Because if tomorrow the Polish ambassador to Moscow is killed while crossing at a dangerous intersection or slips in his bath tub, the Poles will immediately declare that the “KGB” (does not exist since 1991 but nevermind that) has killed him.  Who needs this kind of crap?  Nobody I think.  So I say decouple everything which can possibly be de-coupled, give the nationalists their dream and let Russia enjoy some much needed peace and quiet on her western borders.

Third, keep non-governmental ties open.  Cultural ties, small business kind of trade, tourism, etc.  There is no need to build any walls (besides, the Ukrainians and Latvians are already doing that, if not very effectively), or be nasty in any way to the regular Poles or Ukrainians.  If on the government level Russia should always maintain a “thanks, but we are not interested” stance, on the human level Russia should remain open and welcoming to the Polish and Ukrainian people.  The truth is that there are still some mentally sane Poles and Ukrainians who clearly see through the ideological nonsense of their leaders and who far from being russophobic often have a real appreciation for things Russian.  Why make them pay for the behavior of their leaders?  Russia would be much better off trying to do her utmost to make these people feel welcome in Russia and to show that her stance towards the PBS infected nationalists does not extend to mentally sane people.  However, Russia also needs to stop pretending that all is well and for that she needs to officially declare that henceforth her policy towards PBS-regimes will be no policy at all.

Conclusion

I think that what I am suggesting is simple, straightforward, cheap, safe, morally correct and eminently doable.  Yes, of course, to some degree this will be undiplomatic since it will require to officially acknowledge that Russia does not want to deal with PBS-infected regimes at all.  Since I am not a diplomat (thank God!) I can say something here which Russian diplomats really cannot: most Russian feel a deep sense of disgust and contempt for the Polish and Ukrainian nationalists and it is high time that Russian diplomat and decision makers stop pretending otherwise.

For centuries the Russian leaders have always looked at the West as the most important strategic direction and that is understandable as objective geographic and economic factors of that time made the West far more important than the South or the East (and nevermind the North).  But this is changing right now, very rapidly.  In truth, both the EU and the US are increasingly becoming irrelevant to Russia whose future is in the South, the East and even the North.  The good news is that Putin and his key ministers all see this (and this is why, unlike what we saw in the West, for Russia the big events of the G20 was Putin’s meeting with Xi).  Central Asia, the Middle-East, the Indian sub-continent, China, Siberia and the Arctic – these are the regions were the future of Russia will be decided and where Russian is investing most of her human and material resources.  One thing the Ukrainian nationalists are absolutely correct about: while geographically located in what is considered “Europe” the Russian nation (as opposed to the Russian ruling elites) is much closer to her neighbors in the South and East than to the so-called “West”.  It is high time for the Russian people to return to their real, historical, home: the immense Eurasian landmass.

If we look at the internal components of the AngloZionist Empire, then we can see that for Russia the USA will continue to matter the most, then the European Union, but already much less, and then the PBS-states which are basically irrelevant to Russia.  Russia can therefore *easily* afford to comprehensively ignore the PBS-states as long as she keeps her military strong enough to deal with any possible attack or military provocation coming from the West (which the Russian military can easily do).

One more thing: it is a sad reality that the USA are becoming more and more PBS-infected, courtesy of the Neocons and their visceral russophobia (UN Nikki has just declared ““we can’t trust Russia and we won’t ever trust Russia.”).  Clearly, the USA is no Poland and Russia cannot afford to simply ignore them.  But as long as this is done carefully, progressively and, above all, quietly, Russia can, and should, begin decoupling herself not only from the USA as such, but from the entire US-controlled international financial system moving her assets and investments towards the obvious alternative: China and the rest of the Eurasian landmass.

In conclusion, I will say that what I outline above is what I think is already happening before your eyes.  Not as much as I wish, not as fast as I wish, but it is happening, the fastest with the Ukraine, the slowest with the USA.  But it is happening.  And thank God for that!

The Saker

IMPORTANT NOTE: When I speak of the Ukraine, I am referring only to the Nazi-occupied Ukraine, not Novorussia or Crimea. Those I consider as Russian people and land.

Video: Senior Ukrainian Intelligence Officer Killed In Car Bombing In Kiev

South Front

27.06.2017

Video: Senior Ukrainian Intelligence Officer Killed In Car Bombing In Kiev

A senior Ukrainian military intelligence officer has been killed in a car bomb attack in the capital of Kiev, the authorities said on Tuesday.

According to the country’s defense ministry, the man was identified as Col. Maxim Shapoval of the Chief Directorate of Ukrainian military intelligence.

Shapoval’s car  blew up in Kiev on Tuesday morning.

Some Ukrainian media reported that Shapoval was chief of military intelligence’s special forces.

The Reason Behind the US Government’s Secret Hatred of Europeans

The Reason Behind the US Government’s Secret Hatred of Europeans

The Reason Behind the US Government’s Secret Hatred of Europeans

The reason for the US government’s hostility — at least since 4 February 2014 —toward Europeans, has been a mystery, until now.

This hostility wasn’t even publicly recognized at all, until it leaked out, on that date, from a tapped phone-line of arguably the most powerful person at the US State Department, the person whom American President Barack Obama had personally entrusted with running his Administration’s most geostrategically sensitive secret foreign operations (and she did it actually throughout almost the entirety of Obama’s eight years in office, regardless of whom the official US Secretary of State happened to be at the time): Victoria Nuland.

Her official title was «Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs» and she was appointed to that post by the President himself, but nominally she reported to him through the Deputy Secretary of State William Joseph Burns, who reported to the Secretary of State, who, in turn, reported to the President.

She ran policies specifically on Ukraine (and, more broadly, against Russia). In the famous leaked phone call that she made on 4 February 2014 to the US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, she instructed him to place in charge of Ukraine’s government, once America’s coup in Ukraine would be completed (which then occurred 18 days later and overthrew the democratically elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, entirely in violation of Ukraine’s own Constitution), «Yats» or Arseniy Yatsenyuk. He did, immediately after the coup was completed, receive this crucial appointment — basically, the power to control all other top appointments in the new Ukrainian government. With this appointment, the coup, which had started by no later than 2011 to be planned inside the US State Department, was effectively completed.

In this phone call, Nuland said «F—k the EU!» and no one, at the time, paid much attention to what this outburst was all about, but only that it sounded shockingly undiplomatic. Finally, however, clear evidence has now emerged, concerning what it was actually about. 

This crucial evidence consists of a refusal (at long last) by both Germany and Austria, to ratchet-up further, as the US regime now demands, economic sanctions against Russia, sanctions that are a key part of America’s plan ultimately to conquer Russia — a plan that’s been carried out consistently by all US federal governments since the moment, on the night of 24 February 1990, when US President George Herbert Walker Bush himself secretly announced it to West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, and afterward to other US vassal-heads-of-state — that, though the Soviet Union was already irrevocably in the process of ending the Cold War against the US and its allies, the US and its allies would secretly continue that war, henceforth, against Russia, until Russia itself would be conquered. He was implicitly informing them, there, that the Cold War, on the US side, wasn’t really about ideology (capitalist versus communist), but instead, was actually a long war for conquest, of the entire world (now it would be to strip Russia of its allies, and then to go in for the kill), by the US aristocracy and its vassal aristocracies (whom those European leaders represented).

On 15 June 2017, the Associated Press headlined «Germany, Austria slam US sanctions against Russia», and reported that both of those US vassal-nations, while paying obeisance to the imperial master, were not going to proceed further all the way to destruction of their own major oil and gas companies, in order to please that master:

In a joint statement, Austria’s Chancellor Christian Kern and Germany’s Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel said it was important for Europe and the United States to form a united front on the issue of Ukraine, where Russian-based separatists have been fighting government forces since 2014.

«However, we can’t accept the threat of illegal and extraterritorial sanctions against European companies», the two officials said, citing a section of the bill that calls for the United States to continue to oppose the Nord Stream 2 pipeline that would pump Russian gas to Germany beneath the Baltic Sea. Half of the cost of the new pipeline is being paid for by Russian gas giant Gazprom, while the other half is being shouldered by a group including Anglo-Dutch group Royal Dutch Shell, French provider Engie, OMV of Austria and Germany’s Uniper and Wintershall. Some Eastern European countries, including Poland and Ukraine, fear the loss of transit revenue if Russian gas supplies don’t pass through their territory anymore once the new pipeline is built.

Gabriel and Kern accuse the US of trying to help American natural gas suppliers at the expense of their Russian rivals. They said the possibility of fining European companies participating in the Nord Stream 2 project «introduces a completely new, very negative dimension into European-American relations».

Currently, and for a very long time, the leading energy-supplier to the EU has been Russia, in the forms of oil and, especially, natural gas, both of which are transported into the EU via an extensive network of pipelines, most of which travel through Ukraine, which is a major reason why the US rulers wanted to take over Ukraine — in order to stop that, or at least to cause a necessity for Russia to build alternative pipelines (which the US regime would likewise do everything to block from happening) — but now both Germany and Austria are saying no to this US effort.

The US regime wants fracked US natural gas to fill an increasing portion of Europe’s needs, and for natural gas from US-allied fundamentalist Sunni royal regimes to fill as much of the rest as possible, so as to squeeze-out the existing top supplier, Russia. (Until recently, the plan was for US ally Qatar, owned by the Thani royal family, to become Europe’s main supplier, via pipelines which would traverse through Syria, for which reason Syria needs to be conquered (so that those pipelines through Syria can be built, perhaps even by American firms). However, the Sauds, who usually run US foreign relations — often with assistance from the Israeli regime, which is far more popular in the United States and also in Europe (and thus serves as the Sauds’ agents in the US and Europe) — have now blockaded Qatar because of Qatar’s insufficient compliance with the Sauds’ demand for total international isolation of Iran and of any other nation where Shia are or might become dominant. (For example, the Sauds bomb Yemen to impose fundamentalist Sunni leadership there and kill the Shia population.) And, so, now, after the break between Saudi Arabia and Qatar, even more than before, the main beneficiaries of cutting off Russian gas-supplies to the EU would be US fracking companies.

However, the big European oil and gas corporations would then play a smaller role in the European market, because those firms have mutual commitments with Gazprom and other Russian giants. The only big winners, now, of increased sanctions against Russia, would thus be US firms.

«Europe’s energy supply is a matter for Europe, and not for the United States of America», Kern and Gabriel said.

Europe already has suffered considerable economic harm from complying with the US on taking over Ukraine, and from absorbing millions of destitute and alien refugees from Syria, Libya, and other countries where the US CIA, and other agencies, fomented the «Arab Spring» to unlock, in those countries, the oil and gas pipeline potential, which, if controlled by the US, would go to US oilfield-services firms such as Halliburton, and not to European ones such as Schlumberger.

Kern and Gabriel — and the local national aristocracies (respectively Austrian, and German) whom they represent — are now speaking publicly about the limits beyond which they will not go in order to obey their US masters.

Consequently, back in February 2014, when the European aristocracies complied with the US aristocracy’s coup in Ukraine even though knowing full well that it was a barbaric and very bloody coup and nothing ‘democratic’ such as the US-manufactured story-line alleged it to have been, those aristocracies accepted the heist because they thought and expected to be cut in on enough of the looting of Ukraine so as to come out ahead on it. But that’s no longer the case. Because of the Sauds’ campaign against the Thanis (the owners of Qatar), the gang are starting to break up. The US gangsters are no longer clearly in control, but are being forced to choose between the Sauds and the Thanis, and have apparently chosen the Sauds. The Sauds financed the 9/11 attacks in the United States, but are the largest foreign purchasers of US-made weapons.

The US aristocracy hate Europeans because the US aristocracy are determined to conquer Russia, and because Europeans aren’t fully cooperating with that overriding US government goal — many EU billionaires want deals with Russia, but America’s billionaires are determined instead to take over Russia, and so the US (and the Sauds) might be losing its traditional support from the EU.

International affairs — US, Russia, Sauds, Thanis, Iran, Germany, UK, etc. — are in unpredictable flux. But Europe seems gradually to be drifting away from the US

And resistant European aristocrats seem to be digging in their heels on this. Here is a translation of a report dated June 17th from the most reliable source of news regarding international relations, Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten, or «German Economic News»:

Eastern Committee: US sanctions against Russia are a threat to Europe

German Economic News | Released:17.06.17 00:36 Clock

The Eastern Committee of the German economy is indignant at the new US sanctions against Russia.

The German companies have sharply criticized the US sanctions against Russia. «The sanctions plans of the US Senate are deeply alarming and, in principle, a threat to the European and German economy», said Klaus Schäfer, Deputy Chairman of the Eastern Committee of the German Economy, on Friday evening in Berlin. «America first is a new dimension to open up international markets to US providers at the expense of European jobs. Furthermore, we consider an extraterritorial application of economic initiatives generally wrong, «he said. In the Eastern Committee, the German companies active in Eastern Europe are organized. The federal government had also clearly criticized the sanction decision.

«Every further turn at the sanctioning screw increases the danger of new trade wars and the uncertainty of the world economy», warned Schäfer. The solution of the Ukraine conflict is not a step closer. A de-escalation on all sides was necessary. He pointed out that the US-Russia trade represented only one-tenth of the EU-Russia trade. «We pay the price of sanctions to Europeans», he criticized. «Implementation of the planned sanctions would make Europe more difficult to provide with favorable energy and inevitably lead to higher prices».

The most remarkable thing about this intensification of economic aggression by the US aristocracy against some of the European aristocracies, is that instead of the aggression being spearheaded this time by the US President, it’s being spearheaded by an almost unanimous US Senate: 97 out of the 100 US Senators voted for this bill. One cannot, this time around, reasonably blame «Donald Trump» for this ‘nationalism’ — it is instead clearly a Cold War, this time, by the US aristocracy (who are represented by the US government), against some European aristocracies, which are paying insufficient obeisance to the demands by the imperial aristocracy: the US gang.

Whereas, at the time of the US coup in Ukraine, the EU swallowed in silence their shock at how brutal and bloody it had been, and stayed with the Americans because the Americans claimed that the takeover would benefit European aristocracies too (‘expand the EU’), the lie about that is now clear to all (and Ukraine has been too wrecked by America, to be of much use to anyone but the Americans as a staging base for their missiles against Moscow), and therefore «the Western Alliance» might finally be breaking up.

The vassal-governments have put up with a lot from the US aristocracy, such as when German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s phone was revealed to be tapped by America’s NSA, and the case was quietly dropped because, «Prosecutors say they can find no actionable evidence to support claims German chancellor’s mobile phone was tapped by US National Security Agency» even though everyone knew that the refusal by Germany’s prosecutors was based upon a lie, and that Germany «remains heavily reliant on the US», and that the US government’s knowing everything that German politicians do, provides against those politicians a blackmail-potential against themselves, that cannot be taken lightly. On the other hand, perhaps there now exists a countervailing force that can outweigh even considerations such as that. Maybe Germany’s billionaires have, somehow, finally become able to turn the tide on this.

Putin, Ukraine and What Americans (are allowed to) Know

Putin, Ukraine and What Americans Know

Exclusive: In an interview with Oliver Stone, Russian President Putin explained his take on the Ukraine crisis, one that contrasts with what the U.S. mainstream media has allowed the American people to hear, writes Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

A prime example of how today’s mainstream media paradigm works in the U.S. is the case of Ukraine, where Americans have been shielded from evidence that the 2014 ouster of democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych was a U.S.-supported coup d’etat spearheaded by violent neo-Nazi extremists.

Russian President Vladimir Putin in Showtime’s “The Putin Interviews”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As The New York Times has instructed us, there was no coup in Ukraine; there was no U.S. interference; and there weren’t even that many neo-Nazis. And, the ensuing civil conflict wasn’t a resistance among Yanukovych’s supporters to his illegal ouster; no, it was “Russian aggression” or a “Russian invasion.”

If you deviate from this groupthink – if you point out how U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland talked about the U.S. spending $5 billion on Ukraine; if you mention her pre-coup intercepted phone call with U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt discussing who the new leaders would be and how “to glue” or how “to “midwife this thing”; if you note how Nuland and Sen. John McCain urged on the violent anti-Yanukovych protesters; if you recognize that snipers firing from far-right-controlled buildings killed both police and protesters to provoke the climactic ouster of Yanukovych; and if you think all that indeed looks like a coup – you obviously are the victim of “Russian propaganda and disinformation.”

But most Americans probably haven’t heard any of that evidence revealing a coup, thanks to the mainstream U.S. media, which has essentially banned those deviant facts from the public discourse. If they are mentioned at all, they are lumped together with “fake news” amid the reassuring hope that soon there will be algorithms to purge such troublesome information from the Internet.

So, if Americans tune in to Part Three of Oliver Stone’s “The Putin Interviews” on “Showtime” and hear Russian President Vladimir Putin explain his perspective on the Ukraine crisis, they may become alarmed that Putin, leader of a nuclear-armed country, is delusional.

A Nuanced Perspective

In reality, Putin’s account of the Ukraine crisis is fairly nuanced. He notes that there was genuine popular anger over the corruption that came to dominate Ukraine after the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991 and the selling off of the nation’s assets to well-connected “oligarchs.”

Screen shot of the fatal fire in Odessa, Ukraine, on May 2, 2014, set by right-wing Ukrainian nationalists killing scores of ethnic Russians. (From RT video)

Putin recognizes that many Ukrainians felt that an association with the European Union could help solve their problems. But that created a problem for Russia because of the absence of tariffs between Russia and Ukraine and concerns about the future of bilateral trade that is especially important to Ukraine, which stood to lose some $160 billion.

When Yanukovych decided to postpone the E.U. agreement so he could iron out that problem, protests erupted, Putin said. But — from that point on — Putin’s narrative deviates from what the U.S. government and mainstream media tell the American people.

“Our European and American partners managed to mount this horse of discontent of the people and instead of trying to find out what was really happening, they decided to support the coup d’etat,” Putin said.

Contrary to the U.S. claims blaming Yanukovych for the violence in the Maidan protests, Putin said, “Yanukovych didn’t give an order to use weapons against civilians. And incidentally, our Western partners, including the United States, asked us to influence him so that he did not give any orders to use weapons. They told us, ‘We ask you to prevent President Yanukovych from using the armed forces.’ And they promised … they were going to do everything for the opposition to clear the squares and the administrative buildings.

“We said, ‘Very well, that is a good proposal. We are going to work on it.’ And, as you know, President Yanukovych didn’t resort to using the Armed Forces. And President Yanukovych said that he couldn’t imagine any other way of dealing with this situation. He couldn’t sign an order on the use of weapons.”

Though Putin did not specifically finger blame for the sniper fire on Feb. 20, 2014, which killed more than a dozen police and scores of protesters, he said, “Well, who could have placed these snipers? Interested parties, parties who wanted to escalate the situation. … We have information available to us that armed groups were trained in the western parts of Ukraine itself, in Poland, and in a number of other places.”

After the bloodshed of Feb. 20, Yanukovych and opposition leaders on Feb. 21 signed an accord, brokered and guaranteed by three European governments, for early elections and, in the meantime, a reduction of Yanukovych’s powers.

Ignoring a Political Deal

But the opposition, led by neo-Nazi and other extreme nationalist street fighters, brushed aside the agreement and escalated their seizing of government buildings, although The New York Times and other U.S. accounts would have the American people believe that Yanukovych simply abandoned his office.

Nazi symbols on helmets worn by members of Ukraine’s Azov battalion. (As filmed by a Norwegian film crew and shown on German TV)

“That’s the version used to justify the support granted to the coup,” Putin said. “Once the President left for Kharkov, the second largest city in the country to attend an internal political event, armed men seized the Presidential Residence. Imagine something like that in the U.S., if the White House was seized, what would you call that? A coup d’etat? Or say that they just came to sweep the floors?

“The Prosecutor General was shot at, one of the security officers was wounded. And the motorcade of President Yanukovych himself was shot at. So it’s nothing short of an armed seizure of power. Moreover, one day afterwards he used our support and relocated to Crimea (where he stayed for more than a week) thinking that there was still a chance that those who put their signatures on the (Feb. 21) agreement with the opposition would make an attempt to settle this conflict by civilized democratic legal means. But that never happened and it became clear that if he were taken he would be killed.

“Everything can be perverted and distorted, millions of people can be deceived, if you use the monopoly of the media. But in the end, I believe that for an impartial spectator it is clear what has happened – a coup d’etat had taken place.”

Putin noted how the new regime in Kiev immediately sought to limit use of the Russian language and allowed extreme nationalist elements to move against eastern provinces known as the Donbass where ethnic Russians were the vast majority of the population.

Putin continued, “First, there were attempts at arresting them [ethnic Russians] using the police, but the police defected to their side quite quickly. Then the central authorities started to use Special Forces and in the night, people were snatched and taken to prison. Certainly, people in Donbass, after that, they took up arms.

“But once this happened, hostilities started so instead of engaging in dialogue with people in the southeast part of Ukraine, they [Ukraine government officials] used Special Forces, and started to use weapons directly – tanks and even military aircraft. There were strikes from multiple rocket launchers against residential neighborhoods. … We repeatedly appealed to this new leadership asking them to abstain from extreme actions.”

However, the civil conflict only grew worse with thousands of people killed in some of the worst violence that Europe has seen since World War II. In the U.S. mainstream media, however, the crisis was blamed entirely on Putin and Russia.

The Crimea Case

As for the so-called “annexation” of Crimea, a peninsula in the Black Sea that was historically part of Russia and that even after the Soviet break-up hosted a major Russian naval base at Sevastopol, Putin’s account also deviated sharply from what Americans have been told.

When Stone asked about the “annexation,” Putin responded: “We were not the ones to annex Crimea. The citizens of Crimea decided to join Russia. The legitimate parliament of Crimea, which was elected based on the Ukrainian legislation, announced a referendum. The Parliament, by an overwhelming majority, voted to join Russia.

“The coup d’etat in Ukraine was accompanied by a surge in violence. And there was even the threat that violence would be perpetrated by nationalists against Crimea, against those who consider themselves to be Russian and who think Russian is their mother language. And people got concerned — they were preoccupied by their own safety.

“According to the corresponding international agreement [with Ukraine], we had a right to have 20,000 people at our military base in the Crimea. We had to facilitate the work of the Parliament of Crimea, the representative government body, in order for this Parliament to be able to assemble and affect actions in accordance with the law.

“The people had to feel they were safe. Yes, we created conditions for people to go to polling stations, but we did not engage in any hostilities. More than 90 percent of the Crimean population turned out, they voted, and once the ballot was cast, the [Crimean] Parliament, based on the outcome of the referendum, addressed the Russian parliament, asking to incorporate it into the Russian Federation.

“Moreover, Ukraine lost the territory, not due to Russia’s position, but due to the position assumed by those who are living in Crimea. These people didn’t want to live under the banner of nationalists.”

Stone challenged some of Putin’s concerns that Ukraine might have turned the Russian naval base over to NATO. “Even if NATO made an agreement with Ukraine, I still don’t see a threat to Russia with the new weaponry,” Stone said.

Putin responded: “I see a threat. The threat consists in the fact that once NATO comes to this or that country, the political leadership of that country as a whole, along with its population, cannot influence the decisions NATO takes, including the decisions related to stationing the military infrastructure. Even very sensitive weapons systems can be deployed. I’m also talking about the anti-ballistic missile systems.”

Putin also argued that the U.S. government exploited the situation in Ukraine to spread hostile propaganda against Russia, saying:

”Through initiating the crisis in Ukraine, they’ve [American officials] managed to stimulate such an attitude towards Russia, viewing Russia as an enemy, a possible potential aggressor. But very soon everyone is going to understand, that there is no threat whatsoever emanating from Russia, either to the Baltic countries, or to Eastern Europe, or to Western Europe.”

A Dangerous Standoff

Putin shed light, too, on a little-noticed confrontation involving a U.S. destroyer, the USS Donald Cook, that steamed through the Black Sea toward Crimea in the middle of the crisis but turned back when Russian aircraft buzzed the ship and Russia activated its shoreline defense systems.

Ousted Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.

Stone compared the situation to the Cuban Missile Crisis when a Soviet ship turned back rather than challenge the blockade that President John Kennedy had established around the island. But Putin didn’t see the confrontation with the U.S. destroyers as grave as that.

Putin said, “Once Crimea became a full-fledged part of the Russian Federation, our attitude toward this territory changed dramatically. If we see a threat to our territory, and Crimea is now part of Russia, just as any other country, we will have to protect our territory by all means at our disposal. …

“I wouldn’t draw an analogy with the Cuban Missile Crisis, because back then the world was on the brink of a nuclear apocalypse. Luckily, the situation didn’t go so far this time. Even though we did indeed deploy our most sophisticated, our cutting-edge systems for the coastal defense,” known as the Bastion.

“Certainly – against such missiles as the ones we’ve deployed in Crimea – such a ship as the Destroyer Donald Cook is simply defenseless. … Our Commanders always have the authorization to use any means for the defense of the Russian Federation. … Yes , certainly it would have been very bad. What was the Donald Cook doing so close to our land? Who was trying to provoke whom? And we are determined to protect our territory. …

“Once the destroyer was located and detected, they [the U.S. crew] saw that there was a threat, and the ship itself saw that it was the target of the missile systems. I don’t know who the Captain was, but he showed much restraint, I think he is a responsible man, and a courageous officer to boot. I think it was the right decision that he took. He decided not to escalate the situation. He decided not to proceed. It doesn’t at all mean that it would have been attacked by our missiles, but we had to show them that our coast was protected by the missile systems.

“The Captain sees right away that his ship has become the target of missile systems – he has special equipment to detect such kinds of situations. … But indeed we were brought to the brink, so to speak. … Yes, certainly. We had to respond somehow. Yes, we were open to positive dialogue. We did everything to achieve a political settlement. But they [U.S. officials] had to give their support to this unconstitutional seizure of power. I still wonder why they had to do that?”

It also remains a question why the U.S. mainstream media feels that it must protect the American people from alternative views even as the risks of nuclear confrontation escalate.

Regarding other issues discussed by Putin, click here. For more on Stone’s style in interviewing Putin, click here

Trump and the bubbles from a sunken (old) world

June 02, 2017

This article was written for the Unz Review 

First, a confession: I really don’t know how the corporate media has covered the Trump trip to NATO and the G7 summit. Frankly, I don’t really care – it’s been a long while already since I stopped listening to these imperial shills. There is a risk in completely ignoring them, and that risk is the risk to say “white” when everybody else says “black”. This is a small risk – and, after all, who cares? – but today I will take it again and give you my own take on Trump’s trip to Europe: I think that it was an immense success. But not necessarily for Trump as much as it was an immense success for the enemies of the Empire, like myself. Here is my own rendition on what I think has taken place.

First, Trump was consistently rude. I cannot judge if this lack of manners is the real Trump or whether Trump was tying to send an unspoken message. For whatever this is worth, I know of only one person who had personal and private dealing with the Trump family, including The Donald Himself, and according to him, Trump is an impeccably courteous person. Whatever may be the case, whether this was nature or no so subtle “messaging”, Trump truly outdid himself. He unceremoniously pushed aside the Prime Minister of Montenegro, who richly deserves being treated with utter contempt. Then he blocked out Angela Merkel during the official photo taking. He made the G7 wait for over an hour, he refused to walk to another photo op by foot. He didn’t even bother putting on his translation headset when others were speaking and, crime of crimes, he told the NATO members states to pay more money while not saying a single word about Article 5. It is hard to gauge what the rest of the assembled politicians really thought (prostitutes are good at hiding and repressing their own feelings), but Merkel clearly was angry and frustrated. Apparently, everybody hated Trump, with the sole possible exception of Marcon (but he is a high-end prostitute). As much as Obama was a charmer, Trump seems to relish the role of ruffian. But most importantly, Trump treated the EU/NATO gang with the contempt they deserve and that, frankly, I find most refreshing. Why?

The ugly truth about NATO: Eurosissies and Eurodummies

What is NATO? Originally, NATO was supposed to be a military alliance to oppose the Soviet armed forces and, later, the Warsaw Treaty Organization. Now that these two have disappeared, NATO has no real mission. What NATO still has is a huge bureaucracy. There is a lot of money to be made through NATO: salaries, contracts, investments, etc. Heck – these guys just built themselves gigantic and brand new headquarters, probably to “deter the Russian aggression”, right? NATO is also a huge bureaucratic lift which can pull people up to the real centers of power, including financial power. Furthermore, NATO is also a gang of people who use NATO to advance their petty career or political agenda. At best, NATO is a gigantic fig leaf covering the obscenity of western imperialism.

What NATO is not is a militarily useful alliance. Oh yes, sure, the Americans can use NATO to force the Europeans to use US military hardware, that is true, but should a war break out, especially a *real* war against Russia, the Americans would push all these Eurosissies out of the way and do 90%+ of the fighting. Most NATO armies are a joke anyway, but even those who are marginally better fully depend on the USA for all the force multipliers (intelligence, logistics, transportation, communications, navigation, etc.).

And then there is the “New Europe”: the crazies in Poland or the Baltics who are making an immense effort in trying to get the Old Europeans (who made the huge mistake to accept them into NATO) on a collision course with Russia. From a pragmatic point of view, NATO member states should have never EVER incorporated the “New Europeans” into their alliance. The same goes for the EU, of course. But in their illusions of grandeur and their petty revanchism they decided that *real* Europe needed to be joined at the hip with “New Europe” and now they are paying the price for this strategic mistake of colossal proportions. Of course, the Americans are bastards for encouraging the Eurodummies in their delusional dreams, but now that the deed is done, the Americans are doing the rational and pragmatic thing: they are letting the Eurodummies deal with their own mistakes. This is best shown by Trump’s new policy about the Ukraine: he simply does not care.

Oh sure, he will say something about the Minsk Agreement, maybe mention Crimea, he might even say something about a Russian threat. But then he turns away and walks. And the Eurodummies are not discovering something which they should have suspected all along: the Ukraine is *their* problem now, the Americans don’t care because they have nothing to lose and nothing to win either, and so besides empty words they will offer nothing. Much worse is the fact that it appears that it will be the Europeans who will end up paying most of the costs of rebuilding the Ukraine when the current Nazi regime is finally removed (but that is a topic for a future article).

There is karmic justice at work here: all the Eurodummies will now have to deal with the fallout from the total collapse of the Ukraine, but the first ones to pay will be the Poles who tried so hard to draw NATO and the real Europe into their revanchist agenda. Besides, is it not simply justice for the Poles who for years have been ranting about a Russian threat and who for years have been supporting nationalist and even neo-Nazi movements in the Ukraine to now be faced with a deluge of problems (social, political, economic, etc.) coming from “their” Ukrainians will the Russians will be looking at this mess from the east, protected by the two Novorussian republics and formidable National and Border guards. As most Russians will, I wish the Europeans “bien du plaisir” with the upcoming waves of Ukrainian refugees and the “European values” they will bring with them.

[Sidebar: will Russia fare any better with her refugees? Absolutely! Why? Because the Eurodummies are not just Eurodummies, but also Eurosissies. When faced with a refugee-generated crimewave all they can do is roll over and go into deep denial. In Russia any such crimewave will be met with all the force and even violence of the state. Take a look at these guys:

Russian National Guardsmen

and imagine how they would react to the kind of events which have taken place in “Old Europe” recently. Try raping their women!]

The sad truth is that NATO and the EU are do not deserve to be treated with any respect at all. Trump’s condescension is fully deserved. Worse, the Americans don’t even have to pretend to take the Europeans seriously because, for the past decade, the latter have sheepishly obeyed the most ridiculous and even self-defeating orders from the Americans.

Truly, Victoria Nuland’s famous words about the EU were expressing something of an American consensus about the Old Continent.

The G7: “bubbles from a sunken world”

Bubbles from a sunken world” is not an expression I coined. It was the Russian author Ivan Solonevich who wrote that about the kind of exiled Russian aristocrats who still thought that they would one day recover all their properties seized by the Soviets in Russia. Still, this expression also applies to the G7 leaders who meet with a great deal of gravitas and pretend like they really matter. In truth, they don’t. There used to be a time when the G7 really was huge, but now with China and India missing at the table and with Russia expelled, the G7 has become just a kaffeeklatsch for ugly rich people, an occasion to reminisce about the good old days when Europe still mattered.

In reality, of course, and just like with the EU or NATO, the G7 is an anachronistic leftover of a long gone past. G7 countries are simply not the place where the real action is nowadays. But even worse than that is the fact that the leaders of the G7 suffer from the same form of senile dementia as the EU or NATO leaders which is unsurprising since they are more or less the same people: they have nothing original or new to say, nothing important for sure. They have no vision at all, very little legitimacy and even less credibility. Yes, sure, in France Macron did win, but only because the French establishment engaged in a massive propaganda campaign combined aimed at beating Marine LePen. But if you consider that only about 20% of the French voted for Macron in the first round and that he achieved that rather pitiful score even though he had the full support of the French establishment then you realize how unpopular that establishment really is with the French. While the Rothschild propaganda machine tried to present Macron like some kind of de Gaulle, most French people did see him for what he was: a hollow puppet in the hands of the transnational plutocracy. And yet, of all the leaders of the G7, Macron is undeniably the most dynamic one, not only due to his young age, but simply because he does not come across as some kind of fossil from a distant past.

We are told that the G7 is composed of the seven major advanced economies on the planet (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States), but the only real power in that list is the USA. Next, it would be Germany, but Merkel’s immigration policies have resulted in a EU-wide disaster and she is very much an embattled leader. She is also a prime culprit of the Ukrainian fiasco. Next in line would be the UK, but the UK has just left the EU and May is presiding over a process which she herself opposes, as do the British elites. Which leaves us with Japan, Italy and Canada. Japan’s past economic power is being overshadowed by China’s immense economy while in political terms the Japanese are voiceless US subcontractors. Italy should not even be part of the G7, at least not in political and economic terms, because Italy is much closer to her Mediterranean neighbors such as Spain and Greece and therefore looked down with contempt by the “northerners”, especially Germany. Which leaves Canada, arguably the most irrelevant and subservient country of them all (when is the last time Canada had anything of relevance to say about anything? Exactly). The bottom line is this: in economic terms the G7 has pretty much been replaced by the G20 while in political terms the G7 is an empty shell. Trump fully realizes that and that is why he does not even try to be polite with them.

Trump and the Eurodwarves

Obama was a born used car salesman: he could be charming and polite with anybody and everybody. Trump has never had any need to act in such a way and, in the case of the Europeans, he does not even feel like trying.

Trump’s contempt for European leaders is definitely undiplomatic and shows a basic lack of education, but it still is a contempt the European leaders richly deserve. Furthermore, while it is true that the AngloZionist Empire is sinking, the European part is sinking much faster than the American one. Which is unsurprising since the USA is truly a very unique country.

The American Sonderfall

As I was writing this article have been listening to the press conference of Donald Trump in the Rose Garden explaining to the world that the USA would now withdraw from the Paris Agreement. I don’t want to discuss the merits of this agreements or the reasons behind Trump’s decision, but I will stress that this places the USA in direct opposition to 195 other countries who signed this treaty expecting the USA to abide by its terms. 195 countries really means just about the entire planet. And yet Trump feels confident that he can afford taking a separate path and the rest of the world will have to shut up.

Trump is right. The USA is a “special case”.

There is absolutely nothing the rest of the planet can do to prevent the United States from withdrawing from this or any other agreement. The best proof of that fact can be found in the more or less official US position that it does not need a UN Security Council to impose sanctions on another nation, threaten it with military aggression or even go to war against it. Right now, the USA have attacked Syria several times already and there are US forces deployed inside Syria and nobody seems to care, which is kind of ironic considering how many lawyers there are in the USA and, even more so, in Congress. Yet everybody sheepishly accepts that the US is, for some reason, above the law, that laws are for “others”, not for the “indispensable nation” with a “duty” and a “special responsibility” to “lead the world” (sorry, I indulge, but I just love this kind of imperialistic language!).

In politics, power is not absolute, but relative. Sure, the US military is basically dysfunctional and doesn’t seem to be capable of frightening anybody on the US list of “enemies”, but compared to Europe the USA is a powerhouse. As for the Europeans, they are depending on the Americans for pretty much everything that matters. Trump understands all that and he seem to have more respect for Kim Jong-un than for Angela Merkel. I can’t blame him as this is also how I feel.

The many sweet ironies of it all

The traditional British foreign policy has always been to fosters wars in Europe to prevent any kind of continental unity. As for the US, its main objective has always been to keep “keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down”. And now we see the Brits leaving the EU and the Americans pulling out well, maybe not out of Europe per se, but out of most of Europe’s problems. So why are the Anglos pulling out? Is that not a clear sign that Europe is sinking?

One of the favorite slogans of the Ukronazis is “Україна – це Європа” (The Ukraine is Europe). Alas, as I wrote in a past article, it is Europe which “became” (like) the Ukraine: poor, corrupt, lead by hypocritical ideologues totally detached from reality and, most importantly, totally fixated on imaginary threats. The only difference between the EU leaders and their Ukronazi counterparts is that while the latter have declared that they are already fighting a Russian invasion, the former are only preparing to counter it. That’s it. Other than that, I see no difference, at least none that matters. Oh, I almost forgot the Americans: they don’t fight the Russians (yet?), but they are “defending” their country from the onslaught of Russian hackers and pro-Russian moles in the entourage of Donald Trump. Brilliant.

In this world got mad, only the Russians are patiently trying to convince their western partners to return to some semblance of sanity. But, frankly, I don’t think that they are very hopeful. They see how the so-called “West” is falling apart, how the ruling elites of the West appear to be hell-bent on self-destruction and they wonder: why are our “western partners” so determined to bring about their own demise and why are they blaming us for what they are doing to themselves? They also often laugh at the quasi magic powers the paranoid crazies in the West seem to ascribe to Russia. One senior US official, James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence, even thinks that Russians are “almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique” to subvert democracy (I can’t decide if he sounds more like a Nazi racist or a clown… probably a mix of both). As I said, the Russians are mostly laughing at it all, but just to make darn sure things don’t turn ugly, they are also re-creating their famous “Shock Armies” (including at least one Tank Army) and doubling the size of the Russian Airborne Forces bringing them to 72’000 soldiers and generally preparing for World War 3.

But for the time being, war is far less likely than it would have been the case with Hillary. What we see is Trump making “America great again” by stepping on its allies in Europe and by contemptuously disregarding the rest of humanity. That kind of arrogant megalomania is not a pretty sight for sure – but way better than WWIII. And “better than WWIII” is all we can hope for in the foreseeable future.

The Saker

Anti-Christian pogrom underway in Ukraine…while is ongoing the genocide of Donbass/Novorossiya population, Donetsk, Lugansk … by neo-Nazi gangs of Kiew regime […U.S.-NATO supported…]

Source


Anti-Christian pogrom underway in Ukraine…

…while is ongoing the genocide of Donbass/Novorossiya population, Donetsk, Lugansk … by neo-Nazi gangs of Kiew regime





ALL  VIDEOS  ARE  WITH  ENG-SUBT

Russia to supply electricity to liberated parts of Eastern Ukraine

Source

Ukraine Says Regions Weren’t Paying Their Bills

The Russian government has announced that they have begun supplying electricity to the Eastern Ukrainian oblasts of Donetsk and Luhansk today, after all electricity supplies were cut by the Ukrainian government. over what they said were unpaid bills.

Donetsk and Luhansk are rebel-held parts of Ukraine, and have been since 2014. The regions have ethnic Russian majorities and rebelled over attempts to ban Russian as an official language, and curtail trade across the Russian border. Many of the rebels advocate secession.

Ukraine’s state power company claimed the regions were some $431 million in debt over non-payment of bills. Russia says that they will be providing power through pre-existing lines effective immediately to avoid loss of electricity to some 3 million people in the effected areas.

The decision by the Ukrainian government to cut power to the region appears to be an attempt to put pressure on the secessionist movement, though ironically by forcing them to turn to Russia for electricity they may further enhanced the region’s link to the Russian Federation.

 

%d bloggers like this: