مؤرخ أمريكي نعوم شومسكي يكشف عن الهدف الحقيقي لواشنطن في أوكرانيا

2022-08-20

وقال شومسكي إن واشنطن تريد أن تمنع موسكو من إمكانية تسوية الأزمة الأوكرانية بطريقة دبلوماسية، الأمر الذي يمكن أن يزيد حدة التوتر في العالم إلى أقصى حد ممكن، مذكرا أن هذا القرار اتخذه الناتو أثناء قمته في قاعدة رامشتاين الجوية في ألمانيا.

وأوضح: “في تلك القمة وافق الحلف، بما في ذلك أوروبا، على الموقف الرسمي للولايات المتحدة الذي ينص على أنه من الضروري تحقيق إضعاف روسيا لأكبر حد ممكن، لكي لا يكون بإمكانها القيام بالمزيد من الأعمال الواسعة النطاق. وإذا فكرنا في ذلك بشكل جيد فيعني ذلك أنه من الضروري إضعاف روسيا بشكل أكثر مما عملته اتفاقية فيرسال لعام 1919 بألمانيا. إنها تحتاج إلى تقويض قوة روسيا إلى حد لن يسمح لها بإجراء مفاوضات والقيام بعمل دبلوماسي”.

كما عبر الباحث عن خيبة أمله من استعداد الدول الأوروبية للخضوع لقرارات البيت الأبيض لتجنب وصفها بـ “الخائن” للقيم الغربية. وأضاف: “تدعم أوروبا وجهة النظر هذه. كان الأمريكيون دائما يتمسكون بهذه السياسة، غير أن ألمانيا وفرنسا كانتا تجريان العملية الدبلوماسية البديلة، لكن في هذه القمة وافقتا على الموقف الأمريكي”.

وعبر شومسكي عن اعتقاده بأن الموقف الأوروبي من الأزمة الأوكرانية ليس عادلا، مذكرا بأسالوب أمريكا لفرض نظامها في العراق وسوريا وليبيا، وكيفية عرض ما يحدث في أوكرانيا في وسائل الإعلام الدولية. وتابع: “أهتم جدا بمتابعة ما تكتبه وسائل الإعلام الأمريكية التي تصف التطورات الأوكرانية بأنها نزاع “غير مبرر”. وهذا هو الوضع الوحيد الذي من الممكن فيه استخدام هذا المصطلح… وهو يشير إلى وجود فهم أن ما يحدث تمت إثارته بالفعل. لذلك بالذات يجب تكرار هذه العبارة دائما. ولا يستخدمها أحد عندما يدور الحديث عن النزاعات الأخرى”.

هذا ووصف شومسكي رغبة واشنطن القديمة لجذب أوكرانيا إلى حلف الناتو رغم احتجاجات موسكو المستمرة والتحذيرات من جانب الساسة الأمريكيين ذوي الخبرة، وصفها بأنها استفزاز.

وتابع: “كانت روسيا قد أفهمت منذ 30 عاما، أي قبل سنوات طويلة قبل بوتين، بأن ضم أوكرانيا إلى حلف الناتو، وهو حلف عسكري عدائي، سيعني عبورا للخط، وأن أي زعيم روسي لن يوافق على ذلك، لا غورباتشوف ولا يلتسين ولا بوتين. وفهم عدد من الساسة الأمريكيين الكبار ذلك، وبينهم جورج كينان وهنري كيسنجر وجيك ميدلوك ورئيس وكالة الاستخبارات المركزية الأمريكية ويليام بيرنز. وفهم ذلك موجود منذ وقت بعيد. ومنذ التسعينيات من القرن الماضي يحاولون تحذير المسوؤلين الأمريكيين من أن محاولات ضم أوكرانيا إلى حلف الناتو ستكون تهورا واستفزازا”.

المصدر: نوفوستي

Will the Ukraine be partitioned next and, if so, how?

August 16, 2022

Interesting info today.  First, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service has, through the statement of a Colonel General, made the following statement (translated by my friend Andrei Martyanov on his blog): (emphasis added)

Translation: MOSCOW, August 16 – RIA Novosti. Western curators have practically written off the Kyiv regime and are already planning the partition of Ukraine, Foreign Intelligence Service spokesman Colonel-General Volodymyr Matveev said at the Moscow Conference on International Security. “Obviously, the West is not concerned about the fate of the Kyiv regime. As can be seen from the information received by the SVR, Western curators have almost written it off and are in full swing developing plans for the division and occupation of at least part of the Ukrainian lands,” he said. However, according to the general, much more is at stake than Ukraine: for Washington and its allies, it is about the fate of the colonial system of world domination.

Just to clarify, the SVR rarely makes public statements and when they do, you can take them to the bank as the SVR is not in the business of “leaks” from “informed sources” and all the rest of the PR nonsense produced by the so-called western “intelligence” agencies (which have now been fully converted to highly politicized propaganda outlets).

The same day I see this article on the RT website: “Western countries waiting for ‘fall of Ukraine’ – Kiev” in which an interesting statement the Ukronazi Foreign Minister is mentioned:

Several countries in the West are waiting for Kiev to surrender and think their problems will immediately solve themselves, said Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba in an interview published on Tuesday.  “I often get asked in interviews and while speaking to other foreign ministers: how long will you last? That’s instead of asking what else could be done to help us defeat Putin in the shortest time possible,” Kuleba said, noting that such questions suggest that everyone “is waiting for us to fall and for their problems to disappear on their own.

Finally, a while ago, Dmitri Medvedev post this “future map of the Ukraine after the war” on his Telegram account.  This maps shows a Ukraine partitioned between her neighbors and a tiny rump Ukraine left in the center.

Now, full disclosure, I have been a proponent of the breakup of the Ukraine into several successor states for a long while now: I gave my reasons for this in my article “The case for the breakup of the Ukraine” written in faraway 2016.

Now, six years later, what are the chances of this happening?

Without making predictions, which is close to impossible right now as there are way too many variables which can dramatically influence the outcome, I want to list a few arguments for and against the likelihood (as opposed to desirability) of such an outcome.

Arguments for the likelihood of this outcome:

  • First, most of the neighbors of the Ukraine would benefit from such an outcome.  Poland would not get the “intermarium” it always dreams about, but it would get back lands which historically belong to Poland and are populated by many Poles.  In this map, Romania would also get a good deal, albeit Moldavia would lose Transnistria, which it had no real chance to ever truly control anyway.  Romania might, therefore, even absorb all of Moldavia.  True, on this map, Hungary gets (almost) nothing, but that is an issue which Hungary must tackle with Poland and Romania, not Russia.
  • Russia might not even oppose such a development, simply because it makes the Ukronazi problem somebody else’s issue.  As long as what is the current Ukraine is fully demilitarized and denazified, Russia will be fine with such an outcome.
  • The rump ex-Banderastan would be so much reduced in size, population and ressources that it would present little to no threat to anybody.  Crucially, the Russians will never allow it to have anything more than a minimal police and internal security force (for at least as long as there remains even *traces* of the Ukronazi Banderista ideology anywhere near Russia).  The actual chances of this rump Banderastan to become a threat to anybody would be close to zero.  Not to mention that even if that rump Banderastan could become some kind of threat, it would be much easier to deal with it than the threat Russia faced in early 2022.
  • Objectively, the European countries would get the best possible “out” for them, as being in a constant state of total war by proxy is absolutely unsustainable for countries of Europe.
  • As for “Biden”, assuming he is still alive and in power (?), it would make it possible for “him” to remove the topic of this latest war lost (again!) by the USA from the headlines and deal with other issues.
  • The Ukraine has been such a waste of money, billions and billions, that it is essentially a black hole with an event horizon which lets nothing come back out and beyond which anything, money, equipment or men, simply disappear.  That is clearly an unsustainable drain on the economies of the West.
  • Yet, in theory, if a deal is made and all parties agree, then the EU could remove maybe not all, but at least the worst, self-damaging, sanctions it so stupidly implemented and which are now destroying the EU’s economy.
  • For the USA the biggest benefit from such an outcome could be, in theory, that it would “close” the “Russian front” and allow the US to focus its hatred and aggression against China.

There are, however, also many arguments against such an outcome.

  • First, the western ruling classes, drunk on total russophobia, would have to accept that Russia won this war (again) and defeated the combined powers of the West (again).  This would mean an immense loss of face and political credibility for all those involved in the political war against Russia.
  • Second, for NATO this would be a disaster.  Remember that NATO’s real goal is to “keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down“.  In this case, how would an even expanded NATO accept that it could do absolutely nothing to stop the Russians from achieving all their goals?
  • Next, while the people of the EU are suffering from the devastating economic policies of their rulers, the ruling elites (the EU 1%) are doing just fine, thank you, and don’t give a damn about the people they rule over.
  • Such an outcome would also directly challenge the US desire for a unipolar world, run by Uncle Shmuel as the World Hegemon.  The risk here is a political domino effect in which more and more countries would struggle to achieve true sovereignty, which would be a direct threat to the US economic model.
  • Such an outcome is almost certain to be unachievable while the Neocons run the USA.  And since there are NO signs of the weakening of the Neocons’ iron grip on all the levers of political powers in the USA, such an outcome could only happen if the Neocon crazies are sent back to the basement they crawled out from and where they belong.  Not likely in the foreseeable future.
  • This focus on the partition of the Ukraine overlooks the fact that the Ukraine is not the real enemy of Russia.  In fact, the Ukraine lost the war to Russia in the first 7-10 days after the beginning of the SMO.  Ever since, it is not the Ukraine per se which Russia has been fighting, but the consolidated West.  If the real enemy is the consolidated West, the it could be argued that *any* outcome limited to the Ukraine would not fix or solve anything.  At best, it might be an intermediate stage of a much larger and longer war in which Russia will have to demilitarize and denazify not just Banderastan but, at the very least, all of the EU/NATO countries.
  • While for some the Ukrainian war has been an economic disaster, it has been a fantastic windfall for the (terminally corrupt) US MIC.  And I won’t even go into the obvious corruption ties the Biden family has in Kiev.  If this “Medvedev solution” is ever realized, then all that easy money would disappear.
  • Furthermore, while amongst the argument for such an outcome I listed the ability of the USA to “close the Russian front” and focus on China, in reality such an arguments makes a very far-fetched assumption: that it is still possible to separate Russia and China and that Russia would allow the US to strike at China.  Simply put, Russia cannot allow China to be defeated any more than China can allow for a Russian defeat.  Thus the entire notion of “closing the Russian front” is illusory, in reality things have gone way too far for that and neither Russia nor China will allow the US to take them down one by one.
  • The EU is run by a comprador ruling class which is totally subservient to the interests of the US Neocons.  There are, already, many internal tensions inside the EU and such an outcome would be a disaster for those all those EU politicians who painted themselves into the corner of a total war against Russia, and even if, say, the Poles, Romanians or even Hungarians get some benefit from such an outcome, it would be unacceptable to the thugs currently running Germany, the UK or even France.

The arguments for and against such an outcome I listed above are just some examples, in reality there are many more arguments on both sides of this issue.  Besides, what made sense 6 years ago might not make sense today.

For example, this discussion focuses on the “what” but not on the “how”.  Let me explain.

I think that I was the first person in the West who noticed and translated a key Russian expression: “non agreement capable” (недоговороспособны).  This expression has been increasingly used by many Russian decision-makers, politicians, political commentators and others.  Eventually, even the folks in the West picked up on this.  So let’s revisit this issue again, keeping in mind that the Russians are now fully convinced that the West is simply “non agreement capable”.  I would argue that up until the Russian ultimatum to the USA and NATO, the Russians still left open the door to some kind of negotiations.  However, and as I predicted BEFORE the Russian ultimatum, Russia made the only possibly conclusion from the West’s stance: if our “partners” (sarcasm) are not agreement capable, then the time has come for Russian unilateralism.

True, ever since 2013, or even 2008, there were already signs that Russian decision making is gradually moving towards unilateralism.  But the Russian ultimatum and SMO are now the “pure” signs of the adoption by Russia of unilateralism, at least towards the consolidated West.

If that is correct, then I would suggest that most arguments above, on both sides of the issue, are have basically become obsolete and irrelevant.

Furthermore, I would like to add a small reminder here: most of the combat operations in the Ukraine are not even conducted by Russian forces, but by LDNR forces supported by Russian C4ISR and firepower.  But in terms of her real military potential, Russia has used less than 10% of her military and Putin was quite candid about this when he said “we have not even begun to act seriously“.

What do you think this war will look like if Russia decides to really unleash her full military power, that is the 90% of forces which are currently not participating in the SMO?

Here is a simple truth which most folks in the West cannot even imagine: Russia does not fear NATO at all.

If anything, the Russians have already understood that they have the means to impose whatever outcome they chose to unilaterally impose on their enemies.  The notion of a US/NATO attack on Russia is simply laughable.  Yes, the USA has a very powerful submarine force which can fire lots of Tomahawk and Harpoon missiles at Russian targets.  And yes, the US has a still robust nuclear triad.  But neither of these will help the USA win a land war against the Russian armed forces.

And no, sending a few thousands US soldiers to this or that NATO country to “reinforce NATO’s eastern flank” is pure PR, militarily, it is not even irrelevant, it’s laughable.  I won’t even comment on the sending of F-35s which is so utterly ridiculous and useless against the Russian Aerospace Forces and air defenses that I won’t even bother arguing with those who don’t understand how bad both the F-35s (and even the F-22s!) really are.

I won’t dignify the EU’s military capabilities with any comment other than this: countries who now seriously advocate taking less frequent showers to “show Putin!” have sunk to such a level of irrelevance and degeneracy that they cannot be taken seriously, most definitely not in Russia.

So where do we go from here?

As I said, I don’t know, there are too many variables.  But a few things seem clear to me:

  • Russia has decided to full unilateralism in her policies towards the Ukraine and the West.  Oh sure, if and when needed, Russians will still agree to talk to their western “partners”, but that is due to the long standing Russian policy of always talking to everybody and anybody, even Russia’s worst enemies.  Why?  Because neither warfare not political unilateralism are an end by themselves, they are only means to achieve a specific political goal.  Thus, it is always good to sit down with your enemy, especially if you have been gently but steadily increasing the pain dial on them for a few months!  The Europeans being the “great supine protoplasmic invertebrate jellies” (to quite BoJo) they are might cave in quickly and suddenly or, at the very least, they will try to improve their lot by trying to bypass their own sanctions (Uncle Shmuel permitting, however reluctantly).
  • The only party with any real agency left with which Russia could seriously negotiate is the USA, of course.  However, as long as the USA under the total control of the Neocons, this is a futile exercise.
  • Should there ever be any kind of deal made, it would only be one which would be fully and totally verifiable.  Contrary to popular beliefs, a great many treaties and agreements can be crafted to be fully verifiable, that is not a technical problem by itself.  However, with the current ruling classes of the West, no such deal is likely to be hammered out and agreed by all parties involved.

So what is left?

There is a Russian saying which my grandmother taught me as a kid: “the borders of Russia are found at the end of a Cossack’s spear“.  This saying, born from 1000 years of existential warfare with no natural borders simply expresses a basic reality: the Russian armed forces are the ones who decide where Russia ends.  Or you can flip it this way: “the only natural border of Russia are the capabilities of the Russian armed forces”.  You can think of it has pre-1917 Russian unilateralism 🙂

Still, this begs the question of the moral and ethical foundation for such a stance.  After all, does it not suggest that Russia gives herself the right to invade any country it can just because she can?

Not at all!

While there were imperialist and expansionist wars in Russian history, compared to the West’s 1000 years of wall to wall imperialism, Russia is but a meek and gentle lamb!  Not that this excuses anything, it is simply a fact.  The rest of the Russian wars were, almost all, existential wars, for the survival and freedom of the Russian nation.  I cannot think of a more “just war” than one which 1) was imposed upon you and 2) one in which your sole goal is to survive as a free and sovereign nation, especially a multi-ethnic and multi-religious nation as the Russian one has always been, in sharp contrast to the enemies of Russia which were always driven by religious, nationalist and even overtly racist fervor (which is what we can all observe again today, long after the end of WWII).

Is this just propaganda?  If you think so, then you can study Russian history or, better, study the current military doctrine of Russia and you will see that Russia’s force planning is entirely defensive, especially at the strategic level.  The best proof of that is that Russia put up with all the ugly racist and russophobic policies of the Ukraine or the three Baltic statelets for decades without taking any action.  But when the Ukraine became a de facto NATO proxy and directly threatened not only the Donbass, but Russia herself (does anybody still remember that days before the SMO, “Ze” declared that the Ukraine should get nuclear weapons?!), then Russia took action.  You have to be either blind or fantastically dishonest not to admit that self-evident fact.

[Sidebar: by the way, the three Baltic statelets, for which Russia has not use at all, are constantly trying to become a military threat to Russia, not only by hosting NATO forces, but also by truly idiotic plans to “lock” the Baltic with Finland.  Combine this was the Nazi anti-Russian Apartheid policies towards the Russian minorities and you would be forgiven for thinking that the Balts really want to be the next ones to be denazified and demilitarized.  But… but… – you will say  – “since they are members of NATO, they cannot be attacked!”.  Well, if you believe that 1) anybody in NATO will fight Russia over these statelets or 2) that NATO has the military means to protect them, then I have got plenty of great bridges to sell you.  Still, the most effective way to deal with the Balts is to let them commit economic suicide, which they basically have already done, and then promise them a few “economic carrots” for a change to a more civilized attitude.  A Russian saying says that “the refrigerator wins against the TV” (победа холодильника над телевизором) which means that when your refrigerator is empty, the propaganda on TV loses its power.  I think that the future of the 3 Baltic statelets will be defined by that aphorism]

So will the Ukraine be partitioned?

Yes, absolutely, it has already lost huge parts of its territory and it will only lose more.

Might the western neighbors decide to take a bite out off the western Ukraine?  Sure!  That is a real possibility.

But these will all be either unilateral actions or very unofficially coordinated understandings wrapped in plausible deniability (like the deployment Polish “peacekeepers” to “protect” the western Ukraine).  But mostly I predict two things will happen: 1) Russia will achieve all of her goals unilaterally without making any deals with anybody and 2) Russia will only allow the Ukraine’s western neighbors to bite off some chucks of the Ukraine if, and only if, those chunks to not represent any military threat to Russia.

Remember what Putin said about Finland and Sweden and Finland joining NATO?  He said that by itself, this is not a problem for Russia.  But he warned that should these countries host US/NATO forces and weapons systems threatening Russia, than Russia will have to take counter-measures.  I think that this is also the Kremlin’s position about the future of any rump-Banderastan and any moves by NATO countries (including Poland, Romania and Hungary) to reacquire territories which historically belonged to them or which have substantial Polish, Romanian and Hungarian minorities.

Right now, we are only in the second phase of the SMO (which centers of the Donbass) and Russia has not even initiated any operations to move deeper into the Ukraine.  As for the real war, the war between Russia and the combined West, it has been going on for no less than decade, or even more, and this war will last much longer than the SMO in the Ukraine.  Finally, the outcome of this war will see  tectonic and profound changes at least as damatic as the changes resulting from the outcomes of WWI and WWII.

The Russians understand that what they now really must do is to truly finish WWII and that the formal end of WWII in 1945 only marked the transition to a different type of warfare still imposed by a united, consolidated West, but now not by German Nazis but by (mostly) US Neocons (which, of course, are typical racist Nazis, except their racism is Anglo and Judaic/Zionist).

I will conclude with a short quote by Bertold Brecht which, I think, is deeply understood by Russia today:

Therefore learn how to see and not to gape.
To act instead of talking all day long.
The world was almost won by such an ape!
The nations put him where his kind belong.
But don’t rejoice too soon at your escape –
The womb he crawled from is still going strong.”

― Bertolt Brecht, The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui

Russia slaughtered a lot of western apes in her history, now is the time to finally deal with the womb from which they crawled out from.

Andrei

PS: FYI – the Russian investigation has declared that the explosions in the airfield in Crimea was an act of sabotage/diversion.  Which was the most likely explanation to begin with.

Nancy braves the Chinese dragon and wins?

August 02, 2022

Source

So, it appears that Pelosi landed in Taiwan. This is a HUGE victory for the invincible USA and China with all its hollow threats has now lost face.  That is how those evil commies are – they only understand the language of force, and when faced with the united forces of democracy they cave.

Right?

Right?!

Well……

Yes, if your expertise in international relation, military matters and China (or Russia) come from reading Tom Clancy’s books, then yes.

But there is another way to look at this:

First, in objective terms, this visit is a pure provocation with no practical effects whatsoever.  Pelosi is as much a old teleprompter reading hag as President Brandon.  Whatever real dealings the USA and Taiwan had to discuss, they would have done that either remotely or by arranging a meeting between people capable of thinking.

Second, just like Russia many times in the past, the Chinese drew a red line and then let the US cross it.  Being the narcissistic civilization that it is, the West only saw this as a sign of “weakness”, “indecisiveness” or even “naivete”.  What these folks fail to even think about is this: how do you feel most Chinese will react both to the visit and to the lack of Chinese reaction (so far!)?  They will get mad and express their frustrations.  Now look at it from the Chinese government’s point of view, rather then spending billions on anti-US propaganda they, instead, let the US humiliate China and thereby solidifying the Chinese population for the day when the real confrontation will take place.

[Sidebar: there is a direct connection between years of Kremlin’s rather weak and mostly verbal protests and the “sudden” appearance of the Russian ultimatum to the West followed by the SMO: the Kremlin literally “cooked” its own public opinion to the point were IT *demanded* strong action.  Far from alienating or frightening most Russians, the SMO came as a huge relief to them: “we are FINALLY putting the foot down and taking real action”.  That would not have been possible before 2018.  Those in the West who saw Putin’s “indecisiveness” simply don’t understand the Russian mindset anymore than they understand the Chinese one.  Simply put: you cannot prepare for war without preparing your own population for it! That is what Tom Clancy does to the brains of those reading him]

Third, let me ask you a simple question: who decided on the timing of Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan?  The answer is obvious, it was the leaders of the USA.  And you can bet that they had everything carefully lined up to make that visit happen in the best of possible circumstances.  Now, a BASIC principle of warfare is that you do NOT let your enemy chose the time and place of the battle. Yes, yes, yes, in the western culture any “affront” (real or perceived) demands an immediate reaction.  But the Chinese have been at this for many millennia, not just 200 years, and they know better and you can be sure that THEY, not the USA, will chose the time, place and mode of retaliation.

In sum, the woke-soaking narcissists who run the USA can celebrate how they chose to show “them Chinese commies” who is boss.  Just like they did with Russia between 1991 and 2021.  And then, when the Russians decided to act, Uncle Shmuel was caught totally off-guard and clueless as to who to deal with this sudden and direct threat.

Last but not least.  That kind of imperial arrogance is something which not only impact (the already pretty angry Chinese population), it also infuriates all of Zone B, thereby creating the conditions for more defeats for the USA in Asia, Africa, the Indian Subcontinent, Central Asia and Latin America.

Most US Americans have absolutely no idea how offensive their condescending arrogance, constant flag waving, talks about their messianic mission for mankind and general narcissism is offensive to the rest of the planet.  But when you look objectively at the endless list of US failures pretty much anywhere on the planet, you can tell that there is something deep going on here.  For some reason, the “Yankees go home” thing seems to be very contagious.

I think that Nancy Pelosi deserves our profound gratitude.  She should get at least two medals:

  • One from the CP of China in gratitude for her endless efforts to rally the people of China around their government and
  • One from Russia, for her endless efforts into solidifying the Russian-Chinese alliance.

Truth be told, between Bliken and Pelosi the national security interests of China and Russia are in good hands 🙂

Andrei

ما الخطة العسكريّة الروسيّة التي اعتمدت في أوكرانيا… ونتائجها؟

 العميد د. أمين محمد حطيط _

خطّطت أميركا وخلفها الغرب الأوروبي لاستدراج روسيا الى أوكرانيا وإغراقها في مستنقع لا تستطيع الخروج منه أو لا تخرج منه إلا بعد إنهاكها والقضاء على اقتصادها لا بل والنيل من وحدتها وتفكيكها الى دول متناحرة تضيع بين حدودها المكانة النووية استراتيجياً وتفقد حق الفيتو في مجلس الأمن دولياً وهما الميزتان اللتان كانتا للاتحاد السوفياتي وورثتهما روسيا بعد تفككه، واليوم تريد أميركا شطبهما من الكينونة الروسية بشكل نهائي. كلّ ذلك تقدم عليه أميركا من أجل إسقاط المثلث الاستراتيجي المشرقيّ الذي يرفض ويعمل من أجل الإجهاز النهائي على فكرة الأحادية القطبية التي حلمت بها أميركا وخاضت من أجل إرسائها الحروب المتتالية والمتنوّعة، فكرة لا تزال تدغدغ أحلامها رغم ما واجهته من عوائق وما مُنيت صاحبتها من هزائم.

وحتى تنفذ خطتها لجأت أميركا الى تدابير استفزازية دفعت اليها أوكرانيا الدولة الجار لروسيا ذات الـ ٤٥ مليون نسمة (ما يعادل ربع سكان روسيا) وذات المساحة التي تتجاوز الـ 600 الف كلم2، ومنذ العام 2014 بدأت أميركا بخطتها الجهنمية ضدّ روسيا بالانقلاب الذي أطاح بحكومة أوكرانية وطنية تقيم علاقات حسن جوار طبيعية مع روسيا، انقلاب جاء الى الحكم بدمية بيد الغرب وفئة من القوميين والنازيين الجدد المعبّأين بعميق الكراهية ضدّ روسيا، ما فرض على روسيا اتخاذ الوضع الدفاعي عن مصالحها ومستقبلها والأهم حاضراً عن أمنها القومي وأمن الأشخاص الروس او الذين هم من أصل روسي ويقيمون في أوكرانيا بصفتهم مواطنين بعد ان ضمتّ القيادة السوفياتية السابقة ارضاً روسية الى أوكرانيا لتشكل منها دولة في الاتحاد السوفياتي احتفظت بالأرض الروسية بعد تفكك الاتحاد السوفياتي.

حاولت روسيا جاهدة التفلت مما ينصب لها في أوكرانيا من كمائن او فخاخ، وعرضت بأكثر من طريقة ووسيلة وأسلوب حلولاً لما تخشاه خاصة على صعيد الأمن القومي وامن الأشخاص الروس، وكان الرفض الأميركي بصلافة وتعنّت هو الردّ دائماً وكان هذا طبيعياً من أميركا التي تخطط بالشكل الجهنّمي ضدّ روسيا، ووصلت الأمور في نهاية المطاف الى وضع روسيا أمام خيارين: اما السكوت على الاستفزاز وتآكل الموقع والقدرات والوصول الى يوم لن يكون بعيداً تضطر فيه للدفاع عن الدولة على أبواب موسكو وتتذكر يومها الغزو الغربي لها أكثر من مرة وما خلفه من قتل ودمار، او المبادرة بعمل عسكري استباقي ووقائي يقيها من هذه الأخطار دون أن تدخل النار أرض الدولة الروسية. بين الأمرين اختارت الحلّ الثاني رغم ما فيه، من مخاطر وما ينطوي عليه من الوقوع في الفخ الأميركي، ويحقق رغبة أميركا في اقتياد روسيا الى حرب استنزاف قاتلة،

بيد انّ روسيا ومع اختيارها للعمل العسكري النوعي الاستباقي، الذي اضطرت عليه كخيار بين السيّئ والأسوأ. واختارت السيّئ، بادرت الى وضع خطط تنفيذية تجنبها قدر الإمكان او الى الحدّ الأقصى الانزلاق الى حرب استنزاف أو عمليات قتل المدنيين كما تشتهي أميركا ومن أجل ذلك اختارت للتنفيذ استراتيجية الضغط المتدرّج الذي أملت منها حمل القيادة الأوكرانية على التفاوض تحت وطأة الميدان والضغط العسكري فيه من أجل الاستجابة للمطالب الروسية ذات الصلة بالأمن القومي الروسي وأمن الأشخاص الروس.

وفي التنفيذ ترجمت هذه الاستراتيجية عسكرياً بما يؤدي الى تدمير القدرات العسكرية الأوكرانية وتجفيف مصادر القوة، ونزع الانياب والأظافر وحرمان أوكرانيا من الإمكانات العسكرية الذاتية او التي تمنح لها من الخارج لتتمكن من إدارة حرب استنزاف ناجحة وطويلة الأمد تحقق لأميركا اهدافها. ومن أجل ذلك التزمت ونفذت روسيا ميدانياً بما يلي:

ـ الاقتصاد بالقوى مع تخصيص جزء بسيط من قواتها المسلحة وقواتها العسكرية وإناطة مهمة العملية العسكرية النوعية به، ولذلك لم تزجّ في الميدان وتدفع عبر الحدود أكثر من ١/١٣ من قواتها المقاتلة وهي نسبة متدنية جداً كما يعلم العسكريون لا يكون من شأنها ان ترهق الجيش مهما طال أمد العمليات.

ـ التخطيط للحرب الطويلة غير المرهقة حتى لا يكون طول المدة أداة ضغط عكسية على روسيا.

ـ التوجه لتدمير القدرات العسكرية الأوكرانية شاملاً الأسلحة والذخائر في الميدان وفي المستودعات وفي مصانع الإنتاج بما يحرم الجيش الأوكراني من الوسائل العسكرية المحلية التي تلزمه للقتال والمواجهة والصمود.

ـ اعتماد استراتيجية الحصار  للإنهاك النفسي والميداني الذي يفرغ المدن من سكانها ما يقود الى إسقاطها في نهاية المطاف مع تجنب حرب الشوارع ومعارك الالتحام وخسائرها او قتل المدنيين في بيوتهم، وفي هذه النقطة قلبت روسيا الاتجاه حيث تجنّبت حرب الاستنزاف ودفعت الخصم اليها وهو برأينا إبداع روسي.

ـ الاندفاع البدئيّ السريع للعملية عبر الحدود مع تعدّد محاور العمل (٣ محاور رئيسية ومحورين ثانويين) بما يحقق الصدمة والرعب ويقود الى الانهيار الإدراكي والإخراج من الميدان دون قتال لأنّ هدف روسيا لم يكن القتل بل التحييد عن القتال،

ـ رسم الخطوط الحمراء الصارمة بوجه التدخل الغربي الأطلسي وتجلى ذلك بـ ٣ مواقف الأول التلويح بالسلاح النووي الرادع، والثاني اعتبار قوافل الإمداد العسكري أهدافاً  مشروعة أينما كانت، والثالث اعتبار فتح مراكز التدريب والتحشيد وتجنيد الأجانب عملاً يستوجب التدخل لتدميرها.

ـ الارتقاء التصاعدي في استعمال الاسلحة بشكل يحقق مصالح روسية مركبة من عملانية ولوجستية واستراتيجية مع التقيّد بقاعدة “التناسب والضرورة” حسب المستطاع والحاجة والإمكان، ومن هنا نفهم كيف لجأت روسيا الى استعمال صاروخ “كنجال” ذي الرأس عالي الدقة والخارق للتحصينات من أجل تدمير مستودعات الأسلحة والذخائر، او إطلاق صاروخ باستون من قطعة بحرية في البحر الأسود ليدمّر أهدافاً في البر الأوكراني رغم أنه في الاصل معدّ للاستعمال ضدّ السفن، ففي هذه النقطة يبدو انّ روسيا تتجه الى عرض واستعراض القوة والقدرات العسكرية العالية المستوى وتأكيد قرارها الاستراتيجي بالمضيّ حتى النهاية لتحقيق أهدافها مهما استلزم ذلك من بذل.

ـ الإمساك بورقة المصانع البيولوجية والجرثومية التي أقامتها أميركا في أوكرانيا والتلويح بفضح الخطط الأميركية بصددها.

وبالنتيجة وفي اقلّ من شهر تمكنت روسيا من تحييد اكثر من ٧٥٪ من الجيش الأوكراني وفرض الحصار على ٣ مدن رئيسية منها العاصمة كييف كما وإحكام حصار بحري كامل على أوكرانيا فحرمتها من التجارة عبر البحرين الأسود وآزوف، كما أنها دمّرت المصانع العسكرية في معظم أوكرانيا ووضعت اليد على قاعدتين نوويتين أساسيتين في تشيرنوبيل وزاباروجيا متجنبة الى الحدّ الأقصى المواجهات الميدانية المباشرة ومعتمدة بشكل رئيسي على القدرات النارية براً وجواً وبحراً وعلى قدرات الصدم المناسبة.

وعلى هذا الأساس نستطيع القول من الوجهة العسكرية إنّ روسيا التي تعمل مع هوامش أمان كثيرة بعيداً عن ضغط الوقت، تجنّبت حرب الاستنزاف لا بل دفعت الخصم اليها وصاغت أسس معركتها بشكل يمكنها من تحقيق أهدافها بشكل مؤكد ما يعني أنّ أوكرانيا ستكون ميدان فشل إضافي للسياسة الأميركية التي حصدت فشلاً مركباً والأخطر فيه هو الفشل الاستراتيجي المتمثل بسقوط نهائي للأحادية القطبية.

أستاذ جامعي ـ باحث استراتيجي

فيديوات متعلقة

مقالات متعلقة

Pepe Escobar Live with Rachel Marsden

A MUST SEE

Please distribute

The many “great coming outs” triggered by the war in the Ukraine

March 20, 2022

Source

Dear friends,

For four weeks now we have been discussing the Russian special military operation in the Ukraine and most of what we looked at was happening either in the Ukraine proper or near it.  I did mention plenty of time that “this is not about the Ukraine, this is about the future collective security arrangement of Europe“, which is true.  But even that does not show the full picture.  So today I propose to widen the scope further and look at some absolutely crucial developments inside Russia.  Beginning with the most amazing result, at least in my opinion:

The total failure of US PSYOPs inside Russia

I wrote many times already that the Russians got their collective asses handed to them by the massive propaganda machine of the Empire of Lies.  But when I wrote that, I should have been more accurate and write that this is true OUTSIDE Russia.  Inside, almost the polar opposite happened.

First, let’s remember the various existing movements inside Russia:

  • Putinists.  My preferred term for them is Eurasian Sovereignists.  These are the folks in/near power who see the future of Russia as a truly sovereign country fully integrated into the Eurasian landmass. They see the future of Russia in the South, East and North, and want nothing to do with the West anymore.  They are opposed by those whom I call the
  • Atlantic Integrationists.  These are the folks in/near power who want Russia to be accepted as an equal partner into the world order favored by the ruling elites of the United States.  According to some, this faction does not exist.  Yet we can very clearly see their immense influence, especially on the Russian economic financial sector.
  • The official, “systemic”, opposition.  These are the parties which made it into the Duma and while they talk and protest a lot, they are a loyal opposition which supports the Kremlin every time that support is needed.  I would call them all “uninspiringly acceptable”.
  • The 5th columnists.  These are the self-declared “creative class” and gender-fluid “liberals” who dream of the day Russia becomes the next Poland (they think that Guadio or Tikhanovskaia are heroes).  These folks are totally sold out to the Empire of Lies and are the voice of that Empire in Russia.  Their incomes almost always depend on maintaining the political system created during the Eltsin years and which now the Kremlin has (FINALLY!) began to shut down.
  • The 6th columnists.  Ruslan Ostashko calls them the “emo-Marxists”, which is a good expression which I shall adopt.  These are also called “hurray patriots” or “turbo patriots”.  They blame Putin for being weak, sold out to the West, corrupt and dishonest.  They also oppose Putin’s ideology (patriotism instead of nationalism, and economic liberalism) and for decades now they are the ones who say 1) Putin has sold out or 2) Putin is about to sell out 3) all is lost.  For them a “Putin victory” in the Ukraine would be way WORSE than the total defeat of Russia by the West.  Thus they wrap themselves in the flag of patriotism, but in reality they are what Russians call “defeatists” (пораженцы).

Here is how the leaders of the Empire of Lies most likely relate to these groups:

GroupRelationship of the Empire to these groups
Eurasian Sovereignists (aka Putinists)Putin is basically the devil incarnate and removing him is the single most important goal upon which the West has already spent many BILLIONS of dollars on.  Yes, this is a Crusade, an anti-Putin Crusade by the self-same folks who waged all the crusades…
Atlantic IntegrationistsThey were extremely useful for decades (since the early 80s at least), but their shrinking influence makes them much less useful than in the past.  Putin is responsible for that degradation of their influence.  But they still have enough power to maintain agents of influence in the Russian ruling elites.
The official, systemic, oppositionUseful poodles, they give Russia all the “democratic trappings” needed, but they don’t threaten the Kremlin in any real way.  Besides, they often hate the West even more than the official party of the government (United Russia).
5th columnistsThey have become useless.  They have zero traction and, at most, they can get less than 1000 people in the streets in multi-million cities.  Also, their legal and IT “wings” have been clipped by various new laws.  At best, they can now emigrate to the Zone A and pretend to be political refugees or “dissidents”.  I recommend the UK or Israel.
6th columnistsThey were the last and biggest hope of the western PSYOPs.  Their mission: break the morale of the Russian society and, if at all possible, try to either overthrow Putin or force him to deal with mass protests.  As we shall see below, they failed as miserably as the 5th columnists.

So what happened?  Here is a quick list of factors which contributed to this outcome:

  • New laws were passed forcing foreign agents to publicly declare when they are getting money from abroad (irrespective from whom, CIA, MI6, NED, Soros, etc.).
  • Many western-run social media outlets, who were banning any non-russophobic voices, have now been banned in Russia, again, FINALLY!  Telegram is booming, let’s hope the Empire does not bring Telegram to heel next.
  • Russian foreign policy successes forced the Atlantic Integrationists to keep a low profile because it is hard to criticize a regime which, for example, so successfully dealt with the pre-2022 sanctions while saving a country like Syria.  Furthermore, the steady increase in hostility between the West and Russia made it hard for them to sing the virtues of that same West which now openly backs Nazis in the Ukraine with every resource the Empire of Lies has.  This is why even Dmitri Medvedev has now quickly rebranded himself as a patriot!
  • The 6th columnists and their mantra “Putin is about to sellout the Donbass” now look totally stupid since far from selling out the Donbass, Putin has used the Donbass as a cover and pretext to change the entire collective security architecture of Europe and, really, the entire planet.  Also, the 6th columnist made a HUGE mistake about the war in the Ukraine: their theses became increasingly indistinguishable from those of the 5th columnists.  Keep in mind that in the Russian culture to wish or advocate for a defeat when Russia is at war is basically an act of treason (lots of new laws passed recently by the Duma, the 5th and 6th columnists better be careful with what they say and do next!).
  • The first week of the special military operation was by far the most difficult one not only for the Russian military, but especially for the Russian society which not only got truly HAMMERED by the most intense PSYOP in history coming from the West, via not only propaganda outlets like BBC or Deutsche Welle, but also western IT giants (Google, Meta, etc.) censuring and banning not only post perceived as “prop-Russian” but even entire domain names like .su and .ru.  The HUGE mistake both the 5th and the 6th columnists did was to jump unto that “PSYOP horse” thereby revealing their true agenda.
  • In direct retaliation for the banning of all things Russian by the western-controlled social media, Russia finally began to slap on fines and, better, totally shut down all these vomit spewing sewers, at least in Russia.

The first week of the war went extremely well from a purely military point of view, but from a socio-political point of view, I know that a lot of Russian vacillated and really freaked out.

But then, the western PSYOPs made a huge mistake: they gave free reign to truly rabid and racist russophobia while, at the same time, openly proclaiming the Nazi regime in Kiev as “heroic” defenders of the West.  It is one thing to hear that your dictator Putin and his Mordor will be sanctioned to smithereens and quite another to feel the overt, direct and targeted hatred against you and your people, that is something you perceive less with your mind and more, I would say, with you “skin” or “guts”.  Once it became obvious that the West’s hate for Russia is absolute and total and that the “best” Russians can hope from our “western friends” is to be treated like Native Americans or the Boers by the Anglos, which is not different at all from how the Nazis treated Russians, most Russian figured out what this was really all about since Day 1 and even much before (I would argue since about 1000 years).

That was pretty much all it took to “switch over” the mode of many Russians from “of my God, what will happen next?” to “we shall never surrender” or, on the words of Molotov, “Ours is a righteous cause. The enemy shall be defeated. Victory will be ours” (June 22, 1941).

To give you an idea of the magnitute of the defeat for the 5th and 6th columnist, I could mention that both Putin’s personal popularity and the popular support for the denazification and disarmament of the Nazi regime in the Ukraine is over 70%.  Instead, I just want to share this short video with you:

(official translation, source here)

“We, the multi-ethnic nation of the Russian Federation, united by common fate on our land…” These are the first words of our fundamental law, the Russian Constitution. Each word has deep meaning and enormous significance.

On our land, united by common fate. This is what the people of Crimea and Sevastopol must have been thinking as they went to the referendum on March 18, 2014. They lived and continue to live on their land, and they wanted to have a common fate with their historical motherland, Russia. They had every right to it and they achieved their goal. Let’s congratulate them first because it is their holiday. Happy anniversary!

Over these years, Russia has done a great deal to help Crimea and Sevastopol grow. There were things that needed to be done that were not immediately obvious to the unaided eye. These were essential things such as gas and power supply, utility infrastructure, restoring the road network, and construction of new roads, motorways and bridges.

We needed to drag Crimea out of that humiliating position and state that Crimea and Sevastopol had been pushed into when they were part of another state that had only provided leftover financing to these territories.

There is more to it. The fact is we know what needs to be done next, how it needs to be done, and at what cost – and we will fulfil all these plans, absolutely.

These decisions are not even as important as the fact that the residents of Crimea and Sevastopol made the right choice when they put up a firm barrier against neo-Nazis and ultra-nationalists. What was and is still happening on other territories is the best indication that they did the right thing.

People who lived and live in Donbass did not agree with this coup d’état, either. Several punitive military operations were instantly staged against them; they were besieged and subjected to systemic shelling with artillery and bombing by aircraft – and this is actually what is called “genocide.”

The main goal and motive of the military operation that we launched in Donbass and Ukraine is to relieve these people of suffering, of this genocide. At this point, I recall the words from the Holy Scripture: “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” And we are seeing how heroically our military are fighting during this operation.

These words come from the Holy Scripture of Christianity, from what is cherished by those who profess this religion. But the bottom line is that this is a universal value for all nations and those of all religions in Russia, and primarily for our people. The best evidence of this is how our fellows are fighting and acting in this operation: shoulder to shoulder, helping and supporting each other. If they have to, they will cover each other with their bodies to protect their comrade from a bullet in the battlefield, as they would to save their brother. It has been a long time since we had such unity.

It so happened that, by sheer coincidence, the start of the operation was same day as the birthday of one of our outstanding military leaders who was canonised – Fedor Ushakov. He did not lose a single battle throughout his brilliant career. He once said that these thunderstorms would glorify Russia. This is how it was in his time; this is how it is today and will always be!

Thank you!

Of course, the 5th columnists and the 6th columnists dismiss any election in Russia (they are all faked!), any opinion poll (they are all faked too!) and even any such mass events (the people are bused in for money!).

Which is EXACTLY what the western PYSOPs say too (in those rare cases when the report about that at all).  In French there is an expression “those who look alike gather together” (qui se ressemble s’assemble) and now that “stain” of “being with” the CIA/MI6/etc. and against your own President while your country is at war for its survival is a mark which neither the 5th nor the 6th columnists will ever be able to wash off, at least not in Russia.

I want to repeat here something which is crucial: truth is the first casualty of war, that is true, and lying on behalf of your side (whichever side you are on) is only morally wrong, but also effective only short term, in the mid to long term the truth begins to seep in through the cracks in the wall of lies.

Furthermore, criticism of a government, even during a war, is also fair and, in fact, needed.  But when a full scale war is going on and people are dying (including your own people, whichever side you are on), you have to ask yourself that simple question: cui bono from what I just wrote?

Many “patriots” and “friends of Russia” clearly won’t.  Okay.

I think that when your own arguments become indistinguishable from the talking points of the western letter soup’s PSYOPS and when the 5th and the 6th columns basically unite to try to overthrow the commander in chief, then we are not talking about honest criticism, but either treason (if you are Russian) or ignorance (if you are not).

Whatever may be the case, I would argue that the West’s PSYOPs triumph over Russia outside Russia has been more than compensated for by the Kremlin’s triumph over the West’s PSYOPs inside Russia.  And since the serfs living in Zone A decide nothing, all they can do is talk, talk and talk even more, that western triumph over Russia in the societies which are under the dominion of Uncle Shmuel, I think that while in the short term the Kremlin rather lame efforts (RT & Co.) did get a bloody nose, that initial period of shock is over and far from demoralizing Russians, the western PSYOPS are now uniting them in the determination to prevail and survive, at any cost, bar absolutely none.

Russia is now in full WWII mode.

I know expect the 5th columnists to emigrate en masse and the 6th columnists to steadily melt into utter irrelevance.

What about the Atlantic Integrationists?

Alas, they are very much still there 😦

They keep a low profile and say the right words when needed.  Yet the latest SNAFU with the Russian foreign currency and gold reserves places a direct spotlight on them.  There are two crucial problems with these folks:

  1. Putin is a liberal, at least in economic terms.  Hate it or love it, but that is a fact.  Or was until now.  This gang was never popular in Russia, and that latest controversy has resulted in A LOT of angry accusations.  Mind you, Putin has just re-nominated Elvira Nabiulina to head the Russian Central Bank and it shall be very interesting to see how the Duma will vote on this.  I would just say that if I was a Duma member I would not vote for confirmation not only because I don’t like the Kremlin’s economic policies, but also because that might be a very politically costly move.  So let’s wait and see.  By the way, Putin has also appointed Sergei Glazyev to the position of Minister for Integration and Macroeconomics of the Eurasian Economic Union.  Interesting times…
  2. The Atlantic Integrationists still wield a lot of power because they are not some secret society which meets in secret locations and exchanges some secret handshakes, but they are a socio-political class, I mean that in a fully Marxist sense, including the notion that these people have class interests and a class consciousness.  Furthermore, a lot of regular Russians fully depend on the institutions created by the Atlantic Integrationists since the early 1990s.  So to “simply eliminate” them sounds like a great idea until you realize that you are talking about an entire class of people.

[Sidebar: especially for those red-blooded US Americans who, if they were in charge of the Kremlin and Russia, would have easily solved that and all other Russian problems, by whatever means, they ought to remember that in the land of the free home of the brave you are ALSO all serfs of a political class – I call it the US Nomenklatura – which they have totally FAILED to remove and which crushed Trump in less than 30 days!  So, how about “doctor, heal thyself” and “motes in other eyes?”  First liberate YOUR OWN country – then give lessons to Russians!  Ditto for the stupid claims that the Russian military is moving too slow.  It took the US military SIX MONTHS to prepare for invasion during “Desert Shield” – in spite of huge prepositioned stores and a totally supportive KSA – and another MONTH to invade Bagdad which was basically undefended.  In fact, the US has not won a single war since WWII and never waged an existential war in its entire history.  Do you REALLY think that you are competent to teach Russians how to fight?  At least, next time you prepare to give Russians lessons, try to remember this factoid: during WWII the Soviet Army liberated one thousand two hundered (1’200!!!) cities from Nazi occupation forces.  As for civilians casualties, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden and “500’000 dead Iraqi children as “worth it” – that all you.  As is the vicious and genocidal bombing of the DPRK and Vietnam.  So, remind me, who are you again to give us lessons???]

But yes, the Atlantic Integrationists are still there.  If Putin decided to ignore Russian law and act like Stalin, he could fire all those Atlantic Integrationists we all know and love to hate (I do!), but that would NOT remove their power base.  So, instead, what he needs to do is gradually (and legally!!!) weaken their power base, which is *exactly* what he has been doing since at least 2014 (and, in reality, even before; he is a slow, deliberately acting person, and he does wait as long as needed before striking).

Which brings me to my last topic: the super-pooper “sanctions from hell”

Okay, there is very little doubt that just as the post MH-17 sanctions, the current sanctions will hurt Russia and, more specifically, some sectors of the Russian economy.  However, just like the post MH-17 sanctions forced Russia to FINALLY diversify and invest in such crucial sectors like agriculture, the current sanctions will simply FORCE Russia to completely remove herself from most of Zone A, especially in her political and economic activities.  In other words

By committing economic suicide (which is what these sanctions will be for the West!) the leaders of the AngloZionist Empire FORCED the Russians to cut a lot of, shall we say, “umbilical cords” which still tied them to western controlled interests.  I would even go as far as to say that ignorant imbeciles like “Trump” and “Biden” did more to destroy the 5th and 6th columns and to immensely weaken the Atlantic Integrationists than all the efforts of the FSB or the (very lame and weak) Russian counter-propaganda efforts.

The toxic 5th and 6th column abscesses have finally been punctured.  Yeah, it stinks and yeah, a lot of “disinfection” will be needed, not “only” in the Ukraine, but also in Russia.

Oh, I know, the leaders of the West did not do all that out of some kind of love for Russia, they did that because their own class interest depends on doubling down over and over and over again.  Add to this the entire “best military in the history of the galaxy” narrative, and lots of “WE will teach the Russian a lesson they will never forget!” (yeah, both of these idiots, and Obama too, see themselves as much scarier and tougher than the united Europe under Napoleon or the united Europe under Hitler, funny, no?).

As Andrei Martyanov very accurately described in his latest videothe West’s insane push to “Cancel Russia” has been received loud and clear by the Russian people, and now they are in the “existential war for survival” mode (well, at least most of them, no less than 70+ percent).

The result?

Russian caption: we will finish this war together spelled with a Latin “Z” rather than a Russian “З”.

I think that these two images illustrate the current dynamic very well: Woke-drones can think that when they display the unanimity of a lynch-mob they are scaring Russians.

To some degree, the Russians themselves are too blame, we accepted way too many plastic beads in exchange empty promises.

But not because we treasured these beads, but because until 2021 we simply did not have what we needed to stop accepting these beads.

Putin’s 2021 ultimatum to the entire united West was, in fact, the last concession Russia was willing to make.

As I wrote many many times, the difference between Russians and the West is that the West does not fear war but is not ready to fight one, whereas the Russians very much DO fear war, but they are also totally ready to fight.  We have lived in this reality for 1000 years, and we know that war is always the ultimate evil.  So now, far from being ashamed or unhappy about how the Kremlin did everything it could to avoid that war (which I was absolutely opposed to, if possible and if given an alternative choice, of course), but the West gave Russia no choice.

And, in doing so, it flipped the mental “we will unite to win this war” switch in the minds of most Russians.

You could say that the West has finally truly “canceled itself” in the mind of a vast majority of Russians.

I think that the Kremlin STILL would prefer a negotiated solution, not just to the war in the Ukraine, but even in the semi-covert (or even not so covert) war going on with NATO.  But the recent strikes at ammo dumps and foreign mercenaries in the western Ukraine are a clear sign that 1) Russia will not accept any outside intervention and 2) that Russia will, if needed, strike Poland, Romania or whatever other self-prostituting state, and their membership in NATO will make no difference whatsoever.

Guys, one of the main reasons why Russia chose a low-manpower strategy is precisely because the bulk of the Russian military is ready for any type of war against NATO and the US, even a nuclear one if needed.

Yeah yeah, in the West they announce with a strait face that Russia is running out of bullets for her AKs.  If that kind of nonsense makes some woke freak feel good – by all means, enjoy!

In Russia, it only strengthens the determination to cut all ties with the West whose true face all Russians have FINALLY seen again, for first time since WWII.

Conclusion – the “Great Coming Out”

This war, which I abhor and ENTIRELY blame on the Empire of Lies had at least one consequence which I welcome with all my heart: this war has triggered a massive “Great Coming Out” in which not only politicians, countries, societies or celebrities have shown their true face, this also applies to those I thought were my trusted and respected friends, family member and even clergy!

Sometimes these *true* faces turned out to be ugly and hypocritical, in other times they radiated kindness, compassion and love for all our fellow human beings.  Yes, some of it was painful, even heartbreaking.  But some of it was unexpected and deeply deeply touching.

I personally welcome this clarity with all my heart!

Now I know the answer(s) to this crucial question: with whom are you, whose side are you really on?

I hasten to add that I am not Dubya, I don’t need to tell the world “you are either with us or with the terrorists”.  In reality, I very much welcome any neutral or indifferent position.  After all, why should a Chilean fisherman or a coffee-shop owner in the Azores care about any of that?

My disgust is not with those who don’t care or don’t know – it is with those who either ought know better or, if not, ought to to shut-up and mind their business (especially if they are totally clueless about the nature of this conflict).

[Sidebar for doubleplusgoodthinking Orthodox Christians: Orthodox Christians, especially those who struggle to truly uphold the fullness faith “which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers” ought to realize two simple things: Orthodox Christians are the sole heirs of the East Roman Empire and it behooves us more than anybody else to recognize the modern day Franks and Crusaders for whom/what they are.  To neutral or “opposed to aggression” is not only moral cowardice, it is a negation of our ethos and our collective memory.  Christ told us “my Kingdom is not of this world“, and your manic determination to remain in harmony with the secular mainstream of our fallen world is really pathetic.  If that is not yet another form of Neo-Sergianism then I don’t know what it is!]

Yet again, as during most of in my life I now again see what I have always seen: my own, personal, “good Samaritans” very rarely were Russian or Orthodox, and even less so Russian Orthodox.  All my life I have see FAR more brotherly love, compassion and kindness from atheists, secular Jews and (non-Takfiri!) Muslims than from my putative “brothers”.

Yes, this hurts me deeply and shames me too.  But that is a truth I am not willing to forget or remain silent about.

Finally, I owe it to my TRUE “good Samaritan” brothers/sisters to repeat this truth either until my last breath or until my fellow Orthodox Christians at least begin to show the moral probity so often shown to me by my heterodox brothers and sisters.

The same will prove true of Russia as a country: this war, bad as it is, will show all Russians who our real brothers, friends and allies are, and who are but the garden variety servants of the Empire.

This could be a fantastic opportunity for Russia, but that is a topic I will address in a future post.

Kind regards

Andrei

PS: please expect regular stuff, yes, with maps, either tomorrow or Tuesday.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with RT, Moscow, March 18, 2022

March 19, 2022

https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/1805134/

Question: The sanctions that are currently imposed on Russia are of course unprecedented. And they are really negatively affecting the lives of ordinary Russians, even though Washington is saying that it’s not targeting Russians. What can you say about what the goals of these sanctions are and who the target really is?

Sergey Lavrov:

 I believe the goal of the sanctions is much more strategic than just Ukraine. I think what we witness in Ukraine is the quintessence of the western course, strategic course to marginalise Russia, to contain Russia, to stop Russia’s development and to reduce Russia to a zero role in world politics and world economy, world trade, world sports, art, science, education

And we observe unprecedented steps our Western colleagues are taking. One of the underlying trends is the United States’ desire – which has been much more manifested by the Biden administration – to come back to a unipolar world. And, if you wish, they are trying to take the melting pot concept from the United States soil and make a melting pot from the entire world, and they would be the smelters. The European Union already, I think 99 percent, stopped trying to be independent. President Macron, of course, keeps repeating that strategic autonomy for the European Union is his goal and he would be fighting for it, but my guess is that he would not succeed. Germany is already absolutely ready to obey instructions from the United State. The situation with North Stream 2 clearly indicated what exact place in world politics Germany occupies now, when the Americans in fact have “persuaded” the Germans and others that they, the Americans, know much better what Europe needs for its energy security than Europeans themselves. And there are many examples like this. So the sanctions drive is going to continue, they are threatening the fifth wave, maybe there would be another wave, but we’re used to it. I will recall that, long before the Ukrainian crisis erupted because of the illegal anti-constitutional coup d’etat, the sanctions were already imposed on us. It was, you know, when the Jackson–Vanik amendment was repealed, the Magnitsky Act was immediately introduced and the sanctions, in one way or another, stayed. And then there was a series of sanctions, as you mentioned, to punish us, basically, for supporting the legitimate cause of Russians in Ukraine, Russians in Crimea, you know this story, I wouldn’t rehearse the events and the sequence of events.

The latest sanctions wave was really unprecedented and, as President Putin recalled, we are now champions in the number of sanctions introduced against the Russian Federation – more than 5,000 individual acts, almost twice as many as was introduced against Iran and North Korea. But sanctions, or all of this, made us stronger. After the sanctions were announced in 2014, when the West could not accept the free vote of Crimeans to rejoin the Russian Federation, when the West basically supported the illegitimate and unconstitutional coup d’etat. You know what was very interesting to me when I talked about those events to my Western colleagues? They very often use the tactic of cutting off an unwanted historical period. The situation in Ukraine they start discussing only with what they call annexation of Crimea. If you remind them that it all started with the European Union being unable to insist on the implementation of the deal, which they guaranteed, by the opposition, and then the opposition just threw away the deal signed and guaranteed by the European Union, and then the leaders of the opposition and of the so-called Maidan, the radicals, like Dmitry Yarosh were saying “We stand for a Ukraine without Russkis and katsaps” (which means Muscovites), and he publicly stated that if the Russians – well, he said the Russians in Crimea would never think Ukrainian, would never speak Ukrainian, would never glorify the heroes, meaning Bandera and Shukhevich and other collaborators of Hitler – and that’s why Russians must be swiped out of Crimea. Actually, this was said a couple of weeks before the Crimeans eventually decided to go to referendum. And these words were accompanied by deeds. They sent armed groups to take control of the Crimean parliament, and that’s how it all started. Not to mention the initiative – immediately, on the first day of this coup d’etat, the putschists introduced an initiative to do away with the status of the Russian language in Ukraine, which was in the Ukrainian Constitution. So all these instincts were immediately translated into very Russophobic policies.

The idea that Russians should get out of Ukraine is still very much on the minds of politicians in this country. Oleg Tyagnibok, the leader of the ultra-radical party, Svoboda (“Freedom”), has repeatedly said that “we must have de-Russification”, as he calls it. And de-Russification means that ethnic Russians must not have their own language, history and identity in Ukraine and so many similar things. But what is more important for us to understand in the current state of play are these statements by Zelensky himself. So I said that the ultra-radicals called for Russians to be wiped out of Crimea, and President Zelensky, in September last year, said, if you believe you’re a Russian, if you believe you want to be a Russian and if you want to be friendly with Russia, go to Russia. He said this just a few months ago.

So, coming back to sanctions: sanctions we will survive. The measures which the president and the government are developing, elaborating, are being announced. This is only the beginning of our economy getting adjusted to the new situation. After 2014, as I started to say, we did gain experience to rely upon ourselves. And the biggest lesson from this particular historical period is, unlike what we saw after 2014, that now, 

… if there was any illusion that we can one day rely on our Western partners, this illusion is no longer there.

We will have to rely only on ourselves and on our allies who would stay with us. This is the main conclusion for Russia in the context of geopolitics.

Question: I think it’s safe to say that Russian culture specifically has become accustomed to being part of, you might say, a global village of countries that share deep economic ties and enjoy travelling between each other. How do you think these sanctions are going to influence the everyday life of Russians in the long term in relation to that?

Sergey Lavrov: Well, as I said, the assessment of what is going on, in my view, clearly indicates that what America wants is a unipolar world, which would be not like a global village, which would be like an American village and maybe American saloon where who is strongest is calling the shots. And they said they are succeeding to mobilize behind themselves and, on the basis of their own interests, the entire Western world, which is indicative of how independent NATO members and European Union members are and which is indicative of what place the European Union, as I said, would have in the future configuration of the world situation and the world system.

There are players who would never accept the global village under the American sheriff …

and

China, India, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico – I am sure these countries do not want to be just in the position where Uncle Sam orders them something and they say “Yes, sir.” And of course, Russia is not in the category of countries who would be ready to do so. Actually, when people say – when the Americans and Western Europeans and others say that Russia was defeated in the General Assembly because the vast majority of countries voted against the Russian action in Ukraine, it’s misleading because, if you take the population represented by the countries who were not voting against Russia, and especially if you take the number of countries who introduce sanctions against Russia, a majority of those who voted against us did so under huge pressure, under blackmail, including – I know this for sure – including threats to individual delegates regarding their assets in the United States, bank accounts, children studying in universities and so on and so forth. It’s absolutely unprecedented blackmail and pressure without any scruples. So a majority of those countries who voted with the West, they did not and they would not introduce sanctions against Russia. They believe that it’s, you know, not a very big price to pay for their own practical cooperation with Russia, just to vote on something which is needed for the West for entirely propagandistic purposes. So we will be, as always, open to cooperation with anyone who is ready to do so on the equal basis, on the basis of mutual respect and searching for balance of interests, and the countries to the east of Russia are much more disposed to act on this basis, and we will certainly reciprocate for the benefit of both us and our partners. We are not closing the door on the West. They are doing so. But when they come back to their senses and when this door is reopened, we will be looking at proposed projects of cooperation with a very important thing in mind to which I alluded to already – that we will be going into cooperation with them knowing very well that we cannot be sure that they are reliable and that they are credible as long-term partners.

Question: Well, I’d like to take the discussion now to a sort of different topic: these US-sponsored biolabs in Ukraine. I mean, for years already, Russia has been trying to bring the world’s attention to them. And the latest piece of evidence connected to them the Russian military just put forward not too long ago, with documents signed by US officials in connection to them. Why do you think is the world not paying so much attention to these biolabs? And will Washington and its allies be held accountable for what they’re doing there?

Sergey Lavrov: Actually, it’s interesting that the special military operation launched by the president of the Russian Federation helped discover many things which are very important for understanding what is going on. Recently, the military of Russia, together with Donetsk and Lugansk forces, discovered documents of the Ukrainian general staff indicating clearly that they were preparing a massive attack against the Donetsk and Lugansk republics. So the operation, which was launched by Russia, in fact, preempted this threat and did not allow them to implement what they wanted to do, and they wanted to do exactly what they failed to do implementing the Minsk agreements. They were trying to use what they called Plan B and to take these territories by force with bloodshed on an unbelievable scale, in addition to what they have been doing to civilians for the last eight years.

But another set of documents which was discovered – as you said, documents related to military biological activity of the United States in Ukraine – documents with signatures of Ukrainian officials, US military. 

Those laboratories have been created by the United States all over the world. More than 300 laboratories in various countries, many of them on the perimeter of the Russian Federation – in the former Soviet republics, including Ukraine. Ukraine is probably the biggest project for the Pentagon, who is running this show.

The special Defense Threat Reduction Agency of the Pentagon is in charge of this biological activity, and they are developing very dangerous pathogens, including plague, brucellosis, anthrax and many others, which are really very dangerous. And we know that they were experimenting on potential infections, which could be related to the ethnic groups living in the east of Ukraine and in neighboring regions of Russia.

We have been raising this issue in international organizations for a while, I would say almost more than 20 years. In 2001, we suggested that the countries participating in the Convention on the Prohibition of Biological and Toxin Weapons should develop a verification mechanism which would be transparent, which would be understood by everybody and applied to everybody because the convention itself provides for consultations if any participating state has some suspicions or some information which the state would like to clarify. And if these consultations indicate that there is a good reason for some kind of investigation, then an investigation is supposed to be launched. But there is no mechanism to investigate, and there is no mechanism which would require each and every country, in response to an address, to provide information and to guarantee transparency of its biological activity anywhere, be it on your own territory or abroad.

By the way, 

… the Americans some years ago decided that it is too dangerous to do these things on their own soil. So they moved all these threatening and dangerous activities to other countries,

and more and more they concentrate their research and experiments around the borders of the Russian Federation and China. So we will be insisting on this issue to be picked up by the Biological Weapons Convention, but also by the Security Council, because it’s a clear threat to international peace and security. We will be again emphasising the importance of negotiating a legally binding protocol to the Convention on Biological Weapons, which would require obligatory transparency measures by any participating state. The Americans, I have no slightest doubt, would be against it, but this position of theirs is not defendable. I am convinced that more and more countries understand how dangerous these plans are, and we will continue to fight them.

Question: What can you say on the topic of Washington’s role in all of this? President Zelensky called for weapons to come to his country from the West. He’s talked about a demand for establishing a no-fly zone over Ukraine, and this is something that Joe Biden just recently again said is not going to happen because that would lead, no doubt, to outright war between Russia and NATO and the United States. Why do you think is Ukraine so desperately trying to make some sort of scenario like that happen?

Sergey Lavrov: Whatever you think of some of Joe Biden’s statements, he is a very experienced politician and he understands that it is absolutely inadmissible to establish something like a no-fly zone, to provide planes to Ukraine and to do other things which will bring the risk of direct confrontation between NATO and Russia just, you know, immediately. But Zelensky also understands that there are much less responsible politicians in the United States who are being agitated by the Ukrainian lobby and just driven by Russophobic feelings, and many of them are in Congress. They adopt every now and then resolutions condemning Russia, threatening Russia. I believe Zelensky is counting on them pushing the president in the direction of a more confrontational approach.

We clearly said that any cargo moving into Ukrainian territory which we would believe is carrying weapons would be fair game. This is clear because we are implementing the operation the goal of which is to remove any threat to the Russian Federation coming from Ukrainian soil. This was part of our proposal in December last year when we suggested that we negotiate with NATO security guarantees – the way which would be codifying the old agreement reached at the highest level that no one, no country should increase its security at the expense of the security of others. So they know what it is all about.

They also speak about missile defense. Kiev authorities think of asking NATO members who possess Soviet air defense systems to share this with them.

I would like to remind the countries who might be playing with this idea that 

the Soviet and Russian-made systems of missile defense or of any other purpose are there on the basis of intergovernmental agreements and contracts, which includes an end user certificate. The end user certificate does not allow them to send these weapons to any third country without our consent. This is a legal obligation.

I understand that legality and legal obligations is not something which our Western colleagues respect these days. They’ve already thrown away the presumption of innocence, private property being sacred and many other “pillars” on which the “liberal values” have been resting for so many centuries and decades.

But this is a serious matter, and I can assure you that we would not allow these risks to be materialised. The purpose of our operation is to protect civilians, who have been bombed and shelled and murdered for eight years, and to demilitarise Ukraine so that it does not pose a serious threat to the Russian territory, and to find security guarantees, which would be based on this equal, indivisible security principle for Ukraine, for Russia, for all European countries. We have been proposing this for many years. Denazification is an absolute must. And that includes not only canceling laws encouraging Nazist ideology and practices, but it also includes withdrawing any legislation which discriminates the Russian language and other national minority languages and, in general, national minority rights in Ukraine which have been hugely discriminated and offended.

Question: Well, we’ve talked a lot about the kinetic war, but I wanted to ask another question about the information war actually. A few days ago, the White House had a briefing with several popular TikTokers in the United States, and they were basically briefed on a new anti-Russian narrative that Washington wants to put forward. What do you think about such sort of underhanded propaganda technique when it’s usually Russia that they’re accusing of misinformation and underhanded tactics?

Sergay Lavrov: Well, we are a very, very small player in the international information war. It’s the information… World information is dominated by media belonging to the Americans, the Brits, and also the Germans, the French and others. It’s another matter, what the quality of those information outlets is. If you take CNN, they prefer to avoid analytical materials and they more and more concentrate on some reports which would be made of slogans “Russia is an aggressor,” “Russia is murdering civilians,” “Russia is abusing sports” and so on and so forth.

When they concentrate on TikTok and other resources like this and other platforms and when they target kids because TikTok is about young boys and girls, I believe this is an attempt to brainwash them for the rest of their lives. And this is indecent and not fair.

If you want information and competition, if you want competition among media outlets, then there at must be some rules.

I would remind you and your viewers that in 1990, when the Soviet Union was living under this “new thinking” concept and the human values, common values for humankind, the Western colleagues in the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe were pushing very actively, and finding support on the Soviet side, a series of documents of the OSCE on freedom of speech and on access to information. Such documents were endorsed by consensus in the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. These days, when your channel and Sputnik many years ago were banned from attending, for example, press conferences and briefings in Élysée in Paris, and when we were drawing the attention of the French colleagues that this was against the commitment in the OSCE, they were saying, “No, no, no, no, no. Access to information is applicable only to mass media and RT and Sputnik are not mass media, they are propaganda tools.”

Another example of abusing the commitments and obligations – when a couple of years ago in London there was a conference on freedom of media in the modern world, no Russian media were invited.

So we know the manners and the tricks which are being used by the Western countries to manipulate media. We understood long ago that there was no such thing as an independent Western media. If you take the United States, only Fox News is trying to present some alternative points of view. But when you watch other channels and when you read social networks and internet platforms, when the acting president was blocked, as you know, and this censorship continues in a very big way and the substitution of notions. Whenever something is happening by the way of mass protest, mass demonstrations, which they don’t like, they immediately call it domestic terrorism. So it’s a war, and it’s a war which involves the methods of information terrorism. There is no doubt about this.

A very interesting example was yesterday, when the Bild newspaper in Germany published a piece saying that myself on the evening of March 16 left Moscow by plane to go to China, but in the area of Novosibirsk, the plane turned back because either Putin told me to come back or the Chinese said, “We don’t want to talk to you.” It was published by, yes, a tabloid, but with millions of copies. And it’s a shame that we have these habits being introduced into the information world by our “friends.

It is not by incident that President Putin said about the existence of the Empire of Lies.

Question: Well, just one more question for you, Mr. Lavrov. Of course, this conflict in Ukraine is not going to go on forever. When it does come to an end, what do you foresee as the main challenges in future Russia–Ukraine relations?

Sergay Lavrov: Well, we never had any issues with the Ukrainian people. I have many Ukrainian friends, the two peoples are very close culturally. Practically all of them speak, and those who don’t, they understand the Russian language. Culture, common history, way of life, attitude to life, traditions of families and communities. So I hope that when this anomaly is over, this will gradually come back. It will have to be gradual.

It cannot come back fast because the efforts of our Western colleagues to make Ukraine a Russophobic and anti-Russian instrument – anti-Russia, as President Putin called it – they started long ago, and they are already rather deeply rooted in Ukrainian mentality, especially the young generation which was born after the demise of the Soviet Union. They have been indoctrinated in a very, very heavy way.

The efforts were taken systemically to train military officers on the basis of radical Bandera and Shukhevich-style methodology. The purpose being – to make sure that they would not become friendly to Russia again and that they would build their nationalism, nationalistic feelings as the means to strengthen the statehood of their country.

The purpose was always to make sure that Russia does not have Ukraine as a friend. It’s like Zbigniew Brzezinski in the late 1990s said, “Russia with Ukraine, a friendly Ukraine next to it, is a superpower. Russia with Ukraine which is not friendly to Russia, is just a regional player.” This concept is very deeply rooted in the minds of American policymakers, and it will take time to get rid of these negative legacies.

Even now, when the armed forces of Ukraine are fighting, trying to procrastinate the crisis. The leaders of Ukraine with the help of American and other Western advisors have reformed the army in the way which puts these radicals, Bandera-like trained officers, to lead all more or less meaningful units in the Ukrainian army. And these people radicalise and terrorise others, especially those who don’t believe that this should be the fate of their country.

Their actions in Mariupol is an example of that. The refugees coming from Mariupol to Russia in dozens of thousands tell such stories. It’s really threatening how this kind of people command armed men and women.

But I am sure, at the end of the day, the historic closeness of two fraternal nations will certainly prevail.

More on this Topic

Russia-West Relations at Point of No Return – Zakharova

February 26, 2022

By Staff, Agencies

Russia underlines that it has moved from having normal relations with the United States a long time ago in light of the most recent round of heightened tensions between Moscow and Washington.

“Business as usual” in relations with the United States will no longer work, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova said Friday.

“No, we stopped doing business as usual with them a long time ago. This is already a non-existent concept,” Zakharova told Russian Channel One.

Relations have been extremely tense between Russia and the United States in light of Moscow’s special military operation in Donbass against Ukraine’s aggression on Donetsk and Lugansk.

The West has failed to impose on Moscow the idea that they are exclusive and that Russia is a colony, she said.

In relations with the United States and the West, Russia has approached the line, after which there is a point of no return, Zakharova underscored.

“We proceed from our own interests and security interests, including doing what is beneficial to us as a country, as a people. We defend ourselves, we offered to do it together, we had a dialogue and offered a lot within the framework of collective security,” the Russian diplomat added.

She asserted that Russia moved on to the next stage when its demands were not fulfilled: “What are our guarantees, given that you do not offer collective creativity. When they blocked this option as well, we began to proceed from our pressing interests.”

Zakharova stressed that Russia’s actions were not its choice, reminding that Moscow always took action based on dialogue. However, “When these options were closed one by one by the Anglo-Saxons, we began to act differently.”

The Russian diplomat explained that Russia acting in a different manner was not due to threats, “But the question is that we come to that line after which the point of no return begins.”

What Zakharova is referring to is the West’s decline in responding to Moscow’s proposals on security guarantees on NATO’s eastward expansion, and the Kremlin’s special operation in Donbass regarding its concerns over the federation’s security.

Sergey Karaganov: Russia’s new foreign policy, the Putin Doctrine

23 Feb, 2022

Moscow’s confrontation with NATO is just the start

By Professor Sergey Karaganov, 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

Sergey Karaganov: Russia’s new foreign policy, the Putin Doctrine
Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks during his address to the nation at the Kremlin in Moscow on February 21, 2022. © AFP / Alexey NIKOLSKY

It seems like Russia has entered a new era of its foreign policy – a ‘constructive destruction’, let’s call it, of the previous model of relations with the West. Parts of this new way of thinking have been seen over the last 15 years – starting with Vladimir Putin’s famous Munich speech in 2007 – but much is only just becoming clear now. At the same time, lackluster efforts to integrate into the western system, while maintaining a doggedly defensive attitude, has remained the general trend in Russia’s politics and rhetoric.

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 [1] 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 [2]. 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.  

READ MORE: Ukraine asks for help and mulls retaliation against Russia: Six key takeaways from Zelensky’s speech

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. 

READ MORE: UK sanctions Putin’s ‘inner circle’ over Donbass

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.

READ MORE: Global stocks sink on fears of full-blown conflict between Russia, Ukraine

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’[3]. (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.

READ MORE: Oil pushes toward $100 as Donbass tensions rise

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.

This article was first published online by the Russia in Global Affairs journal.

The situation is about to quickly escalate, probably in the next days

February 23, 2022

Today, I want to begin with a small allegorical story.

One upon a time, there was a bear sleeping in his lair and minding his business.  One day, a small group of rodents decided to have some fun time pestering the bear.  So they began running around, making a lot of noise (some even dared the bear to come out and fight them) and even threw colorful little pebbles at the bear.  The bear mostly ignored them hoping they would eventually tire from that silly behavior and go away.  But the rodents not only stayed, they began pelting the bear with even more pebbles and, sure enough, what had to happen happened: one pebble (with “ridiculous genocide claim” written on it) landed right on the eyelid of the bear and that *really* pissed the bear off.  He finally got up, moved to the entrance of his lair and looked at the scurrying rodents.  The bear wondered, what shall he do with these little rodents next?  The rodents wondered about the same thing.  And so they told the bear that if he dares leave his lair, they will pelt him with even more pebbles, so he better not move.  What do you think the bear will do next?

***

Yesterday Putin gave a quite amazing (and short) press conference.  Not only did he declare that Russia recognizes the LDNR Republics in their own, legal, borders (i.e. the full Donetsk and Lugansk regions), he also listed the four steps needed to be taken by the Ukraine to avoid a direct, unilateral, Russian action:

  • The Ukraine must recognize Crimea and Sevastopol as Russian territory
  • The Ukraine must officially renounce joining NATO
  • The Ukraine must negotiate a settlement with the LDNR Republics
  • The Ukraine must be demilitarized and declared neutral

This is clearly an ultimatum, but this time, to the authorities in Kiev.

Now a few simple comments:

Since Russia has recognized the LDNR in their original, administrative, regional borders, this means that all the Ukie forces between the current Line of Contact (LOC) and the borders between the original borders of the LDNR and the rest of the Ukraine are now de facto and de jure a foreign occupying force on the territory of a Russian ally which Russia promised to protect.

Just ponder the implications of that for a while, let it sink in: until yesterday, the Ukronazi forces were on their own territory, at least legally speaking.  Now they are abroad and unwelcome.

Quite logically, several DNR and LNR officials have now demanded that Kiev withdraw these forces completely from the LDNR territory.  As a small carrot, LDNR officials have said that if the Ukies retreat voluntarily there will be no further action taken.  Conversely, that means that if the Ukies stay, the LDNR will do what is needed to make them leave.

That is an LDNR ultimatum to Kiev.

In plain English this means this:

  • Putin has demanded that the Ukronazi forces immediately stop their attacks
  • The LDNR has demanded that the Ukronazi forces immediately withdraw from all the territories the LDNR claims, and Russia recognizes, as belonging to the LDNR

Some LDNR official have offered this: stop the shelling, move at least your heavy force away from the LOC as you are supposed to under the ceasefire agreements and we won’t move our forces in.  In other words, if the Ukies move out, the LDNR forces will stay out, but the territory vacated by the Ukies will become legally LDNR’s.

Since there is exactly zero chance that the Nazis in Kiev will accept, what does that tell you about the next move by the LDNR and, possibly, Russia?

Does anybody still seriously believe that Putin is bluffing?

In Russia, Medvedev has made a quite remarkable “patriotic comeback” with some very good words at the meeting of the Russian Security Council.  He also posted this quite mocking tweet after Olaf decided to declare that NS2 would not be certified “now” (whatever that means).  Olaf is already starting to backpedal and make ambiguous statements about the long term future of NS2.

And, the beauty of the current dynamics, is that the Germans are doing it to themselves (and to the rest of the EU) while Russia STILL has not used the “energy weapon” against anybody.  So Russia cannot be accused of using energy as a weapon or reneging on her obligations!

Russia is offering cheap gas to Germany and the rest of the EU.  But if the latter want to please Uncle Shmuel so badly that they are willing to wreck their own economies – by all means, Russia fulfilled her obligation and it sure ain’t her fault that the Germans are now ( at least pretending to) renege on their part of the deal.

If the Europeans want to turn up the pain dial upon themselves, Russia sure won’t object.

And did I mention that the recent increase in energy prices has yielded such a profit for Gazprom, that it has already paid for the Russian investment in NS2!  If the Germans really pull out of the deal, there will be huge lawsuits which will make the Germans pay even more.  Finally, with the energy prices going up again, Gazprom is making billions of dollars of extra revenue.

As for the USA – the likely increase in the costs of energy (oil and gas) will provide an even further boost to the already very high inflation.  But does “Biden” care?

Nope.  “Biden” is so drunk on his ideological delusions that he rather accept an even worse inflation if that can hurt Russia (which it won’t, but nevermind that).  That his sanctions won’t really hurt Russia is entirely irrelevant, in Zone A all that matters is make believe and verbiage.  Facts don’t matter one bit.

I have been saying it for a long while already: there is no “US policy” left, all that’s left is chaos, corruption, gross incompetence, maniacal delusion of still being the planet’s Sheriff combined with a rather comical belief that the US can scare Russia into submission.

Joe, in Russia’s long history much stronger leaders than you have already tried that.  Do you want to end like them?

Apparently yes!

In fact, the US has announced that there will be no Putin Biden meeting and no Lavrov Blinken meeting either.  I am sure that both Putin and Lavrov are sobbing in abject fear and total despair…

There is a good chance that all this will end up with a full severance of diplomatic relations between Russia and the USA (along with a few EU Tabakis à la UK).

Furthermore, to show the “determination of the US led free West” the US is sending a few hundred extra troops to the Latvia. And some helicopters from Italy to Poland.  And if that was not terrifying enough, Canada’s Trudeau is also sending a few hundred extra Canadian troops to the Baltics.

At this pace, in a few weeks NATO might have a “combined regiment” safely tucked away somewhere in Poland or the Baltics, while knowing full well that Russia will never use any force against the 3B simply because Russia has exactly zero interest in, or desire for, them or their lands.

In fact, these statlets are as much in freefall as Banderastan, why should Russia want them?  As for Poland, the more neutral ground between them and Russia, the better for Russia.  In history both Russia and Germany have tried to manage Poland, now it is the time for the USA to give it a shot.  I wish both the Poles and the US Americans a lot of fun – amusez-vous bien! (though it is still better to have to administer the Polish colony than the Ukie one.

The truth is that even if all the Ukraine’s neighbors simply and magically were allowed to take all the Ukrainian territory they want, a lot would be left unclaimed (most of the central and northern part).

That how bad a shithole country 404 has become…  Maybe somebody will just fence them in and feed them like in a zoo?

Does anybody seriously believe that Russia will be impressed by any of that ridiculous nonsense?

Until the time of writing this, the Ukronazis have continued shelling and shooting, but there has been no fullscale ground attack (yet!).  The Ukie special services have sent a few diversionary groups into the LDNR and even into a small strip of Russian land.  These groups were detected and intercepted by the Russian Border Guards.  The Ukies tried to send a BMP few infantry fighting vehicle to rescue their soliders only to have them destroyed by the Russian military’s anti-tank weapons.

Today the Ukies continued to direct their artillery attacks and diversionary groups at the LDNR.  Water and electricity are off in some parts of the LDNR.  People are still dying every day and there is no signs of the Ukie bombardments abating.  Especially violent combats are taking place near the town of Nikolaevka.

The Ukies have also declared a state of emergency (to be approved by the Rada) and are now making more and more noises about re-arming themselves with nuclear weapons.  Smart move when Putin says that the Ukraine must be disarmed 🙂

Ukronazi war criminals

By the way, the Russian Investigative Committee has declared that Russia knows, by name, all the folks who on the Ukie side gave orders to shell the LDNR.  There are already over 400 criminal cases opened for warcrimes, including 85 top Ukronazi officials, beginning with Turchinov and his military commanders Galetei and Gritsenko, Arsen Avakov and their deputies ShevchukDublian and Gerashchenko.  The notorious ZioNazi oligarch Igor Kolomoiskii, the commanders of the Ukie air force and navy (or whatever is left of them by now), the Chief of the Ukie Airborne forces, the Commander of Ukie Special Forces, the main Urkonazi Dmitrii Iarosh and many many more Ukronazis are also on that list.

Frankly, I think that the Ukies are terrified.

I know I sure would if I was in their place.

They cannot simply retreat, there is no way Ze can order that and not be overthrown.

They cannot attack because now it is too late, all these force comparisons between the Banderastani forces and the LDNR forces have become, if not irrelevant, than at least a lot less relevant now that Putin has basically prepared both the military and the legal conditions necessary for any kind of Russian military operation, from strikes with standoff weapons, to a ground and/or amphibious assault.  All he has to do now is say “go”.  Judging by his tone yesterday, not only do I feel that he is willing to give that order, but I also think that he has accepted that this is the “least bad” option for Russia and the LDNR.

Again, Putin said that he fully intends to disarm the Ukraine, at least from all her heavy weapons Since the Ukies won’t give them up, I see only one way to achieve this: disarm them by force.

So, in one way or another, I expect major combat action in the Eastern Ukraine in the next couple of days.

Keep in mind that the West’s response to Putin’s words and actions only serve to further convince Russia that 1) more sanctions and subversion is inevitable 2) violence is unavoidable.

Remember these famous words by Putin: “Fifty years ago, the streets of Leningrad taught me one thing: If a fight’s inevitable, you must strike first“?

It appears to me that the Kremlin has concluded that a violent fight is, indeed, inevitable.  You figure out the rest 🙂

In other news, Putin and Aliev have just signed a major cooperation treaty between Russia and Azerbaijan.

Yes, Aliev decided to travel to Moscow and meet Putin on the day Russia officially recognized the LDNR.  It is a very smart move by both of these politicians.  First, Aliev needs to show Turkey that yes, we are friends and allies, but I will balance that with my friendship and alliance with Russia.  Erdogan might be a crazy megalomaniac, but he ain’t stupid and he sure did get that message.

After all, who said that Erdogan must be the leader of the Turkic world?

I am pretty sure that Russia (and China!) would very much prefer Aliev for a very long list of reasons, including the fact that he is very smart, very realistic, quite ruthless when needed and he understand Putin very well (the two are good friends).  And since Erdogan is trying to play both the Russian and the Ukie card, here is a clear warning to him, be nice, or else…

So where do we go from here?

I would say that major combat operations against the Ukie forces in the LDNR republics are probably inevitable and, barring some last minute miracle, the Russians will soon disarm a good part of the Ukie forces.  Remember that Putin specifically added the disarmament of the Ukraine as one of his demands.

Does anybody think that anybody can stop the disarmament (we are talking about major weapon systems, not AKs) of the Ukraine by Russia in the near/middle term?

I don’t.

Next, I think that Putin will successfully impose all his demands upon the Ukraine, which means two things:

  • The Kiev regime will collapse, at least de facto
  • The rest of Banderastan will eventually break-up into different regimes and successor states

I think that there is a high probability that the US/NATO will move some forces into western Ukraine, to “protect their people and infrastructure” in and around Lvov, and to declare that “their show of unity and determination stopped Russia from invading the entire Ukraine”.  I don’t think that Russia will object too much against any NATO move inside and limited to the Lvov/Ivano-Frankovsk region.  These are not historically Russian lands and they are basically irrelevant to Russia.

If the US wants to Poles to oppress the Ukronazis in their own western Ukraine, nobody in Russia will care.

As for the West, to take credit for a defeat is a long US/NATO tradition, so such an operation can be used to save NATO’s face.

But that won’t be enough.

The West has already been beaten politically, and now a military defeat of some kind is probably inevitable.

I am not talking about an invasion of the entire Ukraine (God forbid!) but it will be clear to all that the Russian bear forced NATO to retreat, politically and militarily.  The Anglos are too smart to volunteer for a war with Russia.  The Polaks are, as always, only hiding behind the backs of their latest (Anglo) masters.  The Balts are irrelevant.

So the only option is to fight the Russians down the the last Ukrainian and when that happens, it might not be an “NATO defeat” legally speaking, but like on 08.08.08 it will be a crushing defeat for NATO publicly.  Maybe not as bad as Kabul, but much worse than Georgia in 08.08.08.

At that point, a lot of folks will be wondering if NATO is worth the money spent on.  And once that process begins, there will be no stopping it.

Good!

If the US/NATO/EU had any brains, they would quickly accept the total and final loss of the LDNR, following by a declaration that the Ukraine has become a neutral, demilitarized, state. In exchange for that, Russia would provide firm security guarantees and cheap energy.  But that would be common sense, not exactly the kind of mindset which brought us to today’s crisis.

So let’s see what Uncle Shmuel and his Eurorodents will do next.

My expectation is more hot air from the West and more unilateral Russian actions in the East.

Stay tuned.

Andrei

Related Videos

More on the Topic

What are Putin and Macron up to?

February 20, 2022

This is the big RT headline: Putin and Macron agree on measures to halt escalation in Ukraine.

Here is a machine translation of the official French statement:

Telephone interview with Vladimir PUTIN, President of the Russian Federation.

The President of the Republic held a telephone conversation with the President of the Russian Federation, Mr. Vladimir PUTIN, on Sunday, February 20.

They agreed on the following points :

– the resumption of work under the Normandy format on the basis of exchanges and proposals made by Ukraine in recent days.

– intensive work to allow the holding of a trilateral contact group meeting in the coming hours with the objective of obtaining from all stakeholders a ceasefire commitment on the line of contact.

– the need to give priority to a diplomatic solution to the current crisis and to do everything possible to achieve it. For this, intensive diplomatic work will be conducted in the coming days and weeks. The Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs, Mr. Jean-Yves LE DRIAN, will meet with his counterpart Mr. LAVROV in the coming days and several consultations will be held in Paris to this effect.

– this diplomatic work should make it possible to make progress on the basis of the latest exchanges by involving all stakeholders (Europeans, allies, Russians and Ukrainians) in order to lead, if the conditions are met, to a meeting at the highest level with a view to defining a new order of peace and security in Europe.

– in order to conduct this work in serious conditions, the two Heads of State made firm commitments to take all necessary actions to avoid escalation, reduce risks and preserve peace.

So what is going on here?

First, the obvious: Macron wants to win the upcoming presidential election in France and being the “savior of Europe” would give him something to brag about.

Second, the no less obvious: Macron is trying to bypass his Anglo “partners” since neither the US nor the UK want anything short of an open Russian military intervention in the Ukraine.  Notice the words “all stakeholders (Europeans, allies, Russians and Ukrainians)” which mentions neither the US nor the UK ( here “allies” is just an empty but politically correct placeholder term).

Third, and that is obvious too: the Anglos don’t give a damn about Macron or his plans.

Which all begs the question: why does Putin even bother?

The answer, however, points to a different kind logic on the Russian side.

First, Putin and Lavrov have as a policy to talk to (almost) everybody (“Ze” being the current exception).  This is the Russian way of diplomacy: talk to countries that are each other’s mortal enemies, like Israel and Iran and talk to non-entities like Scholz or Truss.  The Kremlin does not care how hard Lavrov or Putin need to “hold their mental noses” when talking to dishonorable, cowardly, liars if that gets them some tangible benefit (more about that in a sec).

And the Russians will always do everything in their power to avoid war, small or big.

Folks in the West are used to “western diplomacy” in which you only talk (i.e. “give orders”) to your colonies, never talk to your opponents (who are always demonized) and where NOT negotiating is seen as a sign of “strength”.

In Russia not negotiating as a principle is seen as simply stupid and counter-productive.

Furthermore, while Macron clearly wants to repeat the “feat” of Zarkozy who claimed (falsely!) to have stopped the 08.08.08 war, the Russians see another very tangible benefit of talking to Macron: creating even more divisions in the West as a whole and in Europe specifically.

Consider this: the Russian ultimatum has already had a lot of highly positive effects:

  • The US/NATO, after years of totally ignoring Russia, are not only willing to talk to the Kremlin, they are even picking up past Russian proposals and presenting them as their own.
  • Europe is afraid, very afraid.  Not only of a major war with all that implies (including waves of refugees), but also from an energetic/economic collapse in case the US/UK prevail.
  • The Ukros in power have suddenly realized that they might be targeted.  Personally.  Hence the flight of Ukie oligarchs to the EU and “Ze” “trip to Europe to participate in the Munich conference”.
  • The Chinese now see that Russia is committed (I will clarify to what exactly below) and are throwing their considerable weight behind Russia.

You could use a Russian expression and say that Putin stuck a big stick in the West’s “anthill” and the said ants are now running around like crazy.

In that one single move, Russia achieved more than over several decades and, so far, she achieved that at a truly small price.

Having said that, I need to repeat something crucial here:

==>>This is NOT, repeat, NOT about the LDNR or even the Ukraine.<<==

Russia (and China!) wants a different multi-polar world order, one based on the full sovereignty of all countries, one in which international law serves as the basis for relations between sovereign states, one in which security is always defined and understood as collective security and one in which the United Nations remain the sole top authority to enforce the rules of international law.

The Kremlin often says that it wants a new security arrangement in Europe.  And that is true.  But, let’s not be naive here, the US domination over its European colonies is the cornerstone of Anglo world domination, so if the US/UK “lose” Europe, they will be finished as wannabe world hegemons.

The Russians and the Chinese are now leading the entire Zone B towards this goal by a careful mix of unilateral policies including the gradual de-dollarization of Eurasia and the energy markets, military pressure on the US and its colonies and by developing their REAL economies (as opposed to the West’s FIRE economies).

Okay, but what does that mean in practice?

That is too early to tell.

First, let’s see what, if anything, comes out of the French initiative.

Second, Macron’s initiatives will have zero impact on the LOC in the LDNR were exchanges of fire are constantly taking place but where, at least so far, the Ukies did not launch a ground assault across the LOC.  But they might, literally any second now, both sides are fully prepared for such an event.

Then there is the very real risk of a major false flag event organized by the Anglos.  The entire AngloZionist propaganda machine is now poised to instantly “pick up” such a false flag and blame it all on Russia.  I don’t see how Macron could do anything about that, even assuming he wanted to in the first place.

So let’s not jump to conclusions and see what happens next week with both Macron and Blinken.

In the meantime, the Ukies are trying to scare the planets with rumors about them ditching their non-nuclear status and develop nukes.  Please do not worry about that, at most what the Ukies can do is make a “dirty bomb”, but they exactly *zero* change to ever acquire real nukes (and, besides, if such a risk was even remotely real, Russia would take any and all actions to eliminate any such possibility).

The Ukies also sent a diversionary group into the LDNR but the local state security quickly intercepted them: 1 Ukie dead, one taken prisoner.  Two lightly wounded in the LDNR special forces.  Below is the video of that anti-terrorist operation.

Andrei

John Pilger: War in Europe and the Rise of Raw Propaganda

The war hysteria that has rolled in like a tidal wave in recent weeks and months is the most striking example. Known by its jargon, “shaping the narrative,” much if not most of it is pure propaganda.

February 17th, 2022

Source

By John Pilger

Marshall McLuhan’s prophecy that “the successor to politics will be propaganda” has happened.  Raw propaganda is now the rule in Western democracies, especially the US and Britain.

On matters of war and peace, ministerial deceit is reported as news. Inconvenient facts are censored, demons are nurtured. The model is corporate spin, the currency of the age. In 1964, McLuhan famously declared, “The medium is the message.” The lie is the message now.

But is this new? It is more than a century since Edward Bernays, the father of spin, invented “public relations” as a cover for war propaganda. What is new is the virtual elimination of dissent in the mainstream.

The great editor David Bowman, author of The Captive Press, called this “a defenestration of all who refuse to follow a line and to swallow the unpalatable and are brave”. He was referring to independent journalists and whistleblowers, the honest mavericks to whom media organizations once gave space, often with pride. The space has been abolished.

The war hysteria that has rolled in like a tidal wave in recent weeks and months is the most striking example. Known by its jargon, “shaping the narrative,” much if not most of it is pure propaganda.

The Russians are coming. Russia is worse than bad. Putin is evil, “a Nazi like Hitler,” salivated the Labour MP, Chris Bryant. Ukraine is about to be invaded by Russia – tonight, this week, next week. The sources include an ex CIA propagandist who now speaks for the US State Department and offers no evidence of his claims about Russian actions because “it comes from the US Government.”

The no-evidence rule also applies in London. The British Foreign Secretary, Liz Truss, who spent £500,000 of public money flying to Australia in a private plane to warn the Canberra government that both Russia and China were about to pounce,  offered no evidence. Antipodean heads nodded; the “narrative” is unchallenged there. One rare exception, former prime minister Paul Keating, called Truss’s warmongering “demented”.

Truss has blithely confused the countries of the Baltic and the Black Sea. In Moscow, she told the Russian foreign minister that Britain would never accept Russian sovereignty over Rostov and Voronezh – until it was pointed out to her that these places were not part of Ukraine but in Russia. Read the Russian press about the buffoonery of this pretender to 10 Downing Street and cringe.

This entire farce, recently starring Boris Johnson in Moscow playing a clownish version of his hero, Churchill, might be enjoyed as satire were it not for its wilful abuse of facts and historical understanding and the real danger of war.

Vladimir Putin refers to the “genocide” in the eastern Donbas region of Ukraine. Following the coup in Ukraine in 2014 – orchestrated by Barack Obama’s “point person” in Kyiv, Victoria Nuland – the coup regime, infested with neo-Nazis, launched a campaign of terror against Russian-speaking Donbas, which accounts for a third of Ukraine’s population.

Overseen by CIA director John Brennan in Kyiv, “special security units” coordinated savage attacks on the people of Donbas, who opposed the coup. Video and eyewitness reports show bussed fascist thugs burning the trade union headquarters in the city of Odessa, killing 41 people trapped inside. The police are standing by. Obama congratulated the “duly elected” coup regime for its “remarkable restraint”.

In the US media, the Odessa atrocity was played down as “murky” and a “tragedy” in which “nationalists” (neo-Nazis) attacked “separatists” (people collecting signatures for a referendum on a federal Ukraine). Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal damned the victims – “Deadly Ukraine Fire Likely Sparked by Rebels, Government Says”.

Professor Stephen Cohen, acclaimed as America’s leading authority on Russia, wrote, “The pogrom-like burning to death of ethnic Russians and others in Odessa reawakened memories of Nazi extermination squads in Ukraine during world war two. [Today] storm-like assaults on gays, Jews, elderly ethnic Russians, and other ‘impure’ citizens are widespread throughout Kyiv-ruled Ukraine, along with torchlight marches reminiscent of those that eventually inflamed Germany in the late 1920s and 1930s …

“The police and official legal authorities do virtually nothing to prevent these neo-fascist acts or to prosecute them. On the contrary, Kyiv has officially encouraged them by systematically rehabilitating and even memorializing Ukrainian collaborators with Nazi German extermination pogroms, renaming streets in their honor, building monuments to them, rewriting history to glorify them, and more.”

Today, neo-Nazi Ukraine is seldom mentioned. That the British are training the Ukrainian National Guard, which includes neo-Nazis, is not news. (See Matt Kennard’s Declassified report in Consortium 15 February). The return of violent, endorsed fascism to 21st-century Europe, to quote Harold Pinter, “never happened … even while it was happening”.

On 16 December, the United Nations tabled a resolution that called for “combating glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism”. The only nations to vote against it were the United States and Ukraine.

Almost every Russian knows that it was across the plains of Ukraine’s “borderland” that Hitler’s divisions swept from the west in 1941, bolstered by Ukraine’s Nazi cultists and collaborators. The result was more than 20 million Russians dead.

Setting aside the maneuvers and cynicism of geopolitics, whomever the players, this historical memory is the driving force behind Russia’s respect-seeking, self-protective security proposals, which were published in Moscow in the week the UN voted 130-2 to outlaw Nazism. They are:

  • NATO guarantees that it will not deploy missiles in nations bordering Russia. (They are already in place from Slovenia to Romania, with Poland to follow)
  • NATO to stop military and naval exercises in nations and seas bordering Russia.
  • Ukraine will not become a member of NATO.
  • the West and Russia to sign a binding East-West security pact.
  • – the landmark treaty between the US and Russia covering intermediate-range nuclear weapons to be restored. (The US abandoned it in 2019)

These amount to a comprehensive draft of a peace plan for all of post-war Europe and ought to be welcomed in the West. But who understands their significance in Britain? What they are told is that Putin is a pariah and a threat to Christendom.

Russian-speaking Ukrainians, under economic blockade by Kyiv for seven years, are fighting for their survival. The “massing” army we seldom hear about are the thirteen Ukrainian army brigades laying siege to Donbas: an estimated 150,000 troops. If they attack, the provocation to Russia will almost certainly mean war.

In 2015, brokered by the Germans and French, the presidents of Russia, Ukraine, Germany, and France met in Minsk and signed an interim peace deal. Ukraine agreed to offer autonomy to Donbas, now the self-declared republics of Donetsk and Luhansk.

The Minsk agreement has never been given a chance. In Britain, the line,  amplified by Boris Johnson, is that Ukraine is being “dictated to” by world leaders. For its part, Britain is arming Ukraine and training its army.

Since the first Cold War, NATO has effectively marched right up to Russia’s most sensitive border having demonstrated its bloody aggression in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and broken solemn promises to pull back.  Having dragged European “allies” into American wars that do not concern them, the great unspoken is that NATO itself is the real threat to European security.

In Britain, a state and media xenophobia is triggered at the very mention of “Russia.” Mark the knee-jerk hostility with which the BBC reports Russia. Why? Is it because the restoration of imperial mythology demands, above all, a permanent enemy? Certainly, we deserve better.

Andrei Martyanov’s reaction to the West “reply” (MUST WATCH!)

FEBRUARY 02, 2022

Please visit Andrei’s website: 

https://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/
and support him 

Politics of the Ukraine – Past and future possibilities

February 28, 2022

Source

by Straight-Bat

  1. Introduction

It would be quite unusual for any thinking person to remain calm and quiet under the current geopolitical environment across the Eurasian landmass. Hence, I couldn’t resist myself from delving into the origin, causes, and future possibilities of the so-called ‘Ukraine problem’.

The very first thing that comes to my mind is how the phrase ‘Ukraine problem’ came into limelight. Does the origin of this phrase has something to do with things purely Ukrainian or for that matter, even Russian? Not really! The ‘problem’ identified with ‘Ukraine’ has its origin in the global geopolitics – more specifically, it has everything to do with the concept of ‘geopolitics’ defined by the academicians, strategists, economists who did the bidding of Zionist-Capitalist globalists during past one and half centuries. It was the experts like Mackinder (Heartland Theory – “Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland, Who rules Heartland commands the World-Island, Who rules the World-Island commands the World”), Spykman (Rimland Theory – “Who controls the Rimland rules Eurasia, Who rules Eurasia controls the destinies of the world”), Brzezinski (Grand Chess Board Theory – “Eurasia is the globe’s largest continent and geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world’s most advances and economically productive regions. The control over Eurasia would almost automatically entails Africa’s subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world’s central continent. Since Eurasia is too big to be politically one. It is the chessboard on which the struggle for global primacy continues to be played”), who for reasons unknown to any peaceful social person, wanted ‘Eurasia’ to be the indispensable piece of landmass that must be controlled by the Zionist-Capitalist globalist clique permanently. (There are a great many regions across six continents and five oceans where there are humongous deposits of fossil fuels, minerals, forests, and water resources – Eurasian heartland is just one of the many).

  1. The Geopolitical Plot in Eurasia: The Role of Zionist-Capitalist Globalists

I would quote from a piece written by me earlier in this blog-site [link 🡪 http://thesaker.is/bridging-chinas-past-with-humanitys-future-part-2/%5D lest the key geopolitical issue about the ‘Ukraine problem’ is forgotten by the readers:

“ With the setting up of Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in Switzerland in 1930, the disputes and tussle among the most prominent Jewish and Anglo banker families (like Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan, Warburg, Lazard, et al.) over type of business, geographical region of influence, and share of banking sector operations got resolved. The Zionist-Capitalist elites were fully united in words and deeds notwithstanding the occasional rivalry and difference of opinion between followers of two camps: Rothschild and Rockefeller. The long-term objective of the Zionist-Capitalist Deep State clique (representing primarily the Jewish, Anglo, Dutch, French, German oligarch and aristocrat families who had accumulated wealth and have been engaged in business in banking-land-industry-trading) after WW-I has been to establish a hegemonic world order which would:

  1. own ‘political process and power’ in every society/country on the earth
  2. own ‘economic process and wealth’ in every landmass/country/ocean on the earth
  3. control ‘socio-cultural process and population’ in every region/country on the earth

I find it difficult to consider that, ‘winning’ political power anywhere in the world, has ever been an objective of the Deep State – they want to ‘own’ the process through which any political party may be made to ‘win’ or ‘loose’ power depending on short-term and long-term interest of the Deep State.

The Zionist-Capitalist Deep State crystallized in its existing form when WW-II started in 1936 (with signing of anti-communist pact between Germany, Italy, and Japan). Expectations of the Zionist-Capitalist Deep State were destruction of powerful societies (non- Anglo/Jewish/Dutch/French) who had potential to develop advanced economy, and expansion of the Zionist-Capitalist Empire:

  1. combatants Fascist Germany and Communist Soviet Union decimating each other’s (i) military forces, (ii) physical infrastructure, and (iii) population across entire Eurasia;
  2. combatants Fascist Japan and Nationalist China decimating each other’s (i) military forces, (ii) physical infrastructure, and (iii) population across entire East Asia;
  3. stages (a) and (b) would be followed by occupation of whole Europe and Asia by the ‘benevolent’ Anglo-American military who would claim that they have ‘liberated’ these ancient civilizations from the ‘authoritarian dictatorships’ of fascism and communism;
  4. stage (c) would be followed by establishment of ‘liberal democratic capitalism’ version of the empire as against (the older) ‘colonial extractive capitalism’ version in whole Europe and Asia to continue plunder of wealth in maximum possible way “

Unfortunately half of the objectives remained unfulfilled in the WW-II that was over by 1945 – because of two political parties: Communist Party of Soviet Union (CPSU) and Communist Party of China (CPC) whose top leadership mobilised their countrymen in collective patriotic spirit, Soviet Union and China didn’t capitulate but their direct adversaries (Germany and Japan) were trounced. Phase II became a necessity for the Deep State.

Phase II of WW-II was initiated as soon as phase I was over. ‘Operation Unthinkable’ was planned by most ardent imperialist Churchill in order to launch a surprise attack on Soviet Union to achieve the original objectives that Hitler failed to achieve, but dropped. Realising that a military block consisting of all societies that join together as Zionist-Capitalist Deep State, would be more effective to demolish:

(a) morally and militarily supreme power like Soviet Union which recuperated economically,

(b) new power like Communist China (where by January’1949, Peoples Liberation Army already won three major campaigns in last strongholds of Kuo Mintang party in east and south regions of China),

NATO was formed in April’1949.

To achieve the long-term objective of hegemonic world order as well as the four WW-II objectives, the Deep State displayed creativity in designing and deploying diplomatic, political, economic, cultural tools and methods that proved to be highly durable and extremely effective:

  1. UNO and its key sister organizations were established to control the international political incidents in all regions across the globe
  2. Through WBG, IMF, ADB global banking and financial companies spread its tentacles to every region of the world to control natural resources and economy
  3. US Dollar as the foreign currency exchange basis across the globe – not only the gold backing was withdrawn from Dollar in 1971 by USA government, but the hegemon also manipulated the Arab rulers to use Dollar as currency for most crucial commodity trading (of petroleum)
  4. Trade pacts like GATT, WTO, and similar other pacts driven by USA-West Europe-Japan were implemented so that the hegemonic power maintains their hold over global trade
  5. Promotion of ‘periodic election’ plus ‘market economy’ plus ‘private ownership’ masquerading as ‘Democracy’ across the globe
  6. Promotion of literature-cinema-fine arts that revolves around sex-drug-commercial duplicity in all major languages across the globe
  7. Promotion of mainstream media for broadcasting and publishing round-the-clock propaganda on the above mentioned tools (i) to (vi) in all major languages across the globe
  8. Promotion of academic institutions and intellectual for propagating curriculum on the above mentioned tools (i) to (vi) in all major languages across the globe
  9. Promotion of religious fundamentalist groups (male chauvinists with belief in illusory past glory from society which profess religious faiths like Sunni Islam, in Catholic Christianity, in Puritan Christianity, Brahmanical Hinduism etc.) as well as ethnic fundamentalist groups (believing superiority of his/her ethnicity) in all regions across the globe
  10. Development of highly complex computerised system and other industrial technology to replace human labour in every sphere of productive work as much as possible


The Deep State operatives were very successful in their original plan of wrecking Soviet Union from within. In the beginning of 1980s two leaders got into powerful political positions in the Soviet block – Yuri Andropov became top leader of CPSU and Lech Walesa became top trade union leader in Poland, Such high-ranking anti-socialist leaders quickly made inroads into state structure and policies in Soviet Union and Poland. After Andropov handpicked Gorbachev to lead CPSU, it was only a matter of time for the Deep State to wrap-up the socialist experiment what was known as USSR. Gorbachev and his so-called reformist clique systematically incapacitated Soviet economy, and also actively promoted downfall of governments in every east European country which were led by socialist party aligned with CPSU. This clique was helped by professionals from USA and west Europe. They also pinned hope that CPC leader Zhao Ziyang will become the ‘Gorbachev of China’ to bring down the government ruled by CPC – however this was a complete failure as Zhao himself confided with Gorbachev that ‘Deng was the top leader’ in a meeting when Tiananmen Square protest was raging in Beijing in 1989. 
Without a single gun-shot being fired by the military wings of Zionist-Capitalist cabal, the Soviet Union dissolved itself between 1990 to 1991 CE – the phase II of WW-II came to an end. Instead of serious introspection and course correction among ruling party officials and government departments to design policies keeping pace with socio-economic changes and technological changes, all these (Soviet) ‘reformist’ leaders decided that the best way to (personal?) growth was to join hands with Zionist-Capitalist world order after bringing down the governments ruled by their own party communist/socialist party.

By 2020 whole Europe and half of Asia had been occupied by the ‘benevolent’ Anglo-American NATO military who claimed that they guarantee ‘independence’ of those ‘liberated countries’ from the clutch of ‘authoritarian’ communism and they also ensure that ‘liberal democratic capitalism’ version of empire will suck the land and citizens dry. No wonder, Soviet WW-II war memorials and monuments have been systematically destroyed in east Europe – how long the Deep State would tolerate anti-Zionist anti-capitalist flag hoisted by Soviet Red Army in Europe with immense sacrifices and sufferings by Soviet leaders, soldiers and people?

Concomitant with the complete control of all political parties (across the wide spectrum of their professed ideology) on both sides of the Atlantic: North America, South America, Europe, the discerning Zionist-Capitalist cabal maintains a complex cobweb connecting all key members and rotating them from one role to another. Thus a retired Director of intelligence department of USA will occupy the chair of Chairman of a big financial investment firm as well as the role of a university Professor! The cabal maintains a carefully constructed façade where professionals from different spheres of society jointly appear as a highly educated, experienced and intelligent wing – industrialists, bankers, politicians, bureaucrats, military officials, business managers, legal and media professionals, academicians, NGO managers, cinema directors and artists all walks of life are present…”

In spite of the planning and execution of the imperialist capitalist designs on Eurasia as mentioned above, the Zionist-Capitalist clique found, to their utter dismay, that by 2020 a resurgent nationalist Russia and a nationalist communist China are successfully spearheading a sort of global movement for multipolar geopolitical and geo-economic world order. Not only the gains at the end of WW I, WW II, and Cold War have been seriously undermined by the ‘evil-duo’ of Russia and China, but the basic primacy of the Zionist-Capitalist Deep State in global affairs are being seriously contested by these countries (and Iran). The final objectives of the Zionist-Capitalist Deep State is to wreck the current Russian and Chinese society and economy, create disorder that will eventually break the states of Russia and China into 3 – 5 smaller states, leaders of which will source their legitimacy and strength from the global oligarchy (the high priests of Zionist-Capitalist Deep State).

  1. Brief Political History of the East Slavs

For any serious discussion on geopolitics and geo-economics of a country/region, historical development of political entity and society must be seriously and objectively carried out. Instead of writing long paragraphs, I thought it prudent to be economical and put information in tabular format. According to the traditional account presented in The Russian Primary Chronicle (originally authored by Nestor, a monk in Kievan Rus of the Monastery of the Caves in Kiev who lived between 1056 and 1113 CE), the kingdom of Kievan Rus was founded by Rurik, the Varangian /Viking ruler of Novgorod who reigned between 862 CE and 879 CE. The next chief Oleg who ruled between 879 CE and 912 CE expanded the territory by expelling the Khazars from Kiev, and established the new capital at Kiev – the location was chosen with an eye to controlling the trading with the Byzantine Empire through Dnieper. And, it was instrumental for the prosperity of Kievan Rus (that controlled the trade route from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea through which furs, wax, honey, slaves were moved). The kingdom was expanded eastward and westward by Igor who ruled between 912 CE and 945 CE, and by Olga (who ruled as regent between 945 CE and 964 CE) southward. Vladimir I ruled between 978 CE and 1015 CE – his reign was noteworthy because he got converted into Orthodox Christianity in 988 CE thereby selecting Orthodox Christianity as the state religion for east Slavic society. Yaroslav the Wise (reigned 1019 CE to 1054 CE) promulgated the first East Slavic law code (Rus’ka pravda). Both Vladimir I and Yaroslav challenged the Khazarian Empire for the entire space over which the Khazarian kingdom was built.

Encyclopaedia Britannica noted “The East Slavs had no significant tradition of supra-tribal political organization before the coming of the Varangians, who themselves, until well into the 10th century, had little interest in institutions more elaborate than those necessary for the exploitation of their rich, new territory. The territory of Rus, moreover, was immense and sparsely settled. The scattered towns, some probably little more than trading posts, were separated by large primeval forests and swamps.” Even though any staunch nationalist from the current Rus society would like to scoff at this quotation, reality of Rus society before Mongol invasion was nearer to this statement rather than further. After the death of Yaroslav the Wise in 1054 CE, there was a major break-up within the Rurik dynasty as a result of which the kingdom of Kievan Rus got split into multiple principalities each of which was ruled by a member of the Rurik family. The princes frequently fought among themselves, forming alliances with outside groups such as the Poles, and Hungarians. With Kievan Rus kingdom in decline, Novgorod principality became strong. A local oligarchy ruled Novgorod; a town assembly elected a prince as the city-state’s military leader. It benefited tremendously from the trading relations with other trading towns of the Hanseatic League. In the 12th century Novgorod had its dedicated archbishop as a sign of political independence. Also, by the 12th century, the combined principality of Vladimir-Suzdal became a major power – in 1169 CE the army under Prince Andrey Bogolyubskiy sacked the city of Kiev. Political power shifted to the northeast, away from Kiev region. In 1299 CE the metropolitan of the Orthodox Church moved to the city of Vladimir thereby raising the status of Vladimir-Suzdal’ as the religious centre of east Slavic society. To the southwest (of Kiev), the principality of Galicia-Volhynia developed mature trade relations with Polish, and Hungarian neighbours and emerged as another successor to Kievan Rus’. In 1199 CE Prince Roman of Volhynia, invited by the Galician noblemen ascended the throne in Halicz and united Volhynia and Galicia in 1200 CE. .

Briefly the political and territorial trajectory of Eurasian landmass (with more stress on the western edge of Eurasia) has been mentioned below:

RegionDescription
8th century BCE to 2nd century CE
Carpathian Mountains in the west to Ordos Plateau in the eastThe first Central Asian nomadic empire was built by the Scythians.Between 2nd and 4th century CE the Scythians were overwhelmed and dominated by the Sarmatians, Alans, Huns, and Goths.
4th century CE to 9th century CE
Between upper Volga and upper Don (currently west Russia)Settlements of five Volga-Finnic groups of the Merya, Mari, Muromians, Meshchera and Mordvinians.
Around lower Volga and lower Don (currently west Russia), Caucasus, and lower Dnieper (currently Ukraine)Settlements of Bulghars, Khazars, and Kipchaks; a team of Bulghars migrated towards coast of Black Sea, another team migrated to upper Volga; Khazars became a strong kingdom between Dnieper and Ural rivers, and it extracted tributes from non-Khazars living within their jurisdiction.
Coast of Baltic Sea, currently west Belarus, Gulf of Finland, lake Ladoga, White SeaSettlements of two East Balt (Indo-European) groups: Latvians, Lithuanians and four Finnic groups: Vepsians, Estonians, Karelians, and Chuds.
Space between Dniester – upper Vistula in the west to Ural mountains in the east (currently Ukraine, Belarus, west Russia)Entire region except the space occupied by the 3 above mentioned communities was occupied by the east Slavic tribes. Apparently, remnants of the old Scythian and Sarmatian communities had been assimilated and absorbed by the early east Slavic society.
860 CE to 1240 CE
The watersheds of the Volga, Don, Dnieper, Dniester, Neman, Western Dvina, VistulaBy the 7th century CE the east Slavs became the dominant ethno-linguistic group in the Eurasian plain. Between 862 CE and 1054 CE the kingdom of Kievan Rus (east Slav society ruled by Varangian aristocracy) was on ascendency, it reached its zenith as the first ‘state’ of the east Slavs with significant geopolitical weight.
From east to west:(i) Vladimir-Suzdal,(ii) Ryazan,(iii) Novgorod,(iv) Smolensk,(v) Chernigov,(vi) Polotsk,(vi) Kiev,(viii) Galicia-VolhyniaBetween 1054 CE and 1240 CE, the kingdom of Kievan Rus slipped into a path of chaos, independent strong principalities arose who were engaged in internecine wars among themselves. There is a view among a section of the European academicians who would like to negate the entire Kievan Rus chapter. Jaroslaw Pelenski mentioned in ‘The Contest for the Legacy of Kievan Rus’, “The ‘Riurikide’ dynasty and the ruling elite … attempted to impose on their highly diverse polity the integrative concept of russkaia zemlia (‘the Rus’ land’) and the unifying notion of a ‘Rus’ people’. …But ‘Kievan Rus” was never really a unified polity. It was a loosely bound, ill-defined, and heterogeneous conglomeration of lands and cities inhabited by tribes and population groups whose loyalties were primarily territorial…”
1240 CE to 1547 CE
Golden Horde empire included:According to notable Russian scholars A.P.Grigorev and O.B.Frolova, Golden Horde had 10 provinces:(i) Khiva or Khorazm,(ii) Desht-i-Kipchak,(iii) Khazaria,(iv) Crimea,(v) the Banks of Azov,(vi) the country of Circassians,(vii) Bulgar,(viii) Walachia,(ix) Alania,(x) Russian lands (mostly vassal states like (a) Grand Duchy of Lithuania,(b) Republic of Novgorod,(c) Republic of Pskov,(d) Principality of Smolensk, and(e) Grand Duchy of Muscovy)Between 1237 CE and 1242 CE, forces of Mongol Empire overran most of the regions which were once part of the kingdom of Kievan Rus’. After sacking the city of Kiev in 1240 CE, the Mongol army moved into Poland and Hungary.Crimea, Itil, New Sarai (near modern Volgograd) were the towns which became the commercial and administrative centres of the so-called ‘Golden Horde’ (Mongol family of Jochi, son of Genghis Khan). Control of the Slavic society and land was exercised through the local princes (who acted as vassals), and through agents charged with overseeing the fiscal levies.As the time progressed, different branches of Mongol ‘Golden Horde’ in charge with different regions (Tatar Khanates) of the empire clashed among them. Finally, in 1395 CE, Timur’s central Asian army destroyed the Golden Horde’s power centres at Sarai, Azov, and Kaffa. The Golden Horde never recovered fully, but they continued their tribute collection system till 1480 CE when Grand Prince Ivan III of Muscovy Principality denied payment of tribute (called as ‘Great Stand on the Ugra River’). Thereafter, few comparatively small sized ‘khanates’ arose in few places (across the erstwhile empire) that were run by the Mongol warlords and vied for political space (increasingly cornered by Muscovy Rus).
Grand Duchy of Lithuania(Kingdom of Poland and Duchy of Lithuania were united by Union of Krewo, a personal union of the rulers in 1385 CE; Union of Lublin in 1569 CE was a pact between Poland and Lithuania that united the two countries into a single commonwealth state)Lithuanians created one of the strongest political entities of medieval Europe, Grand Duchy of Lithuania that covered their traditional tribal space on Baltic Sea as well as the principality of Polotsk (one of the break-away regions of Kievan Rus that was invaded by Lithuanians in 1307 CE). It also acquired the northern part of the principality of Kiev between 1240 CE and 1319 CE.Principality of Galicia–Volhynia (1199–1253 CE) was one of the many independent principalities that came into limelight after dissolution of Kievan Rus. Later proclaimed as Kingdom of Ruthenia it became a vassal of the Golden Horde. Polish kingdom annexed the Ruthenian kingdom in 1349 CE. Catholic Polish King Casimir III adopted the title of King of Poland and ruler of Ruthenia.Thus for all practical purposes, western and central parts of present-day Ukraine and Belarus became part of the Catholic Poland-Lithuania during mid-14th century.
Republic of NovgorodOf the principalities of Kievan Rus’, only Novgorod escaped direct occupation by the Mongols. In fact, Novgorod’s burghers accommodated the invading Mongols – they extended their trading down the Volga and toward the Urals.Alexander Nevsky served as the Prince of Novgorod (1236–56 and 1258–1259), Grand Prince of Kiev (1236–52) and Grand Prince of Vladimir (1252–63) during some of the most difficult times in Rus’ history. He defeated all adversaries (Swedes, Germans, Estonians) approaching from north-west while maintained good relations with Golden Horde by paying them a tribute – probably, such farsightedness saved the Orthodox culture of the then Rus society.Novgorod continued to prosper economically, but its ruling oligarchy was dethroned by the Grand Principality of Muscovy in 1478 CE thereby ending its independence.
Grand Duchy of MuscovyWhile towns like Kiev never fully recovered in Mongol times, many other towns made a striking recovery as it happened for the towns in Vladimir-Suzdal region. New regions, such as Moscow and Tver appeared on the horizon within Vladimir-Suzdal region. Alexander Nevsky, clan member of Rurikid dynasty formed the Grand Duchy of Muscovy when in 1263 CE his son Daniel I was appointed to rule the newly-created Grand Duchy, which they ruled until their male line died out in 1598 CE. It started as a vassal state to the Golden Horde Mongol Empire, and soon eclipsed and eventually absorbed its parent Duchy of Vladimir-Suzdal by the 1320s.The Grand Duchy of Muscovy gradually incorporated all left out adjacent smaller duchies. Vasili III who reigned between 1505 and 1533 CE, expanded Muscovy’s borders by annexing Republic of Novgorod (1478 CE), Duchy of Tver (1485 CE), Republic of Pskov (1510 CE), the principality of Ryazan (1521 CE), and Novgorod-Seversky (1522 CE).Moscow’s eventual dominance of northern and eastern Rus’ was in large part attributable to the Mongols. After the prince of Tver joined a rebellion against the Mongols in 1327 CE, Muscovy prince Ivan I joined the Mongols in crushing Tver. By doing so he removed his rival, brought the Russian Orthodox Church headquarters to Moscow, and was granted the title of Grand Prince by the Mongol Empire. Slowly the Muscovy prince became the chief intermediary between the Mongol court and the Rus’ principalities. Golden Horde respected and collaborated with Muscovy Rus. This, in turn, attracted even the Mongol nobles who settled in the secured Muscovy.‘Many Russian boyar (noble) families traced their descent from the Mongols or Tatars, including Veliaminov-Zernov, Godunov, Arseniev, Bakhmetev, Bulgakov (descendants of Bulgak) and Chaadaev (descendants of Genghis Khan’s son Chagatai Khan). In a survey of Russian noble families of the 17th century, over 15% of the Russian noble families had Tatar or Oriental origins.’
1547 CE to 1771 CE
Tsardom of Russia / Tsardom of Muscovy; Russian EmpireAs of 1763 CE, Russian Empire was organised in following divisions:(i) Archangelgorod Governorate(ii) Astrakhan Governorate(iii) Belgorod Governorate(iv) Kazan Governorate(v) Kiev Governorate(vi) Moscow Governorate(vii) Nizhny Novgorod Governorate(viii) Novgorod Governorate(ix) Orenburg Governorate(x) Revel Governorate(xi) Riga Governorate(xii) St. Petersburg Governorate(xiii) Siberian Governorate(xiv) Smolensk Governorate(xv) Voronezh Governorate(xvi) Vyborg GovernorateIn 1547 CE, Ivan IV assumed the title of ‘Tsar and Grand Duke of all Rus’ and was crowned by Constantinople Patriarch Jeremiah II thereby turning the Grand Duchy of Muscovy into Tsardom of Russia. Between 1598 CE (when the last Rurik dynasty ruler died) and 1613 CE (when the Romanovs came to power) there was political instability. Thereafter the expansion process of the Tsardom continued. From 1551 to 1700 CE, Russia grew by 35,000 km2 per year. Through a series of victorious military campaigns Tsarist Russia annexed the Khanate of Kazan (1552 CE), the Khanate of Astrakhan (1556 CE), and the Khanate of Sibir (1598 CE) from the former Mongol warlords. Russia annexed the Khanate of Qasim in 1681 CE.In the mid-17th century the tensions between Polish-Lithuanian ruling aristocracy and the Cossacks of the Ukrainian lands increased. The dispute turned into a military conflict in 1648 CE known as the Khmelnitsky uprising. The Cossack leader Bogdan Khmelnitsky, after a few years of war against Polish-Lithuanian, was forced to seek protection from the Russian Tsar. The Pereiaslav union in 1654 CE led to the progressive incorporation of the Cossack parts of the state with the Russian Empire. In 1667 CE (Truce of Andrusovo), Russia and Poland partitioned the Russian and Malorossian territory (ruled by Poland-Lithuania) along the River Dnepr whereby Left Bank remained under Russian control (Smolensk, Left Bank Ukraine, temporary gain of Kiev, Zaphorizhia. In 1686 CE the control over Kiev, Zaphorizhia became permanent. Muscovy secured number of territories that belonged to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania such as the Upper Oka Principalities and Sloboda Ukraine. In 1708, the Oka principalities and Sloboda Ukraine were incorporated into the first Kiev Governorate.Wars against Sweden resulted in victories and territorial gains – in 1721 CE Livonia, Estonia, Ingria, and Karelia were annexed, while in 1743 CE south-west Karelia was annexed by Russia defeating the Swedish kingdom.
1772 CE to 1921 CE
At the start of WW I in 1914 CE, western part of Russian Empire consisted of the following divisions:Principality of Finland governorates:Uleaborg, Vaasa, Abo-Byerneborg, Nyland, Tavastehus, Saint Michel, Vyborg, KuopioBaltic governorates:Estonia, Livonia, CourlandLithuania/Belarus governorates:Kovno, Vilna, Vitebsk, Mogilev,Minsk, GrodnoCongress Poland governorates: Kalisz, Kelets, Lomzh, Lublin, Plotsk, Petrokov, Radom, Suvalki, WarsawRight-bank Ukraine governorates:Kholm, Volhynian, Kiev, PodolianMalorossiya governorates:Chernigov, Poltava, KharkovNovorossiya governorates:Don Cossack Host, Ekaterinoslav, Kherson, Taurida, Bessarabia, CrimeaThrough first partition of Poland-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1772 CE, Russia came into possession of the part of Livonia that had remained in Commonwealth control, and of eastern Belarus embracing the regions of Vitebsk, Polotsk, Mstislavl. Only the most Western part (east Galicia) went to Austria. However the territories acquired by Austria did not correspond exactly to those of former Halych-Volhynia – the Russian Empire took control of Volhynia to the north-east, including the city of Volodymyr-Volynskyi. The full official name of the new Austrian territory was the Kingdom of Galicia and LodomeriaRussian empire annexed the vassal state of Crimean Khanate (Crimea, and most of present-day Zaphorizhia, Kherson, south-eastern Dnipropetrovsk, and western Donetsk Oblast) in 1783 CE. Russian empire acquired Southern Bug and Karbadino (in current south Ukraine) and Yedisan (Mykolaiv and Odessa oblasts of current Ukraine) in 1774 CE and 1792 CE respectively after defeating Ottoman Empire both the times.Through second and third partitions that happened in quick succession in 1793 CE and 1795 CE, Russia acquired southern part of current Latvia (south of Riga), most part of current Lithuania including Wilno (Vilnius), most part of current Belarus including Minsk, Pinsk, Brest, most part of Right Bank Ukraine that forms current Ukraine including Lutsk, Rovno, Zhytomyr, Bratslav, and Galicia from Poland-Lithuanian Commonwealth.In 1801 CE Russia annexed the Kingdom of Kartli-Kakheti (modern day eastern Georgia) for which a fierce tussle among Ottoman Empire, Persian Empire, and Russian Empire existed. In 1810 CE the Kingdom of Imereti (western Georgia) was annexed by Russian Empire.Between 1808 CE and 1809 CE, Swedish Empire and Russian Empire fought over the Finnish territory of Swedish Empire. Russian Empire won the war as a result of which the Finnish territory joined Russian Empire with an identity ‘Duchy of Finland’.Bessarabia (two-thirds of which lies within modern Moldova) was taken over by Russian Empire in 1812 CE after winning a war against Ottoman Empire.After Napoleon’s defeat in 1813 CE, the (Polish) Duchy of Warsaw was again captured by the neighbouring empires/kingdoms. Russia gained the central and eastern part of the Duchy of Warsaw, which further extended its boundary into the Polish landsParts of Georgia, Dagestan, parts of northern Azerbaijan, and parts of northern Armenia were annexed from Persian Empire by Russian Empire in 1813 CE. In 1828 CE, Persian Empire ceded Caucasian region (present-day Armenia, Azerbaijan) to Russian Empire after defeat in their last major military conflict with Russia.
Between 1914 CE and 1921 CE, Russian Empire got dissolved, and Bolshevik Russia ascended; following non-east Slavic lands became independent:(i) Principality of Finland governorates(ii) Baltic governorates(iii) Lithuania governorates(iv) Congress Poland governoratesAfter losing most of the western parts of the Russian Empire due to a defeat by German Empire and the ensuing Brest-Litovsk Treaty in March’1918, Bolshevik Russia regained some parts of the regions that became present-day Belarus, and Ukraine. Treaty of Riga among Poland, Soviet Russia (acting also on behalf of Soviet Belarus) and Soviet Ukraine signed in 1921 CE settled the border with Poland’s gain of west Ukraine and west Belarus.
1922 CE to 1991 CE
At the time of the dissolution of the USSR in 1991 CE, the western and south-western regions of the USSR comprised of the following states:(i) Estonian SSR(ii) Latvian SSR(iii) Lithuanian SSR(iv) Byelorussian SSR(v) Ukrainian SSR(vi) Moldavian SSR(vii) Georgian SSR(viii) Armenian SSR(ix) Azerbaijan SSRIn 1922 CE, Union treaty formally brought Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and the Transcaucasia into the USSR. Transcaucasia lands were divided in 1936 CE into Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan.During the WW II in 1940 CE, Soviet troops annexed Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia in the Baltic Sea region whereas Romania ceded control of Bessarabia and North Bukovina to USSR which incorporated these lands as Moldavian SSR. Soviet troops also seized the west Ukraine and west Belarus lands from Poland.
At the time of the dissolution of the USSR, Ukraine consisted of the following oblasts:(i) East: Luhansk, Donetsk, Kharkiv(ii) North-east: Sumy, Poltava(iii) South-east: Zaporizhzhia, Dnipropetrovsk, Kherson, Crimea(iv) North-central: Kiev, Cherkasy, Chernihiv(v) South-central: Kirovohrad, Mykolaiv, Odessa(vi) West: Zakarpatska, Lviv, Ivano-Frankivsk(vii) North-west: Volyn, Rivne, Zhytomyr(viii) South-west: Ternopil, Khmelnytskyi, Chernivtsi, VinnytsiaAfter formulation of the new constitution of Soviet Union, Russian, Transcaucasian, Ukrainian, and Byelorussian regions formed the Union in 1922 CE; other regions joined later on (till WW II when Baltic regions joined).After 1922, territorial architecture of Ukraine was modified 4 times:In 1939 CE, the region of Lviv, Ivano-Frankivsk, Ternopil, Volyn, west part of Rivne were added to west and north-west Ukraine (territories from Poland);In 1940 CE, the southern part of Odessa and Chernivtsi were added to south-central Ukraine (territories from Romania);In 1945 CE, the region of Zakarpatska was added to west Ukraine (Ruthenia from Czechoslovakia);In 1954 CE, the region of Crimea was added to south-east Ukraine;On 24 August 1991, Ukraine SSR made the proclamation of its independence. With the dissolution of USSR in December 1991 Ukraine became independent country. But the historical baggage of its territorial expanse never left it. 

The most significant observations on the political history of the east Slavic society are (as evident from a critical study of the history of the east Slavic civilization):

  1. East Slavic communities spread across the vast expanses of east Europe and Central Asia were politically led by various non-Slavic aristocracies at different points of time (like Varangians, Mongols, Lithuanians, Germans) apart from the comparatively insignificant numbers of political organizations by the local Slavic aristocracy. Thus, the modern east Slavic societies possess the understanding of the political ideas/concepts which were/are prevalent in Europe and Asia as well as the cumulative experience of different styles of state formation, state administration, and warfare
  2. Ruling aristocracy in east Slavic land passed through a very interesting metamorphosis – it can be stated with high degree of certainty that, the formation of aristocracy in Slavic society was initiated in the ancient era (may be 2nd – 4th century CE) when Scythian and Sarmatian tribes were assimilated in much larger community of east Slavs; during the medieval period, numerically smaller Varangians and Mongols (who settled in the lands of east Slavs) got absorbed within the east Slavic community; the modern era similarly witnessed the assimilation of a limited number of German, Polish, Lithuanian aristocrats within the east Slavic community. It won’t be out of place to mention that such waves of assimilation created a tremendous non-tangible asset in the form of geopolitical ideas and combat acumen among the east Slavs which is unparalleled in the history of humankind
  3. It will be historically untrue to portray a picture of the political dynamics in the east Slavic civilization as a dichotomy between Kievan Rus and Muscovy Rus – the author finds that Kievan Rus and Muscovy Rus were two of the most important ‘time-space combinations’ (socio-political-economic formation in a geographic region at a specific historical time period) among (probably) a dozen of such entities. Thus Novgorod, Kazan, Belarus etc. were few other ‘time-space combinations’. And a very interesting fact about these formations was that, the common Slavs and aristocrat Boyars (more often than not, with a mixed ancestry of Slavic and non-Slavic elites) would find a common theme/platform built around a quasi-real quasi-metaphysical set of ideas/concepts to struggle for and establish a principality based on such notions (which, generally, won’t last for long)
  4. Ukraine (within its current geographic boundary) never had a ‘state’ formed by a kingdom, or an empire – its boundary has been time and again modified as an administrative region with the USSR. ‘Left-Bank’, and ‘Right-Bank’ had different trajectories of political history, ‘Novorossiya’ on the coast of Black Sea had entirely different history (refer Figure 3.1 and 3.2 given below). All those different historical ‘time-space combinations’ were put together as ‘Ukraine SSR’ within the USSR by Bolshevik Party under two key factors: (i) Bolsheviks struggled from 1917 to 1922 CE against almost the entire world – anti-Bolshevik local groups of kulaks, bankers, middle-class professionals/ burghers, monarchists, senior army officers, politicians like liberals-conservatives-democrats as well as the Menshevik socialists, plus foreign governments run by the Zionist-Capitalists like UK, (its colonies) Australia, Canada, France, Italy, Romania, Czechia, Slovakia, Japan, USA etc. – which fostered a sense of feebleness within Lenin who thought indulging in the nationalist outlook of the regional leaders (with allegiance to Bolshevik Party) could be the only way out for creating the USSR. It can be assumed that, while overruling the objections of the leaders like Stalin and Artyom, Lenin didn’t foresee the dangers of such centrifugal forces which were present in the constitution of the USSR through the clause of secession; (ii) Lenin, and thereafter Stalin created a centripetal force within the USSR by adding regions with ethnic Muscovy Rus and/or encouraging settlements of ethnic Muscovy/Novgorod Rus in other regions (i.e. SSR) – thus Novorossiya was added to Ukraine SSR, Russians were settled in Kazakhstan SSR. Bolshevik leaders thought this centripetal force can balance the centrifugal force of local nationalism, which proved to be a fatal mistake for the ‘Soviet experiment’. Because of the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, Ukraine found itself in a condition that ONLY physically resembled a ‘state’, but neither the political parties nor the oligarchy of Ukraine recognised as such, rather Ukraine state became just like an institutional means to plunder wealth in order to enrich their business!
  5. Reorganization of the administrative zones within the kingdom/empire/union in the east Slavic lands is indeed a very interesting exercise, and probably a favourite pastime for ALL heads of state at different points of time. Few of those were:

(i) A system of territorial units called razryad in 1680 CE (Moscow, Sevsk, Vladimir, Novgorod, Kazan, Smolensk, Ryazan, Belgorod chartered in 1658 CE out of the Kiev Voivodeship, Tambov, Tula, Tobol chartered no later than 1587 CE, Tom, Yenisei Razryads) which were subdivided into uyezd (canton)

(ii) In 1708 CE Tsar Peter the Great issued an edict dividing the empire into eight administrative divisions called guberniyas (Archangelgorod, Azov, Ingermanland, Kazan, Kiev, Moscow, Siberia, Smolensk) which replaced the 166 uyezds and razryads which existed before the reform

(iii) In 1727 CE Catherine I enacted another reform – a total of 166 uyezds was re-established, together with the newly created ones, the Russian Empire had approximately 250 uyezds

(iv) By 1910 CE further restructuring took place, as a result of which 104 administrative governorate units (Oblast and Governorate) existed

(v) After 1917 CE Bolshevik Party undertook a series of restructuring that transformed the earlier architecture of administrative organization

Figure 3.1:

Figure 3.2:

  1. Ukraine: Between 1991 and 2021

How Did Ukraine Economy Perform?

Economic parameters of Ukraine show how poorly the Zionist-Capitalist oligarchy and their clientele (i.e. political parties) managed Ukraine for past three decades. The following figures have been taken from Wikipedia

Figure 4.1: [link 🡪 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Ukraine ]

Ukraine used to be the most advanced union state of the USSR in terms of industrial and agricultural output and productivity. It’s a crying shame that after 25 years of so-called independence the Ukrainian political leaders and the oligarchy couldn’t steer the country’s economy to surpass the GDP (PPP in current value) figure of 1990 CE – around 350 billion USD in 1990 CE as well as in 2016 CE! It not only shows lack of economic planning, and programme implementation, but, more importantly, it also proves complete negligence on part of the ruling oligarchy. The families in 1% oligarchy (businessmen, bureaucrats, political leaders etc.) and 5% upper middle class are anyway sucking the wealth out of Ukraine through mining-manufacturing-agriculture. 80% of the common people are leading a life of destitute and underemployment.

Figure 4.2: [link 🡪 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Ukraine ]

Apart from a dysfunctional economy, the socio-political environment got vitiated so much that there has been a steady decline of population over the past three decades (refer fig. 4.3 below). There are two primary reasons for such decline: (i) reduction in total fertility rate, (ii) emigration to European and North American countries.

Figure 4.3: [link 🡪 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Ukraine#/media/File:Population_of_Ukraine_from_1950_(untitled).svg ]

How Did Zionist-Capitalist Deep State Moved Into Ukraine?

As I noted, Zionist-Capitalist clique always wanted to destroy potentially strong countries in Eurasian landmass (in fact, anywhere). In an old article in The Saker website I detailed on how two Fascist parties were developed in Germany and Italy after WW I by the Zionist-Capitalist clique in order to destroy the USSR (and those Fascist countries) [ link 🡪 https://thesaker.is/greatest-sin-of-lenin-and-stalin/ ]. During the WW II, Croatian and West Ukrainian fascist leaders and their parties indulged in more brutal and cruel pogroms than even the Nazi party could have ever imagined. Stepan Bandera, Andriy Melnyk and Symon Petliura were products of the fascist movement in west Ukraine.

After 1991 break-up of Soviet Union and Warsaw (Pact) block, USA and NATO leaders have helped rehabilitation of those fascist leaders and their ideas. In parallel the USA and NATO leaders relentlessly pushed NATO frontier – now Russia, Belarus are surrounded by NATO bases with first strike capability. New fissures are being invented across the central Asian countries to create a militant (Wahhabi) Islamic cult within the population. In the Caucasus countries, again the Hegemon is hyper-active to create anti-Russian sentiments. During past two decades ‘colour revolution’ had been applied successfully by the Zionist-Capitalist Deep State twice in Ukraine to install their flunkies in power. Finally, the objective is plain and simple – Russia will get surrounded by NATO countries, NATO military bases with nuclear capable bombers and missiles will be constructed in east European and Caucasian NATO members, Fascist Ukrainian militia backed by NATO armaments and trained by NATO ‘military specialists’ will launch frontal attack on western border of Russia – with incessant missile launching from east European NATO members Russia will not be able to defend border. Zionist-Capitalist clique assumed that Operation Barbarossa by Germany in WW II failed because Nazi Wehrmacht didn’t had any backing of conventional/biological/nuclear missiles – In the present era such issues have been taken care of by the Hegemon.

What Has Been Russia’s Stand in Ukraine?

Russian government has been voicing their discomfort about growing insecurity since past two decades. As usual, Russian concerns continue to fall on deaf ears. In 2014 CE Crimea, Donestsk, Lugansk oblasts (predominantly with Russian-speaking) decided to break away from Ukraine state. While Crimea joined Russia, Donestsk and Lugansk declared themselves as peoples’ republic.

On 17th December 2021 Russian government presented detailed security demands that include a legally binding guarantee that NATO will give up any military activity in east Europe and Ukraine. On 26th January 2022 USA sent a written response to Russia’s security demands, wherein it was repeated that NATO will continue to add new members in east Europe and Caucasus. Between 21st and 24th February 2022 Russian government recognised the peoples’ republics in east Ukraine and mobilized military to support them. President Putin also asked Ukraine government to demilitarize and denazify Ukrainian society.

  1. Ukraine’s Future: Possibilities

To begin with, I have to confess that I don’t believe in ‘future of Ukraine’ – I would rather opt for rephrasing it as ‘future of Eurasia’! I know that educated people and democratic intellectuals all over the world will shudder at my words. For them I would like to put forward a simple question – can anybody show me the trajectory of the ‘Ukraine state’ for a continuous period of at least 300 years in the last millennium during which at least 80% of the contiguous landmass of the current Ukraine was being governed by a political institution like a kingdom or a principality or an empire or a constitutional state? No, they can’t show it because it didn’t happen! A geographical landmass can’t achieve such sobriquet as a ‘state’ only through accidental incidents like dissolution of the USSR!

However, my personal opinion notwithstanding let me list down the possibilities in near future about how ‘Ukraine state’ can continue to function as a socio-political entity. While doing so, I tried to be as realistic as possible. (I haven’t really assessed the impact of current affairs in Ukraine on the countries in the Resistance Camp, which in my opinion, will also be quite substantial that requires a separate study).

Description of Political PossibilitiesImpact on Countries Owned by Zionist-Capitalist Clique
Possibility 1 – geopolitics remain firmly centred around the current world order
– Russian forces stay within Ukraine border for say, 1 month, and come back to Russia– Lugansk and Donetsk governments establish their rule over the entire administrative region with the help of Russian forces– Ukraine government, de facto and de jure accepts the new boundary as the 1991 CE Ukraine boundary minus the regions of Crimea, Lugansk, Donetsk– Ukraine government signs treaty with Russian government on denazification of the society, demilitarisation to the extent that no army/navy/air-force, and remaining neutral without joining NATO military block– Ukraine government completely reorganise and restructure their country with new constitution that will reflect the new realities– USA-UK-Australia-Canada-NZ, Israel, Netherlands, Belgium, France, and few other NATO block countries will continue to: (a) sanction Russian banks, mining, energy, and other industries, (b) sanction Russian leadership personally, and(c) undertake even more widespread campaigns to spread outright lies, disinformation and character assassination– None of the European countries can afford to stop flow of natural gas into their country since it is much cheaper compared to sourcing LNG/PNG from West Asia and/or North America– Military-Industrial Complex will get a much larger business from NATO governments, who know that they are lagging behind Russia (and China) in military technology– NATO and EU will increasingly mirror each other, due to which there will be a new paradigm of international relations – geopolitics and geo-economy of Anglo and European countries will show a block-mentality
Possibility 2 – geopolitics of the current world order is in doldrums
– Russian forces stay within Ukraine border for say, 2 months, and come back to Russia– Lugansk and Donetsk governments establish their rule over the entire administrative region with the help of Russian forces– Kharkiv and Kherson people create new peoples’ republic with the retreat of Ukraine army, and seek recognition from Russian government– Ukraine government, de facto and de jure accepts the new boundary as the 1991 CE Ukraine boundary minus the regions of Crimea, Lugansk, Donetsk, but refuses to accept Kharkiv and Kherson as breakaway regions– Ukraine government signs treaty with Russian government on denazification of the society, demilitarisation to the extent that no army/navy/air-force, and remaining neutral without joining NATO military block– Ukraine government remains at loggerheads with Kharkiv and Kherson government, hence a new constitution or administrative actions for serious house-cleaning are impossible– USA-UK-Australia-Canada-NZ, Israel, Netherlands, Belgium, France, and few other NATO block countries will continue to: (a) sanction Russian banks, mining, energy, and other industries, (b) sanction Russian leadership personally, and(c) undertake even more widespread campaigns to spread outright lies, disinformation and character assassination– None of the European countries can afford to stop flow of natural gas into their country since it is much cheaper compared to sourcing LNG/PNG from west Asia or North America– Military-Industrial Complex will get a much larger business from NATO governments, who know that they are lagging behind Russia (and China) in military technology– NATO and EU will increasingly mirror each other, due to which there will be a new paradigm of international relations – geopolitics and geo-economy of Anglo and European countries will show a block-mentality– NATO and EU will proactively create dozens of far-right ‘militia’ groups within Ukraine that will fight anti-Ukraine peoples’ republics and Russian forces; USA-UK-Israel-Netherlands-France will supply money and military equipment to regular Ukraine army
Possibility 3 – geopolitics churn out a new world order
– Russian forces stay within Ukraine border for longer than 2 months because of further escalation of combat scenarios– Lugansk and Donetsk governments establish their rule over the entire administrative region with the help of Russian forces– Many oblasts bordering Russia and Black Sea (like Kharkiv, Sumy, Zaphorizhia, Kherson, Dnipropetrovsk, Mykolaiv, Odessa) want to create new peoples’ republic with the retreat of Ukraine army, and seek recognition from Russian government– Ukraine government refuses to accept the de facto reality and maintains its stand internationally that the legal boundary must be as per the 1991 CE USSR border; Ukraine government officially refuses to accept any breakaway region– Ukraine government refuses to sign any treaty with Russian government on neutrality, denazification, and demilitarisation, and actively seek military help from NATO to fight Russian forces– Russian political parties like Communist Party, United Russia and Ukrainian political parties as well as peoples representatives from all walks of life in predominantly Orthodox Christian Russia, Malorossiya, Novorossiya, Belarus, Armenia, and Georgia will come forward with an idea to create a new union that will be a truly Eurasian in letter and spirit– A new constitution is developed where the mistakes of the earlier constitution implemented 100 years back gets rectified. A new union is born this year with a new union treaty, a new peoples’ constitution, and a new capital just beyond the Ural Mountains. The Eurasian Union will be geopolitically and economically aligned with Asia, Africa, South America continents. Jointly with China, the new union will become the beacon of hope for the rest of the humankind against the quest for wealth and power of the existing Zionist-Capitalist world order.
– Ukraine will still exist (Right Bank west Ukraine region) with Kiev, Cherkasy, Rivne, Zhytomyr, Ternopil, Khmelnytskyi, Chernivtsi, Vinnytsia Zakarpatska, Lviv, Ivano-Frankivsk, Volyn oblasts to continue its historic role as the springboard for fascist forces in east Europe. (It would be an entirely different game if Russian government decides to annihilate this venomous snake for ever from the face of earth.)
– USA-UK-Australia-Canada-NZ, Israel, Netherlands, Belgium, France, and few other NATO block countries will continue to: (a) sanction Russian banks, mining, energy, and other industries, (b) sanction Russian leadership personally, and(c) undertake even more widespread campaigns to spread outright lies, disinformation and character assassination– Military-Industrial Complex will get a much larger business from NATO governments, who know that they are lagging behind Russia (and China) in military technology. Space-based nuclear offensive mechanism and system as well as land-based biological warfare mechanism and system will be developed– NATO and EU will increasingly mirror each other, due to which there will be a new paradigm of international relations – geopolitics and geo-economy of Anglo and European countries will show a block-mentality. Dissenting voices like Hungary and Serbian regions will be punished– NATO and EU will proactively create dozens of far-right ‘militia’ groups within Ukraine that will fight anti-Ukraine peoples’ republics and Russian forces; USA-UK-Israel-Netherlands-France will supply money, military equipment, and military personnel to the regular Ukraine army; battles between Russian army and NATO detachments result in disastrous total rout for NATO– NATO and EU countries try to create without success a new UNO where Russia (and China) will be pushed out from the security council and countries like Germany, Japan, India, Saudi Arabia, Brazil are lured to join the new institution as ‘key member’ (never mind that only the Zionist-Capitalist Deep State owns and controls the institution)– NATO and EU countries will seek to restrict all types of normal country-to-country relations between Russia (and China) and all other countries in the world; trading, investment, cultural exchange, scientific and educational exchange with Russia (and China) will be discouraged (in case of large/powerful countries) and punished (in case of small/weak countries). EU and NATO countries will be forced to cease any business with Russia (and China), not even energy import.
  1. Conclusion

100 years back, right in this Eurasian surreal dreamland, a revolutionary leader and his comrades set out to bring light in the darkness, to bring back morality-justice in the filthy money-oriented world, but the ensuing trail of treachery of the Zionist gangs who wrecked the Bolshevik Party from within (utilising many mistakes of their leaders including Lenin) extinguished the lamp decades ago. Who knows if the people of Eurasia decide to illuminate the lamp again under the able leadership of the current leadership!

As I submit this article to The Saker blogsite, active involvement of NATO has been announced. So, the ‘possibility 1’ discussed above is ruled out. Do you think the ‘possibility 3’ can become a reality?

The Great Western Wall vs Snow Niggers

January 29, 2022

You know about the Great Wall of China, right?  But have you ever heard of the Great Western Wall?

That is the immense wall which was built around the minds of the people of the West for the past 1000 or so years.  I will try to describe it using a few salient examples, but what I want to clearly state here is that these examples are only some I chose, but in reality, there are millions of them and they constitute a kind of “mental force field” which has (almost) no holes in it.  Until now.  But let’s first start with a few examples of what that wall looks like and how those enclosed by it think:

  • Say what you wish, or don’t say it, but everybody knows and understands that the so-called Western civilization (which in this narrative was not born from the Middle-Ages, but from Antiquity) is superior to all others.  Oh sure, we will pay lip service to the liberal ideas of Rousseau or the Woke insanity, but deep inside, we are the best, we will eventually prevail, and nobody can match, nevermind, beat us.
  • Russians are racially and culturally inferior.  Oh sure, they are mostly white, but they act like Mongols (something quite terrible in the average western mind which knows *nothing* about the Mongol Empire, this is even true on the UK Ministerial level!!!).  They are either soaking their brains with vodka, or they are planning devious and bloody attacks on the irenic and noble people of the West.  The term I suggest for them would be Russians are “Snow Niggers“.
  • The Snow Niggers control way too much land and resources.  We need to bring them true democracy.
  • Russians have never known democracy, so they don’t even have the concept of “freedom”: true, we don’t really understand the distinction they make between “svoboda” and “volia” anymore than we understand the distinction between “pravda” and “istina” – but who cares, they don’t think like we do, therefore their concepts are irrelevant.
  • Russians cannot be trusted.  Ever.  Ask any of the people who neighbor Russia and they will tell you how horrible it was to live under Russian rule.  The fact that Russians (unlike the West) never committed genocide and that there are still 193 ethnic groups and over 100 languages in Russia herself is irrelevant.  The fact that not a single successor republic to the USSR became stable and viable – except Russia, that is – is also irrelevant.  All that Russian do is murder, rape, pillage and persecute everybody else, especially “gays”!
  • Russians have always used stupid tactics, they always throw a huge amount of poorly trained soldiers but animalistically stubborn/courageous at any enemy.  During WWII, the German military was vastly superior to the Soviet one and the German generals eons ahead of the rather dull Soviet ones, especially in tactics and operational warfare.  Germany only lost WWII thanks to the US and UK and their superb military academies.  Any Soviet victory is explained by “Stalin’s terror”, of course.  Then these brutes went on a raping spree and created a giant Gulag while US forces only delivered chocolate and cool music to the poor Europeans, including the Germans.  Then the US generously rebuilt western Europe.  End of story.
  • We have the best military in the world, with the best equipment and training.  The fact that we spend more on defense than the entire planet is the proof of that.  We also have the best intelligence community in the world, the fact that we have 17 “intelligence” agencies while others typically do with just a few (2-4 is typical) just further proves our infinite superiority (by some estimates, the total “peace budget” of the USA, combining military, intelligence and contractors is over a TRILLION per year!).
  • The entire world envies us – that is why we are the #1 destination for immigrants from all over the world.  Even the fact that we have by far the biggest penitentiary network on the planet, and one of the most barbarically brutal ones at that, does not deter these immigrants.  Clearly, the world loves us!

Trust me, I could go on for pages and pages.  I lived my entire life in the West, I was born in the middle of Europe (in Switzerland) and I lived about half of my life in Europe and half in the USA.  I am fluent in 5 western languages and understand quite a few more others (related ones, of course).  I have two US graduate degrees.  I know the West.  Most westerners who met me initially did not know of my origins, so they treated me like “one of them” until I mentioned my Russian roots, at which point their attitude immediately changed: “careful, he is one of them” was written all over their faces.

And, OF COURSE, there were (plenty) of exceptions to what I describe above.  But these exceptions were never numerous or influential enough to make a difference: Western countries always elect rabid russophobes: they all equally hate and fear Russia, they just express it in different manners.  So those westerners who do not live behind the Great Western Wall have made no difference, especially no difference to us, the Asiatic Snow Niggers.

Again, all this has been going on for close to a thousand years, but something has changed recently and stuff like this began to happen:

And by “this” I don’t mean an F-35 missing its landing on a carrier and splashing into the water.  No, that F-35 is a perfect metaphor for the entire western civilization.

  • Official version: the F-35 is the most amazing military aircraft ever designed
  • True version: the F-35 is the most overpriced piece of semi-airborne shit in world history

Notice, corruption plays THE key role here.

Say what you want, but a country which designed and produced the F-16, the F-5, the A-10 or the breathtakingly beautiful Boeing 747 can produce superb aircraft.  And while all the US ‘stealth’ aircraft are overpriced and over-hyped, the F-35 is truly a masterpiece of corruption.  There is nothing the many extremely talented US scientists and engineers could do to beat the most corrupt people on the planet: the US ruling elites.  And, for the latter, the F-35 is a total, absolute, success.  I would even call it a triumph.

A personal recollection now: while a student in the USA, I had military force planning classes, taught by a VERY sharp USAF Colonel (who also worked for the Northrop YF-23 program).  His classes were a masterpiece each time.  One day, we did something funny.  We made a graph with, on one hand, the average cost of each new US fighter aircraft and, on the other, the money allocated for their acquisition.  Then we projected both curves and the result was quite hilarious, but also unforgettable: we saw that there would come a time when the entire US military budget would be just enough to produce only ONE, but very super dooper bestest of the bestest in the history of the galaxy fighter!  One!  Sadly, I do not remember what date we came up with, but I would argue that the F-35 is the real-world illustration of what our (tongue in cheek) graphic showed (BTW – the Lockheed YF-22 was inferior in design to the Northrop YF-23, the choice for the Lockheed candidate was made solely on political grounds: not to give it all the kickbacks to Northrop basically).

The year 1990 was the year when the YF-22/YF-23 made their first flight.  That same year, the Snow Niggers flew a modified version of the Soviet Su-27, called the SU-34, for the first time.  In my strictly personal opinion, the Su-34 is the single most formidable all-weather supersonic medium-range fighter-bomber/strike aircraft ever produced in Russia or elsewhere.  The fact that this design (originally based on a Soviet-era Su-27 interceptor) not only survived the horrific 90s when Russia was “democratic”, but has now fully matured to the absolutely amazing Su-34M version, shows how truly superb Soviet designers and engineers were even in the years of “Commie stagnation” under Brezhnev & Co.  This is what this true masterpiece looks like:

Original version of the Su-34

You can read about its capabilities here or, better, watch this video.  Check out its actual characteristics, and it will blow your mind!

No, it ain’t “stealth”, but its formidable EW, avionics, missiles and radar negate the need for any F-22 like RCS.  And it sure is a big aircraft (think range and payload here).  But its capabilities are absolutely formidable, no other aircraft comes even close, not even current 5th generation ones, especially to the (much improved) current Su-34M version (which is still very much a 4th generation aircraft, but which does not need the full 5th generation capabilities to execute its missions, that is where the 4++ generation Su-30M2 and Su-35S would be used, or, if needed, the 5th generation Su-57.

I do not intend this post to be a comparison of the YF-22/YF-23/F-35 with the Su-34 or any other aircraft.

But I will ask a rhetorical question: why is it that the USA, the sole world superpower (especially after 1991 and the fall of the USSR) and world leader in everything produced such a piece of shit (aka “flying brick”) as the F-35, while the vodka soaked Asiatic Snow Niggers, while undergoing a truly apocalyptic phase like the 90s (TWO civil wars in Chechnia, one in Moscow in 93) produced a masterpiece like the Su-34?

And here we see the formidable power of The Great Western Wall!  That rhetorical question will be treated in any combination of the following ways:

  • Dismissed as “Putin propaganda”
  • Dismissed as factually incorrect (the correct version being: ours is SO MUCH better)
  • Simply ignored, blocked from anybody’s awareness
  • Explained by “the Russians steal all our secrets” whereas we invent real things (since the F-35 is actually largely based on the (much better!) Russian Yak-141, this is an especially funny argument to make).
  • “Specialists” will declare that the Su-34 is based on primitive and old technologies while the F-35 is the bleeding edge of aeronautics (which is false, but if it was true, these idiots are too stupid to realize what this statement implies about the intelligence and experience of actual warfare of each party!)
  • The same pseudo-experts will also fail to realize (or, at least, admit) that while the US MIC produced that abomination which the F-35 is, the Russians have just produced a similar aircraft, the Su-75, which has none of the flaws of the F-35, has broadly similar capabilities and for a small fraction of the F-35 criminally obscene price tag.

Western kids can peacefully sleep at night knowing that they are still part of the Master Race and that they are defended by Captain Murica style hyper-warriors with hyper-gadgets who can, and will, kick any Snow Niggers’ ass if needed!  Yeah!

Sweet dreams 🙂

***

But, seriously, why did I post all this stuff about US vs Soviet/Russian aircraft?

Just to illustrate the huge, immense, breathtaking difference between what I call Zone A and Zone B, the Great Western Wall being the monumental propagandist masterpiece which, at least so far, has kept the two Zones apart (the Zones themselves were originally a geographical category, but this is now changing, so let’s think of them as also a mental category).

(Truism alert!!)  We live in the age of the Internet, the ubiquitous smartphones (with excellent cameras!), the social media and too many ways to connect for any wall to stand, including the Great Western Wall!  Reality is now slowly seeping under, over, and even through this mental Great Wall and that has two main effects:

  1. It puts the western ruling classes into a total, abject, panic mode
  2. It stirs up doubts about the veracity of the Western propaganda machine in the heads of the western people (which only doubles the panic felt by the western ruling classes).

What recently happened in Kabul is just about the perfect illustration of how the Western Great Wall is collapsing before our eyes.

***

What about Putin and his ultimatum in all this?

In truth, the Russian ultimatum’s main goal was never to get the western Master Race to agree to negotiate with the drunken Snow Niggers, it was to bring down a major segment of the Western Great Wall: the West’s arrogant sense of axiomatic military superiority and narcissistic sense of impunity.  For decades we were fed a diet about how totally incredible the US and even NATO militaries were (forget about Iraq or Afghanistan!) and how the Russian bear was really only a paper tiger.  Just like the F-35 is the “bestest of the bestest” and the Su-34 “primitive” (we could also build it, we just don’t wanna).

Then why are the Snow Niggers not terrified of our “sanctions from hell” or “bestest militaries in the world”??

Why are our beloved (or maybe not so beloved) leaders so freaked out and clueless about what to do?

Could it be that reality is gradually achieving what scientists call “first contact” with the Western rulers and the serfs they rule over?

I will conclude with a question: what will it take to totally bring down that Western Great Wall?

The Su-34 sure did not do it.

How about the Su-34 as just one example, a tip of a huge iceberg if you wish, of what has happened in the entire Russian armed forces?

Nope.  99% of folks in the West still have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER that Russia can defeat both the US and NATO, even together, and that China is catching up at a phenomenal rate.

How about the total collapse of the western economies which have nowhere to “grow into” (by that they mean: “occupy a defenseless country and enslave them by trading valuable resources for worthless plastic beads”)?

Nope, not yet.  Not while much of the world still purchase dollars.

Now about the total collapse of the EU’s energy hallucinations (aka Greta Tunberg)?

Nope!  EU officials want to, I kid you not, sanction *Russia* by committing energetic and, therefore, economic suicide.  In Russia, we call that “scaring a hedgehog with a naked butt“.

So what about this Russian saying “those who refuse to talk to Lavrov will have to talk to Shoigu“.

Will anybody pay attention and realize what is going on?

Maybe.

But I am afraid that the drunken Snow Niggers will have to bring down that damned Western Great Wall, brick by brick, dollar by dollar, and even bullet by bullet (missile by missile would be more accurate).

But, don’t worry.  The drunken Snow Niggers won’t genocide you.  They are too “primitive” and “Asiatic” for that.

But neither will they pay much attention to you or take you seriously until you finally wake up from your 1000 years of self-delusion based on murderous ideologies and violence.

Russia’s future is on her south (Caucasus, Central Asia, Middle-East, Indian Sub.) east (Far East Asia) and north (Arctic).

I have no idea where the future of the West is.

Do you?

Andrei

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with radio stations, January 28, 2022

January 29, 2022

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Sputnik, Echo of Moscow, Govorit Moskva and Komsomolskaya Pravda radio stations, Moscow, January 28, 2022

Question: Will there be a war? We sent them our proposals, we waited for their response, and we got their response. Their answer did not suit us, which was to be expected. Before that, we said and made clear through different representatives that if their response does not suit us, we reserve the right to respond and protect our interests forcefully. Can you explain what that means and what are we going to do? We aren’t going to make McDonald’s illegal after all, are we? If I may quote my subscribers, they frame this question as follows: “When are we going to hit Washington?”, “Will there be a war?”, “How long are we going to procrastinate?”, “Will there be a war?”

Sergey Lavrov: If it depends on the Russian Federation, there will be no war. We don’t want wars, but we won’t allow anyone to trample on our interests or ignore them, either. I cannot say that the talks are over. As you are aware, it took the Americans and their NATO allies more than a month to study our extremely straightforward proposals that are part of the draft treaty with Washington and the agreement with NATO. We received their response only the day before yesterday. It is written in that typically Western style. In many ways, they are confusing the issue, but also providing kernels of rationality on secondary issues such as intermediate- and shorter-range missiles which were quite important for us at some point. When the Americans destroyed the INF Treaty, we urged them to listen to reason. President Vladimir Putin sent a message to all OSCE members suggesting that they join our unilateral moratorium when agreeing on verification measures. It was ignored. Now, it has become part of their proposals. Similarly, our initiatives that were introduced by the General Staff of the Russian Federation to conduct military exercises further away from the borders on both sides, to agree on a critical safe distance between approaching combat aircraft and ships, as well as a number of other confidence-building, deconflicting and de-escalation measures, were ignored. All of that has been rejected during the past two to three years. Now, they propose discussing this. That is, the constructive approach in these proposals has, in fact, been borrowed from Russia’s recent initiatives. I think that now, as we say in Russia, “we are getting somewhere.” To reiterate, most importantly, we should figure out the conceptual pillars that underlie European security.

In 2010 in Astana, and before that in 1999 in Istanbul, all presidents and prime ministers from the OSCE countries signed a package that contained interrelated principles to ensure the indivisibility of security. The West “ripped out” just one slogan from this package: each country has the right to choose its allies and military alliances. But in that package this right comes with a condition and an obligation on each country, to which the Westerners subscribed: not to strengthen their security at the expense of the security of others. With its mantra that the NATO open door policy is sacred and no one can say “no” to Ukraine joining the Alliance and that it’s up to Ukraine to decide, the West is, deliberately and openly, refusing even to acknowledge the second part of the commitments. Moreover, when Josep Borrell, Antony Blinken and many other colleagues of ours talk about the importance of sticking to agreed-upon principles in the context of the Euro-Atlantic security architecture, none of them ever mentions the Istanbul Declaration or the Astana Declaration. They mention the Helsinki Final Act and the 1990 Charter of Paris for a New Europe, in which there is no obligation not to strengthen one’s own security at the expense of others. Russia insisted on including this commitment in subsequent OSCE documents.

Today, as I made clear earlier, I am sending official requests to all my colleagues asking them directly to clarify how they are going to fulfill, in the current historical circumstances, the obligations that their countries have signed onto at the highest level. These are the matters of principle. Before we proceed to discussing individual practical aspects of European security, we want to see the West wriggle out of it this time.

I hope they will give an honest answer about what they have in mind when they implement these agreements in an exclusively unilateral manner that benefits them – again, completely ignoring that fact that the right to join alliances directly hinges on recognising that it is unacceptable to strengthen the security of some states at the expense of the security of others. Let’s see how they respond.

Question: If they give us the answer many experts are discussing, it will most certainly not suit us. Can it lead to a breakdown in relations? Everything we have been hearing recently from the Americans, and they are going to introduce sanctions against the leadership of our entire country, even against you…

Sergey Lavrov: What do you mean “even”? Are you saying I am not worthy of them?

Question: It has never happened in history. There has never been talk of sanctions against the Foreign Minister and the President. This is beyond the pale. Look at what is happening with our diplomats against this backdrop. Yesterday our Ambassador to the United States said that ultimately this might lead to something close to severing relations. As Anatoly Antonov said, our diplomats are simply being expelled although this is presented in a somewhat different way. What should we do? How will it look?

Sergey Lavrov: This is a multilayered question. I will start with the main point: What will we do if the West does not listen to reason? The President of Russia has already said what. If our attempts to come to terms on mutually acceptable principles of ensuring security in Europe fail to produce the desired result, we will take response measures. Asked directly what these measures might be, he said: they could come in all shapes and sizes. He will make decisions based on the proposals submitted by our military. Naturally, other departments will also take part in drafting these proposals.

Now the interdepartmental analysis of the responses received from the US and NATO is underway. Practically everyone knows what these responses are. I have made some remarks. I will note in passing that the American response is all but a model of diplomatic manners compared to NATO’s document. NATO sent us such an ideologically motivated answer, it is so permeated with its exceptional role and special mission that I even felt a bit embarrassed for whoever wrote these texts.

Our reply will be prepared. The proposals contained in our reply will be reported to the President of Russia and he will make a decision. We are developing our line at this point, including the steps that I mentioned.

As for the threats of imposing sanctions, the Americans were told, including during the presidential meeting, that the package you have just mentioned, the one that includes completely cutting off Russia from the West-controlled financial and economic systems, will be equivalent to severing relations. This was said directly. I believe they understand this. I don’t think this is in anyone’s interests.

Now a few words about their treatment of our diplomats. When I was in Washington several years ago, or, to be more precise, in December 2019, a deputy US Secretary of State under Michael Pompeo told my deputy in passing, before saying goodbye, that they were thinking of ways to streamline the functioning of our diplomatic missions on a reciprocal basis. He said American diplomats work abroad for three years. Then they are replaced, sent to a different country or returned to the central office in Washington. So they decided that our diplomats should also observe this term of three years and that’s it. We asked why we were told this on the sly and whether we were the only ones to hear it. We asked whether they had similar thoughts as regards other states, the answer was “no.”  No other country was supposed to be subjected to this experiment, just the Russian Federation. This is when we started yet another round of our diplomatic tit-for-tat. We said okay, you have a practice of sending diplomats to serve abroad for three years, and we have a practice of not hiring local personnel to work in our embassies. The Americans hired over 400 people (nationals of Russia and other countries, mostly CIS).

You probably followed this discussion. They started moaning and groaning “How come? Are you ‘unplugging’ us?” You wanted to be guided by the principle that you can do everything and impose on us what you think is right. We will do the same. This is yet another escalation of the crisis that was triggered by Barack Obama who revealed his genuine character. Three weeks before his departure from the White House, he decided to bind Donald Trump’s hands before slamming the door on the way out. He deprived us of five diplomatic properties and expelled dozens of diplomats who had to pack up all their staff with their families in three days. This was the beginning of it all.

We spoke about this again with Antony Blinken in Geneva, completing our conversation on European security. It is necessary to get back to normal in some way. We suggested starting from scratch and resetting everything to zero, beginning with this disgraceful, piddling move by Nobel Prize winner Barack Obama and everything that followed after it. Let’s wait and see. Another meeting is supposed to take place in the next couple of weeks. The Americans are now in a bargaining mood. They are telling us that they need 12 people serving the ambassador alone.  They argue that we must therefore exempt them from the quota that we establish on a reciprocal basis. We have explained to them that the agreed-upon quota is 455 people, both for them and for us. On our part, this is a gesture of enormous goodwill. The figure of 455 includes not only the employees of the bilateral diplomatic missions: the Embassy and two general consulates but also 150 people who work at our mission at the UN, which has nothing to do with our bilateral ties or any sense of balance. This was a goodwill gesture. However, we warned them that if they continue their obnoxious behaviour (I don’t know how else to describe their statements that if we don’t accept the guards for their ambassador immediately, they will ask Mr Antonov to leave the US), we still have the option of truly equalising our diplomatic presence.

Question: You know perfectly well that my questions are largely based on our radio listeners’ questions. Since we are talking about Russia-US relations, our listener Michael McFaul of California, a Stanford University professor, has sent a question for you. Why didn’t Russia try at least to get UN Security Council authorisation for the use of force if needed in Ukraine? Doesn’t Russia believe in the UN Security Council any longer? Why hasn’t Russia recognised the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Lugansk republics if they are facing the same risk as South Ossetia and Abkhazia in 2008?

Sergey Lavrov: To be honest, the questions are absolutely ignorant. Take the question about the UN Security Council. Did I get it right?  Why didn’t (past tense) Russia go to the UN Security Council for authorisation to use force if necessary? I will not even try to explain the futility of the phrase. The word “if” does not belong in the diplomatic practice in any country.

Regarding recognition, I think Mr McFaul, who had made a tremendous contribution to destroying anything constructive in Russian-American relations, just did not have time to read the Minsk agreements approved in February 2015. They are about preserving the unity and territorial integrity of Ukraine. The Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics had already declared independence several months prior to the Minsk meeting. Germany and France, who endorsed the text of the Minsk agreements with us and the Ukrainians, begged us, with Pyotr Poroshenko joining those requests, to persuade the leaders of the two republics to sign the Minsk agreements thus, in essence, changing the results of the spring 2014 referendum in Donbass. Mr McFaul should probably learn the contemporary history of the region. The issue of recognition must be considered in the context of our firm line to get the West to compel Kiev to abide by the Minsk agreements. Then everything will be all right, just as envisaged by this document endorsed by the UN Security Council.

Question: I think that the document we delivered to the United States surprised many of those who read it. It left many, myself included, feeling that Russia won in some kind of a war, while America lost. What I mean is the radical proposals contained in it like returning to NATO’s 1997 borders, etc. My question is, what was all that? It is obvious that the arguments must be really strong for the Americans to return to the 1997 terms or withdraw from countries where they feel so good, confident and comfortable? By all means, you clearly had something in mind. What was that, and what kind of a response did you expect to this letter? After all, the withdrawal must be swift. They were required to respond quickly.

We did our math. You are now working with your fourth US administration, since you became Foreign Minister during George W. Bush’s presidency. Are there any major differences between these teams? Can specific individuals actually make a difference in history as we were once taught, or not? Which of your counterparts did you work better with, and how are you getting along with the current “guys” compared to the previous administrations?

Sergey Lavrov: The proposals we delivered to the United States and NATO on December 15, 2021, may seem excessive only if the expert assessing them proceeds from the premise that “the Americans have already taken away everything there was all around you, so it is too late to make a fuss about it. Just accept it and try to keep the bare minimum they left you.”

What we want is fair treatment. I cited the commitments we all accepted at the highest level within the OSCE. Let me emphasise that presidents, including the US President, signed under these commitments promising that no one would seek to bolster one’s security at someone else’s expense. The United States claims that the right to choose alliances is sacrosanct. But we say, provided it doesn’t worsen the security situation for any other country. This is what you signed, my dear sirs.

They are now trying to present our proposals as an ultimatum, but we are there to refresh their memories and make sure that instead of equivocating they set forth in all honesty their interpretation of what their president signed up for. If he signed these documents while being confident that Russia would never be able to get what they promised, they must acknowledge that. This will be yet another confession on their part. We already reminded them about the promises they made verbally in the 1990s not to expand NATO, but in response they claimed that we got them wrong, that they did not want to mislead us and had little time to think because there were more urgent issues to deal with at the time. This is how they explained it, literally.

We are on our own territory. Michael McFaul has referred to the UN Security Council where the United States intends to discuss what we are doing regarding Ukraine and why we are not working to de-escalate the situation. This is what we hear from a person representing a country with military bases spread around the world, encircling the Russian Federation and the CIS, a country doing who knows what in Iraq (who invited them there?) and so forth. If the Americans want to discuss troop deployments, there are things to talk about. Everywhere we deploy our military forces, we do so based on a request from the host country. We fulfil the agreements we reach with host countries strictly in keeping with international law. Both Josep Borrell and Antony Blinken have been whipping up hysteria on the topic of escalation in Ukraine, demanding that we de-escalate, which has become a mantra of sorts for them, saying that they do hope that Russia chooses the “path of diplomacy.” I take them at their word. For many years after the end of the Soviet Union, we opted for the path of diplomacy. The Istanbul and Astana arrangements I had mentioned are the major outcomes of these diplomatic efforts: everyone undertook not to reinforce one’s security at the expense of others. After all, this was a commitment, a declaration, the supreme act of diplomacy. Use any word you like: compromise, consensus, agreement – anything. If diplomacy is what you stand for, start by delivering on what we already agreed upon.

It is not my intention to discuss our partners on a personal level, though there is much that could be said. Our motto is that we have to work with everyone, and work we do. I can say that I had smooth relationships with all my colleagues. We could always speak candidly with each other at all times even on increasingly divisive matters and on the differences our countries have in their relations with one another.

Question: You are a diplomat. You will never put it the way I’m going to put it right now. But I am a journalist and I can afford to.

Sergey Lavrov: I have said a few undiplomatic things before.

Question: True. But you didn’t say those things into a microphone during an interview. It’s just that we keep an eye on you and print your brilliant sayings on T-shirts.

We recently saved Kazakhstan. We may have to salvage things between Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. We have also preserved the peace in Karabakh and, generally speaking, in Armenia, too. We are endlessly saving our “exes.” What do we get in return?

Reporters from Komsomolskaya Pravda – colleagues of editor-in-chief Vladimir Sungorkin who is joining us from their studio – have unearthed a great story. They have investigated school textbooks used in former Soviet republics, including those we continue saving, to find out what they say about Russia, about the Soviet Union and about the Russian Empire. Quite a fascinating story. If you haven’t read it, you’ll be amazed. Kassym-Jomart Tokayev reports to our President that Russian is widespread in Kazakh schools, and not only in schools. According to our information, this is not entirely true, or rather it is not at all true. Regarding Russians living in those countries, we have many, many harassment complaints. I’m not talking specifically about Kazakhstan, but about the former Soviet republics in general. We have heard many times that the Foreign Ministry is opposed to simplifying the procedure for obtaining Russian citizenship by Russians living in those countries. I know for sure that it is not. I discussed this with you, and I know your position. Moreover, you have recently played an active role in simplifying current laws. Can you tell us how long we will tolerate this kind of attitude towards our people? When will we start returning our people – the way the Greeks, Germans, Jews and many others are taking people back based on their ethnic identity? How will we defend the rights of our people who have found themselves stranded there after their country’s collapse, which was not something they wanted?

Sergey Lavrov: This is several questions in one. As for relations with our neighbours, CSTO allies, CIS partners – we have a problem. Nobody is hiding this. It largely stems from the fact that the newly independent states, which left the Soviet Union and which had been part of the Russian Empire before that, have been given the first chance in a long historical period, the first opportunity to build their own national (the key word) states. They sometimes overdo it because they want to assert their national identity as soon as possible. Nobody would deny this. This always happens when great empires fall apart.

The Soviet Union was heir to the Russian Empire. In fact, it was an imperial entity, although softer and more humane than the British, French or other empires.

Some of the imbalances you are talking about would be inevitable in the current historical period. We certainly wish to avoid them and curtail them. This must be done by all means, including so-called soft power, and we need to allocate significantly more resources for it than now. Our ministry is active in lobbying for appropriate Government decisions and streamlining the state’s activities on this track. But we are still far below the level that Western countries have reached in this respect. In addition to soft power, apart from diplomacy, bringing these problems up during meetings with our allies and partners – there is also reciprocity, which refers to considering our partners’ approaches to matters that are relevant to us when making decisions that affect them. This concerns labour migrants, economic assistance, and much more. Our economic systems are interconnected. The Eurasian Economic Union creates conditions, but it is up to the Russian Federation to make most of them a reality, and much more.

I do not see why this should rule out the development of friendly, allied, and very close – including personal – relationships with the elites of our neighbours. This whole situation is the result of a geopolitical catastrophe, the collapse of the Soviet Union. As Russian President Vladimir Putin said, 25 million people (maybe more) then found themselves abroad, outside their country overnight. We had no borders and no idea how to build ties. It took a titanic effort. Now the situation is more or less back to normal; it is clear who should be responsible for what. This is already a great achievement. But the problems you mentioned – our compatriots’ situation – should be addressed on a mutual basis.

I’ll make a couple of points now. The first point is we should be more active and open in discussing human rights within the CIS, including the rights of non-titular ethnic groups – Russians in Kazakhstan, Kazakhs in Russia, Azerbaijanis in Armenia and vice versa (although there are very few of them left there). We have reached the following agreement with our CIS partners. Back when the Commonwealth was being created, its Charter included a provision on the CIS Commission on Human Rights as one of its bodies. However, we never got around to actually setting it up. At first, the idea was simple – the West should see that we also address human rights. But over the past few years, we have proposed materialising this statutory provision. There is a general agreement to launch the commission and an understanding that we will primarily deal with human rights issues in the CIS. It should be up to us, to all CIS countries, to make judgments about the human rights situation in our countries, not to Western agencies or bodies like the European Court of Human Rights, which has long lost the ability to rely on the principles of justice and which increasingly politicises its decisions every year.

Last year, the number of regional programmes exceeded 80, that is, apart from the federal programme, including in the regions of the Far East and Trans-Baikal Territory which we see as priority areas for those willing to move to the Russian Federation. I listed the major benefits that have been approved. I will say straight away that we wanted more. I believe that one’s family, parents and relatives having roots not only in the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic but also in other republics of the Soviet Union must have relevance for being entitled to preferential access to citizenship.

We have to consider a number of issues that we would like to settle as soon as possible. The work has not been finished yet. We have now “capitalised” what we have agreed on at the current stage. The President approved the consensus that was reached. We will continue to work to further improve the process and ease conditions for acquiring citizenship. The more so that at President Putin’s direction, the United Russia party, our leading political force, formed a commission on international cooperation and assistance to compatriots abroad. It involves not only helping compatriots come to Russia but also in the sense in which we discussed your first question – so as to make them feel as comfortable as possible upon arrival.

A couple of days ago the Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper ran an article about history textbooks published currently in the former Soviet republics. I will not comment on what Estonians, Ukrainians, Lithuanians and Latvians are writing in them. However, regarding the CIS countries, we have repeatedly told them that nationalists should not be given pretexts by exploiting difficult moments in our common history. It ultimately helped all the peoples inhabiting this huge geopolitical space to lay the foundation for building their statehood. While we acknowledge the newly independent states’ aspiration to self-determination which I mentioned, overheated assessments should be avoided as they obviously, and maybe intentionally, play into the hands of extremists and nationalists.

Last year, a decision was signed within the Commonwealth of Independent States on establishing an international association (commission) of historians and archivists from CIS member states. It will focus, among other things, on discussing the issues of our common history with an eye toward a constructive consideration of all matters. I don’t think there will be unified history textbooks, but guidelines will be produced to reflect a consolidated point of view and a variety of perspectives. We have a commission of historians with Germany, Poland and Lithuania. They release joint documents. I believe that a similar mechanism within the Commonwealth will operate much more constructively in view of our closeness in many organisations – CSTO, EAEU, CIS and SCO.

Question: To follow up on our relations with the United States, you just said that we will continue to work with them. A meeting with Antony Blinken will take place soon. However, now that we have their answer, many analysts, in fact, almost all of them, are saying that the United States and the Alliance members are unlikely to change their position on the main issues. They are saying that “the ball is in Russia’s court now, and we are ready for any scenario.” You are saying our President said that we would respond, and that the response is in the works. The Foreign Ministry is involved in this. Can we have a sneak peek at the direction in which our Foreign Ministry is going to move in order to shoot the “ball” back at them? Is it Latin America? Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua? Could it be Europe? Serbia? Maybe we can do something with Iran? Can you give us a hint about what our response should be like for these guys to sit down, use their heads and try to give us different answers to our main questions, rather than secondary ones?

Sergey Lavrov: If they insist on not changing their position, we will not change ours, either. It’s just that their position is based on false premises and a flat-out misrepresentation of the facts. Our position is based on things that everyone has signed onto. I don’t see any room for a compromise here. Otherwise, what are we supposed to talk about if they openly sabotage and misrepresent previous decisions? This will be a key test for us.

As for the “ball,” we are playing different games. They may be playing baseball, while we may be playing tipcat. What matters is not to try to shirk responsibility, which is exactly what our American and other NATO partners are doing now.

They will not succeed in dodging the question of why they are not complying with what their presidents have signed onto, namely, that it is unacceptable to strengthen one’s security at the expense of the security of others.

Regarding our relations with Latin America, Serbia, Iran, China and many other states that act decently in the international arena, are not trying to unilaterally impose anything on anyone and are always willing to seek mutually acceptable solutions to any issues. Our relations are not subject to the vagaries of life. They are quite comprehensive and cover economic, cultural, educational, and sports contacts. They also include military and defence cooperation in full compliance with international law. I assure you that no matter how developments unfold with regard to European security, we will continue to consistently expand these relations.

I would like to underscore that we are studying their response and we have already provided our initial assessments. It is not satisfactory with regard to the main issue: the West fails to honour its obligations in terms of indivisibility of security and ignores our interests, although we laid them out in an extremely straightforward and clear way

With regard to issues of secondary importance, they were shocked by us presenting these documents publicly. This helped change their negative attitude towards our previous proposals, including medium- and short- range missiles and working out de-escalation measures during the exercises. This means that the West understands only this kind of language, and we should continue in the same vein that we did when we put forward our initiatives. We are now focused on getting explanations. We cannot accept evasive answers when it comes to the indivisibility of security. The West is shirking its commitments just as it failed to deliver on its commitment not to expand NATO. But then (as it is now telling us) it was a verbal commitment. Now, written commitments are available. Respond to us in writing to our written demands. Explain how you fulfill the written commitments signed by your presidents.

Question: When it is necessary to come to the defence of Russian journalists that are subjected to certain restrictions in the US or Germany, and we know the story with RT, the Foreign Ministry is forcefully intervening and defending them both on and off the record, and not only Maria Zakharova but also at the level of ambassador, deputy minister and at your level. When it comes to the countries with which we have closer relations, your department is quite modest. It is enough to recall the case of the Komsomolskaya Pravda journalists and the end of their news office that is practically closed. Its chief is behind bars.

I would like to remind you of the murders of journalists. When our journalists were killed in Ukraine, the Foreign Ministry took a very tough, assertive position that was hard to ignore, but it was silent when our journalists were murdered in the Central African Republic (CAR).

Here’s a question from our listener Dmitry Muratov from Moscow, a Nobel Prize winner and editor-in-chief of Novaya Gazeta. Without any additional investigation or operational measures, the new ambassador of Russia to the CAR named the murderers of the Russian journalists – the 3R group. The Foreign Ministry is aware of this but their families are not. The clothes of the journalists were burned as evidence, no investigation was conducted and the Foreign Ministry does not make any statements as regards the CAR leaders. Maybe, the Foreign Ministry should become more active in these cases with respect to both the Belarusian government and the CAR leaders?

Sergey Lavrov: You are right in saying that we must always defend the rights of Russian citizens, and not only journalists but every citizen, and the Americans have simply abducted dozens of them. We must also protect our journalists when there are obvious reasons for doing so.

We expressed our concern over what was happening with the Komsomolskaya Pravda news office. We talked with Mr Sungorkin about this. As I understand, the matter concerns Belarusian citizens and a specific Belarusian citizen. This is a somewhat different story. Any country that allows dual citizenship follows its own laws if something happens on its territory. I don’t want to go into details but there are issues that require silence. We did quite a bit to persuade the Belarusian authorities to be understanding. Now their position is what it is, and I cannot argue against it. They are ready to open any news office but its employees have to be citizens of the Russian Federation.

We could also look at how Russian journalists are treated in the West and how their working conditions are dictated there. I think a request to employ Russian citizens in Russian media is not beyond the pale. We believe the rights of journalists must be respected without exception everywhere, including Belarus or any other CIS country. If these rights are openly violated, we will continue to raise questions about this.

As for the CAR, we are willing to convey any information we have to the families of the dead journalists. As for the culprits, as you know, the CAR authorities are conducting an investigation. I don’t want to excuse the acts of these murderers. I can only say that journalists should take precautions. If they had at least notified the Foreign Ministry and our Embassy that they were bound for a country with a domestic armed conflict and a terrorist threat, the chances of avoiding this tragedy would have been a bit higher. This was all the more important since they went there as tourists, without declaring the purpose of their visit. Let me repeat again that this is not an excuse but this creates additional security risks in such cases.

Therefore, I’d like everyone to know that we do want journalists to work all over the world, including hot spots. I remove my hat and bow to all those who do such reporting in flak jackets and helmets, and let me say something, in passing, to your colleagues in eastern Ukraine. Once again I am addressing, through you, those who may have some influence on Western journalism and the media. Why do journalists appear sporadically, once every six months, at best, on the Kiev-controlled side of the contact line in Donbass? Why is their reporting so spotty? It would be very interesting to see them there. On the other side of the contact line, our journalists show the results of the atrocities committed by the Armed Forces of Ukraine that are bombing kindergartens, outpatient clinics and residential areas and killing people. According to the OSCE, civilian casualties on the side controlled by Donbass defenders are five times higher than on the opposite side. This speaks for itself.

Let’s return to the Central African Republic. We again sent an inquiry to the CAR government when the information about this 3R group emerged. We will do all we can to bring this investigation to completion. As you know, their government is dealing with this. Let me emphasise once again that we want to know the truth. I would like to impress upon our journalist colleagues and friends the importance of notifying us about trips to hot spots (if you don’t trust the Ministry, I cannot force you to do this). Please do it for the sake of your own safety. It will help.

Question: Thank you very much for your support to our service in connection with what happened to Gennady Mozheiko. Our thanks go to Alexei Venediktov for bringing up this issue. Gennady Mozheiko has been in police custody for four months now and not even once has he been questioned. He’s just sitting there. I appealed to Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko [for assistance] but, so far, there has been no response.

You were right in saying that it is not only a matter of journalists. Today, according to the Russian Embassy in Belarus, 457 Russian nationals are behind bars in Belarus. This is only what the embassy says, and I suspect the real figure is even bigger. Yesterday, another person – Russian national Vera Tsvikevich – was added to this list. She was detained only for taking, during the protests, a photograph of herself, a selfie, in a beautiful red dress with a patrol in the background. She was taken to prison for that. Judging by the precedents, she will be sentenced to two years in prison. Something needs to be done about this.

As for Belarus, we should have a very different relationship with them, as this is the Union State. Today, our journalists believe their work to be the most difficult in Belarus and not in Georgia or America, or Israel, and so on. We are constantly talking about the Union State, saying that we need to synchronise our legislation. What is in store for us, with regard to what I just said? Do we stand any chance of becoming a true Union State?

Sergey Lavrov: As for the Union State, you know, there are 28 union programmes that were approved last autumn…

Question: They have not been published, which is an interesting fact.

Sergey Lavrov: These are framework documents. They contain no secrets. They provide for work that has already started to flesh out each of the 28 programmes with specific and direct legal decisions in the economy, financial activities, transport, communications and so on. It is an important step towards consolidating economic assets. According to the two presidents, this work has to be completed in the next two to three years. This means embarking on the path to the Union State with much broader powers.

Yesterday, we saw off the newly-appointed Ambassador, Boris Gryzlov who was leaving for Belarus. I handed him letters of credence signed by the Russian President. This ceremony was attended by Belarusian Ambassador to Russia Vladimir Semashko. I recalled that our joint work also includes efforts to align the rights of the people of the two countries. Much has already been done. I believe 95 percent of rights have been aligned; however, the remaining outstanding issues in some areas need to be addressed as soon as possible. In particular, this includes the terms on which healthcare services or hotel accommodation are to be provided to people travelling privately. This is all very important for the daily life of people.

But the question you asked is not about what the Union State will look like in the end. Even if the criminal legislation of the two countries has been unified in full, there will still be Russians detained in Belarus and Belarusians detained in Russia. Our embassy keeps a close eye on the course of legal proceedings involving detained Russian nationals. The law enforcement agencies and prosecutor general’s offices of the two countries stay in contact. I haven’t heard anything about Vera Tsvikevich. Is this today’s newspaper?

Remark: No. It was issued in 2020.

Sergey Lavrov: Why then did you say that she was added to this list yesterday?

Remark: She was detained yesterday. The newspaper is old but she was detained yesterday.

Sergey Lavrov: Is she on the staff of Komsomolskaya Pravda?

Remark: No, she is just a Russian national. I said that about 500 Russian nationals were serving sentence in Belarus.

Sergey Lavrov: Four hundred fifty-seven. So, she will be the 458th . We will be watching what happens to her, the way we do it in any other country. There are questions that require close cooperation between the law enforcement agencies. I would rather not talk about them now in public but such questions do exist. It is important that they are resolved in a manner characteristic of two allies or brotherly nations. We will invariably adhere to this line.

Question: Mine is not a question but an urgent request concerning the fate of the German RT channel. We have not faced such unprecedented and uncompromising pressure, actually not even pressure but a real ban on work, in any other country, not the US or the UK, as in the Federal Republic of Germany. It is all disguised with hypocritical statements by German leaders at different levels. Supposedly, they have nothing to do with the closure of the German YouTube channel. Even when we gained the largest audience in the history of the English-language YouTube among the world’s TV channels, we were not shut down. They didn’t dare. But the Germans did.  They pressured Luxembourg so as to have our licence denied even though practically everything had been agreed and done there. Ultimately, we were given the licence in Serbia. They pressured the European regulators – so we can’t broadcast with that licence either. Titanic efforts of hundreds of people who had been building the channel amid the pandemic, produced shows, won the audience – all that was in vain. The audience was sacrificed to interests. Nobody shows the German people what we show.

The only thing that can affect them (as was the case with the UK) is reciprocity, which you are more familiar with than we are. Deutsche Welle has not even been designated as a foreign agent, even though this status does not entail what it does in the US (criminal charges). In our country it is just a piece of paper and an occasion to shout about it. In fact, it does not entail anything. Foreign agents take interviews, they are invited to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s press conferences. To say nothing about shutting down Deutsche Welle here the way they shut us down in Germany. This also concerns other German media outlets. Please, help us.

Sergey Lavrov: You don’t need to persuade me. Just yesterday the Russian Embassy in Berlin demanded an explanation. Procedures are underway. This is not within the competence of the federal agency but of the regulator of the German states Berlin and Brandenburg. The embassy’s lawyers looked into precedents. The Axel Springer concern had faced a similar situation but they quickly got a licence.

The key here is that the Germans are trying to place their internal regulations, which allegedly prohibit the registration of state-run channels, above their commitments under the European Convention on Transfrontier Television. According to our information, their regulators are using various pretexts to justify the primacy of their national law. This won’t do. The result will be the same as the NATO enlargement – this is what they want so they won’t do the things they had promised somewhere else. The Germans know that reciprocal measures will follow. I raised this issue when German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock was here on a visit. I think she and her delegation heard it. I am going to have a telephone conversation with her today. I will definitely remind her.

Question: A scandal is unfolding in the United States. CNN published a report citing its own sources. In it, they alleged that the United States and Ukrainian presidents talked on the phone, with Joe Biden supposedly yelling at Vladimir Zelensky in an attempt to explain to him in a raised voice that unless he changes his position on Donbass, Kiev will fall and be pillaged, etc. CNN published this report on its website, but later removed it. Still, the scandal lives on. Both Joe Biden and Vladimir Zelensky are getting questions about this. In this telephone conversation, the President of the United States allegedly requested that the President of Ukraine urgently resolve the special status issue for Donbass.

If Kiev does decide to amend its constitution and grant Donbass a special status, will this affect Russia’s policy on Ukraine in any way? To be honest, you cannot trust these people. There are 720,000 Russian nationals there today, and in the future there could be even more of them. We do understand the threats they may face after obtaining a Russian passport. Are we ready for these eventualities? What will be Russia’s policy on the people’s republics?

Sergey Lavrov: We have always stressed the need to fully implement the Minsk agreements in good faith and following the sequence it sets forth. As my colleagues and I have been saying in our public statements, during the Geneva summit meeting in June 2021 between the Russian and United States presidents, Joe Biden said at his own initiative that he wanted to facilitate the implementation of the Minsk agreements, including in terms of granting an autonomous (this was the word he used) status to Donbass. He understands everything.

This is consistent with what the Minsk agreements say. The special status provisions they set forth cannot be subject to any equivocal interpretations. What needs to be done is clear. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken reassured me that they want to help implement the Minsk agreements. His under-secretaries said that the US would not join the Normandy format but still wants to help. If they do force Kiev (nobody else can do it), this outcome would suit us. So far, I find this hard to believe. They are playing a game by continuing to supply weapons. Some tend to interpret these deliveries as a support for those ready to engage in a senseless armed conflict. This is something many have to factor into their projections. In fact, hardly anyone wants this, but there is still a small group of people who stand to benefit from it, in one way or another.

Why are the Americans the only ones that can force Kiev into compliance? The Normandy format met in Paris at the level of political advisors to the four leaders. Deputy Chief of Staff of the Presidential Executive Office Dmitry Kozak travelled there. They agreed to take two more weeks to understand how they can move forward in carrying out the Minsk agreements.

France, Germany and the European Union name Russia as a party to the conflict. What kind of agreement can we reach in these circumstances? They are saying we must comply with the Minsk agreements. President Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Kozak have repeatedly stated that no one has ever given us an answer to the question of which specific provision we must comply with. The implication is that everything depends on Russia. It’s like we snap our fingers and everything will come to pass.

Kiev realised that Berlin and Paris would not insist on it complying with the Minsk agreements. President Zelensky said he didn’t like the Package of Measures, but it was nonetheless important, because it keeps Western sanctions on Russia in place. That’s all there is to it: nothing but crude cynicism. Ukraine realises that it can do anything now. Vladimir Zelensky and his regime are being used (primarily by the Americans) to escalate tensions and to engage their underlings in Europe, who are playing along with the Americans as they pursue their Russophobic undertakings. The future of Ukraine is not Washington’s main goal in this particular case. It is important for the United States to escalate tensions around the Russian Federation in order to “close” this issue and then “deal with” China, as US political scientists are saying. How do they plan to “close” it? I have no idea. If there are any reasonable political strategists still out there, they must realise that this road leads nowhere.

The Americans are using Ukraine against Russia so openly and cynically that the Kiev regime itself is now scared. They are now saying there is no need to aggravate the discussion and are suggesting that the Americans keep down the rhetoric, and are also wondering why evacuate diplomats. Who is evacuating diplomats? The Americans and other Anglo-Saxons (Canada and the UK), meaning they know something others don’t. Perhaps, pending a provocation on their part, we should take precautionary measures with regard to our diplomats as well. We’ll see about that.

I have already answered the question about how we feel about the recently vocalised idea of recognising the Lugansk and Donetsk people’s republics. My answer is straightforward: we must push for the implementation of the Minsk agreements. There’s a host of people out there who are ready to grab any excuse to remove blame from Kiev for the sabotage which it has been involved in for eight years now with regard to the document approved by the UN Security Council.

Question: You said that NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has lost touch with reality. Maybe you live in different realities? Today, he will give a live interview to Ekho Moskvy. Do you want to say hi to him or ask a question?

Sergey Lavrov: Serves him right.

Question: I looked through the list of the sanctions approved by the US Congress and Treasury last year. The absolute majority of them are associated with the name of Alexey Navalny, not Ukraine. The OPCW (independent German, French and Swedish labs) found traces of a poisonous substance in his blood, which clearly means that he was poisoned. The Foreign Ministry requested assistance. But Russia did not open a criminal investigation. Germany said in that case there would be no help. We are members of the OPCW. You have seen the report on Navalny. Do you continue to cooperate on this matter? We are in the minority in every single international European organisation. We are saying that the ECHR, PACE, the OSCE and the OPCW are Russophobes. Could it be that Russia is the one that is out of step?

Sergey Lavrov: I’ll start off by saying that I watched Euronews yesterday. There was a story about the village of Dvani in Georgia, near the South Ossetian border. It is located in an area that Georgia considers its territory. The reporter said he was in the village of Dvani at the separation line, with the administrative border that Russia keeps fortifying behind him. A house owned by a Georgian “was burned down during the war.” The new one “came into the Russian military’s surveillance zone.” A local resident said that we were “abducting people in unfathomable ways.” A Georgian journalist said that he has been “working in the villages near the conflict zone for several years now” and that “14 years have passed since the war that forced the people to live in difficult circumstances ended. They are losing their lands and forest allotments almost daily. People are being kidnapped. Russian troops are detaining them,” etc. Then the reporter continued to say that “after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Georgia was the first among the former Soviet republics to experience an escalation of separatism and armed confrontation, and thousands of refugees are still unable to return home.”

He didn’t say, though, anything about what kind of separatism took root in Georgia even before the breakup of the Soviet Union. Zviad Gamsakhurdia was quite chauvinistic in his demands for Abkhazians to get out or to “georgify.” He believed South Ossetia residents did not deserve humane treatment. Nobody is saying anything about it. Then comes a brilliant phrase: “In 2008, when the conflict entered the hot phase, Russia took South Ossetia’s side.” This is Euronews, which touts itself as a channel of fair news and an epitome of diversity when it comes to presenting diverse viewpoints. They did not even mention how the fratricidal conflict began.

I’m saying this because you asked a question about the OPCW without mentioning the reference points that require clarification. If we state it the way you framed your question, then Michael McFaul and other unsophisticated listeners may get the impression that all of that is true. You are saying we asked the Germans to provide clarifications, and they wanted us to open a criminal investigation before they give us anything. What is that all about? Germany’s obligations under the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters are not dependent on whether a particular country opens a criminal investigation or not. Under our laws, a criminal case can be opened if there is corroborating evidence. This is in no way inconsistent with multiple instances of using this procedure in relations with many other countries. We have a lot of material which we circulate around the world. I’m sure reporters from Ekho Moskvy and other media outlets have access to it.

We are still waiting for an answer to our question about who flew in to pick up Alexey Navalny. Why the plane that flew to Omsk to pick him up was chartered the day before he fell ill. Why are there no answers to the purely specific and factual questions asked in the German Parliament: how come the pilot, who did not want Maria Pevchikh to take the bottle onboard, eventually let her do so? There was also a sixth passenger. These questions were asked at the Bundestag. Why is it impossible to question Ms Pevchikh? The Germans say she did not communicate with the blogger and did not visit him at the hospital. She wrote that she did. The bottle she brought along has not been shown to anyone. Our requests to run a joint examination of it are rejected. Allegations that illegal poisonous substances were found in Mr Navalny’s body began after no CWC-prohibited substances had been found by the Charité clinic, which is a civilian hospital. All of that was “discovered” at a clinic operated by the Bundeswehr in a matter of just three days. Before that, a similar scenario unfolded with the Skripal family. We insisted that the investigation must be grounded in hard facts, not “highly likely” assumptions. We cited facts that there are almost 150 patents for the infamous Novichok in the West, in particular, the United States. It was developed in Europe as well. Then Germany, France, Sweden and many other countries swore that they did not have this technology. Without the technology, it is impossible to detect this substance in the human body in three days. Any more or less experienced chemist is aware of that.

At first, the Germans told us that they would not give us the materials, because they constituted “classified military information.” How’s that? We are being accused of murder or attempted murder, and the information is classified. By definition, they should not have access to this technology if they are bona fide participants in the CWC. Then they began to say that they could give it to us, but Navalny says no. What’s next? At the same time, his lawyer criticised Dmitry Peskov for accusing the blogger of collaborating with the CIA and demanded proof. What kind of proof? US intelligence officers came to see him at the hospital, which Dmitry Peskov mentioned. We are demanding proof behind the accusation of attempted murder, but we are then told that he does not want to.

We asked the OPCW to provide the results but were told that they could do so only with the permission of the Germans. The circle closed. Read carefully the paper released by the OPCW. It says that some substances were discovered that are similar in composition to other substances that are on the OPCW’s banned chemicals list. Not a word about Novichok. Neither the Germans, nor the French, nor the Swedes gave us the formula. It’s classified. The formula is the proof of whether this is true or pure deception and lies.

I am inclined to believe that so far the West has no grounds to accuse us. This is done for the purpose of instigating a provocation. I mentioned the day when a special flight was chartered to fly to Omsk to pick up Mr Navalny. The day before the poisoning, the Germans (according to the OPCW report) asked The Hague for assistance in conducting the investigation of this case. Then they said it was a typo, and everything actually happened later. There are many interesting things there. In early September 2020, the Germans contacted the OPCW. The OPCW Secretariat concealed this from us for several days. In hindsight, they confessed that the Germans allegedly asked them not to tell anyone. Doesn’t it all look suspicious? It does to me, and suspicions run deep. I encourage Ekho Moskvy and other radio stations’ listeners to go the Foreign Ministry’s website and read the material containing a vast number of legitimate questions that remain unanswered by the West to this day.

Question: The most popular question: will there be a war with Ukraine?

Sergey Lavrov: This is what we started off with. If it’s up to the Russian Federation, there will be no war. I do not rule out the possibility that someone out there would like to provoke hostilities.

According to the West, there are about 100,000 troops on the line of contact. The Kiev regime does not control most of these armed men. A significant portion of the units that are stationed there include the former volunteer battalions, current territorial defence units, and militia. MANPADS are already being handed out to them. The media are reporting this information. They are encouraged to bring along hunting rifles with them, because there aren’t enough MANPADS for everyone. This is a militaristic frenzy. I cannot rule out the possibility of someone losing it, just like that soldier who shot and killed five of his fellow servicemen.

Question: Why aren’t we talking with Vladimir Zelensky? He is one of us, a former Komsomol member with a background in Channel One.

Sergey Lavrov: He is also a “piano player.” President Vladimir Putin answered this question. If President Zelensky wants to talk about normalising bilateral relations that were damaged by the unilateral actions of his regime, actions to which we responded, Russia stands ready to do so. Let him come to Moscow, Sochi, or St Petersburg, wherever they may agree. But if he wants to discuss Donbass – please go to the Contact Group, which, according to the Normandy format’s decision, is in charge of all settlement issues directly between Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk. When he says he won’t talk to us, this bodes ill for the domestic Ukrainian crisis. If he has something to offer in order to restore bilateral relations, the destruction of which Kiev, Vladimir Zelensky and his predecessor initiated, we are ready to consider his proposals. President Vladimir Putin has stated this in no uncertain terms.

Question: Another meme for a T-shirt from Minister Lavrov: “Please go to the Contact Group.”

Question: Are we going to evacuate our staff from Kiev as well?

Sergey Lavrov: We discussed this bout of insanity that is being fomented in Ukraine, primarily by the Anglo-Saxons and some Europeans. Dramatic claims that everyone must leave the place are part of this insanity. People who came there to tend to their business are urged to leave. Diplomats and their families are being taken home and non-core staff is being cut.

We cannot let it go unnoticed or turn a blind eye to it. If they are doing this (even though the Ukrainians haven’t asked them to), could it be that the Anglo-Saxons are up to something? The British particularly have a long track record in this area.

Question: This happened after you said something during a meeting with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken. What did you say or show to him? Immediately after the Geneva meeting, he started saying that diplomats should be evacuated. You must have done something.

Sergey Lavrov: You are mistaken if you think that I have lost the ability to understand what is happening around me. I didn’t say anything to him. In a one-on-one conversation (I hope this will not offend him) he told me that if something happens, their people would be there… It sounded rather strange to me. That’s what I told him.

Take my word for it, we discussed nothing but security guarantees. Then I raised the issue of the unacceptable state of affairs with our diplomatic missions. I made a proposal which we eventually agreed upon. In a couple of weeks, another meeting between experts will take place. I can assure you that no threats were uttered. However, we cannot leave things without analysis. We are analysing them to see what stands behind the Anglo-Saxons’ actions.

Andrei Martyanov’s commentary on the US response to Russia

January 27, 202

Please visit Andrei’s website: 

https://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/
and support him here: 

https://www.patreon.com/bePatron?u=60459185

What Next?

Source

January 23, 2022

I’m not sure even a NATO mosquito could cross the Russian border unmolested. And when a bear is lethally threatened, it doesn’t posture; it charges in a mighty roar. So why the Russian ultimatum? There are many plausible motives, many of which are not mutually exclusive. I’d like to focus on an aspect that hasn’t been discussed yet.

The last ten to twenty years could be characterized as a rivalry between China’s desire to re-balance the world’s economy, and the US’s effort to maintain the Dollar’s supremacy. China rose on the back of Western consumerism. There is only that much the West economy can absorb of China’s growing production, and that limit has clearly been exceeded. If China is to pursue its economic development, it needs additional “advanced” export markets to sustain its growing middle class. This is the Chinese necessity underlying the BRI, it cannot grow without the world growing with it.

Until recently it was content with a simple strategy: Enter several disparate countries at a time and start economic projects. Soon enough the US intervened to discipline the offenders; but they cannot strike all at once, choices must be made. Meanwhile, China approaches another bunch with still more economic projects. The US gets slowly overwhelmed, while the projects advance two steps forward, one step backward. On paper, it looks like an expensive proposition, but that is the beauty of it, it’s all paid for with US paper, while gold is accumulated. This entire period is comparable to the early and middle stages of a Go game

There is a point however when all these mini economic hubs must consolidate into a unified stream of connections to realize their full potential. That means no more US military interference and economic/financial disruptions. It seems we are now entering the late stage when “eyes” must be locked and linked.

There is little question the latest Russian move was long prepared and discussed with China. We may assume a common goal, and that none of the recent events are coincidences.

China and Russia favor and promote inter-currency settlement of trades. The Digital Yuan (E-CNY, electronic China Yuan) is designed for this purpose and has just completed successfully its live trials. It is reasonable to expect its official announcement in the near future. There are rumors this will be done during Putin’s visit to the Olympics. Regardless of the exact launch date, preparation must be made against the predictably harshest US resistance to its international deployment. There’s little doubt in my mind that many, if not most of East Asia will readily incorporate the new crypto iteration of the Yuan. However the Kazakhstan events, which were clearly foreseen with great precision, essentially opened up the entire Central Asian economies to its eventual use. With the recent 400bn commitment to Iran and the ongoing Pakistani projects, one may merrily add them to the bunch. India is free to join whenever they deem it in their best interest. This brings us right to the doorsteps of the Middle East.

Let’s now briefly revisit the US’ choices taken during the middle stage game. Since East Asia was growing to displace the US and EU as China’s main trading partner, Washington initiated their “pivot East” strategy to disrupt their momentum. Because of the sorry state of both their economy and military, they had to “delegate” the task of containing Russia on its western border to the EU. The Ukraine, in this context, can be seen as the “pretext” for the EU to activate NATO in Eastern Europe. However, as “pivot East” was floundering, they further needed to draw on their middle east assets (it’s becoming increasingly difficult not to laugh at what I must write). To this effect, they devised the Abraham Accords to similarly delegate the task of containing the “Shiite Axis” to Israel and the Golf States. The first “casualty” of these infamous Accords was probably Pakistan’s definite defection to the BRI, which further precipitated the Afghani debacle. To correct that mistake they then tried another formation with India, Japan, and a few others, followed by AUKUS, which both turned into flops, guided by the same imperative to relieve the strain on their military in an attempt to remain relevant on all fronts.

To control the Middle East, the US needs control of Europe, if only to secure their supply line. And to influence Central Asia they must control the Middle East. Until now Washington was essentially calling the shots, while Russia and China adapted their plans to whatever was thrown their way. By submitting their security demands, Russia is signaling unequivocally it is now taking the initiative. While the reinforcement of the Ukrainian Army was first designed to pressure some Russian reaction so as to increase the European nations’ commitment to toe the anti Russia line, the resulting Russian built-up of forces and large scale exercises have effectively reversed the pressure. The bulk of NATO forces are now bogged down on the eastern European front in a self induced paranoia, severely restricting their possible redeployment elsewhere.

With the Russian ultimatum the US is now basically faced with the following choices. Sign the documents, which by extension will mean the Minsk agreement and opening of NS2, but would free NATO reinforcement to the Middle East, no matter how futile this would ultimately prove. Because if this happens Europe will quickly “organically” link to the Asian network and recover most of its sovereignty from the US. At that moment, the Middle East is lost.

By not signing, the choice becomes loosing the middle East or release the pressure in East Asia, in both cases China wins.

If they don’t reinforce the Middle East, Pakistan is soon to be followed by the entire region. Though there could be some fireworks in the process, once the dust settles the BRI will be staring straight at Africa, throwing its full weight at European and American interests on that continent. If that happens, Europe falls.

Finally if they do “save” the Middle East at the detriment of East Asia, the Asian power house will become such that no one will escape its gravitational pull for long.

It is not very difficult to see, in this context, that whichever region the US decides to forsake, it’s only a matter of time before they lose the rest. Of course, this all assumes they don’t first crumble under the weight of their debts. Will they turn nuts and try blow it all up? I can only attest that the one thing greater than their evil idiocy, is their cowardice.

“Russia plans to engage its nuclear weapons not against those countries where it was launched against Russia, but against the mastermind cities where the decisions were made. To be exact, it is Washington, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and other American cities. Please fully understand, in case American nuclear weapons are launched from, eg. Taiwan, or Poland, the response will hit New York or Washington.”  Russian Duma deputy, Yevgeny Fyodorov.

Russia Reacts to Nato and History

January 20, 2022

Lawrence Davidson is a retired professor of history from West Chester University in West Chester PA. His academic research focused on the history of American foreign relations with the Middle East. He taught courses in Middle East history, the history of science and modern European intellectual history.

by Lawrence Davidson

Part I—Russia Seeks Security

In mid-December 2021 the Russian government publicly announced that it would “seek legally formulated guarantees of security” from the United States and its allies that would end NATO military activity in eastern Europe as well as military support for the Ukraine.

U.S. media reporting on this event, characterized by the New York Times, framed it as a Russian attempt to “wind back the clock 30 years to just before the collapse of the Soviet Union,” and thus Russian demands were “echoes of the Cold War.” Little media credence has been given to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s repeated insistence that his country is “threatened” by NATO activities close to its borders.

In the meantime, “NATO officials emphasized that NATO countries will not rule out future membership for any Eastern European countries, including those bordering the Russian Republic, such as Ukraine.” U.S. President Biden has responded Russian demands with contradictory policies. On the one hand, Washington insisted that what was necessary was a “context of de-escalation,” and on the other, declared that the American “flow of arms to Ukraine would continue.”

It would seem that while Washington and its allies, to say nothing of the media, heard the Russian demands, they displayed no evidence of understanding them within an accurate historical context—a history that goes back considerably further than the dissolution of the Soviet Union 30 years ago.

Part II—Historical Background

For those readers who are interested in understanding what historically motivates the Russian leadership to behave as they now do, and make their current demands, here is a rundown of relevant past events.

— In modern times, Russia was first invaded from Western Europe in 1812. In that year, Napoleon Bonaparte’s multinational Grande Armée attacked Russia. The invasion failed and ultimately helped lead to Napoleon’s fall from power. For the Russians this was not so much a victory as a national tragedy. An estimated 200,000 Russians died, and soon after Napoleon occupied Moscow, then the “spiritual capital” of the country, the Russians burned the city down around him.

— Between 1812 and 1914, Russia maintained one of Europe’s huge multiethnic empires alongside those of Austria-Hungary, Germany, France and Great Britain. On its European side, the Russian Empire held sway over Poles, Finns, Ukrainians, and various other Slavic and Baltic people—that is, Russia established a sphere of influence that encompassed a good part of eastern Europe. Operating as an absolute monarchy, it did not readily respond to the needs of its subject peoples. By the early twentieth century, the Russian Empire’s centralized government was growing weak and was roiled by challenges to its dictatorial ways.

— In 1914 World War I broke out with Russia, Britain, France and the United States on one side and Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire on the other. After a brief Russian incursion into East Prussia, the Germans went on the offensive and moved deep into western Russia, inflicting heavy casualties. This marked the second time Russia was invaded from the West. Successive defeats led to the collapse of Russia’s imperial government and eventually the founding of the Soviet state in 1917. Overall, Russia lost approximately two million soldiers and over a half million civilians in this war. Russia also lost most of its Eastern European lands.

— The next twenty years marked the so-called interwar period, the time between World War I and World War II. For our purposes, the most important consequence of this period was the creation of independent states such as Poland, Hungary, Finland, Czechoslovakia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and others out of what, until the end of World War I, had been the imperial territories of the German, Austrian and Russian empires. Unfortunately, the initial lifespan of this independent status was short.

— It was World War II that brought an end to this initial period of East European national revival. The war began on 1 September 1939 with the German invasion of Poland. Nazi Germany soon conquered most of continental Europe. Then on 22 June 1941 Germany launched a massive invasion of Soviet Russia. This marked the third invasion of Russia from the West in a little over one hundred years. Initially, Germany occupied much of Soviet Russia west of the Ural Mountains. However, the situation changed in 1942, particularly after the German troops failed to capture the city of Stalingrad. After that failure the Soviet forces began a long slow process of pushing the Germans back—a long German retreat that would go on till the end of the war in 1945.

—Those new East European nations mentioned above were free of German control by early 1945. However, they never did regain full independence. German control was now exchanged for Soviet Russian control. The Western interpretation of Soviet post-war occupation was that it was the product of an inherent drive for world conquest by the communists. However, there are other explanations that flow more logically from the history given above.

— Communism as an ideology might predict the eventual victory of the working classes and the withering away of the state, but in every case where communists have come to power, they have eventually settled down and ruled as nationalists. It might have been different if Trotsky had gained power in Soviet Russia instead of Stalin, but we will never know for sure. Thus, it is highly unlikely that Stalin ordered the permanent occupation of Eastern Europe for communist ideological reasons. He had at least two nationalistic reasons motivating him. One was that Russia was traditionally a great imperial power and holding vast territory was the part of the definition of a great power. That was a status the Russians hoped to recapture. The second reason was perhaps more immediately important. Given that Russia had been repeatedly invaded from the West, what the Soviets wanted from their war-won occupied territories was the creation of a large and deep buffer zone. That is, a security zone between the historical sources of their pain—countries such as France and Germany—and the Russian border. Nonetheless, the Western leaders interpreted Soviet behavior as communist-inspired aggression and created NATO, a military alliance, to forestall further Russian advances. The Russians, in turn, interpreted NATO as yet one more reason why they needed a buffer zone. They may have been right.

— Soviet Russia’s buffer zone lasted as long as the Soviet Union lasted—that is, until 26 December 1991. After that, Russian troops were pulled back to the new Russian Republic. At that point, the Eastern European countries founded after World War I, and other non-Russian territories such as Ukraine, moved to assert their independence. The other side of this coin is that the collapse of Soviet Russia left millions of ethnic Russians who had migrated within the Soviet empire prior to 1991 stranded in new political entities, such as the Ukraine, with which they had no strong identification.

— The leaders of these new nations knew their history and assumed that Russia would someday seek to recreate its lost empire qua buffer zone. So they sought to protect themselves by sheltering under the NATO umbrella. NATO embraced most of them, and thus a military organization that was designed, ostensibly, to prevent Russia from expanding westward, now rapidly expanded eastward. Sooner or later Russia, motivated by its own history, was bound to react.

Part III—The Situation Today

NATO’s expansion eastward has set up the confrontation we witness today. The Russians had to accept NATO’s early move to the east because the new Russian Republic was initially in political and economic disarray. Nonetheless, as President Putin put it, “Russia feels threatened by an encroaching Nato.” Today, the disarray has passed, separatist movements within the Russian Republic, such as in Chechnya, have been brutally crushed, and the Russians have decided to draw a “red line” to forestall further NATO expansion into what remains of the non-Russian areas between themselves and a historically hostile West. That red line encompasses Ukraine. Thus, that country’s recent turn toward the West and its expressed desire to eventually join the NATO alliance has triggered historically embedded alarms in Moscow. To emphasize this point to the Ukrainian leadership, Russia has amassed troops on their mutual border in a manner that suggests the possibility of invasion. Russia has also increased aid to the separatist pro-Russian part of eastern Ukraine—the Donetsk People’s Republic.

A singular problem here is that none of the Western media coverage and very few of the Western politicians demonstrate an understanding of the situation within an appropriate historical background. Essentially, few of these otherwise influential people know any of the relevant history before 1991, and that is why you get this from the Los Angeles Times: “Thirty years ago this month, the Soviet Union collapsed, and the Ukraine broke away from Moscow’s control. Russian President Vladimir Putin has never gotten over it.”

For a while now the United States and its NATO allies have had the Russian Republic surrounded with long- and intermediate-range missiles. There are plans to place these weapons in NATO’s Eastern European member states. These weapons are described as “defensive,” but most of them have offensive capabilities. For the Russian Republic this seems too much like a replay of the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. If the Americans were alarmed by such missiles on their doorstep at that time, why should they now be surprised that Moscow is alarmed? The Biden administration, looking to switch subjects from the Russian demands for comprehensive security agreements to particular agreements on missile placement and the nature of NATO military exercises in Eastern Europe, has offered to enter negotiations on these specific topics. This is certainly a good first step, but it’s probably not sufficient.

The United States and its NATO allies may well have to swallow some of their pride and go further. They may have to give up any further eastern expansion of the Western military alliance. The Russian Republic, motivated by three tragic invasions and convinced of the need for a security buffer zone, seems very serious about their “red line.” I don’t think they are bluffing, and therefore the West should realize this is not just Putin playing from a “tough guy” script. History speaks here as well.

A Short-Term Geopolitical Forecast

January 20, 2022

By Dmitry Orlov and posted with the author’s permission

Ever since Putin announced his demands for security guarantees from the US and NATO (in brief, stop NATO’s eastward expansion, have NATO retreat to its positions of 1997 and remove offensive weapons from Russia’s immediate vicinity) we have been subjected to a barrage of irrelevancies from Western press:

• Are these security guarantees an ultimatum or a negotiating tool?

• Will the US and NATO agree to them or reject them?

• Will Putin invade the Ukraine or will he be stopped in his tracks through the judicious and timely use of frowning, head-shaking, finger-wagging and tisk-tisking by sundry and assorted Western luminaries?

• If Putin does invade the Ukraine, does this mean that World War III is finally upon us and we shall all surely die?

I hope that I am not alone in being sick and tired of this pathetic, tiresome attempt to throw up a smokescreen and hide the inevitable reality of what is about to unfold. In case it isn’t completely clear to you yet, I would like to spell it all out. I am normally more cautious when making specific predictions, but in this case our immediate future has been carefully plotted out for us by Russia and China, with the US and its assorted puppets reduced to the status of non-playable characters in a video game who can only do one thing: hide behind a dense smokescreen of risible lies.

First, Russian security guarantee demands are not ultimatums. An ultimatum is an “or else” sort of thing, offering a choice between compliance and consequences, whereas in this case both the noncompliance and the consequences will follow automatically. The West and NATO are, for well understood internal political reasons, unable to sign these guarantees; therefore, the consequences will unfold in due course.

Russia has demanded that both the US and NATO put their refusal to agree to the security guarantees in writing; these pieces of paper will be important moving forward. To understand why, we need to take on board the fact that everything within these security guarantees has already been agreed to by the West; namely, the “not an inch to the east” guarantee given to the Russians by the US 30 years ago and the collective security principle agreed to by all members of the OSCE. By signing a document in which they declare their refusal to abide by what they previously agreed to, the US and NATO would essentially declare themselves to be apostates from international law and order. This, in turn, would imply that their own security needs can be disregarded and that instead they deserve to be humiliated and punished.

Further, by putting their refusal in writing, the US and NATO would declare the collective security principle itself—specifically with respect to the US and NATO—to be null and void, meaning that if, for instance, the Bahamas, a sovereign nation since July 10, 1973, decides to reinforce its sovereignty by hosting a Russian missile battery pointed across the Gulf Stream at Miami and Fort Lauderdale, Florida, the US would have no say in the matter, and if the US did try to speak up, they’d get beat up with this very piece of paper they signed. “Do you feel threatened now?” the Russians would ask; “Well, maybe you should have thought of that when you threatened us by putting your missiles in Poland and Romania.”

The initial stated purpose of the two installations of Aegis Ashore in Poland and Romania was to shoot down Iranian missiles, which didn’t exist then, don’t exist now, and never would have taken a giant detour and fly over Poland or Romania in any case. Although the stated purpose of these systems was for missile defense, their launch platforms can also be used to launch offensive strategic weapons: Tomahawk cruise missiles with nuclear payloads. These Tomahawks are obsolete and the Russians know how to shoot them down extremely well (as they demonstrated in Syria) but this is still very annoying, plus seeding the Russian countryside with pulverized American plutonium would not be good for anyone’s health.

Thus, we should expect bad things to happen to these installations, but we should expect to remain rather ill-informed about the details. While the non-negotiations over the Russian security guarantee demands will be as public as possible (in spite of Western plaintive cries asking that they be held in private) the “technical-military means” which Russia will use to deal with Western noncompliance will not be widely publicized. The Romanian installation might become inoperative due to a newly discovered small volcano nearby; the Polish one might succumb of a freak swamp gas explosion.

A further series of unfortunate accidents may cause the US and NATO to become shy and reticent about encroaching on Russia’s borders. NATO troops stationed in the Baltics, a stone’s throw from St. Petersburg, which is Russia’s second-largest city, might complain of repeatedly hearing the word “Thud!” clearly and loudly annunciated, causing them all to be diagnosed with schizophrenia and evacuated. A US spy plane might experience a slight GPS malfunction causing it to blunder into Russian airspace, get shot down, and have its catapulted pilot sentenced to many years of teaching English to kindergarteners in Syktyvkar or Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky. US Navy and NATO vessels, already prone to collisions with each other, underwater mountains and barges, might suffer an unusually large number of such mishaps in proximity to the Russian coastline, causing them to shy away from it. A large number of such events, most out of them transpiring out of sight of the public, news of them suppressed in Western press and social media, would force the mighty US military to confront an uncomfortable existential question: “Are the Russians still afraid of us, or are we just jerking each other off here?” Their response will be to go into denial and to jerk each other off harder and faster than ever before.

But if they are indeed just jerking each other off, then what about their policy of containment? What’s to contain Russia and keep it from recreating USSR 2.0?—other than the fact that the Russians aren’t stupid, learned their lesson the first time around, and Mother Russia will no longer allow a bunch of useless non-Russian ingrates to suckle at her ample bosom. “But when is Russia going to invade the Ukraine?” inquiring minds demand to know, especially those who have been paying attention to Western news sources claiming that Russia has amassed 100090 troops on the Ukrainian border (it hasn’t).

The latest theory is that what is preventing Russia from invading is the warm weather. Apparently, it has been unusually warm since 2014, which is why Russian troops haven’t rolled across the Ukrainian border yet. What have they been waiting for? The next ice age that’s due any millennium now? Instead, Russia just got the bits of the Ukraine it wanted—Crimea, the Donbass and a couple of millions of highly trained Russian-speaking professionals—all without staging an invasion, and is now waiting for the rest of the Ukraine to degenerate into its end state as an ethnic theme park and nature preserve. The only thing that’s not going well with this plan is that the Ukraine needs to be demilitarized, as required by Russia’s recent security guarantee demands.

But what if Russia’s security guarantees aren’t met and US/NATO continue stuffing the Ukraine full of weapons, sending in trainers and establishing bases? Well, then, those will need to be destroyed. This can be done by launching some rockets from small ships sailing around in the Caspian Sea, as was done to destroy ISIS bases in Syria; no ground force invasion needed. It won’t take much to prompt US/NATO to evacuate the Ukraine in a panic, seeing as they have already worked out plans for doing so and have announced that they won’t fight to defend it.

If that’s what unfolds, what do you think will happen next? Will the US start a nuclear war over the Ukraine? Umm… how about “NO!!!” Will the US impose “sanctions from hell”? Perhaps, but you have to understand that at this point in time the US and other Western economies can be accurately caricatured as a crystal vase full of excrement parked on the very edge of a high shelf over a hard marble floor. The hope is that nobody is going to sneeze because the sound pressure might cause it to go over the edge. Sanctions from hell do sound like they could cause a bit of a sneeze. Needless to say, the US will continue to talk about sanctions from hell and maybe even pass some legislation so titled, and claim to have sent “a strong message,” but to no effect.

Will Russia act immediately upon acceptance in writing the West’s refusal to provide it with the requested security guarantees? No, there is bound to be a delay. You see, February 4th is barely two weeks away, and that’s just not enough time to start and finish a military action. What’s on February 4th? Why, the opening ceremony at the Beijing Olympics, of course, at which Putin will be the guest of honor while US dignitaries weren’t even invited.

At the Olympics Putin and Xi will be signing a raft of major agreements, one of which may transform the already very strong relationship between China and Russia into an actual military alliance. The tripartite world order announced by Gen. Milley, in which the US, Russia and China figure as equals, will have lasted all of three months. With Russia and China acting as a unit, the SCO, which by now includes almost all of Eurasia, becomes more than just a geopolitical pole. In comparison, the US and the 29 dwarves of NATO do not quite add up to a geopolitical pole and the world once again becomes unipolar but with the polarity flipped.

And so we should not expect any military action to take place between February 4th and February 20th. Should any military mischief occur during the Olympics, which is traditionally a time of peace in the world, it is sure to be a Western provocation, since the Olympics are a traditional time of Western provocations (Georgia during the Beijing Olympics in 2008; the Ukraine during the Russian Olympics in Sochi in 2014). We can be sure that everyone is very much prepared for this provocation and that it will be dealt with very harshly.

The worst kind of provocation would be if NATO advisers actually succeed in goading the hapless and demoralized Ukrainian troops into invading the Donbass. If that happens, there will be two steps to that operation. The first will involve confusing the Ukrainians into walking into a trap. The second will be to threaten to destroy them using Russian long-range artillery from across the Russian border. When that happened previously, the Ukrainian government in Kiev was forced to sign the Minsk agreements that required the Ukrainian military to pull back and the Kiev government to grant autonomy to the Donbass by amending the Ukraine’s constitution.

But since the government in Kiev has shown no intention of fulfilling the terms of these agreements during the intervening years and instead has done its utmost to sabotage them, there is no reason to expect a new round of Minsk agreements to be signed. Instead, it will be the end of the road for Ukrainian statehood. Putin has promised exactly that. NATO advisers are likely to be frustrated in their efforts to cause the Ukrainians to attack: it is preferable for them to sit there being poked and prodded by their NATO handlers and nagged by US/EU officials and spies than to have their best and brightest obliterated by Russian artillery or to face a final round of national humiliation.

After February 20th, however, we should expect some new and interesting domestic distraction. It could have to do with Western financial house of cards/pyramid scheme finally pancaking, or it could be a fun new virus, or natural gas running out and causing a huge humanitarian emergency. Or it could be a combination of these: the virus can be blamed on China, the gas emergency on Russia, and the financial collapse on both. While everyone is distracted, an aircraft carrier or two might go missing, the Aegis Ashore installation in Poland might get totaled by freak swamp gas explosion and so on and so forth. But then nobody would take notice.

There will still be the major existential question nagging the US military/industrial complex: “Are Russia and China still afraid of us or are we just jerking each other off?” I think I know what answer Russia and China would offer: “Don’t worry about us. Just go on jerking each other off.”

Please support my writing at https://subscribestar.com/orlov or https://patreon.com/orlov.

%d bloggers like this: