(You can download this file directly by following the links at this source.)
Transcript of podcast no. 3
Provided by the kind help of a wonderful lady “A”
Dear friends, welcome to the third Saker podcast, I am the Saker, and its a real pleasure for me to have you with me again. This time again I got alot of very interesting questions. I hope you will enjoy this podcast as much as I will enjoy (I know that), doing it. And without any further introduction, let me immediately jump to the questions:
The first one today is actually not at all about the Ukraine. It is about 2006. Its Shuuz[?] who’s asking.
“Thank you so much for doing this. I have a few questions. Do you believe that Hezbollah won the war in 2006 ? Do you believe that Israel will start another war with Hezbollah ? And the third one is about Israeli air superiority. How is Hezbollah going to deal with Israeli Air Support, and why doesn’t Hezbollah get man-pads to deal with them ? And then the last one is, Will Hezbollah be successful in getting the support of the whole of Lebanon ?
Well, these are very, very interesting questions. Let me immediately simply cover some military aspects. And then some political ones, nevertheless, politics and warfare are linked. And I would definitely say that its undeniable that Israel was completely defeated in 2006. If you remember what the goal of the operation was, it was to disarm and weaken Hezbollah, to get back the three Israelis that were snatched just right across the border by the Hezbollah fighters, and basically, if I remember correctly, that’s when whats-her-name, Rice, said that this will be the birth of a new Middle-East. I think that was in 2006, if I’m not mistaken here.
Well, she sure got a new Middle-East, but not at all what she expected. Because what happened, just think about, what did Israel do ? Israel sent in, not only its air force, but also its artillery, its ground forces, its navy and even its armoured brigades. So it was really, on the Israeli part, a full-out effort. The only thing that Israel didn’t do was ballistic missiles, but everything else besides that, was used.
And what did they achieve ? They achieved exactly nothing. The best example of that is, there is a small village, if I remember correctly, three km north of the Israeli border called Binj Bjail [?], and that village, the Israelis, could not take it, for the full duration of the war. Never-mind going north of the Lutannia River and seriously threatening Hezbollah’s strongholds ! So the first sign that something really wasn’t working the way they wanted, is the fact that they couldn’t even take that city. Secondly, it is often overlooked that Hezbollah did not at all put its best fighters in this war. Hezbollah was very cautious and very concerned about the Israeli attack. They knew it was serious. It actually kept its best fighters north of the Lutannia River. So that’s something that, I think, is often overlooked.
So you might wonder, “Well, who was defending roughly the area south of the Lutannia River to the Israeli border ?” Well, these were really, no offense to them, but in Hezbollah terms, these were really second-rate fighters. Alot of conscripts, quite well trained, surrounded by a cadre of professionals, but most of it were not the best fighters that Hezbollah could muster. And they did a superb job defeating the Israelis. I mean even in that little, comparably little area between the Israeli border and the Lutannia River. They used Russian made, anti-attack missiles with devastating effectiveness, including an Excelated Generational Mircava Tanks, which was a blow to the Israeli prestige. They had alot of very good sniper routes. They used terrain. They did, for years, prepare that territory for an Israeli invasion. So the terrain was extremely favorable to the Hezbollah, its true.
So the Israelis were under-dogs for that, because for all their drills, and their intelligence collection, they really didn’t know what was expected from them. They were stunned when they saw huge bunkers, and tunnels and a very very resistant communication system. They also, (Hezbollah) had trained to fight autonomously, even in heavy suppression of communications. So basically, Hezbollah did everything right including the main thing. And the main thing in modern warfare, particularly in the case of Hezbollah is, the key thing is not to present a lucrative target. When you fight a superpower, in technological terms, like the United States or Israel, you cannot win by trying to shoot more, blow up more, etc. You have to simply deny them a lucrative target. This is exactly what the Serbs did in Kosovo, which was another huge defeat, because the entire air war, that NATO waged, was huge and they got nothing. I mean the, I think it was the Fourth Army Corp but I’m not sure about that, but the Serbian Army Corp, which was, they were essentially unscathed. They lost a few APC’S, a couple of tanks, some aircraft on the ground, but others [equipment] were actually well hidden. These are two cases of very similar tactics, whereas if you deny, you try to keep the terrain, but not by holding a position but by being mobile. The second thing you do, you deny the enemy a lucrative target. That is very very good. If Hezbollah had an armoured brigade, you know conventional armoured brigade station in Lebanon, these Israelis would have obliterated it. But they didn’t. They had small groups of heavily armed infantry. This is a bad target.
So the Israelis lost everything. They lost militarily, they lost politically in a humiliating way. They really, its one of the most amazing defeats in history. The leader of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrhulla called it a Divine Victory and he’s absolutely right. I mean it was the turning point I would say, in world history, because you saw an example of a militia, I mean its not all the people of Lebanon, its a resistance, a national resistance, a national liberation movement, standing and winning, against what is in local terms, certainly a superpower. So it was a crushing defeat for Israel. They managed to hide it more or less, not as well as NATO managed to hide its defeat in Kosovo, because Milosevic accepted actually, NATO terms for political reasons, but in military terms the Serbs came on top. Clearly on top of the entire NATO air force, which is quite a feat.
You say, “Do you believe that Israel will start another war with Hezbollah ?” Well, here’s the deal. They should never have started it. I mean in rational terms, what they did was absolutely insane. Yet they did it. And one could write a story of warfare that would list all the cases where its absolutely clear that the attacker has no chance, and yet they go ahead. I think partially, propaganda has that insidious effect that the more you spew propaganda, the more you start believing it. And the Israelis, remember we’re not dealing with a normal ‘State’. We’re dealing with a racist state who believes that the Israelis are genetically, inherently, morally, religiously, whatever you name it, ontologically[?] superior. And that the Arabs are basically beasts, animals, that only understand force. They’re unsophisticated, they’re stupid, they’re cowards. And if you start spewing that kind of nonsense, then you end up believing it. And when you start having that kind of view of your enemy, you don’t realize that, in front of you there is an enemy, who took years to learn his trade. And he’s very very good. And I think it was a wake-up call for Israel to realize their so-called “Invincible Galaney[?] Brigade couldn’t even deal with second rate Hezbollah fighters.
But, yes, I think its possible that they would do it again, simply because I don’t believe that Israel is rational. They are typical of this pathology where ideology primes rational thinking, primes facts, primes logic. And you have to act on your messianic insanity, just like the United States, by the way. The United States starts wars that they can’t win. Why ? “Well, because we’re Number 1”. And once you’re raised with that imperial complex of superiority, you do alot of dum things, because of course its not that simple. So I think they’re absolutely capable of starting another war with Hezbollah.
You ask about man-pads. Well, Hezbollah does have them. They do have them. The thing is that they mostly target helicopters. They have used them against helicopters in the past and the Israelis are very smart. They first of all fly high-fast, or low-fast. Depending on what kind of ammunition they deliver. The Israelis are good at it. There’s no denying that, I don’t even know if they lost an airplane during those 33 days.
But the air force doesn’t help them. That’s the thing. They can have a very very sophisticated and advanced air force but when dealing with an enemy like Hezbollah, its just the wrong tool for it. I had one of my teachers, was an air force (US) Colonel and he loved to say that, even inside the air force they were joking, that you know, they would fly out, win against the enemy, come back and find the enemy sitting in the officers’ mess. And air force folks are aware of that problem. That the air force can do something, its a force multiplier, but its not a campaign winning branch. And it never was. I mean, you always eventually need boots on the ground. Nothing replaces infantry. Particularly a sophisticated one like Hezbollah.
“Will Hezbollah be successful in getting the support of the whole of Lebanon ?” Well, that”s very dubious, because alot of forces inside Lebanon have a vested interest in not following Hezbollah. First of all, the Marianite Christians, who certainly don’t want to have Muslims in charge, even though really they’re already the minority of the country. There is an entire class of bankers, plutocrats, I mean the same crowd that’s corrupt Europe, the same ones. You look at those fatcats, what I call the three stooges. In Lebanon its Hadi, and the other two. What are their names? I don’t remember them now, these guys are basically corrupt. They’re plutocrats, they’re internationalists, they’re not patriotically minded one bit. So what’s happening is there’s a natural line between part of the Christians under Michel Aloo [?] and Hezbollah. But getting all of Lebanon behind them ? No. Probably not. But there’s no need for that. Hezbollah is big enough. Always remember that. Being necessarily bigger doesn’t really make such a big difference. Hezbollah is powerful enough to be THE resistance of Lebanon. And contrary to what Western propaganda says, Hezbollah does protect and accept Christians. They don’t accept them in the party itself, because their party is a Muslim party, as absurd as a Christian party to accept a Muslim, in a Christian party. But the resistance itself, the Hezbollah-run resistance accepts Christian combatants, and they are part of it. So its not sectarian resistance. Its a resistance which has a clearly Muslim and Shia profile, but I wouldn’t compare it to ISIS where the doctrinal unity behind Islam is such an important thing. They’re not into that. And its a national resistance. Make no mistake about that. Its one that is organized and inspired by the example. I mean Hezbollah is the core of it. The spine, the core, the brains of it. But its a national resistance movement. And I would say its big enough. I hope that answers your question, more or less correctly. If I did something wrong, I mean I don’t take paperwork with me to these podcasts, so please don’t kill me if I get a fact wrong or a date or a quote. I do my best out of memory. Can’t do it any other way. Sorry.
Yet again, a completely different question: “What is my take on environmental issues in general and climate change in particular. ?”
Ok, well first of all, I’m not an ecologist, biologist, a geologist, have no competence whatsoever, to have an informed opinion. What I will say is that, I’m 51 years old and I remember clearly, places that have changed. There’s no doubt for me that the climate is getting hotter and hotter. Nobody will convince me otherwise. As to the question, is it due to our industrial output, or a natural phenomenon, I’m not qualified to judge. I’ll just notice that most of the planet seems to agree that there is a climate change, that there’s a global heating happening, and that is mostly denied in the United States. In and of itself that doesn’t mean the [deniers] are wrong. Its just, I’m dubious with the arguments that say this is all a big invention of the industry to do something, right ? To believe in the fact that we’re messing up our planet pretty badly and since we’re messing it up full spectrum, from any conceivable possible way to destroy our planet, I don’t see why we wouldn’t be destroying it thermally also. But again, this is a completely subjective opinion of a guy who has zero expertise. I’m sorry, I have to stop at that, I can’t go any further.
Trepper Today, is asking me, “Is it true that a Russian bank gave a multibillion for a loan to the Transnational Party ?” He also notices that several far right party members from the EU countries were invited to observe the Crimean Referendum, and that he was shocked that RT gave members of the far right ‘anti-vigorante[?], Ukip Party a guest[appearance] on Cross-talk. And he’s asking, “Is Putin playing the US game of ‘The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend’ ? Is it an attempt to encourage the breakup of the EU ? I can see a certain twisted logic, but it appears to me that this is playing with fire because some of these parties have origins in Neo-Nazism.”
Well, there’s a couple of things I want to explain here. First of all, and alot of you might be really getting angry at me for what I’m going to say. So I will share with you, I will give you my opinion honestly and just, you know, lets not have a lynch mob if I happen to break some modern dogma. But I think that this entire issue of ‘far-right’ parties is a complete canard. How do I explain that ???
Ok, first of all, I start by: There are certain countries that I know very very well. The situation of the rightwing parties… I won’t speak about the UK and Ukip. But I know the situation in France extremely well. And I can tell you that the entire phenomena of so-called ‘far right’ is absolute nonsense. Basically, the National Front in France began to be powerful when the French Socialists basically boosted it politically, gave it access to TV shows with the specific goal of weakening the right wing position. That’s where it comes from.
The second thing is that we often say that you know, Nazi, Nazi Nazi. Well, most of these far rightwing parties are not Nazi one bit. Certainly not Le Penn. Categorically !! Not the National Front. The National Front used to be, what I would say, the Reaganite kind of rightwinger, which by European standards is extremely Reaganite, and now they became much more of a leftwing party, at least on many economic issues than they used to be. They never were racist. Its absolute nonsense. Its true that there might be racists in the National Front, and I’ve met some of them. But I read … have you ever seen the book that Le Penn wrote ? I know their party platform. Its ridiculous to say that the National Front in France is a racist party, when the kind of proposals they had, at least when I was still living in Europe, which is the ’90’s and the ’80’s and even before that, were pretty much what Switzerland as a country had, in its law. The so-called ‘Anti-Immigration Measures’ were basically what a country… and no one called Switzerland “Nazi” !~!! Maybe it SHOULD be called Nazi…that’s a different topic. But the fact is nobody called Switzerland Nazi. Yes, to prevent the flow of immigrants, these kind of measures were used in Switzerland.
Secondly, this ignores completely the history of the French Right. Alot of it comes from completely non-Nazi circles. A heavy element is French Monarchists, French Latin Christians, Traditionalists, there is an entire element of people who are sympathetic to Betant..[?] at least there used to be, I think that’s changing too, but the old National Front had these guys, they had people who were involved with the French Algeria. The National Front was an extremely complicated, mulch-faceted organization, and to reduce it all to saying “they’re a bunch of racists, they’re a bunch of Nazis, this is just factually incorrect. This is nonsense.
But what happened is that the plutocratic parties that were running the country, I mean you know, you could have a choice between Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola, but you’re still getting a cola. That’s essentially what the French had for a long time. They all agreed, ‘that its good to have one ostracized enemy’. The way they called it, this is the ‘Republican Consensus’ or you know, the Republican Parties and in their (French) meaning of the word ‘Republican’ , that is, not a Nazi, fascist, anti-democratic party… like those BAD GUYS in the National Front. And we’re the good-guys, we’re democratic etc. Its a complete lie. They’re the ones that created the National Front.
Again it was Dederonne [?] that did that for political reasons. The rightwing parties always negotiated with him. Most people, for instance, modern day National Front, all of its members are former communists. And I don’t mean only Alan Soral. Its well known that the neighborhoods, which end up voting alot for the National Front are the working class. Because these guys, they defend the social interests. So I don’t want to go into a long discussion of the National Front’s history and programs etc, but I just want to go on the record for saying, there is absolutely no reason to ostracize a party because its so-called “right wing” or even peg it as Nazi.
There are some real Nazis in Europe, I’m not denying that. In France I think they were called “Party du Franceuwell [?], but there were other parties who did that kind of stuff. Most definitely the National Front is not a Nazi party. Now I’m not speaking about the Freedom Party in Austria, or Ukip, I don’t know them as well, but I will tell you that I’m deeply suspicious, I expect that exactly the same mechanism is probably taking place in Austria, in Italy, where the Leganot [?] was called you know, extreme right. That ‘extreme right’ thing is a political tool to make people stupid and the other thing that it does, you have to realize, these parties bring up alot of social and political / economic problems. Which the ruling elites don’t want discussed. So the trick here is to [ostracize] only these parties in charge of mentioning these problems and then the problems themselves, the fact of mentioning that problem, becomes a sign that you are Nazi.
For instance, now its changing in France, but in the ’80’s and particularly the ’90’s, if you spoke of a problem with ‘an aggression’, which France does have, its not a matter of blaming the immigrants or Islam, or Northern Arabs or anything else, because there were waves of immigrants in France. There were Portuguese, Italian, Spanish, whatever, Polish, but there used to be a time when simply saying that ‘immigration was a problem” was to sort of self-identify yourself, to accept the label of a neo-nazi. Who benefited from that ? Well, French employers, who got cheap labor force that they could exploit and you know, use, in manners that the French people would never agree to work. Its exactly the same thing in Moscow. Who benefits most from the illegal immigrants, who are poor people from the Caucasus or Central Asia ? Its the rich guys again. So this stigma of right wingers, or of Nazis is really used by the multi-millionaire, corporate, SoB’s and their puppets in power, to not have certain issues discussed, to label a way to dismiss an opponent who mentions that, and to break up any kind of real position. So that’s just on substance.
Secondly, to come back a little bit. You mentioned the role of Russia. Well, the thing is that they see through that completely. They realize that there is nothing inherently better or worse, I would say, I intend to say that those so-called rightwing parties in Europe are more decent and less disgusting than the so-called moderates, social democrats, whatever you want to call them. I call it “an extreme center” The Russians are completely disgusted by the European politicians and they realize that some of these so called nationalists are people who for one thing, they think straighter. I’m not saying they’re always right, I’m not endorsing them. Please don’t get me right…wrong (laughs)….on that, but they’re, personally, if you gave me the choice between meeting Le Penn or Onolda [?] I mean its a no-brainer. I would love to spend an evening with Le Pen and argue about all sorts of topics with him. He’s a very interesting man. And I think the fact that the Russians refuse to play by that “untouchability” dogma is correct. Let the Europeans brainwash their own population. Let all their political class say “Oh my God, you can’t talk to those people!!” I think its great, that the Russians say, “We talk to whoever we want. And you know, the kind of stigmas you [Europeans] put on the so called right wing, is unacceptable, we’re not going to play by these rules.” I think the Russians are doing exactly the same thing, there’s nothing to do with “Enemy of My Enemy”. Its simply that the Russians realize that they have much better partners, because, I will not deny that some of these right wingers are nuts. But alot of them are not at all, and I speak as somebody who’s known these circles for years. And I’ll tell you, yes, there are some, you know, nostalgics and Hitlers, and there’s racists, no doubt about it, who believe in that bullshit about, pardon my French, about you know, the Christian West Islamic versus the Islamic Whores, I mean some of them are like that, but you know alot of them are not. That’s the thing that is overlooked. You can find creeps in any party. Take a bunch of Communists. I mean some of them are idiots and some of them are sophisticated, refined and sincere people who have very interesting things to say about Capitalism. Same thing, proponents of Libertarian ideas, some of them are nuts, and I live in Florida, so believe me, I see alot of crazy Libertarians, so lumping them all and saying “Oh these people are just idiots” is just completely unfair.
And I think that the contact between these parties who were usually Euro-skeptical, is a good thing for Russia. Russia sees these people as, their goal is, you know, “Nationals?, not Nationals? … but a patriotic approach to their country. They love their country, they think their country should exist as a distinct entity from, you know, the Euro-mash that is offered today. Russians you know, naturally feel a connection. Even though, if you look at their social outlook, or their philosophical outlook, they [Russians] sometimes would disagree strongly [with each other]. Last but not least, remember another thing. Not talking to the enemy is a western thing to do. Russians talk. They talk to everybody. They will talk to their enemies. No problem. And not because they agree with them, but because they think that dialogue is really important.
So I guess this was a sort of convoluted reply to your question, but you called the National Front, openly Nazi, and I categorically disagree with that. Completely disagree. And I personally don’t believe that there’s anything to be ostracized in those right wing parties. We can condemn some of their ideas. I personally don’t, (didn’t) like their politics. They’re too capitalist. In France they’re pretty social. Now I’m not a big fan of Marine Le Pen, I don’t like her one bit actually, but I think it doesn’t make sense to repress that [party]. Alot of people in Europe feel very much the same concerns, and sometimes they have the same answers as these so called right wing parties. It is important to speak with them. Its important to make them part of the national dialogue because as long as they’re repressed and beaten down by the corporate media and the powers-that-be, all they’re going to do is simmer in a covert way, but they’re still there, so it makes no sense.
Ok, lets go to the next question now. There is a question from Germans From Russia. He’s asking me, “What is your opinion on the historical and societal context of Germans in Russia, and Germans from Russia in America.”
I am not sure what you’re referring to but what I will say is that Russians and Germans have been in close contact through the Hanseatic League on the Baltic, generally through North Europe, through what is today Poland. I mean there is a long long historical interaction. As you might know, after Peter the Great, a big chunk of the Russian ability was actually ethnic Germans. A lot of these Germans left, I mean ethnic, or should I say genetic Germans (chuckle) who are actually culturally very much Russian already, left after the civil war, and returned to Germany. They had a pretty tragic role during the years of Hitler because on one hand, some of them without necessarily endorsing his ideology, saw him as a protector of Germany in Europe and a bulwark against communism. So they initially very much supported him. Then when they realized that this guy seriously thought that Slavs were sub-humans, they got extremely alienated by him. Its a tragic history of the Germans going back and forth, as you know probably, Stalin deported many Germans. Turkasistan [?] for instance, the soviet sprecht Dutch [?]. They were then eventually released and alot of them immigrated to Germany, where I have met many of them. Its interesting because they had German last names. Some of them look pretty Germanic to me and yet they speak Russia perfectly and have this double, like they’re wearing two hats. They have a German hat and a Russian hat that are interchangeable. I kind of like it. Its a very interesting and pleasant phenomena for me to see. I hope these people will play a political role in Germany. Saying the truth about that Russian history and about modern Russia today.
But I don’t exactly know what you mean by Germans from Russia in America. Now that I really don’t know. Sorry. Maybe, if next time you give me a more accurate, or more precise question I will be able to answer it , or maybe I’m just ignorant. Kapa Voila [?].
Matthew White asks me, “What can be done, that there is alot of people in the West who can see behind the lies of their States and mainstream press, and are taking sides with Russia in the crisis. What can be done to co-ordinate the actions of the people like us, who wish to undermine our governments or help[?] Russia. Do you have any suggestions ?”
Oh yeah. I definitely do. First of all, remember what I said at the beginning of the podcast. Don’t present a lucrative target to your enemy. That is also true in politics. For instance, and particularly in resistance politics. If you form a party, that party will be infiltrated. If you start collecting money, that money will be seized. I mean, they’re very good, the powers that be, the 1% and their agents, are extremely, really good at crushing what I call, centralized resistance. What you need to do is not have that approach of “lets build a party, become bigger and bigger, and then we’ll do something, sort of overthrow”. That sort of revolutionary process, I don’t believe in that at all. What you can do is, well actually let me make a discretion there. There used to be a joke going around, because some of you might know, I used to be an anti-soviet activist, and we were always trying to find a way to, you know, sabotage and to subvert the Soviet Union and everything the Soviets did. And we just spent all our time plotting and trying to do something nasty to the Soviet Union. One of the ideas that was circling, its a pretty ludicrous one, was to somehow spread the information in Moscow, that all the people who agree and who oppose the Soviet regime would have to flush their toilets at the very same instant.. Because somebody had calculated that that kind of pull on water would crush the supply system and that would create a major crisis inside Moscow which would show to the world how the Communists are incompetent at ruling the country. I mean, you get it. Its kind of teenagers, I mean I was a teenager, so I don’t have to be guilty for something which is obvious. The basic notion of somehow, of every individual, by flushing a toilet or something, apparently benign, contributing to the downfall of the system, I think is a very sound thing to do.
Instead for instance, lets take propaganda. Instead of creating a newspaper and walking down the streets and handing them out, people would just take a look and throw it away. Make a difference in your own immediate surroundings. Find one person. Try to dezombify them. You can do practical things. If you can’t convince just one person to take the frigging TV and throw it through the window… if he has a garden ! Not if he’s living in the building, because that would be terrorism, right ? And since Boston we know that even a cooker can be a terrorist weapon, so if you toss a TV through the window that would be a terrorist act. Get you time in Guantanamo. So don’t break the law.
But try to convince, first of all, as many people as possible, to disconnect themselves from the idiot tube. That is absolutely crucial. And you will notice, that if they do that, they’ll have withdrawl symptoms, which means they’re going to go then and start listening to the radio or reading the corporate newspaper. You tell them “Nah nah, that’s not good enough. Get rid of all of it. Basically unplug you from the brainwashing machine.” If you do just that, you don’t have to bring ideology in, you don’t have to bring political ideas, history, economics, forget it. The person will first of all, have a much nicer life. He has a family, he or she, who discover, you know “Oh my kids !!” I mean all this good stuff will happen. And four hours per day will suddenly be free. But even more importantly, the person will start thinking better, and get his or her information off the Internet. Which is in danger, but still, its an area of free expression. So you encourage that person, “Just get your own facts.”
Other things you can do. In the Soviet Union, one of the most formidable weapons against the regime was not, you know there was one guy, he tried to shoot Brezhnev. Not that kind of stuff, not terrorism. That didn’t work at all. Jokes were fantastic. Everybody was cracking jokes about the Brezhnev. I mean everybody, for hours. The Russians were really good at that. I remember, I had some evenings where for 4 hours in a row, everybody was sitting there and just cracking jokes about Brezhnev. There were that many jokes. And they were funny on top of it. Well, what it does, is create a sense of disrespect for the authorities. Now that’s very important. Because, I think Solzhenitsyn said that its authority, governments, they are on a spectrum. On one side you have, on one extreme you have a government whose authority is based on power. And on the other one you have a government whose power is based on authority. What you want to do is subvert, in the mind of the people, any authority other than power. Other than cops. You know, billy clubs, tasers, guns, they’ll have that, don’t challenge them there. You can’t. But what you can do is say, “But we don’t think you, we have no respect for you.” There’s this great quote in one of the songs by Roger Waters, that says, I think its the album “Final Cut” it says, “If they expect us to treat them with any respect”, about politicians, Maggie Thatcher, Gitaeu[?] in Argentina etc. This political class that he describes on this fantastic album. Well, that’s exactly what we should do. We should show as many signs of disrespect for our so-called elected leaders, which are appointed puppets. And we should show disrespect for their liturgical actions. They’re called elections, votes, you know. If somebody tells you that you have, you know at least one free vote, laugh, laugh back and say “Well how do you measure that ?” Basically just show that you are not part of it. That the system does not survive through you. That’s extremely effective. Its superbly subversive and its legal.
Because the government is faced with that kind of attitude, they have two options. Either they let you do it, because you’re not breaking any law, and then you can do more of it. Or they do what the stupid Soviet regime did, which is they start jailing and persecuting people for that kind of thing. Well that makes them look terribly bad. Its pathetic. That people could end up receiving, you know, I think there was an article [law], there was the first one, and then there was a group called “Savvy”[?] . Then there was the second penal code, you know for anti-Soviet propaganda and agitation, for saying a joke !!!
Well that even weakened the Soviet system further. So the lessons learned, as to how to fight the Soviet system can fully be applied to the Anglo/Zionist plutocracy in the West. You know its the same tricks. So I think these methods are far more effective than, you know, getting organized, making unions, party meetings, electing a chairman. They will infiltrate the crap out of you. You know they will destroy you, they will put, for five members you will have four spies. I mean, forget it. Don’t do that. So the key thing, and I’ll stop with that, is don’t do anything at all covertly. Don’t ever do something that you will want to hide from the ‘all-seeing-eye’ of the government. Do it all in the open. Do it completely openly, because that prevents them from making you look like a terrorist. Or from actually finding anything. Again do not present a target for them basically. That’s the key thing.
Well, and lastly of course, circulate information. Once your friends distance and unplug themselves from the nonsense, get them information. Help them find out. After a while they’ll start realizing, they’ve been lied to. Well, you say, you know, “Until you find out how much you’ve been lied to, assume its all lies.” (laugh) And just tell them. Don’t give them prepackaged, you know in little brochures or articles. Forget about that. Tell them to go get the brochures themselves. Its much more effective. At least in my experience, that works. You know, each small candle lights a whole corner of the dark. Do that. Do the local thing with your local immediate friends. Family members and friends, colleagues. Provided you don’t lose a job over it ! Or don’t get, don’t do God-knows-what, I mean don’t go around with a saying you know, “I’m a Hezbollah groupie”, because that will get you a conversation with the FBI. So don’t be stupid about it. But you can do other things. You can certainly criticize the government.
Ok, lets see what’s next. Well, Matthew White also says, “One more question please. The Russian Central Bank as an anti-Russian policy in 1990’s, strikes me in agreement with Glasnost, and is mistaken, if not outright treacherous.” I absolutely agree with that. And I know in the questions somebody else asked me about this, saying, “Oh yeah, you’re wrong in saying, ‘Why hasn’t Putin shut down the Central Bank.’”
Well, I’ll try to keep it short. Basically, because he doesn’t have the means to do it. You have to understand where this entire structure comes from. Its a mixture of old Soviet stuff and then was re-worked during the Yeltsin years. And remember in the Yeltsin years, Russia was a complete colony of the West, specifically the US. At least, well, maybe not at least… as much! but I would say, not unlike what happened to the Ukraine. There were advisers, so-called advisers, up and down, you know the corridors of the government and the Kremlin. Everywhere. And they were basically providing their kind services to help Russian democracy. Right. As a result, you have an entire class of people in Russia who were in extremely powerful positions, who directly depend on that. Some of our volunteer translators are busy translating an interview of Khazin, right now, which I highly recommend. Where he explains that, he says that these people, like the Budin [?] and others. If you stop, you know that IMF centered policy, you know the ‘swastika consensus’ kind of approach for Russia, they would lose their jobs and they would end up, he says, teaching economics at a minor college somewhere in the United States. Its true, literally. These people, their entire existence depends on that. Its not that they’re all paid agents of the CIA, but its a ‘class’ thing. Now, you know some of you might not like the word ‘class’, because only Marxists use it, but actually it should be used by many more people, to understand what’s happening. Here for instance, Marx hit it exactly right. There is class consciousness. And people act on it. And there is a comprador, a class in Russia whose livelihood, self-esteem, prestige, everything, depends on a set of policies which they think of as “right”. And that’s the garbage they learn from the West.
Somewhat further in the questions for today, somebody’s asking me the same question about Europe. I mean, “Are these European politicians all traitors ? Or do they realize how stupid they are, what they’re doing to Europe ?”
Here’s what I can tell and I’ve observed it, in for instance, the military realm, which is the one I know. And I’m absolutely sure its the same one for politicians. You come into the office of some general in Europe or even a colonel. Lets start at that level. Just look at his wall !! And what do you see ? You see suddenly, patches from the United States; memorial plaques, of how they were in an air force base in this or that. And joint training this and this etc etc etc. What happens is, there is an entire class, in a Marxist sense of the word, who is sitting in Europe, who got into positions of power after being vetted by the United States agents in Europe. Who completely depend on that. They are just not going to go ‘a 180′ and say “That’s all garbage and we’re going to do it differently.” Its just not happening.
Its not dis-similar to the phenomenon of 9/11 in the United States. I think most thinking people in the press, in government, in technical professions, they realize that its an inside job. They must know it. I mean I just don’t believe that so many people are stupid. But if they come out and say something, its a career killer. And that’s exactly what happens in Europe, and the same thing in Russia. Now Khazin in his recent interview, and I really recommend you watch it, when I post it, he says that in his opinion, for the first time, what he calls, I think the Eurasians, and I call them Eurasian Sovereignists, are pretty much, in terms of power, they’re 50-50 with, he doesn’t name the other group I think. I call them the Atlantic Intergrationists. But we’re talking about the same people. He knows what he means, as certainly as I do. He says they’re about 50-50. And I think I defer to him. I’m here, he’s there. He knows better. So only now, in 2014 did the patriotic group, or the people who are not sold out to the international financial institutions, only now did they get roughly the same power inside as they did outside. Inside the country 50-50 with the other group.
So Putin and the people supporting him are fighting on two fronts. And this is a very dangerous front, because in Russia that has been a historical phenomenon. Most Tzars actually were deeply alienated and opposed to the aristocracy. And the aristocracy most particularly after Peter, had class interest in maintaining, you know, their privileges. So that dynamic, of the rule of the TOP GUY in the Kremlin, whose power and authority is based on popular support, VS the elites. This is nothing new, and its been a hallmark of Russian history, and a scary one, because alot of Tzars’ ended up being killed. And killed by people who do not come from the ‘people’ but from the elites. Such as the Decemberists, who were certainly tried then.[in court]
And Putin knows that its extremely dangerous. And he’s playing an extremely dangerous game, and I bow to his courage for that. Because that can, he can end up dead, as alot of Tzars did, for siding with the people against the elites. Now I know that this is going to get everybody upset, because some people think that Tzars are part of the reactionary aristocratic, ‘bad, bad monarchy’ before the revolution, and that there is no evidence that the Tzars were on the side of the people. Consider, just a side note, history books about Russia are written by whom ? On one hand you have the revolutionary elites, I would call them rightwing revolutionaries. These are the guys like Kidinisky [?] who did the coup in February 1917. Or the Decemberists who tried to kill the Tzar etc. All these rightwinger reactionary ‘revolutionaries’, who wanted democracy, yeah right, which is simply plutocracy in Russia.
And then you have the real, the left, the Marxists revolutionaries, who acted in the name of the people, but it just happened that they were not for the people. And basically, none of them can recognize, (this is the big crime-thought in Russian circles until pretty recently), the notion that the Tzars were with the people against the elites. And only a few wrote about it. There were some authors that did that. I mean Dostoevsky certainly did that. Tikamerov [?], Solinerov [?], and Solzhenitsyn wrote about that. But for most of the history books, particularly those by students of Russian history in the West, they all have the Tzars with the elites. The power versus the people. Its factually not true and its still not true today.
Today we have Putin, with 80% popular support, versus very powerful elites in Moscow, including within his own party, and including even in the government. That’s how powerful these people are. And if he prevails, its going to be a long fight and a very very dangerous one, because realize that these people are in a perfect position for sabotage and they will use every single thing that the West does against the current Russian regime to their advantage. Right now they’re capitalizing on the sanctions, for instance. So Putin is fighting on two fronts at the same time and believe me, the external front is not the most scary one for him. The real danger comes from inside.
Now he is lucky for two things. First of all, its kind of hard today to ignore ‘popular rule’ in Russia. That’s why I said if somebody killed him, or something happened to him, I doubt you would suddenly have Kordokovsky or what’s his face, the chess player, Kasparov, you know, in the Kremlin. That’s not happening. Or even Nabulina or Kracidaro [?] all these democrats, they’re not getting anywhere near the Kremlin. But that’s partially because of popular support for what’s happening.
And secondly, yes, the security forces, the military, these are people who are also pretty firmly behind Putin. So at that point there is sort of this dangerous status quo, not unlike you know, between the DPRK and South Korea, where the war is not over, its sort of frozen. Well that war in Russia is not quite frozen, its tepid, I would say. Its not too much in the open, but with every passing year, Putin is making it bigger. Its come out. His latest speech to the Federal Assembly, his speech in the Valdai Club, and his speech even last year, more and more there is this big coming out of the Eurasian Sovereignists. But that is the problem really, that there is an entire structure.
Its much easier to kill one guy, than to defeat ‘a regime’ that has a certain amount of the population depending on it. That is the strength of the US regime. Its not Obama. Its the 1%. Well, the 1% of 100 million ? That’s alot of people, particularly if they’re in elite positions. So get out your Marx book, you know, by Marx and Lenin, and go back into ‘class consciousness’, and the role of class warfare because its all applicable today. Sorry if I offend anti-Marxists here.
Wow, I’m getting really, I was really slow today.
“What is my view on Pakistan’s role in regards to Russia, China and Iran ?”
I’ll be honest. I have to apologize, I just don’t want to touch upon that right now, because its so complicated. I mean you have to look at history, you have to look at a complex relationship. I just, honestly I’ll just have to duck it. I’m sorry. But since there are several questions about China and Russia, that’s one thing that I will reply to.
Russia and China are the perfect symbiosis. Forget these notions about China wanting to invade Siberia. That’s just absolute nonsense. The Chinese don’t need to invade anything. They will purchase what they need in Siberia at very good, competitive prices, and it will be delivered by Russian industry. So that’s what’s happening. I’ve already mentioned that in past podcasts, I believe. These two countries are too big to form an alliance. But really ? Their alliance is way stronger than anything NATO is, because they are completely mutually dependent on each other, because they are ideally complementary to each other. And that means that they are going to be working together no matter what. That is ‘in stone’.
Now the impact of that for countries like Pakistan or India, or even Iran, is that you can expect that the Russians and the Chinese will work hand in hand. And they deny that. But who are they going to be working against ? Or who, shall we say, will be upset, by a Russian Chinese collaboration, in any part of the world ? Well, of course, the good old USA. So there is a real threat for them, and I don’t think they have anything to, I don’t think they’re equipped to do anything about it. Hence they’re bellicosing kind of silly statements right now.
The next question. I’ll have to plead ignorance again, I’m sorry to do that, but I have to be honest. Juliana is asking me about Turkey, and my understanding is, Turkish politics is so complicated that unless you are a Turkish specialist you shouldn’t go into it. And I will take it like at least, what concerns internal Turkish politics, I’ll go by that, I’ll say that I’m not competent to judge. I will, looking at the higher level, the macro-level at Turkey as an actor, I will confess to you my deepest suspicion, towards the Turks. I’ve observed an absolutely immoral, unprincipled zig-zag of the Turks towards Israel, towards the Kurds, towards Iran, towards Syria. I don’t trust them one bit. And I don’t trust, and I don’t recommend anyone trust that kind of regime. And its not even in any way a statement about the Turkish people, I’ve been to Turkey only once, but I had a great time there and I have no problem with them at all.
But I will say that I think the expression even ‘deep state’ that is applied now to the US, comes from Turkish political reality. I know for a fact that Turkish elites are very closely connected to the drug trade. Which tells me something about their morality. Turkey is, plays a key role in the transit of drugs from further east to the west, I mean they are just one filthy sess-pool, these politics.
So I think Russia did a very good thing by signing that deal with Turkey, but you know what ? That’s the kind of, well, you assume the worst, and you prepare for it. I mean I think they could, I would not be surprised one bit if the Turkey did several 180’s in the next couple of years. I mean, I think that’s all I can say about Turkey. Historically I don’t like it, at least what its government did. I know they’re very powerful and I don’t think, I would not trust, at least, the Turkey as it is under the regime that was began, that Turkey has come to, today. These elites to me, are deeply untrustworthy. Now I’ll stop at that on this one.
Piper’s asking an easy question for me, “Thank you, why did Russia allow the US to send John Taft, as an ambassador ? He is an expert in professional color revolution, and, is it to keep an eye on him ?”
Well, partially. For one thing, I can tell you the Russians, there’s absolutely zero risk of a color revolution in Russia. So for first of all, the notion that one guy shows up and poom !!! a revolution is breaking, you know, starts, is incorrect. And the Russians are confident. They don’t fear him. Let him try his little, if he thinks Moscow is Kiev ? Let him try. I don’t think they care about that at all, and not accepting him would be a sign of weakness, of fear. And then, as you say correctly, they know what kind of guy he is, so he shows up there and essentially on his forehead there is a sign saying “I’m up to no good.” Well, that’s easier for them. They know he’s up to no good, at least he’s not a fake friend. He’s an open enemy. I think you should, I think they did the correct thing by letting him move right in, and let him do his thing. And besides, he’s probably been alienated by most of the people in Russia, because right now, besides maybe a few totally confused and irrelevant dissidents, nobody will go, for instance to the American Embassy. I mean, its, if you’re caught by the media entering these gates, you’re political career is finished. Unless you do it with a group, say you film what’s happening, or something.
And just to give an example of Nicoli Starikov, which some of you might know, he got an invitation by the US Consulate in St Petersberg and he replied, a very kind letter, you know he said, you know,
“Thank you very much but no, I’m not coming to your consulate. But you’re welcome, if you want to talk to me, to come to the offices of my party”, where he put up a camera, and he says, “See here, there’s a camera, and we’re going to film the entire conversation. I want people to know what we’re discussing.”
And the message is “See, I have nothing to hide, but these [other] guys who come to your [US] embassy and don’t have a camera ??? They sure are hiding something.” And it works. I mean, that’s, right now, to be close to the United States in Russia is a kiss of death. I mean you don’t want to be anywhere near the US Embassy. So let Taft operate in these kind of conditions and good luck to him. I don’t envy him.
Jonathon Jarvis is asking me about “Russian networks operating officially, and unofficially in the Ukraine, Donbass.” And further, “in Cracow and Maripol ?” “How do they work? Will they be acting as communication between Donbass and Moscow in a political sense ?” “As well as military ?” “With satellite info etc ?” “To be sent as separatists ?” “Will they be orchestrating ?” “or just assisting ?” the army of New Russia and otherwise ?” Etc.
Well, ok. First of all, I have no access, a big disclaimer, zero access, to any kind of classified information. But for those of you who think I’m an FSB agent, I’m sorry to break your bubble, but no. I’m just a nobody. So I just express my opinions, and have no special access at all. But I do know a little something about how the Russian Intelligence Community operates. And I will tell you that.
Well, yeah, of course they are going to be all over the place. What they will do practically ? I think you have to look at the situation on the ground. They are flexible, and what they do and don’t do will greatly depend on the situation. For instance, will they be acting as communications in Donbass and Moscow ? First of all, Donbass in not a one single entity, its still a bunch of war lords. They all have their own patrons and contacts. So there is alot of stuff happening. But basically, ‘Do the Russians security organizations keep a close eye on all this ?’ Yes they do. I’m sure of it. Don’t know it for a fact, maybe they’re all sleeping, but I would bet alot on it.
“Will they provide target information or satellite information ?” Well, depends. I think they’re going to avoid doing it. Just because its not a good practice to hand out that kind of thing. You can get caught doing it. You might get it into the wrong hands, etc. But if needed ? Its a judgment call to make on a case-by-case basis. I think, rather than discussing their methods, tactics, operations etc, I’ll say, in a simpler more general way: The Kremlin will not let the Ukies run all over Donbass, period. One of the tools they have to prevent that is the security organizations. You know, intelligence organizations.
We all know what they can do. What they WILL actually end up doing depends on the circumstance. That’s it. I don’t have, I don’t think I can go any further than that.
Ninad is asking me “Why is Russia making so much less effort than the West with the public opinion in Serbia ?” Oh my God. Because Russians are bad at propaganda !! I know it sounds funny after you know, 70 years of Soviet propaganda, but notice this: Soviet propaganda was always clumsy. And it still is. The Russians are not good at propaganda. They suck at information operations. They are not good. They are not good salesmen. Its just not a Russian thing. Its culturally, the Russians have some kind of, they are just not good at it. And I think that’s one of the big reasons. They just. There is a mental block, there is something which says, look even at RT. RT is an honest effort to provide an alternative CNN. But we all agree, RT could do so much better. And they’re not. And you wonder why? Well, because I think some people are, some cultures should I say, are better at something and some are worse. And Russians ? They suck at politics. You can’t put it any other way. I’ve never seen them do a good job. I mean, let me tell you this (chuckling).
At the time of the Soviet Union, here is a little sort of, how you call it in English ? A reminiscence I think, when you remember something from the past ? I used to live at a city [in the US] not far from the major Soviet Embassy. A Consulate. Well no actually, this was an Embassy. You know, these [Embassy] guys had tons of propaganda brochures, that they could deliver to anybody coming in. Now watch this !! It was in Russian !! So of course the locals they couldn’t read that.
Secondly, those propaganda booklets, not all of them, some of them were in English and pretty bad English, but some of them were in English. But not in the local language !! Secondly, they were printed on that kind of thin, thin, you know quasi-toilet paper that the Soviet used in Soviet times. Which is not necessarily a bad thing because it makes, it looks cheap. So I kind of like the way the Soviets handled books, in the edition of books in the Soviet Union. But when you’re trying to cater to a Western audience, you don’t bring them paper that, you know looks like it comes straight out of Afghanistan. You just don’t do that. And they were oblivious to that. And in the end, they were having such a stock, that they ended up throwing them literally into a…what’s the name in English….into a city, oh, pardon I have a blank. Sorry, let me stop here for a second…..A ‘landfill’ !! Got it, yeah, they ended up throwing it all into a landfill where I of course found it, and I got all these little books. But some of them were really neat ! They were books, books by Lenin, and stuff you couldn’t find in the West, which was really interesting actually, so I liked it. But I could read Russian ! And since, the you know, idea, “know your enemy”, I made a point of reading all the Soviet propaganda that I possibly could. But that tells you, that even then, the so called ‘multi-million rouble’ propaganda machine was totally not credible. Nobody believed it inside the country and nobody believed it outside the country.
Compared with American propaganda ? Which Americans believe! And non Americans also believe. They actually believe in their own nonsense. Its patently stupid, its clearly nonsensical., but most people believe it. Why ? Because its beautifully presented. You know, its catchy. Look at the CNN, and the entire trend of fancy graphics, I mean the Russians are not good at that. So what are they gonna do ? They’re going to have a ‘radio Moscow’ providing you with Serbian broadcast, and they’re going to do that at 2am on frequencies you can’t listen to. I mean that’s typically how they work. I’m sorry to say that. I agree with you, I’m frustrated to tears, that the Russians are so bad at explaining what they’re doing. But I find no rational explanation for it. I’m horrified by it, but I can’t tell you anything positive about it. I think they’re just bad at it.
Ok the next question, Steve, he says that he agrees with my view of VV Putin, “I think he’s the most important, most professional, most viable leader on the world stage today, and the greatest source of hope for a better life for everyone.” “But I don’t think he arrived in 2000, as President of Russia, so fully developed, and I’m interested in his journey and how he became the person he is today.”
Oh man, that is a question that I’m totally fascinated by. As some of you know, I’m working on a book, and a conversation recently, with a very good friend, who is helping me, editing it and giving it shape, he told me, “You know what?” “You were anti-Putin when you began that blog !!!” And I have to say, “Yeah, and you know what ?? Now I’m called a ‘Putin Groupey’ !!” I did change my opinion about him, very radically. Remember I come from a White Russian, pro-revolutionary family. To me, the word KGB usually, was, triggered an instant knee-jerk, of total hostility. I had fought these guys for years. In my private life. And in my professional life. I mean, I am what you would call, a hard-core anti-Soviet. So to see a guy coming even out of the Intelligence Service ? I didn’t like it.
And secondly, I am not fan of the old Soviet Union, and for me, I had a very strong feeling of ‘re-sovietization’ of Russia. And I hated that too. I wanted Russia to release itself from that. What I call the ‘Soviet Cancer’ and to become, you know, Russian Russia, and not Soviet Russia. And I have to tell you that, and some of you will, again, be very offended by what I say now. To me the dialectical relationship between the idea “Russia” and “Soviet” are exactly the same as a healthy tissue, and a malignant tumor. They [the two different tissues] share alot of DNA. I’m not disputing that. But still, the malignant tumor is killing all the healthy tissue. To me, the entire Soviet Sovietism, the Bolshevism, the Communism, all that. Even though I’m not actually, I’m not anti-communist anymore, at least in many analytical meanings. I think Marxism provides a fantastic analytical tool.
But Soviet, the Soviet Communism, starting immediately from the first months after this Bolshevic took to power, until Gorbachev ? I think it was a disaster for Russia, I think its a, and I got flack on the blog for saying that, I think its a deeply Russiphobic, anti-Russian regime. Its an anti-Orthodox regime. I mean I hate everything that’s Soviet. For me to see Putin coming out of the KGB, and I really had that feeling, that he was, you know, that retro-legitimization of Soviet, really bothered me deeply. I also thought he was a pretty ruthless guy, and I never liked Medvedev anyways.
But here’s the problem. I, as I always do, I study my enemy. And I studied Putin a heck of alot. And with time, I end up going, “My God, what’s wrong here ?” “I like what he’s doing !!” And its getting worse with every passing year. I mean, to give you… if you think I’m bad,…my mother is way worse… She is like, your rabid Anti-Communist. You wouldn’t believe how far Anti-Communist she is. And my and her family, the other day, I spoke with her and her folks, and she said, “You know what ? I really like Putin!! This guy’s doing everything right.” And I go, “Yeah I can see why.” And we both are shell-shocked because, here we are, you know, hard core, arch-enemies… I mean believe me, more anti-communism than anything in the Republican Party, and here we’re going, “Yeah Putin is right!”
I think there’s two things. I think we changed, we got better information. Alot of that prejudice was from ignorance. I’m confessing to that. No problem. But yeah, I do, I really think he’s changing too. And I think what changed him, is being in the Kremlin. I think maybe you’re going to think I’m naive or romantic, but I think he’s sitting in a very unique place. And there must be a realization somewhere, you know, that he’s a successor of more than just Yeltsin. He’s the successor of many many Tzars. Of an ancient and very spiritual culture. And I see that change in him.
For instance, one thing that is a sure fire signal for somebody who’s acutely exposed, who knows Russian culture, is really for instance, the people he quotes in his speeches. He doesn’t quote Lenin or Marx. (Although there would be some good quotes that could come from Marx/Lenin). You know he quotes Evanulean [?] which is an emigrate philosopher. And Solzhenitsyn. Well, that’ not benign. It tells you something about who he reads.
And I know this is going to get “What,!!! You really think he writes his own speeches ???” Well, yes, I actually do. And I’ll tell you why. I think he writes his own speeches because he’s BETTER at it than any adviser that he might have. So I actually do believe that he writes his own speeches. Now he might have somebody, I’m quite sure he does have advisers looking over it. But not for a second do I believe that’s he’s handed a piece of paper that he reads. The stuff that he writes, and he said it about his article for instance in the New York Times. He writes himself.
The second proof that I have, that he writes his own speeches is that when you hear him speaking, you know ad libitum,[not rehearsed], in front of a four hour call-in program on TV, he’s completely consistent with every word he says in his speeches. And you can tell its the same guy. So that’s, I think, it reflects his reading.
I think he changed. I mean he met Solzhenitsyn for one thing. I posted a photo of them meeting, on the blog. I have that photo hanging on my wall here, where Solzhenitsyn is sitting, you know and shaking hands with Putin. I think that Putin is the continuator of Solzhenitsyn’s views. And I have to say that I think he changed. I think he changed deeply.
I still think his Orthodoxy is mainly heartfelt, but shallow. He certainly doesn’t know what he’s talking about on that. But so what ? You know we’re all, we all have periods of ignorance. And I’m not going to blame somebody for not knowing everything, from the day he was born. Or you know, changing with time, and becoming wiser. I certainly have changed, most of my years, massively. So I think he changed, I think he changed deeply. I think he changed his views about the West. I do agree that, I had for a while, he seemed to be really wanting to find some kind of cooperation with the West, and this went nowhere. And now he’s truly disgusted. Well, that’s another change. I think he’s perceiving his, the historical roots, and the roots of his people. Much much deeper than he did when he first, you know in 2000. And even recently I think there is alot of changes.
So, I don’t mind. I think the man, well, I fully support what he does. There’s no doubt about it. So if somebody wants to call me a Putin-Groupey, or you know ? Guilty as charged ! But what made me change my views ? What I saw him do. Its that simple. And dare tell me that I’m wrong, in acting on what I see and not on prejudice !
Ok, Larchmonter 445, is asking me “Will Odessa and Mariupol stay in the Ukraine ? Is the border of Novorussia now, the way it stays ? and is it viable ? and “Is Putin waiting for another Ukie offensive to order, to change all the facts on the ground ?” And then he goes into Syria and Iran.
Well, let me take the first part here. I think that, ‘Yes, I still think, I have no reason to change my mind, and I will change my mind, I gladly do it, when facts force me to do that, and when my models don’t explain what I observe. But I think that the solution for the Ukraine is a de-nazification. As related on the blog, many times. Of all of it.
I don’t think Novorussia and its current border with Russia and its current borders is, not ‘viable’ in the sense of, Novorussia is viable. It can survive, in some way shape or form. But its not a solution. Not for Novorussia, not for Russia. So I think there’s a fundamentally, what we had, I’ll put it this way:
In 1991 a certain kind of Ukraine appeared. And this one is gone forever. Goodbye. Finished. It was destroyed by the coup that happened last winter. Now we have well, lets say, at least two Ukraines. One is Novosussia, which is gone [from Kiev], its not coming back. Never mind Crimea, I won’t even go into that. If anyone thinks Crimea will ever be part of the Ukraine, they’re smoking something they shouldn’t be smoking. Forget about Crimea, won’t even discuss that. But lets looks at Novorussia. I don’t think that these people will ever agree to be ruled by Kiev again, its not happening.
So the question mark is on what’s left over. What I call Banderastan, because its ruled by Banderites, I mean that’s ruled by, I mean, you know everything I think about these people. I don’t need to give you the same speech. They’re sick, they’re psychopaths, they’re nazis, they’re racist, they’re crazy, I mean just, I sometimes call them, the Ukrainian Interanamwe, like they had in Rwanda, whatever. ISIS, the Nazi Ukraine version of ISIS. Doesn’t matter. I don’t think their regime is stable at all. So there may be something after that. There’s going to be a post-Banderastan Ukraine of some kind. At that point, what’s going to happen? I honestly don’t know. But I think that is an essential thing. I mean, before we have that next phase, you have to de-Nazify and to de-Banderize this entire region. Then will it break up into several regions maybe.
Though make no mistake, probably most of Ukrainians, particularly once they get a good taste of what it is to live under Bandera’s rule, will want to go with Russia, not with Europe. West Ukrainians might want to be closer to Poland. Though I don’t sense a love-fest there, either. Hungary ?
Let them really decide, I don’t have a personal ideological position on what should happen. But I think that most will probably be leaning towards the Eurasian Alliance. I don’t see, to me the situation where Odessa and Mariupol are cut off from the Russian, I wouldn’t say Russia only, I would say its, right now they’re cut off the Russian ‘civilizational’ realm. Its artificial. And I don’t see that. I think sooner or later the cities that you mentioned, at least Odessa and Mariupol will of course be in some kind of union with Russia. That’s just natural. I don’t think there’s any way to prevent that, and I don’t think it should be prevented.
Now is Luvoff going to be, or Lvov or Nirenberg[?] or whatever you want to call it, now is that [city] going to be part of Russia ? Probably not. And I don’t think it should and I don’t think they want, but if they want…I don’t know, can’t tell you. But you mentioned specifically cities who have such a long past in common with Russia, that I don’t see how they could be outside Russia for a long.
“Is Putin waiting for another Ukie defensive to change all the facts on the ground ?” No I don’t think so. I don’t see that it would be correct to launch a Russian operation to push further the borders. Again, the solution has to be across the border. Keep Novorussia alive and safe, and then it has to happen on the other side. And a military invasion is just not the solution. Its not the right tool. It will just make things worse. And I’m categorically opposed to Russian operations, you know, to, to…CAN the Russians ? Absolutely. They can put Dimitri Rogozin as the Uber-Protector. You know, governor, whatever you want to call him, mayor, president, King of Kiev. Overnight. And then what ? What’s the point ? Is it going to do anything for anybody ? No. Its just going to result in an uprising and more problems. So, its not because you CAN use force to create a situation that you SHOULD use it. That’s a typically kind of you know, cowboy mentality. Take your gun out and shoot them all and everything will be solved. That’s great for Hollywood movies, but its stupid in international relations.
Ok, we’re coming to an end here. Elsie’s asking me about the Russian healthcare system. Well today is Saker Ignorance Celebration Podcast. Because again,I haven’t been there for a long while now and I don’t know what the status is there. As far as I know, there is a minimal public health system, and if you want to get something done, alot of people choose to pay. I might be wrong here, so again, three times today I’ve had to plead ‘crass ignorance’, for which I apologize, but I won’t hide it. I will say that, having lived in the United States and Europe, I personally am a total proponent of Universal Health Care with no doubt whatsoever. I think access to minimal healthcare should be considered a human right, and a civil right. I personally would put it straight into the constitution of any country, along other rights.
I believe that the system in Russia right now is mixed, and I believe that this is how its going to continue, which is not a bad solution. At least its not the worst solution possible. I think that an all-private solution is disaster, with apologies to American libertarians, but I believe, that’s the role of private enterprise. I think health should be a government issue and not private. But I think that the private sector can provide a very good compliment to it. So my personal preference is mixed, based on what I saw, and the countries I lived in.
Piper is asking, “In your opinion, why does Russia not call in its loans from the Ukraine ?”
Well, Putin addressed that, but he clearly said that it would collapse the country instantly and “we don’t want that.” So that is simply, I think he’s saying the complete truth. How would that help Russia ? I don’t think they’re hoping to get those loans back any time soon, but even more importantly, I think that they don’t want a Ukraine which is just, explodes, collapses. I mean, its not in Russian interest to create a black hole on its border. I’ve been all the way saying that Russia wants a stable and prosperous Ukraine. Neutral and non Nazi. That’s what Russia wants and he is right. He should not, some of you made comments about Putin, saying “During that Federal Russian Assembly, Russia paid 30 billion dollars to the Ukraine. Why are you doing that ?” Well, because the fact that the Ukraine is run by a bunch of Nazi freaks today is not a reason to obliterate the entire country.
First of all, its immoral, secondly you will alienate people and third, its not even in your own, egocentric interest. Its, the US, its a vested interest. They will say ‘the worse, the better.’ But for Russia, in the Ukraine, its ‘the worse, the worse’. And that’s something that’s hard to understand. Its not a matter of aiding your enemy. Its just completely real-politics. Understanding that an explosion on your border is not smart. How long Russian will be sitting on these loans ? Well, another thing is, if a loan is officially not rendered, or defaulted on, it affects your own bottom-line credit rating. Etc. So to have a collapse of the entire banking system in Ukraine is just not to the advantage of the Russian bankers. I think that’s a very pragmatic decision. I think its the morally correct one. And it makes sense to me, but if I’m wrong, let me know !~!
Ok, I think I’ve covered most of the questions. It was long again today but I hope it was worth it. If I’m rambling on too much, which I think I did alot, (laugh) Sorry about that. I think of these podcasts, not as an economic exercise, and a well prepared and oiled lecture, but as a conversation with friends. And if that’s not something you oppose, I’d rather keep that format. Informal, you know, with no pretention, no claim to speak the word of truth, or all-encapsed science or being right. Just a conversation with friends.
Well, my friends, that’s it for today, I wish you a wonderful week, and God willing, we’ll have the next one in a couple of weeks. Bye bye.
