First, thanks a lot for the very interesting comments you posted in response to my post about Russian-European relations. Since I did not want to put up with the (silly) length limitations in the comments section, I decided to reply to a few your comments in a separate post. Sorry I cannot reply to all of them, so I had to pick:
Here we go:
Anonymous wrote: actually europe ahs bene infiltrated and destroyed by the english spies who made sure after deloreans departure that british agents be placed inside most policy making part of european commission.
eurpoe is rotten today because of english scumbags.itis not american slave but english slave.
Reply: Sadly, there is much truth to this. The British policy towards Europe is directly dictated by geography. Britain, being a seapower, is only safe when Europe is either suffering from internal divisions and wars or when Europe is weak or, even better, under US domination. A united and peaceful Europe would be a huge threat to the British Empire. At least this was true until 1945 when the world entered a new, global, stage in which the USA, another seapower, needs to keep the Eurasian landmass and most of the world, really, either in a state of chaos or under its domination. A lot of US strategic thinking is still influenced by A.T. Mahan and Halford Mackinder.
Augustin L. wrote: The question facing much of Russia’s elites is can the eurasian camp institutionalize and win against the liberals who are roaming the halls of the Kremlin ? Segundo, to win the coming struggle on the world stage Russia needs to clearly articulate an economic, cultural and political worldview with broad appeal such as: respect of private property (curbing of monopolies and oligarchy), an emphasis on physical economy and large scale infrastructure projects as opposed to the financialization of the west, a repudiation of excessive usury, free speech (without the liberal excesses of the pussy riot types), A real dialogue of civilization opposed to the zionist fuelled clash. Such a program formalized and backed with a muscular diplomacy aimed at the non aligned world should get Russia a long way. Saker what say you ?
Reply: I say that I agree. For one thing, Russia still does not really know what it stands for. Yes, some general principles such as social justice and solidarity, support for international law in a multi-polar system, individual private property rights, a regulated market economy, sovereignization, etc. But these are general principles, not a cohesive cultural or civilizational project (I wrote about that here and here). Orthodox Christianity is the core spiritual, civilizational and cultural model only for a small minority of Russians, the vast majority are still only very superficially religious and very ignorant of what true Orthodox Christianity is. Islam is becoming more active, but its adherents are also a minority. So the fact is that Russia today stands much more against something than for something. Many Russians today discuss the issue that “Russia has to develop a national idea” but nobody can agree on what should form the basis for this idea. My personal belief is that the real Russia can be found in the history of Russia before the 18th century and that none of what came later was truly Russian in its ethos and roots. But looking back to pre 18th century Russia is not something most Russians are willing to consider so that is a nonstarter, at least at this point in time. The 21st century Russia is neither the pre-1917 Russia nor the Soviet Russia. Nor is it the pre 18th century one. So the modern Russia really has no roots of its own, just a strong but vague sense of what it does not want to be (Soviet or Anglo). I don’t have a solution to offer here, my own family and cultural roots go back to the old Russia of before Peter I and I have no idea how one can be Russian without such roots. And yet, Italy is neither Rome or the Italy of the Papal States, but it still exists. And France is not the France of the Capetians or of Louis XIV, but it also still exists. Russia today must reinvent itself as best can be and find some type of new national vision because a country without such a spiritual and cultural identity is like a body without an immune system: it is susceptible to any virus or bacteria which it comes in contact with.
Fool on the Hill wrote: When you start looking at the lives of others you begin to notice, not the obvious ethno-cultural divides or geopolitical divides, but rather the class and economic disparities, i.e ., the 99 vs 1 per centers, which cut across Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, et al. as well as across countries.
Reply: I absolutely agree. I came to the conclusion that if there is one idea which all of mankind has to urgently rediscover is the idea of class politics. One of the best tricks played against the rest of us by the 1%ers was to describe the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 as some kind of proof that Marx was wrong and all of Marxism useless. That was truly a huge mistake. There is a lot in the Marxist critique of capitalism which has never been disproved or even seriously challenged. Sure Marx and Marxism can be wrong on this or that point, but dismissing it all is like dismissing Newtonian physics on the ground that Einsteinian or quantum physics superseded them when, in fact, Einstein and Plank were both very much standing on the shoulders of Newton. What our society has done is, to use my comparison, to dismiss all of Newton’s theories and replace them by some kind of hocus-pocus called “free market capitalism”. I would personally argue that class theory is at least as relevant today as it was in the late 19th century or, really, even more. All of the modern world is now directly shaped by the 1%ers who rule the world while the rest of us sit deaf, blind and dumb – unable to even conceptualize a 1%-ruled social order because we were brainwashed into dismissing all of Marxism. And even though I do not consider myself a Marxist at all, I am absolutely sure that we will never make any progress towards the liberation of the 99% until we fully turn around and rehabilitate Marxist political theory as an indispensable tool to understand much, but not all, of history and politics. There is, indeed, much nonsense in Marxism which needs to be dumped, but there are also much very important and even critically important elements in Marxism which must imperatively be studied and remembered.
Alexis TK27 wrote: Britain is content to host Russian oligarchs, France is content to build Navy ships for Russia, Germany is content to buy Russian gas and oil. In short, European leaders are much wiser in deeds, than they are in words
Reply: Sorry, but I cannot accept that argument. Why does the UK host Russian oligarchs? Because it wants their money (and hopes to use them against Russia). Why is France building the Mistrals for Russia? Because it wants Russian money. Why is Germany buying Russian gas – because it needs it and has no other option. In all these cases these countries are move by basic self-interest, not because European leaders are wiser in deeds. Furthermore, in international relations words are deeds – that is to say that the never ending flow of hostile statements coming from the EU is, in itself, a very important deed.
Alexis TK27 wrote: links of Russia with Europe – or should I come out of the closet now and say: with the rest of Europe? ;-) – go much farther and are far deeper than the mere geographical (examples of geography, economy, culture, language, etc,)
Reply: I am not denying any of that. All I am saying is that regardless of this past, the future of Russia cannot be tied to a continent and society which is in clear decay and, frankly, slowly dying. Sooner or later, a new Europe, not the one of EU and its Masonic sponsors will appear, and then it will be appropriate to reconsider it all, but for the foreseeable future Europe has basically rendered itself irrelevant, unattractive and useless. If an “Europe des Patries” rises one day from the ruins of the EU, then this might all change again.
SileSlav wrote: What about 18ht cent. when disgusting and shameful division/conquer of Poland/Lithuania between Austro_Hungary, Prusia and car-ruling Russia took place. What about Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania conquested in the 30th of XXc, what happen in summer 1920 when bolshevics attacted Poland and being defeated and did it once again backstabbed Poles in Sept.17th 1939 togheter w/that time Stalin’s big-buddy A.Hitler? What Russia is still doing in Kaliningrad oblast, is it historic part of Russia, no, never was. That’s what U said not once attacked West? Well, where acc. to You E-W Europe division line is? Oder river? or maybe Vistula, better yet eastwards up to Dniepr riv
Reply: Poland? Lithuania? You got to be kidding me! You might have mentioned the disgusting invasion of France in 1813 or the revolting invasion of Germany in 1945. If there is one country on earth which truly deserved to be invaded by Russia it is Poland with is centuries long warfare against Orthodox Christians and its repeated attempts to subjugate Russia. Ditto for Lithuania. As for Latvia and Estonia – they never even existed as countries, so what are you talking about?! Russian wars against the Hanseatic League, the Swedes or the Livonian Confederation? But none of them were “Latvian” or “Estonian”. As for the Bolsheviks attacking the Poles – did you ever ask yourself what the said Poles were doing in the Ukraine during the civil war? As for Hitler and Stalin being big-buddy – this was never an alliance but a non-aggression treaty which Stalin managed to secure from Hitler before Britain (which was also negotiating) did and which gave Stalin time to prepare for war. Your post is typical of the kind of absolute nonsense which East Europeans who should not history post because they have been completely indoctrinated and brainwashed in the role of “eternal victims of those bad bad Russian imperialists”. Let me promise you this: the next time Poland attacks Russia (with out without NATO), expect Russians to shamefully conquer Poland again :-P If Russian tanks made it to Berlin – they can also make it to Mons, if needed.
E. wrote: Russia’s elites have been trying to shift the country Westwards for hundreds of years (since at least the Raskol in the 1650s, whereupon the znamenny chant was forgotten – and even more strongly since Peter I, when the capital was moved to the Western edge of the country). This couldn’t fail to have an effect. The strongest effect perhaps (at least for me, as this is my field of study) is that the greatest artistic works of Russia all take after Western European forms, rather than Central Asian or Chinese ones.
Reply: This is very true, but I would suggest that while the Russian elites were most definitely trying to imitate Western art, it would not be a solution to switch this behavior around and imitate Chinese or Central Asian art. Russian iconography, architecture or music have been influenced by many external sources of inspiration, and that is how it should be, but they definitely had their own identity. Compare Znamenny chant to Byzantine chant and you immediately see that. Or compare Church of the Intercession on the Nerl to Greek or Italian churches and the same will strike you. Russia is most definitely at the intersection of Asia and Europe and the choice is not “either – or” but a mix and adaptation of (hopefully) the best of both.
One more important thing I think I should mention here:
This discussing made me realize that I forgot to mention what is probably the most important question of all: where did Russia come from? What *is* Russia, really?
I submit that Russia was born of three different “parents”:
1) Rus: The old Slavic/Viking nations which lived in what is called “The Ukraine” today.
2) Byzantium: The conversion of these nations to Orthodox Christianity in the late 10th century
3) The Mongol “Orda”: The so-called “Tatar Yoke” (roughly 13th through 15th century)
My daughter likes to say that “we are a mix of Vikings and Mongols who became Christians” and she is right. These three elements have mixed together to produce the Russian nation, culture, ethos and civilization. To some, this is a dreadful mix, and I can actually fully understand that, especially coming from a West European. I would also argue that of the three “parents” the least influential was the old Rus and the most influential was Byzantium, with the Mongol Orda in the middle. That was true until the 18th century when all this was overturned by the Russian elites who felt a “Drang nach Westen” mostly due to their own ethnic roots. Modern Russia has only kept a superficial connection to these original “parents” and is now wondering what its place in the world should be. In many ways, 21st century Russia is now re-starting from a tabula rasa which makes past history maybe not irrelevant (definitely not), but at least not decisive any more.
Putin and his Eurasian Sovereignists are now in a position to make virtue out of necessity and direct Russia in almost any direction they want without having to struggle against an overwhelmingly powerful historical momentum. At a time when the AngloZionist Empire is absolutely determined to engage in a full-spectrum confrontation against Russia and when Europe has turned into a silent and submissive US protectorate, there is simply nothing attractive for Russia in its “western partners”. The West can be either a threat to deal with, or a source of economic exchanges. That’s about it. The rest of the Eurasian landmass has so much more to offer in every conceivable aspect that the choice for Russia is, I think, rather obvious.
Kind regards to all,
The Saker
hugulSaker, I have a question about the historical relationship between Russia and Poland, specifically your take on the partitions of Poland. I certainly understand the Polish Catholic attacks on Orthodox Christianity but each of the partitions certainly count as aggression, don’t they? I mean, my gosh, the whole country disappeared, and yes, Poland at that point was a sitting duck and Catherine the Great doesn’t bear the entire blame, but still…
A little O/T but not really: liver-eating explained, or a new and terrifying NATO weapon:
http://www.voltairenet.org/article183125.html
Also, for gosh sakes, I’ have not a clue where that “hugul” came from!
@Nora:each of the partitions certainly count as aggression, don’t they?
No. At least not at the time. In hindsight it would have been wiser to do like Russia did with Georgia: eliminate its military and then withdraw back. But that was not how things were done at the time (not to mention that in these days eliminating a military meant killing all its combatants, not just destroying hardware). As for Russian-Polish problems, they did not begin with Catherine the Great, you can’t just start counting from then on. It’s like saying that the USSR attacked Germany in 1944. Well, yeah, it did. But a little something happened before which explains that. In the case of Poland we are talking about CENTURIES of attacks. Did you know that the Poles even put their own agent as Tsar inside the Kremlin?! If not, see for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_Dmitriy_I
So if Russia did partition Poland several times, this was after Poland attempted to basically eliminate Russia altogether many times.
Look, I don’t blame the individual Pole for anything, I was even active in helping Solidarnosc from aboard, but in historical terms the Poles get exactly *zero* sympathy from me. They really had it coming. I hope that they finally learned their lesson. When I listen to their politicians today, I am not so sure….
Cheers,
The Saker
On Marx, I see him three ways, or rather I see 3 Marxes: the French Marx (theoretician of revolution and class war), the English Marx (economic theory) and the German Marx (dialectics, alienation, organicism). The French Marx loses: workers do not do and never did the bourgeois thing and organise along class lines at least enough to rock capitalism’s foundations etc. (most likely neither did the bourgeois organise); on English Marx, Marx is currently the dean at London’s LSE and Yale, so that’s our economics; Marx German: dialectics is basically unstudied, and tough, but I recommend Bertell Ollman’s fascinating ‘Alienation’ for starters (otherwise it’s easy to get lost)
Hi Saker,
I want to clarify that slavs are not mixtures of vikings and mongols.
@Anonymous: I want to clarify that slavs are not mixtures of vikings and mongols.
I never said such a thing. I said that *Russia* could be civilizationally described as a mix of Vikings and Mongols. But I did not mean that ethnically. Ethnically Russians are a total mix of everything imaginable and even the ancient Slav peoples of Rus were already a mix of various Indo-European groups. But yes, in case I was unclear, I agree. Slavs are most definitely not a mix of Vikings and Mongols.
Kind regards,
The Saker
@EVERYBODY:
I want to clarify that when I see that Russians are a mix of Vikings and Mongols, I meant that metaphorically, this is an image of East-West mixing which is not to be understood literally!
Sorry for any confusion,
The Saker
http://youtu.be/fd9rsmD4HiM?t=8m45s
In America we don’t even have this debate that! I’m surprised Nigel Farage even got to speak about the reality in Libya, Syria and Ukraine
A small point.
Pussy Riot was put on the map by whoever imprisoned them. Stalin could not have done a better job.
Now, Pussy Riot are international celebrities. Their “music”? I daresay no one has ever heard it.
And, of course, what we, if we did not already, now know is that the Western elite are virulent enemies of Russia. When I read the Guardian after the polite men in green uniforms secured the peace in Crimea, I was astonished. Yes, it is true. The entire Western establishment is dominated by people who want to destroy Russia.
So don’t give them a stick to beat you with. 69% of British people support Nigel Farage who despises the expansion policy of the EU. Don’t make these people confused.
Blunder #1:
Slavs are NEITHER Vikings NOR “a total mix of everything imaginable”.
Sadly, you are indoctrinated by German 18th century lies (which is considered as “true” history today), which says that Slavs just came from somewhere (not really specified where that place is) to the lands they inhabit today. Full-frontal German propaganda to relativize Germanic aggressions against Slav people.
Blunder #2:
Another point I will make is, you ignore the fact that Germany (along with their wider appendage – the EU) was pushing for retaking-STEALING Ukraine into its sphere of influence. It wasn’t the USA’s (or AngloZionist as you call them) wish to do so, but Germany’s. USA just recognized Germany’s TRUE INTENTIONS, and was front-running the show to remain relevant.
BTW, in your previous article you said that Europe changed in the last 20 years. WELL DUH! What really changed? Did America change? Did the Anglos-Brits changed, or maybe … just MAYBE the reunification of Germany opened the Pandora box of evil.
Maybe this will help clarify things:
1990 – West German and DDR reunification.
1991 – break-up of Yugoslavia by the hand of Kohl and Genscher.
DON’T WHITEWASH the German involvement in all todays mess in Ukraine and elsewhere. The German evil & soullessness was just hiding in the dark only to come out in the past 20 years. That’s why Europe is turning into shit. Yes SHIT!
Blunder #3 you make is in your analysis:
All the USA sanctions are not really directed at Russia but the EU. Sanctions against a country rich with resources such as Russia are futile. Americans know this. USA real intentions are to prevent the EU and their industries to join with Russia, as this would leave USA out on the cold.
p.s.
I understand you. You come from a good heart and want the best of all for everybody. But that also creates a lot of naiveté in your analyses.
Good bless.
Dear Saker,
I do have some questions on Russia which I feel are important. I would be grateful on your answers on both these below questions.
1. What do you think about Russia’s current state relations with India ? If this Eurasian project of Putin ever comes into being will India support it ?
2. What is your take on the Eurasian project ? Compared to the US TPP how would Eurasian project do ?
As an Indian I must say it is shameful that very few of us have little if any kind of emotional attachment with Russia considering that Russia is the trusted friend India has been able to bank on during one crisis after crisis.
It is a shame that very few of the Indian youth bother to learn Russia as a country and we seemed to be spiritually addicted to whatever we get from the US (a long colonial legacy of anglophilia may be)
Very few even recognize the uniqueness of Russian civilization or Orthodox Christianity vis a vis the West.
This is the most worrying thing for me. Hardly any deep people to people contact exists between Russia and India unlike that of US and India.
Take care
Debanjan
Saker, I feel a need to inform you, or remind you as you most likely know about it, that the current anti-Russian “voice” of the EU-leadership and the leaderships in the various EU countries is NOT that of the populations in Europe.
Many people are, sadly, lemmings. They don’t care one way or the other but if pressed will regurgitate what was the officially declared “correct” opinion in last evenings news.
But a fairly large portion, possibly a growing one, is trying to inform itself and actually has an opinion. These are the people who read news online from various sources, read blogs, comment in comment sections and write to news papers.
Of those a clear majority in Europe does not buy the current official russophobia nor the storyline about the Ukraine-crisis. We KNOW that Russia holds the moral highground in this western inspired crisis. Many admire Putin, and root for Russia even when our so called leaders tell us we shouldn’t.
You ask why Europeans don’t rise up. My answer would be that the powers who rule us are way more clever than previous imperial rulers (or that they remain the sae but have finetuned their crafts). They let us believe we actually have a way to affect things through democracy, something that fools many. They keep us in a well enough standard of living so that we are not desperate and apt to revolt, and they in not outspoken way let us know that our welfare (job, reputation, etc.) can take a nosedive if we come out too strong against the current state of affairs.
It’s perhaps more dangerous to be a dissident in a place like the former Soviet regimes, but it’s more difficult to be one in todays Europe. Because here most people will not want to listen to you, since their main priority is their mortgage, their salary, their assets, and since they still enjoy more welfare and comforts than the vast majority in this world. So people play along, out of self interest mainly, even when they feel or know they are being misled and fooled.
Minor quibble Saker, re the pretensions of the Ukraine. You wrote:
… Rus: The old Slavic/Viking nations which lived in what is called “The Ukraine” today. …
According to various primary sources, Rus existed from the 830’s (likely earlier) as the Rus Khaganate. It included Novgorod, Staraya Lagoda, Izborsk, Polotzk, Smolensk, Rostov, and Murom, stretching from the present border of Estonia to the upper Volga, including none of the Ukraine. Kiev was first encountered in 862 by Askol and Dir, but only became the capital in 882, under Prince Oleg. So Rus refers to the old Slavic/Viking nation in northern Russia, which eventually included northern and central Ukraine. The capital was moved to Vladimir near Moscow in 1169, 68 years before the Mongol conquest. During all this period, Novgorod remained the second city. “The Ukraine” was only a borderland then and now.
From Pushkin
I think it is important to look back at Marxism not as a doctrine, but as a tool or conceptual framework. More important, I think, is to rescue or understand the Marxist theorists who give us more refine concepts or categories to understand contemporary political events at the national and international level. For instance, Gramsci provides a conceptual framework (hegemony, organ intellectuals, moral and intellectual direction, etc)that helps us understand precisely the functions of NGO’s and Mass Media as tools of population control and their dynamics in the political arena. In all this, there is a need to understand or revise history from a critical point of view.
Anonymous said…04 April, 2014 13:14
“Pussy Riot was put on the map by whoever imprisoned them.”
No, it was who funded their activities and who run the media and regimes in the oligarchic west who gave Pussy Riot their celebrity revolutionary status in the indoctrinated west. These are the ones who chose to make PR famous. There are all sorts of real dissident groups in Russia, just like any other country, but nobody hears about them in the ziofascist west because the ziofascist media machine ignores those which are not the tools of their masters.
The Russian guv initially chose to ignore PR’s antics, but media hype in Russia forced their hand. No doubt this media hype was ordered from abroad, as much of Russian media has been infiltrated by Jewish zionists and their shabbas goy sycophants.
Once the Russian public was riled up over PR, the guv had to act, or risk a loss of credibility in the people’s eyes. That was the psywar strategy behind using Pussy Riot by the zionazis. It put the Russian guv in a double bind of being the “bad guys” whether they did anything about PR or not.
As for what might have been Stalin’s reaction, that’s idiotic, since something like Pussy Riot simply could not have existed in the Stalinist times of the USSR.
“When I read the Guardian after the polite men in green uniforms secured the peace in Crimea, I was astonished.”
Why? The Guardian is a Jewish zionist rag that works to market all the ziofascist expansions and aggressions (intellectual, political and economic). Nothing new about them, if one has followed their ziofascist propaganda with a critical eye. Your astonishment may indicate a waking up of your own with regard to the Guardian, and that sort of zionist Jewish phony leftism. Hopefully.
вот так
anglo-Zionists sound like judeo-bolcheviks. It is a chimere. Please forget this stupid term. The current anglo-saxon empire is a reality, as the soviet one was. The israel imperialism is another one. One can assume that the israel imperialism will survive even to the US explosion.
And speaking of Pussy Riot…
Russian MP calls to close all McDonald’s in Russia and then proceed to Pepsi
http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_04_04/Russian-MP-calls-to-close-all-McDonalds-in-Russia-and-then-then-proceed-to-Pepsi-7262/
“Leader of the Liberal and Democratic Party of Russia, LDPR, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, wants all McDonald’s fast food restaurants in Moscow and throughout Russia closed.
“McDonald’s has closed its restaurants in the Crimea – this is very good. Now it needs to close all restaurants in Russia. I ordered the teams of municipal organizations of LDPR to put pickets in front of all McDonald’s restaurants in Moscow and across the country. They should get out of the country … as soon as possible,” Zhirinovsky told reporters on Friday.
“We will close them across the country and then proceed to Pepsi,” he said.”
No McDonalds or Pepsi? What will the dedicated western sponsored democracy advocate in Russia do for sustenance?* Well, I guess they could drink Coke and the U.S. embassy could organise the importation of Big Macs to those sorely deprived Russians, and call it the McDonalds airlift.
* Pussy Riot’s latest stunt took place in a McDonalds.
вот так
Thank for your answers, Saker.
I only want to contribute three points:
– Regarding Poland, French historian Jacques Bainville remarked that : “the marriage of Prussia and Russia has been celebrated several times in history. Every time, wine served at the ceremony was Polish blood“
Bainville died in 1936, so he was not including as example the 1939 joint German-Russian invasion of Poland, complete with joint parade in Brest-Litovsk to celebrate their great victory – happy Russian and German soldiers congratulating each other. He was actually warning against the risk of such a thing happening again, and he was right.
Marriages of Russia and Prussia, even not including the 1939 latest example, took place long time after Polish empire had tried to gain control over Russia – one or two centuries after. If these acts of conquest were justified by past Polish behaviour, then Spaniards would be right to attack France because of our occupying them under Napoléon, and Chinese would be right attacking Russia because Russians strong-armed China into yielding the Russian Far-East in the 19th century.
– The EU is a very wrong construct and European peoples will do good to relieve themselves of it, either through dismantlement or through complete transformation away from antidemocratic federalization, I could not agree more.
As for saying that European nations are “in decay” or “slowly dying”, I don’t agree that this puts Europeans from Paris or Berlin away from Europeans in Moscow or Kiev.
First these countries are in quite different situations between Ukraine or Hungary whose natality is utterly catastrophic and France or Ireland where it is satisfactory, with a whole spectrum of situations in between, Russia being some place between the two extremes. So while denatality is definitely a serious European problem it’s not as if Russia was in any way different… which goes well with my opinion about Russia being European, by the way :-)
On the topic of general morality, and especially protection of children, all countries have their problems. Here and in some other European countries, allowing homosexual couples to adopt children is a definite minus. In Russia on the other hand, abortions are much more common than in France or other countries in Western Europe, while many children remain in orphanages, too often in bad conditions, because too few couples are ready to raise a child who is not biologically theirs, by contrast with Western Europe where couples ready to adopt are plenty.
I would add that economic unequality is much worse in Russia than in Western Europe, which in my opinion is also an issue with a moral dimension.
What is worse, frequent abortions plus abandoned children plus excessive unequality, or adoption by homosexuals plus other issues we have in France or in other Western countries: everybody is entitled to his opinion. And anyway, those opinions are not important, what is important is what we do to remedy those situations as well as we can.
I’m just saying that calling European societies “decaying” is not justified and does not bring anything.
– Finally, you say that Britain, France, Germany etc. when they abstain from serious sanctions against Russia, do so for their own interests only. Well, I couldn’t agree more! But that is precisely the point.
Insulting behaviour is not wise, and I’m not saying this counts for nothing. All I’m saying is: deeds are more important. And adults are in command, although propaganda-spouting figureheads are on the stage.
Speaking of which, do you think Xi Jinping loves Russia? Or is Ali Khamenei fond of everything Russian… save Bushehr nuclear power plant and S-300 missiles :-) ? I would say they are acting for their own perceived self-interests.
Which is nothing to be reproached to either of course. It’s just a fact of life.
An interesting interview with Kiselyov (journalist sanctioned by the EU). He makes a lot of good points specific to the EU that pertain to the discussion about Europe here.
‘Russia and the West have reversed the roles. We are a beacon of free speech now’ – Dmitry Kiselyov
http://voiceofrussia.com/2014_04_04/Russia-and-the-West-have-reversed-the-roles-We-are-a-beacon-of-free-speech-now-Dmitry-Kiselyov-8215/
вот так
@VINEYARDSAKER:
I don’t blame the individual Pole for anything, I was even active in helping Solidarnosc from aboard, but in historical terms the Poles get exactly *zero* sympathy from me. They really had it coming. I hope that they finally learned their lesson. When I listen to their politicians today, I am not so sure….
Don’t forget that the cause of World War II was Polish intransigence.
Hello Saker,
Could you (or anyone else) recommend me, a student in his early 20s with a nascent interest in Slavic history and culture, some books (in English) on these topics? Preferably nothing too dry and/or specialized.
Thanks,
C
@Russian mix…
The origins of diverse nations are the stuff of heated debates which most of the time have more to do with present political situations (not in the least ownership of specific tracts of land and political pre-eminence)than historical truth.
But that wouldn’t be a reason enough to mistrust the traditions of the peoples. The progresses of archaeological studies tend to confirm them. The Chronicle of Nestor asserts that the Slavs once lived in the region of the Danube “where it is now the Land of the Hungarians and Bulgarians”. From there, at a very debated date (“when the Volochs came and subjugated them”) they left and spread north and settled on the Vistula (the Lechs-Poles),others settled on the Dnieper where were called Poliani and Drevliani, others further north where they “founded a city called Novgorod”.
The real difficulty with this picture is that it cannot be dated with any degree of precision. But, as I said, archaeology combined with linguistics and more recently with genetics tend to ascribe to it a very ancient date, I incline to say Neolithic – more specifically the Painted Ceramic cultures of the Balkans, Carpathia and Ukraine. We will see this cultures attacked by the nomadic peoples from the Eurasian steppes (the “Scythians”, “Sarmatians”, “Turks”, “Khazars”, “Tatars”)and their peoples subdued, and then liberated and then again subdued and liberated in an almost endless cycle.
So the main ingredient of the Russians are the Slavs, with variable admixtures of Nordic and Turkic. It is to be noted that the “Put iz varyag v greki” is the same as the old Amber Road.
Essential was the Christianization which starts at an earlier date (I am one of the rare birds who give full credit to the tradition of the preaching of the Holy Apostle Andrew who followed the old Amber Road northward) and is completed in 988. It is at all times the influence of Byzance which plays the central role.
The so-called Khaganate of Rus is rather the invention of modern historians hell bent to assert the pre-eminence of a “Khazar Empire” over the Russians.
WizOz
@Anonymous:
When I was in college, this was the textbook we used:
A History of Russia
“Sure Marx and Marxism can be wrong on this or that point…”
I’m so glad to hear you are not a Marxist. I’m not either, nor am I a fan of klepto-capitalism and debt slavery. Your philosophy and mine are very similar, perhaps even identical.
But could we clear up a philosophical point here?
The only credible points Marx ever made have, I believe, been made by other (and better) philosophers than he was- and some even before his time. For whatever accurate points Marx made, he made them in support of an ideology that aimed ultimately to secure the tyranny of the banking system by misdirecting the rage of the working classes towards their most immediate adversary, namely their employers and small landholders, while letting the financial elite off the hook (and free to profit from the ensuing class wars). Bakunin pointed this out, and I believe he was correct. Marx was also very hostile towards the spiritual aspect of humanity, and he was personally a real jerk.
@Debanjan, I think the problem is that India and Russia have pretty little in common culturally, so cannot understand each other on a deep level. Russia is much culturally closer to the West, to the Middle East and maybe even to China, than it is to India.
Just compare the cinema of the two places, and you can see this. Can you imagine someone like Andrei Tarkovsky being the most renowned director in Bollywood? It is unthinkable. They are polar opposites.
Tell me if I am wrong.
@C, 19:49
I don’t know about books, but I can recommend this website for a really good English-language overview of all aspects of Russian medieval culture:
http://www.strangelove.net/~kieser/Russia/
Book recommendation: By far the best short overview of Russian history is Marshall T. Poe’s “The Russian Moment in World History,” 114 pages, Princeton University Press, 2003. For a longer work in English, read Sir Bernard Pares’ “History of Russia,” Alfred Knoph, 1951. Sir Bernard was present at many significant Russian events in the early 1900’s. The best of all is V.O. Kliuchsky’s “Course in Russian History,” many volumes of which have been translated into English. Pares and Kliuchevsky are hard to find, but available though inter-library loans.
20:59 For gosh sakes — I must have the first edition of that book! It was terrific, as was the course taught by his brother Alexander (yup; I believe they were born in Manchuria). It was one of the best undergraduate courses I took, and one of the most popular on campus.
21:01 Yes to Marx oddly ignoring anything and everything about banks, especially since he lived and wrote in London. I just read that the other day and felt like an utter fool for never having noticed it myself. It is truly a stunning omission given the entirety of his work.
@Sky – “For whatever accurate points Marx made, he made them in support of an ideology that aimed ultimately to secure the tyranny of the banking system by misdirecting the rage of the working classes towards their most immediate adversary, namely their employers and small landholders, while letting the financial elite off the hook (and free to profit from the ensuing class wars)”
Well said, Sky. When I read years ago that the only aspect of Western civilization Marx praised was the West’s banking system, I knew immediately I was looking at a propagandist and not an economic philosopher.
Anyone who studied the Western economic system to the extent Marx did and subsequently claimed that the banking system (which was and is at the root of all the West’s exploitation) was praise worthy was either devoid of mental capacity or, as politely as I can put it, a public relations consultant for the bankers.
@- Regarding Poland, French historian Jacques Bainville remarked that : “the marriage of Prussia and Russia has been celebrated several times in history. Every time, wine served at the ceremony was Polish blood”…
If these acts of conquest were justified by past Polish behaviour…
Well, it was rather justified by very recent Polish behaviour. The War of the Confederation of Bar, supported by France, was directed against Russia, and the Confederates (which in actual fact represented the notoriously unruly szlachta) succeded in bringing about the Russo-Turkish War of 1768-1774.
And at the first Marriage of Prussia and Russia, France seemed to be the Master of Ceremonies:
“France, friendly towards both Russia and Austria, suggested a series of territorial adjustments, in which Austria would be compensated by parts of Prussian Silesia, and Prussia in turn would receive Polish Ermland (Warmia) and parts of the Polish fief, Duchy of Courland and Semigallia—already under Baltic German hegemony”. (Wiki)
WizOz
Demian said…04 April, 2014 19:40
“Don’t forget that the cause of World War II was Polish intransigence.”
You mean they wouldn’t let the nazis use their territory to stage an attack on the USSR for the fascist west?
Bad Poles. Naughty Poles. Shame on you Poland.
WizOz 04 April, 2014 20:47
The “Russian steppe” is really the birthplace of modern Europe, and ancient Europe, as the continent has come to be as we know it today, along with the Hungarian Plain (it was an irresistible magnet for the “steppers”). European culture was influenced more by intrusions from the steppes than it has been from the traditional influences taught in the west. Horse riding had more influence on present day European culture than the Greek and Roman occupations. More influence than either the Christian or Jewish religions.
The steppes also dramatically influenced the Indian subcontinent, as well, and similarly environmentally influenced peoples and cultures also dramatically changed East Asian history and society.
E said…04 April, 2014 21:04
“I think the problem is that India and Russia have pretty little in common culturally, so cannot understand each other on a deep level. Russia is much culturally closer to the West, to the Middle East and maybe even to China, than it is to India.”
India and China are closer to each other culturally than either is to Russia or Europe. Politically, the USSR was initially closer to China, but that changed, and the USSR and India became closer. A lot of that was due to India wanting to find some independence from the western colonial fascists, though not necessarily abandoning the capitalist economic system of exploiter and exploited. The current India-China rivalry is stupid and is the direct result of both zionazi, and old time western fascist corruption in India. Both a very serious problem. A curse inherited from not liquidating the collaborating elements of India’s colonial past.
вот так
Saker:
Give space for fans commenting, insert between the posts open space.
“OPEN 25/08/2011
25
AGO
For those who do not know the origin, a clarification:
“Open thread 25/July/2007 – 15h03 – 78 Comments
The Open Thread is a tradition of internet forums.
There was a time, long before the late Gopher, in which only sailed on the network who meet certain Unix commands. These days without blogs or web, people gathered in Usenet, several conferences discussion of specific topics.
And, on Usenet, there were Open threads. This is an open thread.
Want to say something very simple: the discussion is free, any topic worth. If the experiment goes well, there will be here, always. “
Source: http://pedrodoria.com.br/2007/07/25/open-thread/“
Alexandre.
:-)
Nora
Forget what you heard about Marx from those rightwing “3rd parties”. The “anti-Marx” right takes it up the arse from the same lot who pretends to promote Marx on the zionist “left”. It’s butt fuck city. None of this zionist “lefttwing” bumbanditry even remotely relates to reality. Piss on ’em? The zioturds would enjoy it.
вот так
Greetings from Singapore:
Past history is important. Absolutely.
But more important is the present: There is finally a breath of fresh air and it comes from the East!
Unipolarity (and with it the rotten system of the 0,1%) is being challenged by a serious power and this is a turn of history in the making.
Good reason to feel excited and festive!
Hello Saker,
Since the beginning of the Nuland coup I am following your very interesting blog. Here my comments…
I am a ‘Putin groupie’ since 2003, when the core countries of the l’Europe des Patries, Paris-Berlin-Moscow, refused to participate in the Iraq war, in a way contradicting your view that there was no western European counterpart for 1953 and 1968. I always hoped that this event would be the start of the realisation of the vision of the French president Charles de Gaulle, and I have not lost my hope, despite garden gnomes Sarkozy and Hollande. I understand your disgust, but there is no reason to despair. It is true that Germany behaves as if it is a satrape of the US, and makes noises as such, but I believe that Germany and Russia secretly are in accord about the vision for the future. Additionally, Marine le Pen has already suggested she would turn to Moscow and abandon NATO. The waiting is for the right moment. Putin has clearly exposed his vision concerning EU-Russian relations:
http://tinyurl.com/o7r8xqo
In the long term there is no alternative for Paris-Berlin-Moscow, certainly not in the light of the rising power of Asia/China. The question merely is: how to get rid of the US. The BRICS are working on it as we speak and sooner or later will dump the dollar, terminating the US role as ‘benevolent hegemon’. It is all a matter of timing and patience.
You remember joking about the ridicuolous sanctions from the West?
You *thought* you were joking.
http://rt.com/business/crimea-mcdonalds-suspend-operations-401/
A small point.
Pussy Riot was put on the map by whoever imprisoned them. Stalin could not have done a better job.
Now, Pussy Riot are international celebrities. Their “music”? I daresay no one has ever heard it.
Nope. Pussy Riot were, by and large, ignored by Russian police and hailed as freedom martyrs by Western media, just like Femen. Since their retarded antics failed to produce results, they upped the ante every time, in line with their famous producer’s MO – Madonna, who’s coincidentally VERY close to Israel and prone to making manufactured scandals each and every time she gets out of the first page. Music’s not even in the equation, no one even knows PR are supposed to be a band. Trouble is, some time has passed, no other scandals are brought up, no one gives a shit anymore about Pussy Riot. Good riddance.
“@Debanjan, I think the problem is that India and Russia have pretty little in common culturally, so cannot understand each other on a deep level.Russia is much culturally closer to the West, to the Middle East and maybe even to China, than it is to India.”
@E
True. The historical people-to-people attachment between Russia and India are very limited. There were only some attachments as some Indian marxists travelled to the USSR and so forth but that too ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union.
I remember at a very early age , some English-translated Russian magazines like Pravda , Misha and Sputnik coming to India but those days seem to be long over.
Probably the English colonial-influenced culture is now so deeply ingrained with us Indians that it is difficult for us to forge deep bonds with Russia.
This is a sad thing as India misses out in terms of civilizational understanding with one of the World’s unique and long standing civilizations.
@R “Just compare the cinema of the two places, and you can see this. Can you imagine someone like Andrei Tarkovsky being the most renowned director in Bollywood? It is unthinkable. They are polar opposites.”
I think you are correct. In Bollywood the most important objective is to get the money back after a film and bring in as many spectators as possible which means catering to the most deprived segments of our society who also happen to be most numerous.
This prevents the creation of a Tarkovosky in Bollywood.
What do you think on this ?
Where do you think Russia is actually really unique than us ? Is it the way to look at life and fellow human beings ?
Dear Saker–Thanks for your reflections on Russian history, and for your wonderful, enlightening and humane website-blog. I feel certain we are at a turning of the times. Those few clear-seeing friends of mine in the USA are aware that our culture and nation are irretrievably deteriorated…
I was interested in what you had to say about the roots of Russian history and identity. Is it really all that important to find the “idea”? For remember, America was once an “idea”–and to what ruin it is now come! Religion and ethnos and economic system (e.g. the agrarian Cavalier South versus the industrial Puritan North) seem to make more difference in the long run. I wonder if you have heard of the Russian healer Nikolai Levashov who died (or was murdered) in 2012. He wrote an interesting book “Russian History as Seen through Distorted Mirrors)which is available on his website–
http://www.levashov.info/English/books-eng.html. He was definitely working out of the “folk-soul” of the Slavic peoples. And one more point concerning “ethnos” and American decline–Toynbee’s statement seems relevant to today’s USA: “No nation survives the loss of its ruling elite.”
God bless.
HI Saker,
As an ex Brit, no longer young, we have been conned by the “ideal” USA dream for far too long. It has taken me almost a lifetime to realise that there is mo culture behind the dream, just $$$.
Tonight, listening to music, mostly from the enlightenment in Europe – and most of it German – I realise that there is no US equivalent. Nor is there any US equivalent of Roman viaducts or roads, or even British emancipation and justice,such as it was. Just zip from the US Empire.
Strikes me that Putin should be pushing Chinese musical culture such as the beautiful ‘Ode to the Yellow River’ or ‘The Butterfly Lovers’ to try to harmonise these much more sophisticated cultures.
Best wishes,
Gordon.
@Vot tak, Europe
We should not forget that in antiquity Europe was designating the region extending north of the Straits of Bosporus and Dardanelles which separated it from Asia. The surrounding area of Byzantium. Anyhow the Greek geographers and historians always marked the eastern boundary of Europe on the river Tanais (Don).
Archeologists (Marija Gimbutas) called the civilizations of the Neolithic in the Balkans and on the Danube and Southrn Russia, the Old Europe. From there civilization extended to the west and north.
It was only from the time of the usurpation of Charlemagne that the term “Europe” was usurped to designate the sphere of influence of the Western Church, as opposed to both the Eastern Orthodox churches and to the Islamic world.
WizOz
The victim mentality of Poles really makes me laugh. They built their country on a lot of land where there was a majority of Germans, and still insist they were victims. My father grew up in Danzig, and there used to be so many tariffs imposed by the Poles for goods coming from Germany that people were going hungry, and people outside the city were also German, and mistreated by their Polish overlords. Prussia was German for centuries yet magically was declared Polish by the winners of the war. And how many countries did Poland attack for land grabs between World War I and II?
вот так
Not sure I understand… In any case, I’m not anti-Marxist, or pro-Marxist either. As I see it, he was part theoretician, part utopian. But there’s never yet been a single theory that completely explains the behavior of one single human, let alone any of us in the aggregate, and a bigger problem comes in when the theory itself becomes more real than the phenomena it was designed to explain. And to be truly scientific of course you can’t even call it a theory until you’ve controlled enough variables to actually test it. Strictly speaking that hasn’t happened yet either — but his hypotheses *are* interesting and worth further thought. I personally have always felt dialectical materialism was a brilliant analysis but still only part of the equation, and also very much a product of the explosively materialist times in which he lived.
6:28
The planet, and the Crimeans, will both benefit immeasurably. McDonaldburgers are made from pink slime and you really do not want to be eating that stuff! http://aattp.org/chef-jamie-oliver-proves-his-case-mcdonalds-pink-slime-meat-is-deemed-unfit-for-human-consumption/
“Nor is there any US equivalent of Roman viaducts or roads, or even British emancipation and justice,such as it was. Just zip from the US Empire.”
Not so, the US “brought” social/economic meritoracy to a lot of places in Europe and elsewhere.
The US by and large was a “no class” society, the circumstances of your birth would not determine your place. It broke the class system for a lot of places.
It served a role China did for various eastern monarchies.
Debanjan,
India and Russia have much more in common then most people know. Old Slavic religion has its roots in Vedic religion.
Just read this article:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/rest-of-world/Ancient-Vishnu-idol-found-in-Russian-town/articleshow/1046928.cms?referral=PM
PTI | Jan 4, 2007, 11.09AM IST
MOSCOW: An ancient Vishnu idol has been found during excavation in an old village in Russia’s Volga region, raising questions about the prevalent view on the origin of ancient Russia.
The idol found in Staraya (old) Maina village dates back to VII-X century AD. Staraya Maina village in Ulyanovsk region was a highly populated city 1700 years ago, much older than Kiev, so far believed to be the mother of all Russian cities.
“We may consider it incredible, but we have ground to assert that Middle-Volga region was the original land of Ancient Rus. This is a hypothesis, but a hypothesis, which requires thorough research,” Reader of Ulyanovsk State University’s archaeology department Dr Alexander Kozhevin told state-run television Vesti .
Nora said…05 April, 2014 09:30
“Not sure I understand…”
Marx has been demonised by the right so much that material about him and his theories is about as useful as MSM stories on Russia are currently. The comment wasn’t intended as an attack on you, I was just making that point about how unreliable rightwing originating material on Marx is. In fact, on most subjects, the right is a poor source. :)
I agree with you about theories and how they can acquire a “reality” of their own that’s distinct from the reality they are supposed to explain. Theories are tools to find a better understanding on something, but too often they become an obstacle to better understanding when the science on the subject become an exercise in filling the holes opening up in the theory.
вот так
@Debanjan
“Where do you think Russia is actually really unique than us? Is it the way to look at life and fellow human beings?”
You know, I’ve never visited India, and I only visit Russia once every 5 years or so. My view of it is largely filtered by a fairly good familiarity with its various cultural works (from various centuries), and by the stories my family tells.
Just as far as cinema goes, though, I would describe Bollywood as “very good at flash and spectacle, but shallow”, Soviet cinema as “very good at being deep, child-like and sublime”, and American cinema as being somewhere in the middle (but perhaps closer to Bollywood).
European cinema feels creative but a bit spiritually hollow to me. They’re fans of “art for art’s sake”, and sometimes try bizarre styles but forget about what the point is. In Russian cinema (and art in general), the central point is usually primary, and the external style derives from it. In America, great attention is paid to the format, and substance is not so important. Hence, you can see American film adaptations of Dr. Seuss that slavishly adhere to the visual style yet are completely heartless (i.e. “The Cat in the Hat”, the new one), while Russian adaptations will not care at all about the outward look yet keep the heart intact (Google “russian animation i can hear you” for an example).
As for the English, in their films (and books, etc.), they seem to really like sneering at things and/or setting up absurd situations. It’s no wonder that the English-created copyright system (now in use worldwide) allows an artist to use someone else’s idea in his own work ONLY if he’s going to sneer at it (that is, make a parody). Any attempt at some sort of serious artistic commentary, by contrast, is forbidden. Russians historically are very fond of taking art from other places and making it their own (rather than just making fun of it). Before the 1990s, their copyright laws reflected this.
I did notice when I was in Russia that there seems to be a pretty large dissemination of some Eastern philosophies/beliefs, including Indian ones. Maybe that can be a point of commonality. Ideas such as karma and reincarnation seem to be taken more seriously in Russia than they are here in the West.
About Marx: His economic theory is simply false (he has recognized this himself and therefore not published Capital II and III himself). Keynesianism is, of course, not better.
But what makes the 1% that rich is not a free market (there is none) but fascist (corporatist) state regulation. If one fights the free market, one does not help the 99%.
Hello mr Saker. Congratulations on your fine blog which i have been following many months but only now have i been compelled to post a comment.
I am a Greek leaving in Greece and what prompts me to react is that idea you have put forward that Russia has not really anything to expect from Europe as it is subsevrient almost totally to the US, therefore Russia should abandon the west and look east towards Asia and to some extend the Americas.
I find that wholly disagreeable!
Not a chance in a million years that Russia is somehow going to turn its back on Europe. Even if one agrees on your assesment of how much of an American protectorate Europe is (which it is, fair argument.) Russia is never going to abandon its oficially stated geopolitical goals of Eurasian integration “from Lisbon to Vladivostoc”
the ultimate geopolitical trophy!
And i am sure you are aware of the exact oposite dogma which is “under no circumstances should one power be allowed to control the Eurasian landmass as this would render the naval powers toothless and rellagate North America to being a mere island” stated by Henry Kissinger decades ago.
Ilja Schmelzer, if Marx was wrong (What? Completely?) then who is correct?
Like James I also thought how strange Marx lets the bankers off the hook or is there more to his ‘forgetfulness’ than that?; he believed labour was the source of wealth and perhaps saw banking merely as a facilitating infrastructure in the exploitation chain, or proximate rather than ultimate cause of hardship; NB the gold standard was still in operation in his day; why did he not predict the rise of financialization and the end of the gold standard ? (the two are to my mind synonyms). Marxists might say he didn’t manage to complete his work but there’s room for speculation on that.
Mulga, Marx is completely wrong in economics. Who is right? I would say something between Austrian economics and David D. Friedman. The Austrians alone reject too much of reasonable mainstream science (so I agree with many points of http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm ) but the mainstream is too much infected by Keynesian nonsense.
OK, Ilja, how does Marx err so completely? I reckon he did pretty well describing certain intractable features of capitalism as it existed when he lived, and which have not changed materially much at all since. I’m even convinced that he saw the ecological crisis coming in his treatment of the ‘metabolic rift’ between town and country, although he did not come to that conclusion ex nihilo, but by studying the work of others who detected the progressive impoverishment of agricultural land. As to David Friedman, well all I can say is that I am no fan of libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism, because, in my opinion, they are simply paths to neo-feudalism and apartheid.
Marx fails completely because he starts with a wrong theory of value. The Marxian value has no clear connection with the price, not even with the average price in a stable economy. With the wrong starting point, all his economic theory is doomed.
I think at least at considering the equalization of profit rates he has recognized that the original labor value has no longer anything to do with the real prices.
Marx was a good political journalist. That’s all.
Economic theory is science, so if one is fan of something or does or does not like predicted outcomes is not a point at all.