The context: a double declaration of war
Listening to Poroshenko a few days ago and then to Obama at the UNGA can leave no doubt whatsoever about the fact that the AngloZionist Empire is at war with Russia. Yet many believe that the Russian response to this reality is inadequate. Likewise, there is a steady stream of accusations made against Putin about Russia’s policy towards the crisis in the Ukraine. What I propose to do here is to offer a few basic reminders about Putin, his obligations and his options.
First and foremost, Putin was never elected to be the world’s policeman or savior, he was only elected to be president of Russia. Seems obvious, but yet many seem to assume that somehow Putin is morally obliged to do something to protect Syria, Novorussia or any other part of our harassed world. This is not so. Yes, Russia is the de facto leader of the BRICS and SCO countries, and Russia accepts that fact, but Putin has the moral and legal obligation to care for his own people first.
Second, Russia is now officially in the crosshairs of the AngloZionist Empire which includes not only 3 nuclear countries (US, UK, FR) but also the most powerful military force (US+NATO) and the world’s biggest economies (US+EU). I think that we can all agree that the threat posed by such an Empire is not trivial and that Russia is right in dealing with it very carefully.
Sniping at Putin and missing the point
Now, amazingly, many of those who accuse Putin of being a wimp, a sellout or a naive Pollyanna also claim that the West is preparing nuclear war on Russia. If that is really the case, this begs the question: if that is really the case, if there is a real risk of war, nuclear or not, is Putin not doing the right thing by not acting tough or threatening? Some would say that the West is bent on a war no matter what Putin does. Okay, fair enough, but in that case is his buying as much time as possible before the inevitable not the right thing to do?!
Third, on the issue of the USA vs ISIL, several comment here accused Putin of back-stabbing Assad because Russia supported the US Resolution at the UNSC.
And what was Putin supposed to do?! Fly the Russian Air Force to Syria to protect the Syrian border? What about Assad? Did he scramble his own air force to try to stop the US or has he quietly made a deal: bomb “them” not us, and I shall protest and do nothing about it? Most obviously the latter.
In fact, Putin and Assad have exactly the same position: protest the unilateral nature of the strikes, demand a UN Resolution while quietly watching how Uncle Sam turned on his own progeny and now tries to destroy them.
I would add that Lavrov quite logically stated that there are no “good terrorists”. He knows that ISIL is nothing but a continuation of the US-created Syrian insurgency, itself a continuation of the US-created al-Qaeda. From a Russian point of view, the choice is simple: what is better, for the US to use its forces and men to kill crazed Wahabis or have Assad do it? And if ISIL is successful in Iraq, how long before they come back to Chechnia? Or Crimea? Or Tatarstan? Why should any Russian or Syria soldier risk death when the USAF is willing to do that for them?
While there is a sweet irony in the fact that the US now has to bomb it’s own creation, let them do that. Even Assad was clearly forewarned and he obviously is quite happy about that.
Finally, UN or no UN, the US had already taken the decision to bomb ISIL. So what is the point of blocking a perfectly good UN Resolution? That would be self-defeating. In fact, this Resolution can even be used by Russia to prevent the US and UK from serving as a rear base for Wahabi extremists (this resolution bans that, and we are talking about a mandatory, Chapter VII, UNSC Resolution).
And yet, some still say that Putin threw Assad under the bus. How crazy and stupid can one get to have that kind of notion about warfare or politics? And if Putin wanted to toss Assad under the bus, why did he not do that last year?
Sincere frustration or intellectual dishonesty?
But that kind of nonsense about the Syria is absolutely dwarfed by the kind of truly crazy stuff some people post about Novorussia. Here are my favorite ones. The author begins by quoting me:
“This war has never been about Novorussia or about the Ukraine.”
and then continues:
That statement is too vacuous and convenient as a copout. Do you really mean to say that the thousands of people murdered by shelling, the thousands of young Ukrainian conscripts put through the meat grinder, the thousands of homes destroyed, the more than 1 million people who have turned into refugees… NONE of that has anything to do with Novorussia and Ukraine? That this is only about Russia? Really, one would wish you’d refrain from making silly statements like that.
The only problem being, of course, that I never made it in the first place :-)
Of course, it is rather obvious that I meant that FOR THE ANGLOZIONIST EMPIRE the goal has never been the Ukraine or Novorussia, but a war on Russia. All Russia did was to recognize this reality. Again, the words “do you really mean to say that” clearly show that the author is going to twist what I said, make yet another strawman, and then indignantly denounce me for being a monster who does not care about the Ukraine or Novorussia (the rest of the comment was in the same vein: indignant denunciations of statements I never made and conclusions I never reached).
I have already grown used to the truly remarkable level of dishonesty of the Putin-bashing crowd and by now I consider it par for the course. But I wanted to illustrate that one more time just to show that at least in certain cases an honest discussion is not the purpose at all. But I don’t want to bring it all down to just a few dishonest and vociferous individuals. There are also many who are sincerely baffled, frustrated and even disappointed with Russia’s apparent passivity. Here is an excerpt of an email I got this morning:
I guess I was really hoping that perhaps Russia, China The BRICS would be a counter force. What I fail to understand is why after all the demonisation by the U.S and Europe doesn’t Russia retaliate. The sanctions imposed by the West is hurting Russia and yet they still trade oil in euros/dollars and are bending over backwards to accommodate Europe. I do not understand why they do not say lift all sanctions or no gas. China also says very little against the U.S , even though they fully understand that if Russian is weakened they are next on the list. As for all the talk of lifting the sanctions on Iran that is farcical as we all know Israel will never allow them to be lifted. So why do China and Russia go along with the whole charade. Sometimes I wonder if we are all being played, and this is all one big game , which no chance of anything changing.
In this case the author correctly sees that Russia and China follow a very similar policy which sure looks like an attempt to appease the US. In contrast to the previous comment, here the author is both sincere and truly distressed.
In fact, I believe that what I am observing are three very different phenomena all manifesting themselves at the same time:
1) An organized Putin-bashing campaign initiated by US/UK government branches tasked with manipulating the social media.
2) A spontaneous Putin-bashing campaign lead by certain Russian National-Bolshevik circles (Limonov, Dugin & Co.).
3) The expression of a sincere bafflement, distress and frustration by honest and well-intentioned people to whom the current Russian stance really makes no sense at all.
The rest of this post will be entirely dedicated to try to explain the Russian stance to those in this third group (any dialog with the 2 first ones just makes no sense).
Trying to make sense of an apparently illogical policy
In my introduction above I stated that what is taking place is a war on Russia, not hot war (yet?) and not quite an old-style Cold War. In essence, what the AngloZionists are doing is pretty clear and a lot of Russian commentators have already reached that conclusion: the US are engaged into a war against Russia for which the US will fight to the last Ukrainian. Thus, for the Empire, “success” can never be defined as an outcome in the Ukraine because, as I said previously, this war is not about the Ukraine. For the Empire “success” is a specific outcome in Russia: regime change. Let’s us look at how the Empire plans to achieve this result.
The original plan was simplistic in a typically US Neocon way: overthrow Yanukovich, get the Ukraine into the EU and NATO, politically move NATO to the Russian border and militarily move it into Crimea. That plan failed. Russia accepted Crimea and the Ukraine collapsed into a vicious civil war combined with a terminal economic crisis. Then the US Neocons fell-back to plan B.
Plan B was also simple: get Russia to intervene militarily in the Donbass and use that as a pretext for a full-scale Cold War v2 which would create 1950’s style tensions between East and West, justify fear-induced policies in the West, and completely sever the growing economic ties between Russia and the EU. Except that plan also failed – Russia did not take the bait and instead of intervening directly in the Donbass, she began a massive covert operation to support the anti-Nazi forces in Novorussia. The Russian plan worked, and the Junta Repression Forces (JRF) were soundly defeated by the Novorussian Armed Forces (NAF) even though the latter was suffering a huge deficit in firepower, armor, specialists and men (gradually, Russian covert aid turned all these around).
At this point in time the AngloZionist plutocracy truly freaked out under the combined realization that their plan was falling apart and that there was nothing they could really do to rescue it (a military option was totally impossible as I explained it in the past). They did try economic sanctions, but that only helped Putin to engage in long overdue reforms. But the worst part of it all was that each time the West expected Putin to do something, he did the exact opposite:
- Nobody expected that Putin would use military force in Crimea in a lightening-fast take-over operation which will go down in history as at least as amazing as Storm-333.
- Everybody (including myself) expected Putin to send forces into Novorussia. He did not.
- Nobody expected Russian counter-sanctions to hit the EU agricultural sector.
- Everybody expected that Putin would retaliate after the latest round of sanctions. He did not.
There is a pattern here and it is one basic to all martial arts: first, never signal your intentions, second use feints and third, hit when and where your opponent doesn’t expect it.
Conversely, there are two things which are deeply ingrained in the western political mindset which Putin never does: he never threatens and he never postures. For example, while the US is basically at war with Russia, Russia will gladly support a US resolution on ISIL if it is to Russia’s advantage. And Russian diplomats will speak of “our American partners” or “our American friends” while, at the same time, doing more than the rest of the planet combined to bring down the AngloZionist Empire.
A quick look at Putin’s record
As I have written in the past, unlike some other bloggers and commentators, I am neither a psychic not a prophet and I cannot tell you what Putin thinks or what he will do tomorrow. But what I can tell you is that which Putin has already done in the past: (in no particular order)
- broken the back of the AngloZionist-backed oligarchy in Russia.
- achieved a truly miraculous success in Chechnia (one which nobody, prophets included, had foreseen).
- literally resurrected the Russian economy.
- rebuilt the Russian military, security and intelligences forces.
- severely disrupted the ability of foreign NGOs to subvert Russia.
- done more for the de-dollarization of the planet than anybody before.
- made Russia the clear leader of both BRICS and SCO.
- openly challenged the informational monopoly of the western propaganda machine (with projects like RussiaToday).
- stopped an imminent US/NATO strike on Syria by sending in a Russian Navy Expeditionary Force (which gave Syria a full radar coverage of the entire region).
- made it possible for Assad to prevail in the Syrian civil war.
- openly rejected the Western “universal civilizational model” and declared his support for another, a religion and tradition based one.
- openly rejected a unipolar “New World Order” lead by the AngloZionists and declared his support for a multi-polar world order.
- supported Assange (through RussiaToday) and protected Snowden
- created and promoted a new alliance model between Christianity and Islam thus undermining the “clash of civilization” paradigm.
- booted the AngloZionists out of key locations in the Caucasus (Chechnia, Ossetia).
- booted the AngloZionists out of key locations in Central Asia (Manas base in Kyrgyzstan)
- gave Russia the means to defend her interest in the Arctic region, including military means.
- established a full-spectrum strategic alliance with China which is at the core of both SCO and BRICS.
- is currently passing laws barring foreign interests from controlling the Russian media.
- gave Iran the means to develop a much needed civilian nuclear program.
- is working with China to create a financial system fully separated form the current AngloZionist controlled one (including trade in Rubles or Renminbi).
- re-establised Russian political and economic support for Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Brazil, Nicaragua and Argentina.
- very effectively deflated the pro-US color-coded revolution in Russia.
- organized the “Voentorg” which armed the NAF.
- gave refuge to hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian refugees.
- sent in vitally needed humanitarian aid to Novorussia.
- provided direct Russian fire support and possibly even air cover to NAF in key locations (the “southern cauldron” for example).
- last but not least, he openly spoke of the need for Russia to “sovereignize” herself and to prevail over the pro-US 5th column.
and that list goes on and on. All I am trying to illustrate is that there is a very good reason for the AngloZionist’s hatred for Putin: his long record of very effectively fighting them. So unless we assume that Putin had a sudden change of heart or that he simply ran out of energy or courage, I submit that the notion that he suddenly made a 180 makes no sense. His current policies, however, do make sense, as I will try to explain now.
If you are a “Putin betrayed Novorussia” person, please set that hypothesis aside for a moment, just for argument’s sake and assume that Putin is both principled and logical. What could he be doing in the Ukraine? Can we make sense of what we observe?
Imperatives Russia cannot ignore
First, I consider the following sequence indisputable:
First, Russia must prevail over the current AngloZionist war against her. What the Empire wants in Russia is regime change followed by complete absorption into the Western sphere of influence including a likely break-up of Russia. What is threatened is the very existence of the Russian civilization.
Second, Russia will never be safe with a neo-Nazi russophobic regime in power in Kiev. The Ukie nationalist freaks have proven that it is impossible to negotiate with them (they have broken literally every single agreement signed so far), their hatred for Russia is total (as shown with their constant references to the use of – hypothetical – nuclear weapons against Russia). Therefore,
Third, regime change in Kiev followed by a full de-Nazification is the only possible way for Russia to achieve her vital objectives.
Again, and at the risk of having my words twisted and misrepresented, I have to repeat here that Novorussia is not what is at stake here. It’s not even the future of the Ukraine. What is at stake here is a planetary confrontation (this is the one thesis of Dugin which I fully agree with). The future of the planet depends on the capability of the BRICS/SCO countries to replace the AngloZionist Empire with a very different, multi-polar, international order. Russia is crucial and indispensable in this effort (any such effort without Russia is doomed to fail), and the future of Russia is now decided by what Russia will do in the Ukraine. As for the future of the Ukraine, it largely depends on what will happen to Novorussia, but not exclusively. In a paradoxical way, Novorussia is more important to Russia than to the Ukraine. Here is why:
For the rest of the Ukraine, Novorussia is lost. Forever. Not even a joint Putin-Obama effort could prevent that. In fact, the Ukies know that and this is why they make no effort to win the hearts and minds of the local population. If fact, I am convinced that the so-called “random” or “wanton” destruction of the Novorussian industrial, economic, scientific and cultural infrastructure has been intentional act of hateful vengeance similar to the way the AngloZionists always turn to killing civilians when they fail to overcome military forces (the examples of Yugoslavia and Lebanon come to mind). Of course, Moscow can probably force the local Novorussian political leaders to sign some kind of document accepting Kiev’s sovereignty, but that will be a fiction, it is way too late for that. If not de jure, then de facto, Novorussia is never going to accept Kiev’s rule again and everybody knows that, in Kiev, in Novorussia and in Russia.
What could a de facto but not de jure independence look like?
No Ukrainian military, national guard, oligarch battalion or SBU, full economic, cultural, religious, linguistic and educational independence, locally elected officials and local media, but all that with Ukie flags, no official independence status, no Novorussian Armed Forces (they will be called something like “regional security force” or even “police force”) and no Novorussian currency (though the Ruble – along with the Dollar and Euro – will be used on a daily basis). The top officials will have to be officially approved by Kiev (which Kiev will, of course, lest its impotence becomes visible). This will be a temporary, transitional and unstable arrangement, but it will be good enough to provide a face-saving way out to Kiev.
This said, I would argue that both Kiev and Moscow have an interest in maintaining the fiction of a unitary Ukraine. For Kiev this is a way to not appear completely defeated by the accursed Moskals. But what about Russia?
What if you were in Putin’s place?
Ask yourself the following question: if you were Putin and your goal was regime change in Kiev, would you prefer Novorussia to be part of the Ukraine or not? I would submit that having Novorussia inside is much better for the following reasons:
- it makes it part, even on a macro-level, of the Ukrainian processes, like national elections or national media.
- it begs the comparison with the conditions in the rest of the Ukraine.
- it makes it far easier to influence commerce, business, transportation, etc.
- it creates an alternative (Nazi-free) political center to Kiev.
- it makes it easier for Russian interests (of all kind) to penetrate into the Ukraine.
- it removes the possibility to put up a Cold War like “wall” or barrier on some geographical marker.
- it removes the accusation that Russian wants to partition the Ukraine.
In other words, to keep Novorussia de jure, nominally, part of the Ukraine is the best way to appear to be complying with AngloZionist demands while subverting the Nazi junta in power. In a recent article I outlined what Russia could do without incurring any major consequences:
- Politically oppose the regime everywhere: UN, media, public opinion, etc.
- Express political support for Novorussia and any Ukrainian oppositionContinue the informational war (Russian media does a great job)
- Prevent Novorussia from falling (covert military aid)
- Mercilessly keep up the economic pressure on the Ukraine
- Disrupt as much as possible the US-EU “axis of kindness”
- Help Crimea and Novorussia prosper economically and financially
In other words – give the appearance of staying out while very much staying in.
What is the alternative anyway?
I already hear the chorus of indignant “hurray-patriots” (that is what these folks are called in Russia) accusing me of only seeing Novorussia as a tool for Russian political goals and of ignoring the death and suffering endured by the people of Novorussia. To this I will simply reply the following:
Does anybody seriously believe that an independent Novorussia can live in even minimal peace and security without a regime change in Kiev? If Russia cannot afford a Nazi junta in power in Kiev, can Novorussia?!
In general, the hurray-patriots are long on what should be done now and very short any kind of mid or long term vision. Just like those who believe that Syria can be saved by sending in the Russian Air Force, the hurray-patriots believe that the crisis in the Ukraine can be solved by sending in tanks. They are a perfect example of the mindset H. L. Mencken was referring to when he wrote “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong”.
The sad reality is that the mindset behind such “simple” solutions is always the same one: never negotiate, never compromise, never look long term but only to the immediate future and use force in all cases.
But the facts are here: the US/NATO block is powerful, militarily, economically and politically and it can hurt Russia, especially over time. Furthermore, while Russia can easily defeat the Ukrainian military, this hardly would be a very meaningful “victory”. Externally it would trigger a massive deterioration of the international political climate, while internally the Russians would have to suppress the Ukrainian nationalists (not all of them Nazi) by force. Could Russia do that? Again, the answer is that yes – but at what cost?
I good friend of mine was a Colonel in the KGB Special Forces unit called “Kaskad” (which later was renamed “Vympel”). One day he told me how his father, himself a special operator for the GRU, fought against Ukrainian insurgents from the end of WWII in 1945 up to 1958: that is thirteen years! It took Stalin and Krushchev 13 years to finally crush the Ukrainian nationalist insurgents. Does anybody in his/her right mind sincerely believe that modern Russia should repeat that policies and spend years hunting down Ukrainian insurgents again?
By the way, if the Ukrainian nationalists could fight the Soviet rule under Stalin and Krushchev for a full 13 years after the end of the war – how is it that there is no visible anti-Nazi resistance in Zaporozhie, Dnepropetrivsk or Kharkov? Yes, Luganks and Donetsk did rise up and take arms, very successfully – but the rest of the Ukraine? If you were Putin, would you be confident that Russian forces liberating these cities would receive the same welcome that they did in Crimea?
And yet, the hurray-patriots keep pushing for more Russian intervention and further Novorussian military operations against Ukie forces. Is it not about time we begin asking who would benefit from such policies?
It has been an old trick of the US CIA to use the social media and the blogosphere to push for nationalist extremism in Russia. A well know and respected Russian patriot and journalist – Maksim Shevchenko – had a group of people organized to track down the IP numbers of some of the most influential radical nationalist organizations, website, blogs and individual posters on the Russian Internet. Turns out that most were based in the USA, Canada and Israel. Surprise, surprise. Or, maybe, no surprise at all?
For the AngloZionists, supporting extremists and rabid nationalists in Russia makes perfectly good sense. Either they get to influence the public opinion or they at the very least can be used to bash the regime in power. I personally see no difference between an Udaltsov or a Navalnii on one hand and a Limonov or a Dugin on the other. Their sole effect is to get people mad at the Kremlin. What the pretext for the anger is does not matter – for Navalnyi its “stolen elections” for Dugin it’s “back-stabbed Novorussia”. And it does not matter which of them are actually paid agents or just “useful idiots” – God be their judge – but what does matter is that the solutions they advocate are no solutions at all, just pious pretexts to bash the regime in power.
In the meantime, not only had Putin not sold-out, back-stabbed, traded away or otherwise abandoned Novorussia, it’s Poroshenko who is barely holding on to power and Banderastan which is going down the tubes. There are also plenty of people who see through this doom and gloom nonsense, both in Russia (Yuri Baranchik) and abroad (M. K. Bhadrakumar).
But what about the oligarchs?
I already addressed this issue in a recent post, but I think that it is important to return to this topic here and the first thing which is crucial to understand in the Russian or Ukrainian context is that oligarchs are a fact of life. This is not to say that their presence is a good thing, only that Putin and Poroshenko and, for that matter, anybody trying to get anything done over there needs to take them into account. The big difference is that while in Kiev a regime controlled by the oligarchs has been replaced by a regime of oligarchs, in Russia the oligarchy can only influence, but not control, the Kremlin. The examples, of Khodorkovsky or Evtushenkov show that the Kremlin still can, and does, smack down an oligarch when needed.
Still, it is one thing to pick on one or two oligarchs and quite another to remove them from the Ukrainian equation: the latter is just not going to happen. So for Putin any Ukrainian strategy has to take into account the presence and, frankly, power of the Ukrainian oligarchs and their Russian counterparts.
Putin knows that oligarchs have their true loyalty only to themselves and that their only “country” is wherever their assets happen to be. As a former KGB foreign intelligence officer for Putin this is an obvious plus, because that mindset potentially allows him to manipulate them. Any intelligence officer knows that people can be manipulated by a finite list of approaches: ideology, ego, resentment, sex, a skeleton in the closet and, of course, money. From Putin’s point of view, Rinat Akhmetov, for example, is a guy who used to employ something like 200’000 people in the Donbass, who clearly can get things done, and whose official loyalty Kiev and the Ukraine is just a camouflage for his real loyalty: his money. Now, Putin does not have to like or respect Akhmetov, most intelligence officers will quietly despise that kind of person, but that also means that for Putin Akhmetov is an absolutely crucial person to talk to, explore options with and, possibly, use to achieve a Russian national strategic objective in the Donbass.
I have already written this many times here: Russians do talk to their enemies. With a friendly smile. This is even more true for a former intelligence officer who is trained to always communicate, smile, appear to be engaging and understanding. For Putin Akhmetov is not a friend or an ally, but he is a powerful figure which can be manipulated in Russia’s advantage. What I am trying to explain here is the following:
There are numerous rumors of secret negotiations between Rinat Akhmetov and various Russian officials. Some say that Khodakovski is involved. Others mention Surkov. There is no doubt in my mind that such secret negotiations are taking place. In fact, I am sure that all the parties involved talk to all other other parties involved. Even with a disgusting, evil and vile creature like Kolomoiski. In fact, the sure signal that somebody has finally decided to take him out would be that nobody would be speaking with him any more. That will probably happen, with time, but most definitely not until his power base is sufficiently eroded.
One Russian blogger believes that Akhmetov has already been “persuaded” (read: bought off) by Putin and that he is willing to play by the new rules which now say “Putin is boss”. Maybe. Maybe not yet, but soon. Maybe never. All I am suggesting is that negotiations between the Kremlin and local Ukie oligarchs are as logical and inevitable as the US contacts with the Italian Mafia before the US armed forces entered Italy.
But is there a 5th column in Russia?
Yes, absolutely. First and foremost, it is found inside the Medvedev government itself and even inside the Presidential administration. Always remember that Putin was put into power by two competing forces: the secret services and big money. And yes, while it is true that Putin has tremendously weakened the “big money” component (what I call the “Atlantic Integrationists”) they are still very much there, though they are more subdued, more careful and less arrogant than during the time when Medvedev was formally in charge. The big change in the recent years is that the struggle between patriots (the “Eurasian Sovereignists”) and the 5th column now is in the open, but it if far from over. And we should never underestimate these people: they have a lot of power, a lot of money and a fantastic capability to corrupt, threaten, discredit, sabotage, cover-up, smear, etc. They are also very smart, they can hire the best professionals in the field, and they are very, very good at ugly political campaigns. For example, the 5th columnists try hard to give a voice to the National-Bolshevik opposition (both Limonov and Dugin regularly get airtime on Russian TV) and rumor has it that they finance a lot of the National-Bolshevik media (just like the Koch brothers paid for the Tea Party in the USA).
Another problem is that while these guys are objectively doing the US CIA’s bidding, there is no proof of it. As I was told many times by a wise friend: most conspiracies are really collusions and the latter are very hard to prove. But the community of interests between the US CIA and the Russian and Ukrainian oligarchy is so obvious as to be undeniable.
The real danger for Russia
So now we have the full picture. Again, Putin has to simultaneously contend with
1) a strategic psyop campaign run by the US/UK & Co. which combines the corporate media’s demonization of Putin and a campaign in the social media to discredit him for his passivity and lack of appropriate response to the West.
2) a small but very vociferous group of (mostly) National-Bolsheviks (Limonov, Dugin & Co.) who have found in the Novorussian cause a perfect opportunity to bash Putin for not sharing their ideology and their “clear, simple, and wrong” “solutions”.
3) a network of powerful oligarchs who want to use the opportunity presented by the actions of first two groups to promote their own interests.
4) a 5th column for whom all of the above is a fantastic opportunity to weaken the Eurasian Sovereignists
5) a sense of disappointment by many sincere people who feel that Russia is acting like a passive punching-ball.
6) an overwhelming majority of people in Novorussia who want complete (de facto and de jure) independence from Kiev and who are sincerely convinced that any negotiations with Kiev are a prelude to a betrayal by Russia of Novorussian interest.
7) the objective reality that Russian and Novorussian interests are not the same.
8) the objective reality that the AngloZionist Empire is still very powerful and even potentially dangerous.
It is very, very, hard for Putin to try to balance these forces in such a way that the resulting vector is one which is in the strategic interest of Russia. I would argue that there is simply no other solution to this conundrum other than to completely separate Russia’s official (declaratory) police and Russia’s real actions. The covert help to Novorussia – the Voentorg – is an example of that, but only a limited one because what Russia must do now goes beyond covert actions: Russia must appear to be doing one thing while doing exactly the opposite. It is in Russia’s strategic interest at this point in time to appear to:
1) Support a negotiated solution along the lines of: a unitary non-aligned Ukraine, with large regional right for all regions while, at the same time, politically opposing the regime everywhere: UN, media, public opinion, etc. and supporting both Novorussia and any Ukrainian opposition.
2) Give Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs a reason to if not support, then at least not oppose such a solution (for ex: by not nationalizing Akhmetov’s assets in the Donbass), while at the same time making sure that there is literally enough “firepower” to keep the oligarch under control.
3) Negotiate with the EU on the actual implementation of Ukraine’s Agreement with the EU while at the same time helping the Ukraine commit economic suicide by making sure that there is just the right amount of economic strangulation applied to prevent the regime from bouncing back.
4) Negotiate with the EU and the Junta in Kiev over the delivery of gas while at the same time making sure that the regime pays enough for it to be broke.
5) Appear generally non-confrontational towards the USA while at the same time trying as hard as possible to create tensions between the US and the EU.
6) Appear to be generally available and willing to do business with the AngoZionist Empire while at the same time building an alternative international systems not centered on the USA or the Dollar.
As you see, this goes far beyond a regular covert action program. What we are dealing with is a very complex, multi-layered, program to achieve the Russian most important goal in the Ukraine (regime change and de-Nazification) while inhibiting as much as possible the AngloZionists attempts to re-created a severe and long lasting East-West crisis in which the EU would basically fuse with the USA.
Conclusion: a key to Russian policies?
Most of us are used to think in terms of super-power categories. After all, US President from Reagan on to Obama have all served us a diet of grand statements, almost constant military operations followed by Pentagon briefings, threats, sanctions, boycotts, etc. I would argue that this has always been the hallmark of western “diplomacy” from the Crusades to the latest bombing campaign against ISIL. Russia and China have a diametrically opposed tradition. For example, in terms of methodology Lavrov always repeats the same principle: “we want to turn our enemies into neutrals, we want to turn neutrals into partner and we want to turn partners into friends“. The role of Russian diplomats is not to prepare for war, but to avoid it. Yes, Russia will fight, but only when diplomacy has failed. If for the US diplomacy is solely a means to deliver threats, for Russia it is a the primary tool to defuse them. It is therefore no wonder at all the the US diplomacy is primitive to the point of bordering on the comical. After all, how much sophistication is needed to say “comply or else”. Any petty street thug know how to do that. Russian diplomats are much more akin to explosives disposal specialist or a mine clearance officer: they have to be extremely patient, very careful and fully focused. But most importantly, they cannot allow anybody to rush them lest the entire thing blows up.
Russia is fully aware that the AngloZionist Empire is at war with her and that surrender is simply not an option any more (assuming it ever was). Russia also understands that she is not a real super-power or, even less so, an empire. Russia is only a very powerful country which is trying to de-fang the Empire without triggering a frontal confrontation with it. In the Ukraine, Russia sees no other solution than regime change in Kiev. To achieve this goal Russia will always prefer a negotiated solution to one obtained by force, even though if not other choice is left to her, she will use force. In other words:
art: Josetxo Ezcurra |
Russia’s long term end goal is to bring down the AngloZionist Empire. Russia’s mid term goal is to create the conditions for regime change in Kiev. Russia’s short term goal is to prevent the junta from over-running Novorussia. Russia’s preferred method to achieve these goals is negotiation with all parties involved. A prerequisite to achieve these goals by negotiations is to prevent the Empire from succeeding in creating an acute continental crisis (conversely, the imperial “deep state” fully understands all this, hence the double declaration of war by Obama and Poroshenko.)
As long as you keep these basic principles in mind, the apparent zig-zags, contradictions and passivity of Russian policies will begin to make sense.
It is an open question whether Russia will succeed in her goals. In theory, a successful Junta attack on Novorussia could force Russia to intervene. Likewise, there is always the possibility of yet another “false flag”, possibly a nuclear one. I think that the Russian policy is sound and the best realistically achievable under the current set of circumstances, but only time will tell.
I am sorry that it took me over 6400 words to explain all that, but in a society were most “thoughts” are expressed as “tweets” and analyses as Facebook posts, it was a daunting task to try to shed some light to what is turning to be a deluge of misunderstandings and misconceptions, all made worse by the manipulation of the social media. I feel that 60’000 words would be more adequate to this task as it is far easier to just throw out a short and simple slogan than to refute its assumptions and implications.
My hope that at least those of you who sincerely were confused by Russia’s apparently illogical stance can now connect the dots and make better sense of it all.
Kind regards to all,
The Saker
Saker wrote: “an overwhelming majority of people in Novorussia who want complete (de facto and de jure) independence from Kiev.”
This claim is an article of faith amongst many on the Russian side – but quite the opposite view is held by those on the Ukrainian side.
The fact is, the statement is pure speculation, even assuming that “Novorussia” can be understood to mean only the regions under current NAF control (i.e., leaving out Odessa, Nikolaev, Dnipropetrovosk, etc.).
My engagement of various persons who, inevitably for ideological reasons, advance this hypothesis/speculation as fact reveals a common core: they admit back in May it was not clear but think the ATO has caused a massive swing in public opinion – though none is able to cite any objective evidence (aside from their ideology and “logic”).
Well, tell me, who did the Chechnyans blame for the destruction of Grozny? Russia, or the separatists?
The only way to know if this proposition is true is if Donetsk/Lugansk have open and free elections in November, in which pro-Kiev unionists will be able to stand for election and campaign freely; this would also require opening up to Ukrainian media, which I understand is currently blocked.
Of course I little hope that this will actually happen. And if it doesn’t, nobody in the world (aside from hardcore Russian “nationalists”) will recognize the results.
And the reason I think it won’t happen is that the new rulers – the pigs now playing cards at the farmer’s table, which includes, in no small part, Russia – will be afraid that the people will choose Ukraine rather than independence. They will justify this refusal by reference to the incomplete, inconclusive “referendum”.
I hope I am wrong, and that the people of the region will enjoy a free, open, fair election, where they have the ability to choose independence, further integration with Russia, or reconciliation with Kiev. If one truly cares for the people of the region (and frankly, I think very many of their “advocates” don’t, rather they see them as an instrument to advance their own agendas), this is the only position that deserves support.
@Anon 18:25
Thank you.
It is not the theory as such that maters, but the geopolitical implications.
Thank you for this clear and compelling analysis of Putin seeming passive vis-à-vis Ukraine. I have followed your blog because I agree with you that the real stakes are whether Russia can lead other nations to form a multi-polar world free of the $USD as the world’s reserve currency and fount of virtually unlimited power. I appreciated even your impassioned but immature responses earlier on that Putin must intervene militarily to (honor his pledge) to protect the Russian population of southeastern Ukraine (lest he be politically eviscerated domestically) even when this gainsaid and would have compromised his larger plans; the immature responses spoke to your great heart and good conscience and the difficulty they bore at the prospect of standing by idly as the slaughter progressed. Your subsequent analyses that were split between heart and head paved the way for this larger, very detailed, as so far as I can judge correct account of the current state of affairs with Russia and Ukraine. This is one of your finest pieces.
Why do you apparently believe Ukraine has no nuclear weapons at its disposal? The threats of Ukraine’s leaders state or imply they DO have nukes, and that is my information, as well. Add to that the Israelis so-called “Samson Option”: even a conventional attack on a Ukrainian nuclear plant would trigger the release of massive amounts of radiation and radioactive fallout, all over Europe and the Northern Hemisphere.
Congratulations and many many thanks for a wonderful tour de force worthy of a PhD thesis. I am so happy a friend told me about your website. Our Western Zionist controlled lying media is a perversion of political fact and truth and anyone trying to expose them treated as criminals eg Assange and Snowden.
http://henrymakow.com/2014/09/putin-is-part-of-the-nwo.html
MK Ngoyo, excellent comment with which I agree 150%. The Chinese are, in my opinion, the hope of humanity, which is why the West fear and hate them so much. I see that Xi has offered the Dalai a compromise to return to Tibet in exchange for an agreement that Tibet is Chinese territory. I’d expect the Dalai, a 60 year CIA asset, controlled by a new and belligerent US-educated Tibetan exile leadership, to reject the offer, on Washington’s orders, but who knows. Whatever, Russia and China must get as close together and co-operate in every field, as fast as possible. If they could get India on board, too (tricky) it would end the Real Evil Empire’s rule, but that would be a prime casus belli for Western elites. They rule the world, and you untermenschen never forget your place-or else.
Anonymous at 29 September, 2014 03:21:
Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons as a part of its treaty obligations many years ago.
Unless they have been given nukes in the past few weeks then they don’t have any now.
If Ukraine were to have been running a weaponisation program based upon their existing nuclear reactors we’d already know about it.
That said, I, and I am sure many others, would be interested in knowing of a relaible source that makes it clear that Ukraine either did not give up all their nuclear weapons or that they have subsequently acquired replacements.
In addition what delivery capacity do they have other than their short range missiles that have already been used and, pretty much used up? We might have noticed if they had engaged in a new missile building or purchase program.
Re Anonymous said…28 September, 2014 21:07
It may appear a novel idea but the purpose is not to criticise the opponents but to transcend them.
The strategic questions were and continue to be – Does a drowning man suit the purpose or if not, how to drown a drowning man with the minimum of blowback?
These questions were posed in US circles especially in the 1990’s when they believed they had “won” the cold war.
The joke was and is that many of the opponents believed/believe they were/are the only ones asking the questions since they were/are exceptional.
Ignorance is said to be bliss – why disturb the reverie?.
Anonymous: 28 September, 2014 18:25
While the idea of a never ending source of fossil fuels is great fun and a handy way to avoid dealing with the realities facing us how would you explain the reality that oil and other hydrocarbons are becoming harder to find and more expensive to produce?
Even if one accepts the idea that hydrocarbons are a renewing resource that does not mean that our use of them may not exceed the natural replacement rate. Thus the effect of the use of hydrocarbon based fuels is the same whether they are regenerating or were produced as a series of singular events long in the history of our world.
Oil, coal and gas are finite resources no matter how they were produced.
“The rest of this post will be entirely dedicated to try to explain the Russian stance to those in this third group (any dialog with the 2 first ones just makes no sense).” – This is another unfortunate sentiment, Saker. Obviously group #1 (the A-Z puppets) is beyond dialog, but the “National Bolshevists” are at least in theory acting in good faith, aren’t they? Isn’t that the only real condition, ceteris paribus, for dialog – good faith? This mirrors your haughty, dismissive contempt for the irredeemable papists.
@Old Ez:but the “National Bolshevists” are at least in theory acting in good faith, aren’t they? Isn’t that the only real condition, ceteris paribus, for dialog – good faith? This mirrors your haughty, dismissive contempt for the irredeemable papists.
I have no contempt for Latins or for Bolsheviks, I just know, by experience, that they are brainwashed and indoctrinated to a point were fact-based logical demonstrations have no effect on them. Given the clear choice between the truth and their ideology, they will always pick the latter and to hell with those facts (or personalities) who don’t fit their highly ideologized worldview. To see that implies no more contempt that to say that a person is blind or deaf. When you speak of my “haughty, dismissive contempt for the irredeemable papists” you really show the degree to which you are bothered by my witness, as a representative of the real, 2000 year old, Christian tradition, about the heretical nature of the Papacy. I did not start this blog because I want to make people happy, I started it because I want to tell them the truth as best as I can ascertain it. I might be mistaken in my opinions, but accusing me of being “not nice” or any other such nonsense will have no impact on what I do here.
The Saker
This was excellent and helped me understand why western think tanks have failed to understand what’s really looming behind these brilliant moves. How easily we tend to forget that war itself should never be the goal of politics. The real trick is how to make your enemy become neutral or even your friend without single bullet, that is real art of foreign policy.
@MK Ngoyo:
“2000 years”: China’s conquests of neighbouring countries were not made 2000 years ago but over the last 2000 years. The most recent one is Tibet (invaded in 1950) and there are Tibet-support organisations in most countries (including even Singapore) that can tell you their knowledge about the brutal colonization taking place there.
“Taiwan”: The Taiwanese people do not want to be absorbed by China – how about that?
“Siberia”: difficult climate, difficult terrain,needs technology to colonize. Although the Chinese invented many technical processes/materials they historically never had a real interest in technology per se.
“Africa”: China is investing in Africa but there are increasing reports of personal tensions between Africans and Chinese
I believe that you have no private contacts with any Chinese families (at least no contacts of any duration) – because your comments show no awareness of their mindset/tradition which is /very/ different from ours. And personally I am quite relieved that Putin seems to be aware of those big cultural differences and that he is cautious about his far eastern border.
There seems to be some confusion as to whether or not Saker’s piece mistakenly believes that the ‘anti-terrorism’ resolution passed by the Sec’y Council grants the US & its coalition the legal right to bomb Syria.
Obviously, it doesn’t. And, tho some of the subtleties of the analysis may have obscured it, I don’t think the Saker’s piece infers that it does.
@Notsofast
Its instructive that you only cite Tibet as an example of Chinese expansionism. Look at the size of China as a country. Then consider that it is by far the oldest country in the world.
For an example of actual expansionism compare that with , say, the US which in the last 3 centuries expanded over:
1. continental North America
2. Hawaii (many Hawaiians want independence from the US by the way)
3. Puerto Rico
4. US Virgin Islands
5. American Samoa
6. Guam etc
7. 800+ military bases around the world.
Thats expansionary and imperialist. China does not even come close to that ball park. Or take the European countries which colonized the whole world.
As far back as the 14th century China had the ability to colonize much of the world. It certainly could have taken all of East Asia,India, Africa Siberia etc. It had the manpower and the technical/military means to do so. Its interesting that although massive Chinese fleets visited East Africa as far back as 1417 they made no attempt at conquest. Compare this to the Europeans who promptly attacked the cities and communities they discovered there a hundred years later.
Its really not a matter of mindset at all. Its a matter of historical record. What the Chinese actually do. Not what “we” suppose their mindset to be. Especially if we base such suppositions on personal interactions with a few Chinese people.
And yes their mindset is different from the western mindset. Their culture and history are different also. My point in looking at history is to show these differences.
The West as a Civilization/Culture is clearly imperialist and expansionary. It seeks to control, subjugate, exploit and remake any Civilizations/Cultures with which it comes into contact.
Compared to the West, China has no such historical record. And no, personal frictions between locals and Chinese don’t count.
Why do you write all these strange words about Zionism?
First: Israel has many imigrants from Russia and Russia has a strong jewish heritage.
Second: The USA will sell Israel for oil at any time to make more money.
The USA see themself as God’s own country. Thus they cannot accept a Holy Land anywhere else. And they are partners of the Saudies who have wiped out non muslim existence in their country.
Third: Jews and Russians have to fight the Nazi ideology threatening to wipe out both of them.
Fourth: Russia and Israel are resisting those islamic forces trying to wipe out christians in the Middle East. These christians may be saved by a Russian/Israely cooperation against the US funded extremists.
Dear Saker, what a fascinating article, but unfortunetly it is not available on French Saker, a pity, why !
Would you be so kind to tell what you think about another article from Paul Craig Roberts (you know certainly) http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/ Will Russia and China Hold Their Fire Until War Is the Only Alternative? ?
Thanks a lot and continue to inform us, I broadcast as much as I can !
Zabo
Dear Saker, what a fascinating article, but unfortunetly it is not available on French Saker, a pity, why !
Would you be so kind to tell what you think about another article from Paul Craig Roberts (you know certainly) http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/ Will Russia and China Hold Their Fire Until War Is the Only Alternative? ?
Thanks a lot and continue to inform us, I broadcast as much as I can !
Zabo
l’m sorry for my English, l learned it in school only, l’m from Russia now. 4 years lived in Odessa before. What i want to say: peoples really don’t want to live in union Ukraine because Kiev’s goverment didn’t want make attention to their problems all these years, always lied about economic problems, didn’t wants to hear they. Then small part of population (30000) of 45000000 was make the revolution they were work.
Thank you, Saker, for the in-depth explanation. I was one who was confused also. However, your explanation plus some articles I read on Bloomberg regarding RF economic weaknesses leave me so discouraged with the country.
However, I do have one question regarding your article. You state, which I imagine most do realize, that RF would like to see UA Regime change. I read that Russia encouraged banks in UA to stay open because if the closed, it would wreck UA economy. Isn’t this what Russia would want? Isn’t this a way for regime change? Don’t understand.
Sharon
Saker !
Thanks for your great writing…
Don’t let the people commenting on your spelling get to you. Your work is totally understandable and it does not need editing. By the time it would be edited and proof-read or fooled around with, you would have written another brilliant analysis. Just move on and forget the nit-pickers.
My 2cnts.
Ann
Mr Nygno (sp?)
Yes, I’ve read that China is a great country … Fidel Castro thinks the world of the current president of China and other commendable writers too.
Thanks for your input.
Saker, I’m sorry to write another comment on your spelling,…but
Its really reffreshing to see an article that has a few human mistakes in the spelling.
When I send your article s to other people’s blogs…sometimes they appear there…I did wonder about the spelling.
ut now…after some thought…I realize how refreshing it is in the machine world, to see little spelling mistakes.
God bless you Saker !!
For us spectators, everything always seems so simple. Just do the right thing. Putin, however, needs to balance all sorts of considerations, while navigating a minefield of diverse interests, illusions, snares, doubt, pitfalls, and quagmires, surrounded by snipers representing foes foreign and domestic. Can you imagine suffering through half a day of the pressures squeezing him from all directions 24/7? Heaven forbid we find ourselves needing to make any big decisions, concerning the Ukraine mess or the storm swirling around the Syrian Civil War. Fretting about the potential repercussions afterward would probably torment us until resolution arrived however long it might take. So, unless you are a world leader who has dealt with the sort of crap that Putin needs to slog through, stoop criticizing him and exercise faith that he, being led by God, will do whatever is right concerning various situations….
Saker, I am a Putin basher, or at least I used to be, I am not in any sense affiliated with any pro-US agency, but your long expose convinced me that there is not much better that Putin can do in the circumstances.
A very well articulated piece, thank you.
May I add this, as a believer in the scriptures, Torah, Gospel and Quran,
taken from the Quran:
“… if it were not for God pushing people alongside one another (in strife, competition…) this Earth would have been turned to waste…”
and
“…they scheme, and God schemes, and God is the best of Schemers…”
finally
“… when God wishes something to come to pass, suffice it for Him to say: Be and It is…’
Dear Saker,
don’t you think that after these riots in Hong Kong, China will be more supportive and effective with Russia?
Cassandra says:
Should Putin decide to throw down the glove, might I recommend he open his UN speech with a quote from Che Guevara at the UN?
“We have come here today to call things by their true names.”
Thanks to Saker for lots of wonderful details.
Having read and thought about these 6400 words since they were posted, the thesis that the RF is acting in the best interests of the DPR and the LPR is a lot of wishful thinking. The key is that Minsk protocols can be finessed Kolomoisky and Putin to create the fiction of a unified Ukraine. The fascists will know full well that they are not depopulating the southeast. There will be no middle ground. I don’t have an alternative explanation.
I would request that the Saker addresses the issue of what it would take to falsify his thesis.
Wonderful, informative and hopeful article. Many thanks.
My only objection: “…from the Crusades to the latest bombing campaign against ISIL…” You might need to open a few history books before conflating the Crusades with what is going on now since there is no continuity whatsoever between them. And do choose history books that don’t repeat the same tired old propaganda that those “anglozionists” are so fond of writing. I suggest Wyndham-Lewis, Belloc and Hollis, none of them friendly to the anglozionist propaganda masters.
Keep up the great work.
Thank you for the analysis. I would like to know what you think of Russia and China rejecting GMOs, (as China has turned away contaminated corn, and US producers are suing monsanto). How does that fit in to the financial struggle? Also, elsewhere I read that when Crimea merged with Russia, Russia doubled its oil claim in the Black sea. I am playing catch up on the region and issues, and this was one of the most cogent analysis I´v read. Putin has seemed like the only adult in the conversation. As an american, I cringe every time Kerry or Barry open their mouths. They sound like schoolyard bullies and idiots to boot. I worry that they think they can start a world war just to keep the financial game afloat. Thanks again!
Smearing Dugin for Novorussia, really?
Why don’t you hug Novorussia’s daddy?
http://openrevolt.info/2014/03/07/alexander-dugin-crimea/
http://anton-shekhovtsov.blogspot.com.tr/2014/08/the-ukraine-crisis-is-long-planned.html
http://anton-shekhovtsov.blogspot.com.tr/2014/08/pro-russian-extremists-in-2006-and-2014.html
http://anton-shekhovtsov.blogspot.com.tr/2014/02/russian-fascist-aleksandr-dugin-is.html
Smearing Dugin for Novorussia, really?
Why don’t you hug Novorussia’s daddy?
http://openrevolt.info/2014/03/07/alexander-dugin-crimea/
http://anton-shekhovtsov.blogspot.com.tr/2014/08/the-ukraine-crisis-is-long-planned.html
http://anton-shekhovtsov.blogspot.com.tr/2014/08/pro-russian-extremists-in-2006-and-2014.html
http://anton-shekhovtsov.blogspot.com.tr/2014/02/russian-fascist-aleksandr-dugin-is.html
There is no such thing as a national Bolshevik. A Bolshevik is by definition an internationalist. Anti communism is going to kill Russia in the end. It is good to see the slow reversal of the capitalist counter revolution taking place in Russia. We need more October 1917 if we are going to defeat global Capitalism. Socialism or Barbarism-that is the nexus on which the future of humankind rests.
RR
I have a different view of the American attack on Russia.
I am inclined to think that Putin was aware that the US was intent on destroying Russia, and so set a trap.
When the US first started publicly encouraging a coup in Ukraine, Russia could have stopped it, but didn’t. The Americans thought that they were using the cover of the winter Olympics, and that Putin would not dare to cause a scene during the Olympics.
Putin would risk losing Russia because of a bit of bad PR?
I think Putin let the US into Ukraine, he intends to allow the US to destroy the NATO alliance.
He intends to allow the US to blackmail and coerce every EU Government, until the US is hated throughout Europe.
Then the great common market from Lisbon to Vladivostok can be realized.
Oh and then the USA can be Balkanized, and very cheaply.
Putin intends to win, and will only engage militarily when it suits Russia, not because the Americans keep throwing stones trying to provoke the bear.
Thank you, complex well thought out article. In history sometimes it all turns on a seemingly small event understood only in hindsight. A trigger if you like. We are primed for that. Know this, many millions in the West support Putin’s Russia for good reason. The USA is now the bad guy.
Saker, this column is teaching me more about political strategy than I have ever known. I wouldn’t even know where to learn this….I never was military or politically active. But now, with my hostile and wrong-headed condo board, I need this kind of knowledge. So I’m adapting it.
I had to laugh, though, about your comment: “All I am suggesting is that negotiations between the Kremlin and local Ukie oligarchs are as logical and inevitable as the US contacts with the Italian Mafia before the US armed forces entered Italy.”
That was the Greatest Generation American diplomatic style…people of true cultural education and pragmatism. Nowadays, Obama would simply drone them. The man has no subtlety and less common sense. I live in fear that he will force us to nuclear war before he gets thrown out in 2017.
If you can recommend some strategy texts, I would be grateful…
Very clear and understandable.
Must admit, sometimes I was wondering about Russia’s reactions to the emperial’s actions.
Have now a much better understanding of the so called “passivity” of Russia. Well done and time well spend.
Thank you so much, Saker and have a nice day.
May peace prevail for all of us INCLUDING Ukraine and Russia.
Second, Russia is now officially in the crosshairs of the AngloZionist Empire which includes not only 3 nuclear countries (US, UK, FR) but also the most powerful military force (US+NATO) and the world’s biggest economies (US+EU). I think that we can all agree that the threat posed by such an Empire is not trivial and that Russia is right in dealing with it very carefully.
I think you need to base your evaluations in better bases as to who is who and what power each represent, been this military power or economic or both.
West used to be what you think still is but they are no longer that. When you base your thinking on illusion base then all your conclusions though basically correct none the less are false. I say basically because I agree with the spirit you writing and the direction you take but not with everything you saying.
For the most part I agree with how Russia is conducting itself against this building onslaught. My main fear (fear because Russia + allies is the only country that can free the world of the Beast) is that the Russian mindset is innately logical and sane and in this sense I believe that this is a great strength and weakness. It is difficult for such a mindset to understand the inherent unstable minds that control Western polices and actions (understanding the nature of the Beast) and thus the chance of miscalculations are magnified. Negotiation is not a tactic that will work, for the unstable mind and character is immune to logical words and only understands actions, creating realities on the ground. I take solace that the Russians are learning this very quickly; will it be quick enough?
Saker:
Your mind is so clear and lucid. I hope that you are thinking about writing a book.
Sincerely,
George F.