The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information

Topics Filter?
 TeasersThe Saker Blogview

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
🔊 Listen RSS

The first thing we need to do is the remember what each participant wanted from this summit. Here is a summary of what I think (not how they officially stated it) each starting position was:

Zelenskii: key notion “a flexible approach” to the Minsk Agreements

  • No direct negotiations with the LDNR
  • No special status
  • Ukrainian control of the border with Russia
  • Disarmament of the LDNR “militias”
  • Removal of all foreign forces (he means Russian forces, nevermind that they don’t exist!)
  • Creation of a “municipal police”
  • Elections under Ukrainian control

Putin: key notion “Minsk Agreements cannot be changed”

  • Kiev must negotiate with the LDNR
  • A special status for the LDNR must be included in the Ukrainian Constitution
  • The control of the border between the LDNR and Russia will be handed over only at the very end of the full implementation of the Minsk Agreements
  • No Ukrainian forces inside the LDNR, even under the guise of a “municipal police”
  • Completely free elections under international supervision

Merkel: key notion “Germany needs Russian gas and access to the Russian market”

  • Economically, Germany needs this conflict solved
  • Politically, Merkel personally needs to back the Ukrainian negotiating position and she agrees that the Minsk Agreements must be implemented “flexibly”

Macron: key notion “France as a whole and Macron personally need a deal with Russia”

  • Macron is facing an extremely severe internal crisis; he needs to open the Russian markets to French products again and present that as an immense success.
  • Macron sees that the US is losing Europe and he wants the personal credit for “solving” the conflict in the Ukraine to show that he and France, not Merkel and Germany, are the real leaders of Europe.

Finally, here is what was obviously agreed upon before the actual summit:

  • A general ceasefire
  • Exchange of prisoners

Now, setting aside all the verbal statements, comments, replies to journalists, etc. – here is what was actually agreed upon: (emphasis in red added by me, VS)

Paris “Normandie” summit – Common agreed conclusions

The President of the French Republic, the Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, the President of the Russian Federation and the President of Ukraine met in Paris today.

The Minsk agreements (Minsk Protocol of 5 September 2014, Minsk Memorandum of 19 September 2014 and the Minsk Package of Measures of 12 February 2015) continue to be the basis of the work of the Normandy format whose member states are committed to their full implementation.

They underline their shared aspiration to a sustainable and comprehensive architecture of trust and security in Europe, based on the OSCE principles, for which the settlement of the conflict in Ukraine is one of several important steps.

On this basis, they decide on the following:

1. Immediate measures to stabilize the situation in the conflict area

The sides commit to a full and comprehensive implementation of the ceasefire, strengthened by the implementation of all necessary ceasefire support measures, before the end of the year 2019.

They will support the development and implementation of an updated demining plan, on the basis of the decision of the Trilateral Contact Group on demining activities, dated March 3, 2016.

They will support an agreement within the Trilateral Contact Group on three additional disengagement areas, with the aim of disengaging forces and equipment by the end of March 2020.

They encourage the Trilateral Contact Group to facilitate the release and exchange of conflict-related detainees by the end of the year, based on the principle of “all for all”, starting with “all identified for all identified”, with the understanding that international organisations including the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) be granted full and unconditional access to all detained persons.

They will support an agreement within the Trilateral Contact Group, within 30 days, on new crossing points along the line of contact, based primarily on humanitarian criteria.

They recall that the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) should be able to use all possibilities of the 21 March 2014 mandate, and have safe and secure access throughout Ukraine in order to fully implement its mandate.

2. Measures to implement the political provisions of the Minsk agreements

The sides express interest in agreeing within the Normandy format (N4) and the Trilateral Contact Group on all the legal aspects of the Special Order of Local Self-Government – special status – of Certain Areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk Regions – as outlined in the Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements from 2015 – in order to ensure its functioning on a permanent basis.

They consider it necessary to incorporate the “Steinmeier formula” into the Ukrainian legislation, in accordance with the version agreed upon within the N4 and the Trilateral Contact Group.

3. Follow up

They ask their Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Political Advisors to ensure the implementation of the agreements reached and they agree to have another meeting in this format within four months on the political and security conditions, inter alia for the organization of the local elections.

source: https://www.elysee.fr/emmanuel-macron/2019/12/09/paris-normandie-summit.en
Looks pretty self-evident to me but, still, I will offer my personal reaction to what just happened next.

First, let’s sum it up in plain language. First, the actual results:

  • There might be a ceasefire
  • There might be a prisoner exchange
  • There might be future talks

Next, what has been reaffirmed:

  • The Minsk Agreements are the only way out and cannot be changed
  • The Steinmeier Formula is the only way out and cannot be changed

Again, I think that the outcome is rather obvious:

  • Zelenskii achieved nothing
  • Merkel achieved nothing
  • Macron achieved a little
  • Putin prevailed

Really, it’s that simple.

Also, this was totally predictable. Zelenskii had no chance from the get go: the Ukronazis successfully completely paralyzed him; that is, assuming that he ever wanted to get anything done (I think that he probably did). The truth is that ANY meaningful outcome would have been interpreted by the Ukronazis (a minority in the Ukraine, but a very well armed and ruthless one) as a “betrayal” which would trigger a coup to overthrow Zelenskii (this is not my personal opinion, that is what the Nazi nutcases themselves promised on numerous occasions).

Merkel is old, sick and, frankly, looks like going on fumes. Besides, she has already caved in to her industry and business leaders who demanded NorthStream 2 and an end to sanctions (I will discuss that below). Of the four leaders present, Merkel was really only present pro forma anyway. The truth is that Germany is finally waking up from its US-induced coma and coming to terms with reality.

• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Russia, Ukraine 
🔊 Listen RSS

Last year I reviewed Andrei Martyanov’s book “Losing Military Supremacy: the Myopia of American Strategic Planning” for the Unz Review. In that book, Martyanov explained why the era of easy US victories over pretty much defenseless countries was over and what that meant for US force planners. This year it is my immense pleasure to review his latest book “The (real) Revolution in Military Affairs“. Let me immediately say that you do not have to read the first book to greatly enjoy the second one, but I still do think that the best “combo” to get a full picture would be to read both books in the order they were published. Still, today I will review only the second book.

First, debunking the many US political science canards

Martyanov begins his book by debunking the so-called “Thucydides Trap” which Foreign Policy summarized as so: “When one great power threatens to displace another, war is almost always the result — but it doesn’t have to be” (with a clear emphasis on the first part of the subtitle). Martyanov correctly calls this (typically “political science geeks”) cliché as very dangerous and misleading. He then proceeds to debunk a who’s who list of US political science cliches, including the latest one, the so-called “hybrid warfare”. He speaks of “unnecessary and pseudo-scholastic confusion” and he adds that the current “Western think-tankdom” is “utterly unprepared” for the realities of modern warfare. As somebody who worked (during my college years) for several US think tanks in Washington DC, I can only agree. I also know for a fact that most think tanks will write anything, no matter how false, just to secure more funding (I even had colleague who worked in “respectable” think tanks laugh about the nonsense they were writing just to get more funding).

Furthermore, in most west European countries, what US think tanks write is considered as gospel, including by folks in important positions in the intelligence and military establishments. So when the latest US-canard comes out, say “hybrid warfare” everybody in Europe feels compelled to use that expression to appear semi-educated in military matters. That I have also seen myself, and many times.

Key thesis: western leaders, especially US decision makers, are out of touch with reality

According to Martyanov , western political leaders are living in a completely delusional pseudo-reality which has no connection to the real world whatsoever. I would remind those who will accuse Martyanov of being too harsh in his critique that no less than Karl Rove, the US political Uber-guru, candidly admitted thatWe’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

You could say that Martyanov’s entire effort is aimed at one specific goal: to wake up those Americans who still care and who still have the minimum of critical intelligence left by laying out before them the reality of modern warfare in the 21st century, including against near-peer, peer and even superior adversaries (in 2019 this would only be Russia, but this is also changing very, very fast, and China has made immense progress in her military capabilities).

He begins by showing why political science models, which aim at assessing the global aggregate power of a society, the US, is deeply flawed and gives the western politicians and public a completely erroneous feeling of confidence, power and security. He then proceeds to contrast these models with something which I have not heard since my college years: the so-called “Osipov-Lanchester Laws” (well, since I was in a US college we called it only the “Lanchester equations” because western academia almost never mentions non-western authors or scientists). I won’t summarize the nature of these equations here, Wikipedia does a decent job here, but I will mention that in our military force planning classes we used these (and other) equations to make all sorts of numerical models for attrition, front movement and even nuclear exchanges between superpowers (which,of course, did not use the early 20th century Osipov-Lanchester equations directly, but did use modern equations which have been developed by the US force planning community which were at least inspired by the type of methodology used by Osipov and Lanchester).

Let me immediately reassure the math-averse readers: Martyanov’s writing does not drag the reader through any complicated equations, he just uses a simplified version of these Osipov-Lanchester equations to show that modern warfare is a science which requires a minimum of technical/technological expertise to understand and which has really nothing to do with meaningless political science buzzwords and over-hyped concepts like “A2/AD” or “hybrid warfare”, “network-centric warfare” or even “Revolution in Military Affairs”. The truth is that none of these concepts are new at all. They have existed for decades, and they are all buzzwords whose the primary function to make an otherwise clueless person appear “well-versed in the complex terminology of modern political science” or some other equally insipid purpose, like convincing clueless politicians to spend more money on “defense” thereby making it possible for the proponents of this kind of political science nonsense to fill their pockets with easily earned money.

Next, a crash course in modern warfare for beginners


The rest of the book is what I would call a ‘crash course in modern warfare for beginners’: Martyanov does an absolutely superb job explaining some (not all, of course!) features of modern warfare to a reader which is assumed to be only a curious amateur whose intellect can be persuaded by fact-based and logical arguments (as opposed to delusional, imperial hubris and feel-good flagwaving and self-worship). As a matter of fact, Martyanov’s book could be an ideal “introduction to military analysis” or a “planning military forces 101” course.

• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Military, China, Neocons, Russia 
🔊 Listen RSS

When I wrote my recent article “Deconstructing Islamophobia” I expected a rather outraged reaction from the usual circles, but I have to admit that the actual level of outrage and even pure rage really surprised me. In fact, I never realized that hatred for, and fear of, Islam had reached such a level, especially in the US. From time to time I write something which really rattles the cages of those who like their reality simple, black and white, and who have a profound aversion for analysis, nuance or any form of complexity. But I have to admit that the article on Islamophobia is probably the one which resulted in the most hysterical outbursts of a weird kind of impotent rage. I therefore want to revisit this topic and give the other side a chance to respond to some of the absolutely unavoidable questions which western Islamophobia at least should elicit in the thinking person. Here are a few questions to which I would love to hear some fact based or logically developed answers.

But first, let’s make a few key assumption purely for argument’s sake.

  1. Islam is a religion of violence, it was spread with violence and it condones violence, including for religious reasons. In fact, Islam encourages violence in its followers.
  2. Islam is a medieval and barbaric religion. It is completely incompatible with western values.
  3. Immigrants from Muslim countries represent a clear and present danger for western societies and if their number exceeds a certain percentage they can take over a western society and impose their religious values including Sharia law.

Now, I think that even the most rabid Alt-Righter is at least vaguely aware that Islam has several schools of jurisprudence and theological interpretation, even if, by our definition, these schools are all equally “bad”. Which brings me to my first question for my detractors:

The question of discrimination

From their own words, it appears that Islamophobes have come to the conclusion that all this talk of different “strains” of Islam is totally useless and potentially self-deceiving. The truth is, at least according to the Islamophobes, that all of Islam is evil and dangerous, maybe with some minimal variations here and there, but only on the margins. Okay, if I take the point of view of the Latin Papacy towards what they called the “Photian Schismatics” (aka Orthodox Christians), there are three “solutions” the Latins came up with to “solve” the Photian Schism:

  1. Convert 1/3rd of the Orthodox Christians
  2. Expel another 1/3rd of the Orthodox Christians
  3. Murder the remaining 1/3rd of the Orthodox Christians

Since the Latin Papists are probably the most advanced and experienced “genociders” (not sure if that is English or not) in history, let’s apply their wisdom to the “Islamic problem” and offer the same “solutions”:

  1. Convert 1/3rd of 1.8 billion Muslims
  2. Expel 1/3rd of 1.8 billion Muslims
  3. Murder 1/3rd of 1.8 billion Muslims and, just to cover our bases
  4. any combination and ratio of the three solutions above

Yes, genocide, as a concept, was invented by the Papacy which was also the first to engage in it.

True, the leaders of the West never hated Islam as much as they hated Orthodoxy – hence their recurrent “ecumenical war coalitions” à la “Crimean War” or à la “NATO War Against the Serbian Nation”

So much for the so-called “Christian West”…

Now if that is our plan, then I suggest that discrimination between the various Muslim groups would be absolutely crucial. If you really and sincerely believe that you can convert, expel and/or murder 1.8 billion Muslims then I would like to also sell you a few bridges in prime locations on our beautiful planet, really. In fact, I would also offer to sell you the Moon, Mars and Venus for one cheap price since, truly, you apparently have no ability to think critically. Because, let’s be honest here, anybody with a minimal knowledge of history would immediately see that this plan is simply not doable, regardless of how much hatred one has for Islam and Muslims.

I submit that whether you hate Islam or not, the ability to discriminate between various “strands” of Islam (which is one of the things I have always advocated) is crucial irrespective of whether you think that Islam is a religion of peace or a religion of war.

So here is my first question: are you seriously advocating taking on and declaring your intention of aggressively dealing with a religion which has a total potential of 1.8 billion people closing ranks and resisting your aggression?

Next, comes the question of positive values

This is another basic and simple one. If you condemn Islam or even oppose it vs some western values, you should at least have a rough list of such western values which you want to defend and in the name of which you will oppose Islam in general and the potential actions of Muslim immigrants in the West. I mean, you cannot at the same time declare that Islam is “homophobic” AND declare that you are defending the values of the “Christian West”. Likewise, you cannot ban Sharia law for corporal punishment AND support torture in your own jails. Finally, you most definitely cannot accuse Islam of advocating the crushing of pluralism and free speech when you yourself use all the power of the state and the power of the corporations (which, in reality, own that state) to crush free speech and pluralism in your own country. If you prefer, you cannot oppose Islam BOTH in the name of Pope Pius XII AND Conchita Wurst.

So here is my next question: in the name of what, and with which values, do you propose to deal with Islam? what alternative model can you offer the Muslims which they might find as attractive alternative? What are your (so-called) “Western values”?

If, say, “family” is a western value, who do you think did more to destroy it, the French themselves with the rabidly anti-religion and anti-family 1789 Revolution or the Arab Muslim immigrants (which the French capitalists deliberately imported into France, even with their entire families!). For all the (partially true) accusations of homosexuality being present in some (true, but not all!!) Muslim countries, who do you really think does more to show “understanding” and “an open mind” about homosexuality (even going as far as allowing homosexuals to adopt children!) – western Christians or Muslims?

Think carefully!

Next, the question of the dangers of what I call “ignoring Bismark”.

Bismark once famously wrote that “politics is the art of the possible”. I fully agree and I submit that this also applies to how non-Muslims ought to shape their relationship with the Muslim world. Next is the issue of intention vs capability. I call that:

The question of the commensurability of goals and means

• Category: Foreign Policy, Ideology • Tags: EU, Immigration, Islamophobia, Muslims, Russia 
🔊 Listen RSS

In a recent article entitled “China, Bolivia and Venezuela are proof that social democracy cannot thrive in the global capitalist order” my China-based friend and correspondent Jeff J. Brown asked me an exceedingly interesting and important question. He wrote:

Russia is a social democracy, with a large, successful people owned industrial sector and many social services for the 99% from the Soviet era. But, unlike Bolivia and Ukraine, it is avoiding the West’s color revolution poison pill, because since 1999, Russia has gone from strength to strength, under the inspired leadership of patriotic President Vladimir Putin. But like all social democracies, the problem is what happens if another Western whore Boris Yeltsin succeeds Putin, and returns Russia to its dystopian Wall Street rape of the 1990s? Then what? It only took Macri four short years to bring Argentina back onto its groveling knees. Without a 100% nationalized media, Russians had better be demanding that Putin & Russian Patriots Inc. work overtime to censor all the Western overthrow garbage that is put in Cyrillic ink and on the airwaves. I would love to hear what my good friend Andrei Raevsky thinks about this at The Saker ( http://thesaker.is/ ), because let’s be honest: without China’s, Russia’s and Iran’s continued anti-imperial independence and socialist success into the 21st century, humanity can kiss its ass goodbye!

Let’s begin by deconstructing the assumptions and implications of Jeff’s question.
China and Russia could be separated
The first assumptions Jeff makes are the following ones:

  1. Russia is a social democracy
  2. The Russian media is not 100% state controlled
  3. A new Eltsin might succeed Putin
  4. The West is saturating the Russian information space with garbage
  5. That western propaganda can still strongly impact Russia
  6. China and Russia could be separated (hence the need to prevent that as the central thesis of Jeff)

And, finally, considering the above, Jeff offers the following compelling implication for the China-Russia-Iran triangle:

  1. Considering the above, China’s independence and support for Russia and Iran are vital for the sovereignty and freedom, if not survival, of Russia and Iran

Now let’s begin by looking into Jeff’s assumptions:

Russia is a social democracy:

Yes and no. If we define a social democracy as being a specific polity and system of laws, then Russia is a social democracy. However, if we define social democracy as a specific polity, system of laws and social culture, then I would argue that to the extent that Russia is, indeed, a social democracy, she is a rather weird one. What do I mean by that?

By that I mean that thanks to the nightmare of “democracy” under Eltsin and his US curators, and thanks to the recent explosion of “democracy” in the Ukraine, the Russian people have by and large come to consider the words “liberal” and “democracy” as four letter words. For example, the word “либерал” (liberal) has now given birth to a derived word либераст which takes the first letters of the word “liberal” and adds the last letters of the word педераст (pederast – a rude word for homosexual [yes, in Russian homosexuality and pederasty are not separated!]) which results in the new word “liberast” the closest to which in English would be something like “libfag”, hardly a compliment. In some interpretations, a “liberast” is also somebody who has been “f**ked by democracy“. Not much better… As for the word “демократия” (democracy) for years it has already been called “дерьмократия” (using the first letters of дерьмо (der’mo or shit) and the last letter of democracy to create der’mokratia or “shitocracy”. Finally, there is also the saying that “демократия, это власть демократов” (democracy is the rule of the democrats), which for a country which has undergone the 1990s and seen the Ukraine being comprehensively FUBARed is ominous; not funny at all. All this is simply to show that culturally the Russian society is not at all your typical social democracy. It is a sort of democracy in which the majority of the people do not believe in democracy. This is very important, crucial even, and I will address this issue later.

The Russian media is not 100% state controlled:

That is absolutely true! However, it misses an important point: the real profile of the Russian media which is much more complex than “state controlled” vs “free media”. To make a long story short, the main TV channels, while not really “controlled” by the state at all, are mostly pro-Kremlin. But here we need to get the cause and effect right: these channels are not pro-Kremlin only because they get state funds or because of the political power of the Kremlin, the main reason why they are pro-Kremlin is the terrible rating of those media outlets who took a strong anti-Kremlin position.

To make my point, I want to mention the rabidly anti-Kremlin TV station which is very well known in Russia (Dozhd’ – see here for the (predictably complimentary) entry in Wikipedia for this TV channel). In fact, Dozhd’ is just the best known of a fairly extensive anti-Kremlin media but, in reality, there are many more outlets which hold an anti-Kremlin pro-Empire line. However, as I explained in a 2016 article entitled “Counter-Propaganda, Russian Style” and then, again, in 2017, in the article “Revisiting Russian Counter-Propaganda Methods” the Kremlin has developed a very effective counter-propaganda strategy: instead of suppressing the Empire’s propaganda (like the Soviets did, most unsuccessfully), the Kremlin now directly funds that same propaganda! Not only does the (state-owned) Gazprom finance Dozd’ – the western and Russian liberal guests which ridicule themselves on Russian TV are also generously paid for each of their appearances. Even hardcore Ukronazi nutcases get invited regularly (when they truly overdo it they also get into fights, or get kicked out of the studios, which is all very much fin to watch and is therefore watched by millions). The truth is that at this point the AngloZionist propaganda in Russia has much more of a very healthy “vaccination” effect then the ability to convince anybody beyond the “traditional” 2-4% of folks in Russia who still think that the West is some kind of heaven on earth and Russia an ugly, vicious and freedom crushing “Mordor”.

This being said, there is one channel through which the worst of the western consumer-society propaganda still permeates Russia: commercials. Russian commercials are mostly absolutely disgusting; they basically vehiculate one crude and simple message “Russians must become US Americans”. That propaganda via commercials is, I think the single most toxic and insidious form of de-russification I can think of and it is far more dangerous than any other means of “defacing” Russia.

• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: China, Iran, Neoliberalism, Russia 
🔊 Listen RSS

In my July 25th article “Zelenskii’s dilemma” I pointed out the fundamental asymmetry of the Ukrainian power configuration following Zelenskii’s crushing victory over Poroshenko: while a vast majority of the Ukrainian people clearly voted to stop the war and restore some kind of peace to the Ukraine, the real levers of power in the post-Maidan Banderastan are all held by all sorts of very powerful, if also small, minority groups including:

  1. The various “oligarchs” (Kolomoiskii, Akhmetov, etc.) and/or mobsters
  2. Arsen Avakov’s internal security forces including some “legalized” Nazi death squads
  3. The various non-official Nazi deathsquads (Parubii)
  4. The various western intelligence agencies who run various groups inside the Ukraine
  5. The various western financial/political sponsors who run various groups inside the Ukraine
  6. The so-called “Sorosites” (соросята) i.e. Soros and Soros-like sponsored political figures
  7. The many folks who want to milk the Ukraine down to the last drop of Ukrainian blood and then run

These various groups all acted in unison, at least originally, during and after the Euromaidan. This has now dramatically changed and these groups are now all fighting each other. This is what always happens when things begin to turn south and the remaining loot shrinks with every passing day,

Whether Zelenskii ever had a chance to use the strong mandate he received from the people to take the real power back from these groups or not is now a moot point: It did not happen and the first weeks of Zelenskii’s presidency clearly showed that Zelenskii was, indeed, in “free fall“: instead of becoming a “Ukrainian Putin” Zelenskii became a “Ukrainian Trump” – a weak and, frankly, clueless leader, completely outside his normal element, whose only “policy” towards all the various extremist minorities was to try to appease them, then appease them some more, and then even more than that. As a result, a lot of Ukrainians are already speaking about “Ze” being little more than a “Poroshenko 2.0”. More importantly, pretty much everybody is frustrated and even angry at Zelenskii whose popularity is steadily declining.

Factors beyond “Ze’s” control:

Still, it would be an oversimplification to bring it all down to Zelenskii’s total lack of experience in politics. There are objective factors which make any kind of resolution of the Ukrainian problem very complicated, even for a very strong and principled leader. Here are some of them.

1. The Ukraine is a completely artificial country composed of no less than 4 different regions: the western Ukraine (Lvov), the southern Ukraine (Odessa, Nikolaev), the eastern Ukraine (Donbass) and the north-central Ukraine (Kiev). It is important to stress here that these regions do not have well-defined borders so one map might show them quite differently from another one. Here are three examples to illustrate this point:

2. The concept of an “independent Ukraine” has always been based on strong ideological founding myths. For example, the expression “independent Ukraine” is a contradiction in terms since in order to be a “ukraine” – that is a frontier/border region, you need to be “the ukraine of something”, of some other entity, like say “Serbian Krajina in Croatia” or the “Siberian Ukraine” in Siberia. These myths include all the silly stuff we have already heard (the ancient “Ukrs” built the pyramids, spoke proto-Sanskrit, taught Buddha, dug the Black Sea, came from Mars, were mentioned by Herodotus [who himself was Ukrainian] etc. etc. etc.) but also a few absolutely crucial recent founding myths. including:

  • The Euromaidan was a “revolution for dignity” which was supported by the vast majority of the people of the Ukraine. All the shots that day were fired by “Russian agents”.
  • The war in the East was started when Russian agents seized official buildings and guns leading to a “covert invasion” (whatever that means) of the Russian armed forces.
  • The so-called “LDNR” leaders are Russian FSB agents, mafia thugs and terrorists who oppress the local population which does not support them.
  • The Ukrainian armed forces defeated the “Russian hordes” and successfully stopped “Putin” who was planning to invade the entire Ukraine. The Russians still have such plans and are ready to strike.
  • The new and improved Ukrainian armed forces are ready to liberate every inch of Ukrainian land.
  • The White European Ukraine stands ready to defend Europe against the Russian Asiatic hordes threatening it.
  • The “entire world” (no less!!) is united against Russia in support of the Ukraine.
  • The Donbass and Crimea will be liberated from the Russian invaders and their local collaborators who will all be carefully interrogated in special filtration camps and all the disloyal elements will be eliminated.
This gentlemen is, according to Ukronazi propaganda, a “defender of Europe from the Russia Asiatic hordes”
This gentlemen is, according to Ukronazi propaganda, a “defender of Europe from the Russia Asiatic hordes”

3. Now this set of ideological imperatives makes for a very easy to understand “program” for low-IQ wannabe storm-troopers, but it makes for an insurmountable set of obstacles to the Minsk Agreements or the Steinmeier Formula (which is simply an explication of the terms of the Minsk Agreements). The fact that it was “their” President (Poroshenko) who gave his approval to both of these makes no difference to the nationalists. The main psychological/ideological problem is that the Minsk Agreements and the Steinmeier Formula both obligate the regime in Kiev to negotiate directly with the leaders of the LDNR. So far, nobody in the powerful minorities mentioned above is ready for such a compromise. Why? Simply because IF the government in Kiev finally agrees to talk with the Novorussians then the entire recent ideological basis for the Euromaidan (mentioned above) comes tumbling down. IF the LDNR leaders are not Russian agents and terrorists, then they represent the people of Novorussia and if the people of Novorussia have elected these people, then it is the people of Novorussia who want nothing to do with the ugly “Banderastan” which the AngloZionists and the Ukronazis attempted to impose upon the people of the Ukraine in a bloody (and, not to mention, totally illegal) coup.

The Russian narrative is winning

Another major problem for Zelenskii are two competing narratives: the Ukronazi one and, shall we say, the “Russian” one. I have outlined the Ukronazi one just above and now I will mention the competing Russian one which goes something like this:

  • The Euromaidan was a completely illegal violent coup against the democratically elected President of the Ukraine, whose legitimacy nobody contested, least of all the countries which served as mediators between Poroshenko and the rioters and who betrayed their word in less than 24 hours (a kind of a record for western politicians and promises of support!).
  • All, repeat, ALL the steps taken to sever crucial economic and cultural links between Russia and the Ukraine were decided upon by Ukrainian leaders, never by Russia who only replied symmetrically when needed.
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Russia, Ukraine 
🔊 Listen RSS

Introduction: a short survey of the cuckoo’s nest

My initial idea was to begin with a definition of “Islamophobia” but after looking around for various definitions, I decided to use my own, very primitive definition. I will define Islamophobia as the belief that Islam (the religion) and/or Muslims (the adherents to this religion) represent some kind of more or less coherent whole which is a threat to the West. These are two distinct arguments rolled up into one: the first part claims that Islam (the religion) represents some kind of threat to the West while the second part claims that the people who embrace Islam (Muslims) also represent some kind of threat to the West. Furthermore, this argument makes two crucial assumptions:

  1. there is such thing out there as a (conceptually sufficient) unitary Islam
  2. there are such people with (conceptually sufficient) common characteristics due to their adherence to Islam

Next, let’s summarize the “evidence” typically presented in support of this thesis:

  1. The god of Islam is not the same god as the God of Christianity
  2. The Muslim world was created by the sword
  3. The Prophet of Islam, Muhammad, was an evil person
  4. Islam is incompatible with western democracy and represents a threat to what are referred to as “values” in the modern day West
  5. Muslims have treated Christians horribly in many different historical instances
  6. Muslims often turn to terrorism and commit atrocities
  7. Islam is socially regressive and seeks to impose medieval values on a modern world

There are more such as these, but these, I believe, are the main ones.

What is crucial here is to point out that this evidence relies both on theological arguments (#1 #4 #7), and historical arguments (#2 #3 #5 #6).

Finally, there is a most interesting phenomenon which, for the time being, we shall note, but only discuss later: the legacy corporate Ziomedia on one hand denounces Islamophobia as a form of “racism” but yet, at the same time, the very same circles which denounce Islamophobia are also the ones which oppose all manifestations of real traditional Islam. This strongly suggests that the study of this apparent paradox can, if carefully analyzed, yield some most interesting results, but more about that later.

Of course, all of the above is sort of a “bird’s eye” view of Islamophobia in the West. Once we go down to the average Joe Sixpack level, all of the above is fused into one “forceful” slogan as this one:

This kind of crude fear-mongering is targeted at the folks who don’t realize that the US is not “America” and who, therefore, probably don’t have the foggiest notion of what Sharia law is or how it is adjudicated by Islamic courts.

I have lived in the US for a total of 22 years and have observed something very interesting: there is a unique mix of ignorance and fear which, in the USA, is perceived as “patriotic”. A good example of this kind of “patriotism through ignorance” is in the famous song “Where Were You When the World Stopped Turning” by Alan Jackson which includes the following words: “I watch CNN but I’m not sure I can tell you the difference in Iraq and Iran, but I know Jesus and I talk to God“. Truth be told, the same song also asked in reference to 9/11 “Did you burst out with pride for the red, white and blue?“. Why exactly the massacre of 9/11 should elicit patriotic pride is explained as follows “And the heroes who died just doin’ what they do?“. Thus when the “United American Committee” declares that Sharia law is a threat to “America” the folks raised in this culture of fear and patriotism immediately “get it”. David Rovics hilariously described this mindset in his song “Evening News” where he says: “Evil men are plotting, to blow up Washington, DC, ’cause they don’t like freedom and democracy, they’re fans of the Dark Ages, they are all around, they’re marching from the desert sands, and coming to your town“. I have had the fortune of visiting all the continents of our planet (except Oceania) and I can vouch that this blend of fear+patriotic fervor is something uniquely, well, not “American” but “USAnian”.

Having quickly surveyed the Islamophobic mental scenery, we can now turn to a logical analysis of the so-called arguments of the Islamophobes.

Deconstructing the phobia’s assumptions: a unitary Islam

Let’s take the arguments one by one beginning with the argument of a unitary Islam.

Most of us are at least vaguely aware that there are different Islamic movements/schools/traditions in different countries. We have heard of Shias and Sunni, some have also heard about Alawites or Sufism. Some will even go so far as remembering that Muslim countries can be at war with each other, and that some Muslims (the Takfiris) only dream about killing as many other Muslims (who, obviously, don’t share the exact same beliefs) and that, in fact, movements like al-Qaeda, ISIS, etc have murdered other Muslims in huge numbers. So the empirical evidence strongly suggest that this notion of a Muslim or Islamic unity is factually simply wrong.

Furthermore, we need to ask the obvious question: what is Islam?

Now, contrary to the hallucinations of some especially dull individuals, I am not a Muslim. So what follows is my own, possibly mistaken, understanding of what “core Islam” is. It is the acceptance of the following formula “There is no god but God and Muhammad is the messenger of God” or “lā ʾilāha ʾillā llāh muḥammadun rasūlu llā“. Note that “Allah” is not a name, it is the word “God” and “rasul” can be translated as “prophet”. There are also the so-called Five Pillars of Islam:

  • The Shahada or profession of faith “There is no god but God and Muhammad is the messenger of God
  • The Salat or a specific set of daily prayers
  • The Zakat or alms giving
  • The Sawm or fasting
  • The Hadjj or pilgrimage to Mecca

That’s it! A person who fully embraces these five pillars is considered a Muslim. Or at least, so it would appear. The reality is, of course, much more complex. For the time being, I will just note that in this “core Islam” there is absolutely nothing, nothing at all, which could serve as evidence for any of the Islamophobic theories. Yes, yes, I know, I can already hear the Islamophobes’ objections: you are ignoring all the bad stuff in the Quran, you are ignoring all the bad stuff about spreading Islam by the sword, you are ignoring all the bad things Muhammad did in his life, you are ignoring the many local traditions and all the normative examples of the tradition (Sunnah and it’s Hadiths). Yeah, except you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say:

  1. Islam is inherently evil/dangerous AND
  2. use local/idiosyncratic beliefs and actions to prove your point!

If Islam by itself is dangerous, then it has to be dangerous everywhere it shows up, irrespective of the region, people, time in history or anything else.

🔊 Listen RSS

In his recent article “The Road to Damascus: How the Syria War Was Won” Pepe Escobar summarized the outcome of the war in Syria in the following way:

“It’s a quadruple win. The U.S. performs a face saving withdrawal, which Trump can sell as avoiding a conflict with NATO ally Turkey. Turkey has the guarantee – by the Russians – that the Syrian Army will be in control of the Turkish-Syrian border. Russia prevents a war escalation and keeps the Russia-Iran-Turkey peace process alive. And Syria will eventually regain control of the entire northeast.”

This otherwise excellent summary overlooks two out of three members of the “Axis of Kindness”, including Israel and the KSA. Of course, later in his analysis Pepe does address these actors, and also includes Kuwait. Furthermore, a thorough discussion of what took place would have to also include China, Hezbollah, Yemen and the EU (well, the ones that matter, the UK and France. The rest are just voiceless colonies of the US).

Most of the analyses of what just took place focused on the “what”. I will try to look into the “why” and the “how” of what just happened in Syria. Still, I don’t propose to make such a detailed analysis, but I do want to re-classify the actors in a somewhat different way: by their relative strength.

Actor Theoretical Strength
The “Axis of Kindness”:

United States+CENTCOM+NATO+Israel+KSA

by far the most powerful actor almost by any measure: a bigger military force then all the other actors combined (at least when looked at regionally), huge economic power (the dollar is still THE #1 currency on the planet), total control of the region (via CENTCOM) and quasi unconditional support from Europe (via NATO). Finally, Israel does pack a powerful military punch. This actor has only ONE weakness, but more about that later.
Iran+Hezbollah+Houthi+Shia forces in Iraq in regional terms, Iran is the local superpower which can even successfully defy the Axis of Kindness forces (and has done so since the Islamic Revolution of 1979).
Russia+Syria I placed Russia and Syria in the same group and I could have added Iran, but since I believe that Russia objectively has more power over the Syrian government than Iran, I think that it is important to put Russia and Syria together simply because Damascus cannot say “no” to Moscow, but could do so, at least in theory, to Tehran. Finally, Russia and Iran agree on the main issues, but have different visions for the future of the Middle-East. Thus this is another reason to look at them separately, even if not necessarily in opposition to each other. In military terms, Russia is very strong, then very vulnerable, then very strong again, it all depends on your level of analysis (see below)
Turkey+pro-Turkish factions in Syria That one is a difficult one to classify. On one hand, Turkey does not have any regional allies (the Ottoman Empire left only hatred and deep resentment in its former colonies). For a while, the pro-Turkish factions, which were liberally showered with weapons, money, training, logistical support, etc, by the US and the KSA, but eventually these factions grew weaker and weaker until they reached a state of advanced impotence leaving Turkey pretty much alone (we will also look into that below).
The Kurds For a while, they sure looked potentially powerful: not only did the Kurds have a pretty big military power (albeit mostly one restricted to infantry), they had the support of Axis of Kindness and, especially, Israel which saw any form of Independent Kurdistan as a great tool to weaken and even threaten Iraq, Turkey, Iran and Syria. Furthermore, the Kurds happened to control a lot of oil rich regions and they could always retreat in the mountainous areas if needed.
The Takfiris (i.e. the many and constantly name-changing franchises of what used to be called “al-Qaeda”). In reality, the Takfiris really ought to be classified together with the Axis of Kindness since they have been the foot-soldiers/cannon-fodder for the AngloZionist since the 1980s (from Afghanistan then to modern day Syria). Nonetheless, we will consider them as distinct from the rest of the Axis of Kindness forces.

Of course, and just like any other taxonomy, this one is necessarily somewhat subjective and others might use different criteria or categories. Now let’s look at what I believe is the key to the control of the entire region: the ability to place “boots on the ground” or the lack of such an ability:

• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Military, Iran, Israel, Kurds, Russia, Syria, Turkey 
🔊 Listen RSS

Introduction: I recently spoke to a relative of mine who, due to her constant and voluntary exposure to the legacy AngloZionist media, sincerely believed that the three Baltic states and Poland had undergone some kind of wonderful and quasi-miraculous economic and cultural renaissance thanks to their resolute break with the putatively horrible Soviet past and their total submission to the Empire since. Listening to her, I figured that this kind of delusion was probably common amongst those who still pay attention and even believe the official propaganda. So I asked Michael Hudson, whom I consider to be the best US economists and who studied the Baltics in great detail, to reply to a few very basic questions, which he very kindly did in spite of being very pressed on time. Once again, I want to sincerely thank him for his kind time, support and expertise.

* * *

The Saker: The US propaganda often claims that the three Baltic states are a true success, just like Poland is also supposed to be. Does this notion have a factual basis? Initially it did appear that these states were experiencing growth, but was that not mostly/entirely due to EU/IMF/US subsidies? Looking specifically at the three Baltic states, and especially Latvia, these were the “showcase” Soviet republics, with a high standard of living (at least compared to the other Soviet republics) and a lot of high-tech industries (including defense contracts). Could you please outline for us what truly happened to these economies following independence? How did they “reform” their economies going from an ex-Soviet one to the modern “liberal” one?

Michael Hudson: This is a trick question, because it all depends on what you mean by “success.”

The post-Soviet neoliberalism has been a great success for kleptocrats at the top. They gave themselves the public domain, from key industries to prime real estate. But the Balts largely let their Soviet industries collapse, making no effort to salvage or reorganize them.

Much of the problem, of course, was that all the linkages to Soviet-era industry were torn apart as the Soviet Union was disbanded. With their supplier and final markets closed down from Russia to Central Asia, the Baltic economies had to start afresh – with a very right-wing tax policy and no government help whatsoever, as the government itself had become privatized in the hands of former officials and grabitizers.

Lithuania was marginally better in having some industrial policy. EU and NATO accession in 2004, along with easy credit, kicked off property bubbles in the Baltics, largely inflated by Swedish banks that made a bonanza off these countries that lacked their own banks or public credit creation. The resulting 2008 crashes were the largest in the world as a percent of GDP, with Latvia suffering the world’s biggest contraction.

The neoliberal western advisors who took control of these economies – as if this was the only alternative to Soviet bureaucracy – imposed crushing austerity programs to restore macroeconomic “stability” meaning security of their land and infrastructure grabs. This was applauded by Europe’s bankers, who thought the Balts had discovered a workable recipe allowing austerity governments to retain power in a seeming democracy. These policies would have collapsed governments anywhere else, but the ability to emigrate, plus ethnic divisions against Russian speakers, allowed these governments to survive.

It’s a historically specific situation, but Europe’s bankers promote it as a generalized model. George Soros’s INET and his associated front institutions have been leaders in subsidizing this financialization-cum-grabitization. The result has been a massive exodus of prime working age people from Lithuania and Latvia. (Estonians simply commute to Finland.) Meanwhile, their economies are buoyed by foreign bank lending, which sends profits back to home countries and can be reversed at any time.

Politically, the neoliberal revolution also has been a success for U.S. Cold Warriors, who sent over native Balts from Georgetown and other universities to impose “free market” doctrine – that is, a market “free” of domestic regulation against theft of the public domain, against monopolies, against land taxes and other income taxes. The Baltic states, like most of the rest of the former Soviet Union, became the Wild East.

What was left to the Baltic countries was land and real estate. Their forests are being cut down to sell wood abroad. I describe all this in my book Killing the Host.

The Saker: After independence, the Baltic states had tried to cut as many ties with Russia as possible. This included building (rather silly looking) fences, to forcing the Russians to develop their ports on the Baltic, to shutting down large (or selling to foreign interests which then shut them down) and profitable factories (including a large nuclear plant I believe), etc. What has been the impact of this policy of “economic de-Sovietization” on the local economies?

Michael Hudson: Dissolution of the Soviet Union meant that Baltic countries lost their traditional markets, and had to shift their focus to Western Europe and, to some extent, Asia.

Latvia and Estonia had been assigned computer and information technology, and they have found this to be much in demand. When I was in Japan, for instance, CEOs told me that they were looking to Latvia above all to outsource computer work.

Banking also was a surviving sector. Gregory Lautchansky, former vice-rector at the University of Riga had been a major player already in the 1980s for moving out Russian oil and KGB money. (His company, Nordex, was sold to Mark Rich.) Many banks continued to shepherd Russian flight capital via offshore banking centers into the United States, Britain and other countries. Cyprus of course was another big player in this.

The Saker: Russians are still considered “non-citizens” in the Baltic republics; what has been the economic impact of this policy, if any, of anti-Russian discrimination in the Baltic states?

Michael Hudson: Russian-speakers, who do not acquire citizenship (which requires passing local language and history tests), are blocked from political office and administrative work. While most Russian speakers below retirement age have now acquired that citizenship, the means by which citizenship must be acquired has caused divisions.

Early on in independence, many Russians were blocked from government, and they went into business, which was avoided by many native Balts during the Soviet era because it was not as remunerative as going into government and profiting from corruption. For instance, real estate was a burden to administer. Russian-speakers, especially Jewish ones, have wisely focused on real estate.

The largest political party is Harmony Center, whose members and leadership are mainly Russian-speaking. But the various neoliberal and nationalist parties have jointed to block its ability to influence law in Parliament.

Since Russian speakers are only able to “vote with their feet,” many have joined in the vast outflow of emigration, either back to Russia or to other EU countries. Moreover, the poor quality of social benefits has led to few children being born.

The Saker: I often hear that a huge number of locals (including non-Russians) have emigrated from the Baltic states. What has caused this and what has been the impact of this emigration for the Baltic states?

🔊 Listen RSS

Well, that didn’t take too long. Let me summarize what just happened in the Ukraine.

Everything was looking oh-so-promising and then suddenly…

First, Trump, Macron and Merkel apparently told Zelenskii that he had to sign the so-called Steinmeier formula, which basically spells out the sequence of confidence-building and de-escalation measures foreseen by the Minsk Agreements. Now, you would be excused for thinking that this is a no-brainer. After all, the Minsk Agreements were ratified by the UNSC (which makes them mandatory, no “if” or “buts” about this!) and it was Poroshenko who agreed to the Steinmeier formula. Heck, in 2016 he sure did not have a problem with it, but in 2019 he now calls the self-same formula a Russian invention and that there is no such thing as a Steinmeier formula, see for yourself (in Ukrainian only):

So what is the big deal?

The problem of the “non-existing Nazis”

Zelenskii’s problem can be summed up in a simple sentence: the non-existing Nazis. Well, at least in the past all the Neo-Nazis cum Jew-haters were constantly trying to convince us that there are no Nazis in the Ukraine; apparently, my use of the term Ukronazi really set them off. Then came the election in which an absolute majority of Ukrainians rejected Poroshenko’s drive for war and voted for Zelenskii. If the Ukrainian people voted en masse to elect an anti-war/pro-peace Jew, surely the Ukronazis were just a small minority of fringe individuals, right?

Wrong! Very very wrong!

And if those who were whitewashing the Ukrainian Nazis (obviously to obfuscate their real ideology and power) had paid closer attention they would have seen signs of real Nazi power all over this election.

First, there was the remarkable change in tone in Zelenskii’s rhetoric. Just like so many politicians (including Trump!), he radically changed his tune and clearly tried to say one thing when speaking to the general Ukrainian public and quite another when meeting with the Nazis or nationalist exiles in the USA.

You could say that there is a “Nazi deep state” in the Ukraine which, just like the other deep states out there, can weather any elected president and quickly reassert its control over whomever the people elected.

You don’t believe me when I say that he actually hosted the Ukronazis “fringe minority”? Fine, see for yourself:

In the photo above, Zelenskii is sitting with your typical gang of Ukronazi skinheads, including members of the infamous Azov death-squad, and he is trying really hard to charm them while they, very publicly, have threatened him with a new Maidan.

And this is not an isolated case or a fluke.

Sokira Peruna concert poster
Sokira Peruna concert poster

Zelenskii’s prime minister went to a concert for an openly Nazi “Scream” music group called Sekira Peruna and thanked the crowd of veterans of the “anti terrorist operation” (i.e. thugs from the Ukronazi deathsquads) for being there and for saving the Ukraine. I did not find any English language translation of the typical lyrics of Sekira Peruna, but I assure you that they contain all the obligatory nonsense which the Nazi ideology is built upon (see here for a very good article with more details on this event and the Nazis involved).

Check out what their concert posters look like (shown here on the right) or, even better, check out the website of this group: http://sokyraperuna.com/

‘Nuff said, I think.

So what is going on here?

Basically, exactly what I predicted as soon as Zelenskii was elected in my article “Zelenskii’s dilemma” in which I wrote: (emphasis added)

The Nazi-occupied Ukraine is not a democracy, but a plutocracy combined with an ochlocracy. The oligarchs are still there, as are the neo-Nazis mobs and death squads. And that creates an immense problem for Zelenskii: this new Rada might well represent the views of a majority of the Ukrainian people, but the real power in the country is not concentrated in the Rada at all: it is in the streets (…) The people of the Ukraine desperately want peace. For the time being, the Rada reflects this overwhelmingly important fact. I say “for the time being” because what will happen next is that the various forces and individuals who currently support Zelenskii have done so just to gain power. They do not, however, have a common ideological platform or even a common program. As soon as things go south (which they will inevitably do) many (most?) of these folks will turn against Zelenskii and side with whoever can muster the biggest crowds and mete out the most violence. Now that he got elected, Zelenskii quasi-instantly switched to the exact same rhetoric as what got Poroshenko so severely defeated. Why? Because Zelenskiii is afraid that the neo-Nazi mobs and death squads will be unleashed against him at the very first opportunity. In fact, the neo-Nazis have already begun promising a new Maidan. The truth is that Zelenskii has to choose between acting on the will of the people and face the wrath of the neo-Nazis or do the will of the neo-Nazis and face the wrath of the people: tertium non datur! So far, Zelenskii has apparently decided that talking is all he is going to do simply because his triumphant electoral victories have landed him in the middle of an immense minefield, and any steps he takes from now on could cost him very dearly. Right now, in the short term, the neo-Nazi mobs represent a much bigger danger to Zelenskii than the (disorganized, demoralized and generally apathetic) people. But this will inevitably change as the economic and political situation gets worse.

We see exactly that scenario unfolding before our eyes. Zelenskii took not one, but three very real, if small, steps. First, he ordered a pullback of some regular Ukrainian armed forces from a few important segments of the line of contact, then he agreed to a relatively minor prisoner exchange and, finally, he ordered the Ukrainian delegation to sign the Steinmeier formula. The prisoner exchange went okay for both sides. The Ukronazis soon categorically rejected any withdrawal and they publicly promised to immediately re-occupy any village vacated by the regular army and they rejected what they call the “Russian” or “Putin” formula. So far there were a few attempts to block the thugs of the Azov battalion, but after a few minor clashes, the Azov people passed the police line. And now, the Nazi organized mass protests in 300 Ukrainian cities. I could post lots of videos here, but that would take a lot of space. If you want to get a feel for what took place today, go to YouTube and copy-paste the following search query “протесты в украине” into the search bar, and then use the filter option and chose “this week”: you will easily get many hours of video and you don’t even need to understand a word of Ukrainian to immediately get it.

There is another very important factor which you will almost never see on these videos or on any public statements and that is that there are a number of civil and even criminal cases currently being brought to trial in the Ukraine against a host of officials of the ancient régime including even against Poroshenko (11-14 separate investigations just for him already!) These men (Poroshenko, Parubii, Turchinov, etc.) now have absolutely no choice but to try to overthrow Zelenskii.

• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Russia, Ukraine, Vladimir Zelensky 
🔊 Listen RSS

This is a very special day for me, because the topics I will be covering are all very dear to my heart and to my entire family. Following the Bolshevik revolution my family and another 1.5 million Russians fled their beloved motherland at the end of the civil war. All our so-called European “allies” immediately betrayed us (what else is new?), organized an intervention and backed the russophobic Bolshevik regime (yes, helping both side in turn, like the Empire today in, say, the Kurdish areas of Iraq and Syria). All except one: the Serbs which, at the time, were triumphant (WWI) but also had to rebuild a war ravaged Serbia, with most of its infrastructure destroyed, and coping with the death of nearly 30% of its entire population.

They welcomed us with open arms and generous hearts, they recognized all the former Russian officials and officers in their pre-1917 capacity, and they gave refuge to the bishops, priests and faithful of the Russian Orthodox Church in Exile whose birthplace became the city of Sremski Karlovci in Serbia.

My family lived in Belgrade and my mother was born in the Topčidersko Brdo neighborhood of Belgrade. All her life she spoke a perfect Serbian, like a native; as for my Godmother, she was a pure Serb (and she also spoke Russian to perfection). I want to mention that to explain that the ties between my family and the Serbian nation were both strong and deep.

I strongly believe that all Russians owe a great debt of gratitude to the Serbian people, even those who don’t know about this (more about that later). And not just for how they accepted our refugees, but for many other instances of Russian-Serbian friendship in history.

The contrast between the Serbs and our so-called “Orthodox” or, even more so, Slavic brothers could not be greater. We even have a special word for that: the Serbs we call “братья” (meaning “brothers”) whereas the rest of them many of us simply call “братушки” which is hard to translate but I suppose “one-way-brothers” or even “pretend brothers” is adequate. We all know how many times our “one-way-brothers” have betrayed us, even if they owe the existence of their countries to Russia (I personally an ancestor who died while liberating Bulgaria from the Ottoman yoke!). In fact, they are still at it nowadays (not every single individual, of course, but taken as a nation, this is true beyond any doubt – just look how they allow their national territories to be used by NATO to try to threaten Russia) . Next time they have a problem with their neighbors, they can ask NATO (good luck with that!) – because we sure ain’t coming again. Ever!

But today, I want to touch on a very special kind of Serb, the much vilified, slandered and otherwise hated Serbian Chetniks of the Yugoslav army and their leader, the Serbian hero Draza Mihailovich (Дража Михаиловић).

I had the rare fortune of meeting quite a few Serbian officers in my life, from those who fought against NATO during the AngloZionist aggression against Bosnia, Serbia and its Kosovo province to the old Chetnik officers and soldiers who created the most effective and by far the biggest resistance movement to Hitler prior to the invasion of the USSR. I also met quite a few Russian, pre-1917 imperial officers and their families (mostly in Argentina) and I vividly remember how these old soldiers spoke with a heartfelt admiration and gratitude about Mihailovich himself and his men. So close were the Russians and Serbians in exile that they often inter-married (like my uncle and my Godmother).

My purpose here is not to write a bio of Mihailovich, or even to introduce him. For that purpose I will post a truly exceptionally well made film which is now freely available on YouTube (for how long? Download and make copies, folks!) and which pretty much explains it all, in fascinating details.

No, what I want to do today is much more modest. To share with you the reasons for my belief that any future Serbia worthy of being called Serbia can only be and will be founded on the memory of Draza Mihailovich and on the centuries of honored Serbian heroes that he epitomized.

I know that I have a lot of communist readers and friends, and I ask them for their patience and understanding. The truth is that those calling themselves Communists in 2019 are very different from the type of Communists which would be found in the Europe of 1900-1946. In some way this is very bad, since most modern so-called “communists” have never read Marx or Engels, never-mind Lenin or Hegel. But in other ways, this is very good, since modern communists do not consider patriotism as “bourgeois” or religion the “opium of the people”. Friends, a long time ago I wrote that the “Whites” and the “Reds” (using a Russian categories but which can, I think, be transposed to the Serbian reality) will never agree on the past, even if they could agree on the future. What comes next is about the past, so let’s simply agree to disagree and not let this difference in opinion affect us okay?

The resemblances between the fate of the Russian nation and the Serbs are many, as are the differences. But one thing which we sure have in common: the communists who took power over us did all they could to deprive us from our historical memory. Worse, they slandered our nations, our traditions, our cultures and our faiths for two very basic reasons:

  1. They absolutely hated us, both Russians and Serbs
  2. They had to justify not only their reforms (forced social engineering, really), but the terror they unleashed

By this mechanism Czar Nicholas II became a weak imbecile, his wife a mistress of Rasputin and an agent of the Germans, pre-1917 Russia a “prison of the people” (btw – (prewar Yugoslavia in communist propaganda was also called a “prison of peoples”, with the Serbs as jailers), Russian Orthodoxy “retrograde” and “ritualistic”, the Russian people “chauvinists” and the Russian ruling classes (old nobility, Petrine aristocracy, merchants, industrialists, clergy, philosophers, intelligentsia, etc.) all became “class enemies” of the people (in 1922 the Bolsheviks even managed to expel Russia’s leading intellectuals in the infamous “Philosopher’s ship“! These were the lucky ones, by the way, the others died in the Soviet GuLAG or were simply shot ). Furthermore, the role of the US, Germany and the UK in financing the subversion of Russia was totally obfuscated.

In Serbia a very similar thing happened, only later. You will see in the movie itself to what degree the true story of Draza Mihailovich and the Chetniks was corrupted and perverted in the (new) official doxa of the AngloZionist Empire.

I ask you to please watch this movie before reading on.

Personally, I am deeply moved by this film, especially by the old Chetnik shown at the end.

I had the fortune of meeting the “tail end” of the world this old Chetnik soldier knew.

His tears are my tears.

* * *

• Category: History • Tags: American Media, Communism, World War II, Yugoslavia 
Actor Ability to place boots on the ground
The “Axis of Kindness”:

United States+CENTCOM+NATO+Israel+KSA

This is The One Big Weakness of the Axis of Kindness members: while they have huge armed forces, and even nuclear weapons, while they can deploy numerically very large forces, while they can (arguably) achieve air and naval supremacy/superiority pretty much anywhere in the region, they cannot follow up any of these options with a credible ground force. While this is always carefully obfuscated by the legacy AngloZionist propaganda, the US, Israeli and KSA ground forces are only capable of murdering civilians or primitive resistance forces en masse. But as soon as any of these militaries meets a halfway decent enemy force which is willing to fight on the ground, they are defeated (name me ONE meaningful victory of these Axis of Kindness forces in the last couple of decades or more!).
Iran+Hezbollah+Houthi+Shia forces in Iraq The Iranians and their local allies (calling them “proxies” completely misses the real nature of the relationship between Iran and these regional forces!) are all capable of deploying very capable ground forces. In fact, they have all done so with tremendous success (especially Hezbollah). What Iran provides to this informal alliance is the capability to augment it with new, high-tech and modern weapons, including anti-shipping missiles, air defenses, ATGMs, communications, drones, etc. In terms of ground forces, this alliance is the #1 power in the region.