Thursday, January 29, 2015

Why Is the Kiev Junta and NATO's Renewed Drang nach Osten an Attempt at Nazism 2.0 Freed from "Imbecility" of Nazism 1.0: Almost a Direct Confession

A careful reading of an article by John Schindler for the "Interpreter," which is "a special project of the New York-based Institute of Modern Russia" (upper left corner of the page), which is, in turn a special project of Pavel Khodorkovsky, oligarch Kohodorkovsky's son, and hence a special US/CIA project, reveals and confirms that the Banderite junta, the Maidan, and much the US anti-Russian policy of today and NATO too is conceived and run as an improved and upgraded Nazism 2.0.

For, towards the end of his article, Schindler suddenly starts arguing:

"Comparisons to Hitler are always to be used sparingly but some apply here. Fascism never became an international movement because of the inherent contradictions of the competing nationalisms among Hitler’s wartime allies. For instance, Horthy’s Hungary and Antonescu’s Romania were happy to fight Bolshevism but they really hated and feared each other more. Neither did the Germans deal well with political figures seeking to be partners, not vassals, of Nazi Germany. Narrowly focused on themselves and their nationalism, the Germans failed to develop any sort of pan-European coalition against the West and Bolshevism, even though there were millions of right-wing Europeans who would have joined them. It never seems to have occurred to Berlin that the more than thirty divisions of the Polish army would have been very helpful in the Wehrmacht‘s (ultimately failed) drive on Moscow in 1941, not to mention that there were many Poles who were as eager to crush the Soviets as anyone in Germany. Poles were inferior Slavs, Untermenschen, and had to be crushed, per Nazi dogma ...
Close to the end of the World War II, as Nazi dreams of empire were collapsing in flames, a noted French collaborationist explained how the Germans did it all wrong. Pierre Drieu la Rochelle, a fascist who became disillusioned with the Germans’ imperial project, shortly before taking his own life, thereby missing a date with an Allied hangman, castigated the “imbecilic” Hitler and Germany’s “extreme political incompetence”: These military failings followed from Hitler’s total lack of imagination outside of Germany. He was [essentially] a German politician; good for Germany, but only there. Lacking political culture, education, and a larger tradition, having never traveled, being a xenophobe like many popular demagogues, he did not possess an understanding of what was necessary to make his strategy and diplomacy work outside Germany. All his dreams, all his talents, were devoted to winning the war of 1914, as if conditions [in 1940] were still those of 1914."

And so, as we can see, in trying to correct Hitler's "xenophobic," overtly anti-Slavic Nazism, the Empire tried to develop more of Slav-friendly, Slav nationalistic type of Nazism (clearly built on the basis of the originals from World War II), one, which could use those alleged Polish (or now Ukrainian) divisions deemed "very helpful in the [new] Wehrmacht's drive on Moscow" as part of a new anti-Russian "pan-European coalition," which is otherwise known as NATO and the EU.

In this way, the Empire is trying, to use the expressions used by Schindler above, to rectify and correct "Hitler's total lack of imagination outside of Germany," Hitler's too open anti-Slavic "imbecility," and Hitler's "extreme political incompetence." Schindler's passionate "critique" of Hitler and Nazism in order to suggest how it should be done and should have been done, thus helps us see that, like Khodorkovsky, his son and the "special project" of regime change in Russia and NATO's renewed Drang nach Osten are, indeed, Nazism 2.0.

Nazism 2.0 wants and is trying to use the same "inferior Slavs" more effectively and boldly. And, for the same goal--to destroy Russian civilization and Russia and to enslave the rest together with the willing Slav Nazis.

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

Joshua Tartovsky on Liberalism alias the Mystery of the Fig Leaf Unmasked on the Road to Athens

Joshua Tartovsky's thoughtful and thought-provoking article on Greece and liberalism is worth reading and reflecting on.

Among various interesting things, Joshua nails very well liberalism: "Liberals have no real values they will die for, since their hedonism is masqueraded by a concern for “human rights." In other words, liberalism (as Hobbes and Locke knew very well) is hedonism, but hedonism, which comes with a mask and under a mask. Lately, it has been hedonism masqueraded by a concern for human rights. As long as such hedonism appears to be mutually consensual  or, at least, contractual (a good deal, proposal, or business), it appears as a "comfort position," to borrow Joshua's own term. It seems that, as one is moving more toward a more right-wing liberalism, one starts running to or through some kind of Hobessian realism, which, says, as if citing an inscription on the gate to the dark realm, that this comfort position was never meant literally and was never really about (mutually assured) comfort. In other words, at a certain point, more right-wing liberals start hating more left-wing liberals for their too comforting masks and lies, and more left-wing liberals would accuse more-right wing liberals of more self-centered and cold-hearted hedonism.

Yet, there are times when such liberal hedonism starts developing a hedonistic empathy for masochistic and sadistic tyranny (and every tyranny is either masochistic or sadistic or both; loving tyranny is an oxymoron) or very illiberal appetites. That's where the recent adulation of the Saudi tyrant by Christine Lagard the head of the very liberal IMF, shows a way. Joshua writes: "Christine Lagarde, the head of IMF, eulogized King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia as a 'strong advocate of women.' This is liberalism today: A French female running a bank that brought down entire economies praising an Arab man [tyrant] for his tolerance towards women, thereby showing she is open-minded and can see liberal values in others. She must be proud of herself for this.'"

That's a moment when a liberal begins to "adore a fascist," to paraphrase Sylvia Plath, and starts flipping dialectically into Satanism. Hedonism in its consummately apocalyptic form.

Yet, the reader ought to be reminded that Joshua started off his article with a title that suggests seemingly something else--it "exposes liberalism as a fig leaf." A fig leaf left behind in the Garden of Eden? But, strictly speaking, the title was just the beginning. Just like the story of Eden, its initially almost happy hedonism (do anything you want, but that one thing, which you thus must do), and the ensuing trickery, fall, and the original sin which only a death of God can atone). We also know how this story is supposed to end unless God changes his mind--in the apocalyptic slaughters and eternal damnation for all except a small chosen elite.

Liberalism was never about the Golden Rule. Really. Hedonism, which would want to do unto others only and nothing but what it would want others to do to oneself is a theoretically possible position, but as precarious as splitting with a sword a thin line drawn on paper.

And one problem with liberalism (among others) is that, indeed, it too has something almost fundamentalist or religious about it. But, as such, liberalism is like a religion that does not dare to name its real God. Unless it possesses self-consciousness comparable to Thomas Hobbes or Leo Strauss or Nietzsche. Or Alexander Dugin.

On Today's Declaration of Russia "State-Aggressor" by Ukraine's Parliament

Boris Rozhin's statement on today's declaration of Russia "the state-aggressor" by Ukraine's Verkhovna Rada: "The circle has been completed in a way. In the Spring, the Kremlin practically recognized the coup d'etat in Ukraine and took part in the legitimization of Poroshenko and the ruling junta. Several months later, these people recognized the Russian Federation as the state aggressor. On orders of their masters, of course."

The declaration of another state an aggressor against one's own state used to be concomitant with a declaration of war, which today's declaration seems to be fall short off simply by not fully spelling out the implied meaning. This means several things: 1) talking about any "partnership" with the Kiev government or Poroshenko, as Moscow used not that a long time ago, in this situation is now totally out of place and insensible; 2) the limited flexibility and ambiguity, which this declaration still leaves (seemingly just an inch from a declaration of war) is clearly to put a great pressure on Russia; 3) the fact that Surkov made the referendum question somewhat poorly worded, that Russia has not recognized Novorossiya even as a national liberation movement yet, that Russia did not recognize the referendum in Donbass as an expression of the will of the people, that it did not recognize the DPR and LPR authorities as exercising effective and real control over their territories, that Russia did recognize the legitimacy of Poroshenko and the junta's "elections," that Russia continued to stress not only validity, but also primacy of Ukraine's sovereignty and integrity as the one valid principle at the cost of failing to recognize the terrorist, Banderite, Nazi, anti-national nature of the regime, etc. is now exposing Moscow's hitherto policy and "cunning plan" as politically, legalistically, and principally (with respect to espoused or brushed aside principles) as unduly weakened, unprepared, and counterproductive ( I prefer to use here as neutral language as possible); 4) normally or traditionally, such a declaration would be forcing the hand of the head of the state to declare war and would it make it unavoidable; in this case, I do believe that the West and Kiev are still trying to "persuade" by the greatest possible intimidation Moscow into surrender; however, since this declaration was made, it does increase the danger of the open state of war with Russia; 5) on the other hand, the fact remains that both Poroshenko, the "best chance" for Ukraine, and Yatsenyuk openly called Russia "an aggressor" who "attacked," "invaded" and "occupied" a part of Ukraine in their speeches a number of times already; 6) the first reaction of the Russian government was to dismiss the declaration of the Ukrainian Parliament as "nonsense;" the problem is that part of state sovereignty, which the Russian government kept recognizing on part of Ukraine, is to make declarations and decisions of this kind, of supposed "nonsense." Only very recently, the Russian government started stating the other fact--that the Kiev junta is a proxy, a puppet, which, by definition, would make the appeal to "sovereignty" and "integrity" of the puppet mute. Furthermore, Ukraine also fits the definition of the so-called failed state, which, by definition, does not wield and does not deserve normal sovereign rights or a full status of a normal state. From April till now Moscow has been trying to forge an information milieu of appeasement on the terms of Donbass' reintegration into Ukraine, while neither the West nor the junta were hiding or even reducing their aggressiveness and hostility. In this situation, even provision of humanitarian assistance to Donbass was informationally defended rather weekly and half-heartedly.

Yes, the oft-repeated truism that generals are preparing for yesterday's war does hold a good deal of truth. But much the same thing can also be said of politicians. In some way, it is easier to live in what one knows and is used to, then in what one does not know or even tries to avoid. And, yes, there is some chance still that the declaration of the Ukrainian Parliament would be a nil and void resolution. However, the declaration is part of the expanding and escalating nature of the war in Ukraine itself where the stakes are high and profound. The conflict is serious and principal. Therefore, it is more likely that the declaration would be a marker  and a new "fact" and argument not only in the information war, but also a factor that contributes to change.

Novorosssiya started as a popular uprising. Yet Moscow technocrats, following the old habit, of which Putin confessed in his interview at the youth camp in the summer, used to be dealing just with the government and the ruling elite (clique). But the war is people's war for their own survival as people, and politicians need to elevate themselves to the level of the people,  which, here, indeed, means rising higher from the level of the narrow, technocratic post-Soviet elites and cliques. Addressing the people directly and honestly is what Strelkov was doing and continues to do. That's what Zakharchenko also started doing.  That's what Batman (Bednov) and Ischenko also knew how to do because, with them, it was natural.

Throughout this conflict, Moscow has been, however, notably evasive when it came to addressing itself honestly and directly 1) to the people of Ukraine, 2) to the people of Novorossiya (Donbass), 3) to the people of Russia about the plight and the meaning of the struggle of Novorossiya (where the Russians themselves have been far ahead of their leadership), and 4) to the people of the world with respect to what the conflict in Ukraine is truly about and what is there at stake.

Evasion, silence, and ambiguity has been the preferred (old) strategy. he problem is that this is not really a strategy, but an ersatz imitation of strategy holding an image in the place of the strategy's absence.

Today's declaration will either be a wake-up call or the other kind of the bell's sound.

"Круг своеобразно замкнулся - весной Кремль фактически признал произошедший на Украине государственный переворот и принял участие в легитимизации Порошенко и правящей хунты. Через несколько месяцев эти люди признали РФ страной-агрессором. С подачи своих хозяев, разумеется."

Monday, January 26, 2015

Strange Meeting in Donetsk on January 26: the Spirit of the Minsk Pact is not dead yet; Surkov is still at work

Viktor Medvedchuk, who heads a politically insignificant organization, "Ukrainian Choice," made a quick visit to Donetsk on January 26 where he met with the heads of the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics, Zakharchenko and Plotnitsky. He also met with the envoys of the two republics for "Minsk negotiations." Medvedchuk went to Donetsk officially as Poroshenko's envoy. Dmitriy Peskov, Putin's spokesman (press-secretary), praised the meeting with "cautious optimism," reiterating the standard content of the Minsk Agreements. Putin is the godfather of Medvedchuk's daughter Darina.

You might also remember that Medvedechuk represented the Kiev regime together with Kuchma at the first round of the talks held on June 21 in Donetsk. During that meeting, it was not clear whom exactly or which side he was supposed to represent, except that Medvedchuk was sitting next to Kuchma on the side of the table opposite to the side representing Donetsk and Lugansk. Memorably, at the end of the meeting, Oleg Tzarev went into a small rent of thanking everyone for coming with no one paying attention to him and rushing to get out. Even the wikipedia entry also confirms that "it was unclear who [Medvedchuk] represented there."

On 24 June 2014, three days after the meeting, the Donetsk People's Republic and Lugansk People's Republic informed (were instructed to inform) the OSCE that Medvedchuk was appointed their representative in the negotiations with the Ukrainian Government. Pay attention to the date when it happened. It was just when the siege of Slavyanask was to be hermetically sealed off with no plan on the part of the Donetsk leadership (with the Kiev mayor and the police chief still in town) 1) to build any real defense of Donetsk at that moment and 2) with no intention or desire to send any relief force to Slavyansk. But on 8 July 2014--after Strelkov's arrival to Donetsk with his soldiers from Slavyansk, which undermined the clever plans--then Prime Minister of the Donetsk People's Republic Alexander Borodai stated that Medvedchuk "has no right to represent either the Donetsk People's Republic or the Lugansk People's Republic" and that he was a "mediator in the negotiations." In fact, while still in Slavyansk, Strelkov sternly warned that Medvedchuk should not be trusted with any position on behalf of the Donetsk People's Republic. As it has been revealed later (I believe that Boris Rozhin wrote about somewhere), part of the "clever plan" alias the Minsk deal was that Medvedchuk would be appointed by the junta (or jointly with the junta) as the head of the Donetsk (and perhaps also Lugansk) region--over the heads and without any consent or support (to speak of) from the militia or the local people for whom their uprising was as much as antifascist as anti-oligarchic. Strelkov knew about this plan and said that perhaps anyone else then might do--only not Medvedchuk for Christ's sake.

When the Minsk "ceasefire" was still fresh and hopeful ("Donbass is Ukraine," and to say that Slavyansk is not Ukraine was held as a proof of "complete idiocy," and all would be fine and victory would be won and the junta defeated, if only the "regions" of Donetsk and Lugansk can be plugged back under the sovereignty and whip [and Molotov cocktails] of the Banderite junta and under Ukie flags for a promise not to expand NATO ever again--again and to forget at least for a bit of time about Crimea), Medvedchuk showed up in close proximity to Putin at the F1 race in Sochi on October 12, 2014:

For your information, Putin is for some reason marked on the photo as No. 5 and Medvedchuk as No. 3. I am a low tech guy (a student of philosophy), so I am just using someone else's numbering here.

In 2013 Medvedchuk was publicly attacking the European Union, at one point comparing it to the Nazi Third Reich [wikipedia]. On 30 November he also condemned the Maidan, which Poroshenko was financing and sponsoring and which made the latter eventually the country's president. Due to the Crimean crisis he was put on the Canadian and the US sanction lists on 17 March 2014. So, being on the US sanctions list over Crimea, he now represents Poroshenko, the head of the junta in Kiev in talks with the two people's republics.

For Ukrainian nationalists, Medvedchuk is believed to be "the head of the pro-Russian fifth column in Ukraine."

He used to be a politically very powerful person in Ukraine--till January of 2005, when he lost his position as the Head of President Kuchma's Administration. His political power has always a character of eminence grise--of a man from behind the scene, mainly outside the public view.

If Kuchma fully trusted this man to be his right hand for many things, would not the working class people of Donbass want to do the same? To place trust and their fate, and most importantly power, power over their fate and struggle, into the hands of this man?

Medvedchuk, as you can see from the photo, otherwise looks almost like a perfectly likeable and trust-inspiring person. At least in comparison with Surkov or Poroshenko himself. Well, I studied a bit of Leo Strauss and the sophists, so I am sensitive to the importance of those little words like "almost." Easily any lady or even a man would not feel bad about meeting this person along on the street in the dark. Surely no skeletons in the closet here.

The one fact plain enough, though, is that he is one of the Ukrainian notorious oligarchs.

Further from Wikipedia: "Medvedchuk's father, Volodymyr Medvedchuk, avoided being drafted into the Red Army during the "Great Patriotic War" due to his Pott disease. During Nazi Germany's occupation of Ukraine he worked for the German administration in a labor camp from April 1942 to November 1943. The section provided enforced deportation of the local able-bodied Ukrainian youth to work in Nazi Germany. After the retreat of German forces Volodymyr Medvedchuk was arrested by SMERSH on August 7, 1954 and sentenced to eight years of imprisonment and four of exile in Siberia "for participation in Ukrainian nationalistic activities"."

So while Zakharchenko justly declared that the Army of Novorossiya needs to defend the civilians of Donbass from incessant shelling, which not only did not stop because of the Minsk "ceasefire," but was allowed to go on with impunity, Surkov and Company decided to act and to reclaim their lost "high moral ground," which they never held anyway unless you call yielding to the demands and the will of the Nazi junta as such.

Frau Angela Merkel has her own "cunning plan"

The West and Frau Angela Merkel have their own new "cunning plan" for Ukraine and Russia, which she reportedly presented at the World Economic Forum in Davos (I can imagine Russian oligarchs together with Gref and Chubais pleading on her behalf): If Russia FIRST abandons the people of Donbass and leave Ukraine to Nazification and terror by the junta, NATO's war proxy against Moscow, THEN, that is, only after that, Germany is promising to start TALKING about a possible "free trade" deal with Russia.

Merkel's offer is an offer of geopolitical defeat and self-betrayal in exchange for a much worthless promise of Germany to export or, more precisely, in exchange for promising merely to start TALKING about exporting more German industrial products and receiving Russian raw materials freed from Russia's protective measures.

As, with the reunification of Germany, the disbanding of the Warsaw Pact, the "solving" of the Kosovo war, the "agreement" with Yanukovich and the Minsk Deal, the West keeps trying to play the same old trick: first, you make a real, radical concession, which will win for us (the West) the war, and we promise to make some kind of concession in return AFTERWARDS (after you have thus lost) ... if the situation, which would radically change on the account of the first clause, were still to warrant to do and fulfill in any way at all what the West originally promised.

The Ukrainian Army degraded and dishonored itself as a NATO, anti-Russian expeditionary force

Putin's terse statement of the day: "The Ukrainian Army is a NATO legion that does not pursue national interests."

The Kiev junta and its security apparatus have been a US and NATO proxy from its very conception--conceived from the beginning as a instrument of war by proxy. Furthermore, the Kiev junta and its forces have also been set and designed as an agent of Nazification of Ukraine and from there elsewhere. And Nazification means war, terror, and genocide.

Recognizing "sovereignty," "integrity," and rights of such a Nazi, Banderite proxy, a monster and beast, and "partnership" with it was never a sensible way of how to resist and fight this threat.

Almost 7 million Ukrainians died in World War II at the hands of Nazism on the side of which were Bandera's followers who acted as ardent and radical co-perpetrators of the genocide and ethnic cleansing against the Russians, the Poles, and the Jews. The Kiev junta is an avowed heir to the Banderite ideology and program.

Acknowledging and correctly identifying the true political character of the conflict by Moscow would be thus a significant advance.

By definition, there is no "party of peace" on the part of the Ukrainian Banderites bent on Nazifying and de-Russification of Ukraine.

Sunday, January 25, 2015

Poroshenko, "I am Bandera" Chief of the Kiev Junta coming to Auschwitz and Czech Terezin

Poroshenko, "I am Bandera," the oligarch who is "in chief" of Nazification of Ukraine, for whom the liberation from Nazism was (Russian) occupation, will be coming on January 27 to the Czech Republic to commemorate the liberation of Auschwitz and the concentration camp of Terezin, Czech Republic, which was achieved by the Soviet Union and the Red Army, and with the liberator itself actively hated by Poroshenko and disrespected by the West and its present Czech political vassals (with some exception granted to Zeman and Klaus). The US and its vassals are thus trying to turn even the Holocaust and the liberation by the Soviet Union into an event of staged "Western" solidarity with the murderous Kiev regime and its bastard, bandit Banderism, a local bastard form of Nazism. This almost calls for an uprising.
A Nazi oligarch is coming to the Czech Republic trying to sanctify himself and the new Drang nach Osten with ashes of the victims of Nazism. My dear Czechs, this is both a chance and challenge for you to show how much dignity and worth as human beings you still have.

An instructive piece of Western anti-Russian Propaganda Served on Sunday (if you are up to it)

If you want to get a taste of Western anti-Russian propaganda (and its intelligence) and if you have not just had a good Sunday meal, to good to be spoiled, you can read this new AFP piece which claims that standing for Russia, Russia's interests (and Putin) requires from the Russians that they "eat less, use beetroot instead of lipstick, swap French lingerie for Russian-made cotton panties ..."

The meme and lie that "Putin wants its people to eat less" is repeated in the article six times (clearly that's what AFP wants the properly brainwashed reader living in corporate "freedom" to remember and take home): "Eat less ... the first president for whom I am being asked to eat less ... an elderly woman told him she could no longer afford sugar for her disabled son. His advice to her? Eat less. ... 'we survived hunger and cold, we have to think about our health and eat less,' said the deputy ... 'Eat less for Putin' ... 'in this country, eat less food, use less electricity,' First Deputy Prime Minister Igor Shuvalov [a liberal fifth columnist invited to Davos just to say this?] told Davos elites at the World Economic forum."

The last "punch line" of the article (meant to reinforce and sum up the intended mind-programming prompt for the uncritical, numb and dumb mind) then says: "I absolutely don't trust our corrupt authorities," said Yulia Galich, 43. "And since there's no trust, there's no desire to endure this. For whom?"

The message of Western propaganda is to the Russians is: have no desire to resist, no desire to endure, don't believe in yourself; sell yourself for the fear of losing your lipstick and your lingerie and the extra kolbasa; don't stand for Russia and Russia's national interest; stand for a lipstick, French lingerie, and the dream of American obesity, which was so well administered in the US to the lower class by corporations like Coke and Pepsi and all the food, i.e. fast food, filled with addictive additives and corn sugar. And "for whom" should you stand up? Not for yourself! Stand for the lipstick and the toxic McDonald hamburger ... and sell yourself and your country for as much!

In addition, the AFP prime example of Western propaganda also serves you with an added bonus--with one of those Russian sellouts (every nation has them)--Anna Smolchenko whose name is used to authorize and "authenticate" the article.

Where the Russian mind sees the light, there the West sees a man (or an American)

The difference between Russian civilization and Western civilization is well captured and contained in their difference concept of the world itself.

In Slavic languages, the word for the world (svet) is derived from the word for the light (svet or svetlo): the world is where the light is. In this one would also want to believe that the word for the world would have been derived from the word itself--from Logos.
Not so. In English, the word "world" literally meant a man's world. The etymology of "world" itself is very interesting and revealing. It reads like a code for understanding a good deal about the West and the US:
Old English woruld, worold "human existence, the affairs of life," also "a long period of time," also "the human race, mankind, humanity," a word peculiar to Germanic languages (cognates: Old Saxon werold, Old Frisian warld, Dutch wereld, Old Norse verold, Old High German weralt, German Welt), with a literal sense of "age of man," from Proto-Germanic *wer "man" (Old English wer, still in werewolf; see virile) + *ald "age" (see old).

Originally "life on earth, this world (as opposed to the afterlife)," sense extended to "the known world," then to "the physical world in the broadest sense, the universe" (c.1200). In Old English gospels, the commonest word for "the physical world," was Middangeard (Old Norse Midgard), literally "the middle enclosure" (see yard (n.1)), which is rooted in Germanic cosmology. Greek kosmos in its ecclesiastical sense of "world of people" sometimes was rendered in Gothic as manaseþs, literally "seed of man." The usual Old Norse word was heimr, literally "abode" (see home). Words for "world" in some other Indo-European languages derive from the root for "bottom, foundation" (such as Irish domun, Old Church Slavonic duno, related to English deep); the Lithuanian word is pasaulis, from pa- "under" + saule "sun."
Original sense in world without end, translating Latin saecula saeculorum, and in worldly. Latin saeculum can mean both "age" and "world," as can Greek aion. Meaning "a great quantity or number" is from 1580s. Out of this world "surpassing, marvelous" is from 1928; earlier it meant "dead." World Cup is by 1951; U.S. baseball World Series is by 1893 (originally often World's Series). World power in the geopolitical sense first recorded 1900. World-class is attested from 1950, originally of Olympic athletes.

Friday, January 23, 2015

Did Moscow just wake up at last--after so many months--to the fact that Poroshenko is no "man of peace," but the US-picked puppet, anti-Russian-crusader and Banderite-in-chief?

It seems that President Putin and Moscow has come to understand and realize at last, finally, that pretending and claiming that Poroshenko is "for peace" against his own "party of war" is and was undignified, dishonest, and politically shortsighted and perversely counter-productive. But it was done  for the sake of the "Minsk one-united Ukraine-under-the-junta's-partners spirit." To this effect, Poroshenko was hailed as a "partner" who is in need of Moscow's compliment, support and praise. This continued till very recently when Lavrov, Pushilin and others continued to excuse Poroshenko and his responsibility by claiming without any proof that what the Ukrainian army is doing to the cities of Donbass was supposedly because they did not listen to Poroshenko and did not follow his orders, when the opposite was true.

So now at last, this is what Putin declared today, indicating a new understanding in the Kremlin, but the change does not yet include the explicit mention of Poroshenko's name:

"Speaking at a meeting with the permanent members of the Security Council, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the responsibility for the worsening situation in the Donbas is on those who give "criminal orders" to use artillery and aviation to populated areas.
The head of the Russian Federation noted that the artillery, multiple rocket launchers and aircraft are used indiscriminately directly on densely populated areas.
"And all this is accompanied by propaganda slogans of the quest for peace and the search for those responsible. Responsible those who give such criminal orders ", - said Putin.
He also added that Russia has not only received a clear answer to the proposal of Kiev to withdraw heavy weapons from the line of demarcation, but also saw the reverse action.
"It was given to Kiev government official order to start large-scale fighting almost the entire perimeter of contact between the warring parties" - reports "Interfax" the words of the President of Russia."

Thursday, January 22, 2015

For the first time since the last summer, Igor Strelkov appears on one of the central Russian TV channels

This TV interview of Igor Strelkov for RBK marks the first time since his departure from the Donetsk People's Republic on August 14, 2014 when Strelkov is presented on one of the central Russian TV channels.

After his departure, the central/main Russian media did not even dare to mention even his name for several months. The de facto ban on Strelkov was clearly part of the Minsk "agreement."

In fact, in this RBK interview, Strelkov is  asked point-blank what he thinks about the Minsk Agreements. Strelkov responds that, from the strictly military point of view, the Minsk Agreements were beneficial only to the Kiev junta for they saved its army from total defeat and allowed the junta to regroup, rearm, retrain, redeploy, and strengthen its forces. At the same time, the junta never bothered to conceal the fact that its goal is the pursuit of war and that the ceasefire was for it only a temporary, necessary measure.

Furthermore (against Starikov who now suddenly sees the people of Donbass as courageous, after he argued for months that Russia should not assist them because they did not rise from the "couches" in any significant numbers ... unlike the people of Crimea), Strelkov also argues here that Russia should help Novorossiya as much as she can in order to bring this war to its end as soon as possible. This means decisively and quickly defeating the enemy. This is what any sound policy and any sound military art requires. The West, however, wants a long and very bloody war of the Slavs against the Slavs, but it also wants Ukraine to fight Russia and for that too is needed further time and mobilization. Thus, the West and its pipers (together with the fifth column) continue to argue both against Russia and on behalf of Russia to assist Novorossiya either not at all (see the demands under the Minsk Agreements) or as little as possible and the least effectively.

The end of the Banderite "cyborgs" (fascist machine-Ubermensch) myth

Mark Sleboda wrote the following on the apparently long siege of the Donetsk airport: 

"Putin's Cyborgs
Let's be clear about this - whatever the offensive limitations of the NAF, the ONLY reason that the Kiev Putsch's "cyborgs" (mostly Right Sector fascist paramilitary) held on in Donetsk airport and were from there able to keep directing artillery fire from Pesky down on the people of Donetsk for 7+months, is certainly NOT because of some mythicized inhuman endurance and combat prowess, but because the Kremlin PREVENTED AND FORBID the NAF from taking it.
That is Putin - as a gesture of his limited intentions, goodwill, and his desire for a peaceful political settlement with the West that would preserve the territorial integrity of what remains of the Ukrainian state, PROTECTED the cyborgs from the NAF. They were even ALLOWED food and aid, rotating personnel in and out, weapons and ammunition resupply etc. They enjoyed those extra months of life and taking life, at his sufferance. His patience with their masters in Kiev, DC, and Brussels finally wore thin.
48 hours later the cyborgs were all fled, captured and being marched down the streets of Donetsk in chains to face their victims, or pushing up daisies in the rubble. The only pity is that Putin's patience didn't wear out sooner..that Putin is after all such a moderate, peaceful, pragmatic, and reasonable man."

I concur with Mark. I would further add the following, which, in part draws on Strelkov's latest TV interview, where Strelkov is summing up and analyzing the battle of the Donetsk airport:

The airport came under attack under May 26, then there was no serious attempt to take it. The battles for the airport started gradually and very cautiously only after the Minsk Agreement was signed on September 5 when it became clear that the Kiev junta does not have any intention to withdraw from the airport and Pesky as ought to do under the Minsk Agreement, under which the NAF withdrew its forces from around Mariupol, speaking of which, comparing these two maps, one can easily see what Novorossiya was made to give back under the Minsk Agreements and under Putin's demand; the maps also explain better what Putin was both telling and not telling when he later began saying that the Donetsk People's Republic refused to abandon only some "3-4 villages" because the militiamen had there their families and that he found it difficult to deal with such an argument. One map is from before the Minsk "Agreements" were imposed by the West and Russia on Novorossiya, the other is after:

The battle for the airport subsided again around the Ukrainian "elections" of October 26 (they were told to give Porosh a chance). Moreover, under the same Minsk "Ceasefire," the NAF had its hands tied behind its back and could not undertake any greater offensive action, which precluded attacks on Pesky and Avdeevka without neutralization of which, together with their artillery cover, liberating the airport became much harder and had to rely predominantly on step-by-step advance of the infantry.

Few days ago, some 18 wounded "cyborgs" were pulled out by Motorola and his Novorossiya militiamen from the debris at the Donetsk airport where they were left behind by their comrades among the dead.  As a bonus, Motorola is also playing on the clip below a recording made by an American Baptist priest, which was given on a sun-battery-powered cellphone to every "cyborg" whom they found buried in the new terminal. The recording was both in English and Russian, but not in Ukrainian. The recording based on neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) did not differ in its essence from what the ISIS terrorists are commonly being fed--they are promised "truth" and "salvation"--only if they obey their fascist orders. 

Here a commander of the cyborgs is led out unto the streets of Donetsk to face the victims subjected to the attack of Poroshenko's "Ubermenschen" (Supermannic) army.

Altogether, 44 "cyborgs" were captured by the Army of Novorossiya. 

The wounded "cyborgs" then went for free "repairs" to the physicians of Donetsk whom they tried to kill during all these months. In fact, the Ukrainian army under Poroshenko's orders is shelling Donetsk hospitals as well. Here is a picture of a Donetsk hospital shelled on January 19, 2015:

On January 22, the hitherto proud Banderite "cyborgs" met with the people of Donbass at the place where 13 (or 15) people died today in a trolleybus from a Ukrainian shell.
When coming face to face with the people whom they tried to kill, all they were able to say was: "We were deceived ... they were telling us other things."


Back in the old days, Poroshenko, the butcher-in-chief "I am Bandera," took part in the official opening of the Donetsk airport when it was built under Yanukovich just before the European soccer championship. At that time, Poroshenko was part of Yanukovich's team where he held the position of the minister of economic development and trade. Not recently he signed the "lustration" law, which prohibits state employment for Yanukovich's officials. In this photo from the official opening of the Donetsk airport, which he now destroyed with the help of his servile Banderite army, Poroshenko can be seen right of Yanukovich. 

For the last 25 years, the Empire tries hard to wipe out the cultural existence of the Czechs as a nation "down to the bottom," as it did to Ukraine

For the last 25 years, the Czechs like other liberated or newly conquered people have been subjected to a systematic brainwashing, brain-rewire, soul-devouring and dehumanization program set by US and other Western intelligence agencies, think tanks, PR companies, advertisers, and NGOs with the evident objective to achieve, fix, and deepen cultural degeneration, vulgarization, primitivization, in a word, cultural and existential genocide of the whole people, which seemed to be modeled on the deculturing, genocidal experiments with the American Natives on the reservations. The efforts are real and also massive, and their deadly results are already full in front of our eyes in Ukraine.

A tell-tale illustration of this systemic policy of cultural and moral genocide is the advertisement given to the Czechs back in 2010, which became very popular and was also readily consumed.

The video became viral, and only this copy has recorded over 800,000 views.

The brains behind this video evidently thought that the overall political and cultural level of the Czechs has sufficiently degenerated and that such and further degeneration is what is required.

The video warns against voting for the left. The hired actors identify the old people as the greatest problem in this regard for they claim that only the old (the senile) vote for the left. They vote for the left because they "have selected memory"--which is accompanied with a cartoon of an X-ray photo of Homer Simpson, showing no brain. According to the video, pensions for the old people ought to be "reformed" (read: reduced), otherwise there will be no money for them. Quality of education will be raised if students are to pay more for it. The communists made the best Czechs leave the country. The best Czechs are Milos Forman (the Amadeus movie, Martina Navratilova, and vagina/kunda/Kundera--at 1:25).

According to the actors (the intelligence agency went almost all "Freudian" on the poor Czechs, the "nation of musicians and poets," here), the right is symbolized with the right hand used for greeting people through handshake; the left is represented by the left hand used, according to the clip, for wiping one's ass, "which is what the left is going to do to you if you vote for them."

If people do what they are told in this video--vote for the right, they will be given a treat (the end of the clip)--in the form of a link to a free "animal-anal-porno" with a female deputy from the Italian parliament. The video gathered over 800,000 views.

The video is an excellent example of attempted brainwashing of a whole nation through psy-operations like this one where several prompts, scripts, and associations are being deployed. The immediate objective is to affect voters' preferences and choices, at a deeper level, further cognitive primitivization and immoralization of the whole people is sought. Alas, with detectable and observable success.

Monday, January 19, 2015

Putin, Ivan Ilyin ... and well Shaker too ...: "Mr. President, do what Hercules did and clean the stables!"

Ivan Ilyin is the thinker whom Putin likes to quote most and whom he also keeps recommending to his state apparatus. Somehow, it also happens that Ivan Ilyin is Shaker's star. Interestingly, one liberal myth is that Ilyin, this leading and uncompromising anticommunist, rejected Nazism.

As it happened, I came across Ilyin's own POSTWAR  (that is, written when Nazism lost the war) statement on Nazism in Mark Hackard's translation.

In the second half of the rather short, but quite straightforward article, Ilyin lists "grave and serious errors that defined its political and historical physiognomy and lent its very name that odious pallor which its enemies never tire from emphasizing." Among these grave errors, Ilyin claims, was "mixing social reforms with socialism." According to Ilyin, the errors "compromised fascism." The list of these errors is then followed by Ilyin's recommendations of how to fix them in order to save fascism's greatness and mission. One of the fixes identified and recommended by Ilyin is for fascism not to call itself fascism again. The brand became too compromised. Therefore, he wholeheartedly praised Franko and Salazar for trying to avoid what Ilyin calls merely "errors": "Franko and Salazar recognized this and are attempting to avoid the aforementioned errors. They do not call their regime “fascist”. We shall hope that Russian patriots will also reflect in full upon the mistakes of fascism and National Socialism and not repeat them."

In the first half, Ilyin's praise of Nazism is hard to miss--even after more than 20 million of the people dead in the Soviet Union and places like Auschwitz along with other factories of death and the plans for extermination of the Slavs and the Jews and other "inferior nations" and enslaving the rest of reduced humanity. In Ilyin's own words:

"Fascism arose as a reaction to Bolshevism, as a concentration of power guarding sovereignty from the Right. As leftist chaos and totalitarianism advanced, this was a healthy phenomenon, as well as necessary and unavoidable. And such a concentration will come about henceforth, even in the most democratic states: in an hour of national danger the more vigorous forces of the people will always rally to the defense of sovereignty. Thus it was in ancient Rome and the new Europe, and so it shall be hereafter.

Standing against leftist totalitarianism, fascism was correct, as it sought just socio-political reform. This quest could be successful or unsuccessful: solving such problems is difficult, and first attempts might not have made any headway. But to meet the wave of socialist psychosis- through social and consequently anti-socialist measures- was imperative. These measures had long been imminent, and waiting any further was out of the question.

Finally, fascism was right since it derived from a healthy national-patriotic sensibility, without which a people can neither lay claim to its existence nor create a unique culture."

While Saker says that he devotedly read and studied Ilyin much of his life, somehow I don't think that Putin is that well versed in philosophy and political reading. So the question is who are Putin's advisers and who is guiding his hand in promoting thinkers such as Ilyin?

Sunday, January 18, 2015

Novorossiya as an idea of narodovlastie, which Moscow did not anticipate either

According to Lavrov and other officials, Moscow did not anticipate the surge of radicalism and Nazism in Ukraine (see my earlier post).

A question in a similar vein, which strongly poses itself, is whether Moscow did not or does not (still) anticipate the resurgence of the idea of a people's republic or narodovlastie (people's power), which has been from the very beginning the idea behind Novorossiya and the aspirations. The idea of such narodovlastie is anti-fascist and also anti-oligarchic. Part of it has also been defense of monuments to Lenin. The clock on the Spasskaya Tower of the Kremlin needs to be moved together with the changed times.

In this regard, as there are different kinds of nationalism and also patriotism, there are also different kinds of anti-communisms or rejection of socialist and leftist ideas. Here, to quote or rather paraphrase one unnamed militiaman from Lugansk, Orthodox cossacks fighting for Novorossiya are more "on the left" than any of the so-called or self-identified lefties one can meet elsewhere. I would extend the validity of this statement, for example, to Strelkov and others. (And, in between us, an anti-oligarchic right is an oxymoron).

The fact remains that the people of Donbass spoke and they spoke clearly and loudly against a wholesale repudiation of the Soviets, understanding very well that they would be thus denigrating and debasing themselves and the work and struggle of their grandparents and parents. This does not mean to espouse an uncritical attitude toward serious problems and issues that existed. Far from it.

Notably, Strelkov himself, one of the first leaders of Novorossiya and one who is and never was any communist, is standing firmly on the position (which, for example, Vladislav Surkov, a very different anti-communist, denies) that the demise of the Soviet Union by the act of the few leaders on top was an act of state treason.

Another kind of anticommunism was, for example, Solzhenitsyn's. Solzhenitsyn was no ideologue. He was and remains one of the greatest writers who ever lived. If anti-communism is an ideology and program of capitalist oligarchy (thus liberalism, which would be anti-oligarchic, is a self-contradiction), Solzhenitsyn was never either part of it or a supporter of it. Much the opposite. He was a genuine humanist with a keen eye for the dark side of the Soviet system. For the West, though, anti-communism went hand in hand with its Drang nach Osten--with the desire to destroy Russia as a geopolitical entity and civilization. Here Solzhenitsyn, like Strelkov and today's cossacks, stand up in defense of Russia, her civilization and the motherland. And I would dare to include here Dugin too.

While Solovyev's teaching about Anti-Christ deserves attention, Putin's attraction to Ivan Ilyin, a rabid anti-Soviet anticommunist and elitist (in contrast to Solzhenitsyn) thinker, is, however, not a plus, but a liability. While the liberal, mainstream West loves to hate Alexander Dugin, Ilyin's anti-Soviet anticommunism is certainly in its eyes a big plus, though never a big enough or ever sufficient enough, not matter how many times Putin can quote Ilyin or ask the bureaucrats to revere him, to make the West and the liberals abandon today's Drang nach Osten and to treat Putin truly and really as one of them.

As long as "communism" was and remained anti-oligarchic, it was also aspiring toward narodovlastie. Once it started creating and feeding its own oligarchy, which ultimately carried out the big inversion called perestroika or liberalization, it turned into its own opposite--into a new oligarchy. The historical irony is that, while Western oligarchic anti-communism has never had an issue with oligarchy per se or with the transformation of Soviet socialism into capitalist oligarchy, other anti-communists and even communists were making nearly identical criticism and nearly for the same reasons. Today, many of the former and the latter are fighting side by side for Novorossiya.

If Ivan Ilyin and his anticommunism is in Putin's heart and mind ... (A continuation of the argument)

Gordon Hahn's article on Putin's political ideology allows to validate few things. One is Putin's apparent anticommunism, of which Western lefties were in denial, and, which, as Hahn suggests, should make Putin conditionally more likeable and moderate for the West.

Hahn also says, what Alexander Mercouris finds especially outstanding and helpful, that, with his anticommunism, Putin is not as anti-Western or imperial as the West makes him appear to be. What Mercouris does not seem to have noticed or to have any issue with, is that Hahn then declares Putin's ideology ("moderate nationalism" based on a mixture of conservatism and political mysticism) is "dubious" in its very foundation because it fails short of the West's liberalism or of what the West preaches. The very "dubious" is in the lexicon close to the meaning of the words "fishy" and "shady."

Does then Mercouris agree with Hahn, "one of the best" articles on the subject and also one that is "outstanding," that Putin's ideology, however, moderate, is also dubious and, not only dubious, but dubious in its very foundation, as Hahn sees it?

Since I do think that Putin's anticommunism, and the more so one based on Ilyin, is not only dubious, but also a major liability and problem, my use of the word "dubious" is used for reasons very different from Hahn's Western liberal perspective, the liberalism of which is now used as a way in which a Western liberal is trying, so it seems, to save and protect Putin and his political thought from the slander of other Western liberals.

Moreover, Mercouris also seems to overlook the fact that, for the West and Western liberalism, anything dubbed "nationalism," which the West does not like or approve of, is, by definition, not only a problem and threat, but also anti-Western. Hahn just does not spell it to the cruising readers.

Nina Kouprianova standing by Dugin, who receives in Hahn's article the now prevailing treatment from Western commentators, does make several valid points: "This is one of the WORST articles republished by the Russia Insider because it masquerades as moderate, not to mention several factual errors. Indeed, Dugin does not have the influence on the Kremlin many of us wish he did; the likes of Glenn Beck are, well, total idiots. And, Putin has been a lot more geopolitically accommodating than we thought he'd be in this past year, whether due to personal (i.e., a little too pragmatic, tactical, and liberalized rather strategic and traditionalist) ideology or political "6th-column" constraints (or both). At the same time, falsely branding Dugin a "neo-fascist" with an extremist ideology--rather than a thinker with entirely justifiable and reasonable geopolitical goals--plays right into Russia's enemies' hands. And then there are facts: for instance, that shrill old man, Kurginyan, is not a "colleague," nor was he on the same page in regard to Novorossia in the spring; indeed, he was a sellout, and, as of recent, he sued Dugin. So, with friends like this, or, rather, 'positive' articles like this, who needs enemies?"

This brings me to a proposition. For some reasons, Western liberals (not to mention the US-censored wikipedia when it comes to sensitive political issues, including this one), but also Putin and his political circle, have been trying to rehabilitate (and whitewash) Ivan Ilyin and to present him much as "the mind and the heart" of Putin and thus also basically the one political philosopher for Russia. The most general and thus not much informative label under which Ilyin is presented is "conservatism." But conservatism is also the general characterization of Alexander Dugin's thought.

In this regard, Hahn paints Ilyin as an opponent of Nazism and totalitarianism and as an otherwise moderate conservative thinker. But, like others, Hahn calls Dugin a neo-Nazi or verbatim "the neo-fascist Eurasianist geopolitical philosopher Alexander Dugin."

However, I would say that, like Putin, Dugin too might very well share a good deal with Ivan Ilyin and that the conservatism of both or all three (if we include Putin) might not that different or apart. In this regard, it would be certainly great if Alexander Dugin himself gives us his view or commentary 1) on Hahn's article and 2) on the agreements or differences between him and Ilyin.

A key question, which needs to be addressed before a further progress can be made and better clarity achieved, is then this one: Why is Ilyin's "dubious" conservatism for the West apparently more acceptable and even quite "moderate" as opposed to Dugin's anticommunist conservatism? One obvious reason might be that Ilyin is dead, hence, in some way, safe and secure. However, the reason has to be, I would say, deeper than that. Is it perhaps because, geopolitically, Dugin is much more realistic and strategic and thus, in a way, deeper than Ilyin ever was?

Saturday, January 17, 2015

So is Putin then a moderate anticommunist? And, if so, what does it spell for Novorossiya?

Alexander Mercouris  recommends Gordon M. Hahn's piece, "Myths about Putin's Ideology Refuse to Die," as one of the best on the subject and certainly outstanding. The subject is what Putin's political ideology and allegiance is in reality. Gordon M. Hahn's stated (exoteric) finding and conclusion is that Putin is "a moderate Russian nationalist." On whether this is good or not so good, Hahn says on his part that Putin's "moderate nationalism" is "dubious" when it comes down on what foundations Putin is basing his heart and mind (did Alexander Mercouris read this part too?): "While it is dubious in my and most Westerners’ view that a stable, non-corrupt, legalistic order can be built relying so extensively on religious traditions and with limited incorporation of Western liberal democratic values, it cannot be excluded that the effort could function as a transitional stage between communism and the chaos of post-communism, on the one hand, and the broader adoption of Western values in the mid to long-term."

However, should one ask some academic with some spare time on his hand on Saturday evening, what the key word is that connects three key thinkers (Berdyaev, Solovyev, and Ilyin) confirmed and identified by Hahn as essential for identifying Putin's "political ideology" then it is not so much "religious traditions and limited incorporation of liberal democratic values," but the common thread of anticommunism, which links together the three supposed ideological authorities adopted by Putin.

The word "anticommunist" is the one glaringly uniting bond tying Berdyaev, Solovyev, and Ilyin together. In terms of importance Ivan Ilyin's (anti-Soviet) anticommunism comes on top for, as Hahn says, Ilyin "is perhaps the closest of the three to Putin’s heart, if not his mind."

Like wikipedia and some others, Hahn too claims that Ilyin "opposed Nazism and was forced flee from Germany to Switzerland ..." This claim, which needs to be at some point looked more closely into, can be compared to a similar myth of Leo Strauss "fleeing Germany as a refugee." Instead of departing before Hitler came to power thanks to a personal recommendation of Carl Schmitt.

On Mark Sleboda's Wittenberg Church Post or Why I Am Still a Believer and Optimist

The situation in Donbass has not been easy, and Moscow's policy was obviously to upset and anger the Empire bent on her existential destruction and demise as little as possible, which, in practice, means and meant giving in to the Empire as much as was possible at a given moment.

Mark Sleboda's piece should deserve an honest response (i.e., honest, not PR rebuttal and not silence) from someone co-responsible in Moscow for the situation. The point is that the Russians and also Novorossiya's supporters do need some honesty and a demonstration of true leadership. Honesty is what restores trust and what also serves as a good reason to forgive. Lying to the nation in vital, fundamental matters on which life and death depends in a Machiavellian fashion does not work and is disgraceful.

At the same time, the events now unfolding in Donbass show very clearly that the previous course was not sustainable and that things are no moving unto a new ground.

At the same time, I would like to stress one important thing, which seems to get lost. The struggle of the working people of Donbass for Novorossiya is real and its effect is already going to be profound. For, in this struggle, a new stronger Russian character is being forged. In other words, despite all, I am and remain a believer and optimist. I believe in the Russian character and the strength of the Russians. Thus, instead of "dying" I see a very difficult process of birth or rebirth, in which Moscow has served so far as a much hapless midwife who, till now, believed that her business is not this midwifery, but something more akin to the old "profession" or let's say a continued "professional" or "business-oriented" courting and flirting with her "Western partners" who are playing a role of Herod to Russia's new birth.

Nevertheless, while Moscow (or at least Lavrov) is trying to look for "pacifist" fascists or Banderites among the leaders and US puppets of the Maidanite junta (something as plausible as "moderate terrorists" in Syria with whom the West vows to change the Middle East and make them into "tolerant democrats"), the people of Donbass and many Russians are leading a heroic struggle in which a new, true Russia, her rebirth, is being forged.

Highlights from Mark Sleboda's post: "Russia will obviously not allow the West-backed and installed Kiev regime to conquer the rump "NovoRossiya" by military means. This latest "offensive" of theirs will either peter out quickly or will end very badly for them if it expands in the Spring.

... The Kremlin, further, purposefully and when necessary, brutally, weeds their leadership and retards their supplies and growth to make sure they cannot become truly independent of either Russia or Ukraine.

The Kremlin has gone out of their way to prevent the NAF from seizing even the rest of Donetsk or Lugansk Republics, letting them keep only this tiny rump principality which is only a third of the territory of the respective two Republics. They wouldn't even let the NAF take Donetsk airport for over 7 months. This was obviously a signal to the West of their limited intentions and an attempt to prevent the conflict from spiraling into anything bigger. The West either appears to have not gotten that message or completely ignored and taken advantage of it. The people who truly suffered from this policy of the Kremlin's are the people of Donetsk and the rank and file NAF. They have hid and died under regular Putsch regime shelling directed through the airport into the residential districts of the city since the summer.

The NAF being "let off the leash" and, after far more of a struggle than it should have been, finally taking their own city's airport tells us two things. First the Kremlin is growing frustrated with both Kiev and the West as negotiations are going nowhere. This is a signal of their discontent, but a very limited one in scope. Second it is painfully obvious that the NAF without greater Russian support than the Russian government has ever given them, or intends to give them (whatever the hysteric and regular pronouncements from Kiev or the Western MSM and governments to the contrary), has NO offensive capability to speak of. ...

The NovoRossiya "project" was NOT dreamed up in the Kremlin. It was an organic idea with historical roots that grew out of the desires of the people of the Donbass to get out of the post-Maidan Ukrainian madhouse and encouraged by various Eurasianist and nostalgic-Imperial/Orthodox elements of Russian civil society. ....

The Kremlin is very set on forcing rump Donetsk and Lugansk back into Ukraine at some point in the future under federalized conditions that suit the Kremlin's interest and influence. That is no longer enough in the minds of many of the NAF ranks or the people of Donetsk and Lugansk, who, rightly, have no desire to being forced under the Putsch rule or back in the same country with those who have been indiscriminately massacring them in their homes and on their streets for most of the last year (equivalent to asking the Kosovar Albanians to go back to Serbia after being bombed into independence by NATO) - but they may not have a real choice in the matter."

In the early Spring, Putin and the Kremlin clearly made an inadequate decision, which they tried with a little help from the West to package and sell from then till very recently.

Putin still, however, has a chance to earn the epithet Putin, the Great.

Friday, January 16, 2015

Russian Liberal Allies of the Ukrainian Maidanites and McCain Caught Red-Handed in Their Attack on the Ruble: The Cunning Plan's Domestic Assets

Following a lead given by Alexander Dugin's tweet, I came to an article, which not only tells how the attack on the ruble was carried by the Russian or "Russian" financial elite, oligarchs, and Elvira Nabiullina's Central Bank, but also how these liberals in control of Russia's financial and economic policies are personally tied to JP Morgan and the Maidan via Roman Sulzhik, the Director of the Moscow Stock Exchange, who took time off to go to Kiev, to directly participate in the Maidan there; he also met with McCain there. Sulzhik himself belongs to the liberals' and Nabiullina's inner circle of closely interconnected personalities. There is also the story of the bankruptcy of Chubais' bank Trust (good name!) and its fast bailing out by Nabiullina in the amount of 127 billion rubles. The article also details the blatant speculation of the above mentioned liberals during the attack on the ruble, which was assisted by Russia's Central Bank.

Translated by google:

Secrets of the collapse of the ruble: what connects chairman of the Central Nabiullina with Senator McCain, Navalny and opposition "ideological fathers of liberalism." New Maidan launched «At the end of 2014 collapsed bank "Trust"Its shareholders, led by Ilya Yurov disappeared. "The reasons for the collapse of the bank - loans to affiliated companies, inflated capital and hidden losses" - wroteForbes. In recent days, the Central Bank unexpectedly rated bank resolution of 127 billion rubles. Figure shocked the market and causedsuspicions of corruption personally Nabiullina - "Elvira pumped 127 billion in bank pocket of his teacher Chubais?". State Duma deputy from the Communist Party, Boris Kashin 30 December sent a request to the Investigation Committeewith a request to check "the legality of the former owners and management of the bank" Trust "and" in case of evidence of a crime to consider the institution of criminal proceedings. " The parliamentarian said that the decisions of the Bank of Russia "there is no explanation for the loss of solvency" Trust "and the legal assessment of the actions of the former owners and managers of the bank" Trust ", which caused very large damage." RUSSIAN POWER Buyan and Ocean Told "Vedomosti"one of the bankers, the Central Bank took the decision on reorganization "Trust" on December 22. This was done in a hurry, in the midst of the panic in the markets. To maintain the liquidity of the bank provides for the allocation of up to 30 billion rubles. Deputy chairman Mikhail Sukhov pointed out that the difference between assets and liabilities "Trust" is estimated at tens of billions of rubles. December 26 the Central Bank announced the final price of salvation "Trust" - 127 billion rubles., Motels selected financial corporation "Opening". Due to the credit of the Central Bank "FC Opening" will receive a 99 billion loan for a period of 10 years. Taking into account the depreciation of the ruble during this period, the payment can be regarded as non-returnable. Also, the Deposit Insurance Agency will provide a loan "FC Opening" by a loan from the Central Bank in the amount of up to 28 billion six years. The Central Bank declined to comment on why the choice fell on "FC Opening". But motivation is easy enough to understand, given the link between the past and the current shareholders of the bank official with the leaders of the Central Bank, says the blogger with the nicknamenotknown5. Elvira Elvira began her career with the fact that in 1995 worked as a secretary Anatoly Chubais Commission on Economic Reforms. The position it occupied on the recommendation of Yevgeny Yasin, who now works for the rector of the Higher School of EconomicsYaroslav Kuzminova - Husband Nabiullina. Yasin and Chubais - trustees of the former Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar. This to the late liberal activists patronized academician Abel Aganbegyan, who before the appointment Gaidar government offered him the lead formed in the Academy of National Economy Research Institute. Anatoly Chubais, together with his assistant Boris Mints, until recently, was a shareholder of FC "Opening". He was forced to formally abandon the asset after the bank was accused of corrupt ties with the Central Bank. Now the action "discovery" Vadim Belyaev belong, Alexander Mamut and Ruben Aganbegyan - son patron Gaidar. Ruben Aganbegyan and Arkady Dvorkovich Aghanbegyan Jr. - not only for the collection of co Nabiullina "Gaidar Forum 2012", published by the Economic Policy Institute named Yegor Gaidar. During the presidency of Dmitry Medvedev Ruben Aganbegyan under the patronage of the then Minister Nabiullina was in control from the Moscow Stock Exchange ("MICEX-RTS"), where he took on the job of a Roman Sulzhika. Winter 2013-14 years Sulzhik remaining director of the Moscow Stock Exchange, moved to Kiev, where the militantsparticipated in EvromaydaneAs well as the Russian opposition - discussed with John McCain strategy of the anti-Putin Revolution in Moscow (FLB Agency describes in detail the activities in the material Sulzhika '' Roma-red moccasins "caught the crash". Director of the Moscow Stock Exchange Roman Sulzhik and Senator John McCain visiting barricades Euromaidan Following the appointment of the head of the Central Bank of Elvira Nabiullina, the group "Discovery", previously held by small readjustment, suddenly became the organizer of the largest banking transactions - buying Nomos Bank at ICT Group and "Petrocommerce" - Leonid Fedun and Alekperov, also notes notknown5. No less active "Discovery" in the pension market - with a group of related NPF "LUKoil-Garant" and NPF electricity. It is not clear blogger wonders who paid for these assets. The bank has more than ten shareholders, and their names are constantly being updated. Now in addition to Belyaeva, Aganbegyan and Mamut group indicates their owners structure owners of "Lukoil", Alexander Nesis, Sergey Gordeev, Dmitry Sokolov, Alexei Gudaitis, as well as minorities. But only in December at the "openness" to add five new shareholders: the last time - December 30 (OOO "RGS" and Credit Bank of Moscow), and a couple of weeks earlier - NPF "Renaissance life and pensions", "Stalfond" structure and top manager "VEB Capital" Sergei Koshelenko. "None of the bank's top-30 shareholder structure does not change as often as the" Discovery "- indicates the familiar three shareholders favorite bank Elvira Nabiullina. Economist Vladislav Zhukovsky also laid out his vision of the situation in the material "Once again about the plot and the need to investigate the 'game against the ruble" on the Moscow Stock Exchange. " 1. Only two party exchanges, namely the company "Brokercreditservice" (BCS) and the "Discovery", provided the turnover on the futures exchange market in November to 7.5 trillion. rub. (In December, probably 1.5-2 times more) - is 80% of total turnover emergency section of the exchange (9 trillion. Rub.). Positions against ruble they were grown for several months, the December turnover exceeds "normal" 3-5 times. 2. Managing the MICEX derivatives market, a citizen of the United States and Ukraine, a supporter Euromaidan R. Sulzhik and a number of others on the stock exchange provided on December 16 ("Black Tuesday"), several technical failures that allowed a lower cost "swap rate" from 60 to almost 80 by providing compulsory closing of positions and excess profit organizers attacks on the ruble. 3. Since the turnover of futures and options exchange market these days was comparable with the spot market, the movement in the immediate section of the MICEX ruble caused a synchronized fall in the stock exchange and over the counter (interbank) market. Many exporters to hedge their foreign exchange earnings previously (committing to sell the currency at a specified futures price at the end of the year - at 35, 40 or 45 rubles. Per US $.) Suffered billions of dollars in damages, as well as many state-owned banks. Huge losses were formed in state-owned banks in the repo market, stocks and bonds. 4. The Central Bank of Russia withdrew from the control of the situation and the stabilization of the course - 16 December the Bank of Russia did not go to the market, trading the ruble did not stop, she Exchange rose warranty on fixed-term contracts from 5.5% to 12% in only 19 hours on December 16 after the end of regular trading, when "the game has already been made." The size of the collateral is not increased in the main (day) session or 15 or 16 December, despite the fact that the exchange shall be obliged to do so if fluctuations exceed the amount of the security. This "inaction" facilitated the exchange capacity of positions against the ruble, "introducing" currency sellers in the futures market abroad and making them forced to close. It is necessary to understand and inaction supervisory divisions of the Bank of Russia, which these days pay attention only to the trading of shares (restricting access to some participants), leaving currency traders in the free mode (or rather, "free-fall mode"). Only 17 December, a number of participants was limited to a bid. 5. The structure of trades and actions of the Central Bank is the possibility of repeating the scheme in the next round of crisis with even more devastating consequences for the financial system and economy of Russia. With no decision in the near future structural problems exchanges and supervision of the Bank of Russia, the fall in oil prices to $ 40-50 per barrel is likely a new round of "unmanaged fall" of the ruble to 80-100 rubles / dollar. Characteristically, the Managing Director of the Derivatives Market of the Moscow Stock Exchange Roman Sulzhik belongs to the same crowd with under investigation Alexandrina MarkvoAlso notes Vladislav Zhukovsky. Kabbalistka, a follower of Rabbi Yehuda Berg (introduction to Kabbalah considers "the most important spiritual experience of life"), which is due to budgetary funds involved, as well as its civilian spouse Ashurkov,Campaign Finance A.Navalnogo. After the opening of a criminal case on fraud in a large scale both fled first to Israel and then to London, where, living in one of the most prestigious areas of London, obtained political asylum. Navalnyas well supervised nebezizvestny "guru economy" Rector "New Economic School" (NES) Sergei Guriev, now hiding in France. Just him and supervised A.Yasin Zimin and included in the Supervisory Board of "Liberal Mission", "Dynasty", Carnegie, Gaidar and others. -fueled from USAID(They are the "bridge" between funds and "prestigious" universities such as NES or HSE). And yet -Rector of the Higher School of Economics Jaroslav Kuz'minov, spouse Elvira Nabiullina (a close friend of the daughter of Yassin and former subordinates Gref, head of Sberbank actively speculating on the currency exchange ...). At the same time in 2013, Gref is a member of the Advisory Board of JP Morgan, who, according to Vladislav Zhukovsky, 2009 bought some patents on banking information technologies at the same R.Sulzhika in 2000-2008 worked in a bank JP Morgan «Vice President ..." Here's a vicious circle.

Thursday, January 15, 2015

A Russian Duma Deputy Treats US Hawks and Russophobes, His Hosts, to a PowerPoint on how to Overthrow Violently His Own Government

Thanks to Mark Sleboda for this news alert.

Liberal opposition figure and Russian Duma deputy Ilya Ponomarev spoke today in the US on the invitation of CSIS, a Washington-funded think tank. Ponomarev actually presented a PowerPoint presentation on how to overthrow (possibly violently) the Russian government! And judging from his PowerPoint, he and his sponsors believe they can do it in six simple steps.

Ilya Ponomarev was a key speaker an event organized by the CSIS (Center for Strategic & International Studies), which is a prominent US govt funded think-tank in Washington DC made of "who's who among the neocons, former politicians, and foreign policy heavyweights including everyone from Brzezinski and Kissinger, to Sam Nunn and Richard Armitage, to William Cohen and Brent Scrowcroft," as Sleboda put it.

Ponomarev is the sitting Russian State Duma Deputy and something, which, in Russia, goes under the name of a "liberal opposition figure." 
Here is a collection of Rothrock's revealing livetweets:
Kevin Rothrock's Twitter page

So let's look at Ponomarev's how-to-do list or how-to-overthrow-with-violence-and-US-funds-my-government points:

1. The very first point dispels any illusions that the regime changers and conspirators, including Ponomarev, would rely on spontaneity and any genuine people's will. The violent overthrow must be organized. The violence must be organized. No naivety here. Did the CIA help him make the Power Point?
2. The second point basically tells right into your face that a lie about some great shiny future is a must (as was the case at the Maidan--Yatsenyuk's five-fold increase of incomes and a chance to migrate immediately to Western Europe without visas). Message: First we lie, then we take from the people their government, and then ... well, we will screw you, suckers!
3. For overthrowing the Russian government, some PR phony face or persona is needed. Someone likable. A likeable puppet. In Ukraine, Poroshenko, even whose name evokes one domestic animal, had to suffice. History teaches that the US choice is in this regard limited to a likeable moron or a likeable crook, which the clear preference for the latter.
4. Ponomarev's fourth point (is he still a Russian deputy?) basically that any such a "revolution" or regime change requires money. There is nothing new here. But the confession is notable and worth putting on record. Ponomarev  then must have also been asking for money.
5. The fifth point confirms that, for the makers of these faux revolutions, the key agent is and remains the comprador elite, that is to say, not the people. Alternatively put, a division in the elite and hiring the corruptible, corrupted, and prostituting wing is a must. This is also what took place in the 1980s and 1990s during the collapse of communism--the elite's spine, character, and sell price collapsed first.
6. The last point is the one, which, in practice or, to be more precise, during the implementation phase, comes first, although otherwise it is, indeed, the last one. Ponomarev's "trigger event" is also known as a false flag attack or provocation or a staged provocation.

So  here you have it. After Ponomarev had the guts to stand by such an illuminating PowerPoint presentation on how to overthrow violently one's own government in the interest of a foreign power, he should also be invited in the most cordial way among some of the real Russians, for example, to a meeting with actual Russian patriots at some factory in Rostov or in Samara. If Ponomarev manages to explain himself, he would deserve do on superman's tights.

Is Ponomarev's PowerPoint briefing a sign that the West is so confident that 1) it has already bought, hired and secured a good part of Russia's political and economic oligarchic elite and 2) that the regime change, that is, its "trigger event" alias "a false flag" provocation is just around the corner?

Is or was Ponomarev's and other plotter's immunity part of the Minsk Deal and its "blanket immunity" promise?

Wednesday, January 14, 2015

The low prices of oil could be drying out the extraneous feeding of the US dollar through the petrodollar

This article by Taylor Durden has spotted an important change and trend, apparently thus marking an end of 40-some-year-long era. While the US economy can live in principle very well with low cheap prices of oil, low oil prices might be deadly for the overall US hegemonic system of fiat money, which, after 1971, was based on the so-called petrodollar, that is to say, 1) on recycling of the dollars for oil by the US oil producing allies into US bonds (and depositing them in US banks) and 2) on creating US- and IMF-controlled US-dollars-based debts of oil importing countries.

The age of the disposable petrodollars for financing the US debt and bonds has now come to an end because the surplus of the petrodollars has dried out. Creation of US-dollar new debts for both the oil importing and oil exporting countries (including Russia) might be one possible, though very partial solution of sorts. The other possible solution is even more obvious--by creating chaos and war abroad making investments in the US debt and bonds appear comparatively the most "secure investment." In this case, the continuation of the system would become a much less concealed form of world racket. On top of it, the chronic and high unemployment is already a tell-tale sign of the high degree of disinvestment in the "real economy" and counter-productive depression of the earning power of the many.

The other "solution" clearly aimed at by the Empire's Drang nach Osten--against Russia--is to save itself by taking over Russia's vast natural resources and real estate. In this regard, I consider it a safe bet to bet that a good portion of Russian oligarchs are inclined to participate by sharing in the intended spoils ("securing their private property") and promised immunity and the Empire's good will and special treatment.

The system, as always, stands in front of its renewed fatal question of how to create more debt, whether public or personal, when the level of tolerance for further indebtedness is running into the greatly heightened risk of default and resistance, respectively, into plummeting tolerance of society to cope with the high burden of debt without crushing and falling apart?

As a result, the system is now turning more and more on the same "middle class" which is supposed to be the supporting pillar of the system. When wealth can no longer be extracted from others abroad as before, the system is forced to start cutting the branch on which it has been sitting. For squeezing the 1 or 0.1% is the very last idea to be tried by the system--only after all the others, which could include an option of the Last Judgment itself, are tried and fail.

By the way, democracy in Athens started in earnest with Solon's reforms, a key part of which was writing off personal debts and buying out citizens who fell into slavery due to their debts.