Antiwar.com's "lost cause" or its "Bait and Switch" function and Syria's struggle against al Qaeda's armies

I made up my mind several years ago to stop following antiwar.com. Reason? "Too many false notes" started to jar my political common sense (or ears). Now, I've just looked into what is hiding behind the provocative heading, "Russia Scales Back Aid to Syrian Govt, Withdraws Key Personnel, Syria Seeks Iranian Help to 'Pressure Moscow' for More Aid."

Of course, I also noticed Lavrov's recent strange statement alleging that Russia and the US moved closer to each other over Syria and then he also (falsely) said that, when the removal of Syria's chemical weapons was agreed on (imposed on together by the US and Russia), the US allegedly recognized the legitimacy of the Syrian government, which was not the case.

Anyway, the heading and its allegation struck me as sufficiently serious to look into what is going on and what the article actually says.

Towards the end of the article, antiwar.com's Jason Ditz delivers his would-be punchline or what antiwar.com wants its readers to leave with: "With Assad’s forces losing to both ISIS and al-Qaeda, it may be that Russia believes Syria is a lost cause."

Note the terminology--"Assad's forces" instead of the Syrian forces or the Syrian army. That's the terminology of the anti-Syrian coalition or the Empire. Would antiwar.com like to call the US Army "Obama's forces"? Antiwar.com then implies that "Syria is a lost cause" and that "Russia believes" it or "may" believe it. While I am not one of those who assume that everything is as it should be between Syria and Russia, when the Russian government too is talking of "the Assad regime" and, at times, tries to assume a position of non-aligned and equidistant evasiveness, such antiwar.com's claims are not different from what one would expect from the New York Times or the Walt Street Journal or any other corporate, anti-Syrian outlet.

http://news.antiwar.com/2015/05/31/russia-scales-back-aid-to-syrian-govt-withdraws-key-personnel/

What or who wanted Mozgovoy dead? Who or what killed Alexey Mozgovoy?

The deliberate political assassination of Alexey Mozgovoy, so similar to the assassination of Bednov "Batman," in which Plotnitsky and his direct associates happened to be openly involved, was aimed at removing and suppressing what Mozgovoy represented. Thus, establishing what Mozgovoy represented does not only allow us to understand what "threat" he was posing to the master-minders behind the liquidation commando, but also the motive and probable identity of those who ordered  the assassination.

1. First and foremost, Mozgovoy was the one Novorossiya leader who openly declared and insisted that oligarchy (regardless of its nationality) is his and Novorossiya's main enemy. See, for example, here.
2. Second (in importance), Mozgovoy was the most outspoken leader and active commander who stood for the idea of Novorossiya and thus also for Russia's own rebirth to her own dignity and integrity.
3. This second principle also translated into Mozgovoy's third principled stance. Mozgovoy not only knew (as Putin, Lavrov, Kofman, Tzarev and also Russia's enemies knew and know so well) that Minsk and Novorossiya are mutually exclusive, but, unlike those mentioned together in the parentheses, Mozgovoy committed himself to Novorossiya, while the others chose Minsk over Novorossiya.
4. Mozgovoy was no one's pawn, he was his own man, and, also importantly, he was a genuine leader who emerged from the people themselves (he was not oligarchs' or elite's appointee). He also had a genuine charisma and had a genuine wide popular support, which extended not only beyond Donbass, but also beyond Russia and inspired and motivated many people around the world, thus offering a focus of a genuinely new consensus and movement.
5. He was Strelkov's friend and comrade.

I think that these basic points are quite sufficient. All these characteristics represented a perceived vital threat to someone's basic interests. What Mozgovoy had by virtue of his character and genius, those who ordered his death greatly feared and did not possess. In other words, the basic characteristics of the powers behind the assassination, which they ordered, are:

1. oligarchic or pro-oligarchic character and class interest;
2. fear or even rejection of Novorossiya as an emancipatory project based on renaissance of people's power and dignity;
3. commitment to Minsk and choice of Minsk over/against Novorossiya and over people's anti-oligarchic and antifascist liberation;
4. existential fear for one's popularity and ability to control and manipulate together with a genuine anti-revolutionary animus;
5. someone who is afraid to even mention Strelkov's name and who very likely hates him for everything Strelkov did and what he represents.

Long live Novorossiya!

Putin on Ukraine and Moscow's cunning plans: "Russia always supports the acting authorities, we always rely on the current government and always support it, we cooperate with the government in power"

OnAugust 29, 2014, speaking at the Seliger Youth camp, Vladimir Putin unveiled the "secret" of his/Russia's "strategy" toward Ukraine and elsewhere, which is to say, the lack of proper, good, effective strategy, not to mention, ethical strategy, which some people on the left, who are more clever than I am, tend to mock and deride as such. This is what Putin, obviously proudly and self-confidently asserted, evidently unaware that he just pulled a veil away and displayed one of Achilles' heel of his and Moscow's "cunning," which played directly into the hands of the West and Ukrainian oligarchs:

"I will let you in on a little – it’s not even a secret, just a story. There is nothing special here, I will tell you about it as it has to do with former president Viktor Yanukovych. ... Russia always supports the acting authorities. We are not like some of our partners. Maybe, in this regard, they are even being more pragmatic, they are always putting their eggs into multiple baskets. Moreover (the Americans do this), even if a government somewhere is loyal to them, they always work with the opposition. Always! And they even set it against the current government a bit, so that even if that government is loyal, it will stay even more loyal, and to show that yes, we have someone else to work with. I suppose that’s a pragmatic position. And I see that it was used for centuries by Britain as well.

This Anglo-Saxon approach migrated to the United States and is used by them today. Regardless of how they might respond to me (they will certainly respond and discuss it now), I have an inner conviction that that’s how it works. But in Russia, especially in the post-Soviet space, we cannot do that. Things are different here, it’s as simple as that. And naturally, we always rely on the current government and always support it. This does not mean that we are indifferent or even antagonistic towards the opposition. No, we treat everyone equally, but we cooperate with the government in power. That was true during Kuchma’s presidency as well. And when his presidential term expired, I asked him directly: “Mr Kuchma, who should Russia support in the next presidential election?” And he told me: “Yanukovych.” I had some doubts as to whether Kuchma felt certain about Yanukovych’s candidacy, and I asked him about it during the final preparations for the presidential election campaign. He told me: “That’s it, it’s decided, a decision has been made; we will support and promote Yanukovych, and I am asking you and Russia to support him through information resources and support him politically.” And that is what we did.Later, when they made a complete mess of the third round, I cannot call it anything else, I was certainly surprised. I asked Mr Kuchma again, “What is going on? Are you supporting him or not?” Yanukovych was not able to use his result in the elections. After all, he won in the second round. All this turned into a fairly sharp political struggle.Mr Yushchenko, who became President, and Ms Timoshenko, who became Prime Minister, apparently didn’t have great success either, since Yanukovich won in the next election. Incidentally, I always ask: “So why didn’t you sign an association agreement with the European Union back then? Who was in your way? All the power was in your hands.” But the fact is that they did not do it. The question is: why not?
I suspect they did not do it because it is fairly dangerous socioeconomically, because the consequences could be quite grave for Ukraine’s economy and, therefore, for Ukraine’s social sphere and politics. But we have never pushed through any candidate, we do not do it and we will not do it, and this is true regarding Yanukovych as well. This was exclusively the choice of the Ukrainian people [actually, Kuchma's choice, see above] and the logic of internal political processes.Incidentally, we would have cooperated fully with Yushchenko ..."

Thus, self-confidently, Putin self-confessed to the poverty and misery of such "cunning strategic thought," which does not strike me either as cunning or strategic or, if one can also dare to say, thoughtful, politically justified, not to mention ethical or moral. The self-limiting (if not self-defeating) and narrowly class-based and oligarchy-serving nature of this position ought to be evident to a naked eye provided that some common sense lies behind it.

The same false and immoral imperative of "always supporting who is in power," which, in terms of post-Soviet Ukraine, meant always thieving and corrupt oligarchs, then also produced the situation in which Putin and the Kremlin came to call the Bandera (Ukrainian Nazi) regime our "esteemed partners," however un-reciprocated this expression of deference and (false?) collegiality has been, that is, regardless of the contempt and hate shown by the junta toward the Russian government.

The appearance of "strategy," which "always supports those in power or the existing authorities," regardless of their political, ideological, ethical and human character, and hence the long, long-standing absence of any real, working and workable political strategy toward  Ukraine offers and produces this multiple-choice question and test in one's political self-awareness:

What is true?
1. The lack of effective political strategy is an excellent strategy and a sign of genius and great leadership.
2. Shipping billions of dollars to Ukrainian oligarchs and making their will one's own preference and strategy is not only a very good strategy, but also a very cunning strategy, which will ultimately defeat the very same anti-Russian oligarchs.
3. Part of Russia's strategy was to make such serious political and strategic mistakes because only by making such serious strategic mistakes one can defeat and confound not only one's fans and supporters (for whom one never makes any mistakes and has to be just admired and always), but also one's and Russia's  enemies.
4. What Putin said is true and sincerely said, and there is no need to think any further about it.
5. Such oligarchs-(self)serving "strategy" does not serve Russia's interests; it enabled the Maidan/Banderite takeover and continues to define the pro-Minsk and Minsk-based (anti-Novorossiya) strategy.
6. Putin's support of "the existing authorities" and exclusive reliance on them not only fails to match Western use of NGOs and broader (people-based and people-oriented) policies, it also limits Russia's options, alternatives, choices and even Moscow's own (strategic) intelligence.
7. Playing such a "good guy" betrays the narrow (comprador) class interest behind such thinking, which prides itself in having put on one's eyes such blinders, even while calling them a 20/20 vision.
8. Nothing above matters for any blunder, mistake, or oversight can be explained as a stroke of unfathomable genius, which must be simply and utterly believed and admired out of wisdom and one's sense of duty toward the post-Soviet/anti-Soviet leadership and elite. For we have nothing else left.

Having passed the simple test, let me continue with my own thread of thought.

Nearly all the "help" from Russia (for nearly 25 years and 15 years of Putin's rule) thus went to to Ukrainian oligarchs, thus feeding the beast, the monster. For Ukrainian corrupt oligarchs growing to fully embrace revived Banderism/Ukrainian fascism and further identifying themselves with it are anything but monstrous and beastly.

The Russian government, including Putin, had no other and nor better idea than that one. Thus, feeding (thought not quite "electing" the "bad and corrupt leadership" of thieves and crooks, the Russian leadership did its part in doing what happened and undoing the achievements of the Soviet people and the results of the Soviet WWII victory. Russia (i.e. Putin) did not elect to do otherwise or to even have a real, proper, not to mention ethical strategy.

Facing this harsh (or even terrible) truth would be a first necessary step not only in much overdue self-criticism, but also a necessary prerequisite in overcoming the crisis and the great threat to Russia when the beast has already risen and proved that it is deadly.

Ethical strategy is that one that takes the good and the just together with people's aspirations and need for what is good, just and true seriously and for real. Seriously. Subsidizing (anti-Russian), amoral, immoral, unethical and Banderism-leaning/loving oligarchs (with billions of dollars) is the antithesis of all that.

In fact, Mozgovoy who dared to stand up against "oligarchs united," thus for the people, on the ethical ground and for ethical strategy, was killed chiefly because for this very thing. He made a difference and stood in the way of immoral, amoral, self-serving cunning of oligarchy for which the Nazis are a lesser evil (if not potential "partners") than the objective and genuine aspirations of the people. 

And, yes, I do believe that a sign of intelligence and strategic thought is an ability to identify and develop options and alternatives, besides and above black-and-white or monochromatic thinking. And part of it is not to slight, mock, deride or ditch the importance of the good. Any good thought and strategy demands that.

Either Minsk or Novorossiya--the Meaning of the New to Be or Not to Be

In the wake of the 70th anniversary of the defeat of Nazism, when Putin presided over the celebration without even touching the Nazi rule in Ukraine, the West has founded a source of its new optimism in the public statements of Tzarev and Kofman and in the quiet reported deactivation of the "Parliament of Novorossiya" curated and headed by the same Tzarev, the last anti-Maidan vestige of the Party of Regions.

The Czech media's reports on the abandonment of the idea of Novorossiya made on the same day when Mozgovoy was killed were based on statements and talking heads such as this: "Oleg Tsarev, leader of the ‘parliament’ that ostensibly united the eastern Ukraine separatist entities, the Donetsk Peoples Republic (DPR) and the Luhansk Peoples Republic (LPR), announced the project was now on hold. The reason Tsarev gave was that Novorossiya was incompatible with the Minsk II Accords, the principles agreed by the ‘Normandy Four’ — French President Francois Hollande, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and Russian President Vladimir Putin ...." The Washington Post article and the social research by US leading geopolitical professors does grudgingly acknowledge that, in Kharkov and Odessa, Novorossiya does have "potentially significant support" among the people even if questioned by pro-Kiev and pro-West researchers and despite Tzarev's pro-Minsk explication of the politically correct line embraced by the Kremlin. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/05/25/what-people-in-southeast-ukraine-really-think-of-novorossiya/

Much of this is based on a May 20, 2015 article from gazeta.ru, a pro-liberal Russian news outlet, which, in addition to the anti-Novorossiya statement by Tzarev and Donetsk Republic Minister of Foreign Affairs Kofman, evidently also relies on an interview of Boroday whose name is omitted, but whose authorship comes through his calling of Novorossiya as a "false start," which is a term Boroday used in his notorious interview with liberal presstitute and socialite Ksenia Sobchak on the private, anti-Putin TV channel Dozhd (Rain).

Apparently referring to Boroday, a Kremlin key political technologist in Donetsk before Strelkov's arrival there in early July of the last year from Slavyansk, gazeta.rus writes: "According to the words of our source [which I take to be Boroday], after the Minsk Agreements, Novorossiya ceased to be necessary and ceased to exist as a symbol in the eyes of the [Russian] authorities. An opposite task appeared--to integrate the DPR and the LPR back into Ukraine and not to increase the territory controlled by the separatists [note the use of the terminology used by Kiev and the West]. Accordingly, Tzarev [the 'parliament of Novorossiya,' which he controlled and made irrelevant] and everything that is associated with him [or Novorosssiya] turned out to be unwanted." "По словам источника, после сентябрьских минских соглашений Новороссия как символ перестала быть нужной в глазах властей. Появилась обратная задача — интегрировать ДНР и ЛНР в состав Украины, а не увеличивать территорию, подконтрольную сепаратистам. «Соответственно, Царев и все, что с ним связано, оказалось невостребованным»."

According to gazeta.ru, the start of measured turning down of Novorossiya began in August of 2014, that is, when Moscow succeeded in removing Strelkov from command and from Donbass.

http://www.gazeta.ru/politics/2015/05/19_a_6694441.shtml

On Kofman's statement that "Novorossiya is dead" see, for example, also here: http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/novorossiya-dead/ri7409: "DNR foreign minister Alexander Kofman has confirmed that the Novorossiya “project” has been indefinitely suspended." http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/novorossiya-dead/ri7409

Shutting down of Novorossiya? Or on the meaning of the murder of Alexey Mozgovoy

The Czech post-communist media are now a slavish carbon copy of the US corporate mind-massaging in content, structure and form, thus most of its content are advertisements, pseudo debates, which are no true debates or discussions, news centered on celebrities, and systematic weeding out of truth. In contrast to communist propaganda, this massive mind control is glitzy, flashy, seemingly varied, colorful and happily self-debasing.

On May 23, just several hours ahead of the assassination of Alexey Mozgovoy in the style (which was a light blue version of the murder of Bednov "Batman" in the early hours of January 1, 2015) the Czech media's main news of the day about Ukraine and Donbass was a report that the leaders of the Donetsk and Lugansk Republics (or two not really autonomous regions or "kids with special needs" to be taken back into custody by the Bandera junta under Minsk) "officially abandoned the idea and project of Novorossiya." 

From its beginning, Minsk 1, based on "Putin's proposals," actually meant just that and exactly that. The timing and the connection of the murder of Mozgovoy and the announcement of such news as an apocalyptic "revelation" is thus very revealing for the one required and necessitated the other. The managers of Ukraine's (and Europe's) Nazification and their cunning appeasers do know that their project--in contrast to the project of Novorossiya--is radically incompatible with the emergence of true anti-oligarchic and anti-fascist leaders from below who are uncontrollable or who are not part of the NWO theater company "Tragedy [or Reich] Reborn." The one imperative of the New World Order is rather simple and well understandable: only its people and its puppets can lead and "make decisions" whatever side or role they are assigned for the sake of appearances. Unsystemic or even anti-systemic glitches must be systematically neutralized and removed.

Any "shutting down of Novorossiya" means and always meant not just appeasement for Nazism's comeback, but a green light for Nazification which goes beyond Ukraine and is part of the New World Order project. And Minsk (whatever number is attached to it) means and always meant just that. Anything else is either deception or self-delusion, which so often appears easier and nicer than courage or the truth.

The constraints, which Russian anti-communist and anti-Soviet oligarchy faced included, the Russian people, the few truly principled new type of people's leaders such as Strelkov, Mozgovoy, Bednov, Ischenko (most of whom have now been liquidated) and the challenge of how to sell and justify to the people at home the emerging pro-Nazi nature of the turn of such new "partnership."

The shutting down of Novorossiya led by Surkov and Company, de facto installed Western protectors in Russia after 1991, is equivalent to shutting down anti-fascist resistance to Nazism reborn.

It is now certain that, the ideologue and father of perestroika, A. Yakovlev, was recruited when he was sent for that very purpose by the Soviet top leader to "study" at the Columbia University in 1958 at the height of the Cold War, but also at a time when so-called "convergence theories" emerged. The abandonment of communism and the related Western demand for the breakup of the Soviet Union as part of the deal were thus a part of the most complex, the largest and most radical U-Turn operation, which leadership of any country dared to undertake. And it took several decades to implement it step by step. But the collapse of the Soviet Union and the ensuing colonization of Russia in the 1990s were only part I and part II of the long term project. Part III is currently unfolding in front of our uncomprehending eyes.

In the face of these Titanic forces with their long-term planning, money, power, and organization, one may still turn for the time being to gardening or poetry or become a voice in the wilderness. Or just continue to listen to the voice and imperative of one's own soul.