The "few" thousand people under ISIS is a lie propagated by the West that tried to minimize and conceal the strength of al Qaeda in Syria and Iraq. One does not control millions of people and so much territory with 6-7 thousand armed men. Not even al Qaeda.
Several months ago, towards the end of 2013, I published this little exercise of mine on the numerical strength of al Qaeda in Syria, which, therefore, excludes Iraq, but much of what applies to Syria is also valid for Iraq--in terms of the massive cover-up of the massive expansion of al Qaeda armies thanks to massive special forces and financial support from the US, NATO, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan, and till June of 2013 also from Egypt and after September 2011 also from Libya. We can also add the Taliban to this mix. Yes, they too are part of this dangerous terror coalition of the willing, and the recruitment for these al Qaeda armies has been a vast enterprise stretching from the US, Great Britain, Europe, the Horn of Africa, Northern Africa, the Middle East to Afghanistan and Pakistan--a strange combination of highly paid special forces, local elites, and masses of the otherwise unemployed produced as a result of the so-called youth-bulge in the Muslim countries to which we can now add the new (otherwise) permanently unemployed in the West. So here is what I wrote back and what is I think useful to remember when hearing, for example, the Economist's claim that the ISIS is erely some 6-7,000 men strong:
The question about the strength and size of al Qaeda and its open associates in Syria has been one of the critical battles of the war itself. The self-declared “Friends of Syria” and its West-and-Saudi-supported “revolution” have tried to minimize al Qaeda’s involvement as much as possible. Thus, one of the propagandist bloggers of the insurgency, which continues to paint jihadists as revolutionaries, writes without any proof: “[T]he fact is that there is merely one significant Al-Qaeda group [which may or may not have split in two] and together with smaller groups do not constitute more than 10% of the armed opposition in Syria. … Qaedism is the smallest ideological minority among the armed opposition and it has taken over nothing but the TV screens and people’s phobias. … Many ordinary people of all creeds and ethnicity accepted Jabhat al-Nusra as a fighting force and did not consider them terrorists. They did not believe they were Qaedists until al-Jolani declared it to be so.” According to Free Halab, al Qaeda is “the smallest of minorities in this revolution.” (Free Halab, “Assad’s Popular Support: ‘NATO Data’” http://freehalab.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/assads-popular-support/, June 7, 2013)
During the Congress testimony, State Secretary John Kerry went on record: “I just don't agree that a majority are al Qaeda and the bad guys. That's not true. There are about 70,000 to 100,000 oppositionists ... Maybe 15 percent to 25 percent might be in one group or another who are what we would deem to be bad guys.” Famously, this earned him a reprimand from Vladimir Putin who said ahead of Obama’s arrival in St. Petersburg for the G20 summit: “It’s not pleasant for me to see this. While we communicate with them and assume they are decent people, he [Kerry] lies openly. And he knows he lies.” http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/09/06/322302/putin-calls-kerry-a-liar-on-syria/ During the same hearing, in which a possible World War III was hanging in balance, John Kerry went still further declaring that the alleged moderate Syrian opposition groups are growing in influence: “[The armed opposition] has increasingly become more defined by its moderation, more defined by the breadth of its membership, and more defined by its adherence to some, you know, democratic process and to an all-inclusive, minority-protecting constitution.” As Reuters mildly pointed out, “[this] appear to be at odds with estimates by U.S. and European intelligence sources and nongovernmental experts, who say Islamic extremists remain by far the fiercest and best-organized rebel elements.” (Mark Hosenballand Phil Stewart, “Kerry portrait of Syria rebels at Odds with Intelligence Reports,” September 5, 2013, http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/05/us-syria-crisis-usa-rebels-idUSBRE98405L20130905)
In the Business Insider, Mike Nudelman and Michael Kelley wrote in the wake of John Kerry’s notorious Congress testimony (September 3, 2013) in a similar vein. Nudelman and Kelley based their claims on the “fantastic article” by Charles Lister of IHS Jane's Terrorism and Insurgency Center, which identified nearly half of the rebel forces as jihadist or hardline Islamists (Michael Kelley and Mike Nudelman, “Here’s The Extremist-to-Moderate-Spectrum of the the 100,000 Syrian Rebels,” http://www.businessinsider.com/graphic-the-most-accurate-breakdown-of-the-syrian-rebels-2013-9, September 19, 2013). Out of these 50% or so (and some 50,000), the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) AND Jabhat al-Nusra (and similar groups) are said to comprise 12,000 militants. Right next in terms of political and ideological extremism are listed Ahrar al-Sham and the Syrian Islamic Front (coalition) with 18,000. Ahrar al-Sham, a Salafist, jihadist group, and the Syrian Islamic Front are/were nearly the same thing. Ahrar al-Sham dominated the SIF so much that very little, if anything, was left for other groups under the SIF-dominated coalition. According to Ahrar al-Sham itself (as of December of 2013), it has 25,000 militants in its ranks. According to other sources, Ahrar-al Sham, , which fights for a “caliphate under sharia,” has some 20,000 fighters. (“Syrian rebel chief rejects Geneva Peace Talks,” http://www.zamanalwsl.net/en/news/2984.html December 21, 2013) That’s at any rate more than what Lister’s and Business Insider’s claimed. On the other hand, a sanitized Wikipedia article sophistically suggests with a reference to the Economist that the reader think of Ahrar al-Sham’s size to be anywhere between 10,000 and 20,000. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahrar_ash-Sham) Ahrar al-Sham (its full name in translation means quite ironically, “"Islamic Movement of the Free Men of the Levant") is, moreover, al Qaeda —except for its official name. On November 22, 2013, Ahrar al-Sham, this right-next-to-al-Qaeda, formed a new “Islamic Front” with Liwa al-Tawhid (10,000-11,0000 according to Wikipedia) and other groups. Let it be note that, this very same Islamic Front is now (December of 2013) is said to represent the largest insurgent group with at least 45,000 fighters. By virtue of this coalition, the all-but-for-the-name al Qaeda forces have thus more than doubled over the polished estimates from September, which painted the new coalition members of Ahrar al-Sham as the best moderate insurgents after the now defunct Free Syrian Army. Let it be also stressed that Ahrar al-Sham is the hegemon of this new Islamist, supposedly non-al-Qaeda coalition.
The Business Insider chart also cites 31,000 men in arms under the Free Syrian Army, which, as of December 6 when its headquarters and warehouses were physically taken over by the ISIS and the Islamic Front, no longer exists as a formation. The same chart then lists in the middle of the opposition’s political spectrum, Suqur al-Sham (9,000 strong), accompanied whith a very revealing note: “Sugor al-Sham regularly fights alongside Ahrar al-Sham, Jabhat al-Nusra, and ISIS in addition to rejecting democracy and embracing an Islamic state.” So, while “technically aligned with the FSA,” it is actually an ally with al Qaeda and has a program that is identical with al Qaeda’s groups. A Wikipedia article writes that its 9,000 strength is what this group also asserts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suqur_al-Sham Thus, if we put the above together, the number of the jihadists has thus already increased to at least 45,000 + 9,000 = 54,000 out of the approximate total of 100,000 on the side of the anti-government forces. This number still excludes the openly al-Qaeda core formation, the ISIS and al-Nusra.
War of numbers for the truth about the Syrian War II
To sum up the previous post. Throughout the conflict, the Western and pro-insurgency propaganda tried to minimize the size and the presence of al Qaeda and al-Qaeda-forces to the minimum for the sake of public consumption and in order to maintain support for a regime-change—by means of these very same forces, but misrepresented as “moderate freedom fighters” and “democratic revolutionaries.” The opposite is the truth. They are forces of neo-fascist, intolerant, highly oppressive and extremely prejudiced reaction that mask themselves in the garb of a religion. To this effect, it has been claimed that al Qaeda forces amount only to some 10% of the insurgency or 10,000-12,000 fighters (for the 10,000 figure see, for example, Ben Farmer and Ruth Sherlock, “Syria: nearly half rebel fighters are jihadists or hardline Islamists, says IHS Jane's report,” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10311007/Syria-nearly-half-rebel-fighters-are-jihadists-or-hardline-Islamists-says-IHS-Janes-report.html, 15 Sep 2013). Depending on the given (anti-Syrian) source, all the jihadi forces were said to anywhere between 10,000-50,000 overall.
A closer look revealed that, effectively, out of the total of 100,000 acknowledged militants, it is now impossible to identify ANY pro-democracy, moderate, or liberal armed formation. There is none. With the demise of the front umbrella/cover “coalition” deceptively called the Free Syrian Army, all the significant brigades and groups share al Qaeda’s Wahhabi fundamentalist ideology and the goal of establishing an oppressive, despotic and tyrannical sharia Caliphate. The newly established Islamic Front is led and dominated by Ahrar al-Sham, which is in every aspect an al Qaedaesque army. It is an al Qaeda—just with a different name. Let’s now try to look closer at the data for the ISIS and al-Nusra—two foreign-based armies that openly declare their al Qaeda identity. As indicated, Western governments, pro-insurgency NGOs and corporate media keep their total number at around 10,000-12,000. While, it is understandable that, for political and propagandist reasons, the US, other Western governments, NATO, and corporate media were trying to downplay the size of the al Qaeda army in Syria, the evident policy to consciously conceal the truth and keep the public in the dark still means that they have been covering for al Qaeda and for their own actions, which, like a vampire, does not stand the light of the day and transparency. Briefly put, the real strengths of the ISIS and al-Nusra have been handled by the key sponsors of the regime change in Syria by means of this al-Qaeda proxy is the most critical secret of the whole operation.
Richard Spencer put the estimate higher, though he still hedged his subtle possible revelation: “Estimates of the relative strengths of the two main al-Qaeda groups, ISIS and Jabhat Al-Nusra, vary widely, but are almost certainly at 15,000 or more. Let us note that, in doing so, Spencer merely sets a number below which al Qaeda’s combined strength does not go, while cleverly leaving up open both the true number and the highest possible figure. An assessment prepared by Gen Salim Idriss, head of the Supreme Military Council, said that ISIS could additionally call upon support from up to 20,000 allied tribesmen in the north-east, near the Iraq border.” (Richard Spencer, “Leading Syrian rebels defect, dealing blow to fight against al-Qaeda,” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10498477/Leading-Syrian-rebels-defect-dealing-blow-to-fight-against-al-Qaeda.html, 05 Dec 2013).
A Wikipedia article also marvelously hedges and fogs the truth. It presents the ISIS strength in the following way (? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant):
Strength 12,000 in Syria (Sept. 2013)[12]
~1,000 "core" members (2005)[13]
~10,000 (including part-time fighters)(2010)[14]
~1,000 (2011)[15]
~2,500 (2012)[16][17]
10,000–12,000 (2013)[18]
Thus, it offers a plethora of numbers, and tries to dilute the total number by a new suspiciously looking category of part-time al Qaeda, as if al Qaeda too, like much of U.S. labor force has been turned into permanently temporary employees. Yet, these numbers are an advancement even over Spencer’s for what Spencer claimed to be a total number for both main sections of al Qaeda in Syria is barely enough to accommodate the strength of the ISIS alone. In November 2013, the pro-insurgency Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) allowed itself to acknowledge what has been already a well observed reality on the ground: "ISIS is the strongest group in Northern Syria -100%- and anyone who tells you anything else is lying." (Gul Tuysuz, Raja Razek, Nick Paton Walsh (6 November 2013). (“Al Qaeda-linked group strengthens hold in northern Syria," CNN. November 6, 2013, http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/05/world/europe/syria-turkey-al-qaeda/) Of course, the CNN cannot do otherwise than to insert quickly a PR correction: “Charles Lister, analyst at IHS Jane's Terrorism and Insurgency Centre, said: ‘Although not a numerically dominant force, ISIS is playing an increasingly pre-eminent role in the northern Syrian insurgency.’” So a reader is supposed to believe that, although the ISIS is in control of a vast territory and dominates the north and the east and a good part of the north-west, it is “not a numerically dominant force.” Nevertheless, the article does list towns which are occupied and controlled by the ISIS: Raqqa, key entry points and sections in the insurgents-controlled parts of Aleppo, Keftin, Tal Rifat, Azaz, Ad Dana, Dar Ta Izzah, Binnish, Ma'arrat Misrin, Jarablus and Al-BabSarmin, Salqin, Hraytan, Tabqa Dam, Hayyan, Al Eyramoon, Karm Al Meeyasir, Karm Al Qatarji, Al Atarib, Sarmada, Tal Halef, Menbij, Athimah, Maarat an-Numan, Saraqib and Ariha. Besides Aleppo, the largest Syrian city of 2,200,000 people, the largest Syrian town, which the ISIS controls, is Raqqa with 220,000 inhabitants. Other towns under ISIS control include Manij (100,000), al-Bab (63,000), Maarat an-Numan (60,000), Saraqib (33,000), Azaz (32,000), Salqin (24,000), Binnish (22,000), Tell Rifaat (21,000), Harem (22,000), Ma'arrat Misrin (18,000), Sarmin (15,000), tell Abyad (15,000), Darat Izza (14,000), Al-Dana (14,000), Jarablus (12,000), Atarib (11,000), Kaftlin (2,000), Salma (2,000). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Syria) So, according to the pro-al-Qaeda narrative, we are supposed to believe that a force of 10,000-15,000 controls thousand square kilometers of territory and a population of perhaps several millions. A conservatively realistic estimate would suggest that, to do all this, the ISIS would need perhaps at least 40,000 fighters. Only in the east, the ISIS might rule over some one million people. (http://www.citypopulation.de/Syria.html) Circumstantial evidence confirms these conclusions. Just, in an attack on Azaz in September of 2013, the ISIS task force had 7,000 fighters. ( Christoph Reuter, “Masked Army: Jihadist Group Expands Rapidly in Syria,” December 18, 2013, http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/isis-shadowy-jihadist-group-expands-rapidly-in-syria-a-939561-2.html)
What about al-Nusra? A Wikipedia article states al Nusra’s strength at 15,000-20,000. These numbers are based on these sources: "Syria interactive: the rebels, their weapons and funds". Channel 4. 29 May 2013. Retrieved 25 September 2013; "Al-Qaeda leader in Syria speaks to Al Jazeera". Al Jazeera. 18 December 2013. Retrieved 19 December 2013. The Wikipedia article, however, later says without any reference that, “as of early 2013 al-Nusra is estimated to have around 6,000 members.” Clearly a lie.
So what to do in this thick fog of war? One has to sift through reports and hills of obfuscations and disinformation, looking for slips and leaks. One such a slip of an otherwise well guarded truth happened in September 24, 2013 when the precursor of the current Islamic Front was established with one crucial difference—the alliance comprised the current Islamic Front (established or modified on November 22, 2013) TOGETHER WITH al Nusra. In this respect, we were treated with a figure of the overall size of this Islamic Front (i.e. Islamic Alliance) provided both by the insurgents and the CIA. In both cases, the figure given was 75,000, respectively as 75% of the insurgency’s total manpower. (Liz Sly and Karen DeYoung, September 25, 2013, “Largest Syrian rebel groups form Islamic alliance, in possible blow to U.S. influence,” http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/largest-syrian-rebel-groups-embrace-islamic-alliance-in-possible-blow-to-us-influence/2013/09/25/f669629e-25f8-11e3-9372-92606241ae9c_story.html; “New Syrian alliance rebuffs West,” Sydney Morning Herald, September 27, 2013, http://www.smh.com.au/world/new-syrian-alliance-rebuffs-west-20130926-2ugyh.html#ixzz2ogdJ8d7F; “Syria Updates: The New Islamic Front And Whodunnit III,” http://arirusila.wordpress.com/2013/12/20/syria-updates-the-new-islamic-front-and-whodunnit-iii/; “Syria: Bibi and Bandar Badger Obama to Support the Islamic Front,” Dec 9, 2013, Foreign Policy Journal; http://www.syriasolidaritymovement.org/2013/12/10/syria-bibi-and-bandar-badger-obama-to-support-the-islamic-front/ check the link). And, so if the Islamic Front WITH al Nusra has 75,000 fighters or so and 45,000 WITHOUT al-Nusra, it is reasonable to assume that a more realistic number for al Nusra is somewhere around 30,000 (at least). This is again confirmed by circumstantial evidence and news. Al-Nusra Front, which represents al-Qaeda in Syria, not only tends to lead most of the joint operations between insurgent brigades, but also tends to carry the brunt of the fighting itself. On the Qalamoun front , al Nusra was also reported to be largest fighting formation present there, outmatching all the others. (Radwan Mortada, “Al-Akhbar in Qalamoun: Cave Commandos Vow to Move War to Lebanon ," http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/al-akhbar-qalamoun-cave-commandos-vow-move-war-lebanon)
To sum up, there is no trace of any secular or democratic insurgents of any notable significance or presence on the ground in Syria. Their existence is a myth. On the other hand, the supposed 10,000 or so fighters in the openly al Qaeda army (the ISIS and al Nusra) is untenable too. Available estimates indicates that this army is some 70,000 fighters strong at least—as a very conservative estimate. As such, it is by far the largest portion of what are anyway fundamentalist, jihadist fighters and extremists whose agenda is to establish an extreme despotism and fascist-like tyranny—with the help of sizeable cohorts of their Western PR enablers, including many Facebook fan club pages, a FB page of al Nusra’s fans (which was closed just a few days ago) had 17,000 followers. Now the question is whom on earth does the US and U.S. NATO allies want to drag with them to the shores of thee Geneva Lake on January 22, 2014 as part of the non-existent “moderate,” “secular,” and “democratic” opposition (besides some of the people who are paid to present themselves as such and who live in the West)?
Saturday, June 14, 2014
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
Progress under Obama, you may believe in: Changing permanent war into persistent war
In his State of the Union speech on January 28, 2014, President Obama daringly mentioned the fact that the United States is and has been in the state of permanent war (for permanent war is much what imperialism is). This is what he said: "But I will not send our troops into harm's way unless it is truly necessary, nor will I allow our sons and daughters to be mired in open-ended conflicts. We must fight the battles -- (applause) -- that need to be fought, not those that ... drain our strength and may ultimately feed extremism [implicit recognition of the fact that these wars the US has waged has fed extremism, as can be seen in Ukraine, Syria, or now again so well in Iraq].... [so] America must move off a permanent war footing. (Applause.)"
A Reuters article from June 11, 2014 shows or, as a minimum, gives a clue of how this promised "moving off a permanent war footing" is being accomplished, especially in the light of the US of establishing new permanent bases in Eastern Europe and on the borders of Russia. The Reuters article on this says in the very paragraph: "[Our original] June 10 story was corrected to replace bracketed reference to 'permanent presence with 'persistent' ... and adds paragraph 7 to make clear troops will come and go between countries, maintaining ongoing presence with no permanent bases."
In other words, Obama and his permanent war establishment and media have decided to move from the state of permanent, perpetual war to "persistent war"--by means of editing, while pretending that "permanent" and "persistent" are as if very different or that, in fact, "persistent war" is actually an escalation, expansion, and intensification of the same permanent war--the "state of nature" or "natural state" in which this Hobbesian empire naturally finds itself.
Whether permanent (at times "love-intensity" permanent) or merely very persistent, this Leviathan war does feed extremism, it does drain economic resources (permanent unemployment cutting through age groups and qualifications is an interesting social phenomenon) and it is prejudicial, that is, very dangerous to mankind's health.
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
War and shame: Can a mercenary spirit afford to have principles and a principled position? (Question to Vladimir Putin)
The other day the Saker mentioned with great alarm the Serb experience from the wars in the former Yugoslavia as a worrying possibility for Ukraine: "Several Serbian commentators have expressed their concern, if not outright worry, about what is happening right now in Novorossia. I have to admit that I now share that concern.... and as a result I am feeling a very unpleasant but persistent feeling of alarm.... As for Putin, he announced that the had ordered the FSB to close down the section of the border which had been liberated by the NDF to prevent "the passage of illegal groups". Not good. Not good at all. And it did remind me of Bosnia. Quick flashback: ... Milosevic agreed to cooperate with the Empire's blockade of the Bosnian-Serbs ... Milosevic sold out his own people against a promise to be allowed to rule over Serbia and Montenegro."
Indeed, in the former Yugoslavia, the West managed to achieve several things: 1) making Russia buy into the West's narrative and framing of the conflict--against Russia's own interests; 2) making Russia agree to sanctions against Yugoslavia and the Serbs and their isolation; 3) making Milosevic follow suit after Russia and impose sanctions basically on his own people--the Serbs in Bosnia and Croatia at a time when they almost won the war; 4) Milosevic then started making himself Faustian deals with the West bent on demonizing him and the Serbs and handing them eventually over to their own quislings (which is clearly part of the plan for Russia itself). In this respect, Putin's order to seal the border with the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics, which Russia seems to have no intention to recognize, has then, indeed, its precedent from the war in Bosnia. This is, moreover, happening when official Russia (Russian government) has dropped a long time ago any reference to Bandera, Banderism, the Party Svoboda, the Right Sector, fascism, and even to junta. Instead, the Russian government could not apparently even wait to declare the regime in Kiev legitimate and legal.
The parallel is evident and instructive. This also indicates that to understand Putin's, Lavrov's and Zubarev's statements, actions, and the lack of action, it might be helpful to understand what made Milosevic bow and bend and ultimately disarm and deliver the leaders of the Serbs in Bosnia and Croatia to the Hague in a similar way in which he was then himself delivered there by the then victorious Serb version of Maidan and the fifth column. In my view, Milosevic believed that he can play the game and that one can do well in a Machiavellian game by accepting its supposed rules, which don't really exist as such. There are certainly methods of how Machiavellian politics is played, but pious people used to know that one cannot trust a bargain with the devil. But Milosevic was an atheist, but one who has himself lost faith in anything but politics among Machiavellians seen as peers and colleagues.
The other great factor that made Milosevic turn himself into a tool of his own and Yugoslavia's demise was the position and pressure of Russia at that time. Russia wanted to do business with the West, to get on board, to cut a deal and certain things, many things, had to be given away and traded away--for ... well not that much ... for its allies, prestige, honor, principles, and its own weakening and eventual retreat to today's 400 miles from Moscow to a point when the Russian government does not even want to admit to itself that Strelkov is not just defending Slavyansk, he is defending of the "commanding heights" which would make Ukraine or at least eastern Ukraine one large Karachun (a hill over Slavyansk now used for destroying the city) with respect to Moscow itself.
There is something about the "late communist," new liberal and oligarchic mindsets which knows nothing of honor or fight because one must and because it is just, right, and obligatory, but which knows seemingly all that there is about deals and dishonorable deals. That's what happens when an inflated, inflamed mercenary spirit saddles a small donkey (there is a better word though) of heart and soul.
Machiavellians don't have shame. That's why they are good at waging wars without shame. But, as he himself knew, to do so one has to become a beast. One has to be a beast and no longer a human ... even though residual humanity can and still be used as a mask covering the face for the sake of appearances, as he advised. The case of Milosevic teaches this: that one cannot hope to be a Machiavellian in order to outsmart Machiavellians as one can play a devil and become a devil in the hope of prevailing over him. One certainly needs to be smart, but one has also to have principles, which, like the proverbial soul, is the first think the Machiavellian or the Empire go after.
And so the axiom formulated by Winston Churchill learned at the cost of millions of dead remains valid: If one is willing to accept shame in order to avoid war, one will get both--war and shame too. And when that happens, one's position will be almost certainly worse than the initial one.
Indeed, in the former Yugoslavia, the West managed to achieve several things: 1) making Russia buy into the West's narrative and framing of the conflict--against Russia's own interests; 2) making Russia agree to sanctions against Yugoslavia and the Serbs and their isolation; 3) making Milosevic follow suit after Russia and impose sanctions basically on his own people--the Serbs in Bosnia and Croatia at a time when they almost won the war; 4) Milosevic then started making himself Faustian deals with the West bent on demonizing him and the Serbs and handing them eventually over to their own quislings (which is clearly part of the plan for Russia itself). In this respect, Putin's order to seal the border with the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics, which Russia seems to have no intention to recognize, has then, indeed, its precedent from the war in Bosnia. This is, moreover, happening when official Russia (Russian government) has dropped a long time ago any reference to Bandera, Banderism, the Party Svoboda, the Right Sector, fascism, and even to junta. Instead, the Russian government could not apparently even wait to declare the regime in Kiev legitimate and legal.
The parallel is evident and instructive. This also indicates that to understand Putin's, Lavrov's and Zubarev's statements, actions, and the lack of action, it might be helpful to understand what made Milosevic bow and bend and ultimately disarm and deliver the leaders of the Serbs in Bosnia and Croatia to the Hague in a similar way in which he was then himself delivered there by the then victorious Serb version of Maidan and the fifth column. In my view, Milosevic believed that he can play the game and that one can do well in a Machiavellian game by accepting its supposed rules, which don't really exist as such. There are certainly methods of how Machiavellian politics is played, but pious people used to know that one cannot trust a bargain with the devil. But Milosevic was an atheist, but one who has himself lost faith in anything but politics among Machiavellians seen as peers and colleagues.
The other great factor that made Milosevic turn himself into a tool of his own and Yugoslavia's demise was the position and pressure of Russia at that time. Russia wanted to do business with the West, to get on board, to cut a deal and certain things, many things, had to be given away and traded away--for ... well not that much ... for its allies, prestige, honor, principles, and its own weakening and eventual retreat to today's 400 miles from Moscow to a point when the Russian government does not even want to admit to itself that Strelkov is not just defending Slavyansk, he is defending of the "commanding heights" which would make Ukraine or at least eastern Ukraine one large Karachun (a hill over Slavyansk now used for destroying the city) with respect to Moscow itself.
There is something about the "late communist," new liberal and oligarchic mindsets which knows nothing of honor or fight because one must and because it is just, right, and obligatory, but which knows seemingly all that there is about deals and dishonorable deals. That's what happens when an inflated, inflamed mercenary spirit saddles a small donkey (there is a better word though) of heart and soul.
Machiavellians don't have shame. That's why they are good at waging wars without shame. But, as he himself knew, to do so one has to become a beast. One has to be a beast and no longer a human ... even though residual humanity can and still be used as a mask covering the face for the sake of appearances, as he advised. The case of Milosevic teaches this: that one cannot hope to be a Machiavellian in order to outsmart Machiavellians as one can play a devil and become a devil in the hope of prevailing over him. One certainly needs to be smart, but one has also to have principles, which, like the proverbial soul, is the first think the Machiavellian or the Empire go after.
And so the axiom formulated by Winston Churchill learned at the cost of millions of dead remains valid: If one is willing to accept shame in order to avoid war, one will get both--war and shame too. And when that happens, one's position will be almost certainly worse than the initial one.
Monday, June 9, 2014
What to do when a leader tells you to go and fight, but then he leaves you there soon after the battle started because he just got a better idea?
Russian Ambassador Mikhail Zubarov
gave a Russian TV reporter an interview right after the inauguration on June 7.
Besides seeing "many positive things" in Poroshenko's inaugural
speech, he made also this cardinal statement: " ... [following the elections and inauguration of Poroshenko] there will be
now after all a gradual creation of already legitimate power structure"
(6:40 in the video). At the very end, he also said that, in the near future,
relations between Russia and Ukraine are to be normalized.
It seems to me that I can now detect and identify
the bureaucratic, anti-national callousness of the Ambassador and the policy
which he now represents and implements. The closest case I can remember is the
callousness and indifferent soullessness of the late Soviet bureaucrats and
elite from the 1980s.
It almost seems that, at some point, Putin started to listen to the fascists in Kiev and to their Western patrons instead of the Russians, whether in eastern Ukraine or in Russia.
Since there seems to be a radical change in the course and position of Putin and the Russian government after Crimea joined Russia, if not its abandonment, which started to be clothed in silence and ambiguity, but more and more apparent, it does seem important to try to reconstruct the possible "crime" and its mechanism even with the very little information that one has.
Following the Crimea referendum, the anti-junta resistance had a momentum, but it lacked not only leaders, but also organization, structure, and resources ... unlike the US that has been working very systematically since the end of World War II and then again since 1991, Russia continued for most part to treat human capital the way it used to ... which is one of waste, neglect, indifference, and carelessness for most outside of the Putin guard, oligarchic circles and narrow-minded pettiness of various local bosses and despots. At that time, the US discovered the charm and power of networking--that is to say, it started turning the age-old wisdom into a new science of governance, power, and regime change.
This created a well connected and broad underlying structure and support for Maidan and the fifth as well as the sixth columns (the sixth column, a term now popular in Russia, is the same as the fifth column, but, instead of waiting in the shadows outside of the ranks of the enemy, is already planted within the ranks of the enemy--like the Party of Regions for example). In this way, many people were hired, paid, employed, trained, deployed, promoted, taken care of and seeded. At the same time, beginning with the profound callousness and hubris of the generations of Soviet bureaucrats and leaders, human capital and people came to be treated much like a dead, needless weight on the wings of business. So while the US was actually investing a great deal of money, effort, time, and resources into building its upward mobile (real or potential) clients, Russia was busy playing a generous uncle who is willing to cut a good deal to the same clients--in exchange for financing thus his own best enemies who, one day, would want to take over his own estate.
In a word, when the Russian government said that, over the course of the 23 years, it subsidized the failed project of Ukraine with more than $200 billion, the criminal truth is that these billions did not help the people, but the increasingly fascist and anti-Russian oligarchs of Ukraine. After the coup, Russian deeply discounted gas for Ukrainian oligarchs became Russian free gas, moreover, now supplied to a regime that knew and did not hide that they are, in fact, with Russia. As a Russian TV reporter correctly noted to Russian Ambassador Mikhail Zubarov, the result is that, among the Ukrainian politicians now left in Kiev, there is no pro-Russian left. And those who emerged in the east are nearly all new (except for Oleg Tzarev)--yesterday's "nobodies," who seem to be still treated as nobodies by the official Kremlin.
Russia is worth loving, but it is a tough love, which possibly only the most idealistic or most philosophic people can survive, endure, and sustain. American love, on the other hand, is one to be simply enjoyed and consumed.
This means that, as Sun Tzu already noted, strategies are a function of intelligence, but also of one's character and, importantly, one's self-knowledge, and war is a way of exacting nonnegotiable prices for mistakes, deficiencies, blind spots, sins, and our shadows. Yes, the US has a big, thick shadow, but so has Russia.
So, going back to the attempted reconstruction of Russia's own change of heart. I am afraid that, as Putin and Lavrov were treating Yanukovich's capitulation act of February 21, they happened to handle with a similar lightness of being and political ease a "deal" that was offered to them by the West, following the Crimean referendum. The point is that, besides certain venerable banking families and clans, the US is a master of brinkmanship--it does help to have a whole character built around it, a pedigree in it, and even an irresistible urge of tempting and crossing the limits and the edge again and again. The urge is almost gothic--in its morbid, dangerous, lethal capacity, and thus it is not only erotic, it is also addictive. But the more one does it, and the more often one gets away with it, the more proficient in it one also becomes. Practice makes perfect.
This near (self)destructiveness and urge to cross the line, as soon as one is seen, is and has been, however, met by one perennial desire on the part of the Russian elites---to be recognized as "partners" ("nashi partnyory," Putin himself constantly keeps saying to the self-amusement of his enemies and increasingly hard-to-conceal annoyance of even his most faithful fans). The Russian verhushka always wanted to be let into the club--like a student from a less endowed family who cannot be happy until she is inducted into the coveted, prestigious Greek society. And to get there, she just happens to keep going through repetitive and most fruitless cycles of initiatory humiliation and self-debasement.
Thus Russia constantly tries to get in--and to receive a respite from all the invasions and troubles--but the West has no real intention of making this ever happen, but is only happy to keep charging ever more self-defeating and dangerous entry fee--which tends to keep turning into a dire existential threat and hell for Russia itself.
So to bring this down to some simple, pragmatic idea of what might have happened between March 17 and mid-April. It seems to me quite likely that, first, the US issued very hard-pressing threats, which could have well included the ultimate threat of a nuclear attack or World War III. The general public does not know, but a key sword of psychological pressure (or incentive) with which the US kept swinging over the head of the Soviet leadership in the 1980s on thousands of occasions was US nuclear brinkmanship. We now know that, on a regular basis, the US nuclear missiles were put on a final countdown around the Eastern bloc till the last second. Some people do seem to think that Hell (or Apocalypse) is both terrifying and sexy. And Gorbachev responded.
Besides a nuclear or other Armageddon, the West issued some additional terrible threats. Not a long time big fuss was made about the rather prudent and understandable move of the Russian government to prohibit its government employees and politicians from owning foreign assets, which could be seized, come under (Western) sanctions, or be used for intimidation or just as a vested interest. The legislation, however, left one huge unsaid, but essential exception: perhaps the most precious foreign asset--the children of the Russian leaders, politicians, and business elite, starting with Putin's own daughters, Medvedev's own son, and so on down to thousand of Russian VIPs who can much more easily imagine Ukraine becoming a fascist and anti-Russian NATO member state with US anti-missile defense system 400 miles from Moscow than having to send their children to Volgograd or Samara instead of Berkeley, Oxford, New York, or Vienna or having to exchange an unlimited VISA gold card or a new loaded Mercedes for modest humanism.
After communism, some people get hungry and thirsty, and some much more so than others. In this respect, Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs are much like comrades. They do think alike in a way. But so do American oligarchs. But American oligarchs do have a British imperial kinderstube in their blood, and, yes, there seems to be a certain difference between an oligarch who likes fast cars and women and an oligarch who, besides some of this, also knows some Shakespeare and approaches the never-ceasing urge for start-ups as a well groomed Machiavelli. In this respect, it seems that a good deal of the Russian political and economic elites somehow happen to be grandsons of the kulaks (actually named after a "fist") who were often serfs who turned overnight into new masters of a village and who did somehow make themselves hated, and not just by Stalin.
And so, having mapped the Russian elites' Achilles' heels reasonably well, the US introduced a relatively novel form of economic sanctions--personal sanctions--and threatened with more of them. And, for many surprisingly--after the first rounds of ridicule and dismissals were gone--the Russian government did not find that much of enthusiasm to defend millions of Russians in Ukraine when their own family assets and connections came under threat. In this respect. Russia has gone a long way from a time when one of Stalin's sons was early on captured by Germans and then, when offered a deal to exchange him for General Paulus after the Battle of Stalingrad and thus to save his life, Stalin replied: "Generals are not traded for a private." In this respect, the Russian leaders are incomparably more liberal and human when it comes to their own than the great Russian leaders of the past.
So what was about the proverbial carrot then? The US as a player keen much more on poker than on chess has a tradition of making deals the promises of which it does not intend to honor or, at least, remember the next morning. This tradition goes keep at least to the series of treatises with the American natives--interestingly, both these treatises and the natives happen to share a similar fate--they were assured, bargained with, and then violated with an astounding ease--for the negotiators always "made the killing." And that mattered. Actually, only that mattered--the rest was immaterial.
In this situation, I would think that a very likely false promise made was that, if Russia abandons Russians in Ukraine without showing it too much bluntly (though hard to conceal)--but, of course, with all the other "assurances," "guarantees," and pious understanding--then the West might at some point "let" Russia keep Crimea on top of a promise not to move--this time!--NATO into Ukraine. But, as before with Russia and in contrast with the American natives--without any other written confirmations.
What has, apparently, also aggravated the Russian government is that it both underestimated the Russian people in Ukraine themselves, as Shamir Israel already alleged with a reference to a Russian government insider and that it was also intimidated by the near total domination of the info space over Ukraine by Ukrainian and Western TV channels and media and hence by an apparently sharp anti-Russian sentiment. It is hard to make oneself be likable by one's own enemies and the more so if one trusts one's own enemies' statistics and is afraid of one's own shadow, which the enemy, moreover, paints as black as possible.
In a nutshell, the West squeezed and then teased with a deceptively easy compromise and way out and so, by the time Lavrov arrived in Geneva to sign on the agreement that was waiting there for him on April 17, he was already ready to forget and forgive not just the unconstitutionality of the coup, but also all about Banderism and fascism being the "dark soul" of the regime, and was eager to falsify and banalize (= to sell cheap) the nature of the conflict (for some, even civilizational conflict) as a problem of evacuating occupied buildings and not as a great political and geopolitical threat of the first order. Instead, Lavrov reduced himself to saying that the junta should talk more to the abused spouse and that it would be wonderful if the the fascist junta could go and write a new constitution for Ukraine before going to elections. On May 21, Putin's chief goal was then merely to "create favorable conditions for the presidential elections" run, faked, and counted beforehand by the fascist oligarchs in Washington and Kiev.
In this light, the constant military exercises of Russia along the borders with Ukraine might have been at one point in earnest, but then, already some time before the Odessa massacre and the beginning of the march against Slavyansk on May 2, these exercises were merely mimetic, faking moves that were misleading only their would-be beneficiaries--the millions of people who went bravely to cast their votes for freedom and Russia--against Putin's explicitly attempted dissuasion in the presence of the Swiss head of the OSCE on May 7, four days ahead of the referendum.
Now, all this leaves us, as a minimum with three or four interconnected questions of progressively diminishing importance:
1. Can Putin be saved?
2. Can Novorossiya be saved?
3. Can Russia be saved?
4. Can the world be saved--from fascism's comeback?
Sunday, June 8, 2014
Saving Private Russia
As Gazprom is readying to sign a check with billions in discounted gas for the fascist dictatorship in Kiev, it can no longer be discounted that the other hand, possibly Putin's own, is writing off Strelkov and thousands of his comrades in arms who are defending Russia itself from NATO's "hybrid war" by the "Ukrainian" proxy.
Such is the jest of the statement issued by Igor Strelkov, the commander of Slavyansk, today; according to Strelkov, Putin has through his inaction torpedoed the momentum that carried the birth of Novorossyia.
"8.6.14. 19:45. I specially went to put down a few lines (good, we still have a lull while the Ukr-Army is bringing up a resupply of fresh rockets). Repeatedly I've read assertions reading "why should Russia help those who did not want to fight for themselves?" Others thought that 90% of the population Slavyansk are merely sitting at home ... they tried to call my name in vain, saying "thus spoke Strelkov."
So I consider it my duty to explain the following: 1. If we had weapons in abundance, only militia in Slavyansk would have numbered a few thousand fighters already. 2. If we had the opportunity not only to arm soldiers, but also provide them with clothes and shoes and also financially support their families at least at the level of the average local salary (after all people have come to risk their lives), then Slavyansk would have already had a division. 3. if we had logistical support (for a fighting army, it is absolutely necessary), we would already have achieved mobilization of tens of thousands of soldiers ...
My previous appeal was not for Russians, but the people of Donbass and it has reached its intended goal. Now a lot of our volunteers have no weapons, no shoes, no uniform, so you cannot use them.
That sort of assistance that is trickling from Russia was needed a month ago. Then it would have brought a great success. Now it barely helps us survive, but gives us no chance to turn the tide in our favor
The clumsy machine of the Ukrainian forces is now run by competent guys from overseas (though I can imagine how they rage and "climb the wall" because of their slowness and screwing up). And these guys are driving with sticks the half-broken machine forward--to erase and wipe us off from the face of earth. And with the other hand they are throwing the Kremlin teasing crumbs in the form of "a partial payment for gas" and "negotiations." And days become weeks and weeks become months. And there is no real help, and the early potential that was there in the beginning is now all lost. The twig is being bent and bent, it is cracking, but it still holds. If it breaks, it would be late.
Help from Russia is needed as the air. We are ready to die in the ruins of Slavyank, but with a firm belief that our dead and wounded under the artillery fire, to which we cannot respond, has not been in vain!
Those who are busy arguing about the unreasonableness of assisting southern and eastern Ukraine badly lack in my view the experience of digging tranches under fire in Semyonovka.
By the way, the assistance which we could have received from Russia as a way of de facto recognition of the Donetsk People's Republic is too late already. The question now stands simply: either we give them our guts or we receive direct military assistance. Otherwise, columns of refugees covered by us are bound to show up sooner or later on the territory of Russia. That is, those who would make it, of course. The army of the Kiev regime is after still an army despite all its drawbacks and not irregular militia, like us.
The whole misery consists in the fact that the Russian government is still looking upon us as "a rebellious part of Ukraine" and not as a vital first defense of Russia itself! And this means that the Russian government thinks that it does not have the right to help Russia itself--with all the ensuing conclusions."
From other post also from June 8 by Strelkov:
"Advisers in the Kremlin have pushed the situation to a point where Russia faces a dilemma without further alternatives: either to give up Novorossiya completely or to fight for her in earnest. There is no third way left any more -- all the other alternatives have been successfully благополучно wasted in the last month and half. Understandably, to us, defenders of Slavyansk, the second option seems the only possible one--the life of our soldiers, their families and their neighbors depends on it. But it is possible that Moscow is of other opinion."
Igor Morozov, a member of the Federal Council of the Russian Federation, gave a quick interview to Anna News on the same day, June 8, when the Kiev junta started shelling Slavyansk no longer with individual Grad rockets, but with whole loads of them. On June 8, Strelkov also issued his two candid statements presented above. One almost has a feeling that Morozov's call for a hastily arranged late damage control attempt ... perhaps just because of the Russian government's belated awakening to the awakening wrath of the Russian people:
1. the Russian government thought that Poroshenko's first decision as the new "president" would be an immediate ceasefire, which did not happen.
2. "it is now (just now?) clear that violence (from the Kiev regime) will continue."
3. In this situation, the Russian government does not have an intention to pursue negotiations with the Kiev junta.
4. still hopes that through the EU a gas deal would be made
5. in the light of the Russian government's indecisiveness, Morozov is asking the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics for being determined
6. while, "because of the international difficulties," the Russian government cannot officially recognize the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics
7. but Russia is willing to consider and perhaps eventually also provide humanitarian assistance and have some working contacts
8. Russia is concerned about the humanitarian situation.
Such is the jest of the statement issued by Igor Strelkov, the commander of Slavyansk, today; according to Strelkov, Putin has through his inaction torpedoed the momentum that carried the birth of Novorossyia.
"8.6.14. 19:45. I specially went to put down a few lines (good, we still have a lull while the Ukr-Army is bringing up a resupply of fresh rockets). Repeatedly I've read assertions reading "why should Russia help those who did not want to fight for themselves?" Others thought that 90% of the population Slavyansk are merely sitting at home ... they tried to call my name in vain, saying "thus spoke Strelkov."
So I consider it my duty to explain the following: 1. If we had weapons in abundance, only militia in Slavyansk would have numbered a few thousand fighters already. 2. If we had the opportunity not only to arm soldiers, but also provide them with clothes and shoes and also financially support their families at least at the level of the average local salary (after all people have come to risk their lives), then Slavyansk would have already had a division. 3. if we had logistical support (for a fighting army, it is absolutely necessary), we would already have achieved mobilization of tens of thousands of soldiers ...
My previous appeal was not for Russians, but the people of Donbass and it has reached its intended goal. Now a lot of our volunteers have no weapons, no shoes, no uniform, so you cannot use them.
That sort of assistance that is trickling from Russia was needed a month ago. Then it would have brought a great success. Now it barely helps us survive, but gives us no chance to turn the tide in our favor
The clumsy machine of the Ukrainian forces is now run by competent guys from overseas (though I can imagine how they rage and "climb the wall" because of their slowness and screwing up). And these guys are driving with sticks the half-broken machine forward--to erase and wipe us off from the face of earth. And with the other hand they are throwing the Kremlin teasing crumbs in the form of "a partial payment for gas" and "negotiations." And days become weeks and weeks become months. And there is no real help, and the early potential that was there in the beginning is now all lost. The twig is being bent and bent, it is cracking, but it still holds. If it breaks, it would be late.
Help from Russia is needed as the air. We are ready to die in the ruins of Slavyank, but with a firm belief that our dead and wounded under the artillery fire, to which we cannot respond, has not been in vain!
Those who are busy arguing about the unreasonableness of assisting southern and eastern Ukraine badly lack in my view the experience of digging tranches under fire in Semyonovka.
By the way, the assistance which we could have received from Russia as a way of de facto recognition of the Donetsk People's Republic is too late already. The question now stands simply: either we give them our guts or we receive direct military assistance. Otherwise, columns of refugees covered by us are bound to show up sooner or later on the territory of Russia. That is, those who would make it, of course. The army of the Kiev regime is after still an army despite all its drawbacks and not irregular militia, like us.
The whole misery consists in the fact that the Russian government is still looking upon us as "a rebellious part of Ukraine" and not as a vital first defense of Russia itself! And this means that the Russian government thinks that it does not have the right to help Russia itself--with all the ensuing conclusions."
From other post also from June 8 by Strelkov:
"Advisers in the Kremlin have pushed the situation to a point where Russia faces a dilemma without further alternatives: either to give up Novorossiya completely or to fight for her in earnest. There is no third way left any more -- all the other alternatives have been successfully благополучно wasted in the last month and half. Understandably, to us, defenders of Slavyansk, the second option seems the only possible one--the life of our soldiers, their families and their neighbors depends on it. But it is possible that Moscow is of other opinion."
Igor Morozov, a member of the Federal Council of the Russian Federation, gave a quick interview to Anna News on the same day, June 8, when the Kiev junta started shelling Slavyansk no longer with individual Grad rockets, but with whole loads of them. On June 8, Strelkov also issued his two candid statements presented above. One almost has a feeling that Morozov's call for a hastily arranged late damage control attempt ... perhaps just because of the Russian government's belated awakening to the awakening wrath of the Russian people:
1. the Russian government thought that Poroshenko's first decision as the new "president" would be an immediate ceasefire, which did not happen.
2. "it is now (just now?) clear that violence (from the Kiev regime) will continue."
3. In this situation, the Russian government does not have an intention to pursue negotiations with the Kiev junta.
4. still hopes that through the EU a gas deal would be made
5. in the light of the Russian government's indecisiveness, Morozov is asking the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics for being determined
6. while, "because of the international difficulties," the Russian government cannot officially recognize the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics
7. but Russia is willing to consider and perhaps eventually also provide humanitarian assistance and have some working contacts
8. Russia is concerned about the humanitarian situation.
Ukraine: The 1st and last "revolution" of billionaires for the sake of EU bureaucrats
A pearl from a long necklace of Poroshenko's inaugural speech:
"The dictatorship that ruled Ukraine in recent years sought to deprive us of this prospect (Europeanization), and so people rebelled. [And it was a] victorious revolution of dignity…."
"The dictatorship that ruled Ukraine in recent years sought to deprive us of this prospect (Europeanization), and so people rebelled. [And it was a] victorious revolution of dignity…."
So, according to this mythology already authored by Poroshenko's ghost writers in the West, Ukrainians "rebelled" and launched a supposed "revolution of dignity" for the sake of a 1,400 document which I bet 99,999% of Ukrainians never even read and which is a dictate handed down to them by EU bureaucrats who, if faced with a real revolution, would have thought that heaven is falling. We are also to believe that Ukrainians revolted against Yanukovich's rather belated refusal to sign on a wholesale eclipse of Ukraine's industries and much of 60% of Ukraine's exports which are dependent on Russia. Ukrianians paid some $100 a month had so good that they rose as one man so that they impose on themselves more of IMF austerity and let in European subsidized agricultural products and much of the world's nuclear waste. All this just of dignity and because they were dying to be "Europeanized." Or Uran-USS-pee-natzinized?
When a real antifascist revolution is gathering its force, the regime of "dignity" burns dozens of proudly antifascist people alive and then sends against others thousands of fascist private death squads paid by oligarchic pigs.
How many smart people did Ukraine get when they think that billionaire Poroshenko, who already sat on many chairs under Yushenko and also under the very same Yanukovich, is some kind "revolutionary" leader or that Joe Biden, the Ukraine President seated in Washington D.C., is some kind of corporate "Che Guevara"?
In his inauguration speech, Petro Poroshenko made one and only reference to Odessa, the place of the most single massacre in Ukraine so far with more than 100 unarmed anti-junta protesters killed by fascist paramilitaries with assistance of the junta police:
"I am deeply impressed with patriotism of citizens in southern and eastern regions, from Odesa to Kharkiv."
This sounds and looks much like an all but loud thank-you note to the fascists for the massacre.
John Roble comments on this Poroshenko's Odessa statement with these words: "Clearly a sly wink to the Right Sector here. He dares to mention the patriotism he has seen in Odessa but again fails to mention the over 100 people burned alive and brutally murdered there. Obviously it is the patriotism of the brutal nazi murderers that he is impressed with. That message is clear." Robel also adds: "Dear reader I have no words to describe to you how filled with disgust I am in having to even read this stuff but it must be done for the fascist monsters in Kiev are literally getting away with murder and re-writing history as they go along."
The fact, which brings out the utterly criminal nature of Ukrainian oligarchy now beholden to fascism and to the Empire is that these pseudo-, fake revolutionaries have made lives of Ukrainians so cheap that condemning now so many of them to death by unleashing a civil war and fascist terror is an offer which they found it impossible to refuse. In part because the Empire--and hence their Western puppet masters--has assured them of blanket impunity.
"I am deeply impressed with patriotism of citizens in southern and eastern regions, from Odesa to Kharkiv."
This sounds and looks much like an all but loud thank-you note to the fascists for the massacre.
John Roble comments on this Poroshenko's Odessa statement with these words: "Clearly a sly wink to the Right Sector here. He dares to mention the patriotism he has seen in Odessa but again fails to mention the over 100 people burned alive and brutally murdered there. Obviously it is the patriotism of the brutal nazi murderers that he is impressed with. That message is clear." Robel also adds: "Dear reader I have no words to describe to you how filled with disgust I am in having to even read this stuff but it must be done for the fascist monsters in Kiev are literally getting away with murder and re-writing history as they go along."
The fact, which brings out the utterly criminal nature of Ukrainian oligarchy now beholden to fascism and to the Empire is that these pseudo-, fake revolutionaries have made lives of Ukrainians so cheap that condemning now so many of them to death by unleashing a civil war and fascist terror is an offer which they found it impossible to refuse. In part because the Empire--and hence their Western puppet masters--has assured them of blanket impunity.
Putin's dilemma and Rubicon when making favorable references to the Devil bent on invading Russia
Can Putin afford to be indifferent to the plight of ethnic Russians in Ukraine, while complimenting Poroshenko? And complimenting Poroshenko for what exactly?
President Putin back on March 4,2014: "If we are to notice, that these outrages begin in Eastern regions (of the Ukraine), and if people appeal to us for help, as do we already have the official appeal from the legitimate acting president, then we reserve the right to protect those citizens by all means available to us. We believe this would be completely legitimate. Such a decision will only be taken to protect Ukrainian citizens, so let any of their military personnel even attempt to shoot at their own people, behind whom we do stand. Not up front but we do stand behind. Let them even try to shoot at women and children." Vladimir Putin, March 4, 2014, Official transcript
After that, notably beginning with the Geneva Agreement of April 17, the Russian government started moving away from its firm position of the unconstitutionality of the violent coup of February 21-23 and, instead, started granting ever more legitimacy to the Kiev regime, while falling ever more short of confirming legitimacy to the referenda in eastern Ukraine and the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics and Novorossyia, which Putin himself evoked in his four-hours-long interview on March 7. By yielding ever more legitimacy to the Kiev regime, Russia is taking more and more legitimacy from its support for ethnic Russians in Ukraine and from its possible Russian intervention and involvement.
In his interview on June 4, 2014, with Radio Europe 1 and TF1 TV channel, Putin said namely the following in response to a question about the alleged "democratic vote" for Poroshenko: "I’ve already told you and will say it again: we will respect the choice of the Ukrainian people and we will cooperate with Ukrainian authorities. ... Yes, we recognize [Ukraine's] sovereignty." Does this mean recognition of sovereignty as embodied and practiced by the current regime ruling in Ukraine?
In the same interview, Putin also explained again Russia's position on Crimean and its reunification with Russia: "Russian troops were in Crimea under the international treaty on the deployment of the Russian military base. It’s true that Russian troops helped Crimeans hold a referendum on their (a) independence and (b) desire to join the Russian Federation. No one can prevent these people from exercising a right that is stipulated in Article 1 of the UN Charter, the right of nations to self-determination. ... In accordance with the expression of the will of people who live there, Crimea is part of the Russian Federation and its constituent entity. I want everyone to understand this clearly. We conducted an exclusively diplomatic and peaceful dialogue – I want to stress this – with our partners in Europe and the United States. In response to our attempts to hold such a dialogue and to negotiate an acceptable solution, they supported the anti-constitutional state coup in Ukraine, and following that we could not be sure that Ukraine would not become part of the North Atlantic military bloc. In that situation, we could not allow a historical part of the Russian territory with a predominantly ethnic Russian population to be incorporated into an international military alliance, especially because Crimeans wanted to be part of Russia. I am sorry, but we couldn't act differently."
In other words, Putin evoked the principle of self-determination and emphasized its notable expression through a referendum, which happened when the political regime of Ukraine was radically changed from "merely" thieving oligarchy to oligarchy that placed fascist radicals in charge and control of state security, its armed forces and police in the ever escalating campaign of war, terror, and massacre unleashed on those who oppose this unconstitutional change. In other words, oligarchy moved through a violent coup and Molotov cocktails over to only an oligarchic dictatorship, but further to a fascist, military dictatorship. This regime change further greatly increased the risk of this regime making Ukraine into a NATO "bridgehead" 400 miles towards the gates of Moscow, which is actually also precisely what Brzezinski himself defined as the US strategic goal (Grand Strategy. pp. 46, 86, 203).
However, to the threat of NATO aggressive expansion (it is aggressive and not really "peaceful" or stabilizing, as it is presented--one only needs to remember Kosovo, Libya, or Syria), Putin also added the significance of Crimea being the home to Russia's Black Sea Navy. And that's the only one key difference, which I can see, between the case of Crimea and the case of Novorossiya (the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics). The latter happened to have no Russian military base. Yet their case is as good, if not stronger than Crimea's. In Crimea, the referendum was conducted with Russian troops stepping in and preventing outbreak of violence (which was actually planned and prepared by the Right Sector and other elements of the junta). In the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics, the referenda were organized by the new revolutionary and popular organs of power emerging from below and without presence of Russian troops. Moreover, against these new people's republics, the fascist junta has sent the army, the police, the Naz-guard, the Right Sector and private armies (or rather death squads) of Ukrainian mafia oligarchs.
The other fact is, as Arsen Avakov, the junta's interior minister, boasted on his FB page, that the Kiev regime succeeded in the meantime to suppress and disperse antifascist opposition in Odessa and Kharkov. And unless anyone was still in any doubt about the nature of the current regime in Kiev (which the Western media and Western politicians keep painting as an incredible democracy), the same Avakov also announced on his FB page that self-defense in eastern Ukraine "must be exterminated like mad dogs; no negotiations."
At the same time, as Poroshenko made it very clear in his inaugural speech, the junta is convinced that, except for the armed resistance in eastern Ukraine, it faces no other significant and effective deterrent or constraint. Its decision, methodically implemented, has thus been ever more violent escalation.
In this situation, the West is working hard to deter, that is, to prevent, any effective counter-measures and defense on the part of Russia and antifascist opposition in Ukraine. This is, in fact, the very strategic idea formulated by Brzezinski: to make such moves and create such conditions that would leave Russia no choice, but to choose what the West would compel it to: "... one thing is certain : [the plan] will move faster if a geopolitical context is shaped that propels Russia in that direction, while foreclosing other temptations [ = choices]. ... the sooner [will] the black hole of Euroasia be filled ... Indeed, for Russia the dilemma of the one alternative [dictated by the US] is no longer a matter of making a geopolitical choice but of facing up the imperatives of survival."(Grand Chessboard, p. 122, last paragraph) As Brzezinski makes it clear elsewhere, "the imperatives of survival" is understood by Brzezinski and other fathers of grand strategy is a matter of Russia's "Darwinian" extinction as a power and civilization "not fit" to continue as part of the intended New World Order: The goal of this "grand plan" for Russia and its civilization is "to acquire ... ethnic conflict [and] political fragmentation" (Grand Chessboard, p. 150).
Are these developments not connected?
Ukraine's new king Petro Poroshenko seems to have an ambition to combine a wrathful Achilles with a crafty Odysseus in his own oligarchic persona in a country that is but a shade of one's mighty Soviet Union. One day after his inauguration at which one of the guards dropped himself right after his rifle, Poroshenko held a three-party meeting with a Russian Ambassador and a representative of the OSCE. There he declared that he wants to have a ceasefire sometime within a week. It seems that part of his "peace plan" might be a demand that all the antifascists from the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics exile themselves to Russia. The rest would need to bow their neck and submit to a new NATO protectorate helped with cheap gas from Russia, while the pool of animosity, instability and chaos would continue as inflammation meant to reach soon enough the root canal of Moscow.
For "security" in this new Ukraine is to be guaranteed by Poroshenko's new "private army" or Poroshenko's own "presidential force"--the Right Sector/National Guard. In fact. the Right Sector, as its leader Dmitry Yarosh explained, wants to be even more than that. The Right Sector wants to the new Praetorian Guard of this fascist dictatorship--the supreme arbiter and power in Ukraine. The goal of the Right Sector is to "create a system of control over the president and the parliament ... so that if the president takes an anti-state course, we will compel him to follow the demands of Maidan."
Meanwhile, Victoria Nuland who was handing out cookies on Maidan to Berkut before they were shot by the same snipers who were also shooting Maidan people, met on June 8 in Odessa with the Right Sector banker Oleg Kolomeysky, also known for issuing bounties for the heads of antifascist leaders and fighters. Nuland discussed with the billionaire who is also the junta-appointed head of the Dniepropetrovsk province, "financial assistance" of the US for the regime. As an added PR exercise, she also paid a visit to a local orphanage where she left the orphans with a box of soccer balls, while on the way of implementing the Empire's policies that produce a mass of new orphans.
Nuland made sure to emphasize that the US is supporting "positive changes in Ukraine and the new government's policy of further stabilization, especially in the east of Ukraine," where "stabilization" is evidently a cipher or euphemism for killing the people by the regime.
President Putin back on March 4,2014: "If we are to notice, that these outrages begin in Eastern regions (of the Ukraine), and if people appeal to us for help, as do we already have the official appeal from the legitimate acting president, then we reserve the right to protect those citizens by all means available to us. We believe this would be completely legitimate. Such a decision will only be taken to protect Ukrainian citizens, so let any of their military personnel even attempt to shoot at their own people, behind whom we do stand. Not up front but we do stand behind. Let them even try to shoot at women and children." Vladimir Putin, March 4, 2014, Official transcript
After that, notably beginning with the Geneva Agreement of April 17, the Russian government started moving away from its firm position of the unconstitutionality of the violent coup of February 21-23 and, instead, started granting ever more legitimacy to the Kiev regime, while falling ever more short of confirming legitimacy to the referenda in eastern Ukraine and the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics and Novorossyia, which Putin himself evoked in his four-hours-long interview on March 7. By yielding ever more legitimacy to the Kiev regime, Russia is taking more and more legitimacy from its support for ethnic Russians in Ukraine and from its possible Russian intervention and involvement.
In his interview on June 4, 2014, with Radio Europe 1 and TF1 TV channel, Putin said namely the following in response to a question about the alleged "democratic vote" for Poroshenko: "I’ve already told you and will say it again: we will respect the choice of the Ukrainian people and we will cooperate with Ukrainian authorities. ... Yes, we recognize [Ukraine's] sovereignty." Does this mean recognition of sovereignty as embodied and practiced by the current regime ruling in Ukraine?
In the same interview, Putin also explained again Russia's position on Crimean and its reunification with Russia: "Russian troops were in Crimea under the international treaty on the deployment of the Russian military base. It’s true that Russian troops helped Crimeans hold a referendum on their (a) independence and (b) desire to join the Russian Federation. No one can prevent these people from exercising a right that is stipulated in Article 1 of the UN Charter, the right of nations to self-determination. ... In accordance with the expression of the will of people who live there, Crimea is part of the Russian Federation and its constituent entity. I want everyone to understand this clearly. We conducted an exclusively diplomatic and peaceful dialogue – I want to stress this – with our partners in Europe and the United States. In response to our attempts to hold such a dialogue and to negotiate an acceptable solution, they supported the anti-constitutional state coup in Ukraine, and following that we could not be sure that Ukraine would not become part of the North Atlantic military bloc. In that situation, we could not allow a historical part of the Russian territory with a predominantly ethnic Russian population to be incorporated into an international military alliance, especially because Crimeans wanted to be part of Russia. I am sorry, but we couldn't act differently."
In other words, Putin evoked the principle of self-determination and emphasized its notable expression through a referendum, which happened when the political regime of Ukraine was radically changed from "merely" thieving oligarchy to oligarchy that placed fascist radicals in charge and control of state security, its armed forces and police in the ever escalating campaign of war, terror, and massacre unleashed on those who oppose this unconstitutional change. In other words, oligarchy moved through a violent coup and Molotov cocktails over to only an oligarchic dictatorship, but further to a fascist, military dictatorship. This regime change further greatly increased the risk of this regime making Ukraine into a NATO "bridgehead" 400 miles towards the gates of Moscow, which is actually also precisely what Brzezinski himself defined as the US strategic goal (Grand Strategy. pp. 46, 86, 203).
However, to the threat of NATO aggressive expansion (it is aggressive and not really "peaceful" or stabilizing, as it is presented--one only needs to remember Kosovo, Libya, or Syria), Putin also added the significance of Crimea being the home to Russia's Black Sea Navy. And that's the only one key difference, which I can see, between the case of Crimea and the case of Novorossiya (the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics). The latter happened to have no Russian military base. Yet their case is as good, if not stronger than Crimea's. In Crimea, the referendum was conducted with Russian troops stepping in and preventing outbreak of violence (which was actually planned and prepared by the Right Sector and other elements of the junta). In the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics, the referenda were organized by the new revolutionary and popular organs of power emerging from below and without presence of Russian troops. Moreover, against these new people's republics, the fascist junta has sent the army, the police, the Naz-guard, the Right Sector and private armies (or rather death squads) of Ukrainian mafia oligarchs.
The other fact is, as Arsen Avakov, the junta's interior minister, boasted on his FB page, that the Kiev regime succeeded in the meantime to suppress and disperse antifascist opposition in Odessa and Kharkov. And unless anyone was still in any doubt about the nature of the current regime in Kiev (which the Western media and Western politicians keep painting as an incredible democracy), the same Avakov also announced on his FB page that self-defense in eastern Ukraine "must be exterminated like mad dogs; no negotiations."
At the same time, as Poroshenko made it very clear in his inaugural speech, the junta is convinced that, except for the armed resistance in eastern Ukraine, it faces no other significant and effective deterrent or constraint. Its decision, methodically implemented, has thus been ever more violent escalation.
In this situation, the West is working hard to deter, that is, to prevent, any effective counter-measures and defense on the part of Russia and antifascist opposition in Ukraine. This is, in fact, the very strategic idea formulated by Brzezinski: to make such moves and create such conditions that would leave Russia no choice, but to choose what the West would compel it to: "... one thing is certain : [the plan] will move faster if a geopolitical context is shaped that propels Russia in that direction, while foreclosing other temptations [ = choices]. ... the sooner [will] the black hole of Euroasia be filled ... Indeed, for Russia the dilemma of the one alternative [dictated by the US] is no longer a matter of making a geopolitical choice but of facing up the imperatives of survival."(Grand Chessboard, p. 122, last paragraph) As Brzezinski makes it clear elsewhere, "the imperatives of survival" is understood by Brzezinski and other fathers of grand strategy is a matter of Russia's "Darwinian" extinction as a power and civilization "not fit" to continue as part of the intended New World Order: The goal of this "grand plan" for Russia and its civilization is "to acquire ... ethnic conflict [and] political fragmentation" (Grand Chessboard, p. 150).
Are these developments not connected?
Ukraine's new king Petro Poroshenko seems to have an ambition to combine a wrathful Achilles with a crafty Odysseus in his own oligarchic persona in a country that is but a shade of one's mighty Soviet Union. One day after his inauguration at which one of the guards dropped himself right after his rifle, Poroshenko held a three-party meeting with a Russian Ambassador and a representative of the OSCE. There he declared that he wants to have a ceasefire sometime within a week. It seems that part of his "peace plan" might be a demand that all the antifascists from the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics exile themselves to Russia. The rest would need to bow their neck and submit to a new NATO protectorate helped with cheap gas from Russia, while the pool of animosity, instability and chaos would continue as inflammation meant to reach soon enough the root canal of Moscow.
For "security" in this new Ukraine is to be guaranteed by Poroshenko's new "private army" or Poroshenko's own "presidential force"--the Right Sector/National Guard. In fact. the Right Sector, as its leader Dmitry Yarosh explained, wants to be even more than that. The Right Sector wants to the new Praetorian Guard of this fascist dictatorship--the supreme arbiter and power in Ukraine. The goal of the Right Sector is to "create a system of control over the president and the parliament ... so that if the president takes an anti-state course, we will compel him to follow the demands of Maidan."
Meanwhile, Victoria Nuland who was handing out cookies on Maidan to Berkut before they were shot by the same snipers who were also shooting Maidan people, met on June 8 in Odessa with the Right Sector banker Oleg Kolomeysky, also known for issuing bounties for the heads of antifascist leaders and fighters. Nuland discussed with the billionaire who is also the junta-appointed head of the Dniepropetrovsk province, "financial assistance" of the US for the regime. As an added PR exercise, she also paid a visit to a local orphanage where she left the orphans with a box of soccer balls, while on the way of implementing the Empire's policies that produce a mass of new orphans.
Nuland made sure to emphasize that the US is supporting "positive changes in Ukraine and the new government's policy of further stabilization, especially in the east of Ukraine," where "stabilization" is evidently a cipher or euphemism for killing the people by the regime.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)