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

 Remember My Information

 The Saker BlogviewTeasers

By now you must have heard it – Putin is “persecuting the Jehovah’s Witnesses” in Russia. Alas, this one is true. Well, this is maybe not nearly as terrible as the Ziomedia makes it sound, but still, a pretty bad and fundamentally misguided policy.

Why did the Russian government take such a drastic decision?

The Russian Justice Department has banned the JW as an organization on the grounds that the JW were a “”totalitarian sect of an anti-Christian orientation, the teachings of which contains teachings and practices which can damage the personality and health of the adept, his family, as well as traditional national spirituality and public interests” (source). Another source report that: “The Supreme Court of Russia stated that the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ church organization has systematically and through central governance infringed on human rights and trampled the freedoms of those belonging to the denomination. The sect forbids restricts families, bans many types of education and restricts medical treatments”. The same author then concludes that “So, in principle it is about protecting the rights and freedoms of Russians and on the other hand about breaking the laws governing churches’ activities. The Jehovah’s Witnesses have been given warnings and notices demanding that they reform, but without results. Therefore, do as the Romans do, or get out of Rome.”

Does that make sense to you?

To me it makes no sense whatsoever.

First and foremost, if the JW are really guilty of damaging personalities or health of people, or if they systematically infringe on human rights – then take them to court for these crimes and punish them. Why should one association/organization like the JW be singled out for committing crimes when every one of these crimes can be prosecuted in court? If the JW break the law, they ought to be punished according to the law, but why banning them? Why seize their assets?

I have heard the argument that the JW are probably run by the US CIA and the rest of them “democracy-bearers”. They probably are. So what? Then force them to register as the “agent of a foreign power” and, again, if they break the law then punish them according to the law.

Then comes the killer argument: JH do not accept blood transfusions. I don’t see what the problem is here either: let adults accept or reject whatever medical procedure they want, as for the children you can easily pass a law saying that in case of severe trauma, or of an acute need for a transfusion children can be transfused without the agreement of the parents. Does that violate parental right or the freedom of religion? Well, yes, of course it does, but each society has the right to impose minimal norms of civil and human rights which trump parental or religious rights. After all, by the logic of those who say that parental rights are above all female genital mutilations should also be accepted as long as the parents agree. And yet in reality, each society draws the line somewhere, and this is why in almost all countries circumcisions are allowed but female genital mutilations are banned. Ditto for polygamy which some religions allow but which most countries ban. At the end of the day, religious groups also need to obey the law of the land where they exist and there can be no absolute and unconditional religious freedom anywhere. All the Russian government had to do in this case was to contact the main JW organizations and tell them that their kids will be given transfusions even if their parents disagree. This would give each member of the JW the time and opportunity to decide what they will do in this context.

The most important argument is, I believe, the allegation that the JW “ damage (…) the traditional national spirituality and public interests. What this argument affirms that Russia has a “traditional national spirituality” and that that which runs contrary to it must be curtailed, limited or somehow inhibited. I actually largely agree with this argument, but the devil is in the details. Let me explain.

At this moment in history Russia is primarily an agnostic country. While a majority of Russians do claim some kind of religious affiliation, only a small minority is truly religious. Officially, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and Judaism are considered as the “historical” religions of Russia and Orthodox Christianity is singled out for the special contribution it had in Russian history. Seems pretty straightforward and reasonable to me: even if most Russians are not very religious, their worldview and values have been largely formed by the influence of the traditional religions of Russia. Russian literature, for example, is filled with ethical debates which clearly originate in the Orthodox faith. Another example of this religion-inspired worldview is the rejection by a vast majority of Russians of homosexuality as a “normal and healthy variation of human sexuality”: most Russians consider homosexuality to be a sexual pathology which ought not to be legally restricted, but which should not be given a “equal” status to what Russians call “natural” sexual orientations. One does not have to agree with the Russian majority view on this, or any other issue, but I submit that the Russians have the right to define what is right and wrong, healthy or sick, in their own country. Just as western nations currently have laws banning sexual intercourse with children, Russia has the right to pass laws banning the adoption of children by homosexuals. Unless one advocates the merciless “squeezing” of all of mankind into one single Procrustean cultural mold, it is rather obvious that it ought to be right of each sovereign nation to uphold whatever values it wants.

Russia has decided that Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and Judaism are the traditional religions of Russia which play a central role in the “traditional national spirituality”. Fine. But at the same time, there still remains a formal separation of religion and state in Russia and the Russian Constitution even bans the adoption of some kind of official state ideology. Furthermore, the Constitution also proclaims the freedom of religion. How do you combine such apparently completely contradictory laws?

In truth, you can’t. Russia is stuck with laws which she inherited from the “democratic” 1990s and the gradually formulating modern social consensus. Religion is hardly the only example. Take, for instance, the death penalty which Russia suspended to be accepted in the Council of Europe. Problem: most Russians favor the death penalty, especially if used against corrupt individuals, like they do in China. I could multiply examples of contradictions between the legacy of the 1990s and today’s Russia.

• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Christianity, Russia 

Now that Trump has already comprehensively betrayed all his campaign promises and his 100 first days in office are marked by nothing else but total chaos, incompetence, betrayals of his closest friends and allies, recklessly dangerous and utterly ineffective grandstanding in foreign policy, there are a lot of people out there who say “I told you so!”, “how could you take this clown seriously!” and “are you now finally waking up from your delusional state?”. Yes, a superficial survey of what Trump did since he got into the White House could appear to make these nay-sayers look right. But in reality, they are completely wrong. Let me explain why.

First, what these nay-sayers apparently ignore is that there are innumerable examples in history of the elites turning against each other, usually in times of crises. In the case of Trump, I submit that there overwhelming empirical data out there that a good part of the world elites really and truly were terrified of a possible Trump victory. The kind of hysterical, completely over-the-top hate campaign in which the US Ziomedia engaged in against Trump is something which I have never seen before and which, in my opinion, proves that the Neocon-run propaganda outlets (the Ziomedia, Hollywood) saw Trump as a major danger to their interests. Now, whether Trump had any chance against such powerful “deep state” actors or not is immaterial: Trump was a chance, a possibility and, I would argue, the only option to try to kick the Neocons in the teeth. And don’t give me Sanders or Stein as possible options, they were both 100% fake – just look at how both of them did Hillary’s dirty job for her (Sanders with his endorsement of her even though he was cheated out of a victory and Stein with her ridiculous recount). Even if Trump had just a 1% chance of prevailing, voting for him was an opportunity to achieve regime change in the USA and the American people grabbed it. They did the ethically and pragmatically correct thing. Trump was really the only choice.

Second, you can think of the elections as a giant opinion poll. What the American voter did is to send two messages urbi et orbi. First to the rest of the planet: Not in our name! We don’t support this regime! And then to the Neocons : we hate you. In fact, we hate you so much that we are willing to even vote for a guy like Trump just because we hate Hillary even more. As to the message to the Ziomedia it was crystal clear: liars! We don’t trust you! Go screw yourselves, we will vote for the man you hate with such a passion precisely because we deny you the right to tell us what to think. Yes, Trump proved to be a fake and a liar himself, but he will also be a one term President as a direct consequence of his betrayals. And it is quite possible that Kushner or Pence will now run the Empire on behalf of his real bosses, but the world will also know that this was not what the American people wanted.

Third, this gigantic vote of no-confidence in the Ziomedia will now force the regime to engage in all sorts of more or less subtle maneuvers to try to crack down on free speech in the USA. This is good news for two reasons: a) they will fail and b) they will show their true face. YouTube, Google, Facebook, Twitter and all the others are now becoming overt agents of oppression whereas in the past they still had (an admittedly thin) veneer of respectability. Now that it has become clear that the Internet is the last free-speech zone and that more and more Americans realize that Russia Today or Press TV are far superior news sources than the US Ziomedia, the level of influence of the US propaganda machine will continue to plummet.

Fourth, if we look at the immoral, self-defeating and, frankly, stupid decisions of Trump in the Middle-East and in East Asia we can at least find some solace in the fact that Trump is now betraying all his campaign promises. Hillary would have done more or less the same, but with what she would definitely present these policies as having a mandate from the American people. Trump has no such excuse, and that is very good indeed. Voting for Trump took the mandate away from the Ziocons.

Fifth, remember the “basket of deplorables”? “Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic.” If Hillary had been elected, then the ideology which made her characterize the average American as ugly bigot would be ruling the country by now. But she was defeated. Thus, it is becoming undeniable that there are two Americas out there: one which I call the “alliance of minorities” and the other what I would called “real America” or “mainstream America”. The defeat of Hillary has sent a powerful message to these minorities reminding them that they are exactly that – minorities – and that a political agenda centered on the hatred of the majority is not a viable one. This empowering of the majority of US Americans is, I think, a much needed development whose effects will hopefully be felt in future elections.

Sixth, Trump has already gotten one more or less decent Supreme Court Justice in. He might get another one in before he is impeached or his term ends. Hillary would have probably nominated the first Black or Latino genderfluid freak, a Chabad-Lubavitch rabbi or even Alan Dershowitz Himself (with a capital “H”) to the supreme court and dared anybody to vote them down. Of course, compared to the risks of nuclear war, a Supreme Court Justice nominee might not appear to be crucial, but for those living inside the USA such nominations can make a huge difference.

Seventh and last but not least, nuclear war is simply too horrible and threatens the future of the entire human race. I submit that we all, every one of us, has a moral duty to do everything we can to avoid it and to make it less likely, even if we can only act at the margins. This is one of those very rare cases where a single-issue vote really does make sense. I don’t care how bad Trump turned out to be. In fact, even if he turns out to be even worse than Hillary, I submit that it is absolutely undeniable that on the day the Election took place Hillary was the candidate for war and Trump the candidate for peace. Those who claim otherwise seem to have forgotten that Hillary promised us a no-fly zone over Russian forces in Syria. They also forget this absolutely crucial statement made by Hillary Clinton in early December of 2012:

“There is a move to re-Sovietise the region,” (…) “It’s not going to be called that. It’s going to be called a customs union, it will be called Eurasian Union and all of that,” (…) “But let’s make no mistake about it. We know what the goal is and we are trying to figure out effective ways to slow down or prevent it.”

There are also persistent rumors that Hillary was the one who told Bill to bomb Serbia. So this women (sorry, I cannot call her a “lady”) does have a record and that record is a frightening one. God only knows what would have happened if she had become the President. She clearly is a hateful maniac with a personal hate for Putin. There is absolutely no evidence indicating that Trump had that kind of hateful personality.

So while “Monday morning quarterbacking” is fun, it is also absurd. Those who now tell us “I told you so” are right but for the wrong reasons, whereas those who supported Trump were wrong, but for the right reasons. Trump betrayed his campaign promises, but those who voted for him could not simply assume that he would do that, especially not when there was no reason at all to believe that Hillary would betray hers: does anybody seriously believe that after being elected on a promise of war she would have turned into a dove of peace? Of course not.

• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Military, Donald Trump, Neocons 

First, a painful, but needed, clarification:

Basement crazies. Neocons. Zionists. Israel Lobbyists. Judaics. Jews. Somewhere along this list we bump into the proverbial “elephant in the room”. For some this bumping will happen earlier in the list, for others a little later down the list, but the list will be more or less the same for everybody. Proper etiquette, as least in the West, would want to make us run away from that topic. I won’t. Why? Well, for one thing I am constantly accused of not discussing this elephant. Furthermore, I am afraid that the role this elephant is playing is particularly toxic right now. So let me try to deal with this beast, but first I have to begin with some caveats.

First, terminology. For those who have not seen it, please read my article “Why I use the term AngloZionist and why it is important“. Second, please read my friend Gilad Atzmon’s article “Jews, Judaism & Jewishness” (or, even better, please read his seminal book The Wondering Who). Please note that Gilad specifically excludes Judaics (religious Jews,) from his discussion. He writes “I do not deal with Jews as a race or an ethnicity. I also generally avoid dealing with Judaism (the religion)”. I very much include them in my discussion. However, I also fully agree with Gilad when he writes that “Jews Are Not a Race But Jewish Identity is Racist” (those having any doubts about Jews not being a race or ethnicity should read Shlomo Sand’s excellent book “The Invention of the Jewish People“). Lastly, please carefully review my definition of racism as spelled out in my “moderation policies“:

Racism is, in my opinion, not so much the belief that various human groups are different from each other, say like dog breeds can be different, but the belief that the differences between human groups are larger than within the group. Second, racism is also a belief that the biological characteristics of your group somehow pre-determine your actions/choices/values in life. Third, racism often, but not always, assumes a hierarchy amongst human groups (Germanic Aryans over Slavs or Jews, Jews over Gentiles, etc.). I believe that God created all humans with the same purpose and that we are all “brothers in Adam”, that we all equally share the image (eternal and inherent potential for perfection) of God (as opposed to our likeness to Him, which is our temporary and changing individual condition).

To sum it all up, I need to warn both racists and rabid anti-anti-Zionists that I will disappoint them both: the object of my discussion and criticism below will be limited to categories which a person chooses to belong to or endorse (religion, political ideas, etc.) and not categories which one is born with (race, ethnicity).

Second, so what are Jews if not a race? In my opinion, they are a tribe (which Oxford Dictionaires defines as: a social division in a traditional society consisting of families or communities linked by social, economic, religious, or blood ties, with a common culture and dialect, typically having a recognized leader). A tribe is a group one can chose to join (Elizabeth Taylor) or leave (Gilad Atzmon).

Third, it is precisely and because Jews are a tribe that we, non-Jews, owe them exactly nothing: no special status, neither bad nor good, no special privilege of any kind, no special respect or “sensitivity” – nothing at all. We ought to treat Jews exactly as we treat any other of our fellow human beings: as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise (Luke 6:31). So if being Jewish is a choice and if any choice is a legitimate object of discussion and criticism, then (choosing to) being Jewish is a legitimate object of discussion and criticism. Conversely, those who would deny us the right to criticize Jews are, of course, the real racists since they do believe that Jews somehow deserve a special status. In fact, that notion is at the core of the entire Jewish identity and ideology.

Now let’s come back to our opening list: Basement crazies. Neocons. Zionists. Israel Lobbyists. Judaics. Jews. I submit that these are all legitimate categories as long as it is clear that “Jews by birth only”, what Alain Soral in France calls “the everyday Jews”, are not included in this list. Thus, for our purposes and in this context, these terms are all interchangeable. My own preference still goes for “Zionist” because it combines the ideological racism of secular Jews with the religious racism of Judaics (if you don’t like my choice, just replace “Zionist” with any of the categories I listed above). Zionism used to be secular, but it has turned religious during the late 20th century now and so for our purposes this term can encompass both secular and religious Jewish supremacists. Add to this some more or less conservative opinions and minsets and you have “Ziocons” as an alternative expression.

[Sidebar: it tells you something about the power of the Zionist propaganda machine, I call it the Ziomedia, that I would have to preface this article with a 700+ explanatory words note to try to overcome conditioned mental reflexes in the reader (that I might be an evil anti-Semite). By the way, I am under no illusions either: some Jews or doubleplusgoodthinking shabbos-goyim will still accuse me of racism. This just comes with the territory. But the good news is when I will challenge them to prove their accusation they will walk away empty-handed].

* * *

(Reprinted from The Vineyard of the Saker by permission of author or representative)

The latest US cruise missile attack on the Syrian airbase is an extremely important event in so many ways that it is important to examine it in some detail. I will try to do this today with the hope to be able to shed some light on a rather bizarre attack which will nevertheless have profound consequences. But first, let’s begin by looking at what actually happened.

The pretext:

I don’t think that anybody seriously believes that Assad or anybody else in the Syrian government really ordered a chemical weapons attack on anybody. To believe that it would require you to find the following sequence logical: first, Assad pretty much wins the war against Daesh which is in full retreat. Then, the US declares that overthrowing Assad is not a priority anymore (up to here this is all factual and true). Then, Assad decides to use weapons he does not have. He decides to bomb a location with no military value, but with lots of kids and cameras. Then, when the Russians demand a full investigation, the Americans strike as fast as they can before this idea gets any support. And now the Americans are probing a possible Russian role in this so-called attack. Frankly, if you believe any of that, you should immediately stop reading and go back to watching TV. For the rest of us, there are three options:

  1. a classical US-executed false flag
  2. a Syrian strike on a location which happened to be storing some kind of gas, possibly chlorine, but most definitely not sarin. This option requires you to believe in coincidences. I don’t. Unless,
  3. the US fed bad intelligence to the Syrians and got them to bomb a location where the US knew that toxic gas was stored.

What is evident is that the Syrians did not drop chemical weapons from their aircraft and that no chemical gas was ever stored at the al-Shayrat airbase. There is no footage showing any munitions or containers which would have delivered the toxic gas. As for US and other radar recordings, all they can show is that an aircraft was in the sky, its heading, altitude and speed. There is no way to distinguish a chemical munition or a chemical attack by means of radar.

Whatever option you chose, the Syrian government is obviously and self-evidently innocent of the accusation of having used chemical weapons. This is most likely a false flag attack.

Also, and just for the record, the US had been considering exactly such a false flag attack in the past. You can read everything about this plan here and here.

The attack:

American and Russian sources both agree on the following facts: 2 USN ships launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at the Al Shayrat airfield in Syria. The US did not consult with the Russians on a political level, but through military channels the US gave Russia 2 hours advance warning. At this point the accounts begin to differ.

The Americans say that all missiles hit their targets. The Russians say that only 23 cruise missiles hit the airfield. The others are “unaccounted for”. Here I think that it is indisputable that the Americans are lying and the Russians are saying the truth: the main runway is intact (the Russian reporters provided footage proving this) and only one taxiway was hit. Furthermore, the Syrian Air Force resumed its operations within 24 hours. 36 cruise missiles have not reached their intended target. That is a fact.

It is also indisputable that there were no chemical munitions at this base as nobody, neither the Syrians nor the Russian reporters, had to wear any protective gear.

The missiles used in the attack, the Tomahawk, can use any combination of three guidance systems: GPS, inertial navigation and terrain mapping. There is no evidence and even no reports that the Russians shot even a single air-defense missile. In fact, the Russians had signed a memorandum with the USA which specifically comitting Russia NOT to interfere with any US overflights, manned or not, over Syria (and vice versa). While the Tomahawk cruise missile was developed in the 1980s, there is no reason to believe that the missiles used had exceeded their shelf live and there is even evidence that they were built in 2014. The Tomahawk is known to be accurate and reliable. There is absolutely no basis to suspect that over half of the missiles fired simply spontaneously malfunctioned. I therefore see only two possible explanations for what happened to the 36 missing cruise missiles:

Explanation A: Trump never intended to really hit the Syrians hard and this entire attack was just “for show” and the USN deliberately destroyed these missiles over the Mediterranean. That would make it possible for Trump to appear tough while not inflicting the kind of damage which would truly wreck his plans to collaborate with Russia. I do not believe in this explanation and I will explain why in the political analysis below.

Explanation B: The Russians could not legally shoot down the US missiles. Furthermore, it is incorrect to assume that these cruise missiles flew a direct course from the Mediterranean to their target (thereby almost overflying the Russian radar positions). Tomahawk were specifically built to be able to fly tangential courses around some radar types and they also have a very low RCS (radar visibility), especially in the frontal sector. Some of these missiles were probably flying low enough not to be seen by Russian radars, unless the Russians had an AWACS in the air (I don’t know if they did). However, since the Russians were warned about the attack they had plenty of time to prepare their electronic warfare stations to “fry” and otherwise disable at least part of the cruise missiles. I do believe that this is the correct explanation. I do not know whether the Russian were technically unable to destroy and confuse the 23 missiles which reached the base or whether a political decision was taken to let less than half of the cruise missiles through in order to disguise the Russian role in the destruction of 36 missiles. What I am sure of is that 36 advanced cruise missile do not “just disappear”. There are two reasons why the Russians would have decided to use their EW systems and not their missiles: first, it provides them “plausible deninability” (at least for the general public, there is no doubt that US signal intelligence units did detect the Russian electronic interference (unless it happened at very low power and very high frequency and far away inland), and because by using EW systems it allowed them to keep their air defense missiles for the protection of their own forces. Can the Russian really do this?

(Reprinted from The Vineyard of the Saker by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Military, Donald Trump, Russia, Syria 

Twilight’s Last Gleaming
by John Michael Greer

A couple of weeks ago I wrote an article for the Unz Review entitled “The Empire should be placed on suicide watch”. As always, I also reposted it on my blog. One of the commentators, J.L. Seagull posted a comment which intrigued me. He wrote:

(…) we continue to be trapped in an illusion that we are still a massive power and can simply “pull through” the current state of things, as if it is a little speed bump rather than the beginning of the end.

I agree with the Saker. All that is needed is a single, concrete military failure for that hallucination to be totally shattered. John Michael Greer described precisely how this can happen in his book “Twilight’s Last Gleaming.” If the American military were to fail, the illusion of a united country would dissipate before our eyes and the country would be gone within weeks — either in a peaceful breakup or a violent one, depending on how Washington would attempt to respond.

This got me very interested in the book he mentioned. While I personally had a pretty clear idea of how the US could completely collapse and break-up, I had never heard of such a hypothesis discussed in details in an English language text, and even less so in a fiction book. I ordered the book and two days later I began reading it. And what a fascinating book it turned out to be.


I don’t want to give away the entire plot as I hope that many of you will decide to get the book, but I will just say that I find the book highly realistic: it begins by a supposedly “easy” military attack by the US military on a weak and more or less defenseless country which turns into a disaster due to a fundamental miscalculation. At that point, the USA does exactly what the opposing side predicts and doubles-down and that turns out to be a fatal mistake which, through a domino effect, ends up in the dissolution of the USA.

[Sidebar: those who will not read the book or don't care about finding out the details of the plot can go and check it (spoiler alert!!) by clicking here]

The book is highly realistic in the sense that the author clearly did an excellent job researching his topic and because each “domino fall” is, by itself, credible. Truth be told, the author does assume that each time before the next domino falls the President commits yet another blunder or, at least, does not take correct action. Is that realistic? Well, when I see the kind of Presidents the US has had in the past couple of decades I would say that yes – this assumption is realistic. Still, what Greer’s describes is a “perfect storm” and we can all hope that in the real world such a crisis could be averted.

There two aspects of this book which I find the most remarkable.

First, Greer clearly points to a mindset of imperial hubris as the main cause for the eventual collapse of the US.

Second, Greer very skillfully illustrates how otherwise powerful and complex weapons systems can be defeated by creative tactics.

Again, I don’t want to go into the details because the book is a real page-turner and I hope that you will read it with as much enjoyment as I did.

I think that Greer ought to be commended for his courage for pointing out at two sources of US weaknesses which are considered as sacred cows by most US authors: arrogance and technology. Instead of seeing them as a source of strength Geer correctly identifies them as a source of weakness for the USA. This will probably be very counter-intuitive for many, and border on crimethink for some.

I think that it was the correct thing to do to hope that Trump could take action to avoid the kind of disaster the book describes. His campaign promises clearly indicated that another foreign policy was at least considered. Now that the Neocons and the US deep state have thoroughly crushed him Greer’s book takes on a new quality – the one of possibly being prophetic, at least in its general features (the book was written in 2015).

There is another topic which Greer discusses in his book, the one of a possible constitutional convention. While the idea of a constitutional convention has been floated around by all sorts of people and interests groups – all for different reasons – very few understand the immense danger of such an exercise. If you are not familiar with the topic, I would highly recommend the very interesting Solari Special Report on this topic with Catherine Austin-Fitts and Edwin Vieira Jr (you can listen to the audio of the show or read the PDF transcript). Greer does a great job showing how such a convention could result in a complete break-up of the United States.

I had never read a single book by Greer and I knew nothing about him. I imagined him to be some kind of ex-military guy who know wrote fiction books. To my immense surprise, the turned out to be, according to Wikipedia, a person who “served from December 2003 to December 2015 as the Grand Archdruid of the Ancient Order of Druids in America, and since then has focused on the Druidical Order of the Golden Dawn, which he founded in 2013” and a specialist of the occult! I guess that this explains his, shall we say, “non-mainstream” views but still, that was quite a surprise for me.

In conclusion – the book is well written, immensely entertaining and, I think, very thought-provoking. I highly recommend it.

If you are interesting in finding out more about the author, check out his blog here:

It is interesting too, well worth a visit.

To order the book on Amazon, click here

• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Military 

Oh boy, that did not take long. As I wrote in February, the Neocons and the US deep state have completely neutered Trump. Just look at these two headlines from RT (and read the articles):

‘It crossed a lot of lines’: Trump on alleged chemical gas attack in Syria

‘We are compelled to take own action’ if UN fails in Syria – US envoy

Frankly, I feel like saying “QED – I rest my case” and stop writing here. But I won’t – this is too serious.

First, let’s set the context. The Syrians gave up their chemical weapons three years ago (courtesy of Russia). The Syrians have also pretty much defeated the Anglo-Zionist-Wahabi aggression against their country (courtesy of Russia, again). There is a new (kind of) US Administration in power (some say that this was also courtesy of Russia) which appeared to have given up on overthrowing Assad. And right at this moment in time, in what is supposed to be a *pure coincidence*.

  1. The Syrian forces used chemical weapons
  2. In a location filled with children
  3. and a lot of folks with cameras

How stupid do they think we are?

But, of course, it’s not about us. It’s about Trump. And he, alas, is proving to be the overcooked noodle he has been since, well, pretty much day 1 and ever since: flaccid, confused and spineless. And yeah, he appears be stupid alright, especially so-called “plan” to defeat Daesh (more about that below).

And nevermind that Russian experts have been warning for along time that the “good terrorists” had chemical munitions. Nah! Who cares? besides, these are the same evil Russkies who have now been “unmasked” courtesy of a CIA report about “foreign agents”.

We all know that Anglo-Zionists are peace loving, shy and generally kind people. This is why we think of them as the “Axis of Kindness”. The only way to really force their hand and make them use their “best military in the world” is to show them dead children. Like in Kuwait, in Bosnia, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and now Syria. That, and women raped for political reasons (Bosnia, Libya – soon in Syria I suppose). Good thing that the latest atrocity of the “Syrian regime” came in daylight and involved lots of horribly dying children!

Now the Americans will get to destroy the village to save it.

Except they won’t.

There have been plenty of articles speculating about what the “Trump plan” for defeating ISIS/Daesh will be. I won’t even bother listing them here. In plain English his plan is, how should I put it, not very complex:

  1. Increase the number of US troops already present in Syria
  2. Offer the Kurds their own autonomous region in exchange for acting like cannon-fodder for Uncle Sam
  3. Liberate Raqqa as a tangible sign of success

In truth, there is nothing new here. It’s is just a re-heated version of the very same plan Obama had (great minds think alike, and so do the not so great, apparently).

Can you see the problem with this plan?

Let me help here. Problem #1 – no UNSC Resolution will back it. Neither will the Syrian government. But who cares, right? We already know that Nikki Haley thinks about that: once again the US will arrogantly violate international law under the pretext of “being compelled to take action”. Welcome back to Bosnia and Croatia! It’s 1994 again! We now live in the era of the “RTP – responsibility to protect”. International Law, RIP. But that is only a ‘minor’ problem. The real problem is simple:

Besides the Syrians themselves, the Russians, the Iranians and the Turks are categorically against such a plan. And these four countries just happen to represent the overwhelming military force in Syria, and all of them *already* have boots on the ground (and air defense systems). For Turkey especially, such a plan is a casus belli, they have said so many times. I am no big fan of Turkey or Erdogan (although I do like the Turkish people themselves), but I have to admit that should Trump go ahead with this goofy plan he will have no other choice then to chose between war or civil war. Mostly likely a combo of both.

Then there are the Kurds. Actually, in many ways I feel sorry for them and I admire them. But they have to realize the enormous dangers of accepting the US plan. First, that means that they will be the frontline cannon-fodder against Daesh which happens to be one of the best trained and experienced infantry force in the region. But worse, do the Kurds really commit the same historical mistake as the Albanian of Kosovo who have 100% linked their future with Camp Bondsteel and who will be instantly re-invaded by the Serbia as soon as NATO or the US leave (which they will, sooner or later, inevitably).

There is a reason why the US always supports minorities everywhere: because by accepting and relying on that support these minorities always become completely dependent upon the USA. That, in turn, means that the US can then use these minorities in any way they want “or else”. And, since sooner or later the Americans leaves, the “or else” inevitably and always happen.

I submit that it would be the hight of folly for the Kurds to commit the same mistake. Yes, sure, they want their autonomy and/or their own country. But they have to realize that the only viable way to achieve either objective is by negotiations with their neighbors, not some ignorant US official who will forget about them as soon as he is done promising them the moon. I would remind the Kurd of a time-honored US tradition here: as soon as things get ugly, the Americans “declare victory and leave”.

That also means that the Kurds might have to settle for less than what they want. Politics is the art of the possible. But if the choice is some viable limited autonomy vs full independence followed by an inevitable war against Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria then I think that the former is the best possible outcome. But even if we assume that the Kurds decide to try the “Kosovar option”.

Iran is the number one military power on the ground. And Hezbollah. The Syrians are struggling, I will admit to that. But they are holding and making incremental efforts, some of their best units are actually pretty good. As for the skies over Syria – they are Russian.

(Reprinted from The Vineyard of the Saker by permission of author or representative)

Whether one likes Russia or not, I think that everybody would agree that this country is really different, different in a profound and unique way. And there is some truth to that. One famous Russian author even wrote that “Russia cannot be understood rationally” (he used the expression “cannot be comprehended by the intellect”). Add to this some already rather eccentric politicians like Vladimir Zhirinovskii who is known to mix very rational and well-informed analyses with utter nonsense and you get the famous “Russia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma”. Frankly, this is just some witty hyperbole, Russia is not that mysterious. It is, however, rather dramatically different from the west, central and east European countries and even though a big chunk of Russia lies inside the European continent west of the Urals, in civilizational terms she is far removed from the so-called “West”, especially the modern West.

For example, Russia never underwent any “Renaissance”. I would even argue that Russia never really underwent any Middle-Ages either since, being an heir to the East Roman Empire (aka Byzantium), Russian roots are in Antiquity. While one could, arguably, describe the phases of western civilization as Middle-Ages -> Renaissance -> Modernity -> Contemporary era, in the case of Russia the sequence would be a much shorter Antiquity -> Modernity -> Contemporary era.

[Sidebar: you will notice that I did place the roots of the modern western civilization in the Middle-Ages, not in antiquity. The reason for this is the fact that when the Franks finally conquered the western Roman Empire they destroyed it to such a degree that the era following the collapse of the western Roman Empire is called the “Dark Ages” (Russia, by the way, never went through this millennium of darkness and, hence, she never had any need for any “renaissance” or “re-birth”). Contrary to the official historical narrative, the current western civilization has never had any roots in the Roman Empire, and even less so, Greek antiquity. The true founders of the “western world” were, in so many ways, the Franks]

I would therefore argue that while geographically-speaking Russia (at least the most populated part of it) is in Europe, culturally it has never shared a common history or, even less so, a common culture with the West. To say that Russia is “Asian” is also problematic for two crucial reasons: first, Russia, as a culture, was born from the Baptism of ancient “Rus” by Saint Vladimir in the late 10th century. The brand of Christianity received by Russia was the Roman, not the Frankish one. I don’t believe that anybody would seriously argue that Rome or Byzantium were “Asian”. So the cultural and spiritual roots of Russia are not Asian. Ethnically speaking, most Russians are Slavs, mixed to various degrees with other ethnic groups. And though I personally find the category “White” of dubious analytical value, I don’t think that anybody would seriously argue that “Whites” are Asians. That leaves us with the Russian state, the Russian polity and here, yes, I would argue that it was the Asian Tatar-Mongol (an inaccurate and misleading term, but that is the commonly used one) invaders which created the modern Russian state. The complicating factor here is that since Russia became a western-style Empire under Peter I it has been ruled by a mostly westernized elite which had much more in common with the elites of western Europe than with the majority of the Russian people. Both the 18th and 19th century in Russia were marked by a ruthless, and often violent, imposition of western political, social, cultural and religious models by the Russian ruling elites upon the Russian masses. This is a complex and multifaceted process which saw many contradictory phenomena taking place and we can argue forever about it but what is certain is that this process ended in 1917 with a bourgeois (masonic) liberal coup d’etat, followed, eight months later, by a Communist takeover and a bloody civil war. While neither the February coup nor the Communist takeover in November were true “revolutions”, the year 1917, taken as a whole, saw an immense revolution take place: one ruling class was completely replaced by an entirely different one.

I have neither the time nor intention here to discuss the Soviet period here, I have done so many times elsewhere, but I will only present my main conclusion here: there is no way to consider the Soviet period as a continuation of the pre-1917 Russia. Yes, geographically speaking the USSR more or less covered the previous Russian Empire and, yes, the population which lived in pre-1917 Russia continued to live in the new Soviet Union, but the roots of the dominant Bolshevik/Communist ideology in power were not found in ancient Russia and in the traditional Russian cultural, spiritual and religious values: the roots were imported from the West (just as the main leaders of the Bolshevik uprising for that matter). I would therefore argue that in 1917 one type of western elite (the aristocracy) was replaced by another type of western elite (the Communist Party) and that both of them were “imports” and not “Russian intellectual products”. I would even go further, and argue that the Russian people, culture and civilization have been persecuted for the last 300 years and that only with the arrival of Vladimir Putin at the helm of the Russian state did this persecution end.

Let me immediately clarify that these past three centuries were not uniform and that some periods were better for the Russian people and some worse. I would submit that the period when Petr Stolypin was Prime Minister (1906-1911) was probably the best time for Russia. The worst times for the Russians happened only six years later when the Lenin-Trotsky gang seized power and immediately began indulging in a genocidal campaign against everything and anything “Russian” in the cultural, spiritual or intellectual sense (this bloody orgy only abated in 1938). All in all, even with very strong variations, I believe that in a cultural and spiritual sense, the Russian nation was oppressed to various degrees roughly between 1666 and 1999. That is 333 years: a long period by any standards.

And then there is modern Russia, which I call “New Russia”. Clearly not the Russia of pre-1917, but not Soviet Russia either. And yet, a Russia which, for the first time in three centuries, is finally in the process of gradually shaking off western cultural, political and socio-economic models and which is trying to re-establish what I call the “Russian civilizational realm”. Of course, we should not be naive here: Putin inherited a political system entirely created by US “advisers” whose sole purpose was to further oppress and exploit the Russian people. The human and economic costs of the Gorbachev and Eltsin years can only be compared to the effects of a major war. And yet, out of this horror, came a leader whose loyalty was solely to the Russian people and who set out to liberate Russia from her foreign oppressors. This process of “sovereignization” is far from completed and will probably take many years and go through many ups and downs, but it has undeniably been initiated and, for the first time in centuries, the ruler of the Kremlin is not somebody whom the West can hope to subdue or coopt.

Hence the hysterical paranoia about Putin and his evil Russkies.

The West is terrified by the very real risk that for the first time in 333 years Russia might become truly Russian again.

Scary thought indeed.

• Category: Foreign Policy, History • Tags: Russia, Russian History 

In all the political drama taking place in the US as a result of the attempted color revolution against Trump, the bigger picture sometimes gets forgotten. And yet, this bigger picture is quite amazing, because if we look at it we will see irrefutable signs that the Empire in engaged in some bizarre slow motion version of seppuku and the only mystery left is who, or what, will serve as the Empire’s kaishakunin (assuming there will be one).

I would even argue that the Empire is pursuing a full-spectrum policy of self-destruction on several distinct levels, with each level contributing the overall sum total suicide. And when I refer to self-destructive behavior I don’t mean long-term issues such as the non-sustainability of the capitalist economic model or the social consequences of a society which not only is unable to differentiate right from wrong, but which now decrees that deviant behavior is healthy and normal. These are what I call “long term walls” into which we will, inevitably, crash, but which are comparatively further away than some “immediate walls”. Let me list a few of these:

Political suicide: the Neocons’ refusal to accept the election of Donald Trump has resulted in a massive campaign to de-legitimize him. What the Neocons clearly fail to see, or don’t care about, is that by de-legitimizing Trump they are also de-legitimizing the entire political process which brought Trump to power and upon which the United States is built as a society. As a direct result of this campaign, not only are millions of Americans becoming disgusted with the political system they were indoctrinated to believe in, but internationally the notion of “American democracy” is becoming a sad joke.

And just to make things worse, the US corporate media is finally revealing its true face and has now unapologetically shown the entire world that not only is it not in any way “fair” or “objective”, but that it is a 100% prostituted propaganda machine which faithfully serves the interests of the US “deep state”.

A key element of the quasi-constant brainwashing of the average American has always been the regular holding of elections. Never mind that, at least until now, the outcome of these elections made very little difference inside the US and none at all outside, the goal was never to consult the people – the goal has always been to give the illusion of democracy and people-power. Now that the Democrats say that the Russians rigged the elections and the Republicans say that it was the Democrats and their millions of dead voters who tried stealing it, it become rather obvious that these elections were always a joke, a pseudo-democratic “liturgy”, a brainwashing ritual – you name it – but never about anything real.

The emergence of the concept of the 1% can be “credited” to the Obama Administration, since it was during Obama that the entire “Occupy Wall Street” movement took off, but the ultimate unmasking of the viciously evil true face of that 1% must be credited to Hillary with her truly historical confession in which she openly declared that those who oppose her were a “basket of deplorables”. We already knew, thanks to Victoria Nuland, what the AngloZionist leaders thought of the people of Europe, now we know what they think of the people of the USA: exactly the same thing.

The bottom line is this: I don’t think that the moral authority and political credibility of the US have ever been lower than today. Decades of propaganda by Hollywood and the official US media machine have now collapsed and nobody buys that counter-factual nonsense anymore.

Foreign policy suicide: let’s see what options there are to choose from. The Neocons want a war with Russia which the Trump people don’t. The Trump people, however, want, well maybe not a war, although that option is very much on the table, but at least a very serious confrontation with China, North Korea or Iran, and about half of them would also like some kind of confrontation with Russia. There is absolutely nobody, at least at the top, who would dare to suggest that a confrontation or, even worse, a war with China, Iran, North Korea or Russia would be a disaster, a calamity for the USA. In fact, serious people with impressive credentials and a lot of gravitas are discussing these possibilities as if they were real, as it the US could in some sense prevail. This is laughable. Well, no, it is not. But it would be if it wasn’t so frightening and depressing. The truth is very, very different.

While it is probably not impossible for the United States to prevail, in purely military terms, against the DPRK in a war, the potential risks are nothing short of immense. And I don’t mean the risk posed by the North Korean nukes which, apparently, is also quite real. I mean the risk of starting a war against a country which has Seoul within conventional artillery range, an active duty army of well over one million people and 180,000 special forces. Let us assume for a second that the DPRK has no air force and no navy and an army composed of only 1M+ soldiers, 21k+ artillery pieces and 180k special forces. How do you propose to deal with that threat? If you have an easy, obvious solution, you have watched too many Hollywood movies. You probably also don’t understand the terrain.

But yes, the DPRK also has major wseaknesses and I cannot exclude that the North Korean armed forces would rapidly collapse under a sustained attack by the US and the ROK. I did not say that I believe that this would happen, only that I don’t exclude it. Should that happen, the US might well prevail relatively rapidly, at least in purely military terms. However, please keep in mind that any military operation has to serve a political goal and, in that sense, I cannot imagine any scenario under which the US would walk away from a war against the DPRK with anything remotely resembling a real “victory”. There is a paraphrase of something Ho Chi Minh allegedly told to the French in the 1940s which I really like. It goes like this:” we kill some of you, you kill a lot of us, and then we win”. That is how a war with the DPRK would probably play out. I call this the “American curse”: Americans are very good at killing people, but they are not good at winning wars. Still, in the case of the DPRK there is at least a possibility of a military victory, even if at a potentially huge cost. With Iran, Russia or China there is no such possibility at all: a war with any of them would be a guaranteed disaster (I wrote about a war in Iran here and about a war with Russia too many times to count). So why is it that even though out of the 4 possible wars, one is a potential disaster and the 3 others are a guaranteed disaster, why is it that these are discussed as if they were potential options?!


Tectonic shifts are continuing to occur in the political landscape of the Ukraine. Last week, following the imposition of a total blockade against Novorussia by the Ukronazis, Russia declared that she will from now on recognize the official documents emitted by the DNR and LNR authorities. This week, the Novorussian authorities have nationalized all the key factories of the Donbass. Furthermore, the Novorussians have now declared that since the Ukrainian authorities are not willing to purchase their coal and anthracite they will from now on export them to Russia. And just to make sure that they cover all their bases, the Novorussians have also declared that from now on only the Russian Ruble will be circulating in the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics.

Not to be undone, the Ukronazis have also taken a highly significant step: the Ukrainian Prime Minister has declared that he thinks that the irregular forces currently enforcing the blockade should be considered official border guards (as for these soon to be “border guards”, they have explained that for their main border post shall be called “nightingale” in honor of the Nachtigall battalion of the Nazi Abwehr).

Let’s sum all this up:

  1. The Urkonazis completely close down the unofficial border with Novorussia
  2. Russia recognizes Novorussian documents
  3. The DNR and LNR nationalize all the Ukrainian industry in the Donbass
  4. The Ukronazis declare that the line of contact is now to be considered a border
  5. The Novorussians declare that the Russian Ruble is the only legal currency in Novorussia
  6. The Novorussians will now export their entire production of coal/anthracite to Russia
  7. All the factories in Novorussia will no longer pay taxes to Kiev

I don’t know about you – but to me this sure looks like the DNR and LNR are cutting off their last ties to the Ukraine and the the junta in Kiev appears to go along with this plan.

In reality, this is all much more complicated. There is a covert war going on between the Ukrainian oligarchs Rinat Akhmetov, Igor Kolomoiskii and President Poroshensko and there is also a not so covert war taking place between the Ukronazi opposition and Poroshenko. There are also many unanswered questions left, including how and if the Novorussians will sell their production of coal and anthracite either to Russia (which Russia really doesn’t need) or through Russia (possibly concealing its real origin). This situation also begs the question of what the Russian banks will be able and willing to do to help the Novorussians. The sums of money involved are huge and there are many, often mutually exclusive, interests competing against each other. But I won’t dwell on that level right now – what is most important to me is the big picture and that big picture says “good-bye Ukraine”.

One can judge the seriousness of these developments by the truly Herculean efforts made by the western corporate media not to notice them. Even the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Boris Johnson, who was in Kiev yesterday, was focusing exclusively on the upcoming Eurovision competition, and not on the dramatic developments taking place in the southeast.

In the Ukrainian context, the expression “never say never” is probably even more important than usual, but I will say that if what I think is happening is really happening, that is, if the Donbass is now de-facto cutting its last ties with the Ukraine and integrating with Russia politically and economically, and if the junta in Kiev appears to have been unable to prevent the Nazi volunteers from triggering this crisis with their blockade, then this potentially means to very important things:

  1. The Ukronazis have given up on the concept of reconquering Novorussia.
  2. The breakup of the rump-Ukraine has begun.

The blockade of the Donbass was decided by a rather small group of nationalist leaders who never asked for nor received any authorization for their actions from the junta in Kiev. Furthermore, the junta in Kiev never officially endorsed or even supported that move. But most amazingly, the junta never sent any kind of official police/military/security force to regain control of the situation. There was a group of men who, armed with sticks and baseball bats, tried to remove the Ukronazi crazies from the tracks, but they were quickly beaten back. Keep in mind that there are tens of thousands of soldiers and policemen deployed in the immediate vicinity of these volunteer units, but nobody, absolutely nobody has made a move to restore law and order.

Of course, the very notion of “law and order” is largely meaningless in a country occupied by a regime which itself is totally illegal. Furthermore, “law and order” are also meaningless in a country where might – usually in the form of a gang of thugs with Kalashnikovs – makes right. Forget “central Europe” – think “Somalia” and you will be much closer to the truth.

The Ukraine is a failed state, politically and economically. And, as a failed state, the Ukraine has plenty of armed gangs and even official armed forces, but nothing like the kind of modern and civilized military you need to take on the Novorussians who, far from being a failed state, are a young state which has just completed the modernization of its armed forces. The difference between the Ukrainian and the Novorussian armed forces is not just the result of Russian help, although they clearly played a major role, but the fact of the Novorussians having a capable fighting force has been a matter for survival from day 1, whereas for the junta this has never been a priority simply because there never was a military threat to the junta’s power. Bean-counters will tell me that the Ukrainian forces are about 2x to 3x larger, which is quite true. It is also irrelevant. What matters is whether they can mount modern, combined arms operations and that is something that the Ukrainian military does not seem to be capable of.

What we are seeing today is not just a Ukrainian military which seems to have given up on the notion of reconquering Novorussia, it is also one which appears to be giving up on the notion of holding the country together. Right now, this is only affecting the Donbass, but pretty soon other regions are likely to follow suit, especially the south (Odessa, Nikolaev, Mariupol) which, by itself, could be wealthy and prosperous and which has no need whatsoever for Neo-Nazi rulers. There are even some separatist movements in the western Ukraine who want to get rid of all the pseudo-Ukrainian “ballast” and build a “pure” Ukrainian state in the only place where such a state has real historical roots: on the border with Poland.

This all begs the question of the future of Poroshenko and here your guess is as good as mine. The only thing that has kept him in power so long is the support from the US and EU, but with the crises (plural) surrounding the Trump administration and the political uncertainty in Europe, there is only so long that Poroshenko can use his western mentors as the base for his power. Sooner or later, somebody somewhere in the Ukraine (my guess is in Odessa) will figure out that the local power configuration is far more important to him/her than what the western politicians have to say. Again, Somalia is the example to keep in mind: for a while the western powers also had a great deal of influence there, but only until that power was successfully challenged and then everybody declared victory and fled.

• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Russia, Ukraine 

Putin’s latest move

I don’t follow the western corporate media so I don’t really know how much coverage this development has received in the West, but in Russia and the Ukraine the big news is the decision by Russia to begin recognizing official Novorussian documents such as passports, driver licenses, school and college diplomas, etc. The Russians were pretty specific in the way the made the announcement. They said that it was a temporary measure dictated by humanitarian considerations. They have a point. Until now, the residents of the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics had to travel to the Nazi-occupied Ukraine to try to get their documents. Which, considering how the Ukronazis consider anybody from the Donbass was not only futile, but sometimes dangerous. This decision makes perfect sense practically. But, of course, it has a far-reaching symbolic dimension too. The timing is also crucial: by recognizing the documents issued by the DNR and LNR authorities, the Russians have de facto “semi-recognized” the authorities which issued them and that is just a fairly short step away from recognizing these republics.

Right now, the Kremlin is vehemently denying any such thoughts. But all the Kremlin-affiliated commentators are rather blunt about what this really means. According to them, the message for the junta in Kiev is simple: if you attack Novorussia or if you officially ditch the Minks agreements we will immediately recognize these two republics. And, once that happens, it’s over for the Ukronazis, these republics will be gone just like South Ossetia or Abkhazia. Of course, nobody will officially recognize the independence of these republics, but neither will anybody do anything meaningful about it. And, let’s be honest, the Russian authorities couldn’t care less about what western politicians or their corporate media have to say: they already heard it all and it’s not like they could be demonized much futher.

The next logical move would be to move the Russian border control from the Russian border to the line of contact. Or not. If the Russians don’t do it, this might be a sign that they support the official position of the Republics which is that they want to liberate the totality of the Doentsk and Lugansk regions. By the way, the Russian Border Guards are elite and highly militarized forces whose presence on the line of contact would in no way prevent a Novorussian (counter-)attack against the Ukronazi forces. So the decision about where to deploy them would have a primarily political dimension and no real military consequences.

Right now the Ukronazis have basically gone officially on record in declaring that they never intended to abide by the terms of the Minsk 1 and Minsk 2 agreements. Here is what Anton Gerashchenko, a special adviser to the Minister of internal Affairs of Ukraine and a member of the Board of the Ministry of internal Affairs of Ukraine openly declared on Ukrainian national TV: (emphasis added).

Let’s immediately say that the Minsk Agreements were not implemented from the day there were signed in Febuary 2015. This was a temporary measure on the side of the Ukraine and, I will be honest, a deliberate deception. Remember that the first Minsk Agreement was signed following the military disaster near Ialovaisk when we had no forces to defend the front from Donetsk to Mariupol. The second Mink Agreement was signed following the treacherous Russian aggression on Debaltsevo and the formationm of the “Debaltsevo Cauldron”. These agreements are not international agreements or anything else.

Needless to say, NOBODY in the West paid any attention to this statement, and why would they, after all, their line has always been that Russia is not abiding by the Minsk Agreement, even if Russia is not even a party to them (Russia is only a witness and guarantor). And if a senior Ukronazi official says otherwise, who cares?!

This amazing admission by Gerashchenko is only the latest in a series of steps taken and statements made by various Ukronazis to the effect that “we are done negotiating and from now on, we will solve this problem by force”. So far, the “force” applied has been primarily in the form of a total blockade of the Donbass which included the prevention of a large amount of vitally needed coal to the Nazi-occupied Ukraine from the Donbass even though this shipment had already been paid for. Officially Poroshenko does not condone this blockade, but in practice he is either unwilling or unable to prevent or stop it. Another sign that the Independent Banderastan is falling apart.

There is a strong feeling in Russia that Poroshenko is powerless and that the Ukronazi crazies are up to no good. Clearly, nobody in the Ukronazis elites has any intention of actually implementing the Minsk 1 and Minsk 2 agreements. That, by the way, might be a dangerous approach for a number of reasons:

First, these agreements were endorsed by the UNSC and every country out there, at least as far as I know. So Gerashchenko is wrong – the Minsk Agreements are binding under international law.

Second, the Ukrainian authorities recently found and released a document showing that Yanukovich had made an official request for a Russian intervention in the Ukraine. They wanted to show that he was a traitor. But in the process, they also showed that the last legitimate president of the Ukraine had made a legal request for a Russian intervention which might well mean that, at least in legal terms, any subsequent Russian intervention in the Ukraine would be 100% legal.

Even better, Yanukovich is still in Russia. And, from a legal point of view, you could make the case that he is still the legitimate president of the Ukraine. If the Yemeni President in exile Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi could ask the Saudis to intervene in Yemen, why would that no be an option for Poroshenko to ask for such an intervention in the Ukraine?

Right now, the Russians are making no such legalistic statements. But you can be sure that they have already aligned all their ducks in a neat row just in case they do decide to openly intervene in this civil war.

How realistic is the possibility of a Russian recognition of the breakaway republics or an overt Russian intervention in the Ukraine?

I think that it all depends on what the Ukronazis crazies do. If they really attack Novorussia I expect the Kremlin to recognize the DNR and LRN. A Russian intervention? I doubt it, but only because I believe that the DNR/LNR can handle a Nazi attack. So the only question for me is how long Poroshenko will stay in power and what the real crazies will do once they overthrow him. Right now this mostly depends on the US but since the US elites are locked in a desperate struggle for power, I don’t see the Trump Administration taking any dramatic decisions anyway, not in the Ukraine, not elsewhere. At least not as long as there is a question mark as to who is really in charge in the White House. Everybody is waiting for the outcome of that struggle, including Moscow and Kiev.

Trump – all words, no action, but good words

• Category: Foreign Policy, Ideology • Tags: Deep State, Donald Trump, Russia, Ukraine 
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.