The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewThe Saker Archive
Book Review: The Russian Peace Threat by Ron Ridenour
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_477696886

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The Russian Peace Threat: Pentagon on Alert
by Ron Ridenour
Publisher: Punto Press, LLC
ISBN-10: 0996487069

ORDER IT NOW

Ron Ridenour’s latest book (this is his 10th book on international relations and politics) takes a direct shot at one of the most prevailing myths in the western political discourse: the thesis that Russia and its USSR predecessor have been uniquely aggressive and generally bellicose states. At a time when rabid russophobia is the order of the day (again – chronic russophobia has been a regular feature of western political culture for many centuries now), this is a very timely and important book which I highly recommend to those interested in history.

The book is separated into three parts. In the first part of the book (The Great Capitalist Socialist Divide), Ridenour looks at the Cuban Missile Crisis in some detail and uses it to debunk the many myths which the “official” US historiography has been presenting as dogma for decades. In this first section, Ridenour also provides many fascinating details about Captain Vasili Arkhipov “the man who prevented WWIII”. He also recounts how the US propaganda machine tried, and still tries, to blame the murder of JFK on the Russians. The second part of the book (Peace, Land, Bread) goes back in history and looks into the ideological and political struggle between the collective West and the Soviet Union from the revolution of 1917 and well into the Cold War. The third part of the book (Russia At the Crossroads – the Putin Era) conclude with very recent events, including the western backed coup d’etat in the Ukraine and the Russian intervention in Syria.

The first and the third parts of the book are extremely well researched and offer a rock-solid, fact-based, and logical analysis of the Cuban Missile Crisis and its modern equivalent, the AngloZionist “crusade” against modern Russia. This is a very important and good choice because the two crises have a lot in common. I would even argue that the current crisis is much more dangerous than the Cuban Missile Crisis because of the extremely low personal and intellectual qualities of the current US ruling elites. Ridenour shows that in 1962 it was not the Soviets, but the US which pushed the world to the edge of a nuclear war, and in the third section of his book he shows how, yet again, the Empire is cornering Russia into a situation which very much risks resulting in a nuclear conflict.

For those who would have a knee-jerk rejection of Ridenour’s crimethink, the book, on page 438-444, offers a list of governments the USA has overthrown since WWII (50), countries which the USA has bombed (30), foreign leaders it has murdered (50+), suppressed populist/nationalist movements (20), and subverted democratic elections (30). Ridenour then asks how it is that with a tally like that the US gets to moralize about Russia. He is absolutely right, of course. Compared to the USA, the Soviet Union was a peace-loving, non-interventionist and generally international law respecting country. Oh sure, the USSR had its share of horrors and evil deeds, but compared with the “land of the free and the home of the brave” these are minor, almost petty, transgressions.

The book is not without its faults. Sadly, in the second part of his book Ridenour repeats what I can only call the “standard list of western clichés” about the 1917 Revolution, it’s causes and effects. Truth be told, Ridenour is most certainly not to be singled out for making such a mistake: most of the books written in English and many of those written in Russian about this period of Russian history are basically worthless because they are all written by folks (from all sides of the political spectrum) with a vested ideological interest in presenting a completely counter-factual chronology of what actually took place (Russian author Ivan Solonevich wrote at length about this phenomenon in his books). Furthermore, such a process is inevitable: after decades of over-the-top demonization of everything and anything Soviet, there is now a “return of the pendulum” (both in Russia and outside) to whitewash the Soviet regime and explain away all its crimes and atrocities (of which there were plenty). For these reasons I would recommend that readers skip chapter 7 entirely (the description of the 1905 and 1917 revolutions are particularly bad and sound like a rehash of Soviet propaganda clichés of the early 1980s).

This weakness of this historical analysis of the two Russian revolutions is, of course, rather disappointing, but it in no way affects the pertinence of the fundamental thesis of this book: that, for all its very real faults, the “Evil Empire” was a gentle and timid regime when compared to the AngloZionist “Axis of Kindness” and its never-ending violent rampages all over the world (literally) and its orgy of subversion and violence in the name of democracy, freedom, human rights and all the rest of the western propaganda buzzwords.

The book’s afterworld begins with the following words “WAITING AND WAITING! Waiting for the end of the world! Waiting for Godot! Although, unlike in Samuel Beckett’s Theater of the Absurd play, in which Godot never arrives, the mad men and mad women leaders of the US, France and UK (and Israel) are bringing us their bombs”. Having been warning about the very risks of war for at least 4 years now, and having, along with others, posted a special “Russian Warning” to warn about this danger, I can only wholeheartedly welcome the publication of an entire book aimed at averting such a cataclysmic outcome.

My other big regret with this book is that it does not have an index. This is particularly frustrating since the book is packed with over 500 pages of very interesting information and can be used as a very good reference book.

Still, these criticisms should not distract from the very real value of this book. One of the most frightening phenomena today is that the Empire and Russia are currently headed directly for war and that, unlike what took place during the Cuban Missile Crisis, almost nobody today speaks about this. The western corporate media is especially guilty in this regard, as it encourages a constant escalation of rabid anti-Russian rhetoric (and actions) without ever mentioning that if brought to its logical conclusion such policies will result in a devastating war which the West cannot win (neither can Russia, of course, but that is hardly much of a consolation, is it?).

There have been courageous voices in the West trying to stop this crazy slide towards a nuclear apocalypse (I especially think of Professor Stephen Cohen and Paul Craig Roberts) but theirs were truly “cries in the wilderness”. And it doesn’t matter one bit whether somebody identifies himself as a conservative, liberal, progressive, libertarian, socialist, anarcho-capitalist or by another other (mostly meaningless) political label. What matters is as simple as it is crucial: preventing the Neocons from triggering a war with Russia or with China, or with Iran, or with the DPRK, or with Venezuela, or with… (fill in the blank). The list of countries the US is in conflict with is very long (just remember Nikki Haley berating and threatening the entire UN General Assembly because the vast majority of its members dared to disagree with the US position on Jerusalem), but Russia is (yet again) the designated arch-villian, the Evil Empire, Mordor – you name it! Russia is the country which wants to murder everybody with poison gas, from the Skripals in the UK, to the innocent children of Syria. Russia is the country which shoots down airliners and prepares to invade all her western neighbors. Finally, Russia is the place which hacks every computer in the “Free World” and interferes with every single election. The longer that list of idiotic accusations stretches, the bigger the risk of war becomes, because words have their weight and you cannot have normal, civilized relations with the Evil Empire of Mordor which is “highly likely” to invade, nuke or otherwise subvert the peace-loving peoples of the West.

Except that there never was any such thing as a “peace loving West” – that is truly a self-serving and 100% false myth. The historical record shows that in reality the collective West has engaged in a 1000 year long murderous rampage all over the planet and that each time it designated its victim as the culprit and itself as the defender of lofty ideals. Ridenour’s The Russian Peace Threat: Pentagon on Alert (alongside with Guy Mettan’s “Creating Russophobia: From the Great Religious Schism to Anti-Putin Hysteria”, whose original French edition I reviewed here) does a long way towards debunking this myth.

With the few caveats mentioned above, I highly recommend this book.

 
Hide 52 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Anonymous[552] • Disclaimer says:

    Just remember Nikki Haley is really Nimrata Randhawa, Fake American. She has to go back.

    At 44, Haley, whose birth name is Nimrata Randhawa, is already a typically American success story.

    Story of Nikki Haley, the Indian-American in Team Trump

    http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/story-of-nikki-haley-the-indian-american-in-team-trump/story-GCa40w7ofA8g5qeVkmlv7N.html

  2. The historical record shows that in reality the collective West has engaged in a 1000 year long murderous rampage all over the planet and that each time it designated its victim as the culprit and itself as the defender of lofty ideals

    In one instance, the historical record may not be quite as clear-cut as you suggest:

    ‘While opposition leader in 2007, [former Zambian president Michael] Sata said: “We want the Chinese to leave and the old colonial rulers to return. They exploited our natural resources too, but at least they took good care of us. They built schools, taught us their language and brought us the British civilisation. At least Western capitalism has a human face; the Chinese are only out to exploit us.”’—Daily Telegraph

    • Replies: @bluedog
    , @Vidi
  3. bluedog says:
    @Johnny Rottenborough

    Perhaps but only one instance in a 1000 years, is a damn poor record by any yardstick you wish to employ….

    • Replies: @Johnny Rottenborough
  4. @bluedog

    bluedog—I knew it was a risk, using English understatement on a cosmopolitan website. Your feedback is much appreciated.

  5. JVC says:

    I tend to agree with Saker–that yes, the Soviet Empire, and the current Russian government have had their”nasty” moments, but it is not those governments that made their very existence depend on creating chaos, death and destruction across the globe. The American people have been too complacent–at least through out my life time (far side of 70) —because they really have had no struggle as most of the rest of the world has. Mostly good economic conditions, not having to rebuild after invading armies have passed through, plenty of meat and potatoes–and all the other consumer goods. As long as that has been the case, we have not really cared about what the government in DC has been doing “over there” Consequently, the war industry has won control of the country.

    So the possibility of nuclear war is closer now than ever before. It seems to me that the neocon mentality that has been dominant for the past 25-30 years (the fall of the Soviet empire?) comes with an erroneous belief that some how as was the case in the two previous “great wars” conus will be spared any pain. However, it is my belief that there can not possible be a limited nuclear exchange–one bomb will have everyone with the capacity using them, and even if the “elite” manage to survive in their extensive underground shelters, when they finally do have to come out, the idiots will have no idea at all as to how to survive in an alien world.

    Anyway, hope it doesn’t happen, but arrogance has caused more than it’s share of trouble, and the neocons are nothing if not arrogant.

    • Agree: bluedog
    • Replies: @El Dato
  6. ‘…chronic russophobia has been a regular feature of western political culture for many centuries now…’

    A phobia is an unreasonable fear. Russia’s behavior in those centuries gives ample reason to fear her.

    In the last century alone, there have been exactly two states that have attacked or threatened to attack every single one of their neighbors: Russia and Israel.

  7. I’d think that Nazi Germany and the Ottoman Turks would qualify, as well, but I’d have to check whether either one of them left out a neighbor accidentally.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  8. Arioch says:

    > This weakness of this historical analysis of the two Russian revolutions is

    Kind of funny.
    There were three revolutions, not two.

    If there was a digit, one could say it was just a mistyping.
    But since the number was spelled out…

    The reader is left to guess which of the revolutions are being disappeared, the white guards liberal anti-czarism revolution, or the soon to follow bolshevik anti-bourgeois revolution

  9. @Colin Wright

    And look what happened when the Russians disbanded first the Warsaw Pact, then the Soviet Union itself: NATO, an anti-Russian alliance, rapidly expanded into those former Pact states and SSRs, drawing right up to Russia’s very border.

    But people like you will probably go on wondering why Russia has historically always been so keen on maintaining buffer states.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  10. @Digital Samizdat

    ‘And look what happened when the Russians disbanded first the Warsaw Pact, then the Soviet Union itself: NATO, an anti-Russian alliance, rapidly expanded into those former Pact states and SSRs, drawing right up to Russia’s very border.

    But people like you will probably go on wondering why Russia has historically always been so keen on maintaining buffer states.’

    Of course, one can turn this around and wonder why all those erstwhile buffer states were so willing to join NATO.

    …I don’t recall Canada or Mexico ever asking to be let into the Warsaw Pact.

    • Replies: @ploni almoni
  11. El Dato says:

    Except that there never was any such thing as a “peace loving West” – that is truly a self-serving and 100% false myth. The historical record shows that in reality the collective West has engaged in a 1000 year long murderous rampage all over the planet

    That makes no sense though because whatever “the West” is, going back further than ’45 is a dubious proposition at best. Maybe, MAYBE one could start with the end of the Great War, but the biggest “socialist bloc” that was created at that point was the Bolshevik one, aggressively trying to expand into Europe, practically a mirror image of the military dictatorship that the French Revolution begat, trying to expand eastwards.

    Before that colonialsim/imperialism and “let’s take what we can” was the order of the day. Yes, Russia was big in this, going for the Balkans and biting off its bit of China together with the western chums. Turned out to be bad deal as Japan got triggered.

  12. El Dato says:
    @Colin Wright

    In the last century alone, there have been exactly two states that have attacked or threatened to attack every single one of their neighbors: Russia and Israel.

    Huh? Wuh?

    When exactly did Russia threaten to attack every single one of their neighbors?

    (And how would they have pulled that off?)

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  13. El Dato says:
    @JVC

    It was a mistake to merge the Great European War (European Imperialist Powers hoping to have a quick decisive shuffle which morphs into a multiyear suicide pact), the War of the Great European Socialisms (Nazi Germany vs Soviet Union) and the Imperialist War of the Pacific Rim (Japan vs. USUK) into a “World War 1 + World War 2″ narrative.

    We could be looking at a War of the Pacific Socialisms (US vs. China) and the Hot Shots Expeditionary War (US Middle East and European meddling resulting in large scale destruction for basically nothing except internal political wrangling). We shall see, or not.

  14. @El Dato

    ‘Huh? Wuh?

    When exactly did Russia threaten to attack every single one of their neighbors?

    (And how would they have pulled that off?)’

    Thanks for an easy one. Going counter-clockwise from the top left…

    Russia invaded and annexed part or all of Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Romania in 1939-40. She attacked Turkey in 1877 and extracted considerable territorial concessions and then demanded territorial concessions again in 1945-46 but was frustrated by the US. She invaded and occupied Northern Iran in 1941, and invaded and occupied Afghanistan in 1979, was it?

    She engaged in a border war with China in the late sixties and openly contemplated a nuclear strike on her. In addition, in 1945-1950, she had proven noticeably reluctant to withdraw from Manchuria, and thoroughly looted it before she did. She of course attacked Japan in 1945, both in Manchuria and in the Kurile Islands, and attempted to get us to permit Russian occupation of Hokkaido.

    Oh wait. She’s never crossed the Bering Straits and attacked us in Alaska. Does that mean I’m wrong?

    Russia has many virtues. However, she does not play well with others. It’s extremely hazardous to be her immediate neighbor.

    • Replies: @Respect
    , @Respect
    , @prusmc
  15. Kiza says:
    @Colin Wright

    This shitroll is a perfect illustration of what Saker says:

    I would even argue that the current crisis is much more dangerous than the Cuban Missile Crisis because of the extremely low personal and intellectual qualities of the current US ruling elites.

    The stupidity of the Western morons simply has no limits and such shitbrainary goes all the way down to the miserable tiny little shitbags such as this one regularly commenting moronities on Saker’s writing. It is all (nuclear) muscle and absolutely no brain for the majority of the Western population. Because these Western shitbags will not only lose their wellbeing, most of them will lose their and their family’s lives when they cause a nuclear war. Yet the shitbags willingly rush into it, because:
    1) they think they can profit from the situation, and
    2) they “know” that the Russian will always find some idealistic softy such as Arkhipov or Gorbachov to take the Western shitavior (shit behavior such as dropping depth charges on a Soviet nuclear submarine and an aircraft carrier not getting a nuclear torpedo up its ass) on the chin, so that they can celebrate their own victory.

    After 26 years on the Internet (yes, 26) I can only write vulgarities as my reflection on the Western brain, a brain of a certified fucked up moron. When I was a kid I knew a guy who could keep a fart going for up to 40 seconds. Western public discourse reflected through its media, except for a few decent websites such as this, is just one constant, uninterrupted, at least last 10 years long smelly mindfart.

  16. peterAUS says:

    Good article.

    Especially:

    ….rabid russophobia is the order of the day….

    …..the current crisis is much more dangerous than the Cuban Missile Crisis because of the extremely low personal and intellectual qualities of the current US ruling elites…..

    ….The longer that list of idiotic accusations stretches, the bigger the risk of war becomes…..

    I do place a bit of the blame for unhappy outcome on Kremlin , though.
    Had it acted more assertively, and decidedly, maybe US elite wouldn’t have been acting so recklessly.

    Sharp and decisive intervention in Syria; overwhelming intervention in Ukraine.
    And last but not least, a couple of missiles towards those two destroyers recently. With training warheads, calculate for just one, two tops, to make through, and make a hole.

    “They” believe that whenever they push Kremlin will step back. As so far.
    Can anyone point as to where is that “red line”? I can’t. But I am sure there is somewhere.
    And, it’s highly likely we’ll recognize it only when ICMBs start flying.
    Much good it will do to all of us then.

    Here we are.

  17. ” for all its very real faults, the “Evil Empire” was a gentle and timid regime ”
    Here one stops reading.
    The writer seems never to have heard of the Comintern, the Ukrainian massacre, the mid thirties show processes, Katyn, Gulags, mass murder of competent Red Army officers, mass murder of those repatriated by force by FDR and Churchill after WWII who had fought on the German side,
    Even far after WWII USSR agents tried to remove a monument in Liechtenstein pointing to how an army escaped forced repatration, and certain death, either by being shot, or dying in E Siberia from cold.
    The general of the army was advised to go by plane to Africa, to avoid being arrested in Europe.
    In 1965 I visited Tjechoslovakia.
    The border defences and checks were neither gentle nor timid.
    Henning von Vogelsang, ‘Die Armee, die es nicht geben durfte, Russen in deutscher Uniform und ihre Rettung in Liechtenstein’, 1995 Ulm-Kissleg
    Trans The army that should never have existed, Russians in German uniforms, and how they were saved in Liechtenstein.

    • Replies: @Jesse James
    , @Respect
  18. Respect says:
    @Colin Wright

    It’s extremely hazardous to be her immediate neighbor.

    Yea ! , ask Mexico how hazardous is to be the inmediate neighbour of the USA , half of its territory invaded by the usa , ask latinamericans , the ” backyard ” of the USA ….

    • Replies: @Sin City Milla
  19. Respect says:
    @Colin Wright

    You don`t have to be an ” inmediate neighbour ” of the USA

    No matter how far you are from the USA , the USA will always have a sanction , a ” color revolution ” , a military base , a war , or a press diffamation campaign , near you .

    • Replies: @HallParvey
  20. prusmc says: • Website
    @Colin Wright

    Colin Wright:
    Unfortunate that the contemplated Nuclear strikes by the USSR on China in the late 60′s never took place. That would have give both US and Russia 25 to 30 years more before we become China’s complete as to partial bitches.

  21. The Zionists are wreckers of countries and civilizations and they destroyed Russian with the Bolshevik revolution and the resulting 60 million Russians the Zionist Bolsheviks murdered as a result and since the Russian people have thrown off the Zionist communist satanic rule the Zionists are determined to destroy Russia every chance they get.

    The main thing is that the Zionists are Satanists and since Russia has turned to Christianity the Satanist Zionists are determined to destroy the Christian religion and also Russia and thus the hate Russia hysteria that is blasted at us via the Zionist owned MSM and the Zionist owned governments of the U.S. and Britain and France and most of the governments of Europe.

    We are in a battle for our lives against the Zionist Satanists who are driving for a Zionist controlled ONE WORLD GOV and will stop at nothing to achieve their goal as proven by the millions of people killed in Russia after the revolution and in recent times the millions killed in the middle east for the Zionist Israel NWO.

    Zionists control the American government and the Zionists did 911 and got away with it and every thinking American knows it and the 3000 Americans who were killed on 911 were a sacrifice to the Zionist lord satan and plunged America into 17 years of war in Afghanistan/Iraq/Libya/Syria and Yemen, this is what Zionist do , they wreck countries and destroy civilizations.

    • Replies: @ploni almoni
  22. Anyone who has read Ron Ridenour’s articles won’t need a review to imagine what he says in the book. More interesting is the way in which the author of this article uses the book as a coat hanger on which to serve up this Sunday’s roast. The line is, of course, the classic pro-Putin one and you don’t really need to read beyond the first paragraph. What comes later is just padding. First, there is something called “the West”, dominated by the US and to which literally every European country except Russia belongs. That is contrasted with something called “Russia”, against which the thing called “the West” has been waging war for 1000 years, notwithstanding the fact that neither the US nor Russia existed 1000 years ago. The author then refers to a “prevailing myth” in the “western” [sic] political discourse” that “Russia and its USSR predecessor have been uniquely aggressive and generally bellicose states”. I certainly have never heard any such claim and I can see nothing “unique” or outside the norms of European culture in the conduct of the Russian Federation, the Soviet Union, the Russian Empire or even the states which preceded it. Putin is a classic European revisionist, not the first and probably not the last. All Europeans see their fellow Europeans as forming a co-ordinated conspiracy directed against them. It’s “us alone v all of them”. That’s the underlying basis of European nationalism. The myth, therefore, is a Russian myth that the thing called “the West” sees Russia and its USSR predecessor as having been uniquely aggressive and generally bellicose states. That myth is a psychological crutch some Russians use to explain to themselves why it’s taking so long for the Russian Federation to take its rightful place at the European table and why Putin has made such an almighty mess of things. Nothing could be more typically European.

    • Replies: @ploni almoni
  23. @Colin Wright

    Could it be because they are puppet states?

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  24. One of the most frightening phenomena today is that the Empire and Russia are currently headed directly for war…

    Recognizing the goose stepping and bellicosity for what it is, the author can relax. The mighty US has no intention of ever gain confronting an enemy with the capability of actually defending itself.

  25. @DESERT FOX

    Oh, so you think there were actually airplanes with passengers. I get it.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @NoseytheDuke
  26. @Michael Kenny

    You sound anti-Putin but that must be a figment of your imagination. Is it because Pope Urban II declared the Crusades in 1095 against the Orthodox Church after the great schism of 1054?

  27. @ploni almoni

    ‘Could it be because they are puppet states?’

    Leaving Mexico aside, are you questioning the legitimacy of our claim to the Maple Leaf State?

    ‘Puppet state’ indeed…

    • Replies: @Vidi
    , @Respect
  28. @Respect

    Only because it’s morally necessary. It gives new meaning to the old telephone ad, “reach out and touch someone”.

    • Replies: @Respect
  29. Respect says:
    @HallParvey

    Do they still sell T Shirts in the US with the inscription ?

    Join the Marines

    Visit exotic lands

    Meet exotic people

    And kill them

  30. The EU is part of the West and is an extremely successful peacemaking machine.

  31. Vidi says:
    @Johnny Rottenborough

    The [old colonial rulers] exploited our natural resources too, but at least they took good care of us.

    Who was the “us” that got taken care of? Probably not the 99% of the population.

    They built schools, taught us their language and brought us the British civilisation.

    No doubt the Brits built just enough schools to teach the 1% comprador class to sell out their own country. China is upgrading the entire continent’s infrastructure, and this will benefit everybody there.

    • Replies: @Johnny Rottenborough
  32. Vidi says:
    @Colin Wright

    Leaving Mexico aside, are you questioning the legitimacy of our claim to the Maple Leaf State?
    ‘Puppet state’ indeed…

    The Canadians barely own their country these days. For example, more than half the energy industry is owned by the Yanks. So yes, Canada is a puppet state pretending not to be one.

  33. @jilles dykstra

    There was no Ukrainian massacre. There were sanctions placed on the USSR from the 1920′s by England and the US and there were several years of droughts that affected the world during the early 1930′s. Ever heard of the Dust Bowl period?

    The Red Army was undergoing a massive reorganization to prepare for the coming war against Germany. The purge of incompetent and potentially unloyal officers was not completed before the German Invasion in June 1941. That was one reason there the were near catastrophies in the early months wherein some Soviet officers failed to follow orders and left their commands without permission.

  34. @Vidi

    Vidi—The British journalist Peter Hitchens went to Africa and saw the reality for himself: ‘Out of desperation, much of the continent is selling itself into a new era of corruption and virtual slavery as China seeks to buy up all the metals, minerals and oil she can lay her hands on’.

    Given the treatment meted out to blacks in China—‘Africans in China face incessant police raids, harassment, and racist attitudes’—it is laughable to suggest that the Chinese desire to help Africans.

    • Replies: @Vidi
    , @Colin Wright
  35. Respect says:
    @jilles dykstra

    I am reading in the european press that Holland is becoming a narco State , because Holland
    exports about 20.000 millions of euros in drugs per year , mainly sinthesis amphetamines , extasis and speed . They say that the police feels impotent to repress the narcos .

    Is that right ?

  36. Respect says:
    @Colin Wright

    Canada is US north . It masquerades as a pervert boy scout who pretends to be an innocent son of the queen .

    And Australia is US south pacific . It masquerades as a pervert nudist surfer who pretends to be the inocent son of the queen .

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  37. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @ploni almoni

    And you think 3,000 passengers, crew and trade center workers were whisked away to new identities and a witness protection program.

  38. Vidi says:
    @Johnny Rottenborough

    I notice that you dropped like a hot potato the argument that the British were mostly helping Africans.

    Vidi—The British journalist Peter Hitchens went to Africa and saw the reality for himself: ‘Out of desperation, much of the continent is selling itself into a new era of corruption and virtual slavery as China seeks to buy up all the metals, minerals and oil she can lay her hands on’.

    China was just like that, not so long ago, before she went Socialist.

    Given the treatment meted out to blacks in China—‘Africans in China face incessant police raids, harassment, and racist attitudes’

    Some bigotry exists in all societies. The “incessant police raids” is probably exaggeration and fake news.

    —it is laughable to suggest that the Chinese desire to help Africans.

    Of course China expects to benefit from the African relationship. That’s what “win-win” means: the African country wins, and China also wins. From

    http://www.europeanfinancialreview.com/?p=6110

    we have the following opinion from a real African:

    “The US destroys and China builds”, was how a taxi driver from Ethiopia in Washington DC responded to Chen’s question about China’s main activity in Africa.

    China helps Africa economically, and the U.S. starts wars and spreads misery. Africans know what the U.S. military command AFRICOM is for. From the same site:

    Building is what China has been doing, on a massive scale, with projects of all kinds sited in African cities and spread across this vast continent.

    It is likely true that the infrastructure building is benefitting Africa, as China gets repeat business there. So much repeat business, in fact, that the U.S. exploiters — who were making Africans poorer and poorer — are totally alarmed and are engaging in a propaganda counterattack, like yours.

  39. @Respect

    A canard. Just because some potentate in Europe drew a line on a map doesn’t mean Mexico “owned” any part of North America north of the Nueces. Mexico’s claim was specious n opportunistic. Texas was so empty of Mexicans that they advertised for Americans to come settle just so they could claim a population

  40. @ploni almoni

    I don’t think you do get it, there’s nothing about planes or passengers in the comment that you’re responding to. Whatever hit the buildings, there were thousands of people working in them and around 3000 of them died. Now do you get it?

  41. @Respect

    ‘…And Australia is US south pacific . It masquerades as a pervert nudist surfer who pretends to be the inocent son of the queen .’

    I think Australians actually are different. Canadians are Americans with a viable health care system.

    I’ve spent quite a bit of time in Canada. It’s no different than one state is from another — however much that may bug Canadians.

  42. @Johnny Rottenborough

    ‘…Africans in China face incessant police raids, harassment, and racist attitudes…’

    Understandably.

  43. @Sin City Milla

    ‘…Mexico’s claim was specious n opportunistic. Texas was so empty of Mexicans that they advertised for Americans to come settle just so they could claim a population…’

    I’ll add a couple of facts that generally go unnoticed.

    When war broke out, California was promptly seized by all the Americans who had been allowed to come in and were already there. There’s a moral there.

    The one area we annexed which actually had a large Mexican population was the land that now belongs to Texas lying between the Rio Grande and…something. So we let those Mexicans vote. Mexico or Texas? They picked Texas. Nobody forced them to join the United States.

    The irony is that it would have worked out better all round if we had simply annexed all of Mexico — we took too little, not too much. Mexico’s population was rather small back then, and Anglicized, the difference between here and there would be trivial by now.

    • Replies: @Sin City Milla
  44. @RadicalCenter

    ‘I’d think that Nazi Germany and the Ottoman Turks would qualify, as well, but I’d have to check whether either one of them left out a neighbor accidentally.’

    Nazi Germany never invaded Switzerland or Sweden. As to Ottoman Turkey, it — admittedly involuntarily — ceased to be an expansionist power in the eighteenth century, so you’re getting into the distant past there. Besides, it isn’t even around any more. Modern Turkey has helped itself to bits of Syria (1938, now), but has otherwise controlled its appetite. In fact, Ataturk’s decisions to choose peace over further aggrandizement both in the West viz-a-viz Greece and in the East viz-a-viz the nascent Soviet Union is one of the great displays of restraint in modern times.

  45. @Jesse James

    Nice to know there are still fellow travelers bleating the Party Line all these years after 1941. First, the Bolsheviks sanctioned the West in 1918, not vice versa. The Allies not only finished building the port of Murmansk but allowed the Reds to pilfer square miles of Allied industrial products n munitions for immediate use against the Whites, n Brits n Americans even attacked Finnish Whites to let the thievery continue while the Allies fed the entire Bolshevik population of Murmansk.

    Second, after the Bols wrecked the economy, starving millions in the process, rescued again by mountains of American aid, the Bols opened up Russia to Western concessions. Far from boycotting Russia, Ford Motor among other corps then built the Soviet industrial base throughout the 20s n 30s.

    The Ukraine had been the world’s breadbasket. When Stalin returned the peasants to serfdom, which he called collectivization, he herded the best farmers into cattle cars n sent them to work in mines n into the gulag, with the predictable result that food production collapsed. What remained was taken n sold abroad to pay for Stalin’s new military-industrial complex.

    The Soviet Union was a state totally militarized for aggressive war. The Red Army was the largest n most modern army ever seen by the late 30s, larger than the rest of the world’s armies put together, paid for by millions of dead Ukrainian peasants, n largely designed by American engineers n trained by German officers.

    The Russian catastrophe of early 1941 was not due to the Red Army’s incompetence or disloyalty, but to the fact that Hitler caught the Red Army in the middle of its strategic deployments as it prepared to invade Germany, thousands of Russian solders n tanks actually caught in trains as they approached the German border. The incompetence was in the Kremlin, not in the field. If Russia had struck first, as Stalin intended, Germany would have collapsed n the Red Army have occupied not just Berlin but Paris n Rome.

  46. @Colin Wright

    …something = Nueces River. That area was and remains mostly Mexican descent. I’m a bit skeptical of voting results, both then and now. As a blood n soil advocate, I’m not at all convinced that occupying all of Mexico would have been workable for los Yanquis, just like the filibusters in Nicaragua etc down south, which all collapsed. Nations do best sticking to their core constituencies. Our rulers in DC have yet to realize this fundamental fact.

  47. Respect says:
    @Sin City Milla

    Agree , just because savage yankee potentates with atomic bombs draw a line in the map does not mean they own whatever they want in the world , as they claim . Yankees are the most toxic potentates in the history of mankind , much worse than the more civilized europeans .

    300 million yankees do half of the military spending of the world ( 7,500 million people ) , yankees have 1000 military occupation bases around the world out of the USA , yankees have been at war for 93% of the time of US existence . Understand ?

  48. Respect says:
    @Sin City Milla

    https://russia-insider.com/en/american-british-and-canadian-troops-marched-through-streets-kiev-ukraines-independence-day/ri24572

    Do you see the american potentates trying to fuel a paneuropean war ? no german ,french , russian , italian , spanish …..troops in the parade of the ukronazis , just angloamerican potentates & scum , drawing lines in the heart of Europe , trying to foster a war with Russia in Europe , trying to produce millions of european dead . Toxic anglonazis .

  49. @Jesse James

    Try asking a descendent of the survivors of the Holodomor that was caused by Stalin’s agents confiscating the Ukrainian farmers’ seeds and they will strongly deny any natural reason for the devastating famine that wiped out between 7 to 9 million Ukranians. No wonder the Ukrainian collaboration with the invading German army since payback is a bitch.

  50. If Ridenour thinks the US, or anyone else, supported a coup in Ukraine, then anything they write is best ignored. Saker has simply bought Putin’s lies and shills for the man, although he has stated that he’s afraid to live in Russia as his life would be in danger. Why would Putin kill one of his shills?

    The Soviet Union did it’s best to spread chaos in the west as that was in their interest. We see the left operate that way even now as nothing has changed. Putin seeks to destabilize any government of a neighboring country he wishes to reabsorb to create a new tsarist empire with him as Tsar. he does it in Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova, the “Stans” and now in Belarus. His neighbors are well aware of what life is like under the Russian thumb and want nothing to do with it.

    Saker can engage in his lies, or fantrasies, which ever they are, but the facts don’t change, and Saker has few facts in his favor.

    • Disagree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @Truthseeker
  51. @Quartermaster

    To say that the USA had no part in the Maidan uprisings, is to ignore the reports in European media, which certainly seem to be more newsy than the “free” press in the USA. According to German msm, the US consulate in the Netherlands funded the rebel radio station. Do we also have to re-listen to the recordings of the assistant US Secretary of State Nuland, in deciding who will then head the Ukrainian government? Yes, the US did the coup, as has been proved in many writings in the US as well as Europe and Asia, all outside of the CSTO. That the US has engaged in some84 changes of government when they did not like the attitude of the current government, even when many of the governments were democratically elected by their people shows the dangerous attitudes of those in DC that wish one world border for the Democratic World Empire. Even US generals have exposed this, so I fail to see what you have read that says it is all Putin propaganda. Of course, if all you have read is the US msm, I can see where it came from. It wasn’t until I traveled around the world that I got a much wider and more illuminating view. Until then I was a flag-waving spearchucker, so proud of my “white hat” country. Boy, was I shocked! I suggest a good place to start is Chalmers Johnson, a retired US Navy captain turned professor, whose “Blowback” books exposed a lot of US dirty laundry.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All The Saker Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.