The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Yvonne Lorenzo Archive
The (Real) Revolution in Military Affairs: An Interview with Andrei Martyanov
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

I started to write these words on “Veteran’s Day” 2019, and find myself in agreement with a post on the American Conservative by Major Danny Sjurson entitled “Why We Must Reclaim ‘Armistice Day’” in which he wrote in this excerpt:

Europeans dubbed it the Great War. Americans today remember it as World War One, and recall it as little more than a precursor of an even more violent Second World War. In reality, Democrat Woodrow Wilson’s justification for entering the war as a freedom crusade, as a “war to end all wars,” was, ultimately, little more than rhetorical cover for what amounted to a war in support of one group of empires, the British and French, against another, German and Austrian.

Indeed, in a certain sense, it was a bankers’ war. While the ostensibly “neutral” United States acceded to the British Navy’s starvation blockade of Germany, Washington simultaneously traded war materials with its Anglo brothers and floated London vital loans numbering in the billions of dollars. Clearly, by 1917, after three years of macabre massacre, Washington had a pecuniary interest in British victory.

That may not be the version of First World War history that most Americans learned in elementary or high school. Even less well known is the cynicism and civil liberties suppression of the “Progressive”-in-chief, President Wilson. His strongman tactics: imprisonment of peaceful antiwar activists under the Sedition Act, detainment of pacifists in prison camps, and prosecution of critical journalists under the (still statute law) Espionage Act, are abhorrent enough. Worse still, however, was the reflexive manner in which the progressive “left” quickly fell in line with their president. The left eats its own; maybe it always has. Immense majorities of “progressive s,”just like their socialist brethren in Europe, supported Wilson and the war in spite of past records of more dovish positions. They then proceeded to attack, suppress, and often professionally ruin, or imprison, their former compatriots —relabeled as “radicals”—such as Randolph Bourne and Eugene Debs.

Nonetheless, for all of World War I’s horror, futility, absurdity even, the veterans of the war collectively emerged from the sodden trenches imbued with a vocal philosophy of never again. Indeed, they celebrated the moment the guns finally fell silent, the 11th minute, or the 11th hour, of the 11th day, of the 11th month, 1918, as Armistice Day. It was, romantic as it now seems, widely believed that theirs would be the last war. In fact, millions of lucky survivors left the war deeply dedicated to ensuring that be the case. Much of the finest Western literature of the 20th century, unsurprisingly, generated from the pens of disgruntled, damaged veterans—Hemingway, Graves, Fitzgerald, Sassoon, and many more—forever changed by the experience of needless war.

It was only 20 paltry years later and another world war that the celebration of Armistice Day—inherently imbued with hopes for a more peaceful future—had to be lifelessly renamed (in America, at least) Veterans’ Day. The “beauty” of today’s November 11 celebration is its very anodyne nature. There are no hopes, no dreams, no politics even, associated with a day that’s come to symbolize and mandate little more than a brief pause to vapidly “thank” the nearest veteran for his or her “service.”

And no, I hadn’t thanked on “Veteran’s Day” any living veterans for their service; I agree with the sentiments expressed by frequent contributor, The Saker, in his article “Thanking Vets for Their ‘Service’ – Why?” given that the wars of the Washington Empire are wars of aggression and not self-defense, no matter how they’re spun. All the so-called experts and “talking heads” promiscuously use the term “National Security” but as with most who claim expertise in their given disciplines, they fail at definitions. I would like to define American National Security as the protection of the lives and liberty of American citizens, yet no doubt the rulers of the West—many now identified by investigative journalists—wouldn’t agree, since to them their definition is expanding a bullying and ever belligerent and destructive and I would add paranoid empire.

Although I assume some would characterize me as a “Russian bot,” I personally do not promote either “Team America” or “Team Russia” but think the current tension between the two nations should be a cause of great concern to all Americans for its implications, not merely in the potential of military conflict between the two nations, but the fact that America’s actions may have lost the friendship of a great nation and her people for generations to come, a friendship that would have resulted in mutual benefit. Professor Stephen F. Cohen has discussed the implications eloquently and his work can be found here.

I myself became interested in the new Cold War and its inherent dangers by following events after Georgia’s invasion of South Ossetia, not of course via the legacy media but through the alternative Internet media, which results in a constant process of discovery; as to that war itself, which—as usual—was reported differently by the legacy media newspapers, television, and websites from the alternative press coverage, in one of those alternative sites I first discovered the authoritative interviews, writings and observations of Professor Stephen F. Cohen. His book, Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives: From Stalinism to the New Cold War documents how the American initiated plunder of Russia in the Yeltsin era resulted in as many fatalities as a war. I don’t recall how I discovered years ago The Saker, first blogging on, but from him and I also discovered the work of retired naval officer, Russian historian and military analyst Andrei Martyanov.

In this environment where during the Trump Impeachment hearings the Azov Battalion, as discussed on The Saker’s site in this article, “The Terrorists Among US11 Azov Battalion and American Congressional Support” can be referred to by George Kent, the deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs who was a key witness in the recent impeachment inquiry as “…the 21st century version of our own minutemen,” and also he described them as helping fight off recent “Russian aggression and advancements on Ukrainian soil,” while there was in fact nothing of the kind.

In fact, in his opening statement, Kent said, “For the past five years, we have focused our united efforts across the Atlantic to support Ukraine in its fight for the cause of freedom and the rebirth of a country free from Russian dominion and the warped legacy of Soviet institutions and post-Soviet behavior.” I don’t think it’s hyperbole on my part to assume that the murder of innocents, perhaps quintessentially resulting in the creation of the Novorussia Madonna is something that Kent would cheer. The facts are (and do facts matter in America any longer?) that on July 27th, 2014, when the East of Ukraine was already at war, a young woman and her little daughter—Kristina and Kira—were murdered from the shelling of Ukrainian forces. The mother then was named the “Gorlovka Madonna.”

Of course, how many Americans are aware of such an event and have viewed the pictures of the victims? Would they still gloat and cry, “USA, USA, USA”? I suspect, sadly, many will. The Wikileaks revelations of war crimes by the American military certainly hasn’t had any effect to change the vast majority of American public opinion against “forever war.”

We certainly are living in dangerous times; I suspect it’s even dangerous to me to discuss the writings on his blog and his two recent books with Andrei Martyanov in an environment of omnipresent electronic monitoring and profiling of every individual American citizen, especially those who question the warfare state and challenge its goals, if only out of sense of morality and a perception—at least on my part—that the policies pursued will be destructive to America, which unfortunately seems hellbent on a path of no return. Andrei has consented to answer my questions which focus on Russia and on his work.

Martyanov blogs about the political class, including Donald Trump, on his blog Reminiscence of the Future…. But I gave him, if you pardon the expression, a homework assignment, a recent piece by Whitney Webb describing the powers behind Washington’s politicians, be they “Democrats” or “Republicans.” It’s hard to determine where the real power in Washington and the City of London lies, that is to say who the actual rulers are, but the greater power is evidently held by the central bankers and billionaires, operating in a mob like fashion as Ms. Webb described, in fact actually working with mobsters. I don’t understand why if using central banks fiat money can be created out of thin air, and let’s say for sake of argument the wars starting since the early 1990s attack on Iraq collectively cost ten trillion dollars at least, that money might have been put to better and more peaceful use. That amount would buy a lot of oil but that’s not the issue. America could certainly have used the created money as China does, in furtherance of manufacturing, construction, infrastructure and trade and raising the standard of living of its people. Bruce Fein has written a thoughtful, scholarly book titled American Empire: Before the Fall, and diagnoses all the issues facing America today due to the fact that she has become an empire and no longer a republic—a dysfunctional and delusional empire, but an empire all the same. Yet Alexander the Great, for instance, after his conquests kept the vassals of the Persians in place and wanted to ally (think the intermarriages) with the Persian aristocracy, not subdue and annihilate it.

In contrast, the “American” empire acts like Genghis Khan on steroids without his military genius: it appears to me Washington is intent on the wholesale obliteration of countries, their infrastructure, murdering the civilian populations by the millions, and so on. Moreover, perhaps in the most memorable quote of Hillary Clinton in calling some Americans “deplorables,” it seems the entire class of rulers of America views its citizens as dispensable commodities and ill disguised contempt. A recent article posted on explains the predicament America is in, titled “Now That We’ve Incentivized Sociopaths…Guess What Happens Next.” We see it most recently in the political train wreck culminating in the impeachment hearings (although again, I refer the reader to Ms. Webb’s pieces to see that politicians are merely lackeys following orders and perhaps playing to a script). My conversation with Andrei covers numerous topics, including his books.

Yvonne Lorenzo: Andrei, can you comment on my key points that I made in the introduction? And does Russia’s diplomatic and political class, although highly restrained towards America, view her now as a fascist power? I was surprised Putin in his interview with Oliver Stone never made any statements on the war crimes and loss of life in Eastern Ukraine and the fact of the West using openly fascist murderers (as detailed by Robert Parry in Consortium News) after Russia herself lost tens of millions to fascists is not only beneath contempt but a huge insult to Russia. If I have no tolerance for fascists, my mother survived in an occupied country controlled by Nazi Germany with great suffering of the population and almost lost her life. Consider as well America’s “elites” working with and helping Nazis, for example with Operation Paper Clip. See also The CIA and Nazi War Criminals and even The Daily Beast’s article What Cold War CIA Interrogators Learned from the Nazis which states without shame, considering the massive loss in human life the Soviets experienced at the hands of the Nazis:

It was 1946 and World War II had ended less than one year before. In Top Secret memos being circulated in the elite ‘E’ ring of the Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs of Staff were preparing for ‘total war’ with the Soviets—to include atomic, chemical, and biological warfare. They even set an estimated start date of 1952. The Joint Chiefs believed that the U.S. could win this future war, but not for reasons that the general public knew about. Since war’s end, across the ruins of the Third Reich, U.S. military officers had been capturing and then hiring Hitler’s weapons makers, in a Top Secret program that would become known as Operation Paperclip. Soon, more than 1,600 of these men and their families would be living the American dream, right here in the United States. From these Nazi scientists, U.S. military and intelligence organizations culled knowledge of Hitler’s most menacing weapons including sarin gas and weaponized bubonic plague.

As the Cold War progressed, the program expanded and got stranger still. In 1948, Operation Paperclip’s Brigadier General Charles E. Loucks, Chief of U.S. Chemical Warfare Plans in Europe, was working with Hitler’s former chemists when one of the scientists, Nobel Prize winner Richard Kuhn, shared with General Loucks information about a drug with military potential being developed by Swiss chemists. This drug, a hallucinogen, had astounding potential properties if successfully weaponized. In documents recently discovered at the U.S. Army Heritage Center in Pennsylvania, Loucks quickly became enamored with the idea that this drug could be used on the battlefield to “incapacitate not kill.” The drug was Lysergic acid diethylamide, or LSD.

It did not take long for the CIA to become interested and involved. Perhaps LSD could also be used for off-the-battlefield purposes, a means through which human behavior could be manipulated and controlled. In an offshoot of Operation Paperclip, the CIA teamed up with Army, Air Force and Naval Intelligence to run one of the most nefarious, classified, enhanced interrogation programs of the Cold War. The work took place inside a clandestine facility in the American zone of occupied Germany, called Camp King. The facility’s chief medical doctor was Operation Paperclip’s Dr. Walter Schreiber, the former Surgeon General of the Third Reich. When Dr. Schreiber was secretly brought to America—to work for the U.S. Air Force in Texas—his position was filled with another Paperclip asset, Dr. Kurt Blome, the former Deputy Surgeon General of the Third Reich and the man in charge of the Nazi’s program to weaponize bubonic plague. The activities that went on at Camp King between 1946 and the late 1950s have never been fully accounted for by either the Department of Defense or the CIA.

In fact, this article, Profits über Alles! American Corporations and Hitler, has a good overview of American corporate interests in Nazi Germany, and includes the following information (and it has extensive references that confirm the author’s conclusions):

In the 1920s many big American corporations enjoyed sizable investments in Germany. IBM established a German subsidiary, Dehomag, before World War I; in the 1920s General Motors took over Germany’s largest car manufacturer, Adam Opel AG; and Ford founded a branch plant, later known as the Ford-Werke, in Cologne. Other US firms contracted strategic partnerships with German companies. Standard Oil of New Jersey — today’s Exxon — developed intimate links with the German trust IG Farben. By the early 1930s, an élite of about twenty of the largest American corporations had a German connection including Du Pont, Union Carbide, Westinghouse, General Electric, Gillette, Goodrich, Singer, Eastman Kodak, Coca-Cola, IBM, and ITT. Finally, many American law firms, investment companies, and banks were deeply involved in America’s investment offensive in Germany, among them the renowned Wall Street law firm Sullivan & Cromwell, and the banks J. P. Morgan and Dillon, Read and Company, as well as the Union Bank of New York, owned by Brown Brothers & Harriman.

The Union Bank was intimately linked with the financial and industrial empire of German steel magnate Thyssen, whose financial support enabled Hitler to come to power. This bank was managed by Prescott Bush, grandfather of George W. Bush. Prescott Bush was allegedly also an eager supporter of Hitler, funneled money to him via Thyssen, and in return made considerable profits by doing business with Nazi Germany; with the profits he launched his son, the later president, in the oil business. 6 American overseas ventures fared poorly in the early 1930s, as the Great Depression hit Germany particularly hard. Production and profits dropped precipitously, the political situation was extremely unstable, there were constant strikes and street battles between Nazis and Communists, and many feared that the country was ripe for a “red” revolution like the one that had brought the Bolsheviks to power in Russia in 1917.

However, backed by the power and money of German industrialists and bankers such as Thyssen, Krupp, and Rorschach, Hitler came to power in January 1933, and not only the political but also the sociology-economic situation changed drastically.

Soon the German subsidiaries of American corporations were profitable again. Why? After Hitler came to power American business leaders with assets in Germany found to their immense satisfaction that his so-called revolution respected the sociology-economic status quo.

The Fuhrer’s Teutonic brand of fascism, like every other variety of fascism, was reactionary in nature, and extremely useful for capitalists’ purposes. Brought to power by Germany’s leading businessmen and bankers, Hitler served the interests of his “enablers.” His first major initiative was to dissolve the labor unions and to throw the Communists, and many militant Socialists, into prisons and the first concentration camps, which were specifically set up to accommodate the overabundance of left-wing political prisoners.

This ruthless measure not only removed the threat of revolutionary change — embodied by Germany’s Communists — but also emasculated the German working class and transformed it into a powerless “mass of followers” (Gentlefolks), to use Nazi terminology, which was unconditionally put at the disposal of their employers, the Thyself and Krupp. Most, if not all firms in Germany, including American branch plants, eagerly took advantage of this situation and cut labor costs drastically. The Ford-Werke, for example, reduced labor costs from fifteen per cent of business volume in 1933 to only eleven per cent in 1938. (Research Findings, 135–6)

This long article on American corporate support for the Nazis is worth reading in its entirety since it details the (mostly Gentile controlled) corporations selling the weaponry used to attack the Soviet Union—engines, trucks, hardware, IBM technology and the like—even after America’s involvement in the war. In addition, I suspect that Kosovo is the model of what the current Western Empire wants to achieve throughout the world, including America itself, as this article “Kosovo’s PM Accused of Arms, Drugs and Human Organs Trafficking” discusses and is a topic that has been frequently reported on The Saker’s site.

Angelo Codevilla wrote in America’s Ruling Class:

Today’s ruling class, from Boston to San Diego, was formed by an educational system that exposed them to the same ideas and gave them remarkably uniform guidance, as well as tastes and habits. These amount to a social canon of judgments about good and evil, complete with secular sacred history, sins (against minorities and the environment), and saints. Using the right words and avoiding the wrong ones when referring to such matters—speaking the “in” language—serves as a badge of identity. Regardless of what business or profession they are in, their road up included government channels and government money because, as government has grown, its boundary with the rest of American life has become indistinct. Many began their careers in government and leveraged their way into the private sector. Some, e.g., Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, never held a non-government job. Hence whether formally in government, out of it, or halfway, America’s ruling class speaks the language and has the tastes, habits, and tools of bureaucrats. It rules uneasily over the majority of Americans not oriented to government…

Much less does membership in the ruling class depend on high academic achievement. To see something closer to an academic meritocracy consider France, where elected officials have little power, a vast bureaucracy explicitly controls details from how babies are raised to how to make cheese, and people get into and advance in that bureaucracy strictly by competitive exams. Hence for good or ill, France’s ruling class are bright people—certifiably. Not ours. But didn’t ours go to Harvard and Princeton and Stanford? Didn’t most of them get good grades? Yes. But while getting into the Ecole Nationale d’Administration or the Ecole Polytechnique or the dozens of other entry points to France’s ruling class requires outperforming others in blindly graded exams, and graduating from such places requires passing exams that many fail, getting into America’s “top schools” is less a matter of passing exams than of showing up with acceptable grades and an attractive social profile. American secondary schools are generous with their As. Since the 1970s, it has been virtually impossible to flunk out of American colleges. And it is an open secret that “the best” colleges require the least work and give out the highest grade point averages. No, our ruling class recruits and renews itself not through meritocracy but rather by taking into itself people whose most prominent feature is their commitment to fit in. The most successful neither write books and papers that stand up to criticism nor release their academic records. Thus does our ruling class stunt itself through negative selection. But the more it has dumbed itself down, the more it has defined itself by the presumption of intellectual superiority.

What are your thoughts, as a historian and naval officer, and what do Russians in positions of power, and perhaps if you have contact with the Russian governing class and intelligentsia, think about such things as I have described above and have been documented? In your opinion is Washington becoming or is already a fascist power? Ron Unz has also written recently in his American Pravda series about the origins of World War II. Consequently, do the powers behind the curtain desire “hot war” with Russia, since they are ignorant of the military technology available that I hope we shall discuss later on? I’ll be asking about the quality of the “Four Star” and related generals later.

Andrei Martyanov: Yvonne, I don’t think many in Russia view the United States as a “fascist” power per se—it is indeed difficult to do so for a country so ethnically and culturally diverse as the United States. This diversity precludes the United States to define itself completely as a nation in an ethno-cultural sense, nor does the political system of the United States allow for the emergence of a dictator, a key element of the fascist state. For all his bluster today and accusations in being a sort of a dictator, President Trump is an extremely weak president, as is generally the office of POTUS. The United States is a classic oligarchy wrapped in a vast state bureaucracy a/k/a the Deep State which is increasingly dysfunctional. If it is a fascist state in any sense, it is a very sad in a comical sort of way fascist state, as the three-years long Russia and Ukrainegate “investigations” demonstrated. Russians, however do use widely the term of “liberal fascism” to underscore the totalitarian nature of the so called “liberal” ideology of which the United States, together with subservient Europe, are the main drivers.

As I repeat ad nauseam for years now, the Western in general and American in particular so-called elites are incompetent. I observed a precipitous decline in the professional, the intellectual and the ethical levels of these elites for over twenty years. Now it has reached truly grotesque forms from pedophilia inside the ruling class, to the media being utterly corrupt and incompetent. I can only repeat my point about the US having no mechanisms anymore for producing real statesmen. Russians know this, they observe this everyday and in my fifty-seven years of life on many continents I cannot recall a time period when Russians had such contempt for and rejection of the so called “democratic values.” This is simply unprecedented in Russian history.

One doesn’t have to have any contact with the Russian governing class or so-called “intelligentsia,” a term closely associated now with profanity in Russia, to have a good grasp of how Russians in general, and the Russian political top in particular, view events unfolding inside the combined West. The Russian governing class is keenly aware of Russia being a mortal enemy of the United States and, yes, there are serious forces in the US ranging from the financial oligarchy to many in the US political class who would love to physically annihilate Russia, but unless we are talking about complete mental cases, most of them would love to destroy Russia via proxy means, such as was the idea behind the instigation of the violent coup in Ukraine, and not to fight Russia directly.

Even the American political class, which is utterly ignorant in issues of actual war and is completely uneducated in matters of military history, still understands the consequences of such a war. Sadly, I cannot share Ron Unz’ views on the nature of the reasons leading to WW II, but that is precisely my point—it is impossible to breach the one-dimensional and largely Manichean view of history which dominates the American mind to discuss the issues of and the reasons for war and peace not just as a—however plausible—conspiracy of some limited group of people (bankers, capitalists, communists, Zionists, space aliens—what have you) but as a very complex multi-dimensional combination of objective and subjective factors which influence and determine human history. Russians in the power block do know this; however in the United States—I don’t think so. But then again, this is my long-held academic and human position: Russia is aware of the United States on an order of magnitude better than the other way around.

Yvonne Lorenzo: Let me follow-up: would you say that the “West” has always been overtly hostile to Russia no matter the cause?

Andrei Martyanov: Yes, it has. Russia was invaded so many times by Western powers, starting from the Teutonic Knights in 1242, by the Poles in the 17th Century, by Napoleon’s European armies in 1812, by Anglo-French forces during the Crimean War of 1854-56, by Nazi Germany which was, rephrasing Tolstoy from War and Peace, yet another force of a dozen languages, from Italian Fascists to Spanish and Scandinavian SS Divisions to even French and Dutch units, to name a few. So, the record is out there, as are numerous Western schools (lack) of thought who continuously rationalize Western invasions as “preventive” and blame Russia for being invaded. But the combined West finally did it, largely thanks to modern communications technologies, and committed cultural suicide when in 2014 it unleashed the coup in Ukraine. As we all know, Russia was blamed for “invading” Ukraine and meddling in her internal affairs. As I said elsewhere in this interview, I never saw so much contempt and rejection of the West in Russia—ever. Not even during the Cold War. Another Russian, very popular saying: “Everything communist told us about socialism was a lie, everything they told us about West (or capitalism in another version) was the absolute truth.”

That pretty much sums it up.

Yvonne Lorenzo: I want to discuss this piece by Paul Craig Roberts recently posted on, “Germany Did Not Start World War II” in which he states:

Viktor Suvorov has produced documented books that Hitler had no choice but to invade Russia as Stalin had assembled on Germany’s border the largest and most formidable invasion force in history. Hitler struck first before the Soviet invasion force was prepared. Consequently, the enormous early victories of German arms were a product of Soviet bases being overrun with enormous losses in men and equipment. John Wear’s findings support Suvorov’s conclusion.

The war forced on Germany was too much for Germany. Faced with having to occupy defeated Europe, with the threat of an American invasion, faced with a Russian front, and faced with having to rescue Italy in Greece and North Africa, German resources, despite the magnificence of the German Army, were too thin to prevail. Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin, each for his own reasons, had forced Germany into a war that Hitler did not want.My own knowledge is that the Soviet Union lacked the resources and capabilities to attack Nazi Germany and had no such intention. With your knowledge of history and as a former Soviet Officer, I’d appreciate your thoughts.

Andrei Martyanov: Victor Rezun (aka Suvorov) cannot be taken seriously as either a military historian or a thinker of any noticeable scale. He and his theories have been debunked on so many occasions by so many top-notch historians ranging from Russian to American ones, that it is still surprising that his utterly incompetent (from a military point of view) concoctions written for purely propaganda reasons, are still being discussed in some, mostly alt-right, circles as having any relation to a complex reality. The explanation for this is extremely simple: the so called alt-right sphere, whose pivot of history rests on a foundation of theory that the Jews control everything in the world, would believe anything, such as Rezun’s fantasies and down-right fabrications, to tie in the Russian October Revolution with purely Jewish efforts and as such portray Hitler’s war on USSR as a preemptive war against a Jewish “Bolshevik” conspiracy to absorb Europe and install communist governments. This is a view reserved for people who, basically, have zero understanding (or knowledge) of the European policies in the inter-war period nor have even a basic grasp of how modern industrial wars, such as WW II, were prosecuted. I don’t have to dwell on this for too long, especially since David Glantz and Jonathan House, both internationally recognized military historians of repute and former cadre seniors officers of the US Army, made a superb case against Rezun’s falsifications in both editions, especially the second 2015 one, of their seminal When Titans Clashed: How The Red Army Stopped Hitler. I am not in the position to change people’s beliefs—some believe in Santa Claus, others believe in Rezun and Solzhenitsyn.

Yvonne Lorenzo: Let me ask a question of you not as a scholar, historian and a naval officer, but as a human being. Would you tell me of some of your background, your own experience of warfare, and how you came to America? Your perspective on America and the current suffering of her people (your recent blog post on drug overdose deaths) contrasts with your views on the ruling class.

Andrei Martyanov: I graduated from the Caspian Higher Naval Red Banner Academy, named after Sergei Kirov in Baku, and studied from 1980 through 1985, Navigation Faculty. I have a graduate degree of Specialist in Gyro-Inertial Navigational Complexes of Naval Strategic Missile Systems, focus on SSBN of pr. 667B-BD (NATO Delta I and II class). The so called VUS (military-registration specialty) is called Specialty Naval Navigation. Soviet naval academies provided graduate degree in engineering and undergraduate in military sciences. Every graduate was also prepared for tactical command of naval infantry (marines). Very few took this career path or, for that matter, in Naval Missile-Carrying Aviation (MRA). Most of us ended either on submarines or surface navy combatants, or, in case of my academy, up to a third of graduates ended up on the ships of what then was called Naval Units of Border Guards of KGB USSR, today known as a Coast Guard of FSB. In Soviet times it was much more militarized due to Soviet Coast Guard getting many ships in naval configuration with all that this entailed—from sensor suites to weapon systems. I chose Coast Guard path. I served through 1990 on both ships and staff position in the separate brigade which was based in Baku, on Caspian Sea. It was this location which became a violent place from 1988 to 1990 which helped in precipitating the collapse of the Soviet Union. Those were dramatic and violent events which require a separate discussion. I finished my service by 1990 due to health problems and in 1991 was left not only without any pension, for which I didn’t have enough service census, but without a country when the USSR collapsed. I, as many millions of my peers, both military professionals and civilians, became aliens in what used to be the Soviet Union, which now was split into fifteen different countries. It was a life altering experience in every sense, including seeing what Russia (we couldn’t stay in Baku anymore) was turning into in 1990s, when undergoing wholesale robbery and criminal revolution. I, being a decent English speaker, opened a commodities business with the US and eventually started to visit the United States for business reasons. After observing live on CNN how Yeltsin blew up in 1993 [the Russian] White House and had drowned the uprising in blood it became patently clear that for me and my family there was no place anymore [for us] in that Russia. By then we all had enough. The 1990s did become a catastrophe for Russia and Russia still lives and overcomes the consequences of that disaster.

Yvonne Lorenzo: I’d like to discuss the central thesis of your first book, Losing Military Supremacy. Aside from a civil war in the late 1800s, the United States has never experienced the effects of a devastating war fought on its own soil by foreign nation and believes it is invulnerable and won’t be attacked. To the contrary, Russians to this day know the price of war. If you would be so kind to summarize, if possible, the key points you wished to make known about Russia.

Andrei Martyanov: In a sense, my new book, The Real Revolution in Military Affairs, is a continuation of my first one—Losing Military Supremacy. The difference is that I get more in depth into the tactical, operational and technological issues—to a degree that is possible in what amounts to a geopolitical study—to demonstrate and drive my point home that the current American political elites are utterly delusional on the nature of modern warfare, especially in a peer-to-peer scenario of which the United States never faced after WW II.

My point is very simple—the ignorance of the American ruling class of modern warfare is such that it has become a clear and present danger for the world since, while improbable at this stage, it is totally plausible to see at some point of time someone in the US political top losing it and unleashing a confrontation with Russia, or China, being fully convinced, mostly by Hollywood or [Tom] Clancy-esque pseudo military fiction, that the Unites States and NATO can attack Russia and survive. That’s the danger, especially in a country whose elites completely lost their mind and are delusional, or reside in what I define as a Perpetual Chalabi Moment.

The US did lose the arms race. The arms race was not lost in 2018 or even 2015, however; it was lost much earlier and it was mostly due to the [machinations of the] US media-propaganda machine which kept it secret from the US public. It still continues to do so but it is increasingly difficult to keep it under wraps when information, including imagery of what Russia does in this field becomes increasingly available. But that is just part of the issue: I write about predictors—the real economy, scientific development, education, etc.—for war’s outcomes [are] non-stop.

In the end, when I state that the US elites have no clue about the size and complexity of Russia’s economy, it is one thing, but when I state that they basically have no clue about their own economy, not Wall Street’s cooking of books, I can rely on some serious American professionals in the field. After all, it was Trump’s White House which initiated Assessing and Strengthening the Manufacturing and Defense Industrial Base and Supply Chain Resiliency of the United States. The report was prepared by an Inter-agency Task Force in September 2018 and reads as an epitaph to the US machine-building complex and the issue is not just massive de-industrialization or the lack of a labor force which can fill in for departing old-timers, with many in the new generation of Americans being mostly interested in pot and drugs or in avoiding any productive labor, nor money alone can solve the problem of America’s declining military strength, which was always overstated to start with.

It is the culture, an institutional one, which is responsible for this decline. The United States is very good at building extremely expensive and dubiously effective—against a competent enemy—power projection forces, which by definition are offensive and aggressive.

Once one gets into the issues of actual defense, the picture changes dramatically for the United States. It is enough to mention the whole non-stop hysteria about Turkey buying and activating the S-400 complex, with India already having a 5 billion dollar contract signed with Russia, and many Arab states lining up for Russian-made air and anti-missile systems, not to mention combat aircraft, such as a contact for SU-35s between Egypt and Russia signed, following next.

All of it creates an extremely emotional reaction in the United States, but the fact that Russian military technology is in some key defense fields better than anything out there was never in doubt. It is enough to recall Vietnam, but in the time of radio and printed media it was easier to control narratives. Today it is extremely difficult. Russia always built weapons to effectively kill the enemy—such is Russia’s experience with warfare, much of which being invasions of foreign powers. The United States has zero historic experience with defending the US proper against powerful and brutal enemies. It is a cultural difference, a profound one and it manifests itself across the whole spectrum of activities, not just the respective military-industrial complexes. In other words, Russians MUST build top of the line weaponry, because the safety of Russia depends on it.

Yvonne Lorenzo: I just saw this report on Vesti YouTube’s channel on the Jubilee celebration of a composer, whose work (of course since my being an American) I was unfamiliar with: Alexandra Pakhmutova, who just turned ninety. I think musically this depicts the difference between a nation that recalls recent defensive martial glories and sorrows and the loss of life numbering in the tens of millions, as opposed the American military that Fred Reed expounds about below.

Here’s the video.

Putin Personally Congratulates Legendary Composer Pakhmutova With Order of Saint Andrew!

And here’s a piece she composed and performed that night, the title translated (English subtitles are in the video) “Let’s Bow to the Great Years.”

I don’t recall any such musical celebrations or expect any on the 75th anniversary of the victory against Nazi Germany and the Axis Powers, what we call in the USA World War II and Russians know as The Great Patriotic War; I don’t know if Generations X, Y or Z even give a damn or have any idea about this history; I recall reading in a survey that the majority of British students thought Hitler was Prime Minister of the U.K. Would you elaborate and also discuss your own feelings about this remarkable woman and these differences between the West and Russia? And please explain this statement you made in your book, which was posted on your blog when you discussed “Slogans masquerading as ideas,” a statement Paul Craig Roberts made

Soviet poet Alexandr Trvardovsky left a Great Patriotic War literary masterpiece for the Soviet people—the epic Vasily Tyorkin, large and written in many self-contained parts, because many Red Army soldiers could never expect to read the entirety because of the possibility of being killed at the front. It was a poem about life and the combat of a simple Russian soldier, Vasily Tyorkin, which later transcended its literary origin and lived on in Russian folklore and culture. One of the most powerful episodes in Tvardovsky’s masterpiece about River-Crossing under enemy’s fire, encapsulates the meaning of the titanic struggle against Nazi evil:
Бой идет святой и правый.
Смертный бой не ради славы,
Ради жизни на земле.
The battle goes on, holy and righteous
A deadly battle not for glory
For life on Earth

This is what at the stake for humanity today. No less than that. Maybe, more.

Andrei Martyanov: Alexandra Pakhmutova and her husband Nikolai Dobronravov are Soviet and Russia’s cultural icons who throughout decades literally nurtured several generations with their songs which long ago stopped being just songs and crossed into the realm of people’s culture the same way as Pushkin or Esenin’s poetry and Russian folklore songs. The scale of Pakhmutova and Dobronravov’s art becomes evident with each year and it only grows. Remarkably, it was the great Muslim, Magomaev, a Bakunian, same as I and my family, who became Pakhmutova songs’ premier performer and is still loved and listened to all over former Soviet Union. It is absolutely heartwarming to recognize that Pakhmutova is being recognized at the highest state level for her wonderful art. All this is part and parcel of the steady re-appropriation of the best in Soviet history and of the return of Russian people to what was and is truly dear to them. A lot of that is marked by the highest quality art. It is also a structural element of Russians re-asserting their historic role, which in the last century is closely tied to the defeat of Nazism. Moreover, it is what could be defined as an element in patriotic upbringing of Russia’s youth.

As I write in my first book, in 2015, at the celebration of the 70th Anniversary of the defeat of Nazism in Moscow, the main event wasn’t Red Square parade, it was the march of Immortal Regiment and evening, absolutely stunning, concert The Roads of Great Victory at the Red Square. I cannot emphasize enough how much more important than the parade these two events were. The 75th Anniversary is coming on May 9th, 2020—I am sure there will be a magnificent parade and there will be many luminaries from all over the world present on the Red Square, but it will be, most likely, again the Immortal Regiment march and a concert which will be the main event, which will be able to give an insight into the Russian view of the world and view of on history. Obviously, songs by Pakhmutova and Dobronravov will be sang everywhere in Russia this day.

Yvonne Lorenzo: I have to add that I’ve listened to her compositions through the albums and videos of Hvorsostovky but I didn’t make the connection, since I honestly didn’t pay any attention to the names of the songs’ composers. Here is a video of him working with her recording “Tenderness.”

The entire Grand Anniversary concert is here, with millions of views:

Grand anniversary concert of Alexandra Pakhmutova (video cannot be embedded, VS)

And this is the most recent video of her receiving the Order of Saint Andrew of Award:

Bolshoi Theater Gets Special Visit By Putin, Renowned Composer Given Order of St. Andrew Award!

Yvonne Lorenzo: You’ve written about what I’d call the “Tom Clancy Delusion” on your blog. This recent article, “The CIA’s Jack Ryan Series Is ‘Regime-Change’ Propaganda Aimed At Venezuela” noted:

Dr. Matthew Alford of the University of Bath, author of National Security Cinema: The Shocking New Evidence of Government Control in Hollywood, told MintPress that the new Amazon product is a “disgrace of a series,” unfairly demonizing a nation at a time when the United States has its boot on the throat of Venezuelan society.

“The new Jack Ryan series comes in the context of four movies stretching back decades that have all had Department of Defense and/or CIA support at the scriptwriting phrase,” he noted, labeling Jack Ryan as a classic “national security entertainment product”.

The character of Jack Ryan first appeared in Cold War era Clancy stories such as The Hunt for Red October and The Cardinal of the Kremlin, where the heroic Ryan battles the dark forces of the Soviet Union. The series was put on hiatus but has recently returned, bringing with it much of the same Cold War mentality and rhetoric. Ryan has been previously played on screen by Hollywood stars such as Alec Baldwin, Harrison Ford and Ben Affleck.

Alford’s book, which he co-wrote with Tom Secker, describes the enormous influence that the national security state has on popular culture. Based on Freedom of Information requested documents, the two calculated that between 2004 and 2016, the Department of Defense was directly involved in the production of 977 Hollywood movies or television shows, many of which were carefully scripted, edited and curated by government agents in order to present a certain viewpoint of the world to the public. For example, the writers of Homeland were revealed to have private meetings with ex-CIA officials before each season.

From big budget movies like Ironman and Transformers to surprisingly banal television productions like The Biggest Loser, Mythbusters or American Idol, virtually every movie or television show featuring the military or intelligence figures has been edited, scripted or funded by the Department of Defense in order to cast the government in the best possible light. Those that do not comply with the Department of Defense’s requests are not given privileged access to, or use of, military resources and may be attacked by the state as being unpatriotic or deceptive.

The constant flow of pro-security state messages has an effect on the public. Researchers found that respondents who were shown torture scenes from the television series 24 were more likely to subsequently support the government’s policies of torture in sites like Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. This held even for liberal college students.

Andrei Martyanov: The first person of repute who challenged Tom Clancy’s fantasies was professor Roger Thompson in his seminal 2006 book Lessons Not Learned, in which he correctly asked a question how an insurance agent who never served a day in uniform and had undergraduate degree in English can write competently on any issue related to modern combat and technology. In Clancy’s case it was clear that he was promoted, he openly writes about it in his book, by former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman, for purely propaganda reasons. Most of what Clancy wrote was cringe-worthy pop-literature, which could be described as incompetent military-intelligence porn. Clancy never made it a secret that his Jack Ryan character was written from…Tom Clancy himself. A good testimony about late Clancy himself. Why Jack Ryan was written as a spy as opposed to as insurance agent remains a complete mystery to me, but, I guess, whatever sells books for the late Tom Clancy. In Soviet/Russian military environment Clancy’s “literature” overwhelmingly was treated with ironic smile at best, and with Homeric laughter at worst. But that pretty much describes the “level” of American “knowledge” and awareness of Russia in general and her military in particular—a caricature. It is, however, one thing to promote caricatures in pop-art, totally another when a caricature becomes a working model for decision making at the top political level. That is dangerous. As General Latiff of DARPA correctly noted—most of what the US public and political class know about war is from entertainment, from Hollywood to the literature of such “professionals” like the late Clancy.

Yvonne Lorenzo: I quoted (retired) Major Danny Sjursen earlier. He wrote a piece title, “The Generals Won’t Save Us From The Next War” for the American Conservative. I want to reproduce an excerpt and then ask you to comment. Your disdain for the political class is well known but what about the generals in power? How capable and knowledgeable are they? How competent?

Why should any sentient citizen believe that these commanders’ former subordinates—a new crop of ambitious generals—will step forward now and oppose a disastrous future war with the Islamic Republic? Don’t believe it! Senior military leaders will salute, about-face, and execute unethical and unnecessary combat with Iran or whomever else (think Venezuela) Trump’s war hawks, such as John Bolton, decide needs a little regime changing.

Need proof that even the most highly lauded generals will sheepishly obey the next absurd march to war? Join me in a brief trip down an ever so depressing memory lane. Let us begin with my distinguished West Point graduation speaker, Air Force General and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Richard Myers. He goes down in history as as a Donald Rumsfeld lackey because it turns out he knew full well that there were “holes” in the Bush team’s inaccurate intelligence used to justify the disastrous Iraq war. Yet we heard not a peep from Myers, who kept his mouth shut and retired with full four-star honors.

Then, when Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki accurately (and somewhat courageously) predicted in 2003 that an occupation of Iraq would require up to half a million U.S. troops, he was quietly retired. Rummy passed over a whole generation of active officers to pull a known sycophant, General Peter Schoomaker, out of retirement to do Bush the Younger’s bidding. It worked too. Schoomaker, despite his highly touted special forces experience, never threw his stars on the table and called BS on a losing strategy even as it killed his soldiers by the hundreds and then the thousands. Having heard him (unimpressively) speak at West Point in 2005, I still can’t decide whether he lacked the intellect to do so or the conscience. Maybe both.

After Bush landed a fighter plane on a carrier and triumphantly announced “mission accomplished” in Iraq, poor Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, the newest three-star in the Army, took over the hard part of conquest: bringing the “natives” to heel. He utterly failed, being too reliant on what he knew—Cold War armored combat—and too ambitious to yell “stop!” Soon after, it came to light that Sanchez had bungled the investigation—or cover-up (take your pick)—of the massive abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib prison.

General John Abizaid was one of the most disappointing in a long line of subservient generals. It seems Abizaid knew better: he knew the Iraq war couldn’t be won, that it was best to hand over control to the Iraqis posthaste, that General David Petraeus’s magical “surge” snake oil wouldn’t work. Still, Abizaid didn’t quit and retired quietly. He’s now Trump’s ambassador to Saudi Arabia, which is far from comforting.

Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster was heralded as an outside-the-box thinker. And indeed, he was a Gulf War I hero, earned a Ph.D., taught history at West Point, and wrote a (mostly) well-received book on Vietnam. Yet when Trump appointed him national security advisor, he brought only in-the-box military beliefs with him into the White House. He then helped author a fanciful National Defense Strategy that argued the U.S. military must be ready at a moment’s notice to fight Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and “terror.” Perhaps at the same time! No nuance, no diplomatic alternatives, no cost-benefit analysis, just standard militarism. These days, McMaster is running around decrying what he calls a “defeatist narrative” and arguing for indefinite war in the Middle East.

Then there was the other Washington insider and “liberal” favorite, one of a trio of “adults in the room,” General Jim Mattis. Though sold to the public as a “warrior monk,” Mattis offered no alternative to America’s failing forever wars. In fact, when he decided his conscience no longer allowed him to stay in the Trump administration, his reason for leaving was that the president had called for a reduction of troops in Afghanistan after 18 senseless years. U.S.-supported Saudi terror bombings that killed tens of thousands of Yemeni civilians? A U.S.-backed Saudi blockade that starved at least 85,000 Yemeni children to death? Yeah, he was fine with that. But a modest troop withdrawal from a losing 18-year-old war in landlocked Central Asia, that he couldn’t countenance.

Then there’s the propensity for politics and pageantry among senior military officers. This was embarrassingly and unconscionably on display in the tragic cases of Private First Class Jessica Lynch and Corporal Pat Tillman. When, during the initial invasion of Iraq, the young Lynch’s maintenance convoy got lost, she was captured and briefly detained by Saddam’s army. Knowing a good public relations opportunity when they saw it, Bush’s staff and the generals concocted a slew of comforting lies: Lynch was a hero who had fought to her last bullet (she’d never fired her rifle), she’d been tortured (she hadn’t), her combat-camera equipped commando rescue had come just in the nick of time (she was hardly guarded and in a hospital). Who cares if it was all lies, if this young woman’s terrifying experience was co-opted and embellished? The Lynch story was media fodder.

More tragic was the Pat Tillman escapade. Tillman was an admirable outlier, the only professional athlete to give up a million dollar contract to enlist in the military soon after 9/11. Tillman and his brother went all in, too, choosing the elite Army Rangers. It was quite the story. Rumsfeld even wrote the new private a congratulatory letter. Then reality got in the way. Tillman was killed in Afghanistan during a friendly fire incident that can only be described as gross incompetence. Almost immediately, President Bush’s staff and much of the Army’s top brass went to work crafting the big lie: a heroic narrative of Tillman’s demise, replete with dozens of marauding Taliban fighters and a one-man charge befitting the hard-hitting former NFL defensive back. Promoted to corporal posthumously, he was awarded the Silver Star. Some of his fellow Rangers were instructed to lie to the Tillman family at the memorial service regarding the manner of Pat’s death.

Only Bush’s neophytes and the Army’s complicit generals didn’t count on the tenacity of Tillman’s parents. They waged something nearing war with the U.S. military for several years until they found out the truth, unearthing a cover-up that implicated Bush’s civilians and many of the military’s four-star generals (including Stanley McChrystal, John Abizaid, and Richard Myers). The Tillman family got their congressional hearing, but the sycophantic representatives on the Hill refused to seriously criticize the top brass and no one was seriously punished.

Andrei Martyanov: I don’t know the exact answer to this question. I am positive that there are many highly educated and competent people in US Armed Forces but there is no denial of the fact that some segments of the US top brass are more politicians than military leaders. It is not unique to the United States Armed Forces, but the record of failures is in the open and everyone can make their own conclusions.

Yvonne Lorenzo: Your latest book, The (Real) Revolution in Military Affairs provides further detail on Russia’s technological advancements. A layman, I see America as principally using bombing as artillery and proxy fighters (see Syria) on the ground—not too competent. I’ve read enough to be dangerous—having no military background—but wars can’t be won by bombing campaigns alone, even against a mediocre target (I think you called Iraq’s army third-rate). Fighting Russia, which appears to be the goal of the political class, is not what they will expect, even if the confrontation doesn’t rise to a nuclear exchange.

I’d appreciate your summarizing some of the key points of this book but I have to ask, having read some of The Saker’s writings, can Russia be overwhelmed by thousands upon thousands of slow missiles, like the TLAMs or will Russia use their “800 Pound Gorilla” in your parlance, that is, does Russia have enough weapons, from cruise missiles, to defensive, to hypersonic, not to be overwhelmed and are American generals aware of the risk if it does should they engage in hostilities? I noted your comments on Professor Cohen’s latest on Ukraine posted to on November 14th but his most recent video in PushBack from The Grayzone he said that in all the years he studied Russia and America he’d never thought the two nations would go to war. Yet now he fears this possibility. I’d appreciate your thoughts.

Willy Wimmer discussed on RT ‘We are on a path of war again’: 30 years after the Berlin Wall fell, Europe betrays its own hopes (By Willy Wimmer). He said:

It is a kind of Anglo-Saxon policy not to have cooperation on the European continent – mainly between the Russians, the French, the Poles and the Germans. They want to have a line of confrontation in this area and therefore are against all promises. [As a result] NATO was extended to the East.

I was responsible for the organization of the German Armed Forces on the German territory following reunification. We did not want foreign troops in former East Germany. We did not want to have British or French troops there; we wanted to have only German ones. We wanted to explain to the world that there was no desire to enlarge NATO up to the new borders with Russia that were created in 1992.

It was against all the ideas we had after reunification. What is happening now is some kind of Anglo-Saxon policy that was created even before WWI. We are on the path of war again. That is so much against the will of our people.

This is also against the will of the Dutch, the French, the Spanish and the Italians. We see it as a disaster that a US president that is willing to cooperate with the Russian President Vladimir Putin – President [Donald] Trump – has to face such a disastrous policy organized by the US deep state, which is against our national interests and the national interests of all other western Europeans…


But, when you now come to Rostock, Dresden or Leipzig they are learning Russian again, they go to theaters to watch Russian performances and listen to Russian music. They have re-established their links with Russia, and if they could do what they want to do, they would be the big economic partners of Russia these days.

Things have really changed for the Russian Federation and with regard to Russia. People in Dresden, Saxony’s capital, are absolutely proud that Russian President Vladimir Putin once served there. That is the reality these days, despite what the mainstream media say.Would Russia engage in tank battles and soldier-to-soldier combat if NATO attacked, or would they use stand-off weapons that you discuss just to obliterate command and control centers, the sources of munitions, etc.? Mr. Wimmer clearly sees that some Germans, as opposed to the “vassal” government, want better relations with Russia as opposed to war, including cold war.

Andrei Martyanov: The issue of TLAMs: in a conventional configuration, I don’t think that they can do much damage to Russia, especially considering Russia’s unique anti-air and anti-missile defense. A few possible leakers in conventional configuration will not do much damage; a few leakers in a nuclear configuration, however, is a completely different game. Hence Russia’s worry about Aegis Ashore installations in Romania and Poland. That’s the main worry.

In a conventional scenario, Russia will not be overwhelmed and even conventional response-head on (otvetno-vstrechnyi) strike will be extremely damaging to NATO and the US.

Valeri Gerasimov was explicit couple of years ago in his interview about Russia having enough stand-off weapons at every strategic direction to provide a reliable deterrence. Even in conventional exchange Russia can launch weapons at the US proper with Russian bombers not leaving Russia’s aerospace. The X-101 cruise missile has a range in excess of 5,500 kilometers. Russia continues to increase her deterrence with 3M22 Zircon getting ready to be tested from Admiral Gorshkov frigate very soon, with Kazan SSGN of project 885 planned to launch the hyper-sonic Zircon from underwater early next year.

All this changes deterrence dynamics completely because the United States cannot defend her coasts and in depth against such systems. Russia can intercept the bulk of US and NATO cruise missiles; the US cannot do so against Russia.

Yvonne Lorenzo: As I write this on December 3rd, 2019, Vesti News posted this video on the Zircon:

Putin Unveils Zircon Hypersonic Missiles! Stresses Importance of Beefing Up Russia’s Navy!

Yvonne Lorenzo: Let me ask you about Colonel Douglas Macgregor. A recent piece for Strategic-Culture, Douglas Macgregor: America’s De Gaulle, Unheeded Prophet of Houthi Victory and Saudi Fall described him thus:

The brilliant Houthi military victory over the Saudis fulfilled the predictions in military doctrine made by America’s own De Gaulle, a retired US Army Colonel, Douglas Macgregor with an outstanding combat and command record who has been treated over the past 20 years by most of his own country’s four star generals and civilian theorists with contempt: Just as the French Army ignored DeGaulle’s armored warfare doctrines 90 years, when they were being read and applied passionately by the generals of Germany.

Macgregor observed after the Houthi victory in September that that there was no reason for surprise. Sure enough, two and a half years earlier, in testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) on March 7, 2017, he stated:

“The skies over the battlefield will be crowded with loitering munitions, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs or drones). These agile cruise missiles are designed to engage beyond line-of-sight ground targets. With proximity-fused, high-explosive warheads, these systems will remain airborne for hours, day or night. Equipped with high resolution electro-optical and infrared cameras, enemy operators will locate, surveil, and guide the drones to targets on the ground… When these loitering missiles are integrated into the enemy’s Strike Formations armed with precision guided rocket artillery that fires high explosive, incendiary, thermobaric, warheads including sub-munitions with self-targeting anti-tank and anti-personnel munitions warfare as we know it changes.”

Macgregor was even more prescient in predicting the previous Houthi precision missile strikes that wiped out half the production capacity of Saudi Arabia’s oil refineries earlier in September. Those attacks humiliatingly exposed the ultra-expensive, endlessly praised US missile defense systems sold to Riyadh as worthless dinosaurs.

Yet, writing in his book “Transformation Under Fire” published back in 2003, Macgregor had said: “The idea is to link maneuver and strike assets through a flatter operational architecture empowered by new terrestrial and space-based communications throughout the formation… Long-range, joint precision fires and C4ISR [Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance] offer the possibility to reach over enemy armies to directly strike at what they hope to defend or preserve. Precision strategic strikes closely coordinated and timed with converging Army combat forces would present a defending enemy with an insoluble dilemma.”As you see, he’s retired and never became a general. At least he appears to oppose war with Russia and Iran and China, from his appearances on Tucker Carlson that I’ve seen. Can you comment on the above piece and how Russia might respond if America used such techniques? It seems to me Russia would also be able to implement such techniques.

Andrei Martyanov: Douglas Macgregor is a brilliant man but his testimony is about fighting an enemy which does not posses C4ISR [Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance] capabilities comparable to that of the United States.

Russia does and we have to be very clear on that distinction. Fighting a modern combined arms war against such opponents as North Korea or even Iran the United States will have massive leverage, at least initially, before boots get on the ground, in terms of stand-off operations. Once boots hit the ground, well, then it will change. But fighting peers, such as China, let alone Russia—I simply cannot see how the United States will stay away from escalation to a nuclear threshold, because the scale of losses will be catastrophic both in men and materiel.

In the end, Macgregor is on the record:

In 110 days of fighting the German army in France during 1918, the U.S. Army Expeditionary Force sustained 318,000 casualties, including 110,000 killed in action. That’s the kind of lethality waiting for U.S. forces in a future war with real armies, air forces, air defenses and naval power.

Ignoring this reality is the road to future defeats and American decline. It’s time to look beyond the stirring images of infantrymen storming machine-gun nests created by Hollywood and to see war for what it is and will be in the future: the ruthless extermination of the enemy with accurate, devastating firepower from the sea, from the air, from space and from mobile, armored firepower on land.

The United Sates is not in a position to take this scale of losses, not to mention having its rear, from staffs to munition depots and airfields being under relentless and devastating fire impact from operational to a strategic depth—a condition the US Army simple has no experience with. As even RAND people admitted:

“We lose a lot of people. We lose a lot of equipment. We usually fail to achieve our objective of preventing aggression by the adversary,” RAND analyst David Ochmanek told a security conference on Thursday. “In our games, when we fight Russia and China, blue gets its ass handed to it.”

I’ve been writing about this for years. It’s good that some people are beginning to get it. I hope—although I don’t hold my breath—their opinions will be heard at the political top.

Yvonne Lorenzo: Recent articles have posted on cooperation between Russia and China, not just the well know business deals but cultural and Chinese students coming to Russia. See these articles, “Top Russian nuclear university eyes future cooperation with China” and “Film about WWII sniper ‘Lady Death’ kicks off ‘2019 Russian Film Exhibition’ in Beijing” posted on China’s Global Times.

I’d appreciate your thoughts about the Russian-Chinese relationship/partnership.

Andrei Martyanov: The answer is extremely simple—Russian-Chinese cooperation is not only natural, but it was inevitable, considering the state of the combined West and, especially so, of the United States.

Yvonne Lorenzo: This recent article, Climate Change Could Make Russia Great Again, appeared on Russia’s role in the Arctic region; and you blogged about Russia defending China in that sphere. I’d appreciate your thoughts. From the article:

Russia, with the North Pole in its backyard, is working to realize such a global trade scenario alongside the Chinese and in some cases in cooperation with them. In 2017, for the first time, a Russian tanker passed through the Arctic Ocean without a need for icebreakers. Russia has already beefed up its civilian presence in the region, and its military presence has reached a level not seen since the Cold War. Army bases abandoned after the collapse of the Soviet Union have been renovated and restaffed; according to Russia’s Defense Ministry, 475 new military facilities have been built in the area since 2012. Recently a new polar brigade was established, and last April the newspaper Izvestia reported that by the end of 2020, Russia’s most advanced air-defense system, the S-400 missile system, will be deployed both along the shores of the Arctic Ocean and on a number of islands in the region.

In April, a month before the Arctic Council convened, the International Arctic Forum – a Russian-dominated body comprised of representatives of various governments, scientists, business figures and international groups – met in St. Petersburg, with the prime ministers of Sweden and Norway and the presidents of Finland and Iceland in attendance. At the event, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a new strategy for developing the region. Already this year, he announced the deployment of three nuclear-powered icebreakers there. According to official sources in Moscow, tax breaks will be offered to those who invest in the area, a new port will be built near the natural gas terminal at Sabetta, on the Russian shore of the Arctic Ocean, and a railway line will connect that port to the interior.

All this is part of a larger Russian scheme designed to challenge the global trade map as it is being drawn via policy decisions by the West, spearheaded by the United States. Putin doesn’t have the quantity of resources possessed by his superpower neighbor to the east, but the rabbit in his hat is global warming itself. Beyond the new trade routes that could open up, Russia will also profit in another way from the planet’s warming: accessibility to land for agricultural production

Andrei Martyanov: The phrase about “resources” is absolutely funny and could be responded to in a simple way—Russian ice-breaker building program is simply without equals in the world and these are precisely China and the US who have neither resources nor know-how to be competitive here. And this is just a single, out of many, sector in Arctic exploration program.

Yvonne Lorenzo: Andrei, you posted this on your blog on November 26th, 2019, “New S-400 Contract For Turkey?” which I want to discuss not only because of your observations, but because in the past (and I’m not picking on him) Paul Craig Roberts wrote in effect that Russia must be more aggressive with America to avoid a shooting war, quoting him, “The Russian government’s failure to stand up to Washington’s bullying guarantees more bullying. Sooner or later the bullying will cross a line, and Russia will have to fight.”

However, in this post of yours I cited above you commented:

So, [the] Turks are already running, it seems, detection routines with F-16 and F-4 as targets. Turks will, already do, want more. The Turks know what comes next, and it is S-500—they want it. The reason is simple: look at [a] map of Turkey and see how much [of the] Eastern Mediterranean she will be able to cover—pretty much all of it. Just in case. And it is not just for reasons of Greece and gas fields, but for reasons of Israel. The Turkish path towards a leadership in [the] Islamic world lies through the fate of Palestine.

So, a lot of thing are riding on those systems for Turkey and, just a hunch, SU-35s will follow.I’m surprised the Turks haven’t start testing against any F-35s, unless Turkey had to return them to America; I’d love to see the reaction if they did, which so far has included this: “‘Erdogan thumbs his nose at Trump’: US senator says Turkey crossed ‘another red line’ with S-400 test, calls for new sanctions.”

As you also wrote recently: “How about State Department creating a new Office of S-400 Weekly Complaints and Threats Towards Turkey (OSWCTTT). Should be a pretty nice sinecure for some bureaucrat. Should pay well too—rent and real estate prices inside the Beltway are atrocious. Foggy Bottom especially.”

And I see in the way they’ve turned Turkey away from American dominance, or Western dominance, that Russia’s diplomatic team, of course under the leadership of President Putin, have performed a Jujitsu move against the West more effective than using force. Of course, the Turks are no angels as this article, “ISIS Captives Offer a Convenient Pawn in Turkey’s Syria Chess Game” by the respected Vanessa Beeley notes although I suspect they won’t turn on Russia.

What are your thoughts?

Andrei Martyanov: As a Russian proverb says: “Diplomacy is the art to say to your counterpart that he is an idiot in the politest manner.”

In reality, the Russian version is very profane, so I softened it a bit. Russians do not operate on the so called “values-based,” ideological that is, principle in foreign policy. Russians actually DO consider the other side’s interests and concerns and that is what makes Russian diplomacy so effective. This, plus, of course, military power. As another Russian saying goes: “If you do not want to talk to Lavrov, you will talk to Shoigu.”

With Turkey Russia does accommodate many Turkish interests; the Turks feel that. This is as much as I can respond to, because I am not in the position to pass deep and knowledgeable judgment on Turkey’s policies since I do not know the region that well. I am sure, however, that Turks have a very good idea about what Russia offers technologically and economically. The Turkish officer crews for S-400 underwent an extensive training in Russia so they do not need any additional argumentation in favor of the system they were trained on. The F-35 is irrelevant here, apart from the fact that Turks cannot use, I believe, from the top of my head, those two aircraft which they had and which will be returned to the US.

Yvonne Lorenzo: In this interview with John Pilger, “American Exceptionalism Driving World to War – John Pilger,” he discusses the risk of “hot war” instigated by America against Russia. Here’s an excerpt:

Question: You have worked for over five decades as a war reporter and documentary film-maker in Vietnam, elsewhere in Asia, Africa and Latin America. How do you see current international tensions between the US, China and Russia? Do you think the danger of war is greater now than in previous times?

John Pilger: In 1962, we all may have been saved by the refusal of a Soviet naval officer, Vasili Arkhipov, to fire a nuclear torpedo at US ships during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Are we in greater danger today? During the Cold War, there were lines that the other side dared not cross. There are few if any lines now; the US surrounds China with 400 military bases and sails its low-draught ships into Chinese waters and flies its drones in Chinese airspace. American-led NATO forces mass on the same Russian frontier the Nazis crossed; the Russian president is insulted as a matter of routine. There is no restraint and none of the diplomacy that kept the old Cold War cold. In the West, we have acquiesced as bystanders in our own countries, preferring to look away (or at our smart phones) rather than break free of the post-modernism entrapping us with its specious “identity” distractions.

Question: You traveled extensively in the US during the Cold War years. You witnessed the assassination of presidential candidate Robert Kennedy in 1968. It seems the American Cold War obsession with “communism as an evil” has been replaced by an equally intense Russophobia towards modern-day Russia. Do you see a continuation in the phobia from the Cold War years to today? What accounts for that mindset?

John Pilger: The Russians refuse to bow down to America, and that is intolerable. They play an independent, mostly positive role in the Middle East, the antithesis of America’s violent subversions, and that is unbearable. Like the Chinese, they have forged peaceful and fruitful alliances with people all over the world, and that is unacceptable to the US Godfather. The constant defamation of all things Russian is a symptom of decline and panic, as if the United States has departed the 21st century for the 19th century, obsessed with a proprietorial view of the world. In the circumstances, the phobia you describe is hardly surprising.

Andrei Martyanov: As in any event, war between Russia and the US is possible, but how probable it is, is a completely different matter. Some probability of Russia and the United States actually fighting each other certainly exists. It is not very high, I think, but it does exist.

We all have to do our utmost to prevent this scenario becoming a reality. Paradoxically, Russia’s very real military strength today is a guarantor or, at least, a robust deterrent against such a nightmarish scenario. As I said, the US military does understand the implications, even when American politicians don’t. I always repeat that I feel much better when Gerasimov and Milley talk to each other than when Lavrov is forced to explain basic things to Pompeo.

Yvonne Lorenzo: Hypersonic weapons, impressive as they are, rely on Newtonian physics. There was—to me—a term that you would call “Runglish”, Russian-English, discussing “New physical principles” which I finally understood to mean “new principles of physics” relating to the new Peresvet laser, which I think you’ve speculated on its purpose but is highly secret. However, all this technology is used for military purposes; what I find it sad about deteriorating relations with Russia because the best of the West and Russia could accomplish a great deal sharing and developing non-military technology.

I’m reminded of this wonderful video of a Russia cosmonaut’s interactions with an American astronaut and seeing the world below they have disdain for politicians.

I Need More Space: Russian Cosmonaut Fyodor Yurchikhin’s long road to the stars

What are your thoughts and how can Russians and American in this environment of “Russophobia” which is a polite, diplomatic word for hatred of Russians, cooperate as we two are doing now for peaceful and good purposes? I worry both your doors and mine, for simply communicating with one another, will be kicked in one day by someone from the government, as happened with Max Blumenthal. Can we both pessimistic and hopeful?

Andrei Martyanov: As I stated repeatedly, the combined West committed cultural suicide in Russia. Yes, Russians are open to mutually beneficial cooperation, with space being one of those exhibit A cases where international cooperation manifests itself in the most profound and positive way.

Sadly, with the current US political “elites” who are Russophobic in the extreme, any prospects of serious Russian-American cooperation look very grim. The world is in the process of unprecedented geopolitical realignment which increasingly degrades the position of the United States and Russia is at the center of this process. The Obama Administration destroyed Russian-American relations totally and I don’t see any improvement, bar some symbolic gestures, such as, I hope, President Trump visiting Moscow on May 9th next year, because the American political class’s Russophobia is systemic and was nurtured for generations.

Plus, the United States is not an agreement-capable entity because it is ungovernable, as the last three years so dramatically demonstrated. Russia is aware of that—no agreement signed with the United States is worth the paper it is written on. We can only hope that things will change for the better in the future but this change may come only through the United States reassessing its role in history and the world—a process which may take decades, serious tribulations and, hopefully, emergence of new American elites that would be able to formulate real American national interests.


After I asked Andrei my last question, this Russian video posted on YouTube: so much for future cooperation between America and Russia in space, because of sanctions Americans cannot be carried to the space station by Russians any longer:

US Will Be Stranded On Earth! Baikonur Cosmodrome Sends Very Last American Into Space!

I’d like to thank Andrei for his kind answers to my questions and highly recommend his books and his writings on his blog and on for those who wish to escape the Matrix and find a knowledgeable Russian perspective on events and military matters; Martyanov is the antidote to Tom Clancy disease.

I want to close by noting Andrei Martynov’s recent blog post “Ishenko Delivers” that referenced an article by Rostislav Ishenko entitled “In Bulgaria, a Russian Soldier” the title itself a reference to the song “Alyosha,” which I am familiar with from the album Wait for Me by the late exceptional baritone Dimitri Hvorsostovky. The below passage Ishenko wrote is moving, as is the song.

It was 1970. I was five years old. I came to visit my grandmother. To the White Church. Near Kiev. My grandmother is from the Urals. My grandfather (on my father’s side) started the war near Stalingrad, and ended on the Dnieper (six wounds, four of them heavy, two shell shocks, medals “For Military Merit” and “For Courage,” the Order of the “Red Star” and “World War II” degrees). The commander of a machine gun company. He fought for an incomplete year. From October 1943 he was no longer sent to the front (and his division arrived near Stalingrad in November 1942). He died (in 1956) at 36 years old, from the consequences of a concussion (as a young major, in a colonel’s position).

In 1970, I was five years old (to be exact, then four and a half). Grandmother was a teacher of French. At the same time and a class teacher. I came to visit her. Contrary to usual, I didn’t go straight home, but (for some reason unknown to me) I went to the school where she taught. I think that she needed to complete the work with the class, and the school was five to seven minutes’ walk from home. Here I am, as a future student, and they brought me to see how the children learn.

For about fifteen minutes I studied desks in an empty classroom (which at that time did not differ from the gymnasium at the beginning of the century) and read what was written on the board. And then she went with her grandmother to the porch of the school, where her class (and other classes) performed. Now I don’t remember what the holiday was, but I suspect it is May 9th. Because I went out onto the porch (they rather took me out, I was too small to go out myself), just as the girls from my grandmother’s class (8–10, already without pioneer ties and, as for me, adult aunts) sang “Alyosha.” I haven’t heard the song so often since then, but I remember it well, because, in the words, “He doesn’t give flowers to girls, they give him flowers,” the entire female team of the school, which was standing next to me, wept.

It was the 70th year. My grandmother was 48 years old. Exactly at that age (in 2014) I left Kiev. The city where four generations of my ancestors lived, in which my mother survived the occupation (and met the Red Army at the age of three), became not just a stranger, but a hostile one. I can be forced to return there, but I cannot be persuaded or persuaded to do so voluntarily. It’s like in a war. All who survived and won are proud of the Victory, and while their fellow soldiers were alive, they met and remembered the days of old. But they themselves did not dream of returning to the dugout under shelling, nor did they want to experience the “pleasure” of the attack (to their full height on the prepared defense) for their children.

Russians have in their collective memory the trauma of a war that killed millions, a subject Martyanov has discussed in depth especially in his first book; in that respect, they are different from Americans and I question the sanity of the rulers—especially the feckless political class—of the West who make the Russians foes. Perhaps only the people of the two nations—if they are enough in number in America—can prevent war from coming, because I am uncertain if the American military can reign in the powers that control them. Or perhaps it is the fate for Russia to humble America, the way she did Nazi Germany, not necessarily by military might—at least I pray. I suspect the process has started already.

Sadly, we know which side is most at fault for this deterioration of relations between our nations.


(Music: E. Kolmanovsky; Lyrics: E. Vashenkin)

Whether first snows cover the field,
Or rains are loudly drumming,
Alyosha will stand on the mountain
Alyosha: a Russian Soldier of Bulgaria.
The heart feels bitterness
That after a terrible snowstorm
His uniform shirt is made of rock
And so are his boots.
There are many nameless men
Lying there under the mountain
But this one—Alyosha—
Is known to all of Bulgaria.
He will never step down
From the heights into the peaceful valley
He will never give flowers to the girls—
They will bring flowers to him.
As familiar as the sun or the wind—
Like a star in the night sky—
He will rise and stand over this city
As he has always stood.
Familiar—like the sun, like the wind.
Whether first snows cover the field
Or rains are loudly drumming,
Alyohsa will stand on the mountain
Alyosha: A Russian soldier of Bulgaria

Yvonne Lorenzo [her contact email is ylorenzo[at]] makes her home in New England in a house full to bursting with books, including works on classical Greece and Russian history and literature. Her interests include gardening, mythology, ancient history, The Electric Universe, and classical music, especially the compositions of Handel, Mozart, Bach, Haydn, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Mahler, Wagner and the Bel Canto repertoire. She is the author of The Spear of Odin Trilogy: Son of Thunder, The Cloak of Freya and the just published The Well of Mimir.

(Republished from The Vineyard of the Saker by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Military, Russia 
Hide 75 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Lots of interesting topics here, but too broad to focus. I’d like to add that in 1987 as the Cold War began to rapidly thaw, a Soviet expert on America, Georgi Arbatov, taunted his counterparts from the Reagan administration by declaring: “We are going to do something terrible to you, we are going to deprive you of an enemy.”

    As a result, the war machine replaced the threat of communism with the threat of terrorism. That is now old, so they reverted to a confusing idea of russianism, in which for unexplained reasons Russians are inherently evil.

    Few Americans realize that the USA invaded Russia in 1918. I will soon post a video about that, meanwhile, the opening of this article requires a simple summary of World War I:

  2. anonymous[237] • Disclaimer says:

    I commend a book titled “Trading with the enemy” it details American corporations dealing with Germany from the early Nazi era, right through WWII.

    • Replies: @AnonymousUkr
  3. Wally says:

    – Oh yawn. More juvenile nonsense about ‘Hitler this, Hitler that, Nazis this, Nazis that’ when it has been absolutely proven that the claims about NS Germany and the laughably fake & impossible holocaust” are lies, easily demolished ones at that.

    – Martyanov talks like a bug eyed, unhinged Zionist when he makes claims about, say, the quite deadly sarin gas for example …. which Germany and many others had in abundance.
    Yet it’s claimed that Germany used a comparatively inefficient and clumsy insecticide, Zyklon-B, to allegedly kill millions of Jews and millions of ‘others’ in alleged ‘gas chambers’ which scientifically could not have done what is alleged. It’s truly ridiculous.

    – Martyanov has no chance in a debate with informed Revisionist scholars, none.

    As previously posted at the UR: :

    In lieu of the fact the Germans had large amounts of extremely potent, quick acting, efficient, & inexpensive gases like sarin & tabun available, the claimed use of Zyklon-B is truly ridiculous.
    Zyklon B:
    “Even more silly was the alleged use of a pesticide, Zyklon-B, in the first place.
    The Germans had huge stocks of very efficient, low amounts required, Sarin & Tabun nerve gases they could have used had they actually wanted to exterminate people.”
    The Rudolf Report:

    Here’s more about what poison gases the German could have used if they were really in the ‘extermination of Jews’ business:
    German Poison Gas (1914 – 1944):

    • Agree: Johnny Walker Read
  4. Dingo.jay b says: • Website

    Poor russia always put upon.How long have the russians been walking upright?

    • Replies: @Wobo
  5. GMC says:

    Excellent article. As the authors know, there comes a time when you may have to leave your country of origine, and move on, whether for the best interests of their future , staying alive or your own well being. Andrei Martyanov , has had the chance to live in 2 superpowers , although one has become a stupid power, I suspect his next move, will be back to the new Russian Federation or maybe he already has a place there and never really left. I enjoy reading and learning from the International Russian writers, they have taught me much about my new Home. Spacibo Unz rev.

    • Replies: @refl
  6. I, as many millions of my peers, both military professionals and civilians, became aliens in what used to be the Soviet Union, which now was split into fifteen different countries. It was a life altering experience in every sense, including seeing what Russia (we couldn’t stay in Baku anymore) was turning into in 1990s, when undergoing wholesale robbery and criminal revolution. I, being a decent English speaker, opened a commodities business with the US and eventually started to visit the United States for business reasons. After observing live on CNN how Yeltsin blew up in 1993 [the Russian] White House and had drowned the uprising in blood it became patently clear that for me and my family there was no place anymore [for us] in that Russia. By then we all had enough. The 1990s did become a catastrophe for Russia and Russia still lives and overcomes the consequences of that disaster.

    That’s a rather roundabout (read: infosec compliant) way of saying that his visa experienced an extreme, ahem, postterm alien gestation.

    … And that Baku must have had really good TV reception.

  7. Or perhaps it is the fate for Russia to humble America, the way she did Nazi Germany, not necessarily by military might—at least I pray. I suspect the process has started already.

    The bottom line to this rambling article telling me Russia good, America bad. Our constitution has been all but obliterated ever so slowly over the past 100 years by communist infiltrators, and yes we are all citizens of the New World Soviet now. The last thing this country needs is anymore Russian influence.

    Oh by the way, communism did not die in the USSR on December 1991, when the USSR itself was voted out of existence by the Supreme Soviet. It only changed its mask and went underground.
    According to KGB documents published by Golitsyn, “perestroika” and “glasnost” were always intended from the beginning to serve as a media ploy to deceive the West into lowering its defenses to the point where Soviet goals could proceed unchallenged. Of Golitsyn’s 194 predictions, 139 had been fulfilled as of 1993.

    Even former Soviet Premier Gorbachev, the eventual face of these policies, later acknowledged their true nature: “The decision to launch a new economic policy, which substantially widened the notions of socialism and the ways of building it, was imbued with profound revolutionary dialectics.”[5] Translation: world conquest will proceed as planned. The “revolutionary dialectic” is a tactic that has been employed throughout Soviet history. The word “glasnost” appears in Lenin’s writings 46 times.

  8. refl says:

    Andrei Martyanov has experienced two superpowers, certainly, and I hardly dare imagine what that implies. Numbers of emigrants have made the experience of being washed upon american shores with all sorts of bitternessses. So did Solchenitsyn and Rezun just the same in their days. So did the Boston bombers, so did lots of Russian Jews pre WWI, so do numbers of islamist cranks today (No insult to Mr. Martyanov intended, seriously!).

    All these emigrants end up in the toolbox of the ever regimechanging elite. And when that elite is up to something, they will creatively try out this or that – you just cannot be ahead of them.
    The American elites are deluded about themselves, granted. But so thought the Kaiser about the British Empire – they cannot want to fight us, for they cannot want to blow up Europe, can they? So thought Hitler: When I take on the Bolsheviks, the Angloamericans have to let me get my way, for every child knows that Bolshevism is the mortal enemy of the West. They cannot want to see the Red Army in the middle of Europe, can they?
    So thought Saddam Hussein: If they take me down, they will blow up the whole Middle East. They cannot want that, can they? So thought Muhamnar Al Gaddafi: If they take me down, Africa will invade Europe. They cannot want that, can they?

    Enter Barack Obama: YES WE CAN!!!

    You see, they are deluded, but behind them there are World class psychopaths. We are all inhibited by the Christian paradigm that humans want to be basically helpful to their fellow humans. Take that out of the equation and see, where you end up.

    Peace to everyone.

  9. This long article on American corporate support for the Nazis is worth reading in its entirety since it details the (mostly Gentile controlled) corporations selling the weaponry used to attack the Soviet Union—engines, trucks, hardware, IBM technology and the like—even after America’s involvement in the war
    Yet this is never mentioned. I wonder why that is?

    Notice that on May 10, 1942, Major Jordan reported to “UNITED NATIONS DEPOT
    How could that be?!!! U.S. history and government documents assert that the U.S. didn’t
    join the United Nations until three and a half years later! October 24th, 1945. And then
    again. . . maybe not. Maybe it’s just one more lie in a nest of lies, liars and traitors.
    Before you read the shocking revelations from Major Jordan’s Diaries about the billions
    of dollars, airplanes, tanks, munitions, foodstuffs, whole factories, blueprints and material
    for building the Atomic Bomb, personal luxuries for despotic Bolshevik Talmudic
    Communist rulers, as well as the paper and plates enabling them to print U.S. Federal
    Reserve Notes — all this sent to the U.S.S.R. from UN Depot No 8, Newark, N.J., U.S.A., —
    let us set the scene.

  10. Absolutely brilliant article. And precise and detailed from every point of view.
    Austrian empire was the best thing what was happening in Europe.
    Austrians were building road railroads industries and communication centers all over Europe.
    Maria Therezia was even introducing massive planting of trees.
    That is why English and French decided to destroy Austro-Hungarian empire.
    That was the reason for WW1
    English main propaganda was that Austro_Hungarian Empire is a prison of nations.
    Hitler rejected the Austrian philosophy and that is why Hitler lost.

    • Replies: @refl
  11. @Carlton Meyer

    Great video highlighting the idiocy of WWI . I am currently reading Shall it be Again? by John Kenneth Turner circa 1922. I never realized what a tyrant Woodrow Wilson was. I highly recommend it to all.

    • Replies: @Steve Naidamast
  12. Red Dawn says:

    A question for the experts: US strategic nuclear doctrine provides for an unnuked enclave from which a non-threatening successor state will be reconstituted. If you were a Russian nuclear targeteer, where would you carve out a corresponding enclave in the US? Because I’m gonna go live there. I shall welcome our benevolent Russian overlords with flowers and sweets.

  13. Avery says:
    @Johnny Walker Read

    { The last thing this country needs is anymore Russian influence.}

    IF it were Russian influence, this country could use a lot more of it.
    Meaning: genuine Christian influence, family-oriented influence – you know, mom, dad, boys and girls, sons and daughters, grandma, grandpa, …..
    Its leaders working for the people of their own country, instead of foreign countries and foreign interests.
    Its leaders being proud of their nation, instead of bowing and scraping in front of medieval Islamist despots (e.g. Obama apologizing for being American; Obama bowing to a Saudi king or something). Russians did not elect Obama: Americans did; twice.

    Don’t conflate Bolshevism, Communism in USSR, the American Fascist Left here – with traditional, Christian Russia. And don’t blame Russia or Russians for the rot that has taken root in US.

    There are no so-called ‘communist infiltrators’ wrecking what was once ‘America’: it’s all home-grown and out in the open.
    Russia did not send Elisabeth Warren, or Bernie Sanders, or any of the other delusional anti-American Democrat nuts running for POTUS.
    Russia is not advocating that US open its borders to everybody in the world that wants to come to US: every Democrat candidate for POTUS is.
    Putin did not tell “Beto” (sic) O’Rourke to apologize for being white.
    Lots more, but hopefully you get the idea.

  14. @Johnny Walker Read

    The last thing this country needs is anymore Russian influence.

    The Russia of now has no interest in influencing the US, other than when the US acts on others against their wills. They sure helped start that destruction of the constitution when they supported Lincoln though, so there is that!

    However, an aggressor will be schooled if they fail to win, and (aside from the mad case of MAD) the US government is lining itself up for some reprimanding, both through its aggression and incompetence.

    The bottom line to this rambling article telling me Russia good, America bad.

    The Russians I interact with when I go back to Moscow don’t have that opinion, nor do I think the interviewee has that opinion.

    Maybe propagandized people come in waves through history – getting hurt, learning, getting hurt, learning.. and Russia is generally in a post propaganda state atm imo. Too many people still remember the good old days (Communism or not, generally those times are remembered fondly) and Pravda, so they are very suspicious of absolute truths, and information in general. The media in Russia is generally fairly unbiased and vibrant – Channel 1 has countless debates between pro Maidan vocalists and their opposites, often shouty, but still – how often does a debate on Empire appear on CNN? And that is one of those evil ‘state sponsored’ channels!

    Also, mostly, Russia only ‘good’ through the sheer luck of having a functional leader, who has pulled the place away from either destitution or tyranny, or all three! After 2024, if he doesn’t stay until he is senile, who knows?!

    Communism can’t die either sadly – other than through a strong book burning a-la Qin Shi Huang! For me, the issue is in convincing left leaning people that the derived demand of the bureaucracy of the state is unnecessary, harmful, and wasteful. In a society where needs account for only a small fraction of GDP (30-40% of GDP atm by my estimate, and falling fast thanks to our coming AI Overlord (Hail Overlord!!)), a universal and socialist provision of needs does not need a bureaucracy (which actually defeats the whole idea of a fair and equal society). It is surprising how weak the non-statist side of the left is.. even mentioning flat taxes – fair and equal imo – gets you a rightwing moniker! Mordecai certainly damaged socialism for many centuries.

  15. anarchyst says:

    The author misses a very important point about Germany and the Third Reich.

    Control by the bankers was forcibly taken away from the jewish banksters. This is the major reason the western powers wanted WW2, declaring war against Germany.

    Not only that, but labor was given intrinsic value, unlike the western (jewish) mantra that “the stockholder is king” and that labor costs are an impediment to “profits” and have to be minimized.

    WW2 made the world “safe” for bolshevism and predatory jews-nothing more.

  16. I was interested in reading through this piece more carefully, until I came across the time worn myth as to how the Soviet Union was invaded by Germany in 1941 causing millions of Russian deaths.

    However, this is another falsehood that has been propagated for many years by many authors. Germany did not simply invade Russia but was in fear of being invaded herself by Russian Forces that had mobilized close to her borders. This is becoming increasingly accepted history by those who study such conditions as first described by Viktor Suvorov who even mainstream Russian history professors in the United States accept now has highly credible.

    The enormous number of Russian deaths were not also simply a matter of the German invasion but the result of poor Soviet command&control, logistics, inferior equipment , and basically stupid battlefield tactics all of which combine to cause enormous defeats for the soviet Armies.

    And let us also not forget that even here on The Unz Review, many articles have already been presented demonstrating the murderous, Jewish, Bolshevik nature of the Soviet Union’s leadership even at the beginnings of WWII, who after 1919 caused massive trauma in a Germany to rebuild herself after the deprivations of WWI and t he Versailles Treaty.

    The Russian federation of today led by President Vladimir Putin is a nation with a leadership that has much to be admired for, which I do. Today’s Russia is a very far cry from the Soviet Russia of WWII and later and authors should stop trying to equate the two with silly mythologies that were primarily fostered by the Soviets themselves…

  17. @Avery

    Thank you for your input comrade..

    • Replies: @Avery
  18. Gunnar says:
    @Johnny Walker Read

    And the word “i” (и) appears 4512 times in Lenins works and 3254 times in the book of Gorbachev. If you combine that with the number of “and”s in the Talmud…..but you are too smart to go for that deception right? Please turn on your brain before open your mouth – you will be surprised by the results….

  19. @Steve Naidamast

    “At present, Russia appears to be feigning a return to conservatism and Orthodoxy as part of its two-tiered hyper-normalization deception. But make no mistake, it is all a ruse. The crypto-Soviet power is no friend to the Church, to the West, nor to the Russian people.”

    Belief is the enemy of knowing

    The Soviets have the demoralized West occupied with identity politics and Balkanization schemes, like Kalergi, while Israel, Russia, China, and the BRICS solidify their alliance through the One Belt, One Road plan and construct the coming world government techno-infrastructure smart grid. It appears Russia is leading the disintegration of the West while Israel leads the technology aspect, and China the manufacturing aspect.

  20. @anonymous

    piece is pure and dumb propaganda. Kremlin mafia is afraid of democratic reforms in post-Soviet countries that’s why meddling, aggression and wars. they need to push out middle class out of Russia and leave sack of potato’s of Soviet people. Ukrainian army evacuated civil population when they were shelled and killed by terrorussians while other side is shelling their own civil population or using them as shield for picture inside Russia. but even that doesn’t work because there is almost no volunteers except few crazy useful idiots. Russia sending payed criminals and soldiers without chevron’s. and of course all that because of the evil West off whose money regime leaves by selling fuel.

    • Agree: Johnny Walker Read
    • Replies: @AnonymousUkr
    , @Alfred
    , @Alfred
  21. sally says:

    The Wikileaks revelations of war crimes by the American military certainly hasn’t had any effect to change the vast majority of American public opinion against “forever war.”
    the real power in Washington and the City of London lies <=problem is Americans are not allowed to read wikileaks.. its off limits, to read it, makes one a victim of the private contractor government sleuths.

    Discover the real powers you are talking about..

    In my opinion, the problem is the nation state system.. instead of one tyrant in charge of the world, we are faced with 208 such tyrants each of whom pits the humans his or her nation state orders around against the humanities trapped in each of the other warmonger lead nation states. <=hence war.

    A need a dual control model of government. Each government regulates the behaviors of those in the other government. A government that regulates those who occupy a position in the top down government is needed, because already the top down government regulates the behaviors of those it governs. I call the bottom up government the human rights government.. it does not interfere with the top down government operations, but it does regulate the behaviors of those who run or who animate the top down government.

    When a member of the top down government violates a human right, the bottom up government charges him or her with a violation of human rights and presents the charge to the human rights court. if the HR court agrees there is probable cause , the person in the top down government is removed and remanded to the HR court for adjudication.. The guilty are punished and never again allowed to a position of power or to a position to influence or to contract with the top down government.

    Already when a member of the bottom up government ( all those governed humans) violate a rule of the top down government, the court of the Top down government tries, convicts and punishes behavior offenders.
    I believe a dual model of governance is the only way to stop the world from killing itself.

  22. @Steve Naidamast

    Obviously you did not even read “Mein kampf. So please read it and then you come hare to discuss.

    • Replies: @Alfred
    , @Wally
  23. @anarchyst

    It amazes me, as a trained economist anyways, that ‘capitalism’ can relatively decently manage its industrial capital, yet treat its human capital like so much shit on a windscreen.. But without these people, those machines would make nothing! No, give them half the fuel they need, don’t service their health, let them rest in squalor – how many passenger airplanes lack a hanger, and are asked to chunder over the last 50 miles of their designated journey on kerosene fumes?!

    This difference in approach to man and machine by elites makes me believe a state (when the cost of needs is much below 100% of GDP) is necessary to regulate for a fair provision for man.

  24. @Johnny Walker Read

    You should then read, “Illusion of Victory” by Thomas Fleming.

    He demonstrates quite ably that Wilson had a “god complex”, which even his colleagues in Europe noticed.

    Lloyd George once remarked that when he talked with Clemenceau he felt as if he was talking with Napoleon but when talking with Wilson he felt as if he was talking with Jesus Christ…

    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
  25. HubrisNOW says:

    The feckless American’s and their horrid dystopia just don’t get it..!
    One life, one Earth, some love.
    The 10s of 1000s of American citizens will sleep ‘rough’ and homeless tonight…! Very sad and very tragic.! If only they could learn to love…!

  26. refl says:
    @Steve Naidamast

    I would not open that can of worms here – the article contains enough stuff for three articles at least, and this discussion in itself is sufficient for several weeks of commenter ping pong. However, I would like to point out that Martyanov leaves me quite discontent when he says that he need not dwell on Rezun/ Suvorov for to long and then does not even mention the bullet points. Also, I find it a bit of an insult to be told that this is something for people who blame it all on Jews.
    Me and many other commenters have spent effort to come to a nuanced understanding of this quite serious accusation.

    My point here is rather that 1) be he right or not, Suvorov by necessity is an American intelligence asset, and once they had Germany and western Europe subdued for good, the antipathies had to be shifted against Russia – so much is obvious beyond discussion. In this context, he serves his purpose.
    2) after blaming the disaster of the war on Germany, the blame is shifted against Russia – which leaves the third party out of the picture again, who are the Angloamericans. Before cooperation against Nazi Germany in the war and ever after the war Russia/ USSR has consistently been framed as the arc enemy. So by all logic Hitler had to suppose that he would not be stopped in his anti-bolshevik crusade. The framing of the Nazis as the enemy of humanity serves the obvious purpose of making this unique and unexpected cooperation comprehensible.

    One cannot denounce the anti-russian framing in the West and at the same time swallow the anti-german framing whole.
    However, I understand that Russians see this as an innee-western quarel that they don’t care about.

  27. Wally says:
    @Johnny Walker Read

    Martyanov has a misinformed, indoctrinated nostalgia for the communist USSR, that’s what he’s really about.

    Combine that with his absurd lies about NS Germany and you have nothing more than his strange wishful thinking.

    Why do some people want ‘6 million Jews & 5 million others’ to be dead? Revisionists bring good news, everyone should be pleased.’

    • Replies: @annamaria
  28. Here are the simple facts.
    Technical and technological development of humanity is moving ahead with marked milestones.
    Resources of this earth are finite,
    So price of products because of lower cost production is decreasing.
    And so further development is definitely in favor of countries having resources.
    Russia with their resources in Siberia and the underwater part of Russia’s triangle to north pole is considerably significant.
    US is making scare crow from Russia. US propaganda claim that Putin wants to rebuild Russian Empire. But the facts I have presented speak the truth that is directly opposite of US propaganda.
    Russians are quite happy that they do not need to shear their resources with parasite treasonous
    state lets of former empire.

  29. refl says:

    Austrian empire was the best thing what was happening in Europe.

    Nice to read something that I can agree upon as a north German protestant.

    Germany’s problem has always been that it was for centuries the leading nation in Central Europe, by necessity, but had its basis on the far western edge of that area. They were rather concerned with France and Italy then with their extended backyard to the East, which they did not even unterstand. The arc duchess killed in Sarajevo was a Czech noble, and that would have been the way forward. The Austrian Empire would have needed time to adapt to modernity. Instead, there were the Prussian parvenues, who, able as they were, could only inspire hatred all over.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  30. Agent76 says:
    @Carlton Meyer

    Good post and this is something often overlooked.

    Nov 22, 2013 Thomas DiLorenzo – The Revolution Of 1913

    From the Tom Woods show, Loyola economics professor Thomas DiLorenzo discusses three events from 1913 that greatly escalated the transmogrification of America from the founder’s vision (limited government) to its current state (unlimited government).

  31. @Carlton Meyer

    This ahole jew is lying and apologizing for massive jewish war crimes committed on an epic scale he then regurgitates the insaner and silly judaic propaganda about paperclip and other hoaxes…its a sad state of Affairs when jewish bolshevik idiots from the unfallen iron curtain continue their insanity in tandem with their precious partners the CIA Mossad and Mi6 alll vicious anti white jewish racist extremist talmudic organizations or must I remind the lying pedo (((russian))) the DC “Empire is jewish and in league with Chabad which rule Russia and Israel hence his cowardly russian pilots not being allowed to fiure back at Israelis killing them and Putin refusing action against them…always so special so privileged….also the Holohoax that never opccurred and the lies about that imaginary jew “round up” that never happened

  32. Che Guava says:

    That is an atrocious article. At least a thousand words of the writers own ranting, some relevant but even longer quotations, talk about a thoughtless and hysterical approach.

    I will read the interview but, having read the screaming me me’s intro, don’t expect much.

  33. Smith says:

    Not much military showcase eh, just the same old same old russian air defense and whining about America.

    It is so tiresome.

  34. @Steve Naidamast

    Thanks’ I’ll put that one on my list. One thing I find interesting is how Mandell House, Wilson’s alter ego is many times left out of the story of Americas entry into “the war to end all wars”.

    Both men admired Great Britain with passion. Both men hoped to make a mark in life larger than the very respectable marks that each had already made. Both House and Wilson embodied those Comtean, Positivist elements of Progressivism that relied on the certainties of social science as a means of ruling. The great project of this odd couple and their Progressive associates was the efficient organization of the world in conjunction with the needs of the many, the few, the state, and the modern mind as a whole. Both House and Wilson consistently put their faith in wise men who would LEAD, as opposed to mere representatives of the people, such as congressmen and senators and the outmoded institutions these represented.

  35. Let us not forget the contributions the new Russian Christians have made to the rest of the world!

    • Replies: @Ilya G Poimandres
  36. Che Guava says:

    OK, the assembler of the piece did give Andrey several relevant points to comment on. Including from his own writing.

    I suppose a little ellipsis would be good, I would suppose that is avoided to avoid claims of ‘out of context’.

    There are other ways to do that besides multiple giant block quotations. I am a quick reader, hn English too, now, but have to stop near the end of this, too late, too tired, too verbose on Lorenzo’s side, but will read it all.

  37. Alfred says:

    Kremlin mafia is afraid of democratic reforms in post-Soviet countries

    So please tell us AnonymousUkr how well democracy is doing in Ukraine?

    73% of people voted for Zelensky in the hope that he will stop trying to grab Lugansk and Donetsk. Well, it did not quite work out that way as Zelensky is totally powerless because a 10% minority will kill him if peace were to break out. This vote left out the millions of people who were born in Ukraine and who are no longer in it because of the bad management and civil war.

    It as though the French Canadians grabbed power with the help of \$5bn and then proceeded to insist that the whole country should speak French henceforth. When BC decided not to go along with the coup, they sent in the Canadian Army.

    The reality is that your Ukraine is not a country. It is naturally split into several parts. In time, these parts will rejoin Hungary, Poland and Russia. The Nazis will be left with the rump – like the Kurds – with no access to the sea. That is what stupidity results in.

    I read recently that they are planning to sell Ukraine’s agricultural land – for around 1/10 the price of inferior farmland in England. 200 companies or individuals will be able to buy 50% of the land. I guess George Soros will be one of them. The people in the west of Ukraine – the hardcore fake patriots – will become serfs on the land once again. Working for the Jews and foreigners as was the case 100 years ago.

  38. @Johnny Walker Read

    Notice, how, the boss of bosses of the ‘Russian’ Mafia, is, in fact.. Jewish:

    There has not been a Russian ‘Russian’ Mafia in Russia in the last two centuries. Since the mid 20th, it has been a Jewish Mafia.

    Not that Russians are saints, there are enough criminals there too.. just wanted to point out the elephant in the room for your link!

    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
  39. Alfred says:

    Hitler planned to invade the USSR. True. But Stalin also planned to invade Western Europe. All the bourgeoisie of England, France and Germany supported Hitler. They were fearful of Communism.

    The fact that the initial invasion by the Germans was so successful – they captured over 1 million Soviet soldiers – is proof that the Soviets were not in a defensive position. They were preparing to attack in September.

    Stalin tore down defensive fortifications and factories stopped making landmines. All of this is well known and was written about by Viktor Suvorov. Lastly, Stalin did not shoot the generals who were supposedly responsible for this rout – because they were following his orders.

    • Replies: @Begemot
    , @Wally
  40. @Ilya G Poimandres

    Yes, Jews run everything in Russia, just like they do in America..

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  41. Present American culture!!!!

    Mirror mirror on the wall,
    Who is fairest of them all?

  42. @Johnny Walker Read

    Interesting to see one of those “Final Stage” nutters in the wild. I was under the impression they’d largely died out by now.

    • Replies: @Wally
  43. Sol says:

    Will we be around in the future to read a history written by an American of the decline of the elites?

    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
  44. Begemot says:

    Stalin did not shoot the generals who were supposedly responsible for this rout – because they were following his orders.

    General Dmitri Pavlov, commander of the Western Front in June 1941, might disagree with this claim. He was executed by Stalin. In addition:

    Death penalties were also passed down for other commanders of the Western Front, including the Chief of Staff, Major General B. E. Klimovskikh; the chief of the communications corps, Major General AT Grigoriev; the Chief of Artillery, Lieutenant General of Artillery A. Klich; and Air Force Deputy Chief of the Western Front (who, after the suicide of Major General Aviation I. I. Kopets, was, nominally at least, Chief of the Air Force of the Western Front), Major General Aviation A. I. Tayursky. Also, the commander of the 14th Mechanized Corps, Major General Stepan Oborin, was arrested on July 8 and shot. The commander of the 4th Army, Major General A. A. Korobkov, was dismissed on July 8, arrested the next day and shot on July 22.


  45. Wally says:
    @Anatoly Karlin


    – “One of those “Final Stage” nutters” that you don’t even attempt to refute.

    – Besides that, a control freak like yourself must be going crazy here seeing the calling out of the fake & impossible “holocaust since you typically censor any comments critical of that Zionist propaganda that you like to throw around in your articles.

    Only lies require censorship.

  46. @Steve Naidamast

    You wrote:

    Germany did not simply invade Russia but was in fear of being invaded herself by Russian Forces that had mobilized close to her borders.

    And in the next paragraph you also wrote:

    The enormous number of Russian deaths were not also simply a matter of the German invasion but the result of poor Soviet command&control, logistics, inferior equipment , and basically stupid battlefield tactics all of which combine to cause enormous defeats for the soviet Armies.

    Do I really have to spell out to you the inherent contradiction in subscribing to both of those conflicting beliefs simultaneously, Herr Cognitive Dissonance?

  47. Wally says:

    What edition of Mein Kampf? Whose “translation”?


  48. Wally says:

    “Hitler planned to invade the USSR. True.”

    Not really “true”.

    Only if Stalin was preparing to attack Germany & invade Europe, which of course, Stalin was.

    Such was / is the international conquest agenda of Communism.


    • Agree: Johnny Walker Read
  49. Seraphim says:
    @Johnny Walker Read

    No, they don’t, as they used to, and that’s the reason why the Kosher Nostra hates and fear Russia.

    • Replies: @SeekerofthePresence
  50. @Seraphim

    Greetings Seraphim,

    Read of a planned “Ecumenical Synod” coming up in 2025 between the Patriarchate and Rome: on tap is possible reunion of the two churches. Supposedly the jurisdictional and theological problems have been smoothed out. Squaring the circle?

    Have you heard anything about this?

    Luckily, The Homilies of Photius recently arrived, good timing for the approaching council of councils.

    Have a joyful Nativity Season. Christ is Born!

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  51. Avery says:
    @Johnny Walker Read


    Wow: that was quite clever and completely unexpected.
    Did you have to run your overburdened brain – or whatever is left there – very long to come up with that highly unusual expression of gratitude?

  52. @Sol

    Yes. The future is not what it used to be.

  53. Seraphim says:

    It is that Germany’s ‘leadership’ was not predicated on ‘Germanity’ but on the Roman Imperial ‘idea’. Idea that was, of course, alive and kicking with the direct descendants of the Roman Empire (the so-called ‘Byzantine’) and with the successor of ‘Byzance’, Russia.
    Austria always tilted to the South-East. For the Prussian upstarts Austria itself was already tainted by the ‘Balkanic corruption and inefficiency’. Was not Metternich saying that: “The Balkans begin on the Rennweg”? Austria was always careful to have good relations with Russia and most of the time collaborated in maintaining peace and order in Europe. It was only after the dissolution of the ‘Holy Roman Empire of the German nation’ by Napoleon that ‘Germany’ entered in the process of gestation.
    As to the Czech wife of Franz Ferdinand, she was never to bear the titles of empress, queen or archduchess, and their descendants would neither inherit nor be granted dynastic rights or privileges in any of the Habsburg realms. The way forward would have been the project of the “United States of Greater Austria”/Vereinigte Staaten von Groß-Österreich, conceived by a group of scholars surrounding the Archduke led by the Romanian Aurel Popovici, that would have been contrary to the ambition of Germany to create a German dominated ‘Mitteleuropa’.

  54. Alfred says:

    Here is a really chilling story about the ethnic-cleansing in the east of Ukraine. This is not something that happened 80 years ago. It is ongoing.

    carload of fur coats tells a ghastly tale of burglary and murder

  55. Parfois1 says:

    Finally waking up from forced insouciance, I was spurted into the UR and greeted with this uplifting piece by Yvonne Lorenzo and Andrei Martyanov. Congratulations to Ron Unz too for his usual fairness in the face of some friendly, but deserved, barbs.

    Instead of being strained by a straight-jacketed single topic issue, I am glad both Yvonne and Andrey strayed with panache from a boring single issue topic and ventured into several areas of global importance and the Russian’s role to restrain the US criminal state from its depredations on the world.

    There is still a scintilla of hope yet that the malevolent US political class take heed to the delightful Russian newly-coined proverb (thank you Andrei!) .

    “If you do not want to talk to Lavrov, you will talk to Shoigu.”

    Hope too that there will be another forthcoming Yvonne-Andrey duet on similar lines to entertain and enlighten us, as well as open some breaches into the opaque pates of the fanatical Neo-Nazi brigadeers who cannot tell a difference between a Jew and a Bolshevik.

    • Replies: @Wally
  56. anonymous[428] • Disclaimer says:

    Moreover, perhaps in the most memorable quote of Hillary Clinton in calling some Americans “deplorables,” it seems the entire class of rulers of America views its citizens as dispensable commodities and ill disguised contempt.

    Interesting observation and unfortunately true. They are relying on the security state to deal with the population and for insurance that people won’t get too uppity.
    Much has bee said about the looting of Russia during the 90’s. However, does anyone have an accurate figure for how much was siphoned out and transferred to the West?
    As it stands it’s a multi-polar world right now. The main ones cannot assail each other directly, militarily. Political and economic warfare has had limited effects. Any clashes would take place in contested areas where the main powers vie against each other, Syria, perhaps Iran and other places. Even in Syria there was caution not to get into direct conflict but to use proxies if at all possible. Despite the reckless rhetoric of American politicians there’s been some restraint shown in not going too far, a restraint exerted from behind the scenes somewhere. Miscalculations triggering an escalation appears to be the danger rather than a direct frontal aggression.

  57. Wally says:

    ” as well as open some breaches into the opaque pates of the fanatical Neo-Nazi brigadeers who cannot tell a difference between a Jew and a Bolshevik.:

    – What is a “fanatical Neo-Nazi brigadeer”? Please define that for us.

    – Are you saying that Jews were not at the head of Bolshevism?

    ‘If you cannot say what you mean, you will never mean what you say.’

    The Jewish Role in the Bolshevik Revolution
    and Russia’s Early Soviet Regime
    Assessing the Grim Legacy of Soviet Communism
    , by Mark Weber:

  58. annamaria says:

    There is nothing “misinformed” in A. Martyanov’s article. He is a top-notch expert in his field, and he does not mince words when stating the facts.

    You have missed the most important point of the article — “the Western in general and American in particular so-called elites are incompetent.”

    Look at Bidens and Maxine Waters and Bolton and Brennan and the US profiteering brass; these “dealers” of Rove-Mueller caliber could easily start an apocalyptic war as soon as the bankers order them to do so. The political/military class and bankers, they have only one concern – money; none of them cares about the overall wellbeing of the USA. None. As if the concept of “motherland” is foreign to the “deciders’ and their servants.

    Look at the US educational system and the destroyed “industrial base” (why all this noise about the falling Boeing planes?). Look at the Clintons-Epstein-Mossad-MegaGroup axis. – Do you understand the depth of the moral rot in the US?

    Martyanov states a diagnosis for a sick patient and explains the dangers that the patient has been creating for others. You don’t like the diagnosis and attack a messenger.

    It seems that you also missed the significance of a picture of the murdered young mother and her murdered infant daughter. The murderers, Banderites, have been supported and armed by the US/Israel.

    There have been thousands of Russians/Ukrainian civilians who have been murdered by the self-proclaimed neo-Nazi serving the ziocons’ interests first and foremost (whatever illusion of “independence” the Ukrainian thugs have). The terrible trauma inflicted by the murders of Russian-speaking civilians by Banderites can be understood only in the context of the enormous loss of life, which the former USSR suffered during WWII.

    Perhaps it is the poor knowledge of history and the lack of personal memories about the loved ones perished during the WWII, which made some Americans oblivious to the loss and pain felt by peoples of other countries.

    • Agree: bluedog
  59. Seraphim says:

    There is much Uniate-Ecumenistic wishful thinking. The ‘theological problems’ have not been ‘smoothed out’ and the ‘jurisdictional problems’ even less. These problems cannot disappear unless Papacy repent and renounce all its errors (which remain under anathema, notwithstanding the ‘lifting of anathemas’ by the Pope and the crypto-Uniate Athenagoras). The surrender of Patriarch Bartholomew to Papal injunctions (compounded by his fomenting schism) would only aggravate the ‘problems’. Russian Orthodox Church would never go on this path and the idea that the ‘benevolent gesture’ of returning the Kazan Icon entails reciprocation of benevolence is ridiculous (it is, if you look closer, as offensive as the demands of the ‘Blue Army of Our Lady of Fátima’ to ‘consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary’ for her ‘conversion’ to Catholicism).
    A friendly reminder that real Christmas falls on the 7th of January. Papacy should revert to the Orthodox calendar.

    • Agree: SeekerofthePresence
    • Replies: @SeekerofthePresence
  60. This diversity precludes the United States to define itself completely as a nation in an ethno-cultural sense

    Unlike, say, Russia?

    For all his bluster today and accusations in being a sort of a dictator, President Trump is an extremely weak president

    Unlike, say, Putin?

    “liberal fascism”

    Yes, liberalism is fascism. Orwell would be proud.

    his utterly incompetent (from a military point of view) concoctions written for purely propaganda reasons, are still being discussed in some, mostly alt-right, circles

    Now the interviewee insults the very website on which his interview is being published. Sometimes I wonder whether Ron Unz takes a secret pleasure at the surrealism of his position.

    Well, that’s enough, I think. I started reading this because I was curious of what this ‘revolution’ was, but I have better things to do. Before I go, a last quote:

    Although I assume some would characterize me as a “Russian bot,” I personally do not promote either “Team America” or “Team Russia”

    Definitely not ready for prime-time.

  61. @Carlton Meyer

    Carlton, Old Man! How are ya? Enjoyed your last few pieces, informative and confirming as always. I plug you around these parts every now and then. Wish you had a say around here once in a while.

    Meanwhile Carlton, I saw an ad the other day, thought of you:

  62. @Seraphim

    Seems to me the Russian, Antiochian, Jerusalem, Serbian, and other churches would never go along with whatever scheme the Patriarchate has in mind.

    “…and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Matt. 28:20 NKJV

  63. Dingo jay b says: • Website

    End of debate : russia’s contribution to military theory zilch. Though they make god cannon fodder for other nations.

    • Replies: @Herald
  64. I’m disappointed in the quality of this interview. I’ve seen the hype for Andrei’s book “Real Revolution…” and was planning on getting a copy to read over Christmas. But if the quality of the comments here are reflective of the book, that’s a hard pass for me. In an article that’s more than 14000 words long, the author doesn’t need to rely on ad-hominems or emotional grandstanding to make his point, unless he’s got nothing else to offer. This paragraph sums it up:

    Andrei Martyanov: Victor Rezun (aka Suvorov) cannot be taken seriously as either a military historian or a thinker of any noticeable scale. He and his theories have been debunked on so many occasions by so many top-notch historians ranging from Russian to American ones, that it is still surprising that his utterly incompetent (from a military point of view) concoctions written for purely propaganda reasons, are still being discussed in some, mostly alt-right, circles as having any relation to a complex reality. The explanation for this is extremely simple: the so called alt-right sphere, whose pivot of history rests on a foundation of theory that the Jews control everything in the world, would believe anything, such as Rezun’s fantasies and down-right fabrications, to tie in the Russian October Revolution with purely Jewish efforts and as such portray Hitler’s war on USSR as a preemptive war against a Jewish “Bolshevik” conspiracy to absorb Europe and install communist governments. This is a view reserved for people who, basically, have zero understanding (or knowledge) of the European policies in the inter-war period nor have even a basic grasp of how modern industrial wars, such as WW II, were prosecuted.

    His “critique” of Suvorov is basically “you’re stupid if you believe this guy, you should believe this guy instead”, with no reasons given other than insults. He then tries to tack on and smear by association the Jewish-Bolshevik theory, yet the same Putin that he lionizes throughout this interview agrees with that same theory!!

    If that was the only time he did that, it might be understandable bias. But he does the same thing with Tom Clancy. He starts by bringing up the awful Amazon series, without mentioning that Tom Clancy was dead years before Amazon ever got started on that. It’s a bit like criticizing the new Woke James Bond and using it to tar by association the original Ian Fleming novels. He writes:

    In Soviet/Russian military environment Clancy’s “literature” overwhelmingly was treated with ironic smile at best, and with Homeric laughter at worst.

    It seems like the idea behind Martyanov’s book is that superior Russian fires (cruise missiles, S-500, etc.) will defeat American air and naval power. Yet it seems like Clancy largely agreed with him in his 2nd novel Red Storm Rising when the Soviet Navy overwhelmed an American carrier battle group with a swarm of cruise missiles. So what is he laughing at? His own thesis? Or was he laughing at Clancy predicting oil prices causing the collapse of the Soviet Union? My best guess is that he dislikes about Clancy criticizes communism, and Martyanov is a red-starry-eyed dreamer of reliving the glory days of 1932.

    I could go on, but it’s a long article and the pattern repeats again and again. As Sun Tzu wrote, “If you know the enemy and you know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles”. Martyanov should fear.

    • Replies: @Parfois1
  65. Parfois1 says:

    His “critique” of Suvorov is basically “you’re stupid if you believe this guy, you should believe this guy instead”, with no reasons given other than insults. He then tries to tack on and smear by association the Jewish-Bolshevik theory, yet the same Putin that he lionizes throughout this interview agrees with that same theory!!

    You may have a point in pointing out that an argument that defies understanding requires proof, regardless how outlandish the original proposition may be. That proof may be obtained in science following the scientific method but here we are dealing with historical interpretation of a limited set of events, sometimes even contradictory, available to the investigator, the truth of which are enmeshed with layer upon layer of propaganda, deception, personal proclivities and so on.

    Considering the case in hand, and lacking physical evidence to explain historical events in a cause-effect sequence, we need to resort to rational processes which depend on our capacity to make sense of those events. This brings into play our understanding how the man-world works, from psychology, sociology, history, economics, military science, politics and even geography, religion and anthropology. Without elaborating the point, it is within ourselves to evaluate all those factors leading to a “correct” conclusion if we have the necessary tools to sift through the historical data. And, in the end, we always feel more comfortable with the conclusion that accords with our world-view, more so if we are propounding a particular view, as is the case with the needless push to whitewash Hitler and Nazism for the sake of a deserving anti-Jewish crusade.

    By the way, Putin is not an oracle of truth. He’s a politician (and as a former KGB officer he had sworn allegiance to the USSR, yet he joined Yeltsin to destroy it) and, like almost all leaders everywhere, is obsequious to the Jewish lobby, hence his embarrassing exaggeration of Jewish prowess. The Russian Revolution would have happened even if there was not a single Jew in Russia. Read contemporary Russian writers to understand the Russian soul at work and how the muzhiks defeated the Teutonic Knights, again!

    • Replies: @Seraphim
    , @Avery
  66. Seraphim says:

    The muzhiks’ ‘Russian soul’ wouldn’t have defeated the neo-Teutonic Knights without the generals, colonels, captains, sargents, corporals, who led the muzhiks in battle. It was not the ‘Russian soul’ which defeated the Teutonic Knights, but the Grand Prince Alexander Nevsky and his warriors.

    • Replies: @Parfois1
  67. Parfois1 says:

    You are right of course, but I used “muzhik” and “Russian soul” allegorically to mean and stress the East-West divide, militarily and culturally. The Teutonic knights undoubtedly represent the aristocratic heavy calvary ( equivalent to modern-day Panzer divisions) while Nevsky’s pedestrian foot-soldiers, the victors of the Battle of the Ice, symbolise the muzhik. It was that “soul” that hardened the Soviet soldiers’ determination to fight at any costs regardless of personal suffering. Besides, the Soviet officers in WWII were from peasant/working background, hardly a distinction between leaders and followers. At some stage the officers were actually elected by the rank and file.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  68. Seraphim says:

    A bit of poetic license is permitted, of course, but it does not accurately reflect the realities on the ground. Soviet Army was an army of conscripts, the officers were professionals (many Tsarist officers served in the Red Army, because they were professionals – forget about the supposed ‘incompetence’ of the Tsarist officer corp), election of officers was a thing of the past, discipline was inflexible, Stalin reintroduced the ranks and by the beginning of the war the Red Army was looking more and more like the Tsarist Army, perhaps better trained. And it was a multinational army.

  69. Avery says:

    { Putin ….. joined Yeltsin to destroy it}

    How did Yeltsin and Putin destroy USSR?

    As I remember it, USSR officially dissolved before Yeltsin was elected president of the newly minted Russian Federation. The other 14 Soviet ‘Republics’ all declared Independence around 1991 or so, as the SU was breaking up.

    Maybe you have information not publicly available, but from what I remember, it was Gorbachev that was the man who was responsible for the horribly disorganized and chaotic breakup of SU.

    SU could not sustain itself for long, with all its inherent contradictions and the centrifugal forces trying to tear it apart. But Gorbachev could have wound it down in a more orderly fashion, saving millions of former citizens of USSR much grief, lost pensions, wars, deaths,……

    • Replies: @Parfois1
  70. Parfois1 says:

    Maybe you have information not publicly available, but from what I remember, it was Gorbachev that was the man who was responsible for the horribly disorganized and chaotic breakup of SU.

    Apologies – another mea culpa for not being specific enough. Putin was brought up on the scene and I “used” him as an example from whom one should not expect loyalty to a cause or principle, hence his admission to the ranks of Yeltsin’s traitors. Whether planted to stop the plunge into the abyss, maybe…

    Yes, Gorbachev was the instrument of the collapse but he was not a lone actor and the full history is yet to be written. Considering the swift plundering of the national wealth by international and domestic Jewry, it had the hallmarks of a planned demolition.

    I don’t subscribe to any particular theory but I reject the proposition that internal contradictions were the source of structural fractures. It was a top-down operation initiated by Khrushchev and the culture of “elitism” and other deviations, namely the “Western rot”. I call it the “Khrushchev’s revenge” for the slights and put-downs Stalin bestowed on him.

  71. annamaria says:

    Clintons in Ukraine or why the Clinton Intelligence Services (CIA) and Federal Bureau of Idiots (FBI) have been content with Clintons et al’s theft of \$billions from Ukrainian and US taxpayers.

    a joint French-Ukrainian journalistic investigation into a huge money laundering scheme using various shadow banking organizations in Austria and Switzerland, benefiting Clinton friendly Ukrainian oligarchs and of course the Clinton Foundation. …

    The general scheme is as follows. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) lent money to Ukraine in 2015. The same year, Victor Pinchuk’s Credit Dnepr [Bank] received UAH 357 million in a National Bank stabilization loan from the IMF’s disbursement. Delta Bank was given a total of UAH 5.110 billion in loans. The banks siphoned the money through Austria’s Meinl Bank into offshore accounts, and further into [the accounts of] the Pinchuk Foundation. The money siphoning scam was confirmed by a May 2016 ruling by [Kyiv’s] Pechersky court. The total damage from this scam involving other banks is estimated at \$800 million. The Pinchuk Foundation transferred \$29 million to the Foundation of Clinton, a future U.S. presidential candidate from the Democratic Party.

Current Commenter

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 have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Yvonne Lorenzo Comments via RSS
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism