Voices from Russia

Tuesday, 30 September 2014

President Barack Obama Doesn’t Speak for God: A Lesson on Good and Evil for Western Civil-Military Leaders

00 Muslim Woman Praying. Mufti Alban Krganov. Russian Muslim. 09.12

THIS is what Russian Muslims believe… it’s why they’re part of Holy Rus (but “Evangelicals” aren’t)…      


Who in the world is Barack Obama to claim that “No God” would allow the Islamic State to exist and slaughter what it considers non-believers? His statement follows the same line of transgression committed by Bill Clinton and George W Bush in their baleful appeals to God and Christ, even as they approved and presided over operations leading to torture, rape, murder and the wounding of large swaths of humanity. This sinful vanity… the claim to know God’s Will, is precisely the sin that the Islamic State’s Caliph, the House of Saud, the Vatican, the Church of England, and all stripes of religious sects worshiping Prophets/Gods from Yahweh to Zoroaster make each and every day in the name of “good”. Let’s turn to the author of Life and FateV S Grossman, for a lesson on good and evil as the civil-military leaders of the 21st Century Western world appeal to their Gods to sanction suffering, censure, torture, murder, and the creation of gulags large and small.


V S Grossman:

Few people ever attempt to define “good”. What is “good?” “Good” for whom? Is there a common good… the same for all people, all tribes, and all conditions of life? Or, is my good your evil? Is what’s good for my people evil for your people? Is good eternal and constant? Or, is yesterday’s good today’s vice, yesterday’s evil today’s good? When the Last Judgement approaches, not only philosophers and preachers, but everyone on earth… literate and illiterate… will ponder the nature of good and evil. Have people advanced over the millennia in their concept of good? Is this concept something that is common to all people… both Greeks and Jews… as the Apostle supposed? To all classes, nations, and States? Even to all animals, trees, and mosses… as Buddha and his disciples claimed? The same Buddha denied life to clothe it in goodness and love.

The Christian view, five centuries after Buddhism, restricted the living world to which the concept of good is applicable. Not to every living thing… only to human beings. The good of the first Christians, which embraced all mankind, in turn, gave way to a purely Christian good; the good of the Muslims was now distinct. Centuries passed and the good of Christianity split up into the distinct goods of Catholicism, Protestantism, and Orthodoxy. The good of Orthodoxy gave birth to the distinct goods of the old and new beliefs. At the same time, there was the good of the poor and the good of the rich. Besides that, the goods of the whites, the blacks, and the yellow races… more and more goods came into being, corresponding to each sect, race, and class. They excluded everyone outside a particular magic circle. People began to realise how much blood they’d spilt in the name of a petty doubtful good, in the name of the struggle of this petty good against what it believed to be evil. Sometimes, the very concept of good became a scourge, a greater evil than evil itself. Good of this kind is a mere husk from which the sacred kernel has been lost. Who can reclaim the lost kernel?

However, what is good? People used to say that it’s a thought and a related action, which lead to the greater strength or triumph of humanity… or of a family, nation, State, class, or faith. People struggling for their particular good always attempt to dress it up as a universal good. They say, “My good coincides with the universal good; my good is essential not only to me but to everyone; in achieving my good, I serve the universal good”. Therefore, the good of a sect, class, nation, or State assumes a specious universality to justify its struggle against an apparent evil. Even Herod didn’t shed blood in the name of evil; he shed blood in the name of his particular good. A new force came into the world, a force that threatened to destroy him and his family, to destroy his friends and his favourites, his kingdom and his armies. However, evil hadn’t been born; it was Christianity. Mankind had never heard such words before… “Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. … But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you… Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets”.

What did this doctrine of peace and love bring to humanity? Byzantine iconoclasticism; the tortures of the Inquisition; the struggles against heresy in France, Italy, Flanders, and Germany; the conflict between Protestantism and Catholicism; the intrigues of the monastic orders; the conflict between Nikon and Avvakum; the crushing yoke that lay for centuries over science and freedom; the Christians who wiped out the heathen population of Tasmania; the scoundrels who burnt whole Negro villages in Africa. This doctrine caused more suffering than all the crimes of the people who did evil for its own sake…

In great hearts, the cruelty of life gives birth to good; they then seek to carry this good back into life, hoping to make life itself accord with their inner image of good. However, life never changes to accord with an image of good; instead, the image of good sinks into the mire of life… losing its universality, splitting into fragments, and ephemeral needs exploit it. People are wrong to see life as a struggle between good and evil. Those who most wish for the good of humanity are unable to diminish evil by one jot. Great ideas are necessary to dig new channels, to remove stones, to bring down cliffs, and to fell forests; dreams of universal good are necessary for great waters to flow in harmony… yes, if the sea could think, then, every storm would make its waters dream of happiness. Each wave breaking against the cliff would believe it was dying for the good of the sea; it’d never occur to it that, like thousands of waves before and after, it was only brought into being by the wind. Many books have been written about the nature of good and evil and the struggle between them… there is a deep and undeniable sadness in all this… whenever we see the dawn of an eternal good that will never be overcome by evil… an evil that is itself eternal but will never succeed in overcoming good… whenever we see this dawn, the blood of old people and children is always shed. Not only mankind, but even God himself is powerless to lessen this evil. “In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not”. What does a woman who has lost her children care about a philosopher’s definitions of good and evil? However, what if life itself is evil?

I’ve seen the unshakable strength of the idea of social good that was born in my country. I saw this struggle during the period of general collectivisation and again in 1937. I saw people annihilated in the name of an idea of good as fine and humane as the ideal of Christianity. I saw whole villages dying of hunger; I saw peasant children dying in the snows of Siberia; I saw trains bound for Siberia with hundreds and thousands of men and women from Moscow, Leningrad, and every city in Russia… men and women labelled as enemies of a great and bright idea of social good. This idea was something fine and noble… yet, it killed some without mercy, crippled the lives of others, and separated wives from husbands and children from fathers. Now, the horror of German Fascism has arisen. The air is full of the groans and cries of the condemned. The sky turned black; the smoke of the gas ovens extinguished the sun. Even these crimes, crimes never seen before in the Universe… even by Man on Earth… have been committed in the name of good. Once, when I lived in the Northern forests, I thought that one could find good neither in man, nor in the predatory world of animals and insects, but in the silent kingdom of the trees. Far from it! I saw the forest’s slow movement, the treacherous way it battled against grass and bushes for each inch of soil… first, billions of seeds fly through the air and begin to sprout, destroying the grass and bushes. Then, millions of victorious shoots wage war against one another. Only the survivors enter into an alliance of equals to form the seamless canopy of the young deciduous forest. Beneath this canopy, the spruces and beeches freeze to death in the twilight of penal servitude.


00 THIS is Russia. 21.03.14


In time, the deciduous trees become decrepit; then the heavyweight spruces burst through to the light beneath their canopy, executing the alders and the beeches. This is the life of the forest… a constant struggle of everything against everything. Only the blind conceive of the kingdom of trees and grass as the world of good… is it that life itself is evil? Good isn’t in the sermons of religious teachers and prophets, nor in the teachings of sociologists and popular leaders, nor in the ethical systems of philosophers… yet, ordinary people bear love in their hearts, are naturally full of love and pity for any living thing. At the end of the day’s work, they prefer the warmth of the hearth to a bonfire in the public square. Yes, as well as this terrible Good with a capital “G”, there is everyday human kindness. The kindness of an old woman carrying a piece of bread to a prisoner, the kindness of a soldier allowing a wounded enemy to drink from his water-flask, the kindness of youth towards age, the kindness of a peasant hiding an old Jew in his loft. The kindness of a prison guard who risks his own liberty to pass on letters written by a prisoner, not to his ideological comrades, but to his wife and mother. This is the private kindness of one individual towards another; a petty, thoughtless kindness; an unwitnessed kindness. We could call this senseless kindness, a kindness outside any system of social or religious good. However, if we think about it, we realise that this private, senseless, incidental kindness is in fact eternal. We extend it to everything living, even to a mouse, even to a bent branch that a man straightens as he walks by. Even at the most terrible times, through all the mad acts carried out in the name of Universal Good and the glory of States, times when people were tossed about like branches in the wind, filling ditches and gullies like stones in an avalanche… even then, this senseless pathetic kindness remained scattered throughout life like atoms of radium.

Some Germans arrived in a village to exact vengeance for the murder of two soldiers. They ordered the women out of their huts in the evening to dig a pit on the edge of the forest. There was one middle-aged woman who had several soldiers quartered in her hut. They had taken her husband to the police station together with twenty other peasants. She didn’t get to sleep until morning… the Germans found a basket of onions and a jar of honey in the cellar; they lit the stove, made themselves omelettes, and drank vodka. Then, the eldest played the harmonica while the rest of them sang and beat time with their feet. They didn’t even look at their landlady… she might just as well have been a cat. When it grew light, they began checking their guns; the eldest of them jerked the trigger by mistake and shot himself in the stomach. Everyone began shouting and running about. Somehow, the Germans managed to bandage the wounded man and lay him down on a bed. Then, they called them outside. They signed to the woman to look after the wounded man. The woman thought to herself how simple it would be to strangle him. There he was, muttering away, his eyes closed, weeping, sucking his lips… suddenly he opened his eyes and said in very clear Russian, “Water, Mother”. She replied, “Damn you. What I should do is strangle you”. However, instead she gave him some water. He grabbed her by the hand and signed to her to help him sit up… he couldn’t breathe because of the bleeding. She pulled him up and he clasped his arms round her neck. Suddenly, there was a volley of shots outside and the woman began to tremble. Afterwards, she told people what she had done. No one could understand; nor could she explain it herself. The fable about the pilgrim who warmed a snake in his bosom condemns this senseless kindness. Such “kindness” has mercy on a tarantula that bit a child. It’s a mad blind kindness. People enjoy looking in stories and fables for examples of the danger of this senseless kindness. However, one shouldn’t be afraid of it. One might just as well be afraid of a freshwater fish carried out by chance into the salty ocean. The harm from time to time occasioned a society, class, race, or State by this senseless kindness fades away in the light that emanates from those endowed with it.

This kindness, this stupid kindness, is what’s most truly human in a human being. It’s what sets man apart, the highest achievement of his soul. No, it says, life isn’t evil! This kindness is both senseless and wordless. It’s instinctive, blind. When Christianity clothed it in the teachings of the Church Fathers, it began to fade; its kernel became a husk. It remains potent only when it’s dumb and senseless, hidden in the living darkness of the human heart… before it becomes a tool or commodity in the hands of preachers, before they forge its crude ore into the gilt coins of holiness. It’s as simple as life itself. Even the teachings of Jesus deprived it of its strength. However, as I lost faith in good, I began to lose faith even in kindness. It seemed as beautiful and powerless as dew. What use was it if it wasn’t contagious? How can one make a power of it without losing it, without turning it into a husk as the Church did? Kindness is powerful only while it is powerless. If Man tries to give it power, it dims, fades away, loses itself, vanishes. Today, I can see the true power of evil. The heavens are empty. Man is alone on Earth. How can we put out the flame of evil? Can we do so with small drops of living dew, with human kindness? No, not even the waters of all the clouds and seas can extinguish that flame… let alone a handful of dew gathered drop by drop from the time of the Gospels to the iron present… yes, after despairing of finding good either in God or in Nature, I began to despair even of kindness. However, the more I saw of the darkness of Fascism, the more clearly I realised that human qualities persist even on the edge of the grave, even at the door of the gas chamber.

Hell strengthened my faith. My faith emerged from the flames of the crematoria, from the concrete of the gas chamber. I saw that it isn’t man who’s impotent in the struggle against evil, but the power of evil is impotent in the struggle against man. The powerlessness of kindness, of senseless kindness, is the secret of its immortality. You can never conquer it. The more stupid, the more senseless, the more helpless it may seem, the vaster it is. Evil is impotent before it. The prophets, religious teachers, reformers, social and political leaders are impotent before it. This dumb blind love is man’s meaning. Human history isn’t the battle of good struggling to overcome evil. No, a great evil fights a battle; it struggles to crush this small kernel of human kindness. Nevertheless, if it hasn’t yet destroyed what is human in mankind even now, then, evil will never conquer.

29 September 2014

John Stanton




00 Isaak Levitan. Eternal Peace. 1894

Eternal Peace

Isaak Levitan




Vasili Semyonovich is a good argument against the “exclusive” definition of “Russian” found in some émigré circles (and amongst some Far Right nationalists in the Rodina). To them, “Russians” are only those who speak Russian natively, who are born of two purely-Russian parents, who profess the Orthodox faith (and none other), and who’re zealous in excluding all who don’t fit the preceding categories. That is, it’s racism of the most odious sort, a Great Russian analogue of demonic “Ukrainian Nationalism”. Vasili Semyonovich is Russian, profoundly so… as was Isaak Levitan (as one can see from his paintings).

I have no apologies for my stance. “Russian” embraces all those who embrace Holy Rus… even those who aren’t Orthodox! Interestingly enough, it excludes the zapadniki (for they kiss the ass of the West and deny their Russian heritage) and the Evangelical converts (for they deny real faith for a false 19th century simulacrum, a counterfeit fraudulent pseudo-Christianity with no ties to the Ancient Church… they, too, kiss the ass of the West, more profoundly than the zapadniki do). However, it INCLUDES Jews, Muslims, Lutherans (the REAL Evangelicals), native Russian Protestants, seculars… indeed, all those who love the Motherland and what it stands for.

Have a distrust of all those who peddle “exclusive” ideologies… it’s why I hate the ideologies behind “Ukrainian nationalism”, “Russian nationalism”, “Konvertsy Orthodoxy”, and “American Conservatism”… all are founded on rancorous and corrosive hate. They all would die without hate of the “other”. I say, “Holy Rus embraces everyone who loves Her with all their heart, with all their mind, with all their soul… that is, with all their being”. The Mother-Motherland has many children… She loves them all, and they all love Her. Holy Rus not only embraces the Rodina, it embraces all those abroad who’re part of Spiritual Rus, who follow the particular brand of Orthodoxy nurtured in Holy Russia. You can be American and be part of Holy Rus… this would only strengthen your love of both America and Holy Rus… you’d enrich America with the maturity and wisdom of Rus… you’d enrich Rus with the energy and optimism of America (for America has all the attributes of an immature society… some of them are good, whether you wish to believe that or not).

A word to Orthodox people… be wary of those who sold out to the West, such as Victor Potapov, John Jillions, Vassa Larina, and Lyonyo Kishkovsky… they’ve traded their souls for filthy lucre. They’re worse than semi-converted poseurs like Dreher, Paffhausen, Hatfield, Mattingly, Reardon, and Freddie M-G are… yes, they refused to get rid of their religious and intellectual baggage, but they didn’t have the inheritance in the first place, so, they took an all-too-American “cafeteria” approach to it, without realising that if you cut off part of a living organism, it bleeds to death. They’re not as bad as those who had the whole banana and who sold out.

In short, don’t attend to Anglo American moralising… they’re arrogant toddlers with WMDs… now, that’s a scary thought.


Tuesday, 16 September 2014

16 September 2014. Cartoon Spetsnaz… Them Russians Ain’t Down and They Ain’t Out!

00 Cartoon Spetsnaz! 13.09.14


Look this, “Cartoon Spetsnaz”… the Anglo Americans are throwing their usual tantrums and telling everybody how powerful they are. Well… it’s NOT impressing the Russians! It’s NOT impressing the Chinese! It’s NOT impressing anyone other than the navel-gazing Anglosphere. The red figure, of course, is the old familiar mascot from Krokodil in Sov times. Since 1991, the Americans have acted in a power vacuüm and assumed that it’d last forever. Well, it didn’t. They sicced their Georgian puppets on Russia in 2008 (the Georgians opened the war with a sneak Grad bombardment of sleeping civilians at 22.00), and got their asses waxed. The Russians chased the Americans out of Gori, grabbed every bit of intel that the yellow American advisors left (and the word out there is that the American cowards bolted so quickly that they left virtually everything), and the entire Georgian army just melted away… deserted… took French leave. Today, the Americans sicced the neo-Nazi Galician Uniates on Russia. Well, the Uniates can play the bandura, but they can’t run a war to save their souls! America’s surrogates lost again… the USA doesn’t have the wherewithal to pull them out of the shit-pit. The USA doesn’t have the resources to play at global hegemon… it wasted most of its substance on unnecessary wars in South Asia and in insane give-aways to the Affluent Effluent. The bonuses given to Rush Limbaugh, the Koch brothers, and Sarah Palin have had a heavy price tag…

In short, the present American foreign policy performance IS a comedy… but it’s a comedy staged by a petulant child armed with nuclear weapons. That’s the danger…


Sunday, 14 September 2014

Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault: The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin

00 galician UPA Democracy 01. 29.04.14

Here’s the main problem… the author NEVER mentions it…



A BIG Thank You to the Cabineteer who passed this on to me. It’s LONG, but I want you to read this.

This is DEEPLY flawed piece… it shows that the Anglos don’t understand the Ukrainian crisis at all and that they don’t understand its roots in history. Without a doubt, it shows that the West REFUSES to see what this war is truly all about… “Shall the Ukraine remain a part of the Russian World (for it is such now) or shall the West use the Galician Uniate fascist minority to rip it away from its ancient historical, cultural, and religious roots?” This is why the war is so bitter. The West congratulates itself too much… its interventions aren’t what causes this war to be MORE bitter than the Yugoslav Civil War was. The battle is between Holy Rus and the Unholy Unia… Rus stands for Orthodoxy, Tradition, and Culture, whereas the Unia stands for Papistry, Liberalism, and the Almighty Dollar. This professor is so divorced from reality that it renders his conclusions useless, but you must know what these people say… the zapadniki truly believe that their rot is true.

Despite its many shortcomings, you should read this. Bear in mind that it’s superficial and ignorant of most Russian history, religion, folkways, and culture, yet, it tells you what’s out there in the Anglo world. They are NOT our allies… not politically, not religiously, not culturally. If you forget that, you open yourself up to attack. Remember, their credo is “Winning is the only thing”… nothing that leads to victory is illicit for them. NEVER forget that.

By the way, “conservatives” and “liberals” in the Anglosphere are simply two sides of the same counterfeit Neoliberal coin… they share identical postulates and presuppositions. Both are Liberal to the bone… neither has any ties to Tradition, Culture, and Faith… that’s especially true of “conservatives”… the US Republican Party is the most rancid expression of Liberalism run amuck on the planet. The author doesn’t see how his Neoliberal assumptions knacker his conclusions. Yet, still read it… this is what they believe. It ain’t reality, but it’s what they believe. They got “credentials”, dontcha know…



00 what the hell are you doing. russia-ukraine. 2014


According to the prevailing wisdom in the West, one can blame the Ukrainian crisis almost entirely on Russian aggression. President V V Putin, the argument goes, annexed the Crimea out of a long-standing desire to resuscitate the Soviet empire, and he may eventually go after the rest of the Ukraine, as well as other countries in Eastern Europe. In this view, the ouster of Ukrainian President V F Yanukovich in February 2014 merely provided a pretext for Putin’s decision to order Russian forces to seize part of the Ukraine.

However, this account is wrong… the USA and its European allies share most of the responsibility for the crisis. The tap-root of the trouble is NATO enlargement, the central element of a larger strategy to move the Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit and integrate it into the West. At the same time, the EU’s expansion eastward and the West’s backing of the “pro-democracy” movement in the Ukraine… beginning with the Orange Revolution in 2004… were critical elements, too. Since the mid-1990s, Russian leaders have adamantly opposed NATO enlargement, and in recent years, they’ve made it clear that they wouldn’t stand by whilst their strategically important neighbour turned into a Western bastion. For Putin, the illegal overthrow of the Ukraine’s democratically elected and pro-Russian president… which he rightly labelled a “coup”… was the final straw. He responded by taking the Crimea, a peninsula that he feared would host a NATO naval base, and by working to destabilise the Ukraine until it abandoned its efforts to join the West.

Putin’s pushback should’ve come as no surprise. After all, the West moved into Russia’s backyard and threatened its core strategic interests, a point Putin made emphatically and repeatedly. Events blindsided American and European élites only because they subscribe to a flawed view of international politics. They tend to believe that the logic of realism holds little relevance in the 21st century and that liberal principles such as the rule of law, economic interdependence, and democracy can keep Europe whole and free. However, this grand scheme went awry in the Ukraine. The crisis there shows that Realpolitik remains relevant… and states that ignore it do so at their own peril. American and European leaders blundered in attempting to turn the Ukraine into a Western stronghold on Russia’s border. Now that the consequences of such are visible, it’d be an even greater mistake to continue this misbegotten policy.


01 Beat Back NATO!

Beat Back NATO!


The Western Affront

As the Cold War ended, Soviet leaders preferred that American forces remain in Europe and NATO stay intact, an arrangement they thought would keep a reunified Germany pacified. However, they and their Russian successors didn’t want NATO to grow any larger and assumed that Western diplomats understood their concerns. The Clinton administration evidently thought otherwise, and in the mid-1990s, it began pushing for NATO expansion.

The first round of enlargement took place in 1999 and brought in Czechia, Hungary, and Poland. The second occurred in 2004; it included Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Moscow complained bitterly from the start. During NATO’s 1995 bombing campaign against the Bosnian Serbs, for example, President B N Yeltsin said, “This is the first sign of what could happen when NATO comes up to the Russian Federation’s borders. … The flame of war could burst out across the whole of Europe”. However, the Russians were too weak at the time to derail NATO’s eastward movement… which, at any rate, didn’t look so threatening, since none of the new members shared a border with Russia, save for the tiny Baltic countries.

Then, NATO began looking further east. At its April 2008 summit in Bucharest, the alliance considered admitting Georgia and Ukraine. The Bush II administration supported doing so, but France and Germany opposed the move for fear that it’d unduly antagonise Russia. In the end, NATO’s members reached a compromise… the alliance didn’t begin the formal process leading to membership, but it issued a statement endorsing the aspirations of Georgia and Ukraine and boldly declaring, “These countries will become members of NATO”. Moscow, however, didn’t see the outcome as much of a compromise. Aleksandr Grushko, then Russia’s deputy foreign minister, said, “Georgia’s and Ukraine’s membership in the alliance is a huge strategic mistake which would have most serious consequences for pan-European security”. Putin maintained that admitting those two countries to NATO would represent a “direct threat” to Russia. One Russian newspaper reported that Putin, whilst speaking with Bush, “very transparently hinted that if NATO accepted the Ukraine, it’d cease to exist”.

Russia’s invasion of Georgia in August 2008 should’ve dispelled any remaining doubts about Putin’s determination to prevent Georgia and the Ukraine from joining NATO. Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili, who was deeply committed to bringing his country into NATO, decided in the summer of 2008 to reincorporate two separatist regions, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. However, Putin sought to keep Georgia weak and divided… and out of NATO. After fighting broke out between the Georgian government and South Ossetian separatists, Russian forces took control of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Moscow made its point. Yet, despite this clear warning, NATO never publicly abandoned its goal of bringing Georgia and the Ukraine into the alliance. NATO expansion continued marching forward, with Albania and Croatia becoming members in 2009.

The EU, too, marched eastward. In May 2008, it unveiled its Eastern Partnership initiative, a programme to foster prosperity in such countries as the Ukraine and integrate them into the EU economy. Not surprisingly, Russian leaders view the plan as hostile to their country’s interests. This past February, before Yanukovich’s toppling, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov accused the EU of trying to create a “sphere of influence” in Eastern Europe. In the eyes of Russian leaders, EU expansion is a stalking horse for NATO expansion.

The West’s final tool for peeling Kiev away from Moscow was its efforts to spread Western values and promote democracy in the Ukraine and other post-Soviet states, a plan that often entails funding pro-Western individuals and organisations. Victoria Nuland, the US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian affairs, estimated in December 2013 that the United States had invested more than 5 billion USD (189 billion Roubles. 30.7 billion Renminbi. 304 billion INR. 5.6 billion CAD. 5.5 billion AUD. 3.9 billion Euros. 3.1 billion UK Pounds) since 1991 to help the Ukraine achieve “the future it deserves”. As part of that effort, the US government bankrolled the National Endowment for Democracy. The nonprofit foundation funded more than 60 projects aimed at promoting civil society in Ukraine, and the NED’s president, Carl Gershman, has called that country “the biggest prize”. After Yanukovich won the Ukrainian presidential election in February 2010, the NED decided that he was undermining its goals, so it stepped up its efforts to support the opposition and strengthen the country’s democratic institutions (sic).

When Russian leaders look at Western social engineering in Ukraine, they worry that their country might be next. Such fears are hardly groundless. In September 2013, Gershman wrote in The Washington Post, “The Ukraine’s choice to join Europe will accelerate the demise of the ideology of Russian imperialism that Putin represents. Russians, too, face a choice, and Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself”.


00 Crimean referendum 03. 16.03.14


Creating a Crisis

The West’s triple package of policies… NATO enlargement, EU expansion, and “democracy promotion”… added fuel to a fire waiting to ignite. The spark came in November 2013, when Yanukovich rejected a major economic deal he’d negotiated with the EU and decided to accept a 15 billion USD (567 billion Roubles. 92.1 billion Renminbi. 912 billion INR. 16.8 billion CAD. 16.5 billion AUD. 11.7 billion Euros. 9.3 billion UK Pounds) Russian counteroffer instead. That decision gave rise to anti-government demonstrations that escalated over the following three months and that by mid-February led to the deaths of some 100 protesters. Western emissaries hurriedly flew to Kiev to resolve the crisis. On 21 February, the government and the opposition struck a deal that allowed Yanukovich to stay in power until there were new elections. However, it immediately fell apart, and Yanukovich fled to Russia the next day. The new government in Kiev was pro-Western and anti-Russian to the core, and it contained four high-ranking members who one could legitimately label neofascists. Although the full extent of American involvement hasn’t yet emerged, it is clear that Washington backed the coup. Nuland and Republican Senator John McCain participated in anti-government demonstrations, and Geoffrey Pyatt, the US Ambassador to the Ukraine, proclaimed after Yanukovich’s toppling that it was “a day for the history books”. As a leaked telephone recording revealed, Nuland advocated regime change and wanted Ukrainian politician Arseny Yatsenyuk to become Prime Minister in the new government, which he did. No wonder Russians of all persuasions think that the West played a role in Yanukovich’s ouster.

For Putin, the time to act against the Ukraine and the West had arrived. Shortly after 22 February, he ordered Russian forces to take the Crimea from the Ukraine, and soon after that, he incorporated it into Russia {this is an outright lie… the Anglos can’t see that their own hubris and mistakes caused this, not any order from VVP: BMD}. The task proved relatively easy, thanks to the thousands of Russian troops already stationed at the naval base in the Crimean port of Sevastopol. The Crimea also made for an easy target since ethnic Russians compose roughly 60 percent of its population. Most of them wanted out of the Ukraine. Next, Putin put massive pressure on the new government in Kiev to discourage it from siding with the West against Moscow, making it clear that he’d wreck Ukraine as a functioning state before he would allow it to become a Western stronghold on Russia’s doorstep {again, the Anglo lies… remember their credo is “Winning is the only thing”… truth means nothing to them: BMD}. Toward that end, he provided advisers, arms, and diplomatic support to the Russian separatists in the eastern Ukraine, who are pushing the country toward civil war {where’s your evidence, Anglo?: BMD}. He deployed a large army on the Ukrainian border (sic), threatening to invade if the government cracks down on the rebels. He sharply raised the price of the natural gas Russia sells to the Ukraine and demanded payment for past exports. Putin is playing hardball {no… VVP simply raised the gas price to market rates… something that the neoliberal pigs in the West demand in other things… why is it right for the West to do it and not Russia?: BMD}.


00 Crisis. 01 Odessa. We're not giraffe meat for the EU! .3

Odessa patriots: “We won’t be giraffe meat for the EU!”


The Diagnosis

Putin’s actions should be easy to comprehend. A huge expanse of flat land that Napoleonic France, Imperial Germany, and Nazi Germany all crossed to strike at Russia itself, the Ukraine serves as a buffer state of enormous strategic importance to Russia. Until recently, no Russian leader would tolerate a military alliance that was Moscow’s mortal enemy moving into Ukraine, nor would any Russian leader stand idly by whilst the West helped install a government there determined to integrate the Ukraine into the West. Washington may not like Moscow’s position, but it should understand the logic behind it. This is Geopolitics 101… great powers are always sensitive to potential threats near their home territory. After all, the USA doesn’t tolerate distant great powers deploying military forces anywhere in the Western Hemisphere, much less on its borders. Imagine the outrage in Washington if China built an impressive military alliance and tried to include Canada and Mexico in it. Logic aside, on many occasions, Russian leaders told their Western counterparts that they consider NATO expansion into Georgia and the Ukraine unacceptable, along with any effort to turn those countries against Russia… a message that the 2008 Russian-Georgian war also made crystal clear {a war started by Georgia!: BMD}.

Officials from the USA and its European allies contend that they tried hard to assuage Russian fears and that Moscow should understand that NATO has no designs on Russia. In addition to continually denying that its expansion aimed at containing Russia, the alliance never permanently deployed military forces in its new member states. In 2002, it even created a body called the NATO-Russia Council to foster coöperation. To mollify Russia further, the USA announced in 2009 that it’d deploy its new missile defence system on warships in European waters, at least initially, and not on Czech or Polish territory. However, none of these measures worked; the Russians remained steadfastly opposed to NATO enlargement, especially into Georgia and the Ukraine {of course they didn’t work… they were Vince Lombardi-esque lies… “Winning is the only thing”: BMD}. It’s the Russians, not the West, who ultimately get to decide what counts as a threat to them.

To understand why the West, especially the USA, failed to understand that its Ukrainian policy was laying the groundwork for a major clash with Russia, one must go back to the mid-1990s, when the Clinton administration began advocating NATO expansion. Pundits advanced a variety of arguments for and against enlargement, but there was no consensus on what to do. Most eastern European émigrés in the United States and their relatives, for example, strongly supported expansion, because they wanted NATO to protect such countries as Hungary and Poland. A few realists also favoured the policy because they thought that we still needed to contain Russia. However, most realists opposed expansion, in the belief that we didn’t need in fact to contain a declining great power with an aging population and a one-dimensional economy {the author should watch out… Russian demographics are improving, whilst the USA only sustains population growth via immigration: BMD}. They feared that enlargement would only give Moscow an incentive to cause trouble in Eastern Europe. American diplomat George Kennan articulated this perspective in a 1998 interview, shortly after the US Senate approved the first round of NATO expansion, “I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it’ll affect their policies. I think it’s a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anyone else”.

Most liberals, on the other hand, favoured enlargement, including many key members of the Clinton administration. They believed that the end of the Cold War had fundamentally transformed international politics and that a new post-national order replaced the realist logic that used to govern Europe. The USA wasn’t only the “indispensable nation”, as US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright put it; it was also a benign hegemon and thus Moscow would be unlikely to view it as a threat. In essence, the aim was to make the entire continent look like Western Europe. Therefore, the USA and its allies sought to promote democracy in Eastern Europe, increase economic interdependence among them, and embed them in international institutions. Having won the debate in the USA, liberals had little difficulty convincing their European allies to support NATO enlargement. After all, given the EU’s achievements, the idea that geopolitics no longer mattered and that an all-inclusive liberal order could maintain peace in Europe was even more attractive to Europeans than it was to Americans.

So thoroughly did liberals come to dominate the discourse about European security during the first decade of this century that even as the alliance adopted an open-door policy of growth, NATO expansion faced little realist opposition. The liberal worldview is now accepted dogma among American officials. In March, for example, US President Barack Obama delivered a speech about the Ukraine in which he talked repeatedly about “the ideals” that motivate Western policy and how those ideals “have often been threatened by an older, more traditional view of power”. US Secretary of State John Kerry’s response to the Crimea crisis reflected this same perspective, “You just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped-up pretexts {that sounds like Yugoslavia in 1999, Afghanistan in 2001, Iraq in 2003, Libya in 2011, and the attempts in Syria last year… gee, Madam, your slip IS showing!: BMD}”. In essence, the two sides have operated with different playbooks… Putin and his compatriots think and act according to realist dictates, whereas their Western counterparts adhere to liberal ideas about international politics. The result is that the USA and its allies unknowingly provoked a major crisis over the Ukraine.


Barbara-Marie Drezhlo. NO! To NATO Aggression! 2012


Blame Game

In that same 1998 interview, Kennan predicted that NATO expansion would provoke a crisis, after which the proponents of expansion would “say that we always told you that is how the Russians are”. As if on cue, most Western officials have portrayed Putin as the real culprit in the Ukraine predicament. In March, according to the New York Times, German Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel implied that Putin was irrational, telling Obama that he was “in another world”. Although Putin no doubt has autocratic tendencies, no evidence supports the charge that he’s mentally unbalanced. On the contrary, he’s a first-class strategist; anyone who challenges him on foreign policy should fear and respect him. More plausibly, other analysts allege that Putin regrets the USSR’s demise and is determined to reverse it by expanding Russia’s borders. According to this interpretation, Putin, having taken the Crimea, is now testing the waters to see if the time is right to conquer the Ukraine, or at least its eastern part, and he’ll eventually behave aggressively toward other countries in Russia’s neighbourhood. For some in this camp, Putin represents a modern-day Adolf Hitler, and striking any kind of deal with him would repeat the mistake of Munich. Thus, NATO must admit Georgia and the Ukraine to contain Russia before it dominates its neighbours and threatens Western Europe.

This argument falls apart on close inspection. If Putin were committed to creating a Greater Russia, signs of his intentions would almost certainly have arisen before 22 February. However, there’s virtually no evidence that he intended to take the Crimea, much less any other territory in the Ukraine, before that date. Even Western leaders who support NATO expansion don’t do so out of a fear that Russia was about to use military force. Putin’s actions in Crimea took them by complete surprise; they seem to have been a spontaneous reaction to Yanukovich’s ouster. Right afterward, even Putin said that he opposed Crimean secession, before quickly changing his mind. Besides, even if it wanted to, Russia lacks the capability to easily conquer and annex the eastern Ukraine, much less the entire country. Roughly, 15 million people… a third of the Ukrainian population… live between the Dnepr, which bisects the country, and the Russian border. An overwhelming majority of those people want to remain in the Ukraine and would surely resist a Russian occupation (sic) {according to whom and on what evidence, Anglo?: BMD}. Furthermore, Russia’s mediocre army, which shows few signs of turning into a modern Wehrmacht, would have little chance of pacifying all the Ukraine {this “mediocre” army beat the Poles, Swedes, and Napoleon… and it beat the Wehrmacht, too! This guy is a blithering idiot: BMD}. Moscow is in poor shape to pay for a costly occupation; its weak economy would suffer even more in the face of the resulting sanctions. However, even if Russia did boast a powerful military machine and an impressive economy, it’d still probably prove unable to occupy the Ukraine successfully. One need only consider the Soviet and American experiences in Afghanistan, the American experiences in Vietnam and Iraq, and the Russian experience in Chechnya to recall that military occupations usually end badly {Russia in the Ukraine ISN’T a foreign occupation… ponder that: BMD}. Putin surely understands that trying to subdue the Ukraine would be like swallowing a porcupine. His response to events there has been defensive, not offensive {the last four sentences are pure BS… it sounds like beer-talk at Suzy-Q in Kerhonkson, not intellectual writing: BMD}.


00 russia 08. Mikhail Khmelko. The Unity of the Russian People. 1951

Here’s the REAL “way out”… Neoliberal Western pigs out! Holy Rus is OURS… “All those who march on Holy Rus shall be put to death”… don’t the Western cretins understand that?


A Way Out

Given that most Western leaders continue to deny that legitimate security concerns might motivate Putin’s behaviour, it’s unsurprising that they tried to modify it by doubling down on their existing policies and punished Russia to deter further aggression. Although Kerry maintained, “All options are on the table”, neither the USA nor its NATO allies are prepared to use force to defend the Ukraine. Instead, the West relies on economic sanctions to coerce Russia into ending its support for the insurrection (sic) in the eastern Ukraine. In July, the USA and the EU put in place their third round of limited sanctions, targeting mainly high-level individuals closely tied to the Russian government and some high-profile banks, energy companies, and defence firms. They also threatened to unleash another tougher round of sanctions, aimed at whole sectors of the Russian economy. Such measures will have little effect. Harsh sanctions are likely off the table anyway; Western European countries, especially Germany, resisted imposing them for fear that Russia might retaliate and cause serious economic damage within the EU. However, even if the USA could convince its allies to enact tough measures, Putin would probably not alter his decision-making. History shows that countries will absorb enormous amounts of punishment to protect their core strategic interests. There’s no reason to think that Russia represents an exception to this rule.

Western leaders also clung to provocative policies that precipitated the crisis in the first place. In April, US Vice President Joseph Biden met with Ukrainian legislators and told them, “This is a second opportunity to make good on the original promise made by the Orange Revolution”. John Brennan, the director of the CIA, didn’t help things when, that same month, he visited Kiev on a trip that the White House said aimed at improving security coöperation with the Ukrainian government. Meanwhile, the EU continued to push its Eastern Partnership. In March, José Manuel Barroso, the President of the European Commission, summarised EU thinking on the Ukraine, saying, “We have a debt, a duty of solidarity with that country, and we’ll work to have them as close as possible to us”. Sure enough, on 27 June, the EU and the Ukraine signed the economic agreement that Yanukovich fatefully rejected seven months earlier. Also in June, at a meeting of NATO members’ foreign ministers, they agreed that the alliance would remain open to new members, although the ministers refrained from mentioning the Ukraine by name. NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen announced, “No third country has a veto over NATO enlargement”. The foreign ministers also agreed to support various measures to improve the Ukraine’s military capabilities in such areas as command and control, logistics, and cyberdefence. Naturally, Russian leaders recoiled at these actions; the West’s response to the crisis will only make a bad situation worse.

However, there’s a solution to the crisis in Ukraine… although it’d require the West to think about the country in a fundamentally new way. The USA and its allies should abandon their plan to westernise the Ukraine and instead aim to make it a neutral buffer between NATO and Russia, akin to Austria’s position during the Cold War. Western leaders should acknowledge that the Ukraine matters so much to [Russia] that it can’t support an anti-Russian régime there. This wouldn’t mean that a future Ukrainian government would have to be pro-Russian or anti-NATO. On the contrary, the goal should be a sovereign Ukraine that’s in neither the Russian nor the Western camp. To achieve this end, the USA and its allies should publicly rule out NATO’s expansion into both Georgia and the Ukraine. The West should also help fashion an economic rescue plan for the Ukraine funded jointly by the EU, the IMF, Russia, and the USA… a proposal that Moscow should welcome, given its interest in having a prosperous and stable Ukraine on its western flank. The West should considerably limit its social-engineering efforts inside the Ukraine. It’s time to put an end to Western support for another Orange Revolution. Nevertheless, American and European leaders should encourage the Ukraine to respect minority rights, especially the language rights of its Russian speakers.

Some argue that changing policy towards the Ukraine at this late date would seriously damage American credibility around the world. Undoubtedly, there’d be certain costs, but the costs of continuing a misguided strategy would be much greater. Furthermore, other countries are likely to respect a state that learns from its mistakes and ultimately devises a policy that deals effectively with the problem at hand. That option is clearly open to the USA. One also hears the claim that the Ukraine has the right to determine whom it wants to ally with and the Russians have no right to prevent Kiev from joining the West. This is a dangerous way for the Ukraine to think about its foreign policy choices. The sad truth is that might often makes right when great-power politics are at play. Abstract rights such as self-determination are largely meaningless when powerful states get into brawls with weaker states. Did Cuba have the right to form a military alliance with the USSR during the Cold War? The USA certainly didn’t think so, and the Russians think the same way about the Ukraine joining the West. It is in the Ukraine’s interest to understand these facts of life and tread carefully when dealing with its more powerful neighbour.

However, even if one rejects this analysis, and believes that the Ukraine has the right to petition to join the EU and NATO, the fact remains that the USA and its European allies have the right to reject these requests. There’s no reason that the West has to accommodate the Ukraine if it wants to pursue a wrong-headed foreign policy, especially if its defence isn’t a vital interest. Indulging the dreams of some Ukrainians is not worth the animosity and strife it’d cause, especially for the Ukrainian people. Of course, some analysts might concede that NATO handled relations with the Ukraine poorly and still maintain that Russia is an enemy that’d only grow more formidable over time… therefore, the West has no choice but to continue its present policy. Nevertheless, this viewpoint is badly mistaken. Russia is a declining power, and it will only get weaker with time {according to whom and using what standards, Anglo?: BMD}. Moreover, even if Russia were a rising power, it’d still make no sense to incorporate the Ukraine into NATO. The reason is simple… the USA and its European allies don’t consider the Ukraine to be a core strategic interest, as their unwillingness to use military force to come to its aid proved. Therefore, it’d be the height of folly to create a new NATO member that the other members have no intention of defending. NATO expanded in the past because liberals assumed the alliance would never have to honour its new security guarantees, but Russia’s recent power play shows that granting the Ukraine NATO membership could put Russia and the West on a collision course.

Sticking with the current policy would also complicate Western relations with Moscow on other issues. The USA needs Russia’s assistance to withdraw American equipment from Afghanistan through Russian territory, reach a nuclear agreement with Iran, and stabilise the situation in Syria. In fact, Moscow helped Washington on all three of these issues in the past; in the summer of 2013, Putin pulled Obama’s chestnuts out of the fire by forging a deal under which Syria agreed to relinquish its chemical weapons, thereby avoiding the American military strike that Obama had threatened. Someday, the USA will also need Russia’s help containing a rising China. However, current American policy is only driving Moscow and Beijing closer together. Now, the USA and its European allies face a choice on the Ukraine. They can continue their current policy, which’d exacerbate hostilities with Russia and devastate the Ukraine in the process… a scenario where everyone would come out a loser. On the other hand, they could switch gears and work to create a prosperous but neutral Ukraine, one that doesn’t threaten Russia and allows the West to repair its relations with Moscow. With that approach, all sides would win.

September/October 2014

John J Mearsheimer

Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago (Chicago IL USA)

Foreign Affairs


Saturday, 13 September 2014

The Ukraine: Some Conclusions

00 due to technical reasons 01. ukraine. 21.05.14


On Friday, 5 September 2014, a ceasefire agreement put an end to the conflict that raged in the former southeastern Ukraine for six months, taking the lives of around 2,600 to 3,000 people, at a time when anti-Kiev forces cut off and surrounded large pockets of the Ukrainian armed forces and at a time when the rebels were gaining ground. The first reaction can only be, thank God for that, because nobody likes to see families torn apart by the death of a son, or husband, or brother, or nephew… or father. Or, in this case, grandmother, daughter, or baby because the Ukrainian armed forces were strafing civilian positions recklessly, committing war crimes. The second is why the Ukraine became the only European country to deploy its armed forces against its own citizens, instead of talking with the rebels to discuss their demands, which is all they wanted in the first place. Now, after six months of fighting, many in the anti-Kiev camp feel that they can’t cohabit with a mass murderer in their midst and prefer to separate, forming their own republics. The bottom line in all of this is that the entire issue is a Ukrainian affair, between Ukrainians and Ukrainians have to settle it for Ukrainians, as Moscow said.

The claim by Barack Obama that the ceasefire came about because of the West’s puerile sanctions on Russia is proof that either he has lost it totally, or else he never had it in the first place. Such claims go together with those nonsensical statements that supermarkets in Russia were bare, when the reality is that the ones who lost out were the Western producers who are now minus one vast market. The winners are the Russian agricultural sector, which can and will be self-sufficient, and Latin American producers, who lined up to sell their produce (being threatened by Europe for doing so, the most blatant demonstration of arrogance since the fall of the imperialistic régimes). Cameron made other nonsensical claims… when his own country committed war crimes in recent years overseas. The ceasefire came about because the Ukraine couldn’t win the war (not in one day as Poroshenko said, not in a million years) and because only a political solution could settle the issue, as Moscow said from the beginning.

Now, what happens? For a start, let’s remember how it all began… the West interfered in Kiev, fomenting an illegal putsch, which ousted the properly elected legal President, V F Yanukovich, amidst street violence, calls for the death of Russians and Jews, fascist pogroms, and a hail of anti-Russian hysteria following edicts coming from the putschists, amongst whom were terrorist elements and fascists. One can see the degree of American involvement, which leads many to call it the United Snakes of America, by the extent to which the family of Vice President Joe Biden is involved in the Ukrainian energy market. Hunter Biden, Joe Biden’s son, is a member of the board of Burisma Holdings, the largest gas producer in Ukraine, which has massive quantities of easy-to-reach shale gas reserves. Therefore, we see the Ukraine in the context of an inexorable push eastwards by NATO, the American energy lobby, and the EU, which hardly comes as a surprise. Back in 1991, I warned in my writings and in messages behind the scenes that one shouldn’t trust the West, that their new camaraderie and back-slapping was false, that it aimed at dismantling the USSR, that it would encroach eastwards, and that it wouldn’t honour a single agreement that it signed.

At the time, people in Russia were riding a wave of pro-Western euphoria, saying they were good guys and only wanted prosperity for Russians. They derided people like myself as being Soviet dinosaurs and considered us nutcases. Now, today, what do we see? For a start, the USSR provided jobs for all, zero unemployment, free housing, free healthcare, free basic and higher education, subsidised transportation, leisure time activities, sports facilities, social mobility, meritocracy, free activities in the youth movements, free public utilities, safety on the street, security of the state, opportunities for travel, free basic foodstuffs, and an indexed pension. This, while it was freeing millions from the yoke of imperialist tyranny, and was spending 250 billion USD back then on development programs overseas. This, after bringing medieval societies into the frontline of development in two generations, virtually eradicating illiteracy and bringing the USSR into the modern industrial and technological age, a pioneer in space travel, and a cutting-edge in so many areas of scientific and cultural life.

What has the West provided in comparison? Education is a business, healthcare is a business, getting a house is virtually impossible, keeping it also, unemployment is endemic and reaches some 40 percent among young people in some countries, the streets are violent, public utility prices are soaring, food is expensive. In fact, their system is a struggle from beginning to end, it doesn’t provide work for everyone, and due to the behaviour of Western leaders, there’s a growing list of countries destabilised to the point of being failed states. Dare a Western citizen step foot in Iraq? Libya? Syria? For some reason, it must be.

Therefore, after the USSR voluntarily dissolved (it didn’t “collapse”) and after the Warsaw Pact disbanded (again, it didn’t “collapse”), we see that the West spent decades performing historical revisionism, claiming the USSR “lost” (which is sheer nonsense), belittling the USSR’s massive contribution to the defeat of fascism in the Great Patriotic War (World War II) and today invents lies about Georgia, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and the Ukraine. The West gave assurances to Russia that if it disbanded the Warsaw Pact, it wouldn’t encroach eastwards. Thus, we can conclude that the West in general, and NATO in particular, are nothing but barefaced liars.

The cases of South Ossetia and Abkhazia goes back to post-Soviet times. Under the Soviet Constitution, there was to be a referendum in these Republics to ask the people what they wanted. Georgia never held this, so Georgia can’t claim these territories as its own. Regarding the Ukraine, given the fact that the putsch in February was illegal, the legal entity with the right to impose law in the Republic of Crimea was its Supreme Soviet (given that the properly elected President was overthrown without having any of the three legal scenarios for such removal), and this Soviet organised the Referendum and the resulting plea to rejoin Russia. Therefore, no one annexed or invaded the Crimea. It was, and is, Russian territory. How can Russia invade itself?

In conclusion, we see the entire Ukraine story in 2014 was a Western machination, which has no respect for the livelihoods of the Ukrainian citizens at all. If they join the EU, they’d lose their jobs, industry, agriculture, and fisheries, and this is precisely what Yanukovich was trying to protect. At the end of the day, NATO can encroach eastwards, as it always intended to. However, one thing is setting up bases, yet another is becoming a target for a missile attack so massive that it would blot out the Sun, blowing a crater 200 metres around any NATO bridgehead. What NATO intends to achieve is perfectly easy to see. What is NATO? It’s a meeting place for the weapons lobby, which dictates NATO policy, and which represents an annual budget of 1.2 trillion dollars (45.4 trillion Roubles. 7.4 trillion Renminbi. 73 trillion INR. 1.33 trillion CAD. 1.32 trillion AUD. 926 billion Euros. 738 billion UK Pounds) {that’s a combined total of military budgets for all NATO states: BMD}. It wants new markets. However, make no mistake… my writings over the years have proven me right time and time again. NATO won’t stop at Russia’s borders.

It’s an ogre. It’ll sing its Siren’s song, shake hands, make promises… but then again, let’s look at who invaded Iraq, against the will of mankind, against international law, breaking the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions. Who committed war crimes in Iraq, in Serbia, in Libya, and in Syria? Who ran the torture and concentration camps at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay? Who cavorted with terrorists in Libya and Syria? The only thing NATO understands is a massive show of force, because NATO only attacks defenceless states, imposing its freedom and democracy today from 30,000 feet, as yesteryear its members imposed civilisation with the Bible and with the bullet, shooting “natives” in the whites of their eyes. One thing we can conclude… the history of NATO and its leaders is a history of lies and false propaganda, misinformation, murder, torture, breach of international law, disrespect for the UN, and an outrage against democratic principles. Its leaders are stupid, manipulated, or evil.

6 September 2014

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey



Next Page »

Theme: Rubric. Get a free blog at WordPress.com


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 938 other followers