Voices from Russia

Saturday, 20 January 2018

The Saker Sez: “The Russians Are NOT Coming”



The Saker is a windy and pretentious purveyor of mildly-Alt-Right BS. However, he can be correct in his analysis. The following is one such. The USA is a petulant toddler armed with nuclear weapons. All other nations must consider this fact. The Americans live in an isolated part of the world at a distance from the World Island. This has given them delusions about themselves and their institutions. They ascribe their unopposed takeover of the North American landmass to their “superior” institutions and “better” people, but the fact is that prior to modern times, it was simply very difficult to get to America from Europe or Asia, so European powers left the USA alone to do as it pleased. America was “great” because its geographic isolation protected it from stronger powers. Nothing more. History is a strange thing… the interrogator O’Brien was right in Orwell’s 1984:

He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.

The Americans converted their genocidal wars of conquest and ethnic cleansing against the indigenous peoples of North America into a glorious “Manifest Destiny”. If they did that, they’re capable of similar actions on the World Island… indeed, they’ve shown such since 1991, haven’t they? I find the following excerpt interesting…


The Russians, Iranians and Hezbollah are all “grown adults” (in political terms), and Assad is learning very fast, and they all understand that they are dealing with a “monkey with a hand grenade” (this fully applies to both Israeli and US leaders) that combines a nasty personality, a volatile temper, a primitive brain, and a hand-grenade big enough to kill everybody in the room. Their task is to incapacitate that monkey without having it pull the pin. In the case of the Israeli strikes on Syria, the primary responsibility to respond in some manner would fall on the target of the strikes (usually Hizbullah) or on the state whose sovereignty was violated (Syria). In theory, both could retaliate (by using tactical missiles for example). Yet, they chose not to, and that is the wise and correct approach. As for Russia, this is simply and plainly not its business.

One more thing… make no mistake… the Israeli (and US!) propensity to use force as a substitute for diplomacy is a sign of weakness, not of strength. More, accurately, their use of force, or the threat of force, is the result of their diplomatic incompetence. While to the unsophisticated mind the systematic use of force might appear as an expression of power, history shows that brute force can be defeated when challenged not directly but by other means. By necessity, this is a slow process, much slower than a (mostly entirely theoretical) “quick victory”, but an ineluctable one nonetheless. In purely theoretical terms, the use of force can roughly have any one of the following outcomes:

  • Defeat
  • Stalemate
  • costly victory
  • relatively painless victory

That last one is exceedingly rare and the use of force mostly results in one of the other outcomes. Sometimes, the use of force is truly the only solution, but I submit that the wise political leader will only resort to it when all other options have failed and when vital interests are at stake. In all other situations, a “bad peace is preferable to a good war”.

Contrary to the hallucinations of the Neocons, Russia is not a “resurgent USSR” and Putin has no desire whatsoever to rebuild the USSR. Furthermore, there’s no meaningful constituency in Russia for any such “imperial” plans (well, there are always some lunatics everywhere, but in Russia, they’re a tiny powerless minority, thank God). Furthermore, the new Russia is most definitely not an “anti-USA” in the sense of trying to counter every US imperial or hegemonic move. This might be obvious to many, but I get so many questions about why Russia isn’t doing more to counter the USA in Africa, Latin America, or Asia that I feel that it’s, alas, still important to remind everybody of a basic principle of international law and common sense… problems in Country X are for Country X to deal with. Russia has no more business than the USA in “solving” Country X’s problems. Furthermore, usually, Country X’s immediate neighbours can best deal with Country X’s problems, not some megalomaniacal messianic superpower who felt that it ought to “power project” because it’s somehow “indispensable” or because “manifest destiny” placed upon it the “responsibility” to “lead” the world.

All this terminology is the expression of a pathological and delusional imperial mindset which cost Russia and the USSR an absolutely horrendous price in money, energy, resources, and blood (for example, the USSR justified its intervention in Afghanistan in terms of the “internationalist duty” of the Soviet Union and people to help a “brotherly nation”). While this kind of nonsense is still 100 percent mainstream in the poor old USA, modern Russia absolutely rejects it. For all the personal credibility of Putin with the Russian people, even he could not get away with trying to militarily intervene, never mind police the whole planet, unless truly vital Russian interests were threatened (Crimea was such a very rare case). Some will deplore this, I personally very much welcome it, but the truth is that “the Russians are NOT coming”.

This is an excerpt





Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: