Godfather Putin Among the Grapes of Wrath

Uncle Volodya says, "The reasoning man who scorns the prejudices of simpletons necessarily becomes the enemy of simpletons; he must expect as much, and laugh at the inevitable.
”

Uncle Volodya says, “The reasoning man who scorns the prejudices of simpletons necessarily becomes the enemy of simpletons; he must expect as much, and laugh at the inevitable.
”

There’s something awkwardly touching about Robert Coalson’s enduring faith. Like a child closing her eyes and reciting “I do believe in fairies” three times, he is imbued with the certainty that Russia’s collapse is just around the next corner. And he yearns for it: hard to say why, he must have his reasons, but he doggedly picks through the gimcrackery on show each month and weeds out the gems he believes showcase Russia’s savagery, authoritarian despotism and unfitness to be part of the civilized world. Although it is clearly a labor of love, it must be a hard row to hoe these days, as the country folk say. Russia’s stubborn refusal to collapse on schedule must be disappointing. But like a good zealot, he simply sighs and moves on to the next article of faith.

This post is only peripherally about Coalson, though, because it was his cautious excitement expressed in a Tweet – which I still think is about as mildly stupid a means of communication as writing simple messages on your naked buttocks with a Sharpie marker and bending over to display your intellectual bankruptcy to the world – over an article by certified paint-chip-eater Leonid Bershidsky (Thanks, Peter).

I don’t mean to imply – by calling him a paint-chip eater – that Bershidsky is stupid: far from it. In fact, he is a gifted writer with an elegant, readable narrative style and a command of English that is nothing short of remarkable, assuming it is his second language and that Russian is his first. But like so many, perhaps all of the kreakly (for those not familiar with the term, it is a portmanteau of “creative class”, but beginning with “k” to ensure the hard sound prevails), his creativity is hopelessly enslaved to saccharine liberal daydreams in which the prodding and jibing of the west against Russia are simply examples of tough love on the part of an exasperated parent who just wants Russia to get off its tookus and be all it can be. These dreamers often come from well-to-do and highly educated families with foreign connections, partially or wholly educated abroad; young Leonid, for example, was educated in California and received his MBA from Insead in Fontainebleu, France. He was the founding editor of Vedomosti, a joint project of The Financial Times and The Wall Street Journal, neither of them Putin fans by any stretch of the imagination. Young Leonid left his university studies to return to Moscow, driven by a dream that Russia would join the European Union, and seems to blame Putin because it never did; it is clear he has a hate on for Putin. But although Putin strove for closer integration with the European Union, highly-placed analysts were unambiguous that Russia would “never be ready“, a view that is all the more comical now for western scrabbling to try to seize Ukraine for a prize for the EU despite its rampant corruption, ruined economy and recent appetite for Nazi displays of repressive power. Russia is too big, and not submissive enough, refusing to tug its forelock to the west.

Depressingly familiar also in Bershidsky’s thinking is the reverence of the kreakly for the oligarchs, and their entirely unsubstantiated conviction that with great wealth comes a great desire to do good, exemplified in his article on Roman Abramovich extolling the good that rich businessmen are capable of – and that much is true – coupled to a naive conviction that they will; “But whatever the businessman’s reasons for running in Chukotka, there is a certain justice in one of Russia’s wealthiest people trying to win votes in one of the nation’s poorest regions. One hopes Abramovich is not without his share of decency and some of the wealth will rub off on Chukotka.” Is it just me, or does this remind anyone else of Yulia Latynina’s batty rant that only the wealthy should be allowed to vote, because only those who are not hungry can be trusted not to vote with their bellies? And is anyone else curious why wealthy businessmen are accorded the status of minor gods in Kreakletown, while Vladimir Putin – alleged by the same social demographic to be the wealthiest man in Russia – is a shitheel they can’t wait to get rid of? Is it perhaps because they know he doesn’t really have any money?

Yes, wealthy businessmen almost invariably lift up the poor around them to an ecstasy of prosperity. Like Kolomoisky did for Dnepropetrovsk. Or Akhmetov for the Donbass coal miners, many of whom are spitting out the window of Rolls-Royces right now, thanks to his munificence.

And so it was with weary resignation that I came upon the latest wild tangent of reasoning by Bershidsky; although he is a “Russian patriot” who was moved to see Russia “get up off its knees” (since 1991, a period that seems deliberately contrived to spread the process so as to make it appear Putin had nothing much to do with that resolution and repair, despite the fact that the late 90’s nearly saw the complete collapse of Russia), he took his place in the “fifth wave of emigration” because it was fundamentally dishonest for him to contribute his Russian tax rubles to the theft of Crimea. Yes, folks, even though Crimea was a gift to Ukraine by the First Secretary of the Soviet Union which was accomplished without soliciting the opinion of anyone else in Russia, Ukraine’s claim on it is the only legitimate one. Fuck what the people who live there think.

It’s a pity I have tired myself out, and just feel disappointed and uninspired now that I have at last come to what I wanted to talk about – not Leonid Bershidsky at all, but an article written by him which overturns the silly story that Capo di tutti cappi Putin not only owned a massive, sprawling mansion in the Marbella Regione of Spain, but that he planned to occupy his twilight years in the sunny vineyards, growing grapes so rare and precious that if a bottle of their wine was stolen, Putin would burn local villages in reprisal. Okay, that’s a little hyperbolic, but apparently these grapes are something else, very rare, just the sort of thing that would appeal to an it’s all-about-me dictator like Putin.

And now it transpires that the ritzy complex has nothing to do with Putin. We know this because Alexey Navalny’s anti-corruption scouts ferreted out the real owner, Zoya Ponomareva, daughter of Valery Ponomarev. Bershidsky spends the rest of the piece reframing “nothing at all to do with Putin” so that readers understand that really all expensive property owned by Russian political figures belongs to Putin, and they’re just kind of holding it for him until he decides to take possession.

I don’t know what’s the more depressing – Bershidsky’s flushed-face defense of all-or-nothing liberalism and its values, or the fact that the kreakly will only believe that a stinking-rich scam has nothing to do with the country’s leader when they are so informed by a twice-convicted criminal who has no regard whatsoever for the rule of law, and picks and chooses those he will obey and those he will not.

This entry was posted in Alexei Navalny, Corruption, Economy, Europe, Government, Investment, Politics, Rule of Law, Russia, Vladimir Putin and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

849 Responses to Godfather Putin Among the Grapes of Wrath

  1. peter says:

    • Southerncross says:

      For those of you who don’t speak retard, this translates to ‘No part of this happened. I have a handler who follows me around all day and makes sure I don’t try eating lightbulbs’.

      • ThatJ says:

        Well, I checked out who is Daniel DePetris. It’s entertaining to dwell in the Twitter feeds that peter follows. DePetris is associated with the Atlantic Council.

        You get to know what the other side is up to. Some MSM outlets are warming up to the idea of arming Ukraine.

        Can it backfire? Spectacularly. There’s this saying circulating in Ukraine that the US will fight Russia to the last Ukrainian, and that the “Americans” are the ones inciting Kiev to continue the war, which the majority, even in Western Ukraine, do not want. Ukrainians will feel more than repulsed by the blatant American wish of keeping the war going. They will question whether the government in Kiev really servers Ukrainian interests.

        Add to this the fact that America will lose once and for all the collaboration of Russia with pressing global issues. Can the US be this dumb?

        • marknesop says:

          That is correct. It has been done to death here, but Kiev does not need more trainloads of rifles and ammunition – it already has trainloads it hasn’t used. If America gives it heavy weapons they will have to supply soldiers to run them, or waste time training Ukies to do it. America is not going to put in soldiers to help Kiev; the best it will do will be to give it heavy weapons, and if it does Russia will give the separatists heavy weapons, and more Ukrainians on both sides will die – in the end, the death toll is going to be shocking because there is every reason to imagine Kiev is minimizing it so as to prevent a humanitarian ruling or intervention. It’s like an all-white audience gathering to watch two black men beat the shit out of each other, as frequently happened in pro boxing a generation ago.

    • Moscow Exile says:

      Does anyone really think it possible that even if there really were members of the Russian armed forces serving on the firing line alongside East Ukrainian separatists they would be wearing Russian army dog-tags with their Russian army identities stamped on them?

      • Southerncross says:

        That and the question of why fighting has resumed in earnest if what he says is so, are the reasons why I call DePetris a retard and ask in all seriousness whether he has an IQ high enough to qualify for a Texan electric chair.

        Did Poroshenkp accidentally tape over the footage while recording late night porno?

        • PaulR says:

          I don’t trust the report any more than anything else coming out of Kiev, but as a former infantry platoon commander I would say that you shouldn’t underestimate the potential stupidity of soldiers. These are the same guys, after all, who post pictures of themselves on VK saying ‘Here I am in Ukraine’.

      • kat kan says:

        The REAL reason Putin wanted the Minsk Agreement (that is the Sept 5 one) was:
        1: it was going to cause stationary shooting for a few days, no big advances anywhere
        2: that was close enough for the IMF, visiting that week, to pretend there was no war going on, which would make it against the rules to lend anything
        3: that allowed Ukraine to get enough money to PAY FOR GAS, so Russia wouldn’t lose $4.6 billion on being kind hearted and not letting 46 million undeserving fools freeze to death

        Putin knew Kiev would break the ceasefire right away, and not withdraw, so the republics were hardened for this just before Minsk. The one “blast of North Wind” that swept through towards Mariupol was designed to give a front line down to the sea, with no southern belly exposed. This left the republics with an area they could defend without too obviously breaking the ceasefire. Had they taken Mariupol they never could have held it, with the weaknesses they had then. The push gave them Novoazovsk, absolutely untouched, 10 clicks to the border, full of hotels and summer camps to use as training camps.

        Kiev forces ran from Mariupol, and took them 3 or 4 weeks to move Azov enforcers back in. That was plenty of time to establish basic ammunition stores, secure communications and some sleepers, if they had the sense to look ahead. All indications are they do always have a Plan B.

    • marknesop says:

      Uh huh. Russian soldiers operating covertly in Ukraine who take the trouble to remove all their rank and regimental insignia so they cannot be identified as Russian wear dogtags with their name and service number on them. Who knew? That crafty Poroshenko.

      • Moscow Exile says:

        No stiffs, I see – of Russian infantrymen that is.

        The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

        Doubting Thomas – John 20:25

        Anyone can make dog-tags.

  2. ThatJ says:

    [ThatJ: In the US there’s this stigma attached to the Republicans that they are the “war party”, but it never fooled me. The Democrats can be worse at times.]

  3. ThatJ says:

    Ukrainian anti-conscription video:

  4. Moscow Exile says:

    BRICS bank legislation submitted to Russian parliament

    The Russian government has submitted a bill to parliament to ratify the BRICS bank. The New Development Bank will have assets of $100 billion from Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa and rival the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.

  5. yalensis says:

    According to New York Slimes , new Saudi King is trying to blackmail Putin, so that he will throw Assad under the bus.

    • kat kan says:

      HELP! I am lost, confused, dizzy………
      that story says
      ” the Russian government is reeling from the effects of plummeting oil prices.”

      next para says ” they have some leverage over Mr. Putin because of their ability to reduce the supply of oil and possibly drive up prices.”

      Russia is on the mat from low prices, so they will blackmail them by threatening to DRIVE UP the prices????

      And the US will get hurt? “…any success by the Saudis to cut production and raise global oil prices could hurt many parts of the American economy….” isn’t it the low prices killing the shale guys?

  6. yalensis says:

    Meanwhile, in financial news:
    Guan Jianzhong, head of Chinese financial rating agency Dagong has accused Fitch, Moody’s and S&P of being “politically engaged” in their rating of Russia’s credit-worthiness.
    Guan says he gave Russia an “A” rating in January, and these other (Western) companies lowered it. Guan says that’s unfair, and these other agencies are not being impartial.

    По словам Цзяньчжуна, «нынешний кризис в России вызван санкциями стран Запада, а не внутренними факторами. Если посмотреть на США и страны ЕС, то их кризисы обусловлены внутренними причинами, а не внешними. У этих стран, в отличие от России, масштаб кредитования превысил потенциал к производству благ, возник «пузырь».
    «У России иные проблемы, ее экономическое развитие протекает в нормальном русле. Разумеется, санкции влияют на Россию, но нынешний кризис в РФ отличается от США и ЕС. К сожалению, «тройка» не учла это и стала отстаивать интересы США. Именно по причине высокой задолженности и включения печатного станка рейтинг США по версии Dagong – «А-». Россия тоже занимает, но не так много. И, в отличие от США, может вернуть свои долги (без масштабной эмиссии)», – пояснил он.

    Также Цзяньчжун считает, что в течение нескольких лет мировая экономика может столкнуться с новым глобальным финансовым кризисом, который окажется хуже кризиса 2008 года.

    TRANSLATION
    In the words of Guan, “today’s crisis in Russia was brought about by the sanctions of the Western countries, rather than by internal factors. If you take a look at the USA or EU countries, THEIR crises are motivated by internal reasons, not external. In these countries, as distinct from Russia, the volume of credit exceeds the potential of producing goods, thus a ‘bubble’ has been formed.
    “Russia’s problems are of a different nature, her (Russia’s) economic development is proceeding in a normal manner. It goes without saying, that the sanctions are impacting Russia; however, the present crisis in the Russian Federation is distinct from those of USA and EU.
    “Unfortunately, the troika [Fitch, S&P, Moody’s] did not take this into consideration, and started to militate the interests of the USA”

    USA only got an “A” at the price of high level of indebtedness and switching on the printing press, according to Gagong. Russia also borrows money, but not as much. And, as distinct from the USA, she (Russia) can pay her debts (without having to really gut itself, he (Guan) explained.

    Guan also prognosticates, that in the course of a few years, the world economy will encounter a new global financial crisis, which will be worse than the 2008 crisis.

  7. ThatJ says:

    Very shoddy reporting here:
    http://rt.com/news/229195-shell-hits-hospital-donetsk/

    Kiev routinely claims that the rebels themselves target civilians in order to frame their opponents. But a number of reports from international human rights organizations like Amnesty International confirmed that at least some of the attacks came from Ukrainian side.

    Wat? So rebels are also targeting civilians on purpose? At least RT agrees that “at least some” of the shellings come from the Ukrainian side. Good grief.

    The Saker posted this interview with Rogozin, the topic is the Russian MIC, subtitles included:

    http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2015/02/interview-with-dmitry-rogozin-deputy-pm.html

    The Specter of Russian Nationalism

    Kevin MacDonald

    August 23, 2008

    The fallout from the Russian invasion of Georgia continues. The Daily Mail reports that “Across the region, newspapers, commentators and politicians drew parallels between Moscow’s operations in Georgia to Soviet interventions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia in 1956 and 1968 to crush their attempts to leave Moscow’s orbit.”

    The LA Times did its bit, with a photo op-ed piece titled “All too familiar” juxtaposing photos from Czechoslovakia in 1968 with photos from Georgia, 2008.

    But there’s a huge difference. As I pointed out in “Neocons versus Russia,” Russia under Putin is committed to Russian nationalism. There is no evidence whatever that Russia is committed to Communist internationalism and its ideology of world revolution. Those days are over (thankfully).

    Russia stands out among the white-majority societies of the world because it is not dominated by elites bent on managing the dissolution of the peoples and culture that created them.

    Russian nationalism is on display in a variety of ways. The LA Times reports on “a patriotic concert” in Tskhinvali, capital of South Ossetia: “In front of a badly damaged government building, a Russian orchestra performed pieces by Tchaikovsky and Shostakovich as 1,000 or so residents held up candles and the flags of Russia and South Ossetia, the catalyst in this month’s conflict between Russia and Georgia.”

    Nationalism in a white country—a frightening prospect indeed for Western elites. For the neocons, not surprisingly, it conjures up images of National Socialist Germany: Neocon Robert Kagan lost no time in comparing the Russian invasion of Georgia to the German occupation of the Sudentenland in 1938. Neoconservative rhetoric on the Georgian crisis is steeped in the language of Munich, Neville Chamberlain, and the “lessons of appeasement.”

    The good news is that Russian nationalism is real. Consider Putin’s appointment of Dmitry Rogozin, a Russian nationalist politician, as Ambassador to NATO. Rogozin is described as “one of the founders of the Congress of Russian Communities, a political movement dedicated to voicing the concerns of ethnic Russians and pushing nationalist causes.” In 2003 he became head of the nationalist Rodina [Motherland] coalition. After being forced out of that position, he became involved with the Movement Against Illegal Immigration, “championing the rights of ethnic Russians and organizing nationalist demonstrations.” …

    … This point has not been lost on observers. Rogozin’s appointment “was seen as an extension of President Vladimir Putin’s combative tone with the West and NATO, specifically. As a strong voice for Russian interests and nationalism, his tenure has been marked by little shift in tone but a continuation of Putin’s rhetoric in principle.”

    Maybe, just maybe, Russia under Putin and Medvedev gets it. The Russian elite seem to understand that ethnic nationalism is healthy and natural, even for white people. They acted decisively against the Jewish oligarchs whose loyalties lay elsewhere and whose behavior threatened to produce a Russia subservient to the West. They have also failed to welcome non-Russian immigration—much to the chagrin of Jeff Mankoff, a Zionist writing in the international edition of the New York Times. (We won’t bother to dwell on the hypocrisy of those whose primary loyalty is to a country with a biological standard for immigration lecturing the West about the moral imperative of mass multi-ethnic immigration. And to think such ideas would appear in a publication of the New York Times. Shocking!)

    Their own experience of being a victimized ethnic majority dominated by a hostile Jewish elite in the early decades of the Soviet Union (see Yuri Slezkine’s The Jewish Century) may well have reinforced their own sense of ethnicity and made them immune to the ideologies of victimhood—and especially Jewish victimhood—that permeate the West.

    Indeed, it is interesting that one of the first Russian responses in the wake of the invasion of Georgia has been to initiate talks with Syria about providing advanced anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons. The Russians obviously have a grasp of the reality of American foreign policy as centered around the interests of Israel, and they seem bent on punishing Israel for its military and political ties to Georgia. Russia continues to provide Iran with nuclear material as well as weaponry designed to protect its nuclear installations.

    Full text: http://theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-RussianNationalism.html

    [ThatJ: The original article contains many links embedded with the text which I cannot add without triggering the blog’s anti-spam system.]

  8. Tim Owen says:

    Meanwhile in Venezuela the big push is on:

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/02/02/venezuela-a-coup-in-real-time/

    This week, as the New York Times showcased an editorial degrading and ridiculing Venezuelan President Maduro, labeling him “erratic and despotic” (“Mr. Maduro in his Labyrinth”, NYT January 26, 2015), another newspaper across the Atlantic headlined a hack piece accusing the President of Venezuela’s National Assembly, Diosdado Cabello, and the most powerful political figure in the country after Maduro, of being a narcotics kingpin (“The head of security of the number two Chavista defects to the U.S. and accuses him of drug trafficking”, ABC, January 27, 2015). The accusations stem from a former Venezuelan presidential guard officer, Leasmy Salazar, who served under President Chavez and was recruited by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), now becoming the new “golden child” in Washington’s war on Venezuela.

    That same day, State Department spokeswoman Jan Psaki condemned the alleged “criminalization of political dissent” in Venezuela, when asked by a reporter about fugitive Venezuelan general Antonio Rivero’s arrival in New York to plea for support from the United Nations Working Committee on Arbitrary Detention. Rivero fled an arrest warrant in Venezuela after his involvement in violent anti-government protests that lead to the deaths of over 40 people, mainly government supporters and state security forces, last February. His arrival in the U.S. coincided with Salazar’s, evidencing a coordinated effort to debilitate Venezuela’s Armed Forces by publicly showcasing two high profile military officers – both former Chavez loyalists – that have been turned against their government and are actively seeking foreign intervention against their own country.

    All the familiar mendacity. Prepare for the “[second] most obvious coup in history.”

    • spartacus says:

      Indeed, it seems that the demonization campaign has been taken up a few notches. I especially enjoy the propaganda pieces from MSM purportedly showing shortages that are due to the inherent faultiness of Socialism. In reality, things are far more simple. Venezuela’s government exchanges oil for dollars, then sells this dollars to a lower, preferential exchange rate to the businesses importing consumer goods. The idea behind this policy is that the businesses will then sell this goods at lower, controlled prices, so that the goods will be available to a as large percentage of the population as possible. This would enable the citizens of Venezuela to benefit directly from selling their country’s oil. The problem is that the capitalist scum bags doing the business take those goods and move them through contraband in neighbouring countries where they sell them at market prices, increasing their profits. If law enforcement agencies find this out and start giving fines and putting people in jail then everybody starts screaming that in Venezuela there’s a crackdown on honest business people because Maduro is a tyrant. From what information I could find, there is a real, open class war going on there and the working class is by no means winning it. All that Chavez, Maduro and their allies have been able to do up until now is even the odds a little, helped by revenues from oil exports.

    • spartacus says:

      Correction: “Venezuela’s government exchanges oil for dollars, then sells these dollars at a lower, preferential exchange rate to the businesses importing consumer goods so that these could use them to pay for the stuff that is being imported.” / “…these goods at lower…”

  9. Moscow Exile says:

    Has somebody dropped a bollock at the Grauniad, thinking that the following long opinion piece was about the Empire of Evil?

    Welcome to the most corrupt nation in Europe

    • ThatJ says:

      Read this pearl — albeit a funny one, I admit:

      Koppen616 18m ago
      Russia taking the Ukraine, we will see a fight between gangs or the creating of a unique and powerful mafia.

      And:

      legup 1h ago

      Failed corrupt states the world over like Ukraine , whose populations are unable to offer proper medical care to their people, what they need is a form of European imperialism based on a anglo saxon mandate and designed to bring liberation – spiritual, cultural, economic and political. By sharing the blessings of the civilization of the West with theses people suffering under satanic oppression, ignorance and disease, a new symbiotic relationship will rise that can only be a benefit to both ruler and ruled.

      Sarcasm?

    • PaulR says:

      But there is a subtext of the old order appointed by Yanukovich being to blame, and the new heroic Maidan protesting doctor being the good guy.

    • marknesop says:

      Has ever a “most corrupt nation” been reviewed with such understanding and sympathy, I wonder? “I have to take bribes – it’s for my patients. If I do not they will die”. Show me a review of Russia that throbs with such compassion. Nonetheless, it’s more realistic than another “Kiev!! Chomping at the Bit to Lead Europe!!!” piece.

      It is typical of the west that it waits until after the wedding to take a close look at the whore it has been banging for months.

      • PaulR says:

        Indeed – I liked the phrase ‘he had a dilemma: be honest and a bad doctor, or take bribes and be a good doctor.’

  10. ThatJ says:

    Bad news:

    Reports and witnesses’ evidences state that UA has almost finished the development of comprehensive database of all men who are liable for mobilization. There are messages that checkpoints and blockposts are being installed on the main roads and in transport hubs + it was noted that ukrainians will be demanded to have foreign passport in order to cross any border, not only with Russia.

  11. ThatJ says:

    Yesterday’s protest in Kiev by disgruntled battalion members is also bad news.

    Remember the rebel sources claiming that a second coup was in the making? The time has not come (yet), but the protest was aimed at reminding Porky of the vulnerabilities in his “soft belly”. In no way should he negotiate with the rebels was the message. The battalion was calling for the implementation of Martial Law and they also wanted Porky prosecuted for treason because he failed to get his job done. Yat the Yid must be proud!

    Combine yesterday’s protest with my comment about checkpoints and blockposts popping up in the main roads and transport hubs and you get the picture. The Zionists are making a huge GULAG out of Ukraine.

    This is a sign of desperation. If I were Putin I would capitalize on this (which Ukrainians don’t want) and call Ukraine a huge concentration camp. A future intervention may, due to US blunders in the country, come as a blessing.

    • kat kan says:

      They can’t do martial law unless they are at war. With a real other country. The checkpoints are to get the draft dodgers (who are all gone by now) and, in some cities, to control or track the movement of suspected separatists. Most of this type are run by the same guys doing the protesting, so,…..

      They all have a sense of history, so are likely to choose an anniversary date, so there’s nearly 2 weeks to go for the next coup attempt. But there is a visit on Feb 11 or 12 by a team from the Owners, or Putin can pull the default plug…. something can go a different interesting wrong every day now.

  12. astabada says:

    http://rt.com/news/229183-saudi-russia-oil-assad/

    The Saudis are Washington’s property lock, stock and barrell. Given the actual economic and demographic situation in the country, it is impossible for their regime to survive without Western support.

    This opening comes at a suspicious time, when the NYT also suggests a diplomatic solution in Ukraine (as Alexander Mercouris aptly noted on Russia Insider).

    Sort of: you get Ukraine, we get Syria?

    For Russia should be a no-brainer!

  13. et Al says:

    My emphasis below.

    Al Beeb s’Allah (God’s Own News Agency Direct – GONAD): Ukraine conflict: Deadly shell hits Donetsk hospital
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31129484
    …The hospital in the south-western Kirovskiy area of Donetsk was being used as an outpatient clinic at the time of the attack and many of the injured were patients and staff, BBC correspondent Olga Ivshina reports from the scene.

    The sound of shelling could still be heard two hours later, she said…

    The OSCE said on Tuesday that it had found evidence of cluster munitions used in a 27 January attack on Luhansk.

    Ukrainian officials responded by insisting that soldiers did not fire on civilian areas and did not use cluster munitions….
    ###

    How did that one slip past the censor? You would have thought that the use of cluster munitions as found by the OSCE itself would be an article of its own as it is a war crime, but no, it is relegated to paragraph 11! GOD BLESS THE BBC AND ALL THAT SAIL IN HER!

    • PaulR says:

      The use of cluster munitions fired from multiple launch rocket systems into populated areas was designated a war crime in the trial of Milan Martic, leader of the Krajina Serbs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zagreb_rocket_attacks That said, this ruling would not necessarily apply in all cases – In the Serb instance, there doesn’t seem to have been any effort to hit a military target, while the rockets were fired at the extreme of their range, so that even if they had been aimed at a military target, there was very little chance of hitting it, meaning that the weapons was ‘inherently indiscriminate’.

      • et Al says:

        That’s the one! I think I mentioned it before somewhere. Some are more equal than others! Martic claimed he did it out of desperation as there was absolute silence from the West when Croatia launched their Flash and Storm military campaigns in 1995 – fully backed and armed by the West and others – to finally get rid of their pesky Serbs. What an idiot, not to mention subordinates who should have blocked it

        Still, regardless of extreme range etc, most countries in the world have banned them and signed the anti-landmine / cluster munitions coda so you should rightly expect to end up in court for using them. I think Russia, China, North Korea and the United States haven’t signed or ratified the ban (along with 30 others) though in the latter case the US has
        committed itself to not using land mines except in Korea*, Ukraine has**. The US promised not to use air dropped weapons such as the CBU-87, so instead they created a new ‘smart’ version called the Sensor Fuzed Weapon which they claim isn’t a ‘cluster bomb’ because it is far more reliable and leaves much fewer failed and unexploded ordinances after the initial strike. There is also the controversy over thermobaric or fuel-air weapons. The Russians used them in Chechnya and were condemned by the West, but then the US started to use them in Afghanistan and has even developed a version for the helicopter launched Hellfire missile.

        * http://www.uscbl.org/

        ** http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?url=lm/2000/ukraine.html
        Ukraine voted in favor of the December 1999 UN General Assembly resolution in support of the Mine Ban Treaty, as it had in 1997 and 1998.

        Ukraine ratified Amended Protocol II (Landmines) to the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons on 21 September 1999, and opted for the nine-year delay in implementation of key provisions. It took part in both the preparatory meeting in May 1999 and the First Annual Conference of State Parties to Amended Protocol II to the CCW in Geneva in December 1999.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Ottawa_Treaty#Non-signatory_states

  14. et Al says:

    I’m no fan of Google, but Google Earth Pro is now free so if you want to look up Ukraine in more detail, go here:
    google-latlong.blogspot.com/2015/01/google-earth-pro-is-now-free.html

  15. peter says:

    • Moscow Exile says:

      The built in 1978 prefabricated concrete-plate constructed house where I live in the Central Administrative Region of Moscow, Tagansky District.

      Major reconstruction was done to this and very many other of the same construction in 2008: new lifts, plumbing, central heating, double glazing, balconies, insulation, wiring, Internet connection, security system, paint, plaster etc.

      Frightful, isn’t it?

      • Moscow Exile says:

        Our summer abode.

        It’s the freedom and democracy that I miss the most.

        • et Al says:

          Is that a Banksy on your wall? You could be rich!

          • Moscow Exile says:

            Which wall? Where?

            There’s no graffiti on our walls! There’s a notice board next to the entrance where a neighbour (one of the gopniki or vatniki that must constitute all my neighbours – at least, that’s what a commenter in the “about” section said of them, and he must know, because he lives in the USA) is sitting.

            Our entrance is the next one. You can’t see it because of the trees, which aren’t real trees, of course: they’re all made out of plastic: the real ones all died years ago because of the pollution and radiation, what with Moscow being one of the most – if not the most – pollluted cities in the world.

            Another neighbour is walking past our entrance. He’s pissed out of shape, of course: they all are – always. He died last year as well. He was 52, which age, as everyone knows, is when all Russian men die – unless they get knifed earlier in a drunken bar brawl or die from that frightful Krokodil narcotic when they’re 16, or from AIDS.

            We live on the other side of the building anyway – the side that overlooks the open septic tank and the scrapyard full of 2-year-old Ladas.

            • Moscow Exile says:

              That notice board, by the way, is what they stick Pravda on. When they paste it up, you should see our neighbours pushing and shoving each other in order to take a dekko at the latest Kremlin propaganda.

              Each issue of Pravda they put up soon disappears, though. It’s a highly valuable source of toilet paper. Each apartment gets half a page a day. That’s the real reason why they pin up Pravda, of course, but everyone, the regime and its slaves, just cod on for Westerners that it’s a newspaper.

              Pathetic!

              Poor bastards!

            • et Al says:

              Bloody optical illusions! It isn’t graffitti as I first thought but just leaves from the hedge that stick up (to the right of the drainpipe or 220 degrees from the satellite dish. It looks like a guy’s head side on with a comb-over and a face…

              It just goes to show that you see what you want to see! I’m losing it. Time for another beer.

              • Jen says:

                Yes those leaves from that hedge really do look like the silhouette of a guy with a mohawk cut or quiff comb-over and wearing a leather jacket!

                Actually the whole picture is part of a Banksy, Moscow Exile didn’t include the frames and the curtains, or the barbed wire. Examples of full Banksy paintings:

                • Moscow Exile says:

                  Try as hard as I might, I cannot for the life of me see a drawing of someone with a mohawk or whatever there. That’s how the brain, how one’s cognisance, works, I suppose: I know what’s there and I cannot see what is represented in the image of my house above as other than what I already know it is.

                • marknesop says:

                  Me either. Which proves that we are brothers, separated at birth. Well, my birth, I guess it would have to be, as you are slightly older. Not by much, though, so it was when we wuz real little.

                • Jen says:

                  In the right half of the photo of the dacha, there’s a bit of hedge that sticks up and the green silhouette against the yellow background of the wall (bordered by the white drainpipe on its left) forms an image that looks almost human with a quiff up top.

                  It’s an effect created by the flatness of the image and the graininess of the colour.

                • marknesop says:

                  No wonder. I was looking at the photo of the apartment building. I couldn’t even see the drainpipe he was talking about, or the satellite dish; I thought, dear God, I’m hopeless.

                • yalensis says:

                  I see it too now! (the pattern made by the leaves)

                  It looks like a kid or short guy wearing a jersey (with shoulder pads).
                  You can see him from the waist up.
                  He has a mohawk haircut, and a scar down the left side of his face.
                  He even has a nose, and an open mouth. But no eyes.

                • Moscow Exile says:

                  Got it! You mean on the dacha veranda wall, not the Moscow house entrance!

                  Yeah, I can see it now, but it’s just leaves from the blackcurrant – черная смородина [chornaya smorodina] – bushes, which are in the foreground and from which berries Mrs. Exile makes the most wonderful jam.

                  Well, it’s not jam, bur varen’e [варенье]- runny Russian jam that you eat from a bowl with a spoon whilst slurping tea.

                  Well that’s what we do: don’t know whether our “gopniki” neighbours do this.

                • colliemum says:

                  It’s called ‘compote’, not ‘runny jam’, peasant!
                  😉
                  The black currants look very more-ish, though.

                • et al says:

                  Welcome… to my hallucinatory world my friends!

                  Magic carpet ride anyone?

                • Moscow Exile says:

                  It most certainly is not compote!

                  Russians make compote and call it “kompot” [компот]:

                  Компот

                  Varenye [варенье], on the other hand, is jam but with little pectin. It’s sticky and more runny than jam, but it isn’t compote.

                  Russian “jam” or “varenye”:

                  That’s exactly what Mrs. Exile does with our strawberries and gooseberries and blackcurrants and blackberries and rasberries and plums.

            • marknesop says:

              Actually, if you are referring to Jim, although he is an American he actually also lives in Moscow, where he works as a translator. Check out the “about” page on “Russia Without BS”, and you will find his manifesto. Had I read it in advance I would have known the question about whether I lived in Russia and speak Russian was a loaded one, as it is one of his core beliefs that if you do not live in Russia and speak Russian like a native (or a translator) it is impossible for you to know anything real about it. Oh, and unless your name is Moscow Exile, in which case the immediate assumption is that you are a liar (“…even if I believed you…”) who is farting through silk thanks to his wife’s cushy job at the FSB headquarters. Oh, unless you’re John Schindler, who “gets it” even though he does not live in Russia or speak Russian. Gee – this rule is turning out to have more exceptions than tenets.

              • et Al says:

                Actually, if you are referring to Jim, although he is an American he actually also lives in Moscow,

                Maybe the kind of person who in a different time would be out in the Raj administering the British Empire and knowing the local lingo, living in a bungalow with an attractive native cleaner and sit outside as the sun goes down towards dusk with a tumbler of the finest Scottish whiskey or scotch, or when no one was looking, gin? It’s the damned moral superiority that is foisted upon one when one is surrounded all day by savages (or гопники) and as much as one would like to treat all man equal and like a brother, they are simply below one and far below one’s station. One must make sacrifices to pull these savages up by they boot laces!

                Or simply put, American exceptionalism !

                • marknesop says:

                  Maybe, but I didn’t get that sense at all. He seemed to me more like one of those know-it-alls who has a circle of friends who all despise Putin, and get together for a few drinks in the kitchen and bitch about the government. Maybe kreakly types, maybe not. But nevertheless we often get that kind of story from guys like Fred Weir, who sees all sorts of dissent in some little town he visits and then projects it onto the country as a whole.

              • Moscow Exile says:

                Yes, Jim’s the fellow’s name.

                He automatically assumed that I was a Westerner who, although on a low salary as compared to what I would be earning doing the same task in the West (as no doubt he is), I am still earning much more than do Russians doing the same work and, therefore, live a life of comparative comfort when one considers the thraldom and exploitative drudgery of the natives.

                I told him he had arrived at an unfounded conclusion, that I, in fact, am paid an average salary earned by Russians in Moscow, namely 60,000 rubles a month.

                I did not pursue the dialogue because, being unable to go into his if-you-like-it-so-much-why-don’t-you-live-there mode, he just harumphed that I would learn the error of my ways with the downfall of the Empire of Evil, which was a certainty – or words to that effect, which reaction always makes me wish to reply: “If you hate it here so much, why don’t you fuck off?”

                In short, as has already been pointed out, he is acting and talking like a colonial administrator: he can’t stand the natives but leads a reasonably comfortable life here, although he deems his existence to be a purgatory of sorts, counting the days when he can go on leave in the civilized world. I have met very many like him here. They have a nauseating arrogance towards the natives, amongst whom they have deigned to live. They remind me of those illustration I used to see in schoolbooks of exquisitely dressed 16th century London ladies strolling amongst the mob whilst clutching an orange beneath their noses in order to mask the foetid odour of the great unwashed and their surroundings. It is people such as Jim” whom I long ago heard describing Russians as “Snow Niggers”.

                So I take it “Jim” has, in effect, labelled me a liar after reading my statement of earnings. You see, what I earn does not correlate with his world-view – ergo: I am a liar.

                I’ve experienced that reaction several times already as well – in the expat blogs here. The retort of those who frequent those blogs – mostly “Jim” clones – on hearing my attitude towards Russia and Russians and of my experiences here – in particular, that I have never in the course of a 22-year residence in Russia paid a bribe, nor have I, during that same period, heard it suggested that I do so – is that I can’t be a businessman. My response was always that I had never claimed to be one, that I am not here on the make, that I live here: Russia is my home.

                By the way, the 60,000 ruble monthly salary that I earn is the staring salary for a motor-man on the Moscow metro. They were offering 58,000 for this job about a year ago. There are always ads for this work pasted up inside of metro carriages. It mustn’t be an attractive job. I suppose it isn’t – driving back and forth along the same tunnel all day and in three shifts. Pays the rent though.

        • Tim Owen says:

          You live in that shit hole? C’mon, stop kidding yourself.

          You married for love obviously. Admit it.

          Regards to Mrs Exile.

      • marknesop says:

        I wonder why they built it on such a funny angle? It looks like it is going to tip over. On the plus side, the balcony must have great drainage.

        • Moscow Exile says:

          It’s not built on an angle, it’s the way the street-level Google Planet Earth picture turned out: the building is in as perfect proportion as is the Parthenon.

          🙂

          • Moscow Exile says:

            Is this better?

            • Moscow Exile says:

              Absolutely frightful living conditions, as I’m sure you’ll all agree. And it’s the same everywhere in lands that once existed in thralldom under the Mongol-Tatar-Finno-Ugric yoke.

            • marknesop says:

              Much. Amazing that they fixed it so fast, probably done with slave labour. Lovely garden, I am partial to greenery and flowers myself, and don’t like even apartment buildings to look too urban.

              • Moscow Exile says:

                The neighbour wearing a red blouse that you can just see through the foliage and who is sitting near the entrance created that garden. She decorated it with old thrown-away children’s soft toys and bits and bobs – discarded things that she had found lying around, which made it interesting for the local toddlers as they wandered along the narrow footpaths that she had also made around the flower beds.

                That’s my wife’s ancient guitar you can see hanging on a tree. Mrs. Exile chucked it away one day in the local garbage skip, and the next day it appeared hanging on that tree.

                That garden was all our neighbour’s own work. She was a widow and lived in the ground-floor corner flat next to the garden. She definitely had green fingers. She moved into that flat about 10 years ago and worked in that garden every day, every season, except for when snow lay on the ground.

                Unfortunately, she got killed 2 years ago: she was knocked down by a truck on the very busy main road near where we live.

                The rest of our neighbours have continued to tend for the garden that she had laid out with truly loving care.

                Typical gopniki behaviour!

    • Moscow Exile says:

      Hulme Crescents was a large housing development situated in the Hulme district of Manchester, England. The scheme was the largest public housing development in Europe, encompassing 3,284 deck-access homes and capacity for over 13,000 people.

      It gained notoriety as one of the worst public housing schemes in British history and was marred by serious construction and design errors. The problems were so bad the large housing scheme was short-lived and demolition on The Crescents began in 1991 – just 19 years after it was constructed in 1972.

      Opening in 1972, the housing scheme was deemed to be unsuitable for families within two years due to design flaws. By 1984 the Crescents had been abandoned by Manchester City Council and they stopped taking rents. The Crescents soon became a creative yet dystopian enclave of the city attracting crime as well as Bohemian subcultures.

      Flaws in the construction process, inadequate heating, pest infestation and unsafe design were among some of the problems occupants faced. The Crescents were described by the Architects Journal as “Europe’s worst housing stock… hideous system-built deck-access block which gave Hulme its unsavoury reputation”. The Hulme Crescents had implications for new housing in Manchester and signalled the death knell for the ‘Streets in the sky’ idea that had been proposed throughout the 1960s and 1970s in the United Kingdom. The Crescents were demolished in 1994. – Wiki

      Love the way some dickhead to Wiki describes the shithole as a “creative enclave”.

  16. PaulR says:

    The ‘send arms to Ukraine’ debate is hotting up in the land of my neighbours to the south: http://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/?fa=58959; http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2015/02/03-why-arming-ukrainians-is-a-bad-idea-shapiro; http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-folly-and-futility-of-arming-ukraine/

    One of the interesting things about this is that it appears to be the Democratic Party establishment which is leading the charge.

  17. et Al says:

    Brussels scum:

    EU Observer: EU blames ‘separatist offensive’ for Ukraine violence
    https://euobserver.com/tickers/127496
    EU foreign relations chief Mogherini has said the upsurge in violence in east Ukraine, where a shell hit a hospital in Donetsk on Wednesday claiming more civilian lives, was “provoked by the continued separatist offensive”. She called for a three-day truce to help civilians leave the town of Debaltseve.
    ###

    So there you have it, from the spokeshole of the EEAS, whatever happens cannot be the fault of Kiev because “Da Rebels started it, innit?”. George Orwell would be proud.

    Backing that up and sheer effrontery, Eurotwat extraordinaire, Maros Sefcovic, flies through the jungle, balls a-swingin’ to lay down sum heavy trut’:

    EU Observer: EU says Gazprom’s Turkey plan ‘won’t work’
    https://euobserver.com/foreign/127499
    …Maros Sefcovic told press in Brussels on Wednesday (4 February) the project – Turkish Stream – “won’t work” because of “simple maths” on supply and demand and because of contractual obligations…

    …But Sefcovic noted that Turkey itself needs just 15bcm while countries in south-east Europe need a further 15 only.

    “So why do you need to ship more than 60bcm and tell the Europeans: ‘OK. Now build your pipelines to the Turkish border’?”, he said.

    “It’s simply not viable to suddenly change everything”, he added on switching from Ukraine to Turkey.

    “This won’t work and I cannot see how this will be the final solution. I think we’ll have to come back to a debate on what should be the future of this project”.

    Sefcovic also said Gazprom is tied to a different model of gas deliveries in contracts with EU distributors.

    He said several EU-based companies “confirmed” to him “there are very clear [contractual] articles about the place of delivery and this is not the Greek-Turkish border”.

    He complained about Gazprom’s lack of respect for EU clients…

    …But despite the feeling, he noted EU states won’t agree to joint purchases of Russian gas because western countries want to stick to “market-based principles” even if it means higher rates for easterly EU states…
    ####

    The guy needs a hair cut. Here’s euractiv’s take:

    euractiv: Šefčovič: Turkish Stream ‘will not work’
    http://www.euractiv.com/sections/energy/sefcovic-turkish-stream-will-not-work-311836
    EurActiv asked Šefčovič why Russia wants to bring gas to the Greek border, and whether this is linked to a scenario in which Greece would cease to abide by EU law.

    Šefčovič avoided a direct answer, but said that when he was in Moscow on his first trip in his new capacity, on 14 January, the only Russian reasoning had been the need to bypass Ukraine, because the country was unreliable, and that the rehabilitation of its gas grid would be too costly.

    He added that he didn’t agree with this reasoning, because Kyiv was committed to energy reform, and that the EU and other financial institutions were going to provide funding for the modernisation of the gas transmission system. Moreover, he said that it was not possible that the current volume of transit of Russian gas of over 100 bcm could be immediately rerouted.

    In other news, the Russian Duma is trolling Germany big time:

    EU Observer: Russian MPs look to WWII reparations from Germany
    https://euobserver.com/tickers/127486
    Russian MPs are setting up a task force to estimate German damages to Russia during WWII with view to demanding financial compensation worth up to €4 trillion, reports Izvestia. “Germany continues to inflict economic damage to Russia, by extending EU-trade sanctions,” said nationalist MP Mikhail Degyaterov, who proposed the initiative.

    And this story which the Pork Pie News Networks really aren’t very interested in:

    euractiv: Humanitarian situation in Ukraine becoming ‘untenable for millions of people’
    http://www.euractiv.com/sections/europes-east/humanitarian-situation-ukraine-become-untenable-millions-people-311786
    ..UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein called on “States and all those with influence in the region” to take measures to ensure full compliance with the Minsk agreements, which in his words have a direct bearing on the human rights situation in the east of the country.

    “Bus stops and public transport, marketplaces, schools and kindergartens, hospitals and residential areas have become battlegrounds in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine – in clear breach of international humanitarian law which governs the conduct of armed conflicts,” Zeid said.

    “The death toll now exceeds 5,358 people, and another 12,235 have been wounded since mid-April last year. In just the three weeks up to February 1, at least 224 civilians have been killed and 545 wounded. Any further escalation will prove catastrophic for the 5.2 million people living in the midst of conflict in eastern Ukraine,” the UN official added…

    …“The protection of civilians by all parties to the conflict must be of the utmost priority,” Zeid said, adding: “All violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law must be thoroughly investigated and perpetrators must be promptly brought to justice.”

    The High Commissioner also expressed concern about the implications of the harsh winter months on civilians in conflict-affected areas, with shortages of food and water, and power cuts. The plight of these civilians has been compounded by Ukrainian government decisions that have resulted in further restrictions on the freedom of movement and socio-economic isolation. The prolongation of the conflict would make the humanitarian situation untenable for millions of people, Zeid stressed.

    “The public declarations by representatives of the armed groups, rejecting the ceasefire agreement and vowing to scale up the offensive are extremely dangerous and deeply worrying,” Zeid stated. “They add to the terrifying predicament of the civilians who are trapped in the areas, and the total breakdown of law and order. I urge all States with influence to work together to ensure that parties to the conflict immediately cease hostilities and abide by earlier ceasefire decisions.”…

    • marknesop says:

      More whistling past the graveyard from the EU – they are shit-scared, and they should be; no pipelines built by the time Turk Stream goes online, no gas for you. They seem to think they can just say “This won’t work and I cannot see how this will be the final solution. I think we’ll have to come back to a debate on what should be the future of this project”, and Russa will go “What the hell were we thinking? Of course, this is all wrong – let’s talk about it some more”. Debate is what the EU does best – it debated 9 years between the first talks on Nabucco and the planned start date of construction, 2002 to 2011, and then debated for a further 2 years before abandoning it in 2013 without an inch of it ever being built. That must be why they fancy themselves expert in whether or not it will “work”; because they have so much experience operating international pipelines. Do they not imagine the Russian government discussed the project in detail with industry before committing to cancellation of South Stream? Very likely the alternate idea of Turk Stream came from industry.

      The EU is like the Saudis – slow learners. Have they not grasped yet that when Putin says Russia means to do something, it has already long passed the discussion phase and is not just throwing provocative comments out there, waiting for the EU to come to the negotiating table? Here’s how it’s going to work: in about two years, as soon as Turk Stream is complete, gas transit through Ukraine is going to shut down. If Europe did not build any pipelines to the new hub, it’s going to be burning Grandma’s armoire that winter unless the USA rides to the rescue with a flood of cheap LNG. The EU would like to believe Russia will threaten but ultimately keep the gas going through Ukraine while the EU debates the issue into the next century. There is no avoidance in delay.

      Here’s Maros Sefcovic’s CV: the guy is a lifelong student/politician who has apparently never had a job, and what he knows about oil and gas pipelines you could drop in your eye and it would not make you blink.

      • james says:

        i used a poor analogy on moa to define what the ongoing and consistent msm and western agenda is here.. it goes like this… every time i hit my sister, my sister gets in trouble from my parents. every time anything happens in ukraine according to the west it is always russias fault.. any time anything bad is happening in eastern ukraine, it is always the rebels fault.. the western response via the msm or what substitutes for it’s political leadership rationale is “up is down and down is up” straight from the george orwell playbook…

      • et Al says:

        The EU is like the Saudis – slow learners.

        I would say that like any horse designed by committee, they are incapable of doing anything properly within a reasonable time frame. You have the project itself, the money and then the politics where every state wants a piece of the action for their own favorite business, cartel etc.

        Remember the great unbundling of european formerly state owned telecoms companies that was supposed to foster greater competition and not protect old monopolies. UK it is still British Telecom, in Germany it is still Deutsche Telekom, In Spain it is still Telefonica ad nauseam. Now private, now rebranded national champions.

        The problem was, somebody had to go first and dismantle their monopoly but if they did that, then another country’s monopoly might buy it up and take over others. So, it never really took off as the Commission planned it. OTOH, it has only been the Commission threatening the telcos (not member states) which is why trans-national mobile/cell/gsm tariffs have been significantly reduced and will soon be non-existent.

        The Commission is very good at making plans that don’t work in reality, especially when countries either ignore them or reply Mañana! Mañana which is what quite a few do. And now they can’t do anything without the properly stupid European Parliament because everything is now co-decision.

        The Saudis are quite happy in their Hollywood version of the 5th century funding global terrorism to be more like them whereas Brussels is full of fat dreamers who have f*#$%f up all their big plans such as the euro and the european economy.

    • marknesop says:

      “Rather than becoming a co-belligerent in this civil war that is not our war, why not have the United States assume the role of the honest broker who brings it to an end. Isn’t that how real peace prizes are won?”

      That would have been the way to go while Maidan was going on, perhaps. Far, far past too late for that now; no party in the potential agreement trusts the United States as far as it can throw it. Nice sentiment, and I always did find Pat Buchanan as a rare voice of American rationality, but things will now go where they will, and the very best the USA could do would be to stay out of it. And they won’t do that, of course. No major world event can progress without the input of the Indispensable Nation. Likewise, what would the USA broker for an agreement, even if Russia, Novorossiya and Kiev would all accept in good faith that the USA was being completely (ha, ha: sorry) impartial? Some sort of federalization deal whereby Novorossiya would still be overall ruled by Kiev and pay its taxes to Kiev, in return for such support as Kiev deigned to give it? I can’t see either party agreeing to that. Meanwhile, the USA seems still to think that it can pull back from the brink of deteriorating relations with Russia, when in reality relations are in free fall and are not repairable with just a “hey, sorry”.

  18. ThatJ says:

    Some updates from mp.net and twitter:

    http://twitter.com/southfronteng/status/563015393875595264

    Strelkov:
    [Separatists’] advance is practically stopped on all directions. Ukraine Army launches counter-offensives everywhere. My personal grades (based on my incomplete data): operation planning – “C-“, implementing – “D”

    Colonel Cassad:
    “The difficulties stem from the lack of offensive forces and the stubborn resistance of the enemy.”

    http://news.yahoo.com/russian-mother-accused-treason-returns-prison-hell-113533200.html
    Moscow (AFP) – A Russian mother of seven accused of treason for allegedly informing Ukraine about possible troop movements told AFP on Wednesday she felt as if she had “returned from hell” after two weeks in jail.

    Not everything is as simple as it seems firstly. Not any victime of totalitarian regime in Russia™ is as innocent as it is claimed.

    From what is known she’ve been watching this unit for quite a long time, several months, was talking to officers of that unit during “occasionally” simultaneous trips in minibus taxi, was asking question to them about unit, its personel, technicals. And this unit is high security radiotechnical installation, not some humble conscript party. Actually the grinder began rolling after commander of the unit reported about her asking all those questions. Several computers, filled notepads, mobile phones and credit cards were found in her home during the search. Apparentely this call to UA embasy was not the first.

    Advancing Ukraine rebels appear to capture frontline town

    (Reuters) – Pro-Russian rebels appeared to be in full control on Wednesday of one of the towns that has been a principal target of their advance, as they attempt to surround a nearby garrison of Ukrainian forces.

    The apparent fall of the town of Vuhlehirsk would be a setback for Kiev, which has been trying to defend it and the larger neighboring town of Debaltseve, an important rail hub, from encirclement by advancing rebels.

    A military spokesman in the capital said Vuhlehirsk was still contested. But Reuters journalists on the ground were freely able to enter about 60 percent of it and saw no sign of areas controlled by Ukrainian troops. Rebels patrolled casually and were in a boisterous mood, using positions in the town to fire artillery on Debaltseve.

    Interesting historical post from US Embassy in Kiev about Warren Harding. Suits well for all talkings which present Porky as a traitor claiming that he screwed up everything. Perfect scapegoat. His ouster woud mean that this marasmus in Kiev will continue and looneys would continue to wage war.

      • PaulR says:

        Initially, I thought that was Luke …

        • Moscow Exile says:

          I remember reading years ago that he had a big drawer in a cabinet in the Oval Room where his shag for the day hid whenever anyone wanted to enter the office. Harding’s wife, however, was too quick in making her entry one day and caught him in the act.

          • marknesop says:

            Mrs. Harding was probably grateful that someone else was able to take up the slack, otherwise she would not be able to get him off her long enough to make dinner. I read somewhere that it is dangerous to slice carrots with a sharp knife whilst someone is rogering you from behind, there just really is no safe way to do both.

        • et Al says:

          Luke neither has ‘The Force’ nor the foresight. That’s why he is a journalist that makes stuff up and why Luke Skywalker is made up but is a thoroughly good egg and hero. Opposites!

        • marknesop says:

          I was thinking that it is unfortunate the dates don’t match up (he died in 1923), or he might have been Tin-Tin’s father, what with his putting it about with wild abandon as was apparently his wont. However, Tin-Tin is but a sprog, far too young to have been born in 1923 or earlier, even if you factor in the youthful appearance bestowed by having lived a life of virtue as he has.

          Astounding that no movie has ever been made about this earthy and sensual president. You don’t see anything like that these days, of course, and the present occupant of the Oval Office ensures his penis does not get him in such trouble by buttoning his shirt collar firmly around it each morning.

        • patient observer says:

          Not what I remember from American History classes in high school – He was most noted for coining the word “normalcy” although Wikipedia claims that the word was already in use at the time. In any event he seems to be a bigger dickhead than Lyndon Johnson who was allegedly quite notorious with his two secretaries, one black, the other white, who took private dictation with him. Perhaps that experience contributed towards his support for civil rights for black Americans (semi-serious)-

          Of all US presidents in recent history, only Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon likely had a relatively scandal-free private life from my understanding. I don’t know enough about George Bush I in that regard. One must assume George Bush II was a cocaine-snorting party animal. Bill Clinton was a red-neck good-ol-boy getin it whenever he could – no class at all.

  19. Moscow Exile says:

    How’s the hunger strike going on, Nadiya?

    Before:

    After:


    Published on 28 Jan 2015

    • marknesop says:

      What a crock of shit. Nadia Savchenko is a fighter pilot like I am a Formula One driver. I suppose in a pinch I could drive a Formula One car – I mean, I can drive a car, right? How different can it be? And Nadia Savchenko qualified on fixed-wing trainers, so I guess in a pinch she could fly a fighter. But she wasn’t a fighter pilot, and the Ukie Air Force used her in helicopters as a navigator, not a pilot. Why does the west always have to glamorize its favourites out of all recognition? Just like Sergei Magnitsky, “the best tax lawyer in Russia”, who was actually an accountant, not a lawyer.

      And it’s clear that PACE would pass a resolution that made Jeffrey Dahmer the King of Montenegro if it could thereby enforce its will on Russia; Nadia Savchenko has no qualifications whatsoever as a parliamentarian and I hope Russia will tell them to pound sand.

      • Moscow Exile says:

        I got an email off a smartarse UK acquaintance the other day asking me if my “friends” were still starving her.

        And they think Russians are all shit-for-brains who believe everything they read in Pravda.

  20. ThatJ says:

    EU Observer: Greece to end controversial anti-migrant operation

    Greek immigration minister Tasia Christodoulopoulou has told left.gr she will halt the Xenios Zeus police operation designed to curb irregular migration and close migrant reception camps, infamous for their poor conditions. “These camps are incompatible with humanitarianism, the rule of law, and any sense of reason,” she said.

    ***
    So Greece will stop the anti-invasion operations because we know that for Trotskyites and their sponsors borders don’t matter, especially European borders, and now anyone will be able to sneak in with impunity. Those who have been detained will be freed to roam the streets.

    What does this signal for millions of people in the south who nurture the idea of raiding Europe through the Greek borders?

    A Trotskyite controlling immigration matters, what a disaster. Immigration camps are against the rule of law? Is it not legal to detain illegal aliens? Is sovereignty “illegal”? Is it legal for illegal aliens to infiltrate your country? Is it not reasonable to avoid this development, because it may attract literally millions of people in the south because of the clear leniency displayed by the state? Or am I being fooled and this is actually part of the plan?

    I still think that Syriza is a deception, despite some slight hopes that I had in the beginning.

    Some articles about the aftermath of the 2015 Greek elections:

    Τhe Revolution Is Over! Varoufakis: “We will continue the privatizations”

    One of the first announcements of the SYRIZA/Independent Greeks “SANEL” government was to follow Golden Dawn’s line, meaning to stop the country’s fall through prevention of privatizations. This hopeful revolution of the new government lasted however just one day.

    https://xaameriki.wordpress.com/2015/01/31/%CF%84he-revolution-is-over-varoufakis-we-shall-continue-the-privatizations/

    Citizenship and Nation: SYRIZA Plan To Grant Amnesty To Illegal Immigrants

    Not even a week after the ballots were cast, Syriza has rescinded on most of its anti-memorandum and anti-European promises; the sole reason Greeks voted for them. Syriza, however, appears dedicated to its anti-Greek globalist platform, and has confidence that its “far-right” partner Independent Greeks will support them. The Greek constitution clearly limits citizenship to members of the Hellenic race, but Syriza and George Soros funded lunatic Left fringe groups within its bloc believe this is “racist” and archaic. They have recently reiterated their plan to extend citizenship to illegal immigrant minors who have been born in Greece or living in Greece for an appreciable amount of time, which is a semantical and “humanistic” way of granting complete amnesty since I doubt they will deport a child’s illegal immigrant parents. The overwhelming majority of Greek people have rejected such an unconstitutional proposal multiple times, but Syriza seeks to try and force it through anyway.

    https://xaameriki.wordpress.com/2015/01/30/citizenship-and-nation-syriza-plan-to-grant-amnesty-to-illegal-immigrants/

    New Deputy Minister Tassos Kourakis Wants To Tax Christians and Abolish National Parades

    In an interview with radio station Alpha, the “patriotic” Kourakis expressed that when SYRIZA comes to power, national parades would be abolished, stating that “we will replace them with other events”.

    At the “Church and Left” conference back in early 2013, Kourakis proposed a special new tax for paying the salaries of the clergy. The now Deputy Minister of Education proposed that those who voluntarily declare themselves as Orthodox Christians should be the only ones to pay this new tax.

    In 2011, Kourakis’ “lovely” family values shined. His sons were arrested for being in possession of molotov cocktails. Kourakis asked his PASOK buddy Vougias for a special favor, the favor was granted and his “lovely” boys were released.

    This is the man given the task of educating the Greek youth…

    https://xaameriki.wordpress.com/2015/01/30/new-deputy-minister-tassos-kourakis-wants-to-tax-christians-and-abolish-national-parades/

    SYRIZA Immigration Minister: “We will give citizenship to immigrants who were born or grew up here.”

    Previously PASOK and ND appointed everyone and everything, creating the dysfunctional state we are experiencing today. It seems SYRIZA keeps going in this direction to give illegal immigrants voting rights in order to reduce the influence of the Greeks in the election results and create a distortion of the popular will.

    https://xaameriki.wordpress.com/2015/01/29/syriza-immigration-minister-we-will-give-citizenship-to-immigrants-who-were-born-or-grew-up-here/

    VIDEO: SYRIZA’s Economics Minister “We will pay our private creditors to the last penny.”

    Watch as the tough talk of “Tearing up the Memorandum” or “Madam Merkel” is nowhere to be found, instead now there is phrases such as “Our European partners” and more.

    “Radical Left?”

    https://xaameriki.wordpress.com/2015/01/28/video-syrizas-economics-minister-we-will-pay-our-private-creditors-to-the-last-penny/

    The articles above are all post-election. The one below is from 2013…

    Ex-Minister Of Justice Antonis Roupakiotis: Persecutions Of Golden Dawn “On Instruction From Jewish-American Organizations”

    As the ridiculous case brought against Golden Dawn by the Samaras-Tsipras-Venizelos bloc rapidly dissolves , political whistle-blowers and criminal law specialists are beginning to expose the Greek state’s illegal actions on behalf of foreign powers. Speaking on SKAI TV, the former minister of Justice and Democratic Left MP (!) Antonis Roupakiotis, spoke out against the vile conspiracy against Golden Dawn. Despite being ideologically completely against Golden Dawn, he is the only politician with the courage to publicly condemn the illegal political persecution of the Greek nationalist movement. At a time when pawns on the Left and the Right are expected to collaborate with the status quo, Mr Roupakiotis chose to tell the truth. He reported :

    “Jewish American and Greek-American organizations [HALC, AHEPA] were coming to Greece and pressuring (the government) about the Golden Dawn party. Clearly, this played a major role (in the action against them). Obviously the Prime Minister had to say something to them” said Mr. Roupakiotis, referring to the statements of the Greek premier earlier in the week which reassured these organizations that he would crackdown on GD.

    “On January 1, 2014 Greece assumes the presidency of the EU, and there was mounting pressure from the European Commission against the Golden Dawn party,” added Roupakiotis, implying that the decision to silence and undermine the political expression of Golden Dawn was dictated from the United States and by the European commission.

    It is worth noting, despite the explosive nature of these allegations by his former minister, Samaras has refused to answer. Of course, what was said has been known all along as common knowledge. The detention of N. Michaloliakos is based on absolutely no incriminating evidence, while nobody has yet to investigate Samaras’ phone calls to and from the United States and Brussels. Will the laws of telephone privacy be violated in that case, in order for the Greek people to see who their Prime Minister is really serving? Samaras and his collaborators, however, will simply try to brush away the weighty allegations of Roupakiotis. Greeks now understand the conspiracy against Golden Dawn is based on falsehoods and is frankly ridiculous. Very soon the lies will collapse and the truth will rise above the sycophants.

    https://xaameriki.wordpress.com/2013/10/06/ex-minister-of-justice-antonis-roupakiotis-persecutions-of-golden-dawn-on-instruction-from-jewish-american-organizations-%CE%BA%CE%B1%CE%BC%CE%AF%CE%B1-%CE%B1%CF%80%CE%AC%CE%BD/

    • yalensis says:

      Dear ThatJ:
      What evidence do you have that Greek government official Tasia Christodoulopoulou can be labelled a “Trotskyite”?

      Have you seen any of her writings or pamphlets, or anything else indicating her political ideology?

      • yalensis says:

        P.S. here is a definition of a Trotskyist. It’s not very good, but better than nothing for a quickie search/post.

        In order to label Tasia a Trotskyist, then she has to possess at a minimum the following characteristics:

        -A proponent of Marxism
        -Labels self a “Marxist-Leninist” as opposed to, say, a “socialist” or “social-democrat”. The wiki entry is wrong about this point, when it says Trotskyists oppose Marxism-Leninism. That is simply a factual mistake. Orthodox Trotskyists consider themselves to be the TRUE Marxist-Leninists, and Stalinism to have been the deviation.
        -Criticize Stalinism for promoting “socialism in just one country” (as opposed to a swath of the industrialized world), and also for forming Popular Fronts with bourgeois parties.
        -Believe in the concept of “permanent revolution”, i.e., treat the capitalists as a globalized class, and keep on overthrowing them.

        There are other bullet points too, but the above are the bare minimum.

        Does Tasia hold to above bullet points? Has she written a pamphlet or manifesto?
        I have not seen anything like that on a google search.
        She might possibly consider herself to be a Trotskyite – I have no idea.
        Perhaps she is a Maoist? Or an anarchist? Or a social-democrat?
        If she doesn’t consider herself to be a Trotskyite, then it is unfair for you to label her as such.

    • ThatJ says:

      @yalensis

      I have read enough about the party, its anti-Greek policies and the type of organizations that welcomed influential party delegates in the US. I come from a different ideological background than you, and I have a pretty good grasp of what to expect from the US-mandated line on things like multiracialism, the gay lobby, mass immigration, support for (or lack of action against) Jewish nationalism, legislation curtailing freedom of speech, etc, so I know what to expect from the likes of Tasia Christodoulopoulou and her “radical” leftist party.

      The Trotskyites are an unique bunch, they don’t have much in common with the Stalinists, although both are in theory “communists”. The Trotskyites were (and are) obsessed with the construction of culture, which surpasses even economics in importance. Indeed, Trotsky decried the reversal by Stalin of the “social revolution” that his Jewish pals in the US envisioned for the Soviet Union (and successfully implemented in the US, though by different means). The Trotskyite “red diaper” Jews in the US were leading the post-WWII counter-cultural revolution, and, unsurprisingly, they later became strong opponents of the Soviet Union, especially after the SU’s instance on Israel became clear. The Jews may hate the traditional society of the goyim, they may despise the nationalism of the goyim — but for Israel their views turn 180º. Trotskyites are alternatively called the New Left and today they are influential cultural arbiters in the US, and thanks to America’s hegemonic power, their brand of leftism came to dominate the Western world, especially those countries which have been under the American boot since WWII. Former Soviet Union members were spared from this pathological culture, but they may catch up in the coming two or three decades.

      • yalensis says:

        Dear ThatJ:
        As per usual, you rant on like a broken cuckoo clock, and have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.

        As a matter of fact, most of the “red diaper” Jews in the U.S. were actually Stalinists, not Trotskyists.
        There was a split in the American Communist movement. Some went with Stalin, some went with Trotsky. There were Jews on both sides of the split, depending on their political inclinations.

        When the Soviet Union concluded the Stalin-Ribbentrop truce with Nazi Germany in 1939, the Trotskyist movement, in turn, split into two. A faction led by Max Shachtman felt that they could no longer go along with with the policy of “unconditional military support for the USSR”. Trotsky had argued that, despite his differences with Stalin, and his desire to overthrow Stalin’s government, he still insisted that every good Trotskyist must offer loyal and unconditional MILITARY support to Soviet Union in the case they were invaded, or went to war, against a capitalist country. With Molotov-Ribbentrop, the dominant Jewish faction in the Fourth Internationale, was asked to make a leap of faith and continue to support he Soviet Union, even when it appeared (on the surface) that Soviets were concluding a pact with the mortal enemy of the Jewish people.

        Shachtman found that he could not make this leap, and hence he defected. This set him on the path of eventually leaving the Marxist/socialist movement altogether and becoming a liberal/neo-con type player. (But this evolution did not occur overnight, it took many years to complete.) Shachtman was just one of many, who followed this same path.

        In actually, Shachtman’s break with Trotsky was prophesied even a year BEFORE Molotov-Ribbentrop, when Shachtman wrote a pamphlet negating the (Hegelian) philosophy (underlying Marxism) of dialectical-materialism. This was the first crack in the ice, as Ostap Bender would say, and from there, it was only a hop skip and jump for Shachtman to find his way back into the American political mainstream.

        Then, as the wiki entry details:
        Following the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (August 23, 1939, a non-aggression treaty between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union), the combined Invasion of Poland (September 1 – October 6, 1939) resulted in German and Soviet occupation of Poland. Inside the SWP, Shachtman and James Burnham argued in response that the SWP should drop its traditional position of unconditional defense of the USSR in war. The differences intensified with the outbreak of the Winter War (November 30, 1939 – March 12, 1940), when the Soviet Union invaded Finland. Shachtman and his allies broke with Cannon and the majority of the SWP leadership, which along with Trotsky continued to uphold unconditional critical defense of the USSR.

        A bitter dispute opened up in the SWP. The case against Burnham and Shachtman’s position is reflected in books by Cannon[12] and Trotsky.[13] Trotsky was especially critical of Shachtman’s role as a member of the International Executive Committee of the Fourth International. At the start of World War II, the Fourth International was placed under the control of a resident committee formed by IEC members who happened to be in New York City. Shachtman’s tendency held a majority of the resident IEC. Trotsky and others criticized Shachtman for failing to convene the resident IEC or using its authority to reduce the tensions developing in the SWP.

        A year into the debate, a special convention was held in April 1940. After the April 1940 convention of the SWP, when Shachtman and his supporters on the new Political Committee refused to a vote on a motion pledging each member to abide by the convention decisions, they were expelled from the party. The minority excluded from the SWP represented 40% of its membership and a majority of the youth group. Even before the Workers Party was formally founded, James Burnham resigned from membership and renounced socialism.[14] Many of those who had left the SWP did not join the Workers’ Party: according to George Novack, a member of the Cannon/Trotsky faction, around half did.[15]

        This factional split was a big blow to Trotsky because he lost 40% of his American cadres in one fell swoop, not to mention a majority of the youth group, the most dynamic section of the Party.
        It was these renegade Trotskyists who went on to become liberals and neo-cons in the American political establishment.

        In conclusion: ThatJ, what the hell, you don’t get to claim that you have super-powers or that you can just “sense” when somebody is a Trotskyite!
        Just because you are a psych-O doesn’t mean you are psych-IC – LOL!

        • yalensis says:

          P.S. –
          and I should have added, to this historical summary, the fact that many ex-Stalinists went on to renounce Marxism as well. Which left them to make peace with their own governments and become, depending on the context, a member of a pro-capitalist party. For example, in the U.S., if they wanted to continue being political, then they would have to choose between becoming a Democrat or a Republican.

          One example of a Stalinist gone renegade is Arthur Koestler who was was a German-Hungarian Communist. He went with the Stalinist side of the Stalin-Trotsky split, but then quit communism altogether in 1938, moved to England, and went on to be awarded the OBE for his “anti-totalitarian” writings.
          Koestler was Jewish, of course.

          [from which you, ThatJ, as a Jew-hater, probably deduce that he faked BOTH sets of political views, and was actually a Zionist underneath – LOL!]

          Same thing happened with ex-Maoists. In Germany, I believe, some of them went on to become Greens.

          It’s just a simple fact that when people leave their old convictions behind, they have to find new ones. There is nothing demonic or conspiratorial about that fact. This sort of thing happens with both Jews and non-Jews.

          I haven’t done a statistical study, but my impression is that the ex-Trotskyites DID provide more (American and English) neo-cons than ex-Stalinists or other groups. I would grant that. But that can be explained more by the fact, that the Trotskyists (on average, as a group) were more intellectual than the Stalinists, were better educated, etc. Hence, once they renounced their old views, they had more options as to their career choices. Their level of education and facility with writing, would open up a world of career opportunities in the capitalist political parties. Ex-Marxists also had the cachet of being a former “sinner”, so now can preach fire and brimstone to the congregation, detailing the horrors of totalitarian brainwashing, etc.

    • kat kan says:

      ThatJ
      it is very well known that you cannot believe anything that is on a BLACK website with white writing. If you can find the same information on a normal site, then it’s worth considering.

      • Tim Owen says:

        Hey ThatJ,

        How do you feel about political violence generally?

        It seems to me that your nationalist viewpoint on the world causes you endless trouble. Where does one nation begin and end? In the end we’re all going to have to get along if not in one multi-cultural world then certainly in one – “cleansed” ? multi-national world. How does your viewpoint help you to work to THAT end?

        The Russian official viewpoint to my mind is far more principled and mature than any tawdry nationalist fervour and is rooted in:

        – a rejection of political violence (excepting the right of a legitimate government to defend the constitutional order or the right of a people to defend themselves against political repression if the constitutional order has been overthrown by force and to demand just representation)

        To my mind it is only nationalist to the extent that Russia and the Slavs generally have been singled out for ill treatment by the west because they pose – in the diseased minds of Washington – the only plausible bloc that could pose any kind of even partial challenge to American power. Thus other forms nationalisms and other forms of extremism are fomented AGAINST them whereas their own nationalism – leaving aside the crazies – is a REACTION to being singled out, hypocritically, for exclusion and ill treatment over a period of the last 25 years.

        A direct parallel might be the important order of events in Ukraine: FIRST the constitutional order was violently overthrown and THEN the events in Crimea unfolded. The west moved the goal posts and so the Crimeans and Russia moved the pitch.

        You are obviously wedded to your racialist, nationalist viewpoint. Honestly I find it obscures every important moral feature of the issues that the Ukraine raises. It also raises innumerable irrelevant, contradictory issues that obscure the clarity of the Russian position.

        Of course maybe that’s a feature rather than a bug, no?

  21. ThatJ says:

    Some updates from twitter:

    Let’s not forget the ever-invading Russians:

    Moscow Readying a Massive Russian Invasion of Ukraine, Golts Says

    Staunton, February 2 — The Kremlin’s calls for a ceasefire and calls by the pro-Russian militants in the Donbass for a mass mobilization are all designed to distract attention from Moscow’s preparations for a massive invasion of Ukraine sometime in the coming days, according to Russian military analyst Aleksandr Golts.

    And that conclusion is strengthened, he suggests, by something else: Moscow is moving troops from other regions of the Russian Federation and even from troubled areas of Central Asia toward the Ukrainian border in order to have sufficient forces for a large-scale invasion.

    In a Yezhednevny Zhurnal commentary February 3, Golts says that even as Vladimir Putin’s press secretary declared that the Kremlin leader is “extremely concerned about the development of the situation in the Donbas,” TASS in the same news item reported that a Kremlin aide had said Moscow can understand why the militants are calling for a general mobilization.

    “The leaders of the self-proclaimed republics understand” what Moscow is saying, Golts says. They too are for talks but “only if” they get to keep the territory they have seized, and since that doesn’t seem to be on the table, they will continue to fight – and with the support of Moscow as well.

    Golts notes in passing that the militants are unlikely to be able to raise the 100,000 troops they have promised to bring to the colors within ten days. There simply aren’t enough people under their control to allow them to do so: If they did, they would be drafting a larger share of the population than even Stalin did during World War II.

    That in turn means, the independent Russian military analyst says, that these “games at mobilization” are being launched “in order to mask preparation for another broad-scale introduction of Russian forces.” The militants and Moscow did much the same thing last summer, and thus it appears likely a new invasion is in the offing.

    http://www.interpretermag.com/moscow-readying-a-massive-russian-invasion-of-ukraine-golts-says/

    • marknesop says:

      Alexander Golts is an idiot. He is a stellar example of the big-forehead think-tanker type the west worships, like his fellow idiot Pavel Felgenhauer. Both just float crazy theories constantly, in the certain knowledge that should they ever – by pure chance – be right, they will be golden forever. Yet more evidence that when western news sources say “expert”, they mean “guy who tells us what we want to hear”. This article has a pretty good collection of them; as well as Golts, we hear from Mark Galeotti (the only one who said anything sensible), the Royal United Services Institute (who opine that nobody knows what Putin will do, not even Putin, which is extraordinarily helpful), Vladislav Zubok (who says Putin is just using the time-tested KGB tactic of driving up and down the border looking menacing, to try and frighten the Ukies out of their shorts), and Cliff Kupchan, who says it will be a “tank-free invasion”. Golts says Russia will not be able to hold the new border at Crimea with a force of less than 140,000. By far the biggest idiot of the lot.

      • ThatJ says:

        You know, Putin cannot lose this gamble. I hope that he’ll actually send troops if the rebels prove unable to hold the front.

        The Zionist cabal in Washington and their frontmen in Kiev will not spare Ukrainian lives. Today it was announced that females will be called to serve in the army. I have said previously that women’s lives are more worthy than the lives of men in a society because men’s sperm is cheap. A man can, in theory, have hundreds of children a year. For the woman it doesn’t matter how many partners she has, she won’t have more than a pregnancy a year. No society can lose young women, especially Ukraine with its awful birthrate, to war.

        The United States is determined to fight to the last Ukrainian. If Russia intervenes, I think they will depose the junta in Kiev and hold other key cities (like Odessa and Kharkov) so that the junta command falls indefinitely. Then they’ll assemble in the Rada a more sane government, which they will have to protect for some (perhaps long) time, unfortunately. What is undeniable is that the government in Kiev is very vulnerable. What is happening is that the people are afraid to do anything and so the orders of Kiev are carried away in other regions with the help of battalions and RS thugs, who, by the way, were in part sent from Kiev and Western Ukraine to reinforce the local thugs and bring fear to the locals, including the politicians who simply have to tow the line — those that have not been replaced by junta loyalists, that is.

        A few surgical strikes on the military factories and taking Kiev, Odessa and Kharkov will put an end to this war. Otherwise it will go on and on and on.

        Public opinion in Ukraine is AGAINST the war, and it is a war that is coming closer and closer to the common family. I think that whatever put an end to the war will be welcomed by the majority of Ukrainians, who will breathe a sigh of relief.

        By the time the rebel forces are depleted, which will take months, a climate of fear of forced conscription, stories of people being dragged from the streets and forced to fight, husbands, brothers and sons dying for a coup that they didn’t want and all the other bad news will create a very strong anti-war mood — a war that the average Ukrainian feel powerless to stop — and a swift Russian response may come as a blessing to these people.

        This is my take on it.

        Just as the Jews had their Churchill…

        … so do they have the “patriotic” Porky and Yats. This patriotism can evaporate in a matter of years after victory is secured, as the case of England and the Anglosphere as a whole showed.

        • colliemum says:

          “Just as the Jews had their Churchill…”

          Might you be persuaded to elaborate just a little bit?

        • ThatJ says:

          @colliemum

          I’ll let someone as informed and concise as your fellow countryman David Irving do the telling:

          • Moscow Exile says:

            Is Irving Welsh?

            I always thought he was an Essex man.

            And to confuse the issue somewhat, there’s Irvine Welsh, who is a Scot.

            🙂

          • colliemum says:

            This comes under ‘argumentum ab auctoritate’, and thus constitutes a ‘Fail’.

            That’s all.

          • yalensis says:

            David Irving is an English historian and Holocaust denier.

            According to the wiki entry, Irving’s reputation as a historian was discredited after he brought an unsuccessful libel case against the American historian Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books.[3] The English court found that Irving was an active Holocaust denier, antisemite, and racist,[4] who “for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence”.[4][5] Additionally, the court found that Irving’s books had distorted the history of Hitler’s role in the Holocaust in order to depict Hitler in a favourable light.

            Looks like our friend ThatJ has found himself, in David Irving, a new hero!
            ThatJ was forced to back off somewhat from his former declaration of affection for American neo-Nazi William Luther Pierce.

            • Johan Meyer says:

              David Irving is still regarded by serious historians as invaluable, for his knowledge of the German perspective during the war. The fact of his perspective on one matter doesn’t invalidate his work, and as the author in the link puts it, most historians are far more indebted to Irving for their knowledge than they’d like to admit. [PAYWALL WARNING! Though the damning phrase is visible before hitting the wall…]

              For what it matters, I’m a Rwanda genocide denier [in William Schabas’s terms, in that I hold the Ugandan Tutsi invaders responsible at all, let alone for more than 50% of the murders in 1994, let alone for 100% of the much larger genocide that they caused in DRC]; should I therefor disregard Raul Hilberg on account of him devoting two pages, at the end of the third edition of Destruction, to ‘Genocide’ Powers and company’s standard version of the events of 1994? Could I suggest that you read Hilberg’s “The Politics of Memory: The Journey of a Holocaust Historian”?

              • yalensis says:

                Dear Johan:
                I honestly don’t know anything about the Rwandan civil war, so I would have to trust that analysis to you and the other experts on African history. I don’t fault you necessarily for being a “Rwandan genocide” denier, I’m sure you base your stand on sources you have read. I don’t even have an opinion on the matter, because I know nothing about it.

                I do know a thing or two about European history, on the other hand.
                So let me ask you directly:
                Do you agree with ThatJ’s Holocaust denial views? ThatJ claims that only a “few thousand” Jews at most, were killed, and that was just by hunger and attrition of war, not gas chambers and death camps.
                Do you agree with that claim?

                If you agree with it, then I get why you are defending ThatJ.
                If you DON’T agree with it, then I don’t get why you are defending this rabid Jew-hater.
                And, frankly, would make me leery of your opinions on other matters such as Rwanda, and more inclined to listen to the other side.

                • Johan Meyer says:

                  I disagree strongly with him, but there is an ethical consideration. Freedom of speech is easy to justify and support for people with whom you agree. It takes a deliberate emotional effort for people whose views one finds repugnant. It is precisely because I find his views repugnant that I take the effort to support explicitly his freedom of speech, and defend the valid aspects of his claims, and of the people that he regards highly. Do you know who Raul Hilberg is?

                  Raul Hilberg wrote the first major English language history of the destruction of the European Jews (by the Nazis). At the time, talk about a Jewish catastrophe at the hands of the Germans was streng verboten in USA, i.e. you had to be a commie symp who wanted to harm the internal coherence of the free world (i.e. west Germany’s position), if you wanted to talk about such matters (which makes it a bit ironic that Hilberg was a conservative, but oh well). Hillberg could hardly get his work published. A second edition was published by a subsidiary of Chilton (car repair manual publishing house). It was only after 1967 that the topic became acceptable in the US. Norman Finkelstein goes over the history in his book, The Holocaust Industry (which Hilberg praised; Finkelstein’s parents survived Auschwitz—Finkelstein bemoans the cheapening of the history, and the scams involving the history in the late 90s).

                  For what it matters, I have the third edition of Hilberg’s Destruction (three volumes; the first two I’ve lent out to others), as well as Perpetrators, Victims, Bystanders, and Hilberg’s autobiography. Hilberg would from time to time cite neonazi and holocaust denial literature, as those folks would also happen upon relevant materials in their search for something to reverse the major historical conclusion of Hilberg and company.

                  Anyhow, I do find him (ThatJ) daft at times, e.g. when he implied that the aboriginal ancestry of nominal whites around where I live is fake, and people claiming Cherokee ancestry (it’s mainly Cree/Nehiyawewin out here, and I’m pretty sure that neither Louis Riel nor Gabriel du Mont ever claimed Cherokee ancestry), or that appearance is sufficient to gauge (outside a few percent) the ‘non-white’ ancestry of a given ‘white’ population (he even confuses southern European with non-European in several cases, e.g. “hispanic,” which might account for his beliefs about ancestry and appearance). But I wouldn’t want to shut him up on account of these matters. He makes himself unwanted by dint of his views, but if he’s willing to suffer that in being true to himself, who am I to stop him?

                • Johan Meyer says:

                  But perhaps you could tell me something. You’ve implicitly stated your support for William Schabas’s definition of genocide denier in the case of Rwanda. By the standard of Schabas as applied to the holocaust, Raul Hilberg would be a holocaust denier, despite being a preeminent scholar of the holocaust (although he offended enough people to get himself banned from Yad Vashem). Why do you feel that Schabas is in the right?

                • ThatJ says:

                  @Johan

                  he even confuses southern European with non-European in several cases, e.g. “hispanic”

                  Central and South American nations that were conquered by Spaniards is one thing, Spaniards who inhabit Spain is another. I don’t make any confusion.

                  The only similarities between the two are the language and religion. Biologically, the Spanish conquerors were lost in a sea of Native and African ancestry. And these are the people colonizing the US today (with no end in sight), not ethnic Spaniards.

                • Johan Meyer says:

                  Another matter—you should be listening to the other side on Rwanda in any case. Much as you should listen to the other side (deniers) on the holocaust. Not because they are right (in both cases, I believe strongly that they are wrong), but because otherwise, the arguments against them are unintelligible, and one ends up in a situation where curiosity is condemned.

                • yalensis says:

                  Dear Johan:

                  For starters, the “freedom of speech” issue is MOOT in this particular case.
                  Nobody, least of all myself, is arguing to ban or censor ThatJ.
                  Nobody is saying he doesn’t have the right to express his views.
                  He has a free hand to say whatever he pleases.
                  And I have the right to debate him.
                  I just noted that you seem to leap to his defense a couple of times, as if you felt that by engaging him in vigorous debate, I was somehow infringing on his freedom of speech.
                  Or maybe you felt that my “debating techniques” were wrong. In which case, constructive criticism is (usually) accepted. Although, admittedly, things do hot and heavy at times.

                  In any case, I just wanted to clarify, whether you agree with ThatJ about the Holocaust denial.
                  Thank you for clearing that up. I am glad that you don’t agree with that position.

                  As for Rwanda, again, I am ashamed to say that I know nothing. And believe me, I know better than to just take the Establishment view at face value. At some point, if I have any free time, I might start to learn more about African history.

                  Speaking of which, have you asked ThatJ what is HIS opinion on Rwandan Civil War?
                  Please try this – it would be an interesting experiment.
                  I have a sneaky feeling that I know what his truthful answer would be – if he deigned to reply to your question, which he probably wouldn’t.

                • yalensis says:

                  Dear Johan:
                  P.S. – I am not sure if you were addressing me with that question about Schabas and his definition of genocide denier?
                  I don’t know the answer to that question, because I haven’t read Schabas.
                  I was only alluding to the fact that David Irving WAS legally branded as a “Holocaust denier”, and I used this fact in my debate against ThatJ, since ThatJ mentioned Irving as an authority to quote, to back up one of his assertions, in this case about Churchill.

                  I understand now that the legal definitions of “deniers” are complicated and extremely tricky.
                  Therefore, I will refrain from using this term from now on.
                  Although I do actually count myself to be a “Katyn Denier”, and this is probably a crime in Poland!

                • Johan Meyer says:

                  @Yalensis
                  The question about Schabas was directed at you, as I stated that I’m a denier by Schabas’s standard. Schabas claims to have written Rwanda’s law on genocide denial.

                  The issue of freedom of speech does arise in ThatJ’s case. What you are doing is harrassment, on a rather abusive level. Notice that when I disagree with him, I state the basis of my disagreement, including my annoyance and anger, when appropriate, and leave the matter there, except to the extent that he wants to pursue it further. You don’t limit your attacks to the ad rem, but go into ad hominem [cracker and don’t speak Russian, to name two recent examples].

                  There is another issue. Do you feel that the world is about to suddenly shift into killing Jews? How about mass denial (among descendants of WWII beligirents) of the holocaust? Neither seems probable. Or take Karlin’s Human Biodiversity—a few voices making the claims (genetic/ethnic IQ), without even a program of conducting ethnicity based harm—is this something over which to lose sleep, and turn threads into questions of loyalty, rather than free discussion? I’d like to respond to Karlin’s claims, but they are best left to a thread set up by him, after I’ve done the necessary homework. That homework (reading Hilberg, Irving et alia) should be weighing on your shoulders.

                  I’ve read Hilberg’s Destruction twice, and the second volume (where the meat is) a third time. If the matter is important enough for you to abuse ThatJ, is it also important enough to do the necessary reading and weighing of evidence?

                • yalensis says:

                  Dear Johan:
                  .
                  You accuse me of “harrassing” ThatJ, when I challenge his outrageous and extremist comments. I deny that I am harrassing him. I contend that I am challenging him and disassociating myself from his ideology. This is necessary to do.

                  I haven’t seen that you ever debated him or expressed any disagreement with his extremist utterances, except for that one last comment where you have some mild disagreement with him about Mexican ethnicity You cannot claim to be a neutral observer, or a dispassionate player in this polemic.

                  As for the “ad homimem” rubric, I had every right to point out that ThatJ doesn’t know squat about Russia since he was claiming to be an expert in Russian culture, and explaining how it supposedly differed from Western/Zionist culture. I could argue, similarly, that you are attacking ME ad hominem, when you patronizingly advise me to read the works of various historians. Implying that if I have not read every book that you have read, then I am not qualified to comment on the holocaust. I already told you myself what I have read and have not read. I know nothing about Rwanda, but I have read quite a lot about WWII and the Holocaust. Not to mention Russian history, etc. So you can keep your patronizing attitude to yourself, please.

                  Also I find it HILARIOUS that you are so offended by my calling ThatJ a “cracker” (which was just me losing my temper) when he gets away with saying the most horrendous things about Jews and blacks.

                  Oh, and by the way, Mr. Voice of Reason,
                  Do you similarly accuse Moscow Exile of “harrassing” peter, when he challenges peter’s tweets and impugns his motives?
                  Does peter’s “harrassment and bullying” at the hands of Moscow Exile (and various other commenters) summon up your self-righteous indignation and maternal protective feelings toward peter?

                  Or is it only ThatJ who evokes your empathy?
                  Do you regard ThatJ as a valid commenter, and Peter just a troll?
                  If so, then say so. Otherwise, better start standing up for Peter too, if you wish to be fair.

                  In conclusion: I have attempted to be polite with you, Johan. You have not been polite with me.
                  It’s okay, so long as we know where we stand.

                • spartacus says:

                  The notion that ThatJ is abused by yalensis made me smile. After all the hateful things ThatJ writes about Jewish people, not because of what they did or didn’t do, but because of their ethnicity, to think that he is some kind of fragile soul, a tender butterfly, bruised by yalensis’ evil comments, seems to me kind of funny. From what I saw so far, I think he is a big boy and he knows what he is doing. What I find somewhat interesting is that he seems to have a very controlled discourse, taking things up to a certain limit but stopping short of calling for another go at what Hitler started. Someone here (Tim, I think) called him “sinister” and I think this is the precise word to describe him. Couldn’t have said it better myself. It pays to be a native speaker…

                • yalensis says:

                  Dear Spartacus:
                  Thanks, dude!
                  That is more or less what I was trying to say. As always, you say it better than I do. Probably I get too emotional and lose my cool – that’s the Russian in me. (oops – that’s racist!)
                  I haven’t yet figured out what ThatJ’s game is. He is either the coolest cucumber in the garden (dubious), or he is playing some kind of GAME on Mark’s blog (more probable).

                  I have gone back and forth on this in my own mind. Initially I assumed That was some kind of ridiculous fake-fascist troll, who invaded Mark’s blog, in order to discredit Russophile blogs in general. By making it look (to the blogosphere) like Russophilia was inexticably linked to fascism and anti-Semitism. Making such a link would be advantageous to the PTB (=Powers that be) and slanderers of Russia.

                  After a while, though, I wasn’t so sure. I checked out ThatJ’s sources and links, and learned that there is, in fact, a faction of the Occidental Observer type folks who are pro-Putin and pro-Russian. I researched more about the American Right, the John Birch Society, William Pierce, Ku Klux Klan, the various radio broadcasters, the American Nazi Party, etc. (My delicate brain is scarred forever by some of the stuff I learned in my research! 🙂

                  Anyhow,
                  seems like ThatJ comes from this ideological milieu, I got him to state that he does not think Rockwell (=head of American Nazi Party) “had the right ideas” about how to proceed; this tells me that he is part of this subculture and has given it a great deal of thought.

                  Therefore, my next theory was that ThatJ was a sincere right-wing “activist” making an ideological intervention on the most important English-language Russophile blog, in order to recruit supporters from among, what he must have considered a promising pool of converts. Thinking that because most of us are strongly anti-Zionist, not to mention anti-oligarch, that we would be susceptible to more extreme Jew-hating type ideology. I kept wondering if at some point he would whip out the clipboard and announce, “It’s time to apply for your Party card! Sieg Heil!”

                  The problem with this theory is that ThatJ isn’t much of a politician, he is not a people person. He DOES have a couple of supporters among the regular commenters, that’s true. But he doesn’t engage them, or cultivate them, like a good politician would. All he does is just broadcast his ideology relentlessly, in a “take it or leave it” fashion.

                  Part of my approach to him (trying to figure out what he is up to) was to engage him, challenge him, etc. (That which Johan considers to be “abuse” and “harrassment” – OH BOO HOO!) ThatJ is a slippery eel, it is hard to get him to elaborate on his assertions. I admit that I wanted to try to get him to confirm my darkest suspicions about him. And I did! By challenging him (BULLYING the precious boy, according to Johan), I got him to state that he favours racial segregation in the U.S. (=Jim Crow), and that he is a Holocaust denier.
                  This doesn’t speak to the vadlity or invalidity of these positions, just that I got him to state them EXPLICITLY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY. In the hope that these opinions would be found to be UNPOPULAR.

                  In conclusion:
                  I feel sometimes like I am in the middle of a Chekhov play!

                • Johan Meyer says:

                  Perhaps it is ‘patronizing’ that I ask you to read Hilberg, but lets assume so. Why aren’t you quoting Hilberg chapter and verse, and knocking ThatJ down on these issues? In fairness, he doesn’t spell his argument out, but merely states his disbelief, but it wouldn’t be too hard to spell out the details of the destruction process (I’m ahead of you here—Walter Rauf; Eichmann’s feinting episode at a massacre; train transport documentation as being the primary documentation in matters of gassing)? If you have the requisite knowledge, why are you not applying it, but rather employing harassment?

                  On page 4 of the comments on this post, he links to a book by one Kevin MacDonald. I don’t see any response by you against this link, although I could guess the content, were you to respond. Incidentally, this author (MacDonald) seems to be much of an inspiration for ThatJ’s worldview, which makes your lack of engagement all the more disappointing.

                  MacDonald makes a series of criticisms of Jewish group conduct, in particular of the conduct of the elite segment of Jewish society, and interprets this (alleged) conduct as a form of group self-aggrandizement. Many of his Jewish sources didn’t take kindly to his citing of them, but notably, Finkelstein makes some similar (and worse) criticisms (in particular, his dual shakedown theory, praised by Hilberg, namely that US Jewish elites fraudulently sued Swiss banks that in fact did not have substantial pre-war Jewish accounts, supposedly for the purpose of supporting impoverished survivors, while actual funds went to pet projects of the wealthy Jews who did the suing, causing the remaining survivors to perish in actual poverty, including in USA; Finkelstein also notes that US Jewish elites mainly ingratiated themselves with non-Jewish elites by providing the names of Jewish communists prior to Israel becoming a foreign policy asset, but that’s another matter).

                  I will spell out the most significant of MacDonald’s claims, and some responses. I’ll leave the question of why you don’t raise these responses as an implicit question.
                  1. MacDonald claims that large scale allowed immigration was arranged by Jewish sectors of the elite, so as to undermine non-Jewish whites.
                  2. MacDonald claims that [elite?] Jews promoted several (in particular, anti-rural) notions, including the ‘authoritarian personality’ notion, to undermine cultural reproductive processes among US whites, and likewise promoted abortion to further this goal.
                  3. MacDonald claims that the US was ideologically a (social?) Darwinian society prior to Jewish social influence.

                  The responses I’d raise:
                  1. If it is the case that Jewish interests are dominating immigration policy, why is it that a majority of the US populace regards immigration as a good thing, disagreeing only on the preferred scope of immigration?
                  http://www.gallup.com/poll/122057/americans-return-tougher-immigration-stance.aspx
                  Moreover, if Jewish influence was such an early bane, whence Operation Wetback? And whence the need (on the part of the Mexican government) for such an operation, given that the mass (legal and illegal) immigration from Mexico had started in the 1920s?

                  2. Rural people have always been mainstays of rebellion, whether it be the Yellow Turban movement (China), the progressive movement (USA, Canada), the anti-trust and knights of labour types of movements, Chiapas, etc. The notion that rural people are authoritarian is dubious, and MacDonald doesn’t make an obvious case that the Jewish groups that dominated the psychoanalysis groups, were making such false accusatons against rural people, nor why he believes this false notion. (To see that rural people aren’t generally authoritarian, one actually needs to have lived in a rural part of North America…)

                  Moreover, MacDonald’s notion of timeless rural social heirarchy is a recent notion, and the actual history of the cattle trusts (and the introduction of short-horn cattle, with attendant water shortages leading to something similar to enclosure) destroying the rural US in the mid to late 1800s is far more interesting and probable in accounting for what hierarchies do exist; Macdonald throws a hint that large scale popular mathematical inability, outside a cognitive elite, is also timeless (the more obvious possibility relates to lead paint, starting on a large scale in 1875; US academic performance dropped strongly in the late 1890s, and didn’t recover even in the 1920s with iodization of salt). MacDonald’s notion of social Darwinist evolutionary psychology (something promoted well outside the confines of conservatism) is quite funny when you’ve lived in a rural area…

                  MacDonald is also silent on emmigration from the US, in particular around the great depression, but that is the nationalism of US conservatism speaking.

                  3. Knights of labour; anti-trust movements; wobblies (the Jewish component of the wobblies was relatively small, and industrial proletariat, and this aspect of US Jewish society remained true probably until the 1970s); many of the major socialist movements started in the US, in the mid 1800s, during which time Jews were a very small proportion of the populace.

                  Note that ThatJ’s suspicion of blacks, Jews and others are from a coherent (if inaccurate) world-view, and you’ve decided to abuse him on account of that world-view, rather than engage with the relevant history.

                • yalensis says:

                  Dear Johan:
                  Could you do me a huge favour and copy-paste your last comment (in our debate) onto Mark’s new post?
                  It’s an important comment, but I’m afraid it will get lost on the narrow, dying thread.
                  I can’t do the copy-paste myself, because I don’t have my computer right now. I am on the road, travelling, with nothing but a crappy tablet.
                  I want to respond to your comment at more length later (don’t have time right now) and continue the debate. I’m glad I didn’t end my last comment with “I’m done with you,” which I was tempted to do. Apparently we are not done with each other, not just yet.
                  For now, I only have time for the briefest rejoinder, which is this:
                  The reason I didn’t engage ThatJ in debate on MacDonald, is because I had not read MacDonald and didn’t even recognize the name. You say that MacDonald is ThatJ’s primary authority; that is useful information indeed, I could have used that earlier when I was trying to figure this out on my own. You have not been ANY help to me, up until now. I only just recently started studying the history of the American Right and neo-Nazi movement. But you already knew all this stuff all along, and kept your silence while ThatJ continued his campaign to turn a Russophile blog into an Occidental Observer fanboy club.

                  If you’re NOT on his side, then you need to refute him. I could have really used your help earlier, instead of your patronizing lectures.

            • spartacus says:

              The website linked below includes the trial transcripts and the judgement given in the case “David Irving v Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt”.

              http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/judgement.html

              From paragraph 13.167 of the trial judgement:

              “The charges which I have found to be substantially true include the charges that Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-semitic and racist and that he associates with right wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism. In my judgment the charges against Irving which have been proved to be true are of sufficient gravity for it be clear that the failure to prove the truth of the matters set out in paragraph. 13.165 above does not have any material effect on Irving’s reputation.”

          • ThatJ says:

            @Moscow Exile

            I think David Irving is English.

            @colliemum

            I understand that the majority, but by no means all, British patriots are fond of Churchill, but he failed your country big time when he got it into the war to please his masters. What is happening today in Rotherham can be directly traced to his war against Germany, the consolidation of Jewish power across the West following Jewry’s victory in WWII, the creation and maintenance of Israel at our expense and the subsequent decline of the white race. Look no further than the inactivity of the British government when Zionists massacred British soldiers in Palestine or the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty and the cover-up that followed the failed false flag operation.

            @yalensis

            Politically sensitive issues and Wikipedia? Good grief.

            Wikipedia can be a good source of information for many things… as long as they are non-political.

            Because: https://encyclopediadramatica.se/The_Wikipedia_Jews

            The gentile mods are also of a leftist bent. It’s just that some groups have more interests in entries such as Irving’s, and Jews certainly do. From CO2-caused global warming oops climate change to Russian “aggression” in Ukraine, Wikipedia will cover it all from a NWO perspective.

            • Moscow Exile says:

              @Moscow Exile

              I think David Irving is English.

              —————————————————————————————————————————–

              Right!

              And colliemum is Welsh, which ain’t English.

            • colliemum says:

              This is such arrant nonsense, it is beyond belief: “What is happening today in Rotherham can be directly traced to his [Churchill’s] war against Germany, “
              It is not just arrant nonsense (Churchill’s war? Good grief!), it is a blatant abuse of a scandal that destroyed the lives of nearly 2000 girls in Rotherham alone.
              I am disgusted that you dare to use this scandal as ‘argument’ to support your nonsense, but alas am no longer surprised.
              I’m done with you.

          • Johan Meyer says:

            In response to your comment re hispanics:
            Mexicans of largely European ancestry (those who’d be declared white) often have more northern (and eastern, especially Polish and Hungarian) European ancestry than Spaniards.
            As to the Mexicans and other meso-Americans coming to the states, they are largely peasants destroyed by NAFTA and other disasters; this population is often mixed European and Aboriginal.

            • Jen says:

              One case in point about Mexicans of European ancestry: the Mexican artist Frida Kahlo (died 1954), who dressed in indigenous Mexican costume, was half-German.

      • Moscow Exile says:

        I wonder if he’s ever been there? – the Crimea-Ukraine border, I mean? It’s a pretty wide open, flat and featureless space filled with salt marshes and lagoons:

        And the roads and railway are on causeways.

        Take a look at Google Planet Earth.

    • Tim Owen says:

      Ha that’s priceless. Does that let him off the hook regarding other conditions such as the one Hillary displays here:

      • patient observer says:

        I had read her quote regarding the murder of Gaddafi but to hear her say it in the manner she did sent chills down my spine. She is one sick puppy.

      • marknesop says:

        Embarrassing. Now dictators have to go one step beyond carting their shit off in special closed-loop toilets. Putin will have to learn to walk during special training with runway models so as to conceal his debilitating malady. I wish I could see his reaction when he reads that – probably quite a lot like the guffaws inspired by the German reporter. It’s funny that we were just talking about ucg’s post which suggests the west makes terrible mistakes in its planning because it cannot resist listening to dolts who tell it what it wants to hear. But this is just bizarre.

        • Sam says:

          “If you need to do things with him, you want it to be more of one-on-one situation someplace somewhere quiet,” he said. HAHAHA:D I’m pretty sure Putin agrees with that! (Sorry, but that just sounded so ambiguously funny.)

    • patient observer says:

      Give me a break! “Theorizes” Putin has ________________ (fill in the blank). Peter, you have worn through the bottom of the barrel on this one.

      Now for something not so theoretical. Top NBC News soothsayer admits he fabricated his brush with death during the Iraq invasion:
      http://news.yahoo.com/nbc-news–brian-williams-recants-story-iraq-helicopter-after-soldiers-protest-231038729.html
      Mr. Williams is no less than the news anchor and news “manager” for NBC news. He is obviously a liar by any definition which makes him perfectly suited for the job. NBC has consistently been the most strident/hysterical anti-Russian/Putin of the three major US networks and that is saying a lot.

      • Tim Owen says:

        The position of reporter is now played by an actor. Progress.

      • marknesop says:

        I think Peter just posted that one because he thought it was comical. And it is. You have to shake your head in amazement, but it’s still funny.

        The Williams thing is just disgusting. How could you pretend to have become confused and believe you had survived a near-death situation when you were not part of it at all? These people routinely lie and then use the most four-year-old, dog-ate-my-homework excuses to rationalize their turpitude. I guess they see it every day from politicians – monkey see, monkey do – like Hillary claiming to have had to run from her plane in Bosnia under sniper fire.

        I misspoke. Huh. I guess that’s a synonym for “I lied”.

      • et al says:

        So the closest brush with death for him would have been in the morning holding an electric razor with bad wiring in one hand and the other in a sink full of water?

    • james says:

      hey, if the point is to show how all usa centric news outlets have tried to fashion themselves as the national enquirer, thanks for that!! i kinda knew it already and am surprised that someone who would fixate on these same outlets is interested in sharing it on ks… you are a special kind of weirdo peter!

      • patient observer says:

        …sort of a peeping Tom skulking around lit windows at night.

        • Tim Owen says:

          To play the advocate, Peter’s posts are like having a heckler or a kind RSS feed exclusively tuned to those who take the contrary view to our (?) contrary view.

          How else would we know what Carl Bildt was thinking. (Cough.)

          It’s like being taunted by the home team’s mascot at an away game. Keep it coming Peter! (Come to think of it, have you ever tried this shit in Philly? Word is that crowd actually booed the Easter Bunny so it could be a character building exercise. I think you are ready.)

          I think ThatJ is a far more sinister character, but that’s just me and a few others.

    • yalensis says:

      Oh, that is such B.S.
      I have Asperger’s.
      Putin does not have Asperger’s.
      I could explain it to them, but it’s hopeless.

      In any case, these Pentagon think-tank people are murderous sociopaths. Probably even serial killers. They most likely strip the skin off their victims, and sew tuxedos from the skins.
      Yeh, that’s what they do. No doubt in my mind.
      And after they sew the skins, they build a giant mosaic from the bones, depicting the seven levels of Masonry.
      Yeh, that’s what they do. Who could doubt it?

      • Tim Owen says:

        I was invited over once. It looked like this:

        • yalensis says:

          I assume that is the skin-suit with positioned skulls depicting the 13 signs of the Zodiac?
          Each of which is carefully placed by the serial killer, depending on Hillary Clinton’s former menstrual cycle.

          • Tim Owen says:

            FWIW that’s a photo of the Ossuary in Sedlec, Czech Republic. I love that place. Think lemons and lemonade. They had to dig up the Cemetary for some reason or other way back in I think the 16th century and I guess felt bad so they commissioned a local artist to do something with the bones. The result is this chapel. Kind of a mementi mori gone mad.

            Not an evil place at all.

      • Terje says:

        And these are the tuxedo pants (also known as necropants)

      • Sam says:

        “Researchers can’t prove their theory about Putin and Asperger’s, the report said, because they were not able to perform a brain scan on the Russian president.” Seriously?! How uncooperative of him!

        • Jen says:

          That must have been why Putin left the G20 summit in Brisbane early in November last year, because he saw the researchers panting and lugging their MRI scanning equipment behind them and making a beeline for him, not because he had to be at work early Monday morning in Moscow or because other G20 heads were shunning his company. What a coward!

  22. patient observer says:

    Belarus – if only Russia had taken a similar economic path. Despite having few natural resources and surrounded by trading partners devastated by economic collapse, Belarus survived without nearly the hardship experience by Russia. Its “Soviet style economy” was apparently better suited for dealing with the collapse of the USSR. Moreover its demographic performance was good by standards of the region.

    According to the latest data, over 50% of the work force is employed in state-owned companies such as the one that makes this marvel of engineering:

    Not to excuse the erratic behavior of Alexander Lukashenko, Belarus has managed its economy better than Russia including under Putin. Of course, Putin had to deal with damage wrought by oligarchs and western “advisors”. Perhaps the absence of vast natural resources spared Belarus unwanted attention by the West. In any event, Belarus could serve as a decent model for future Russian economic development.

  23. patient observer says:

    FWIW, a perfect false flag – Poroshenko is assassinated. Ideally, his presidential plane is shot down (assuming he has one) after being ordered by Kiev air-traffic control to fly low and slow over disputed territory in eastern Ukraine. McCain calls for American Sniper to “take out” Putin not remembering that American Sniper was already fragged by a fellow soldier. Hillary Clinton heads to Kiev to express outrage but takes time to hook up with Merkel (just made myself sick).

  24. ThatJ says:

    OPEC leader: Oil could shoot back to $200

    Right now the oil market is totally focused on finding a bottom for oil prices. However, according to OPEC’s Secretary-General Abdulla al-Badri we’ve already hit bottom.

    Not only that, but he sees a real possibility that oil prices could explode higher to upwards of $200 per barrel in the future. He’s far from the only one that sees a return of triple-digit oil prices.

    Finding a bottom: According to recent comments by the Secretary-General when he was in London, the oil market doesn’t need to look for oil prices to bottom as the market has already bottomed. Instead, he offered quite bullish comments by saying, “Now the prices are around $45-$55, and I think maybe they [have] reached the bottom and we [will] see some rebound very soon.”

    Normally that type of remark would be just another layer of noise, but this is coming from OPEC’s Secretary-General so it comes with a lot of weight behind it.

    That said, he’s not saying that OPEC will come in and rescue the oil market by reversing its previous decision to hold steady on production. Instead, he sees the signs that the oil market is self-correcting as oil companies have made deep cuts to spending, which will eventually lead to lower production growth.

    Further, the rig count in the U.S. is plunging, which is usually a key to a bottom in oil prices. However, in the midst of cutting back as the industry works through the current oversupply the Secretary-General is now warning that the industry is putting future oil supplies at risk by under investing today.

    Underinvestment leads to a shortage: The Secretary-General said that, “if you don’t invest in oil and gas, you will see more than $200″ when it comes to future oil prices. While he didn’t give a time frame, he did note the correlation between investment and future production.

    This is because oil production naturally declines and oil companies need to invest in new production to not only replace this decline in production from legacy oil fields but to add new production to meet growing demand. However, oil companies are reluctant to invest in new production as their cash flows decline.

    Over time this could become a problem as oil fields around the world naturally decline by an average of about 5% per year. As we see in this chart from a Chevron Corporation (CVX) investor presentation, in order to overcome this decline oil companies need to develop about 200 billion barrels of oil supplies over the next decade and a half just to meet demand.

    These supplies will require the industry to invest $7-$10 trillion. However, with the big capital budget reductions oil companies have announced this year it could make it harder for the industry to meet future supply needs. In fact, the industry might defer up to $150 billion oil projects this year due to the collapse in crude prices. Many of these investments, however, wouldn’t have yielded actual production for a couple of years due to the long lead time of major projects.

    As an example, Chevron delivered first oil on two of its Gulf of Mexico projects late last year after beginning construction on the fields in 2011. Meanwhile, another $6 billion project it just sanctioned at the end of last year won’t produce any oil until 2018. It’s these long lead time projects that are being delayed, which is setting the world up for higher oil prices in the future as an under investment today has the potential to lead to a constriction in future supplies.

    Investor takeaway: OPEC’s Secretary-General is calling the bottom in oil prices. While he’s not the first to call a bottom, he does lead the organization that currently controls the oil market so his comments do have a lot of weight.

    Further, he’s also suggesting that the cuts that oil companies are making could have a dramatic impact on future oil prices as the under investment has the potential to cause oil prices to rocket higher if demand grows faster than future supplies. That, however, would all be part of OPEC’s plan as it purposely pushed for lower oil prices now so it could control market share once oil prices surged in the future. It’s willing to endure short-term pain for the potential of a big long-term gain.

    http://peakoil.com/consumption/opec-leader-oil-could-shoot-back-to-200

    • marknesop says:

      It sounds to me as if he’s just attempting to pretend it wasn’t deliberate, that it was just one of those market corrections rather than a purposeful attempt to kick the ruble in the balls, initially petitioned by the USA and maybe even all the way, despite the havoc it wreaked with the domestic American supply picture. It might also be a signal that both OPEC and America are coming to realize it isn’t going to work, that they can’t keep it up for long enough. But it’s lasted long enough to breed caution, and I doubt too many people will be rushing to invest, taking him at his word that a boom may be coming. We’ll see, won’t we? I hope that Russia will not be sucked in by a lot of flannel, and will remember who it’s coming from and will not falter in their breakaway from the west.

  25. ThatJ says:

    Paul Craig Roberts Interviewed by Russian Magazine

    …[I]n my opinion, the Russian government believed that Europe had more sense and more independence from Washington than it possesses. [editor: so did we] Russia thought that Europe would want to avoid the conflict that Washington was preparing for them and, therefore, would be reassured by the Russian government’s refusal of the break-away provinces’ requests and Russia’s lack of provocative action. Russia is not the problem, Putin kept telling the European vassals of Washington.

    As it turned out, Europe is more firmly under Washington’s thumb than the Russian government realized. European politicians are even willing to harm the interests of their own countries in order to serve Washington.

    The Russian government now understands that Europe lacks political independence. Putin has publicly acknowledged this fact. This improved understanding of the situation that Russia faces requires a rethinking of the situation in Ukraine.

    Of the break-away provinces to unite with Russia, civil war in Ukraine is almost certain. Washington is already moving to arm and to train the weak and disorganized Ukrainian military. The longer Russia waits, the more formidable will be the opponent that Washington creates for Russia.

    Full text: https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2015/02/05/paul-craig-roberts-interviewed-by-russian-magazine/

    [ThatJ: I’m afraid this is a solution that I’m considering more and more.]

    • ThatJ says:

      It was a surprise for me that the editor of the “deepresource” blog, commenting a passage on PCR’s interview, linked to the Institute For Historical Review, a revisionist organization in the US whose building was bombed by extremists in the past:

      There are even reports that Russia is preparing to invade the Baltics and Poland. The hysteria is being whipped to a high pitch. [Editor: exactly like in the thirties when the US was preparing for war against Germany. PCR does not understand this yet, but he is learning] The new head of the US Broadcasting Board of Governors, Andrew Lack, has declared the English language Russian TV program RT to be a terrorist organization comparable to Boco Haram and the Islamic State.

  26. Warren says:

    Russia’s economic downturn: Nightmare or opportunity?

    By Olga Ivshina and Oleg Boldyrev
    BBC Russian Service, Moscow

    The Russian economy is in turmoil – Western sanctions over Ukraine, the fall in oil and gas prices and a tumbling currency have all contributed to a dire outlook. But what impact are people on the ground feeling?

    Moscow and the IMF agree that the Russian economy will shrink by 3% this year.

    For some, though, the crisis brings new opportunities.

    In Bryansk, 400km (249 miles) south-west of Moscow, young cows are being herded by ranchers on horseback.

    The 7,000 cattle represent just a fraction of a huge new cattle-breeding venture, involving tens of thousands of animals sprawled across farmland the size of England.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31060346

    • Moscow Exile says:

      Coincidentally, I was talking to a veterinary surgeon this afternoon about this very same subject. She works for MSD Animal Health and was telling me about the cattle country around Bryansk, where she does a lot of work with the livestock there.

      • Warren says:

        Russian can metaphorically be a livestock and agricultural “super power”! I remember reading or watching a few years ago, news on foreigners buying land in Russia to farm. Are there many foreigners in involved in Russian agriculture – whether as owners of farms or farm labourers?

  27. ThatJ says:

    Je M’en Fous de Charlie Hebdo

    By Anatoly Karlin

    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/fuck-charlie-hebdo/

    US tilts toward arming Ukraine

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration is tilting toward sending arms to Ukraine to help it fight Russian-backed rebels as three Cabinet-level officials head to Europe for consultations with Ukrainian officials and NATO allies in Brussels, Kiev and Munich.

    As President Barack Obama’s pick to run the Pentagon said Wednesday he’s inclined to support lethal weapons transfers, Ukraine’s president said he was confident the U.S. would do so. Meanwhile, outgoing Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Secretary of State John Kerry were flying to discuss Ukraine and other issues with allies in Europe. Vice President Joe Biden is due to follow them Thursday.

    “I very much incline in that direction … because I think we need to support the Ukrainians in defending themselves,” Defense Secretary-nominee Ashton Carter told Congress at his confirmation hearing when asked if the administration should provide defensive weapons to Kiev.

    http://bigstory.ap.org/article/6907d45dea63405c8e278b43cbdfb424/us-tilts-toward-arming-ukraine-officials-head-europe

  28. yalensis says:

    Interesting interview with Yanukovich’s former Prime Minister Azarov . Here is the English translation.

    Snippet:
    “It was the first time in history that over 120 people, including 26 law enforcement officers were shot in cold blood on Maidan. Yanukovych lost heart in these circumstances. And those who devised the coup had their hands untied. Groups were put together to catch him and put the Libyan scenario into practice. He was supposed to die the way Gaddafi did. I had resigned, why was my car fired at with an assault rifle? Whom did I threaten? I wasn’t in the car, my wife was in it. It’s a miracle that she survived this. Who has been called to answer for this? Why not a single investigation has been conducted?” he said.

    And lots more interesting stuff…

  29. yalensis says:

    Some more B.S. from the Financial Times.

    One of the commenters, named “DarkPull”, nailed his landing on this piece of crap:

    I refrained from commenting under the first part, because I thought that we were only half eay through the story. I hoped that the first part, clearly biased and one-sided, would be complemented by the other side of the story. Alas, it seems that the two sides are the German narrative and the Ukrainian one. Disappointing, but not exactly surprising.

    I am amazed that what purports to be a comprehensive coverage of the Ukraine story fails to as much as mention Putin’s Valdai speech, which was one of the kost important political manifestos of the last decade. Notably, the session during which Putin spoke was titled “The World Order: New Rules or a Game without Rules?”

    As to what found its way into the text: the notion that Poroshenko had leverage over Putin during Minsk negotiations because of his alleged posession of Russian dog tags, the very idea is borderline crazy. Putin did not budge after sanctions, plumetting oil, M17 media campaign, or nothing else really. But he did budge because of — boo hoo — dog tags? It just does not sound very plausible. Especially since there was no public disclosure after the Minsk accord collapsed.

    Also, the suggestion that the Russians are the only ones to blame for the Minsk failure, because they failed to protect the Ukrainian border from themselves and continued supporting the rebels gives up any pretense of balanced reporting. There is no mention of the Russian request that the OSCE deploy observers patrolling the border, and why that it has never really happened. There is not a sentence about the regrouping and counter-offensive of the Ukrainian army.

    The authors point out that “Dozens of civilians have been killed by heavy shelling since mid-January in east Ukraine.” But what about all the civilians killed or displaced before January, due to Ukrainian shelling of Donbas? Never happened?

    The entire piece reads like a retelling of a phone conversation overheard by someone who stood beside one of the interlocutors and now reports utterances of that person only, guessing what was going on and what was said on the other side. It is no wonder that the FT is so confused about Russia’s objectives and motives.

    • yalensis says:

      P.S. – if that link doesn’t work and you run up into the pay wall, then Google:
      “Financial Times Battle for Ukraine”. It worked for me.
      Doesn’t always work, though.

  30. peter says:

  31. peter says:

    • Moscow Exile says:

      What? The trains haven’t been running? When was that?

      • Moscow Exile says:

        Yes! It’s true!

        There were 300 cancellations in January:

        Россиянам вернут сбежавшие электрички

        Truly mediaeval!

        Not that there were trains anywhere in mediaeval Europe or anywhere else for that matter.

        Proof indeed that Russia is kaput!

        Of course, trains are never cancelled elsewhere in Europe, are they?

        National Rail Enquiries, UK

        05/02/2015 14:37

        Disruption between Leamington Spa and Banbury until further notice

        No trains between Oxted and East Grinstead until at least 15:00

        Delays between Milton Keynes Central and London Euston / Clapham Junction until at least 15:30

        Buses replace trains between Sittingbourne and Sheerness-on-Sea expected until 14:45

        Buses replace trains between Shanklin and Ryde St Johns Road from Monday 12 January to Friday 20 March 2015

        Amended Southern services from Monday 2 to Friday 6 February 2015

        Amended Northern Rail services from Monday 2 to Friday 6 February 2015

        Amended Great Northern services from Monday 2 to Friday 6 February 2015

        Amended London Midland services from Monday 2 to Thursday 5 February 2015

        Amended Arriva Trains Wales services from Monday 2 to Friday 6 February 2015

        Amended East Midlands Trains services from Monday 2 to Friday 6 February

        Amended First Great Western services from Monday 2 to Friday 6 February 2015

        Amended service between Stowmarket and Norwich from Monday 2 to Thursday 5 February 2015

        Amended South West Trains services from Monday 2 to Friday 6 February 2015

        No trains to Manchester Airport until Monday 9 February

        No trains calling at Hamilton Square until Friday 27 March 2015

        Buses replace trains between Oxford and Bicester Town until Summer 2015

        Mediaeval!

  32. peter says:

  33. Terje says:


    The 14 page CIA comicbook about the invasion of Grenada in 1983.
    To read the whole comic, follow the link
    http://www.ep.tc/grenada/index.html
    and click on the picture to see the next page.

  34. astabada says:

    Sputniknews reports that the Netherlands sunk to a new low: they refuse to return Scythian gold artefacts that (I assume) were borrowed for some sort of exposition when Crimea was still part of the Ukraine.

    • kat kan says:

      That is fine, as long as they don’t send them to Kiev, either. A lot of of museums have been damaged, raided, looted etc everywhere, Kiev included (so it’s not the terrorists doing it). They should hold those artefacts for safe keeping until there is enough peace to have a court case about it.

  35. peter says:

  36. peter says:

  37. et al says:

    I think the West is really starting to loose the plot, trying almost anything to regain control.

    First, we have important people in the US calling for the arming of the Ukraine but not giving them any money through the IMF though highly likely some under the table. Kerry has come out to say expressly in publicly that the US is not seeking a confrontation with Russia. Cognitive dissonance at its best! Who is going to fight on an empty stomach?
    http://thehill.com/policy/international/228371-kerry-seeks-to-shore-up-russian-cooperation

    Second, we have NATO recently declaring that it would restore military to military ties with Russia without conditions, so not Russia begging NATO. It is recognition that threats simply do not work and NATO needs someone to call if it all goes Pete Tong. Call is ‘Plan Z’. Who ya gonna call?
    http://www.rferl.org/content/NATO_Resumes_Formal_Ties_With_Russia/1504946.html

    Third, for all the bombast and rhetoric coming from NATO and the USA, they are still extremely careful to not breech the Conventional Forces Treaty in Europe Treaty by stationing permanently large numbers of troops. First it was a permanent rotation of NATO troops through the Balts and the lo-land of Poland and sending tanks, but then the cost and the complex organizational realities started to stack up. Now they have declared that they will set up mini regional command centers which is a step back from trying to scare Russia militarily and now NATO chief Jens Stollenberg(!) has publicly said that Russia is not an immediate threat to the Balts and Poland.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31137760

    Fourth, the US is trying to claim that Russia has violated the ban on Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile (INF) treaty using absolutely ancient news of a cruise missile test carried out in 2011 (doesn’t count for sea based missiles) but doesn’t want to cancel the treaty so to what purpose are these claims made? An excuse for more sanctions? Russia has pointed out that the US has drones and other programs that could also be considered as in breech of the treaty.
    http://russianforces.org/blog/2014/08/cruise_missile_and_the_inf_tre.shtml
    http://nationalinterest.org/feature/dont-scrap-the-inf-treaty-10622

    Fifth, the US has proclaimed quite a few times that it doesn’t want current disagreements to affect issues to do with Syria, Iran et al (not me!) which looks like a recognition by the US that Russia certainly would pull the plug.
    http://www.rferl.org/content/russia-us-sanctions-magnitsky/26769720.html
    http://www.russia-direct.org/debates/whats-next-us-russia-relations-2015

    As far as I can see, the US has got itself in a serious pickle. First in PR terms it alternates between do as we say and let’s talk which is a split message and gets lost, and that’s just the Obama administration without taking in to account of people like ‘I left my brains in Vietnam’ McCain, wanktankers and others.

    On the strategic side, NATO is supposed to protect its members but not drag the whole continent in to a war that could escalate to the use of nukes. No one is happy here. The Balts and Poland want much more done along with the British on their island on the other side of Europe. Most of continental Europe does not want anything done and that includes by in large Germany – and here I include the German population, despite the threats coming from the usual suspects in Berlin.

    Germany surely will not allow the US to fly in large quantities of weapons to the Ukraine through German military infrastructure or even airspace. This would have to be done at a bi-lateral level as there is no unanimous agreement amongst NATO members, so ‘No’ should be easy for Berlin. Even if Berlin did allow overflights, there would be a serious risk of political backlash in public. Remember ‘all politics is local’. The knives would come out. So, which other countries would provide the US such services? The UK, quite possibly but that would also raise political risks. Even direct flights or probably shipping say direct to Poland would mean that Warsaw would also own the consequences. It is one thing to wish it, it is another to have it. As the ancient Chinese proverb and curse goes ‘May your every wish be granted’.

    Throw all that at the market and you can guess what their reaction to a potential war in Europe would be. I think that the West has glimpsed the abyss it has decided to stand next to and decided that it would be good not to be so close.

    On the plus side, it is becoming abundantly clear that the US doesn’t give a flying fig about Europe except when their actions may impact trade or weapons sales. US behavior is driving up European doubts and divisions which are becoming even more open and contrasting. The war party is on the back foot since the Minsk dis-Agreement and has not regained the initiative because it is evident that there is no quick fix and it can only get messier.

    There is still time for the Europeans to cancel their deals for the F-35 ‘Turkey’ because it is a lock in to the US military industrial complex for the next 30 years, as it was designed to be from the beginning.

    The fundamental flaws in NATO and US foreign policy can no longer be ignored. Neither is fit for purpose so why would members want to stay in the club, what could replace it and who is going to pay for it? Those questions will arise once the Ukrainian imbroglio is put to bed. The result is that Europe will need to have its own economic and strategic agreement with Russia that has much less to do with the US, one way or another. It will be a fundamental recasting of international relations and a recognition of existing diverging interests. This is something that Putin has been asking for years but has been repeatedly rebuffed by the Europeans who demanded that Russia accede to all their wishes. That game has long left town.

    As for Germany, it may not be economically in trouble, but politically it is, however this shakes out. The difference between what is spouted in Berlin and the mood of the German public is clearly evident. The latter do not want confrontation with Russia.

    Of course this could all be complete bollox, the current rowing back by the West only done to show that they have gone the extra mile before going totally crazy and letting the rottweiler in to the baby’s room. Woof!

    Please excuse me for the bad writing (in normal life, I do at least three drafts over a few days to tighten everything up), but I think some of it makes sense!

    • Tim Owen says:

      Great summary.

      I wonder about this though:

      “As for Germany, it may not be economically in trouble, but politically it is, however this shakes out. The difference between what is spouted in Berlin and the mood of the German public is clearly evident. The latter do not want confrontation with Russia.”

      I can’t see a way out of the EMU mess except for a Greek exit and, if that happens, the centrifugal pull on Spain and Italy will be irresistible. I think this seems like an outlier only if you are listening to the politicians rather than thinking through the economics.

      I listened to an interview with Dean Baker today who pointed out how quick the rebound in the Argentinian economy was once they admitted defeat, defaulted and abandoned the dollar peg. Within two years they were back at pre-crisis GDP. I think the situation with Greece is that they have contracted by 26% since the crisis and stayed there for 5 years. That is incredible.

      The point being that Germany’s economy – especially its banks – would be devastated by Grexit and yet I think there’s no alternative on offer. Thus I suspect the Eurozone will inexorably succumb to the centrifugal forces built into its design and the German economy will be hit very hard by this.

      • et Al says:

        I think we have seen some movement on the political acceptability of a Grexit. Before it was absolutely ruled out. Now there is wiggle room. I guess there are always other plans already made to be dusted off that have not seen the light of day.

        I would guess that an orderly Grexit would be acceptable, so the principle is ok as long as it is deemed the risks to the euro are low enough, i.e. the rest of the European economy (LOLZ!) could take it.

        I take your point about Argentina, but the flip-side is that it has been unable to gain any international funding of any kind through traditional international (western) lending systems and has for well over a decade been followed by the debt rottweilers – not necessarily the original debt holders but others who have bought the debt and think that they can make their outlay back+profit.

        Ideally, if Argentina (political system) was a bit more sensible they would have managed to get their house in order by themselves but this does not appear to have been going to well. Add to that the continual political and financial attacks from outside the country and it has effectively been kept in a destabilized state since its default. This is intentional – a message to others who think that they can get away with saying “Swivel on this” to international lenders.

        Which leads us back to the autarky or self-sufficiency debate. Is it possible? Is a more reasonable plan rather something like that of Russia, i.e. strategic industries remain firmly under the control of the state whilst others allow a certain degree of investment from foreign countries? The whole point about market capitalism and investment is supposedly efficiency which really in its purest form is about tax – the less tax someone pays, the more likely they will love market capitalism. It is an powerful appeal to base greed. Without effective regulation, market capitalism is not efficient except to those who are there to make pure profits and fuck everything else, fuck service, fuck value etc… The UK is a very good example of this, from telecoms to trains, the latter there being a joke about renationalising the railways, i.e. they’ll be owned by the state, just not the British state (cue state owned Deutschbahn).

        Stuff needs to be paid for. Either it is paid for directly in tax or indirectly through the ‘choice’ that competition offers, but it still needs to be paid for by someone and some point in time. If your economy does not produce enough products that people want to buy, then the alternative is ever expanding debt. that’s the hole the West, apart from the Germans, have got in to. And the UK is considered to be a globally competitive economy. Why the need for living off magic money then?

        • Oddlots says:

          I think we’re missing a term here: finance capitalism. When you say “The whole point about market capitalism and investment is supposedly efficiency…” I would heartily agree. But I think what this describes is industrial capitalism, the little model we all have in our heads of Firm A and Firm B competing like mad to provide us with cheaper, better widgets. This has long ceased to be the dominant sector. Think of GE. It is thought of as a heavy industry powerhouse but it – at least recently – was better described as a finance company with a heavy industry division. Fully 40 % of US corporate profits come from finance.

          Why is this important? Well I think it suggests that there is an opportunity for Russia and the Brics to choose a saner, more sustainable form of capitalism. Which begs the question, what is wrong with finance capitalism.

          I think this basically boils down to debt deflation. Industrialised countries are suffering from low growth partially because debt service, in conjunction with high taxes on labour are throttling demand and making their labour uncompetitive. At the same time that the productive side of the economy is being over-taxed, the unproductive, extractive side of the economy has been progressively freed of taxation (think, for instance, of capital gains.)

          Why do I say “unproductive” and “extractive”? Let’s take housing as an example.

          In a healthy economy housing should only rise roughly by the rate of inflation. What happened? Credit. The way the housing market works is you have a limited, roughly 5% stock on the market at any one time. People bid on these based on their income, as opposed to, for instance, the fundamental economic value of the property (which would be it’s value as a rental property or the “cap rate.”) The lower the interest rate the higher “monthly nut” you can bear to outbid others in the market. Thus housing assets, one of the least productive sectors, get bid up wildly to our great detriment but to the great benefit of the banking sector. (Without going into MBS and CDO’s which extended the bubble enormously.)

          To get the “joke” I think you have to keep in mind that housing is largely investment that is already in place. In other words, we have convinced ourselves en masse that paying more and more of our income for the same “value proposition” makes sense, which is really bat-shit crazy on the aggregate level.

          A similar insanity holds sway in the stock market. In our little mental model of the economy companies raise equity in order to fund productive investment. When that investment pays off investors receive their just reward for the risk they took. Except that this does not describe the vast majority of trading. Companies mainly fund investment from retained earnings. The vast majority of trading is not funding new investment at all but of investment already in place, just like housing. Paying more and more for the same “value proposition” is precisely extractive.

          In this way the FIRE (finance / insurance / real estate) sector is siphoning off more and more income off the same economic base. It is almost precisely parasitical. In fact, one thing that a parasite does is numb it’s host and it’s certainly done this as our “man-in-the-street” economic understanding is entirely oblivious to the above. We actually cheer it on. It’s uncanny.

          At the same time the tax structure has slowly been perverted to favour the unproductive activity described above. (Hilariously the monetarist battle cry “there is no free lunch” has been popularised at EXACTLY the historical juncture where finance is EXACTLY getting a “free lunch.”) And where does the tax burden then fall, as it will have to fall on someone? You guessed it: on the productive side of the economy and, most damningly, on labour through incredibly regressive withholding taxes like FICA which makes it difficult for labour in western countries to compete.

          The fundamental inhumanity of the finance-friendly model described here is well revealed by the Latvian nightmare. The tax code was changed to favour finance. The real estate market was wildly bid up by – from my understanding – mostly Swedish banks to such an extent that they had to introduce a special form of non-recourse loans that made family members liable for any default in payments. (I kid you not.) The tax burden was shifted onto labour, killing industry. The result: a hollowed out, jobless economy that has suffered a massive, plague like fall in population through emigration.

          I think the Russians, possibly through suffering the insanity of the 90s reforms, somehow recognise the fundamental anti-social nature of the western system in its current form. Crucially I think they also recognise that buried somewhere underneath it is a form of capitalism that is actually far more just and productive. For lack of a better description, it is well described by the classical economists and original liberals such as John Stuart Mill whose intent was to fade the “rentiers” in favour of the industrialists and workers.

          Regarding the question of being “cut off” from international capital markets I actually think this might be a feature rather than a bug. The dogma that free capital flows are ALWAYS good is entirely belied by experience. Hot money just bids up assets in a way similar to the above. In fact the situation of Argentina is possibly the very best example of this. I’d have to go back and read the history again but dollar-denominated bonds were used by the banks to basically asset strip that country. (I have an aquaintance who was a bond trader in Argentina and watched it all go down. He actually quit in disgust and went hitch-hiking for a year it rattled him so much.)

          • Oddlots says:

            “Stuff needs to be paid for. Either it is paid for directly in tax or indirectly through the ‘choice’ that competition offers, but it still needs to be paid for by someone and some point in time. If your economy does not produce enough products that people want to buy, then the alternative is ever expanding debt. that’s the hole the West, apart from the Germans, have got in to. And the UK is considered to be a globally competitive economy. Why the need for living off magic money then?”

            I think you’ve got this a bit wrong on a couple of accounts. Government debt and private debt are qualitatively different things. In a pure fiat system governments are not revenue constrained. That is, there is no effective link between tax revenue and spending. This is actually a VERY GOOD THING because, in a balance sheet recession like we are in, where most actors want to simultaneously delever, some other agent needs to be spending lest the whole economy overall shrink and the debt become less bearable, not more. That agent is the government. There is no alternative.

            The tragedy of Europe is well encapsulated in your phrase “stuff needs to be paid for” and your tacit acceptance of the notion that Germany is somehow the “wronged” party here. The Germans have basically done this:

            http://www.businessinsider.com/presentation-german-current-account-balance-2012-7?op=1

            That is, they’re basically saying that we can all export our way to wealth. We can no more all do this than we can all simultaneously stand up and get a better view in a stadium.

            Similarly, their insistence that a) the debts must be payed* b) there will be no transfer payments nor a Euro-wide treasury, are mutually exclusive. The stupidity of this is actually quite astonishing. The only way that Germany’s export surplus can be funded is PRECISELY through transfers. This is how all currency blocs work. A dollar in a bank in Arkansas only has the same NPV as a dollar in a California or New York bank account is because of fiscal transfers. Without this and a system wide bank guarantee the US dollar would never have survived. Amazingly the EU was set up without either. It was doomed from the start.

            Hilariously Germany’s economic miracle is, to a large measure, explained by a massive write down of its existing debt in 1953, an incredible act of generosity and foresight that seems to have taught the Germans precisely nothing.

            For what its worth, I don’t blame Germans generally for this, especially as the labour market reforms that allowed for Germans to out compete everyone in Europe have actually been paid for with lower or stagnant living standards for the average worker. It’s the stupidity of their finance ministers and politicians that drives me crazy.

            * Yes I know they’ve taken big haircuts but the point still stands because they haven’t written down the debt sufficiently to end the crisis which means, to my mind, that they might as well have done nothing.

    • marknesop says:

      Nice piece, almost a post on its own! Sorry I am getting to it late, but I was out all day. I saw an article this morning but can’t find it now, by Ben Aris, about how the demonization of Putin is not working and that he is actually building support in Europe, with some countries now openly defiant of western policy.

  38. et Al says:

  39. et Al says:

    My emphasis.

    EU Observer:

    https://euobserver.com/foreign/127516
    …The more hawkish EU countries had proposed more senior names, including: Sergei Shoigu (defence minister); Grigory Karasin (deputy foreign minister); and Sergei Ivanov (the head of the presidential administration).

    But doveish member states, led by Greece, haggled them down.

    “It wasn’t a big fight. It was more like a carpet bazaar: Some states bid high and others bid low, but everybody knew we’d end up somewhere in the middle”, one EU diplomat said.

    A second diplomat noted: “What’s important is that we managed to maintain EU unity, not what was discussed in the corridors”. …

    …Hollande told press on Thursday: “We will make a new proposal on the conflict settlement, based on the territorial integrity of Ukraine”. …

    …“We now have a war in Ukraine and it can turn into a total one … the aim of [the visits] is not simply to hold talks, but to agree on a text [of an agreement] which will be acceptable to all parties”.

    Merkel’s office said in a statement the initiative is designed to create “a peaceful settlement of the conflict”.

    The top-level visit raises expectations that Russia is ready to make concessions. ..

    …Russian state news agency Interfax cited a “source” saying the Franco-German offer “relies on the Transnistrian settlement scenario. In essence, this is freezing of the conflict”.

    An EU diplomat told EUobserver the new offer is more likely to be “an amended version of the Minsk protocol” – a 2014 ceasefire deal which envisages a Russian pull-back and limited autonomy for Russian-occupied territories.

    “The main thing is to get a ceasefire, then we can build around that later”, the contact noted. …
    ####

    I’m still laughing!

  40. colliemum says:

    Interesting: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/angela-merkel-und-fran-ois-hollande-auf-finaler-rettungsmission-a-1016905.html
    This was posted at 17.29 today (German time, whatever that is called).
    Madam Merkel and M Hollande will visit Porky next Thursday, and then see President Putin the following day.
    As some kind people have pointed out in the comments to that report, Madame Merkel will then ‘see’ Prez Obama on the following Monday … while this week (6th to 8th Feb) there’s a big ‘security conference’ in Munich, with all the usual suspects.
    Elegant timing, or what!
    As an aside – the comments show for a felt 90% not just a deep distrust of the Kiev regime and the USA involvement, they are also remarkably neutral. The foaming internet-trolls, a.k.a. Putin-haters have apparently not yet got their song-sheet handed to them, so there’s a rather balanced appraisal going on. Most seem to think that Putin cannot lose, and that the EU and Merkel/Hollande are only going because Kiev is finished bar the shouting and they need to get some sort of ‘honourable’ result. Also, many think that the US won’t send arms to Kiev: not via Germany because that would be the end of Merkel.
    Btw – rumour amongst some Germans has it that she dreams of becoming UN General Secretary …

    • marknesop says:

      Here it is in English; that will be a good opportunity for Hollande (who, did I forget to mention, is tiny and not tall) to explain himself on the MISTRAL issue, and either commit to delivery or giving back the advance payment. Likely – knowing the west – this will be for the purpose of trying to sell a peace plan which will want Russia to make all the concessions, which Putin will refuse, and the western principals will throw up their hands and sigh, “We did everything possible to find a peaceful solution, and Putin the warmonger blew us off. So be it”. The USA has its pecker up about supplying lethal weaponry to Ukraine, and it seems plain that a massive ground battle which will destroy Ukraine is just fine with Washington.

  41. et Al says:

    It looks to me like the ‘Carrot & Stick’ schtick. “If you do not agree to these ‘proposals’ then we will arm Ukraine because we have no choice“. The point here is not whether Russia believes them or not, it is for western public consumption. We don’t know nuffink until we see the plan. If it is decent enough which would mean con/federalization, Kiev to stop shelling and bombing cities and pulling their neo-nazi goons out, then it may be doable. The West could then claim a face saving ‘victory’ that the Mighty Putin finally bowed under the combined might of NATO. Everyone would know this is bullshit of course but the figleaf is necessary. The Euros are much more worried about war than the Russians are.

    The plan has to be good enough because the West doesn’t have a Plan B, let alone a Plan Z. Either that or they are seriously deluded mofos.

    Anyway, here is Moon of Alabama’s take.

    Moon of Alabama: U.S. Pushes For War In Europe
    http://www.moonofalabama.org/2015/02/us-pushes-for-war-in-europe.html

  42. Moscow Exile says:

    Guardian Hired Frog Vents Spleen on Vladimir:

    Vladimir Putin is rewriting cold war history

    Creating an alternative reality, Putin casts Russia as a victim, not the aggressor that it is in Ukraine. In his attempt to carve out a zone of influence in Europe, he draws from the notion that Russia was mistreated by the west in the aftermath of the cold war. There is much myth-building here, which doesn’t mean the west didn’t make mistakes.

    • james says:

      they need to keep talking like this -“Creating an alternative reality..” as it will tip any observant reader still willing to slough thru the guardian of the west to exactly what they are doing on a regular basis which is ‘creating an alternative reality’.. too bad people still read that publication.. it used to be a good news outlet up til recently.

  43. Moscow Exile says:

    Putin could attack Baltic states warns former Nato chief

    “There is a high probability that he will intervene in the Baltics to test Nato’s Article 5” – Rasmussen

    • astabada says:

      I take these claims rather seriously. They can only mean that NATO intends to provoke Russia by using the Russian minorities in the Baltics.

    • marknesop says:

      Wonderful. At virtually the same instant the current NATO chief is saying on the BBC Russia is not an immediate threat to the Baltic countries, the once-was NATO chief with the uncontrollable fucking piehole that he cannot keep shut is sounding off in the Telegraph that Russia is a high probability to attack the Baltic countries as soon as it can conveniently schedule it. Does anyone wonder why it took Europe 11 years to not build a pipeline?

Leave a comment