Ukraine is on a razor’s edge. The whole thing hangs in the balance. It could go either way. The Ukrainian elite is rotten. It is psychologically Soviet. Poroschenko is just another apparatchik. He is typical. The problem in Ukraine, like in Russia, is that we don’t have any leaders. It is the same old story, same old biographies. The thinking is not that different from the past.

Vladimir Bukovsky, 16 December 2018 [i]

Please be patient! Ukraine is in the midst of a very real and very significant social revolution. This revolution for many Ukrainians involves a new conceptualization of their values and identities. This is a painful process that needs to occur through collective actions, introspection, and without external intervention.

Mychailo Wynnyckyj [ii]

Bukovsky’s pessimism of 2018 is contradicted by Wynnyckyj’s optimism of 2019. The apparatchiks of Ukraine have been subjected to a genuine revolution, says Wynnyckyj. What was once psychologically Soviet has now become something different, something genuinely Ukrainian. Wynnyckyj argues that the Euromaidan Revolution was a “bourgeois revolution,” profoundly anti-Soviet in character. This revolution, he says, is multi-ethnic rather than chauvinistic. It signifies a renewal of the Ukrainian elite. Because of this renewal, and its implications for Russia, the Kremlin has launched a violent military assault against the Ukrainian people that has lasted nine long weeks.

In 2018 I shared Bukovsky’s skepticism about Ukraine and its revolution. But now the proof is “in the pudding.” The war between Russia and Ukraine has shown us that Ukraine is no longer Soviet, and is no longer willing to take orders from Moscow. The Ukrainians are fighting for their independence. And in this fight the Russian military appears to have blundered badly. Ukraine seems to be winning this war.

How do we explain it?

Ukraine has developed and matured as a country, while Russia appears to be governed by an incompetent gang of kleptocratic lackeys. Somehow the West failed to notice the emergence of something special in Ukraine. Wynnyckyj says the Euromaidan Revolution is the most important political event of the twenty-first century (to date). Here we see the appearance of an  “autonomous … market sphere … in parallel with the ‘oligarchic system’ during the two decades preceding [the] Maidan [Revolution].” Ukraine developed an “alternative economy,” leading to cultural and structural improvements. “In this ‘de novo’ entrepreneurial sector,” says Wynnyckyj, “… a ‘bourgeois’ culture opposed to that of oligarchic companies developed: competitive, market-oriented, meritocratic, and with value placed on intangible assets (e.g., intellectual, cultural, social capital) on par with material possessions.”[iii] Ukraine’s new middle class was not rich, but idealistic and competent. These were people in the midst of discovering spiritual values. In this forgotten corner of the post-Soviet world a little dose of freedom gave birth to something new. Here were people interested in truth, patriotism, and higher things.

For years I have suggested that the political system in Russia has remained Soviet in character, cynically mimicking Lenin’s New Economic Policy (NEP) of the 1920s with the incompetent military leadership of 1939-41.. At the same time, Russia has continued to collaborate with communist regimes around the world – in Latin America, Africa and Asia. In fact, Russian agents have even attempted to ship weapons to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).[iv] Putin’s emerging military coordination with communist China can only be fully explained if the post-Soviet regime in Russia remains under communist directorship. But, for a host of reasons, the Kremlin dares not reestablish open communist rule. The Russian people would not like it. Furthermore, it has become convenient for Russia’s “Soviet structures” to operate as a loosely confederated mafia, having descended into a semi-bureaucratic feudalism. Even so, the surviving communist cadres in these decrepit “Soviet” structures would like to put the old union together. Therefore, the Euromaidan Revolution in Ukraine cannot be allowed to stand. It represents a threat insofar as certain “progressive” options are being closed off once and for all. How, then, can Russia’s “secret rulers” (to borrow a phrase coined by Lev Timofeyev) put Humpty Dumpty together again?

This analysis is what led me to believe that the Russian armed forces would invade Ukraine last February. Absent this sort of motivation, the invasion makes no sense. All the given excuses for invasion are palpable lies. And they are stupid lies to the bargain. When you cannot say what you are really up to, because everyone will cry foul, you make stuff up. And that is what the Russian government has done.

Immediately in the wake of the Euromaidan Revolution of 2014, the Russian authorities under Putin deployed agents to create the basis for breakaway regions that would eventually join the Russian Federation. Machinations of this kind were used to annex Crimea and start a war in Donbas (eastern Ukraine). Russian subversion in Odessa and other areas of Ukraine’s south and east were also attempted at the time. Only seven percent of Ukraine’s territory then came under Russian control. From Putin’s point of view this was not enough. Therefore the war was continued in Donbas for eight years to bleed Ukraine and undermine its sovereignty. And now a final solution to the Ukraine problem was decided on: full scale invasion.

A Brief Interview with Historian John Mosier

One week ago I contacted military historian John Mosier, who predicted that a Russian invasion of Ukraine would meet with serious difficulties. Here is my interview with him:

NYQUIST: Ukraine recently claimed roughly 19,000-20,000 Russian dead with roughly 3,700 Ukrainian battlefield deaths. Is this claim credible in your view?

MOSIER: That was last week, it’s now higher, plus it doesn’t count MIA [Missing in Action] and WIA [Wounded in Action]. It’s much worse than the numbers suggest, owing to a surprisingly high number of senior officers killed (almost all confirmed) and the losses in the supposedly elite units. Ukraine’s claims are definitely credible.  

NYQUIST: You analyzed Russian causality figures for past wars in your book, Deathride: Hitler vs. Stalin, finding similarly high Russian loss ratios in past military operations. Does your previous analysis fit the present situation?  

MOSIER: Pretty much. I was one of a couple of people who argued that the Russians would have tough going in Ukraine if they invaded. But I was pretty surprised by how bad it was. The Russian failures were way worse than I thought they would be. Sending armored columns down a highway without infantry and tactical air support is suicide. When you fail to get command of the airspace over the battlefield in the first 48 hours, you’ll never get it. I grant you, seeing what happened was really bizarre. In hindsight, it’s starting to make sense, but that’s in hindsight. When Russian airborne troops failed to capture the airport outside of Kiev, they were basically massacred by the Ukrainian National Guard – [and] that called for a massive revision. Clearly all our assumptions were way off.

NYQUIST: In your view, what is it about Moscow’s strategy that accounts for Russia’s recent military failures?

MOSIER: Unlike a lot of folks, I don’t think Putin is crazy. I believe his decision was based on horrifically bad intel and the fatal mistake of believing what he was being told about his military. The failure wasn’t strategic, it was tactical: the Russian military hasn’t learned much about modern warfare. It was operating like it operated in 1939. But to be fair, if he studied what was being said in the west, he would have been supported in his ideas. Given the purges [of Russian generals by Putin], he realizes mistakes were made; and the way he is systematically changing his strategic aims indicates he has some idea of what’s going on.  The difficulty is that it’s really difficult to recover from an initial plan that was faulty – which is the problem he’s having now. It’s also very tough to change doctrine.  All the more so given the nature of the early losses: too many of the officers who could have corrected the mistakes are dead. Eight generals and thirty colonels isn’t just a major hit on your combat commanders – it means that those units must have had severe losses – and also that a lot of lower level officers were either incompetent or being very passive-aggressive.

I also think Putin misjudged the impact of public opinion on the leadership in the West. Left to their own devices, the West’s leaders would have just wrung their hands and made a few symbolic gestures, but their citizens forced them to take action. But it’s a rational failure: someone who grew up inside the USSR, who was educated there, simply cannot understand how public opinion works [in the West], any more than a Marxist can understand economics. The same as with nationalism, which is poorly understood just about everywhere. Not my idea: see Anderson’s “Imagined Communities.”  

NYQUIST: Is Russia in danger of losing the war?

MOSIER: That depends on definitions. If we go by Putin’s original objective, the Russians have already lost.  By this week’s objectives, they might win. But the odds aren’t good, and as of this morning (4/23) the odds have dropped some more. If Putin is willing to take the losses, he might be able to extend the “independent” parts of the Donbas and establish the land bridge. But the Russians have been trying to do that for a week and haven’t managed it.  I’m not sure they have the manpower and the equipment to do that.

The problem is typical of wars: it’s like reading the tea leaves. As one Spanish general observed about the Spanish Civil War: the problem is you can find evidence to support anything you want to believe. Since I really believe that Ukraine is the injured party, I’d like them to win outright. So naturally I pay close attention to information that supports that. But I’m also aware of how little we actually know. For example, there’s a lot of evidence about serious problems in the Russian military: desertions, refusals to renew or sign contracts, and so forth. But it’s impossible to know what the impact of that is.

However, I will say that as of this moment, most of the evidence suggests the Russians are losing. But there are just too many unknowns. We can guesstimate some of them, for example, the surprisingly high percentage of Russians shells and missiles that are duds. And in some cases common sense can help: sure the Russians have thousands of tanks parked out in the fields [in reserve]. But they have been sitting there for thirty years, so it’s not like you can just sit down and drive one off.  

But other factors – perhaps the most important ones – are simply unknowable: the attitudes and possible actions of some of Russia’s neighbors: Turkey, Romania, Poland, and the Stans. While we can safely assume that these people would love to see Russia defeated and even humiliated, we have no idea how they would actually react if, for instance, the Russians invaded Moldova or tried to send more warships into the Black Sea. Would they wring their hands and ask the UN to send Moscow a stiff note or would they fight? For that matter, we have no idea what they may have told the Russians.  

None of the major players are saying squat – including the Ukrainians, who are very good at giving solid info about Russians losses, but they are really tight-lipped about their plans.

[Part Two coming Soon]

Notes and Links

[i] My interview with Bukovsky

[ii] Mychailo Wynnyckyj, Ukraine’s Maidan, Russia’s War: A Chronicle and Analysis of the Revolution of Dignity (Stuttgart: Ibidem Press, 2019), p. 241.

[iii] Ibid, pp. 293-4.

[iv] Viktor Bout is a self-admitted Marxist-Leninist Russian national who infamously traffics in arms. He is connected to Putin’s longtime lackey and former deputy prime minister, Igor Sechin, who tried to get Bout out of jail in Thailand prior to his extradition to the Untied States. Bout not only sold weapons to communists in Africa, Latin America and Asia, but he also sold arms to the Taliban and al Qaeda. When Bout was supplying arms to an undercover agent of the DEA posing as a communist FARC guerilla, he admitted to being a true-believing communist. How Viktor Bout Fell for the DEA’s FARC Trap (

Quarterly Subscription (to support the site)


Buy Jeff’s Book: The Fool and His Enemy: Toward a Metaphysics of Evil: Nyquist, J.R.: 9798666501382: Books:

193 thoughts on “Putin’s Russia at the End of Its Tether, Part I

  1. When the mud dries well know alot more. The nuclear threats are increasing too. They are going use them eventually on the West, maybe they will use them in Ukraine too as I initially suggested 2 months ago.

  2. Our political leaders assume that there will be no nuclear war. That Putin merely bluffs when he threatens nuclear war. That following the disaster in Ukraine, that the Soviets will pull back and lick their wounds. The Dems assume that the Soviets think like them, that they fear MAD, therefore won’t go all the way to nukes. That they can continue sending arms and military aid to Ukraine and Putin won’t retaliate. Well, I got news for them, Putin and his generals don’t believe in MAD.

    How much popular support in the West for aiding Ukraine would there be if people realized that Putin is not bluffing concerning nukes?

    I expect that Putin will hold off using any nukes until his forces are ready to hit all targets at the same time. That includes his nukes aimed at the U.S.

    On another note, how many of the losses among the Russian officer corps are the result of fragging?

    1. The Soviets firmly believed they could win a nuke war. The present officers are no different in that regard. The only question is how many of the nukes will detonate. I’d just as soon not see, but that’s beyond my power to choose.

  3. That was very enlightening! I see things slowly escalating, by inches and not by leaps, but escalating none the less. Let’s hope this pot can be kept from boiling over.

    1. @ Wade Queen: Defense Secretary Wallace hedged his comments on Putin’s possible actions with markers of uncertainty and speculation: “probably … I would not be surprised … may”.

      While the Russian regime is no doubt capable of launching nuclear attacks when it (and the Chinese regime) are ready, it seems, in the present instance, that we simply have a government minister trying to generate a little excitement among journalists. If he was in possession of any solid intelligence on this matter, then not only would he have spoken more categorically, but any such announcement would surely have been deferred upwards to the Prime Minister.

      Wallace saw active duty as a Guards officer (in the 90s), so I have no desire to belittle him, but government and journalism being what they are, there are certain pressures on a government minister to speak like this.

    2. Too late. Putin has already made a direct threat to nuke England without further warning. Jeff deleted that article a couple of days ago, or you would have realized that by now.

      1. So may hot heads – so many threats.

        “If someone intends to interfere in what is going on from the outside they must know that constitutes an unacceptable strategic threat to Russia.

        “They must know that our response to counterstrikes will be lightning fast. Fast.

        “We have all the weapons we need for this. No one else can brag about these weapons, and we won’t brag about them.

        “But we will use them.”

        Kremlin “can’t allow an anti-Russia to be created on Russia’s historical territory” and added that Ukraine was “pushed” to attack Crimea and Donbas.

        Accusing the West of using Ukrainians as “expendable materials,” he added that they “prepared en masse an economic war against Russia, step by step, using all kinds of pretexts and sometimes none at all to pass sanctions.”

        It comes after Russia threatened to strike military targets in the UK after Britain supplied weapons to Ukraine.

        Russian foreign ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova said the hits could be authorised against Nato member states.

  4. “Ukraine seems to be winning this war.”

    Propaganda war, maybe. They are losing hundreds daily now, mostly surrendering. NATO is running out of compatible ammunition. Taking the ammo depot in Moldava won’t change the outcome, only prolongs the war.

    1. The images of mass surrendering suggests the moral of ordinary soldiers is not as high as we are being told, unlike the nazi fags from Azov.

    2. The fog of war is still too thick to draw such conclusions, i believe this quote nails quite precisely:
      “…As one Spanish general observed about the Spanish Civil War: the problem is you can find evidence to support anything you want to believe.”

      Having quoted that, it seems a matter of who you want to emerge victorious. Most of the people, falls for this trap.
      You must observe what this conflict will unravel, and with any luck, me might find any truth about this, decades later.

      1. No proper argument can be made against the statement that Ukraine “seems to be winning.” This is not a conclusion, but an observation we can all verify by looking at a military map. It is a statement about appearances, which might indeed be deceptive. But even here, there are reasons to think the situation is rather straightforward. For example: Would Russia be threatening nuclear strikes if they were winning the war in any sense? It really is time to wake up to the serial military screwups this war has been from the Russian side.

    3. Commit, not only are you a Commie, but you’re a dumb one who made the worst possible error: you started believing in your own Russian BS! You actually believe Ukraine is losing this war! Just like it’s been “losing” since Russia declared they had total air control within the first 24 hours and would soon be marching into Kyiv!

  5. Interesting interview. I didn’t know of Mosier before. Just added his book on Stalin vs Hitler to my Amazon cart. Solid analysis here.

    “When you fail to get command of the airspace over the battlefield in the first 48 hours, you’ll never get it.” – Why is this?

    “Sending armored columns down a highway without infantry and tactical air support is suicide.” – This seems to be the central enigma that needs explaining. As far as I know, Russia didn’t and still hasn’t used their air force and their best tanks. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong on that. So maybe, Russia is taking a longer term view of this situation and this is still all “warm up” for them, or alternatively, the strength of those forces was something of a propagandistic lie.

      1. Jeff, I have a military friend, familiar with tank warfare, who told me the Russians don’t know how to combine their forces; e.g., using infantry to flush out the javelins before they can be used against the tanks.

        My concern is how good a friend the Ukrainians can expect the US to be. As you know, our government has been seriously compromised. And consider that then-VP Biden openly boasted that he derailed a Ukrainian attempt to investigate Burisma’s corruption (which would have implicated his son Hunter and, ultimately, himself.) With friends like this…

      2. Funny you should ask. I just heard Fred Fleitz on Mark Levin saying that Biden’s military aid is not exactly what Zelensky is really asking for. A war like this one consumes an enormous amount of ammunition and fuel. But the really critical thing is getting new tanks and howitzers, aircraft and APCs. The numbers of what we are sending does not seem sufficient compared to what the Russians may mobilize if they decide to use warmer weather for a truly big mobilization. What Professor Mosier told me, however, is that Russia may not be able to mobilize large forces. That is a very interesting statement for him to make. I hope he is right.

  6. NATO member nation-states greedily donate their obsolete weaponry to Ukraine, on the promise that the United States will replace them with advanced high tech goodies. What if they are not to be forth coming? A country can’t be sovereign without weapons. Nationalism is held in contempt of Globalists. As NATO arms Ukraine, Russia expends it’s own obsolete weapons along with it’s troops. How can there be a New World Order, with an independent Russia or sovereign Eastern Europe? The US Congress was about to declare the Ukrainian Azov NAZIS to be a terrorist organization, but armed them instead. Is the idea to let Putin eliminated them in order to eliminate nationalism in Ukraine? In response to the UK providing weapons to Ukraine, Putin threatened to nuke Great Britain. England and the United States say they aren’t worried. It’s like anytime a reporter asks a controversial question of Kamala Harris, invariably all she does is simply to laugh. She’s just tested positive for Covid and prescribed synthetic snake venom pills, the latest thing. Biden is said to be expected to get it too. Looks like Pelosi will soon be the next Prez. Maybe she will be more sensical?

    1. That is completely misleading comment that Congress was about to label Azov nationalists (they are not Nazi’s anymore than you are for posting that fabrication) as terrorists. Here is the real news article about what you must be referring to: For those wanting the truth, Stepan Banderas is considered the founder. They are nationalists in the same context that we patriotic Americans defend our national identity and freedom. Calling them Nazi’s a Russian propaganda tactic that goes back many decades. Bandera (like every other leader in 1938) was trying to figure out who the Nazi’s were and did have discussions with them. He quickly and publicly rejected them – and that is easily verified with about 5 minutes of research. But I lived there, we know several of the current leaders. They are just freedom loving people who want the same things we want. And there are only a few hundred of them. For such a small minority, it’s ironic the propaganda makes them seem much bigger than they are.

  7. This discussion raises another set of questions.

    Let’s say we run with the premise that Russian government is incompetent, they are hopelessly corrupt, their troops are so “passive-aggressive” as Mosier suggests that they sabotage their own plans. What are the implications of this regarding their nuclear weapons? And their nuclear attack plans?

    1. It isn’t necessarily that the Russian government is incompetent. That may be in key areas. We are talking about military incompetence in land warfare — and that is strategically significant.

  8. My thoughts are similar to Dan’s. How could the Russian army seem so incompetent? Didn’t the German army, skilled opponents like Erich Manstein, school them in modern “combined arms” coordination from 1941-1945? Those principles have changed little: the rifleman protects the tank from the bazooka man. And invading Ukraine after the fields had become mud was just absurd, guaranteeing that the tanks would be roadbound.

    Maybe this is an exercise for the Russians in Ukraine, but more than an exercise. Putin can’t just push a button and win a nuclear war. The Russian people know that the cost to them will be terrible. The Russian people, at least the top 10% of the people, people like FSB men, oligarchs large and small, and military officers, have to become so embittered and enraged that they support it. Better yet, the babuschkas have to support it.

    I think about the third time a psychologically normal Russian officer looks inside the destroyed tank, something that some veterans of WWII said one should never do, and sees the gruesome remains of his men, he’s going to think, “We have to nuke the US for sending those anti-tank missiles here. My men have been made into hamburger and now it’s time to make the people who did that, into hamburger.”

    This is what I mean by toughening up the Russian army.

    There are Ukrainians in Ukraine that I know and love, but the Ukrainian government has crossed the line by encouraging civilians to become nonuniformed combatants. This serves the purpose of teaching the Russians to kill civilians in Ukraine and in the US. The Russian army, or any army, would think themselves justified under the rules of war, if they killed – now or later – “civilians” who threw homemade firebombs at them and were not wearing armbands identifying themselves as combatants.

    The same goes for Ukrainian grannies cursing Russian soldiers. It’s a short step, psychologically, from the Russians hating those Ukrainian grannies, to the Russians nuking US grannies.

    This war is teaching the Russian rank and file to hate Ukraine enough to nuke it – and to hate the US enough to nuke it. That might have been Putin’s purpose all along.

    Likewise, many remark that the corporate/financial LGBTQO push, is weakening the US militarily. Less well remarked, is that the LGBTQO push, seemingly coming from the US, is scaring the socially conservative populations of Russia and China. Some will think that if they don’t nuke the US, the US corporate/financial powers will bring the LGBTQO agenda to Russia and China and hurt their kids.

    1. Why does Russia participate in the Covid Live Exercise, by providing mRNA lethal injections of the Sputnik serum; the Russian equivalent of Phizer and Moderna shots? All of these have been found to contain the same toxic exotic ingredients? Have Russian troops been inoculated same as the US troops? If there is in fact a global depopulation agenda, if not a defacto one, then might it be possible that Russia’s mishaps in Ukraine might be intentionally aimed towards that end?

      1. “Why does Russia participate in the Covid Live Exercise”

        They are afraid of real biological attack against them to start anytime. Imperialists and Zionist think-tanks were talking about the possibility of ethnically targeted biowarfare since 2000.

        One of the reasons for the special operation was to see what is going on in the labs in Ukraine. Anglo-Saxons will never give up dreams about extermination of us Slavs. Thanks God Russia has credible deterrence.

      2. No “Anglo-Saxon” dreams about exterminating Slavs. This is clinical paranoia on your part, or perhaps you are simply gaslighting us. In America people don’t not think of exterminating anyone. Only freaks on the fringe, and loons, would think such abnormal thoughts. If you are Russian you reveal real ignorance about Americans and how they think. If your country is far away, we do not really think about you at all. Sorry to burst your fragile ego on that account. Americans are a bit too self-absorbed to have the kind of malicious motives you attribute to us.

      3. Commit:

        I’m not clear if you’ve answered the quote or nyet.?

        The mRNA lethal injections, including the Sputnik, kill the recipients at various different rates of extermination. Why is Russia killing it’s people? Does Russia support the Bill Gates and Klaus Schuab agenda of global depopulation, to the extent of including Russian citizens as victims of the genocide?

        I was asking rhetorically in context of Russian casualties of the Russian police action in, The Ukraine.

    2. The LGBTQO push is weakening all countries, which makes it easier for Anglo-Saxon imperialism to preserve and even extend its influence. Just look how much more closely Europe follows American policies nowadays, at its own expense, compared to 2003 Iraq war.

      There are no countries, no nations under imperialism. All true patriots know which side to support, Z.

      1. Commit, you should deal with the epidemic of homosexual gang rape and forced prostitution in the Russian army before criticizing the West. From your logic, this explains why they suck so bad, though the problem with your logic is that the Ukrainians are all gay too and thus can’t possibly be winning.

    3. I would love for Jeff to comment on your perspective. If accurate, at what a terrible price.

    4. I thought our adversaries promote the LGBTQAI+ (I can’t keep track of all the letters at this point) agenda in America to weaken our society, whilst actively preventing it from infecting their own societies. Especially China.

    5. Russia placed Ukraine in the position of facing an existential conflict. Under the circumstances, getting able bodied men under arms is badly needed. It took nothing to “teach” the Russian to kill civilians. Look at Aleppo and learn.

      The Russian government was doing an admirable job of keeping the LGBTQ types suppressed. A ridiculous war in Ukraine doesn’t do a thing to advance that. There was already a lot of anti-American sentiment in Russia well before Putin started his hybrid wars.

      In the4 final analysis, Putin’s war is counterproductive. he is expending an Army he will have serious difficulties replacing, and impoverishing his country even more than he already had been.

    6. “…Ukrainian government has crossed the line by encouraging civilians to become nonuniformed combatants.” Under the circumstances of invasion they are accorded the same combatant rights, not that individuals and governments may turn a blind eye to Geneva Conventions as it suits them. Modern insurgencies are unwinnable unless you’re willing to outright ethnically cleanse (all those so-called “adoptions” by the RF?), and any invasion like this by second rate powers signals intentions along those lines, or toleration of second order effects that are tantamount to it.

  9. Commit :

    To submit to nuclear blackmail by Russia is suicide for the U.S.A.. And to surrender to Russians in battle is worse than suicide. ( Krebs / Zhukov ).
    We will see how it all works out. But Pelosi would not be “sensical” for anyone. The Russian communists do not seem to understand the American far left. In general the far left does support international communism ( and communist nations such as Russia and China ). But there is an unhinged, unpredictable quality to the far left. They want to be on top of the international communist structure. ( Think the Nazis and Russia both attempting to be the power center for an international socialism under their control. )
    Pelosi as president ? Good luck with that ! ( as the saying goes ).

    1. American and western far-left in general have two components, lumpenproletariat and bourgeoise degenerates. Anyone using class analysis can see there is nothing Marxist or communist on them. Those classes existed at Marx’s time, were described in the communist manifesto as class enemies or class traitors. They were only strengthened by the psyop the Anglo-Saxon monopolist capitalists wage against own population since late fifties, when it became obvious that imperialism, supported by strong rentier and labour aristocracy classes, is not sustainable.

      Look on some materials of the “Center for Political Inovation”, they are true communists, unlike the degenerates, class traitors and imperialist collaborators from the CPUSA.

      1. There’s at least one thing I can agree with Commit on – his disdain for the CPUSA. =D

    2. @ Tom Doyle: You said “The Russian communists do not seem to understand the American far left.” The KGB should understand the US far left very well, since they produced today’s far left in the former free world, through their agents of influence in government, well-endowed think tanks, unions, and corporate boardrooms.

      Since the mid-1930s, it has been useful to think two communisms: firstly, the communism of the communist homeland(s), and secondly, the communism sown and cultivated in free societies that are to be subverted and ultimately destroyed. Stalin, in the mid-30s, cancelled the sexual libertinism that was introduced after the Revolution, and which the regime increasingly recognized as a grave liability for Soviet society. Stalin made Abortion illegal in nearly all cases, he criminalized homosexual relations, he made divorce highly onerous on the offending party, and so on. At the same time, Soviet agents of influence continued to spread the same libertinism in the free world, in order to undermine the social order, starting from the institution of the family, the foundation of any stable society.

      That doesn’t mean that Moscow (and later, Beijing, Habana, East Berlin etc.) had to pull the strings at every moment. The basic requirements for maintaining a stable society are few; the ways in which a society can be destroyed are many, so the initial impetus can result in outcomes that Moscow didn’t necessarily predict, but so long as they are damaging to US society, Moscow is happy with the result.

      Russian left liberals, like Masha Gessen or P**** Riot mistake the second form of communism for the legitimate freedoms of the West, and demand that this is brought to Russia. Conversely, most Western leftists, who only know the second communism, look at Russia and declare that it must be “right-wing”, and that it is led by “the new H*tler” (senior Western leftists, however, know better, since they have benefitted from Moscow’s funding and its helping hand in their careers). Deluded Western conservatives think that the second communism is a purely Western phenomenon, and think Putin defends their own values.

      The KGB went to great pains over nearly a century to create such confusions – but they themselves understand the reality very well.

      1. I for one appreciate your sharing this insight. Thank you. It clears things up for me, personally.

      2. The “liberal” wing of Soviet Bolsheviks – Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev and co. had one thing in common, they were all cosmopolitans. They divorced from party’s policies already under Lenin. Trotskyism survived in the west, without any Soviet support, the opposite. They got funded by global monopolist capital. The leaders of world imperialism have always found the cosmopolitan element of Trotskyism appealing.

      3. Yet today in both Russia and China sexual promiscuity and abortion are common, along with divorce. Putin himself being an example. Generations of enforced atheism has removed all restraints.


        The Anglo-Fabian wing that converged FDR in tandem with the Reds has the champagne socialiste aims of population reduction, avoiding Malthusian traps, and transhumanist tinkering. The partnership embodied by Lend Lease and the Venona Cables beyond the most cynical desire to remove European colonial powers forever was never justified, and the nuclear proliferation consequences alone bear this out as we speak. If the dumpster fire isn’t sustained with more agitprop fuel, Americans are coming around to positions like Mosier articulates in his WWI book, and George Washington on “entangling foreign alliances”. Full bore American ‘imperialism’, self-interested and self-confident, without the overlay of unworthy 5th columns and kleptocrat clients, would have a much different character. Events will come to a head in way that compels a more holistic military effort in this ‘unrestricted’ paradigm, but will it be too late then?

    1. Hey, I’m not a cheerleader for this dog and pony show, I’m just making the observation that Biden and Harris are in the cross hairs of the DNC, and that the snake venom pills are just Remvesidir, the only medicine administered in hospitals for anything nowadays.

      Putin is fed up. Again, that doesn’t make me his advocate. I merely note his exasperation with NATO. The West doesn’t care if Putin nukes England.


      All I can say is that the US Space Force had better have some super advanced technology that can shoot down the mach 20 Russian Satan 2 ICBM, because nobody listened to Putin before he invaded Ukraine, either.

      Now might be a good time to take that wine country vacation in Argentina.

      1. You can look back to some pages of this blog site. Somebody posted Putin’s letter to Biden, calling for resumption of mediation pursuant to the Minsk Accords. Putin lamented that continually, Russia’s concerns and plea for resumption of the UN agreed upon political process was ignored.

        The general consensus of this blog site seemed to be that ignoring Putin was the only reasonable thing to do. As if the Minsk Accords were no good because they allowed for Russia to remain in existence, it seemed. Just ignore Putin and he’ll go away?

      2. The Minsk “accords” were nothing but a death sentence for Ukraine. Putin might have been exasperated, but only because he, like w two year old child, wasn’t getting his way in the destruction of Ukraine’s sovereignty and freedom.

  10. Very good post. I detect quite a sea change in your thinking about Russia’s military capabilities, more in line with what i was trying to point out in my late Feb posts!

    1. Yes big vindication for you VirtualConservative1 if this holds – you were saying from the beginning!

  11. What Putin does or does not do is not within the power of the United States or Europe. He said he was going to attack Ukraine and he did. If he says nuclear weapons are an option, we best take him at his word.

    I must say it’s interesting to hear the communist perspective on this blog. They are always blaming the other side for Russian aggression.

    1. Is war really preferable than to have given Putin enough rope to hang himself, by working under the UN agreed upon mediation process?

    2. If Ukraine hadn’t been attacking ethnic Russian citizens of Ukraine in the Donbas, then why did the UN, including signatories, France, Germany, and The United States, support the Minsk Accords? Why did the Ukrainian Congress under Minsk 2, actually in fact pass legislation which created The Donbas as an independent enclave, but never to be sustained?

      1. What!? Ukraine passed legislation recognizing Donbas’s independence? You need to site a source before making such an outlandish claim.

      2. I remember reading about it years ago, and posted a similar article here a while back on another ghost account.

        You deleted it.

        The more recent article stated that the Ukrainian congress passed the legislation, and the minority rioted on the floor. It never came to a second vote. It wasn’t clear in the article if there is a House and a Senate type arrangement, where the bill had to be passed by both chambers, or if the riot created a compromise to re-vote.

        Bear with me and I’ll keep trying to find the article, but this article is difficult to find, even at On Google, it’s scrubbed.

      3. The parliament of Ukraine approved a law on “special status” for Donbas on 17 March, as specified by Minsk II.[59]

        Later, in 2019, Ukraine’s parliament voted to extend regulations giving limited self-rule to separatist-controlled eastern regions, a prerequisite for a deal to settle the five-year conflict there.
        “Ukraine extends ‘special status’ for conflict-hit regions”. Reuters. 12 December 2019. Retrieved 29 July 2020.

        December 12, 20191:33 AM Updated 2 years ago
        Ukraine extends ‘special status’ for conflict-hit regions

        By Reuters Staff

        KIEV (Reuters) – Ukraine’s parliament voted on Thursday to extend regulations giving limited self-rule to separatist-controlled eastern regions, a prerequisite for a deal to settle the five-year conflict there.

        Lawmakers gave a one-year extension to the regions’ “special status”, which was adopted in 2014 and has been extended several times.

        The conflict in eastern Ukraine that broke out in 2014 has killed more than 13,000 people, left a large swathe of Ukraine under the control of Moscow-backed separatists and aggravated the deepest East-West rift since the Cold War.

        The law granting the extension “is aimed at creating additional interim opportunities for the implementation of relevant legislative conditions aimed at the peaceful settlement of the situation in certain areas of Donetsk and Luhansk regions,” one of its authors, Oleksandr Korniyenko, told lawmakers before the vote.

        The status allows the regions to set up their own police forces, prosecutors and courts and hold local elections.

        An agreement to extend the law on special status has become one of the elements of an agreement of leaders Russia, Ukraine, France and Germany reached during their meeting in Paris this week.

      4. There are many things you may “remember” seeing many years ago. Ukraine still owns the Donbas even thought Putin has tried stealing it like he did Crimea. Russian suzerainty over the Donbas and Crimea has never been recognized by Ukraine by any means.

        Minsk was nothing more than a slow death sentence for Ukraine.

        Ukraine was never attacking Russian citizens in the Donbas. Russia, and their minions among the falsely labeled separatists, had been attacking Ukrainian citizens as they have been in Crimea. You are simply pushing Putinist agitprop.

    1. It all depends on how Putin sees his own survival. This is very hard to evaluate. Nuclear war may begin at any time. But the Kremlin is facing an ever narrowing range of options. Everything is on a knife’s edge.

      1. Knife’s edge is an apt way to describe it. I don’t have a good feeling about any of this.

  12. “The mRNA lethal injections, including the Sputnik”

    Do you have a proof it has the same side effects as Pfizer? When real biological warfare starts, you want to vaccinate your population. When you do exercise, vaccination has to be part of it.

    “Does Russia support the Bill Gates and Klaus Schuab agenda of global depopulation, to the extent of including Russian citizens as victims of the genocide?”

    Totally no, listen to Putin’s 2021 WEF speech, he rejected the great reset very openly. Also said that the Great Reseters, leaders of global capitalism, are responsible for the crisis, the solution proposed by Putin was to get rid of capitalism, get rid of them.

    1. Dr Jane Ruby showed the Sputnik under the microscope, to have the same graphene oxide, spike proteins, and parasites as all the other mRNA serums. Can Putin claim plausible deniability?

      1. There is a recent program where she presents her credentials. I’ll hunt for it. She has a couple of doctorates and is an expert in examining scientific studies submitted for drug approvals. She explained that most of those studies are insufficient, and the details that she demands to be accounted for. She does have an advanced degree of a field in Psychology related to her work with medical test subjects of drugs. Yes, she is pretty, but don’t let that fool you. She’s a sharp cookie.

    2. In an exclusive presentation to the Chilean radio station El Mirador del Gallo, Argentine doctor Martín Monteverde presented the analyses carried out by researchers behind the Corona2Inspect blog on the microtechnology found in Cansino, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Sinopharm, and Sputnik vaccination vials.

      More information:

  13. There are no side effects from the mRNA serums. They are bio weapons intended to kill.

  14. The issue is two fold. 1. Russia is using this situation to prepare for war and return to a Communist style command economy. China is also doing the same under the guise of “Covid lockdowns”. 2. Russia hasn’t played their strongest cards yet in regards to Ukraine given the junk units sent in. Their best forces are being held in reserve in case NATO gets involved directly. There is something amiss here. Russia could have blitzkrieg Ukraine had it wanted to, but it would have likely caused a direct NATO confrontation once it neared the Polish border. It would also have woken the West up in away a slow war couldn’t. But this would be classic Golitsyn strategy.

    Also I think the West underestimates the foe it is playing around with and isn’t taking the steps to properly confront it. This includes energy production, domestic production, mining, defense expenditures, and an expansion of the military, including modernizing our nuclear weapons and delivery systems ASAP. Another thing we need to confront is societal rot, eg “Wokeness”.

    1. This is helpful because I think, OK, if we accept as true what Mr. Nyquist outlines above as far as Russia’s miscalculations and failures – how does that alter the big picture? When you factor in China – and likely N Korea, Iran, Venezuela, maybe others – it seems possible that Russia’s weaknesses may be mitigated when it comes to a grander conflict. If Russia is losing in Ukraine, the 2 immediate risks would seem to be (1) a military move by China and/or (2) a nuclear assault, in Europe and/or N America, by Russia. The two could happen in coordination.

      I don’t think Russia losing in Ukraine would alter the plans and objectives of Chinese and Russian communists. What I can’t tell is if it really gives the US, and the West generally, an opening or foothold to thwart the bigger plan.

      1. He may have been referring to the breakup of the USSR as if it were still 1990. If he was referring to a split in Russia yet to come, he did not explain how or why. So it makes little sense.

    2. You’re right 1000% the Russians are definitely, holding back in taking massive losses on the tactical side with the second tier force while at the same time achieving their intended strategic goals while holding back the main brunt of the elite main forces around the flanks and in deep reserves.
      They’re also adjusting in seeing what works what doesn’t work for the future attacksc, in Baltic and coming Red Dawn invasion while all that’s going on they’re allied partner Red China is setting up grey zones all around for phase two of internationalist Communist plans in the soon, coming invasion of Republic of China Taiwan some time this fall.
      DPRK North Korea is readying themselves, to be in the fray with coming artillery skirmishing attacks, under ground nuclear testing another live IBCM launch and some operations against the Japanese.
      Red Chinese and Russians are also setting up proxy wars between Pakistan and Afghanistan with the help of Indian DI’s who are working with the Russian FSB in Afghanistan while the Red Chinese and Russians FSB together work in Pakistan.

      Biden? Russian asset big guy gets his Russian % current “(President Obama )”was on the phone with Russian foreign minister a few weeks ago; telling him “we’ll handle it we’ll handle it it’ll be done.”
      The supply chain issues with food oil/energy, raw materials and raw energy? Intentionally, done at the behest of the Russians and Chinese to create civil unrest and other things needed for their goals.
      Biden (Obama ) DOD is gutting everything down to the bone as much as humanly possibly can.

    3. Now on a certain conservative forum where the large body of posters believes that Russia, is in the right who seemed to have unfortunately elevated Putin to personalit cult status while believing in the propaganda hype is sadly deep misinformed.
      The so called Bio lab story came from Red Chinese cyber propaganda sources and bots that was then carried into the far right blogosphere as fact it’s not.
      While at the same time the Russians, are fully heavily exploiting the fears and paranoia of one world government New World Order Governance and also using the anti war stuff too in addition, to using Red Chinese as a scapegoat as well.
      They’re media personalities Tucker Carlson, Alex Jones, Dr. Ron Paul, Ann Coulter, Michelle Mulkin, Jack Posobiec, Michael Savage, Pat Buchanan , Steve Bannon, Lew RockWell all get large Russian % as does the blogs,radio programs, news media.
      Congressman Marjorie Green Taylor, and other so called MAGA are too in the Russian pocket for $$$

      Very elegant sophisticated IWarfare they are doing

      1. The labs and their funding were puny P2s openly spoken about in official embassy news. Yet hardly a peep when the Charles Lieber case out of Harvard Biochem Nanotech, and his 2 PLA PHD students was concluded, or similar cases at universities caught out on tens of billions in undeclared foreign funding; or porous borders, while officially designated “chemical warfare” in Chinese fentanyl rolls over along with the human waves . . . of the E-right, the narratives you mention, they consistently fail to appreciate the “better the devil you know” element in all of this, and that the stakes for world dominion are much higher than seeing the so called G.A.E take a token propaganda loss on a proxy war. But I suppose unserious headless chickens is the aim there.

      2. Do you have any links to articles detailing the financial links between Russia and conservative media personalities/politicians? It is so important to be able to lay these things out concretely so that people at least pause and think about where the blanket pro-Russia messaging is coming from. It’s become part of the air that populist conservatives breathe so they don’t even question it.

        And yes, it is interesting how seamlessly the MAGA crowd moved from cult-like Trump worship to Putin worship. And I don’t mean to say that Trump was a tyrant like the Left accused him of being, but there were definitely some cult-like over-the-top elements among his base of support (starting with QAnon). Maybe some of the worst elements of Trump worship were deliberately cultivated/exploited by the Russian influence operation targeting conservatives to facilitate this transition? During the 2016 election Russian agents/ media/internet trolls were certainly intent on pushing the idea that Putin was pro-Trump and that Trump/conservatives were pro Russia. I think one of the goals of Russia’s murky, at time contradictory involvement in this election was to firmly plant the flag of Russia in the minds of mainstream conservatives and populists. See (long, detailed searchable timeline)

        Of course it’s ironic that Trump was the most helpful president to Ukraine and warned about the danger of NATO being weak. That’s being ignored now by the MAGA conservatives. When they should have opposed Trump’s policies, during the Covid lockdowns/BLM riots, they didn’t. But when Trump is right they ignore him for the siren song of Russia. There’s a shallowness and unseriousness in conservatives of almost all types.

      3. You might look at the links between the CATO Institute, certain libertarians, and Russia going back to Soviet times. I believe the Koch brothers (Charles Koch and David Koch), one-time supporters of the Tea Party movement, had extensive Soviet and Russian ties. I seem to recall that Cliff Kincaid wrote about this. There is also Alex Jones and his Russian staff members, as well as Jones’s connections to certain associates of Lyndon LaRouche, a teacher of Marxism-Leninism who worked with the KGB to create a right wing Marxist movement here in the USA during the 1970s.

    4. As the Chi Haotian speech shows a callousness towards prospective casualties in such an undertaking, perhaps all the Western elite noise about the imperative of population control is just a way of signaling “**** around, find out. It would be a favor for our utopian terraforming contingency plans.” It’s less underestimation, more indifference of those who won’t lose more than a large human herd headache as apes of Overmen.

  15. “No “Anglo-Saxon” dreams about exterminating Slavs.”

    can you read dreams of American and British elites?

    ” Only freaks on the fringe, and loons, would think such abnormal thoughts. ”

    they said the same thing about Hitler.

      1. In case it has escaped everyone’s notice, Satan’s primary target demographic for all manner of systemic disdain in recent years has been hetero Anglo Saxon manhood per se, rather than simply the “imperialistic elites”. The attacks in advertising media, the film industry and the remainder of the pan-Marxist front’s rhetoric have been blatant and unrelenting.

        I posit that the reason is not simply because this target demographic has long formed the bedrock of middle class western conservativism with its entrenched penchant for liberty, but because Satan knows that when the tide finally turns, it will be from this very demographic – initially – that the Lord will raise up godly rulers who will never allow the world to descend into a malaise of ungodly political power again. Of course, I am speaking of the coming golden age of Daniel 2, Daniel 5, Revelation 11, etc., which must first be preceded by the darkest hours in human history, when the scarlet coloured beast system that was, is not and yet is (Marxism) emerges to its supremacy.

  16. Jeff :

    Just an idea. What if Putin ( or perhaps the Politboro ) has done us a favor in the long run ? During the perestroika deception, Russia and the other communists convinced us they were harmless and we let down our guard.
    It would seem that now the opposite is true. The mask is off and the threats are blatant. People of various political backgrounds seem to be starting to become more aware of the danger of Russia and the communist bloc. In the US, Europe and even NATO. And in the case of NATO even taking actions to have a stronger military defense.
    So has Putin given us a gift in the form of a long needed wake up call ? Or am I Pollyanna ?

    ( I think the psychological and the mental and spiritual battle is so important. )

    1. Too little to late. We would many years rebuild civil defense and nuclear infrastructure. See Peter Pry on this.

    2. Jeff: Tom alludes to an issue that many of your readers, I think, would urgently like to see you address.

      Since we seem to have reached a late stage in Golitsyn’s projections, where the former anti-communist powers have been subverted to extreme debilitation, and the leading communist powers are letting the mask slip, how do the new political elites of the West play this?

      Many of them have been proteges of the communist world, or have, at least, been thoroughly indoctrinated in its ways. The Clintons, Obama, Merkel, etc. have their relations with Russia and have given it great material support while their rhetoric often served to cover these actions (hence the misdirection of the public through the Trump “collusion” project, etc.). The “globalists” like Schwab and Soros are in a similar position, although they address themselves primarily to politicians rather than to the wider public directly.

      Only deluded conservatives imagine that Putin or Xi are subordinate to the “globalists”, so we can assume that the “globalists” themselves are not operating under the same delusion.

      In that case, do the leftist Western elites currently intend to subordinate themselves to Moscow and Beijing? – even to the extent of facilitating their countries’ defeat in a nuclear war?

      Or are they now becoming aware that they may themselves succumb in such a conflagration? In which case we should expect to see splits, as some of them distance themselves from Moscow/Beijing while others hesitate or resist such a move. If the majority chooses (or has chosen?) independence of Moscow/Beijing, it would seem that they would seek create their own totalitarian super-state, and the endgame would resemble Orwell’s “Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia” (although not with the borders he had in mind).

      This question is surely of vital importance, but I realise you may be in no position to answer – but even knowing that you have not yet formed an opinion on the matter would still be useful to your readers. Thank you.

      1. “do the leftist Western elites currently intend to subordinate themselves to Moscow and Beijing? – even to the extent of facilitating their countries’ defeat in a nuclear war?” Yes, at least some of them.

        That’s the definition of “treason” and “traitor”. Traitors have been around since during the American war for independence.

        Though another question can be raised—how many of the Western elites are in reality agents for Moscow and Beijing? After all, “an honest politician is one who, when he is bought, stays bought” and how many of our politicians and other elites have been bought by Moscow and Beijing?

      2. People of this type, who are used and who use others, live in a pseudo-reality. They allow themselves to be recruited, or they think they have power in some kind of trade, or they are useful idiots. The thing about larger events, which few people realize, is that people and events are not as controllable as conspiracy theorists think. Character is fate, and our society is headed to a dark place because of a decline in character.

  17. As far as I remember reading several years ago, our intelligence knew there are several former Soviet nuclear suitcase bombs that were smuggled into the US. Who knows if it’s even legit?
    But, if so, would be a very subtle way to pull off a nuclear action and blame a terrorist group. However it’s done, I suspect we are crossing a line right now that we have managed to avoid since 1945. God help us all if that is the case

    1. Lunev talked about this. He said to his knowledge that those backpack nukes were never removed if memory serves. Jeff, can you comment?

      1. When still serving as Yeltsin’s National Security Advisor, General Alexander Lebed made a statement during his last press conference that, according to the report he received, there were, at that time, some 120 suitcase size nukes missing from inventory. Lebed was subsequently accused by Putin, who was then freshly nominated by Yeltsin as a chief of FSB, of committing an act of treason for speaking about that publicly. Shortly after that Lebed resigned as a security advisor and moved to Krasnoyarsk region where he was later elected as a governor of that region. If I remember well, he died in the helicopter crash three years later, obviously murdered by Putin’s cohort.
        However, taking into account the current political and military landscape in Russia I don’t think that Putin or his cohort needs anyone’s permission to use those mini nukes whether they still remain on the inventory or not.
        regards – Bogdan

      2. Such nukes as any other require skilled maintenance. Consider that every time a mole has to service the suitcase nuke, it exposes the location if he is under surveillance. Today, we all are under constant surveillance, but those doing the monitoring are likely subverted.

      3. Considering over 50% of forested area in the US has never been foot surveyed and the advances in battery technology, its easy to deploy and maintain these nukes.

      1. Putin was rumored years ago to be terminal due to experimental age reversal gene editing, but Parkinson’s is symptomatic of the Covid mRNA lethal injections.

    2. There were a number of so-called “suitcase nukes” that were said to be missing back in the 90s. Given the way things shook out as things worked back then, it would not surprise me if they actually lost them.

      OTOH, I doubt they were lost. I would also not be in the least surprised if they reappear in the US at some opportune time for Putin.

  18. It is frustrating to see so many so wide of the mark. No one here seems to have any idea as to the nature of our enemies or their motivations. The enemy is monolithic, it has been obvious for a very long time. The whole covid scam should have that made that clear for even the people with their head in the sand. And at the top of this evil organization, the motivation is not greed or even power. There comes a point when things become definitional. Does anyone here know the strict classical definition of hate. Read up on it. It is not an emotion. It has nothing to do with like or dislike.

    1. Yes. Something is monolithic here. It is the New Religion of socialism, the nihilist faith of “rational” bureaucratic authority. The dominant minority sect is of the faith the Marxist-Leninists, and they do not always run everything. But when you see massive coordination over many countries — it’s them. They’ve got the nukes and the missiles and tens of thousands of agents in the USA. Anybody tells you there is something stronger, better organized, that has killed more people — they are confused.

      1. My sense is that those who miss it because they are focused on what appears to be a pseudo-science death cult among the West (a death cult beholden to “transhumanism” or “luciferianism”); those people who see THAT as the grand coordinating global force, and dismiss the threat of communism backed by militaries and powers of States (primarily Russia and China); they are not so lost and contemptible as the criticism here often regards them. “Confused” is a good way to put it. IMO, many are closer to grasping what’s happening than it often seems.

        Much of what they’re seeing is actually happening. Example: Klaus Schwab and the WEF actually IS organizing something sinister at a global level, designed to destroy national sovereignty and individual liberty. People are just missing the vital historical and philosophical context – as well as accurate information about geopolitical realities – to see that the joining tissue and pervasive influence is communism. They are overly confident that nations’ militaries are controlled by global puppet masters. But the dynamics they’re seeing are not false. It’s an attribution problem (ie, ascribing to Western “transhumanists” and “Luciferians” what was spawned and is driven by communists), and it is an information gap (ie, ignorance to copious information on Russia/China deception and military realities).

        One slight tweak I have in saying that the “global cabal” crowd is stupid for thinking capitalists are so organized and power driven — that’s not quite it; they don’t think it’s genuine capitalists, they think it’s transhumanists, who they construe as literally satanic, and they believe this because many of them actually are. So, to dispute them, we have to address their real argument.

        But here’s the thing: It is also a “conspiracy” to argue it actually is communism that has gathered into a global diabolical threat. So decrying “conspiracy theories” about bankers or satanists can sound hypocritical. Anyone making the case that communism is trying to dominate the world through deception and ultimately force is also advancing a conspiracy theory. It’s just a better one – and by “better” I mean has more explanatory power for the facts we see in the world. so the real answer is, yes, there absolutely is a conspiracy, it’s communism; and we must call it a “theory” in the sense that we do not have complete knowledge or understanding of it. But global communism is the better explanation – the better theory – than global satanism, Mathusianism, transumanism, etc. To the extent those movements exist, they are spawned by a historical communist deception/disinformation project, to misdirect from the the real threat and enemy to humanity. So, it is not “wrong” per se to say those “movements” exist and that they are evil – it is just incomplete, because ultimately they serve the communist project. It’s natural to be so frustrated with this misattribution – but it is not SO far from grasping that communism was never defeated – it merely went underground and doubled down.

        That’s my 2 cents on the matter. People aren’t stupid for seeing a global conspiracy. People who have surmised that there is something bigger going on – something deceptive – are not a great leap from understanding communism. They just need to do the deep dive. As a child of the 80s, I had a cartoonish view of communism until very recently. So I misconstrued and misattributed things I was seeing. I understand many here are surrounded by conservatives who resolutely refuse to do the research and revise their assumptions. Or have to suffer the conceits of people spouting tired, old saws about bankers and ancient bloodlines. I say it’s worth keeping at it. The “global conspiracy” crowd sees many actual dynamics (e.g., coordinated deception), they are just misattributing them and maintaining dangerous blind spots. And remember, there is much that none of us know. I find Mr. Nyquist’s arguments persuasive because of their historical veracity and explanatory power for things actually happening. I’m not so different and you’re not so different than many others who passionately held other views, before considering new arguments and facts. And I’m sure we’ll all keep revising our own views too, slapping our foreheads later at things we take for granted now.

      2. There are, of course, many crazy people with beliefs — with power and influence. What makes such people really dangerous, of course, is when their false ideas become “certainties” used by millions of neurotics to sustain false narratives that lead to destruction on a global scale.

      3. Putin is not what many think he is either. Putinist shills keep telling us he is the enemy of the WEF and NWO, but they are deeply deceived. Putin was a member of the WEF for several years and was only recently expelled because he think is he should be top dog rather than the one(s) Schwab and company think should be on top.

        This link may have been posted before.

        ion concentration polarization

  19. Hey I don’t want to break any rules or anything. Can I post an excerpt, like a page long, from a novel. It does an amazing job of explaining, hate, or willing evil for others, and how to properly identify and recognize it. This concept has been all but lost to the modern mind,

    He’ suggested Putin would fall in 2015. Also that Ukraine’s path to victory was to secure its Eastern border with Russia. I can’t say Ukraine has won this war unless they take back all Russian controlled territory and force Russia to rebuild the cities its destroyed and pay reparations. I don’t think that’s very likely. If victory is having your people butchered and cities leveled Ukraine is winning.

    1. Suvorov is a creative genius, and incredibly interesting because he thinks through problems in a unique way. Always unique! In this linked 2014 interview he predicts Putin will fall in one year. Why does Suvorov’s go wrong? Because he thinks of Putin as one man ruling a big country instead of seeing him as an actor in a very sophisticated production. This is an easy mistake because Suvorov likens Putin to Stalin, failing to realize that Moscow’s bosses formed a collective leadership under Suslov and Brezhnev in 1964, and Russia has remained under this shadowy arrangement ever since. And no outsider understands how this leadership is structured. Notice how Putin’s public events are scripted, sometimes videotaped in advance, and presented with all manner of crafted lies and falsifications. Putin is not clever enough on his own to have come up with all these falsifications and narratives and strategies for guiding the country. He is a Leningrad thug with certain bureaucratic talents. He lives within a “program” as an actor lives within a play. He takes responsibility for what happens, which means he is totally dependent on his strategists and experts. How much power does he actually have? He definitely has some power because of how successfully he has played his part. How much power has he acquired by being the star of the show? Can he be replaced? These are interesting questions. Whatever happens, unless the directors and producers of the show are replaced, it will go on whether or not Putin is in the starring role. They have changed out the performers before. What we must not lose sight of is the underlying mechanism of Russia’s secret rulers. They really do exist and the evidence for them is overwhelming. And it is my theory that these secret rulers are Marxist-Leninists. I derive this conclusion from their actual foreign policy, which supports the existing Marxist-Leninist states around the world at every turn. Suvorov and most every other observer have overlooked this possibility — or its telltales — since it appears to be outlandish on its face. Yet we must somehow explain the coordination between Moscow and Beijing, Moscow and Pyongyang, Moscow and Havana, Moscow and Caracas. Putin did not fall in 2015. Why was Suvorov mistaken? He does not suspect the presence of more sophisticated and hidden structures.

      1. Dmitry Medvedev, served as President. He knows the ropes. Perhaps the idea was to have a fully trained and experienced understudy?

      2. My thoughts too. Putin is no strategic genius, he’s replaceable. The media is constantly framing everything related to this war in a Putin centric way, neglecting to see that the king on the chess board is nothing without the capital pieces. No one understands comintern.

      3. I just finished watching a lengthy section of Putin addressing journalists at the 2016 St. Petersburg International Economic Forum. He lays out Russia’s complaint against the perfidious West and the decisions that led to the destruction of MAD and placed Russia in a position where “she has no choice.” Everybody’s focused on Zelensky’s acting ability. In light of your comments about his playing a role and reading a script, Putin’s in a class with Laurence Olivier and John Gielgud. No wonder so many American conservatives are suckered.

      4. In Part 2 I am going to go into the business of false realities, false narratives, and what kind of personalities advance the deception. We see that actors can be successful politicians and politicians can develop into successful actors. Because of modern television, presentation looms large. Looking back into recent Russian history it seems that Sergei Stepashin and Yevgeny Primakov were the heavyweights behind Yeltsin and Putin. But neither of these men are or were telegenic. Stepashin might even be described as repulsive. Then there is the power that accrues to celebrities, however they are made. A KGB officer once gave me his analysis of Putin as someone who projected the right image and was bold enough to accept responsibility; that is, responsibility other Kremlin strategist do not wish to accept. This means that Putin is paradoxically both expendable and indispensable. Yet, we ought to have doubts regarding Putin’s supremacy. When the Ukrainian Soviet leader, Leonid Kravchuk, was asked about Putin on Schuster Live (Kiev TV) in December 2011, just prior to Putin’s return to the presidency, Kravchuk said that Putin and Medvedev were not the real rulers of Russia. There were persons above them, in the shadows, with unfamiliar names, who held the real power. If you study Lev Timofeyev’s book, “Russia’s Secret Rulers,” or Vaksberg’s writings, or “Putin’s Kleptocracy” by Karen Dawisha, you realize that something very significant remains hidden beneath the surface of Russian politics and business. What is it? The despised answer, which sounds quite crazy to the average person, is “the Communist Party Soviet Union Underground.” I believe Zelensky referred to this in his March 27 interview with Russian journalists — referring to Putin wanting a mausoleum for himself and being with “those people, you know.” This is highly problematic, of course. No intelligent person, lacking specific and certain knowledge, can prove who “they” are. Yet, in my discussions with people in Eastern Europe — as will be shown — this idea of secret communist structures continuously recurs among some of the smartest people who are engaged in political analysis within the former Soviet space. Whether we read hints of such things in speeches, on TV, or books, there are plenty of examples to be found. That world over there has many moving parts that are, in essence, hidden.

    1. That coincides with my previous prediction on this very thread, that Biden and Harris are being treated for Covid with snake venom, and will die reportedly of Covid, Subsequently, Speaker Pelosi will become President. I’ll ad that she’ll probably appoint her nephew, California Governor, Gavin Newsom, as Vice President. Too, bad for Hillary.

      1. Jeff, given your comments on the secret puppet masters above Putin in the thread just above, I can’t help but wonder what lies above the word salad spewing Biden too. Something is going on for sure. There is just too much visible corruption present concerning RussiaGate and Hunter for there not to be something.

      2. Biden appears to be playing against Moscow; but we know his history, and we know he cannot be honest. When, after all, has Biden been honest? Plagiarist, hair-sniffer, bribe-taker-and-chief. He was favored as a candidate for the United States by communist front organizations and by the KGB agent Armand Hammer. So it should come as no surprise that Biden is helping Putin through anti-American energy policies and by doing everything he can to destroy the dollar. And, curiously, Biden’s sanctions have failed to destroy the ruble. Forgive my cynicism, but: is Biden really giving Ukraine what it needs? Possibly Congress and public opinion have left him no choice. He must support Ukraine because any failure to do so would destroy his reputation. I regard Biden with suspicion and contempt.


    I’m just coming up to speed on what is not only being described as but even officially labeled as “lend lease” for Ukraine — the Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act of 2022.

    “Lend lease.” Isn’t that just, well, eternally glorious or something? Not that many Americans could explain what lend lease is, or why the verbal prompt still paints rosy emanations over Churchillian overtones. The awful fact is, lend lease was the op of ops. As described in fairly minute detail in American Betrayal, lend lease was at its heart a dictatorial assault on free government which, under cover of saving democracy abroad, seized democracy at home: namely, it seized Congress’ core constitutional powers of war-making and the purse. As I learned in my course of research for American Betrayal, lend lease was also authored and shepherded into law by a number of bona fide communist lieutenants, notably in the Treasury and the White House.


    1. Sorry, meant to add “more at link” but somehow I erased it with the dots.

    2. Always interesting. Our problem is, in part, that we are giving away weapons from our own arsenal that we have no immediate way of replenishing. It is troubling indeed.

      1. And all it would take is a few conventional bombs on some silicon foundries to stop production of many modern weapons and aircraft, allowing any enemy with spares to come out ahead in any prolonged engagement.

      2. Will there be a prolonged engagement? The enemy needs to send in troops to occupy the land. As Yamamoto said that there’s a rifle behind every blade of grass, and the communists in America have failed to change that metric, what chance does that give any invading army?

      3. Only the Chinese have a chance in such a war. And they will use bioweapons to thin the herd. But seeing the incompetence of their Russian “partners” I think they cannot win.

    3. “…War was their answer … Meanwhile, as Senate co-sponsors of US military aid piled up, as recently as one week before the invasion, the Wall Street Journal reports, German chancellor Olaf Scholz sought to persuade Ukrainian president Zelensky to accept a security pact to avert war through Ukrainian neutrality:
      that Ukraine should renounce its NATO aspirations and declare neutrality as part of a wider European security deal between the West and Russia. The pact would be signed by Mr. Putin and Mr. Biden, who would jointly guarantee Ukraine’s security.
      Doubtless with visions of American “lend lease” dancing in his head, Zelensky said no. The agenda uber alles.”

      Then Diana says things like this in her article… it’s hard to take her analysis seriously.

      War could have been averted if only the US pre-emptively denied military aid to Ukraine? Biden did one better and assured Putin that a ‘minor incursion’ by Russia would not bring about US involvement, how did that work to prevent war? Zelensky deliberately chose war and the destruction of whole cities in Ukraine just to get a blank cheque?

      Russia, who was waging a 8-year long war and demonization campaign in eastern Ukraine, would have guaranteed the country’s security if only Zelensky had agreed to official neutrality? Even though Ukraine had no real chance of joining NATO? And what about the Russia-NATO draft agreement (ultimatum) which demanded that NATO withdraw all forces from members who joined after 1997? Putin deemed NATO’s rejection of the draft as a provocation. Putin also demanded that Ukraine should implement the Minsk agreement, which would have given separatist regions veto power over Ukraine’s domestic and foreign policies. This refusal by Ukraine was a bigger cause for Russia’s invasion than hypothetical future NATO membership. But this is not mentioned because the war has to be the US and Ukraine’s fault to fit the pattern of American betrayal in WWII.

      Diana may be right in some details, but I question her overall interpretation. She has a massive blind spot in that she sees everything that is happening today through the prism of WWII. The anger over past perceived betrayal is not an accurate honest framework of assessing current events, and could be dangerous if it leads to ignoring important facts that don’t fit the narrative.

      1. Blaming the victim of military aggression for the aggression is rooted in an older set of principles and insights which have clearly degenerated. It is not surprising that such arguments fall flat. First, we have Washington’s warning against entangling alliances (undone by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor); behind which stood opposition to American empire-building as dangerous to “democracy” (failing to realize that democracy had already descended to plutocracy); together with a belief in a kind of innocent America, or good America, which was corrupted by Abolitionists or robber barons or imperialist jingoism. Ancient history was then recast with the rise of Caesar likened to the rise of FDR and the New Deal. Here was the decline of two republics. Among these schools of thought we find Richard Weaver, who is certainly worth studying; but here we here we are drawn into the tangled problem of “modernity” in which, as a Nietzsche warned, we are not free to walk like a crab and “go backward.” The only path, said Nietzsche, was “forward into decadence.” History is cyclical, say all the great thinkers. It is not evolutionary. Chivalry returns when feudalism returns; and for this you need a very big nuclear war. And that does appear to be in the cards. Look at what is happening in Shanghai. If I am not mistaken, they are doing this to prepare nuclear strikes on China’s customers. (What need, then, for that city which has supplied America with everything?) As if there are ideological solutions to any of this, or workable counter-formulas to modern decadence, I would defer to Carlyle’s heroes who merely stand in the midst of mayhem, uttering a simple truth which becomes decisive by way of Providence. What other solution could there be? Diana sees an American betrayal underway. And there is a betrayal. Only Zelensky is not the villain. Ukraine is not trying to betray America. Biden is the betrayer. Our help for Ukraine is pitiful. Such a pittance. Rifles, machine guns and mortars are not decisive. A hundred drones is nothing. Turkey has sold them better items. Small arms is something Ukraine already has. When do the 500 howitzers arrive and when comes the thousand needed tanks? I do not see how they arrive at all. A Ukrainian division uses 18 hundred tons of supplies a day. How far does our pittance actually go to helping? Zelensky is definitely disappointed, to be sure; but he dares not say so because his country is in such a desperate position. Diana (indirectly?) likens support for Zelensky to support for Stalin. The support is by no means similar and neither are the persons supported. So I am baffled by such comparisons. Of course, she is referring back to those old principles of American nonintervention and isolationism I listed earlier. But a Russian or Chinese missile can level Chicago after a 30 minute flight. How do we survive in “isolation”? What does isolation even mean? I do not see how that works. Beijing and Moscow seek our destruction. This should be obvious. But it apparently is not obvious, and maybe I am pegging myself a paranoid warmonger. After WWI historical revisionism offered arguments against U.S. intervention abroad — the original sin of American foreign policy. We have the lamentations of Henry Adams’s and others during the Spanish-American War, H.L. Mencken’s critique of Wilson’s WWI dictatorship, serious questions raised about Pearl Harbor, Senator Robert Taft’s criticisms of FDR-Truman’s interventionist policies, and Joseph McCarthy’s “Retreat from Victory” book. Diana is recasting these narratives for the present case. But we face an altogether different kind of situation at home and abroad. While there are many valuable insights from this anti-war, isolationist and anti-imperialist literature, there may also be a blindness here when it comes to a new kind of threat; that is, totalitarianism linked with mass destruction weapons. States like the Soviet Union, communist China and Nazi Germany represent a new kind of threat to civilization and human life which is, even now, poorly understood. Our own totalitarians are coming to power in the midst of this, adding to the confusion. Who is more dangerous? Moscow or Washington? The absurdity, therefore, of casting Zekensky as a villain, leaves me doubly baffled. Is he really a bad actor in all this? Is it rhetorically effective to say so? I just do not understand. Ukraine is a country that has gone through a very unique revolution. Meanwhile, America itself has degenerated to Soviet levels of corruption. Zelensky is defending his people. If only our leaders had that same virtue.

    1. “It comes as military bosses have now urged Putin to drop the term “special operation” used for the invasion and instead declare war on Ukraine – which would enable the mass mobilisation of Russian troops.

      An all-out war would allow Moscow to draft in more conscripts, impose martial law and also bid for support from its international allies – such as Belarus.”

      It sounds like things are about to ramp up one way or another. 🙁

  22. “Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. Weak men create hard times.” There are too many weak men in power. Even if Putin doesn’t make it through Christmas as the ex Russian predicts, it doesn’t change our own poor and disastrous federal policies; it doesn’t repair our debt or reduce inflation; it doesn’t change the fact that our own president is completely incompetent and a mindless habitual liar and supported by a platoon of corrupt compromised officials. The only solution is for each of to be prepared to face hardship and get strong. Think of those Ukrainians and how they are fighting, suffering, but standing against a world power. They are getting strong in spirit or they dying in the effort. We need to learn from this because Americans and Europeans could soon face something similar.
    Are you ready?

    1. ” Are you ready?”

      As a “european” (what does it mean?) I am ready to join Russian liberators, hang all the globalist traitors. Liberate my country. There is no such a thing as “european nationality”, a globalist illusion.

      1. Don’t twist my words, Commit. Globalist and Communists are both heinous, fiendish enemies to individual Liberty.

  23. “Yet today in both Russia and China sexual promiscuity and abortion are common”

    not comparable to teaching degeneracy to kids. Historically, not all societies had the same views on relationships and marriage. Anglo-saxon “putitans” are the most promiscuous demographics, yet not honest about it.

      1. I identify with Marxism Leninism of Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia, CPRF, CCP. Which is very different to imperialist “Marxists” of CPUSA.

      2. Why do you say the CPUSA is “imperialist”? Is this your personal opinion or something you learned from your local organization?

      3. You don’t have to be an outright communist to be part of the anti-imperialist struggle. National liberation can have many forms. I also support Victor Orban, Marine Le Pen, Taliban, Hesballah, Iranian revolution and so on.

      4. COMMIT just admitted to being an imperialist. One cannot support imperialists without becoming one himself. The Iranian mullahs are imperialists, wishing with their allies—Houthis, Hezbollah, etc.—to establish their empire to rule the whole world. The communists, centered in Moscow and Beijing, also want to set up an empire that rules the whole world. Is the world big enough to have both empires? That COMMIT supports both would be empires makes him an imperialist twice over. How does he not contradict himself?

  24. Commit, would you agree? You can be an American, an entrepreneur, a patriot, and believe in the inherent God-given rights of the individual without being an imperialist?

    Think about this. Everytime you fly on an airplane, thank an American. The Wright Brothers who invented the first successful human flight were in thebicycle business, and they out competed a guy that the government had given a butt load of money to, but money couldn’t get his plane off the ground.

    If you enjoy air conditioning, thank an American, in particular Mr. Carrier. If you ride an elevator, thank an American, again. Mr Otis invented the safety brake so elevators no longer free fall and kill people. Our system rewards hard work, innovation, and persistence. Shouldn’t a man (or woman) be entitled to keep the fruits of their labor? If I create something useful or beautiful, and someone buys it, that is called a fair exchange.

    All I see communism doing is causing war, revolution, authoritarianism, and untold human suffering. We do agree about the globalists. To me, they are just communists in sheep’s clothing.

    1. While good usually prevails in the end, it isn’t always a certain outcome. Mr. Tesla invented our modern AC electrical power systems, but it cost him (and Mr. Westinghouse who licensed the patents) dearly, fighting against Mr. Edison trying to force his DC system on the world. Edison had his men gather up stray dogs and cats and used Tesla’s generators to electrocute them in front of crowds to show how dangerous AC was. The economics of DC distribution would never have worked out, so Tesla and Westinghouse won the battle, but not without Tesla being forced to give up his patent royalties.

    2. Communism seems inherently parasitic. It cannot and does not create or build anything. It seizes upon a host (e.g., capitalism and open society) to prey upon any weakness or shadow, and thereby grow and exacerbate the weakness/shadow to the extent that the host becomes fatally wounded and hobble. Communism presents itself as critique (all revolutions are critique); it “proves” or vindicates itself merely by showing it is possible to kill the host – that is, that by it’s “own weakness” a thriving, living body can be obliterated. Of course once the host is killed, communism fails miserably, because of the fundamental reality that it cannot create or build. It does not exist apart form having something to exploit and tear down. Its strongest point is when the host is still alive but mortally wounded.

  25. Jeff, Do you have anything to say about “Russian World?” This interview sounds very reasonable in the analysis of how religion plays a role in Putin’s and the Russian public’s thoughts on war. Throughout history, many people have been killed in the name of religion, and while this may just be an excuse, it rings true from my viewpoint. And believe me when I say I have no opinion about the web source for this, but there is something funny about Russian Orthodoxy.

    and also

    1. James G: If I am not mistaken, the “Russian World” concept is related to what Nikolai Berdyaev criticized in his book “The Russian Idea.” According to Berdyaev, a peculiar ideology of sorts formed in Russia which was political and chauvinist, messianic and nihilist. This ideology held up Russia as a special country with a special mission to save the world from itself. “The Russian World” concept updates and streamlines these older notions to fit Moscow’s purposes of the moment. Related to this, Berdayaev’s book on Dostoyevsky said there is an apocalyptic and nihilistic streak running through Russia. Spengler, curiously, suggested that Russians culturally represent a revolt against Greek and Roman antiquity. This is relevant in terms of the philosophical and political lessons that Russians have refused to absorb from history. For example, their rejection of Polybius’ praise for the Roman constitution as a system of checks and balances; or, their rejection of the critical spirit of Socrates, or Cicero’s emphasis on liberty. There occurs, then, an unrealistic idea of “the empire,” and also the tribe itself which casts aside reason and reality. The imperfect world we live does not become livable by way of wisdom, or better institutions. What is sought is something beyond what exists or is even possible in the present dispensation. According to Berdyaev, “This means that the Russian people, in accordance with their metaphysical nature and vocation in the world, are a people of the End. Apocalypse has always played a great part … among the masses [in Russia].” This is a particularly frightening observation (under the present circumstances), if true. According to Berdyaev, who was Russian himself, “In our thought the eschatological problem takes an immeasurably greater place than in the thinking of the West, and this is connected with the very structure of Russian consciousness which is but little adapted and little inclined to cling to finished forms of the intervening culture.” Thus, Putin has grafted a very dangerous element onto his war-like project. And as we have seen on this website, with earlier visitors from Russia, there is a fanaticism that emerges out of all this. It is highly emotional, irrational, destructive and even bloodthirsty. Yes, “The Russian World” is clearly connected to “The Russian Idea.” Both are heresies; mainly because in both the concept of salvation is political, like in Marxism. This is why Marxism fits so neatly with Russia’s tragic past, according to Berdyaev, who also noted, “In the deep manifestations of its spirit the Russian people is the least philistine of all peoples, the least determined by external forces, and the least fettered to limiting forms of life, the least disposed to value the forms of life. Given this fact, the most Russian manner of life, for instance, that of the merchant class as described by Ostrovsky, became repulsive to a degree which was unknown to the people of Western civilization.” Berdyaev added, “In the Russian the nihilist readily comes to the surface. ‘We are nihilists,’ says Dostoyevsky. Side by side with servility and selfishness, the rebel, the anarchist comes easily into view; everything flows on into extremes of opposition, and all the while there is a striving after something final. Among the Russians there is always a thirst for another life, another world; there is always discontent with that which is. An eschatological bent is native to the structure of the Russian soul.” [from pp. 211-12 of “The Russian Idea”]. It is worth mentioning that Russia has poorer soil than Ukraine or Germany or even Poland. This fact may have played a role in the formation of Russia’s national character. A terrible, cold climate. Poor growing conditions. Trading along the rivers as the only thing that brings wealth. Meanwhile the majority are miserably poor farmers. What, then, did the Russian think of his situation? Etc. — All of this is controversial and difficult for non-Russians to evaluate. But there it is.

      1. Thanks for your great analysis. I think this speaks to the heart of the issue with Putin’s behavior.

      2. Here is a take on the Russian character by Professor Mikhail Epshtein at Emory University. Among other things, he says that Russia is too rich in resources and that is why people don’t value anything. He also talks about the impact of the Mongol Horde on the Russian character — confrontation became an end to itself. Then Westernization accentuated societal divisions and led to a sort of schizophrenia.
        3/14/22 According to official Russian opinion polls, the majority of Russians (68%) support the so-called “special operation” that Russian troops are conducting in Ukraine. Even taking into account the incomplete representativeness and reliability of such polls, the level of support for aggression that Russian society demonstrates, according to experts, is high, and propaganda is achieving its goals.

        – In Russia, many people like to be lied to, unlike, for example, the Americans… And for many Russians, this is natural and even flattering – it means that they are respected …Russia, unlike Ukraine, did not come out of the European bosom, like Kievan Rus. The Moscow principality came out of the bosom of the Horde. How did it survive? How did it rise? The lie was laid in the fact that the Russian princes went to bow to the khans, got themselves labels for reigning, while exterminating their own people and brother Slavs.

        – It turns out that the Russians in 1480 overthrew the Mongol-Tatar yoke, defeated the monster, but they themselves turned into it.
        – Yes, while schizophrenia has intensified after the reforms of Peter the Great. On the one hand, the educated elite, an estate that grew up on Western culture; on the other hand, there are tens of millions of slaves who have nothing human in themselves, they can be traded. It was such a social schizophrenia within society.

        – Russia has always built itself as an anti-world in relation to the West. At first, the Horde was an anti-world, then Russia, having freed itself from the yoke of the Horde, took on this role itself. In the beginning, this confrontation went along the line of the Third Rome – we have the only right faith, you live in sin, you are heretics, schismatics. Then it was replaced by the communist ideology, which was at war with the bourgeois, capitalist West. But the main and essentially end in itself was the confrontation itself. Russia has never invented its own civilization, it has defined itself primarily in relation to the West, as its negation. And now it turned out that no ideology, either Orthodox-messianic or communist, is no longer needed…

        – You had an essay “Why is Russia so unhappy? the student asked. So why?
        – …My answer is territorial curse. There is a resource curse that economists talk about: the land is so rich that you can do nothing but just trade in the bowels of your motherland, sell them left and right. And there is an even more terrible curse – a territorial one, associated with the legacy of nomadism and expansion. Because the borders of this country are so pushed apart that no one feels like the owner of their territory, which needs to be cultivated, which passes to you from your ancestors, which you will leave to your descendants, having invested all of yourself in this small piece of land. The feeling is like that of nomads, that someone will come, swoop in, take it away, so it’s not worth investing yourself, it will still be taken away, taken away, transferred to another.

      3. I do not agree with Epshtein’s analysis. I think he mischaracterizes Russia, a land where most people were peasants not so long ago. Does the author even realize how cold Russia is? — How far north Moscow is? Look to see if there are any inland cities on that latitude in Canada! Of course, it is true that Russia has at times seen itself as an “anti-world.”

    2. Eastern Orthodoxy is characterized by its nationalistic bent. As Durant pointed out in his “Story of Civilization,” the Orthodox bowed at the altar of the state. The worst of that lot is the Russian Orthodox Church. Kirill, the current Patriarch of Moscow was a KGB agent. It was common for ROC priests to collaborate with the KGB, if they weren’t outright agents, as many of them were.

      It is no reach to think the ROC enabled Putin.

  26. “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made a surprise visit to Ukraine Sunday before she and a Democratic delegation then traveled to Poland.”

    There is something terribly wrong with this…..

    1. Another thing that has been bothering me: why has China locked so many people down for so long? Production has come to a screeching halt. We’re shipping weapons to Ukraine with no way to replenish them as Jeff said above. This article is from 2018, so no bias from what is currently going on:

      The U.S. Military’s Greatest Weakness? China ‘Builds’ a Huge Chunk of It

      1. If a larger war is contemplated by China, a huge shift in China’s economy must take place. Are these lockdowns and port closures related to war preparations?

      2. Possibly. But they also give China an excuse not to ship our military what it needs to rebuild our weapons arsenal.

      3. Regarding China cutting us off: There are even more important supply chain spare part issues having to do with our farm equipment, trucks, trains and more. Capitalism is very adaptive. But there may be shortages. For how long? How severe? I don’t think anyone knows. As long as the government doesn’t interfere we should be all right.

      4. I think you can count on shortages. How severe is a good question.

      5. “As long as the government doesn’t interfere, we should be all right”
        I believe we can count on our government to interfere in the economy to exacerbate shortages. Like imposing price controls as they did in past decades.

      1. I think Pelosi is trying to show she is strong/healthy enough to run the country if Biden and Harris can’t.

      2. With nuclear war one never knows who will be left in the line of succession. If we have people like this in charge during a war I am not so sure recovery is possible,

      3. “Are these lockdowns and port closures related to war preparations?”
        You might remember I speculated on this before.
        At this point we would be fools to not consider the possibility even if (dis)information surfaced to dispute it.

  27. From a strategic perspective, the CCP lock-downs accomplish many preparations for imminent nuclear war. They demonstrate to the people who is absolutely in charge. They compel people to transfer survival rations from stores to their home pantries. They get everyone sitting on the edge to their seats waiting for the next edict (like run for the local bomb shelter). They empty the container fleet and return it to port for embarkation of the invasion fleet. They free up factories for re-tooling to military and domestic production. They roil global markets and disrupt enemy economies. I am sure the folks here can come up with a few more strategic explanations for the lock-downs.

    1. “They free up factories for re-tooling to military and domestic production.”

      That’s one I hadn’t thought of. Thank you!

  28. Jeff,
    Close the comments and let’s read Part 2 while we still can. 😊

  29. As, even for strategic purposes, lock-downs cannot be maintained for long without risking a revolt, the CCP must be nearly ready to push the red button.

    1. When I visited China, I asked how people would react if Chinese troops invaded the U.S. The answer was that the common people would rejoice.

      I then asked how people would act if after the invasion, that the PLA were defeated. The answer was that the common people would revolt.

      The PLA is what keeps the CCP in power. Therefore the CCP can send only a subset of the PLA in an invasion of the U.S. If the PLA is defeated in the U.S., that would signal that the CCP is also weak, thus encouraging a revolt. Would those PLA forces remaining in China be able to contain the revolt? Time will tell.

      1. Nobody has ever suggested that the entire PLA would be used to invade North America. The Chinese can put tens of millions of men under arms. They can probably only supply a million here — at most.

  30. I find the fixation on “nuclear” puzzling. While highly destructive, it is in some ways passé. Just temporarily remove the concept from your mind and read Putin’s comments again — the ones that do not include the term nuclear. Those weapons that no one else has (I am paraphrasing) are something different. I don’t have any secret knowledge but have picked up enough hints over the years to know that there are other technologies entirely. They exist on both sides. But who knows what goes on, e.g., under Yamantau mountain? It is said that no Westerner or double agent has ever been there, or at least lived to tell the story.

    I don’t think the Russians/Soviets are using their best in Ukraine, at least not yet. Tanks that break down, conscripts that desert, incompetent officers, don’t tell the whole story. I think we in the West would be very naive to think that because Russia has bumbled its way through this invasion it needn’t be feared beyond the threat of nuclear bombs.

    1. The bungling we “see” is in the Russian “special operation” and not with Russia’s nuclear forces. The role that land forces play in nuclear war is famously outlined in military texts, like Sidorenko’s “The Offensive.” One should not discount their nuclear forces. One should not discount technological surprise. Yet we have seen nothing along these lines so far. What is going on? Very puzzling.

  31. For all you who sit watching TV thinking that you see the war in Ukraine, and how wonderful it is that Ukrainians have the opportunity to fight Russia on your behalf, this is for you.

  32. jeff, you have turned out to be a pretty bad analyst and havent learned from any past historical occurences relating to russia and the soviet union, you fall into the trap again. youll see what happens to ukraine

Comments are now closed.