Get prepared for actual combat….Xi Jinping
Below these notes is my June 6 interview with Seth Holehouse. A little editing is in order. Viewers should note two verbal slips in this interview: (1) I referred to Deng Xiaoping instead of Xi Jinping at one point, (2) When I said, “most of the people in the communist movement are communists” I was trying to say, “most of the people in the communist movement aren’t communists.” I prefer the written word because you can catch mistakes of this kind; but when you speak off the top of your head, trying to think of simple ways to explain complicated things, your brain can skip a step.
As for the substance of the interview, a key takeaway is: The Alliance between Russia and China must not be swept under the rug. What is frustrating, of course, is that pundits and statesmen regularly overlook this alliance or outright deny it. On what basis are these countries allied? As Russian historian Marina Kalashnikova said to me thirteen years ago, Russia and China are allied “because they are both [ruled by] communists.” She explained what she meant in detail on my youtube account, when I interviewed her (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTpe84lGMnY).
Marina said, “When Yeltsin was in power … Russian foreign policy was practically free from paranoid approaches…. But with Putin in power … we reinstalled this paranoid approach.” I mentioned to Marina that Russia was still supporting communist countries around the world and still working with China. I asked if Russia was doing this simply to overcome the United States, or whether this was a “residual thing from the Cold War” in which “they did not want to give up their old concepts” (i.e., Marxism). Marina said the answer was “both.” She explained, “They restart relationships with all allies from the Cold War … and a special stake is made on China as their ally. In the discussion, who could be their most beneficial ally, the United States or China, China of course has gotten the prize. China has won.” As the Russians were then giving military technology to China, I asked if the Russians were afraid that technology would be turned against Moscow. “They are not afraid of that,” said Marina. “Russia believes they will be reliable friends.” Is it because Russia “has the energy resources China needs?” Marina then surprised me by saying, “I would say that ideological motivation is much stronger. So, I guess that communist principles and ideas bring them together much closer than the energy supply factor because in the Chinese economy oil supplies are not so important.” She then added that in Russia, ideology prevails over the economic factor in building relations with China “because Russian behavior is sometimes very illogical. It looks that way from the Western standpoint.” She added that it is very difficult for Western foreign policy planners because – not realizing communist ideology is driving policy – they expect Russia to do one thing, and Russia does the opposite because of “their communist ideology.”
This open admission that the Russian Federation is under communist control is highly significant. It is also worth noting that Marina was at this time (2010) poisoned with mercury (probably laced with a radioactive element). Less than three years after this conversation she died of cancer in a Moscow hospital. She was a well-placed observer in Moscow, who personally knew top people in the Soviet and Russian governments. She was not an ignorant nobody, but someone who could speak with authority, who was working with her husband on a history of the Soviet Union. She explained, “The American audience and officials should know that in Russia ideology always prevails.” I then asked, “So there is a common cause with the Chinese and that’s why they support Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega and the ANC in South Africa and so on?”
Her reply was that the geopolitical factor is certainly part of it, but, “The factor of communist partner[ing] and ideology is the basic one.” Marina also touched on the deeply militaristic nature of the Russian system under Putin. Communism was, by nature, a militaristic system, predicated on world revolutionary warfare. But Russian militarism goes even deeper than that, as Marina explained:
Jeff, Russian militarism is an historical part of society, very cruel for us and aggressive going back to the Tsarist regime when [the] Russian military is part of … the intelligentsia of society. The Soviet history of the Civil War made this part of society. The military industrial complex is a cruel thing – cruel both for all potential enemies outside the country and for the people….
Marina then recalled when she had discussions with “military technique designers.” They could extend their budget to any size, she explained. During the period of Soviet restoration (without the restoration of the Soviet name), these people have “huge power” within the Russian system. She said they had “unrestricted, unbridled ambitions.” And, she said, they preserve their secrets with great cruelty.
Therefore, in recent weeks, as China tries to publicly walk back its partnership with Russia by framing it as a mere friendship, we must not be fooled. Once you understand that these two powers are together, and have always been together, you will be better equipped to see what is coming. And very few have been ahead of the game in this respect. Too many people have accepted the Russian lies, seeing Ukraine as some kind of Western proxy, which it is not. They see Ukraine as a symbol of homosexualism or transgenderism, which it is not. Ukraine is more conservative, in general, than the West. But who understands this?
Last week a caller on a talk show reproached me for opposing Putin’s “righteous war” against the abomination of homosexuality. Another said I was obviously a George Soros supporter. It has not occurred to them that the moral irritants in their immediate environment are irrelevant to questions of war and peace. Here one must have a sense of proportion, which is lacking in many people. Communism is what the leaders in Russia and in Beijing are fighting for – according to Marina Kalashnikova, according to Anatoliy Golitsyn, etc. However subverted the West may be, Russia would not be needing to attack Ukraine if the West was fully under the control of their “friends.”
Regarding the Ukraine War, a note on terminology is in order: the Ukrainian offensive, which has been erroneously referred to as a counteroffensive, supposedly started earlier this month. This offensive appears now to be on hold (since the breaking down of a major dam on the Dnipro River). A counteroffensive, in military terms, is an attack launched directly into an enemy who is actively on the offensive. Since Russia’s offensives have long since petered out, and there is no ongoing Russian offensive, the Ukrainians are initiating an offensive of their own. This means the Ukrainians have the initiative. In other words, the Russians are losing the war.
Ukraine has not released any details about its offensive moves. Most of what we have are unreliable Russian reports. Everything that happens from this point forward depends on the outcome of the Ukraine War.
Here is my 6 June interview with Seth:
Quarterly Subscription (to support the site)