By: Ken Leslie August 21, 2020
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/55482.htm
While I
was absent from this esteemed blog focusing on other things, an extremely
dangerous situation started to develop and I found myself reaching for the
keyboard again. If some of my previous writings were a bit alarmist, the tone
was motivated by a genuine angst before an unfeeling and unstoppable machine of
conquest and destruction the likes of which the world had never seen. And angst
it is—anybody with an ounce of common sense can see that the World is hurtling
towards some kind of catastrophe. Whether this occurs in a year or five is less
relevant. The point is that we are witnessing a process of rapid implosion of
the current global system and are not able to see what will replace it. There
is no compelling vision of the future—a universal vessel of hope that would
transport us across the turbulent waters of fundamental change. This time I am
not anxious but resigned. Resignation does not imply learned
helplessness—unlike most people around me I am grateful for the ability to be
aware of the danger and to articulate what I see as the truth without fear or
self-censorship.
Some
academics (ideologues?) such as Steven Pinker have argued that things are much
better than they were a 100 years ago—at least in terms of deaths caused by
wars and other hard indicators of well-being. Although it pains me to say that
Pinker could be correct, this essay is not about “progress” but about the
approach of the ultimate regress—the unavoidable and ultimately catastrophic
clash between the “West” and the “East”. A couple of months ago I was writing
about the danger of NATO hordes closing in on Moscow from the Ukraine, Poland
and the Baltics only to realize that unless a miracle happens, in a few months,
Russia will be completely surrounded by enemies. The only exceptions—Norway at
the extreme North and Azerbaijan at the extreme South are less relevant at the
moment but as we have seen recently, these countries too are being subjected to
accelerated weaponization—just yesterday, a Russian diplomat was detained in
Norway and Azerbaijan is involved in a tense standoff with a (supposed) ally of
Russia.
The
fracturing and occupation of the post-Soviet space that began in 1991 is almost
complete. More or less willingly, the former Warsaw pact and buffer states of
Eastern Europe joined the criminal alliance that is NATO and over the last 30
years gradually prepared for the coming war against Russia. When did it all
begin? The blueprint for the current mechanism was established by the Nazi
Germany which narrowed the distance between itself and the Soviet Union over a
few years. Moreover, the political mechanism behind the new Drang (the European
Union) was designed in 1944 by Hitler’s economic experts (and put into practice
by the founder of the CIA, William Donovan). It should be noted that on his way
to the USSR, Hitler had to “pacify” a few countries including Poland, France,
Yugoslavia and Greece. This time around, the whole West is united in its enmity
towards Russia (economic links notwithstanding) and ALL European countries with
the exception of Serbia and Byelorussia have placed themselves willingly in the
anti-Russian camp. This is not to say that the majority of people in those
countries hate Russia (in many they do) but that the governing cliques and
military juntas inside various NATO satrapies are ready to contribute to the
“joint effort to bring freedom and democracy” to the “benighted Rus”.
Of these
two pariahs, the Serbs, despite their love of Russia are doomed by geography
and by the privilege of being the only nation to have a piece of their country
(Kosovo and Metohija) taken away, of being bombed by the combined forces of the
West for 78 days and having a quarter of a million of their number cruelly
expelled from their homeland in Srpska Krajina (currently occupied by Croatia).
Exhausted and surrounded by enemies, the Serbs can do little to stop the clock
ticking towards the Armageddon. This leaves Byelorussia, the only post-Soviet
country that has not flirted with overt Russophobia and whose president showed
many signs of real independence of mind vis-à-vis the West. Alexander
Lukashenko’s personal bravery is not in question. In the midst of the NATO
bombing in 1999, he visited Belgrade and declared himself openly pro-Serb. He
signed the accession to the Union State between his country and Russia that
same year.[2] He was somebody who wanted to
preserve the positive legacy of the Soviet Union and his unwillingness to toe
the EU line (pro-German “democracy” at home and anti-Russian posture abroad)
earned him the sobriquet of the “last European dictator”.
But then,
things started to go wrong, especially after the Nazi takeover of the Ukraine
in 2014. Lukashenko might have started to feel isolated and between Western
pressure and ossification of his quasi-socialist system (nothing wrong with it
in principle), he began to turn against his only genuine ally—Russia. The
reasons for this U turn are complex but at this moment also irrelevant.
Whatever the cause of the cooling of the relations between Russia and
Byelorussia, the consequences are dire and are fast becoming catastrophic. To
understand the gravity of the situation, we should be able to see the
“Gestalt”—the whole of the current geopolitical situation and its trends. That
a global conflict between the West and the East is in the offing there is no
doubt. Not only has Russia been targeted since the mid-1990s, but the total war
on China and Iran declared by Trump and his Jesuitical agents provocateurs
confirms absolutely that we are facing something unprecedented. I need to
remind the reader that nothing like this was even remotely possible only 30
years ago. The brazenness and sheer bloodthirst of the new Operation Barbarossa
with its global ambitions dwarfs any conquests known to history. What boggles
the mind is how successful it has been.
No
bromides about how strong Russia is, how well it’s coping (I repeat—coping)
with the cruel sanctions by the West will suffice this time. No empty hope that
somehow the miserable quisling statelets from the Balkans to the Baltics will
experience a Zen-like enlightenment and disobey their Western masters. No false
hope that the push towards Russia’s borders can somehow be reversed and no end
in sight to the total war waged by the combined “West” (a dire temporary
reconciliation of a resurgent Roman Catholicism, neutered Protestantism and
newly respectable Zionism). From this point on, there is no going back. The
distance between Moscow and the closest point in the Ukraine is 440 km (as crow
flies). In the case of Byelorussia, it is 410 km. Although symbolic, this
advance would be hugely important for the would-be conquerors as it is for
Russia. Starting with Orsha in Byelorussia, the path to Moscow leads through
Smolensk, Vyazma and Mozhaysk—towns that experienced so much suffering in WWII
because they were on the road to Moscow. But what about the suffering of
Byelorussia? It was probably the worst-suffering Soviet republic with an
unknown number of people killed or sent of to Germany as slave labour and
uncountable number of villages and towns destroyed.
None of
this matters in the upside-down Western world view in which black is white and
white is black. It is a world in which the close descendants of the worst war
criminals in history are now the unofficial rulers of Europe together with
their Gallic poodles and Anglo-Saxon frenemies, while the nation which bore the
brunt of the cruellest genocide ever is being attacked by those same criminals
again—as if two Vernichtungskriege in 30 years weren’t enough.
Many will
point out that we are already at war and this would be true. The threat of a
nuclear conflict has prompted Western strategists to think of alternative ways
of destroying their opponents. We are talking about a broad-spectrum effort
which includes political, economic, intelligence, cultural, psychological,
religious and military components. By weaving these different strands into a
single coordinated strategy, the West is hoping (and succeeding) in getting
closer to Moscow every day without igniting a global nuclear war.
This time however, it is different. Not only has the West crossed Russia’s
geopolitical red lines, it has given notice that it will stop at nothing until
Russia is defeated and destroyed. They are skilfully neutralising Russia’s
nuclear deterrent by inflicting a thousand cuts from all sides without
suffering any harm themselves. Two days ago, a Russian major general was killed
by America’s proxies in Syria while delivering food to the people of Idlib.
Today, Alexey Navalny is in a coma after an alleged poisoning attempt. The
quickening is palpable but no event demonstrates the current danger better than
the attempted colour revolution in Byelorussia which is unfolding as we speak.
The
genius of the Western destruction-mongers lies not in their ingenuity and
creativity but in their understanding of the lower reaches of human nature (in
this respect they have no peer). They know how to exploit weaknesses such as
greed, envy and ego and especially people’s susceptibility to vices. Moreover,
these agents of darkness know that most people are frightened, helpless,
largely ignorant and easily swayed and distracted. With this knowledge and an
inexhaustible source of money, the West has settled on a winning scheme of
“peaceful” conquest which has brought it all the way from the Atlantic coast to
the gates of Moscow after 30 years of colour revolutions, coups and open war. I
need to stress the importance and success of this “boiling frog” strategy.[3] There is nothing new or
surprising in their latest move on Lukashenko—the same combination of
underground CIA-funded networks from Poland, Ukraine and the Baltics and
incompetent opposition which is transformed into a “plausible democratic
alternative” overnight. Nazi-linked symbols, Russophobic vultures such as the buzzard-faced
Bernard Henri-Levi circling above the scene, invented ancient roots… It’s all
there.
But that
is not why I’m writing. Throughout my years as a keen observer of the latest
(and last) Drang, I have been fascinated by the patterns of behaviour (on a
geopolitical level) which seem to come straight out of a history book to
describe the period circa 1940. While the Western juggernaut hurtles through
space, the decorum of “partnership” is maintained to the very last moment. Even
though a few lonely voices are screaming that the war is inevitable and that
Russia must neutralise any further advances by the new Nazis, most people are
distracted by COVID, Joe Biden’s dementia and other nonsense. This could be
cowardice but could also be wisdom in the face of an inevitable tragedy.
Even the
tone of the Russian diplomacy is slowly changing—as it did in the autumn of
1940 following the cooling of German-Soviet relations. The ever measured and
moderate Sergei Lavrov (like Vyacheslav Molotov before him) has started
describing the international situation in more realistic terms using noticeably
harsher language. Nevertheless, unless Russia does something very quickly, it
will find itself completely surrounded and unable to defend itself as it did in
1941—hypersonic weapons notwithstanding.
However,
the most fascinating aspect of this latest escalation is the fact that another
colour revolution could be attempted at all and that Russia is still unable to
assert itself in its neighbourhood, if only in order to save itself. “Unable”
is perhaps too strong a word. What I mean is that unlike the West which is
achieving its geopolitical goals without shedding blood and even without
suffering any significant economic damage (no, Russian countersanctions have
not crippled Germany or France), the Russians know that any attempts to stop
and reverse the Western push will cost them dearly—primarily in terms of
further isolation from all Western countries (already, Russian diplomats are
being detained and expelled throughout the EU, as if in anticipation of the
Byelorussian endgame). [4]The Western planners know that Russia
can survive on its own but they also know that it can’t survive for long if
deprived of the oxygen of international exchange—the feeling that it belongs to
the family of European nations. No Eurasian ideology can ever replace the
esteem in which Europe has been held by Russian intellectuals. While I see this
pronounced inferiority complex as Russia’s curse, I have to acknowledge it in
order to explain president Putin’s attempts to get various EU countries on his
side.
It is not
so much about economy but about Russia’s eternal yearning to prove itself
worthy of “European standards” despite the fact that it was Europe that has
been attacking Russia relentlessly and is guilty of crippling it possibly
beyond healing. Hope springs eternal. And yet, president Putin must be aware of
the dirty double-dealing game the EU is playing (I am giving the villain du jour
a miss this time) by leaning on the United States to re-establish its hegemony
over the Eurasian, African and Middle-Eastern space while lecturing Putin and
Lukashenko on the merits of democracy. There is something deeply
hypocritical—not to say Jesuitical—about EUs posture. It is doing everything in
its power to isolate and weaken Russia while offering carrots such as Nord
stream 2. This is much more pernicious than the open enmity of Trump and his
crude supremacism because it offers the deeply unpleasant EU block an
opportunity to play a good cop towards Russia at no cost to itself. Compared
with the US’s Berserker-like attack on anything and everything, the EU appears
“reasonable” and ready for a compromise by comparison—but this is only a
dangerous illusion.
While the
EU is wholeheartedly supporting the new Maidan (relying on the nazified pockets
in the West of Byelorussia and the usual pro-Western suspects), it has the
temerity to issue warnings to Putin not to “meddle” and to Lukashenko not to
“oppress”. This coming from a president who has been perpetrating mass violence
on the peaceful demonstrators in the centre of Paris for over a year. Even
worse, Angela Merkel who is initiating a more muscular foreign policy under the
guidance of expansionist hawks who are champing at the bit to replace her
(Annegret whatever and Ursula I don’t care) dares lecture Russia on interfering
in other countries’ affairs—after her illustrious predecessors. the CDU
crypto-Nazis Kohl, Kinkel and Genscher destroyed Yugoslavia (only for Russian
top partnyor Gerhardt Schröder to finish the job by sending German bombers,
spies and military trainers to Serbia in 1999). And yet, all Russia can do is
appeal meekly to the EU in the hope that the Ukrainian scenario will not recur.
Promises of military help given to Lukashenko are almost worthless in the light
of the cumulative EUs response—which would be nothing short of traumatic. The
proof of this is the complete support by Germany for the Ukrainian regime
notwithstanding its dirty role in overthrowing Yanukovich and undermining the
Minsk accords.
So, what
am I trying to say? The moment of reckoning has arrived. Despite the heroic
battle by President Putin and his comrades to buy time and delay the
inevitable, the time for procrastination and appeasement has passed. Russia
must choose between a difficult but sustainable future and no future at all.
The Western offensive has destroyed all buffers between Russia and its enemies
and although this might not mean much militarily, it has a vast symbolic value.[5] If Byelorussia goes, Russia
remains geopolitically isolated like never before. Furthermore, its enemies,
far from collapsing as many have been predicting, are strong and more united
than ever despite various internecine squabbles.[6] This is not to say that Russia
is at the death’s door. On the contrary, it is precisely because it is so
resilient and forward-looking that its enemies are compelled to ramp up the
pressure.
Even if
Lukashenko survives the current jeopardy, he will cease to be a relevant
political factor in years to come. The weakening of his rule (however clumsy
and obsolescent) can mean only one thing—the infiltration of the Byelorussian
political life by various pro-Western agents of influence who will find it easy
to corrupt and disrupt by dipping into NED’s and USAID’s seemingly
inexhaustible coffers. The moment Russia intervenes in the affairs of Minsk in
any detectable way, it will be subjected to a barrage of hatred, military
threats and punitive measures that have not been seen before. President Putin
has an unenviable choice—act sub rosa (like he has been doing in the Donbass)
and watch Byelorussia slowly descend into an orgy of anti-Russian madness or
intervene openly and risk alienating the EU further, at a time when the fate of
the lifeline pipeline crucially depends on EUs goodwill and willingness to
antagonise Trump (a perfect good cop, bad cop scenario played by the USA and
EU).
All of
this is clear to president Putin and his cabinet and I have no doubt that they
are burning midnight oil trying to think of the best ways to counter the
Western aggression. Yet, history still holds valuable lessons. Stung by what he
saw as the betrayal by the British and the French, Joseph Stalin signed a
non-aggression treaty with Hitler in order to delay the inevitable. The period
of collaboration involved the USSR shipping oil to Germany, oil which would
later power German tanks on the road to Stalingrad. Although he did buy enough
time to execute some important war preparations, Stalin waited far too long.
Months after having received reports of German reconnaissance planes overflying
Byelorussia and Ukraine, Stalin refused to believe that Hitler would betray him
and ascribed the “anti-German” panic to the agents of Winston Churchill. Yet,
this time he was horribly wrong and his error cost the USSR millions of lives
and billions in damage. None of the subsequent amazing victories of the Soviet
arms would quite wash away the bitter taste of Stalin’s epic blunder of 1941.
The
historical lesson I was alluding to is simple yet devilishly hard to implement
because it is “two-tailed”. In other words, the possibility of a deadly
miscalculation stretches equally in both temporal directions away from the
point that represents a timely decision. In other words, given the huge stakes
that are involved, making a correct decision is well-nigh impossible. And
although the choice can be defended post-hoc, especially if it results in a
victory, we can never know if a better decision could not have been made. Like
Stalin, Putin is facing the Scylla and Charybdis of time, only I would argue
that he is facing an even more difficult decision. For all its weaknesses, the
Soviet Union was much larger than its successor state and possessed by far the
largest armed forces in the world (to say nothing about the reserves of raw
materials and workforce). The factor that probably decided its fate was a
relative weakness of the fifth column inside the country and the ability of the
security services to neutralise pro-German networks operating inside the
country. President Putin has entered the twilight zone in which the smallest
mistake can cost him everything. I don’t envy him but pray for his wisdom and
Russia’s preparedness.
Of
course, circumstances have changed dramatically and today’s warfare bears scant
resemblance to the mass movement of army fronts across thousands of kilometres
of chernozem and steppe. These days, the crude manoeuvring of armoured columns
has been replaced by silent software attacks on a state’s currency system and
infrastructure, covert takeovers and sabotage of its assets, denial of open and
free intercourse with other countries, replacement of the indigenous values and
goals by the foreign dogma and suborning of its institutions to will of the
Empire. This new form of warfare requires sophistication and intercontinental
co-ordination. Occasionally, we are made aware of the bloopers of the Western
intelligence services and their silly attempts to blame Russia for all their
ills, but make no mistake! The cumulative effect of their misdeeds has been a
complete homogenisation of the European space along the Russophobic lines
prescribed by the behind-the-scene bosses. Let me put it this way: If tomorrow
the USA and the EU were to declare a war on Russia, do you believe that any of
the Slav vassals would openly defy the clarion call? Again, let me give you a
couple of examples from history.
When NATO
bombed Serbia, not a single country refused to participate in this egregious
war crime and the honour of defying the black criminal cabal of Brussels
belongs to a few heroic soldiers from Greece, Spain and France. With Iraq it
was different in that Germany and France did not feel sufficiently incentivised
to participate in what they saw as a neocon-inspired Anglo-Saxon adventure (for
which they have been lauded no end). To pre-empt the possibility of future
betrayal by its vassals, the US has shifted to a new strategy which seeks to
weaken Russia (or China) without having to mobilise military “coalitions of the
willing”. The war is being fought in small, almost invisible increments which
do not require absolute allegiance to the cause and payment in blood.
The new
army consists of spies, computer and finance specialists, thinktank ideologues,
NGO “activists”, “security experts” and other assorted ghouls whose victories
are not measured in square kilometres of conquered territory or body counts but
in fractions of a percent of damage caused to the currency, prestige or freedom
of action of the enemy. This leaves a lot of space for “plausible deniability”
and the maintenance of the “business as usual” posture while the deadly blows
are administered below the waterline. It also bamboozles the ordinary people
into thinking that the war could never happen. It can and it will.
Another
consequence will be accelerated squeezing and neutralisation of the
semi-impotent Serbia and the final Gleichschaltung of the Eastern wing of NATO
in preparation for a more muscular phase of the war. This will involve
transferring more troops and missiles to the East (but always under the
retaliation threshold), closing down of Russia’s embassies and consulates in
Europe while pretending to oppose the United States, closing down financing
channels and media outlets, making life miserable for Russian citizens and
businessmen abroad plus hundreds more nasty tricks. In many ways, the strategy
of sustained pressure is more dangerous than open conflict because it sucks out
hope from the people of the affected country—the hope that they will be treated
as equals by the “cultured” West. A similar tactic has been used against China
but China is in a much better economic position to withstand such pressures.
The fall
of Lukashenko and “old Byelorussia” can mean only one thing—an intensified
total war which Russia will have to face totally isolated. If Russia’s last
real ally (yes, that’s what he is) can be removed with such ease, Russia cannot
hope to attract and keep long-term allies and neutral partners. This is only
partly Russia’s fault. The power aligned against it is unprecedented in history
and I am praying that Russia will be able to overcome the forces of evil again.
One piece
of good news though—the dissolute Jesuitical warmonger Bannon has been arrested
for fraud—finally showing the Chinese the fruits of a “Christian” education.
Notes:
- The
illustration has been borrowed from the irreplaceable Colonel Cassad
(Boris Rozhin) whose blog most of us visit regularly. The link is: https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/6110832.html ↑
- Generally,
I agree with the Saker that Byelorussia should not exist as an independent
state. Nor should the Ukraine for that matter, apart from the Uniate
appendage of Galicia. ↑
- From
Wikipedia: “The boiling frog is a fable describing a frog being slowly
boiled alive. The premise is that if a frog is put suddenly into boiling
water, it will jump out, but if the frog is put in tepid water which is
then brought to a boil slowly, it will not perceive the danger and will be
cooked to death. The story is often used as a metaphor for the inability
or unwillingness of people to react to or be aware of sinister threats
that arise gradually rather than suddenly.” ↑
- A recent
episode has infuriated me no end. After helping Italy to stem the spread
of COVID in a gesture of friendship and good will, the Russian air force
has had to chase an Italian military aeroplane that was approaching the
Russian Black Sea coast. Even if this was an attempt by the Americans to
poison the relations between the two nations, it is inexcusable and leaves
another stain of dishonour on the standard of the much abused battle
standard of Italy. ↑
- Actually,
it does mean a lot militarily because it allows for all kinds of fast
aggressive moves for which Russia cannot find timely countermeasures. In
today’s world of nanosecond processing, 10 km is a huge distance. ↑
- If you
think that Brexit and Greek-Turkish tensions prove me wrong, remember that
modern European history was a never-ending saga of bloody and destructive
wars.
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment