Has Russia Already Won in Ukraine?

 As we all know, having listened to the CBC, National Public Radio, the BBC, etc. and having read the trusty Daily Mail, The New York Times, etc.,  that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is going disastrously, proving that Vladimir Putin really is insane, and that the totally rotten Russian state is about to disintegrate, giving rise to a collection of corruptostans run by globalist puppets the better to be looted by the rightful owners of the World.

But then what is one to make of the testimony of US Lt. Colonel Douglas McGregor, a soldier of demonstrated courage, decision, imagination, judgement and success on the field of battle. In particular, what is one to make of his claim that the war in Ukraine is, in fact, already over and Vlad's Army, not the forces of Ghengis Zelensky won?

You can hear Colonel McGregor's give his assessment of the war in this discussion with Max Blumenthal:

This conversation is important not only for McGregor's assessment of the outcome of the war, but also his explanation for its cause, an explanation totally at odds with everything you've likely heard until now, which he states after the 43 minute mark. 

Related:

Zelensky to the World: Force Russia to Back Off or World War III Thanks Zel, Not.

Heroic Zelensky Uses Own Civilian Population as Hostages

Russia An Inconsequential, Petty Power of No Global Consequence — NOT

Mariupol About To Fall As Fighting Enters City Streets

Buchanan: US Vital Interests Dictate An End To This War

While Zelensky Pretends Not to Have Lost the War, Russia Tests a Hypersonic Missile in Ukraine

Russia's Invasion Choking World Of Natural Resources

As Russian Display 21st Century Weapons Tech in Ukraine, the West Displays Nazi-era War Propaganda How pathetically degenerate the West has become. And today we learn that the cousin of Queen Elizabeth II has just married his boyfriend 

Putin: Western ‘economic blitzkrieg’ doomed to failure

Lara Logan Calling Bullshit By It's Name:

Nazi Ukraine: TV Presenter Calls for Genocide of Russians by Killing Their Children

The White Supremacist War Heroes of Ukraine:

Russia-Hatred Leads to Insanity: World's Top-Ranked Tennis Player May Need To Denounce Putin To Play At Wimbledon

US Will Pay Other Countries to Fake the News

The invasion of Ukraine has exposed the West’s impotence

I stole the following article from the Spectator because it is excellent and should be read as widely as possible. But if you read it, and you can afford to, by all means buy a subscription to the Spectator, the best written English-language publication in the World. 

There is one point, though, on which the author is clearly wrong. He talks about debt, massive state debt, as if it is a bad thing because it has to be paid back. But it is never is paid back, most of it, anyway. State debt is mainly printed money — ink money as it is known to the bankers. It is paid back only in devalued currency that is itself printed thereby ensuring further devaluation. Government debt is thus a tax on the most innocent. The young couple saving to buy a home in a market with house price inflation of 20%, or middle-aged folk saving for their old age. Of course not all savers lose. Those who invest with wisdom or good luck may do well out inflation. But, overall, the cost of inflation is covered by the devaluation of the currency in your pocket or in your savings account. Put simply, inflation is theft.  

By Rod Liddle: 

The Spectator, March 19, 2022: When the Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky, addressed the House of Commons recently, he was afforded two standing ovations from MPs, both lasting about 40 seconds, before and after he spoke. He was probably used to it, having received a similar reception when addressing the European Parliament a week before. On both occasions, then, he was engulfed by warm, moist waves of adulation and respect. On both occasions he also asked for important, difficult stuff from the people he was addressing and didn’t get any of it – just lots of applause and legislators delicately dabbing their eyes before quickly averting them. 

If Le Creuset saucepans had been allowed into the House of Commons, I dare say our MPs would have carefully banged them together, making sure not to chip the edges. Zelensky may have mused to himself that these western politicians who have courted his country for so long and meddled in its affairs are second to none in their mastery of grandstanding and virtue signalling, of expressing vacuous emotion while saying, in essence: ‘Nice speech, sunshine. But you’re on your own. Good luck.’ 

I cannot think of a moment which more encapsulated the West’s utter impotence than those fulsome and painless ovations. But more than that, they also signalled a comprehensive defeat for an ideology which its proponents once thought would be irresistible to the rest of the world and that we were, therefore, approaching the ‘end of history’. You will remember the phrase with a degree of irony, I suspect – a phrase which in its blithe arrogance also recalls the Marxist notion of ‘historical inevitability’. The term sprang from an essay written by Francis Fukuyama in 1989 in which the author, calling upon Hegel to help him, expounded upon the ‘total exhaustion’ of all those ideologies which were not western liberalism. What we saw in the House of Commons chamber, however, was the total exhaustion of western liberalism, its ineffectuality, its abject failure and capitulation on so many crucial fronts. It was an epic and dangerous delusion. 

For Fukuyama and many similar thinkers, globalisation was the mechanism by which western liberalism would spread, ineluctably, into every corner of the world. It could not but do so, given its obvious attractiveness. For the western liberals, globalisation wasn’t simply a commercial or economic process, but an ideological development which could but serve to diminish that thing they most hated, the nation state (and concomitantly nationalism) through the exchange of labour, multiculturalism and mutual interdependency. It would also serve to reduce inequality. These were all Good Things. But that’s not how it turned out, as the invasion of Ukraine reveals only too acutely.

The countries which have benefited most (for different reasons) from globalisation are Russia and China and neither felt remotely attracted by western liberal democracy. Russia is now exacting its ton of flesh for our naive dependence on its oil and gas, while remaining itself essentially self-sufficient. China meanwhile has used globalisation as a means of building up a network of dependent client states in Africa and beyond. Both countries have the West in hock and in China’s case that includes more than one trillion dollars of US securities.

Far from lending itself to western liberalism, globalisation has been a boon for the most tyrannical countries on the planet and they have exploited it cleverly. We have not. Meanwhile, although absolute poverty may have reduced over the past 30 years, income differentials have widened: according to the World Inequality Database, global inequalities are now ‘about as great today as they were at the peak of western imperialism in the early 20th century’. 

Multiculturalism? Well, yes, we’ve had plenty of that. But it hasn’t noticeably made western Europe a happier continent. The UK’s commitment to that creed ensured we did little or nothing to inculcate in the in-comers a fondness for our way of life and so, reasonably enough, many failed to develop one. Nor have the supra-national organisations, in which the liberals place such faith, done much to advance the cause of liberal democracy. The United Nations abides by a creed of cultural relativism and spends the majority of its time railing against the very countries which pay for its existence – because of their affluence, penchant for welfare capitalism and imperialist past – and the rest laying down resolutions castigating the only democracy in the Middle East, Israel. It is worth noting too that while 141 countries signed a UN resolution condemning the Russian invasion, five countries voted against and 35 abstained. It is still the case that when the superpowers line up, it’s the US and Europe vs the rest. 

That wasn’t supposed to happen. Far from lending itself to western liberalism, globalisation has been a boon for the most tyrannical countries Globalisation is just one example of the way in which the flawed and arguably deluded western liberal view of the world has led directly to our impotence. Money is another. It was affluence which, put crudely, enabled us to win the Cold War, by forcing the Soviet Union into ever more unsustainable levels of spending on weaponry and technology. But that affluence has all but gone. If we were forced to fight a war against Russia now, we couldn’t do it, such have been the cuts to our armed forces, gradually over the past 60 years. In the late 1950s we spent 8 per cent of our GDP on defence; now it is a little over 2 per cent and much lower in the likes of Spain, Italy, Germany and France. Most popular Robert Ginzburg Russian cities are returning to their Cold War state Russian cities are returning to their Cold War state

Globalisation is just one example of the way in which the flawed and arguably deluded western liberal view of the world has led directly to our impotence. Money is another. It was affluence which, put crudely, enabled us to win the Cold War, by forcing the Soviet Union into ever more unsustainable levels of spending on weaponry and technology. But that affluence has all but gone. If we were forced to fight a war against Russia now, we couldn’t do it, such have been the cuts to our armed forces, gradually over the past 60 years. In the late 1950s we spent 8 per cent of our GDP on defence; now it is a little over 2 per cent and much lower in the likes of Spain, Italy, Germany and France.

It is still true that the US and western Europe’s GDP per capita outstrips that of almost all of the rest of the world; the problem, though, is that we spend it all lavishly on ourselves, on our comfort and our sensibilities, and then borrow to spend even more on ourselves again. The National Health Service, for example, has expanded way beyond what was originally envisaged and what was once expected of it and now easily takes up every penny we once spent on defence and then some. There is no end to its ravenous appetite, nor our expectation of it. At the same time we are heavily in debt: UK debt is now 103 per cent of GDP, Japan’s double that amount. The US’s national debt has quadrupled since the 1990s and is now at more than 130 per cent of GDP.

Nothing wrong with debt, the liberals always averred, and so the debt grows and grows… until someone calls time. The US dollar is already resting, increasingly precariously, on its laurels as a reserve currency. Debt cannot continue infinitely. Right now, we have nothing to reach for if we wish to fight a war: not a pot to piss in. But then why would we ever need to fight a war? That was the mindset of western liberalism, the mindset of a credulous 13-year-old, when we decided that – as John and Yoko put it so memorably – ‘War is over if you want it’. And the peace dividend? Spend it. Spend it now. Then borrow some more.

If we could find the money, who would fight? And why would they bother? Here is the real crux of the matter. The same ideology which predicted the end of history is the one which has set about, with great industry, besmirching or literally destroying every-thing about our culture and our history: for the western hip and with-it neoliberal, our culture and our history are not merely Bad, they are Uniquely Bad. Rip it all down and start again. Those things which Europeans and Americans once took as reasons for a certain proxied pride – our contributions to classical music, science, literature, fine art, philosophy, innovation, statesmanship, economics, discovery – are now seen simply as expressions of hideous, privileged, white supremacism: throw them in the river. 

Our past, you see, is one of untrammelled wickedness, a wickedness unmatched by any other civilisation which existed. Everything about us is wretched – our present culture, our past. That these are wholly spurious and indeed stupid allegations does not matter: it is the viewpoint to which our liberal elite cleaves and so it is the view which we are supposed to have of our country, much as the liberals cleave to patent, obvious denials of reality. When nobody in the Labour party can tell you for sure what a ‘woman’ is, you know you are at the end time for a civilisation, a state of utter derangement in which western society is in danger of disappearing, with a shallow ppphutt, way up beyond its own sphincter muscle.

It is not so much that the centre cannot hold, it is that there is no centre at all. Nothing around which we can coalesce, nothing to unite us except for a weird all-consuming self-loathing. That has been western liberalism’s final gift: the creation of a society in which we are enjoined to hate everything we have ever done. The rest of the world looks on quite askance at our Year Zero self-flagellation. Political leaders beyond the Elbe still have a little respect for Shakespeare and Captain Cook – and they know what a woman is, too. If you were asked to fight for your country, what would you be fighting for, now? There is nothing left worth bothering about. They have done away with religion, with our history and with our present and left nothing to put in its place. 

 Western neoliberalism was an undoubtedly well-intentioned creed. But it involved a denial of realities. It is still doing it today. All we have been left with is the ability to emote, to sob, to emote, to whine, to emote, to clap and to clap and to bang saucepans together.

What Does Zelensky Want?

Russia has made its war objectives in Ukraine clear:

1. Ukraine to acknowledge Crimea as Russian territory.

2. Ukraine to end the sniping and shelling of the breakaway Donbas republics of  Donetsk and Luhansk that is reported to have claimed 14,000 lives over the last seven years.

3. Ukraine to commit to remaining outside the anti-Russian NATO military alliance.

That Ukraine will not accept these terms, reveals what Zelensky wants. Specifically, Zelensky wants:

A. To continue painting the 2014 Russian occupation of Crimea as illegitimate, notwithstanding that:

i. Ukraine, including Crimea, has been Russian territory for much of the last one thousand years.

 ii. The Russian state was founded in Kyiv where, following the baptism, in Crimea, of Vladimir I prince of Kiev, in 988, Orthodox Christianity became the Russian state church headed by the metropolitan of Kiev.

ii. Russia has ruled Crimea continuously from the time of Catherine the Great until the 1950's, when a Ukrainian General Secretary of the Soviet Communist Party, Nikita Khruschev, gifted Russian Crimea to the Soviet Socialist Republic of Ukraine. At the time of the transfer, it made no great difference to anyone since both Russia and Ukraine were subordinate to the Soviet Communist Party. On the breakup of the Soviet Union, however, Kruschev's action resulted in the Russian-populated, former-Russian territory coming under the rule of an, at times, genocidally anti-Russian Ukrainian government.

iii. In the 1850's, Russia defended the Crimean peninsula against an assault by British, French and Turkish forces in a war estimated to have cost 650,000 lives. Leo Tolstoy served in the defense of Sevastapol, winning a medal for bravery and, for his dispatches from the front, his first recognition as a writer.

iv. In early 2014, following a referendum in which over 90% of the mainly Russian-speaking population of Crimea voted for union with Russia, the Crimean Parliament requested to join the Russian Federation, which request was accepted, resulting in an essentially peaceful transfer of sovereignty. Among Ukrainian troops stationed in Crimea, many switched loyalties, becoming members of the Russian armed forces.

v. The validity of the Crimean referendum was confirmed by the US-based Pew Trust, which conducted its own opinion survey in Crimea.

B. To destroy the breakaway Donbas republics and eliminate official use of the Russian language, including in education, throughout Ukraine, notwithstanding that the majority of citizens in Eastern Ukraine are Russian speakers.

C. To join the anti-Russian NATO alliance and thus obtain the military backing of the Western nations, while wiping out Russian culture and Russian language-use across Ukraine. 

As Canada's Prime Minister, dictator-wannabe Justin Trudeau, shuttles around Europe lobbying for NATO membership of Ukraine, Canadians might reflect on the consequences of Zelenskyism were it to be applied in Canada. Specifically, they should think of the consequences of a Ukrainian-style, one-language, one-culture policy as it would affect Canadian unity: except there would be no Canadian unity. Quebec would be gone, and if restrained, Quebec would fight.

Related:

Ukraine news – live: Kyiv rejects proposed neutrality

Zelensky pleads for NATO intervention He might as well be candid and admit he's asking for a nuclear Third World War. But our boy, Justin, is still backing Zel.

Zelensky BEGS Biden to step up and 'be the leader of peace'  By going to war

The Killing in Ukraine Won't End As Long As It Hurts Russia Max Blumenthal with Colonel Doug McGregor:

Sending NATO troops to Ukraine is ‘red line’ – German official If the Germans, who have some experience with World Wars, are against another one, maybe it would be wise to consider their advice.

10 Signs the War in Ukraine is part of the Great Reset

30% Of "Ukrainian Refugees" Are Actually From Other Countries That's OK. Canada will have them. We need them. As the fertility of the Canadian nation collapses, thanks to Trudeau I's policies on divorce and abortion, we will replace the historic Canadian nation with people from elsewhere. 

More Than One-Third Of Americans Would Risk Nuclear War Over Ukraine Do these damn-fool dupes of the globalist media propaganda not realize that in a nuclear war not only will they most likely be incinerated, but that civilization as they understand it could be entirely destroyed. 

On the Edge of a Nuclear Abyss: Edward Curtin

Poland Tells Zelensky It's Seeking Armed NATO 'Peace Mission' For Ukraine Poles have form when it comes to stupidity in the run up to a World War. 

US Mulls Sending New "Switchblade" Kamikaze Robot Drone To Ukraine Wonder what the process of "mulling" amounts to when you have a demented president and crackpot VP.

NATO Moves Ahead With Military Drills In Europe, Deploys 30,000 Troops Oh not to worry. It's just a drill, they said.

As China Rises, Russia Turns to the West

By Vladimir Putin

via Die Zeit:

On June 22, 1941, exactly 80 years ago, the Nazis, having conquered practically the whole of Europe, attacked the USSR. For the Soviet people the Great Patriotic War – the bloodiest one in the history of our country – began. Tens of millions of people lost their lives, the economic potential of the country and its cultural property were severely damaged.

We are proud of the courage and steadfastness of the heroes of the Red Army and home front workers who not only defended the independence and dignity of our homeland, but also saved Europe and the world from enslavement. Despite attempts to rewrite the pages of the past that are being made today, the truth is that Soviet soldiers came to Germany not to take revenge on the Germans, but with a noble and great mission of liberation. We hold sacred the memory of the heroes who fought against Nazism. We remember with gratitude our allies in the anti-Hitler coalition, participants in the Resistance movement, and German anti-fascists who brought our common victory closer.

Having lived through the horrors of the world war, the peoples of Europe were nevertheless able to overcome alienation and restore mutual trust and respect. They set a course for integration in order to draw a final line under the European tragedies of the first half of the last century. And I would like to emphasize that the historical reconciliation of our people with the Germans living both in the east and the west of modern united Germany played a huge role in the formation of such Europe.

I would also like to remind that it was German entrepreneurs who became ”pioneers“ of cooperation with our country in the post-war years. In 1970, the USSR and the Federal Republic of Germany concluded a ”deal of the century“ on long-term natural gas supplies to Europe that laid the foundation for constructive interdependence and initiated many future grand projects, including the construction of the Nord Stream gas pipeline.

We hoped that the end of the Cold War would be a common victory for Europe. It seemed that just a little more effort was needed to make Charles de Gaulle’s dream of a single continent – not even geographically ”from the Atlantic to the Urals“, but culturally and civilizationally ”from Lisbon to Vladivostok“ – become a reality.

It is exactly with this logic in mind – the logic of building a Greater Europe united by common values and interests – that Russia has sought to develop its relations with the Europeans. Both Russia and the EU have done a lot on this path.

But a different approach has prevailed. It was based on the expansion of the North Atlantic Alliance which was itself a relic of the Cold War. After all, it was specifically created for the confrontation of that era.

It was the bloc’s movement eastwards – which, by the way, began when the Soviet leadership was actually persuaded to accept the united Germany’s accession to NATO – that turned into the main reason for the rapid increase in mutual mistrust in Europe. Verbal promises made in that time such as ”this is not directed against you“ or ”the bloc’s borders will not get closer to you“ were quickly forgotten. But a precedent was set.

And since 1999, five more “waves” of NATO expansion have followed. Fourteen new countries, including the former Soviet Union republics, joined the organization, effectively dashing hopes for a continent without dividing lines. Interestingly, this was warned about in the mid-1980s by Egon Bahr, one of the SPD leaders, who proposed a radical restructuring of the entire European security system after German unification, involving both the USSR and the United States. But no one in the USSR, the USA or Europe was willing to listen to him at the time.

Moreover, many countries were put before the artificial choice of being either with the collective West or with Russia. In fact, it was an ultimatum. The Ukrainian tragedy of 2014 is an example of the consequences that this aggressive policy has led to. Europe actively supported the unconstitutional armed coup in Ukraine. This was where it all started. Why was it necessary to do this? Then incumbent president Yanukovych had already accepted all the demands of the opposition. Why did the USA organize the coup and the European countries weak-heartedly support it, provoking a split within Ukraine and the withdrawal of Crimea?

The whole system of European security has now degraded significantly. Tensions are rising and the risks of a new arms race are becoming real. We are missing out on the tremendous opportunities that cooperation offers – all the more important now that we are all facing common challenges, such as the pandemic and its dire social and economic consequences.

Why does this happen? And most importantly, what conclusions should we draw together? What lessons of history should we recall? I think, first and foremost, that the entire post-war history of Greater Europe confirms that prosperity and security of our common continent is only possible through the joint efforts of all countries, including Russia. Because Russia is one of the largest countries in Europe. And we are aware of our inseparable cultural and historical connection to Europe.

We are open to honest and constructive interaction. This is confirmed by our idea of creating a common space of cooperation and security from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean which would comprise various integration formats, including the European Union and the Eurasian Economic Union.

I reiterate that Russia is in favour of restoring a comprehensive partnership with Europe. We have many topics of mutual interest. These include security and strategic stability, healthcare and education, digitalization, energy, culture, science and technology, resolution of climate and environmental issues.

The world is a dynamic place, facing new challenges and threats. We simply cannot afford to carry the burden of past misunderstandings, hard feelings, conflicts, and mistakes. It is a burden that will prevent us from concentrating on the challenges at hand. We are convinced that we all should recognize these mistakes and correct them. Our common and indisputable goal is to ensure security on the continent without dividing lines, a common space for equitable cooperation and inclusive development for the prosperity of Europe and the world as a whole.

Related:

ZH: EU Must Establish 'Direct Contact' With Putin: Germany's Merkel

Sputnik News: Germany, France, Austria Back Idea of Russia-EU Summit, Say 'Direct' Dialogue is Needed

DM: EU leaders round on Merkel and Macron and reject their plan to resume meetings with Putin, comparing it to 'trying to talk a bear out of stealing honey'

Meantime:

DM: UK's Stupid, Servile UK Administration pander to US hegemonists by taunting Russia

Oh Come on: who's scared of starting WW3. Not, evidently, Jolly Boris who, as UK Foreign Secretary, did such a fine job hyping the nonsensical anti-Russian Skripal poisoning BS. 

Sputnik News: Moscow Warns of Dire Consequences in Event of Provocations Similar to HMS Defender Incident

Peter Hitchens: Our Navy's Black Sea antics were stupid

World War III to Begin Next Wednesday

Hal Turner: When Ambassador John Sullivan arrived at Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Thursday, April 15, he was told "The United States has six days to cease all NATO activity inside Ukraine. Otherwise Russia will attack Ukraine and stop the NATO activity itself."

Forget the vaccine, get a hard hat. 

All Together, Now: Everyone Hate Putin, Hate Russia

By Mike Whitney

The Unz Review, March 2, 2021: Why is Vladimir Putin standing up to the richest and most powerful men in the world? Why is he bad-mouthing their “pet project” Globalization and trash-talking their “Great Reset”? Does he really think these corporate mandarins and “silver spoon” elites are going to listen to what he has to say or does he realize that they’re just going to hate him more than ever? Why is he doing this?

Here’s what’s going on: At the end of January, Putin was given the opportunity to address the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland (online). The WEF is a prestigious assembly of political leaders, corporatists and billionaire elites many of who are directly involved in the massive global restructuring project that is currently underway behind the smokescreen of the Covid-19 pandemic. Powerful members of the WEF decided that the Coronavirus presented the perfect opportunity to implement their dystopian strategy which includes a hasty transition to green energy, A.I., robotics, transhumanism, universal vaccination and a comprehensive surveillance matrix that detects the location and activities of every human being on the planet. The proponents of this universal police state breezily refer to it as “The Great Reset” which is the latest make-over of the more familiar, “New World Order”. There’s not a hairsbreadth difference between the Reset and one-world government which has preoccupied billionaire activists for more than a century. This is the group to which Putin made the following remarks:

“I would like to speak in more detail about the main challenges ..the international community is facing…. The first one is socioeconomic….. Starting from 1980, global per capita GDP has doubled in terms of real purchasing power parity. This is definitely a positive indicator. Globalisation and domestic growth have led to strong growth in developing countries and lifted over a billion people out of poverty….Still, the main question… is what was the nature of this global growth and who benefitted from it most…..

… developing countries benefitted a lot from the growing demand for their traditional and even new products. However, this integration into the global economy has resulted in more than just new jobs or greater export earnings. It also had its social costs, including a significant gap in individual incomes…. According to the World Bank, 3.6 million people subsisted on incomes of under $5.50 per day in the United States in 2000, but in 2016 this number grew to 5.6 million people....

Meanwhile, globalisation led to a significant increase in the revenue of large multinational, primarily US and European, companies…In terms of corporate profits, who got hold of the revenue? The answer is clear: one percent of the population.

And what has happened in the lives of other people? In the past 30 years, in a number of developed countries, the real incomes of over half of the citizens have been stagnating, not growing. Meanwhile, the cost of education and healthcare services has gone up. Do you know by how much? Three times…

In other words, millions of people even in wealthy countries have stopped hoping for an increase of their incomes. In the meantime, they are faced with the problem of how to keep themselves and their parents healthy and how to provide their children with a decent education….

These imbalances in global socioeconomic development are a direct result of the policy pursued in the 1980s, which was often vulgar or dogmatic. This policy rested on the so-called Washington Consensus with its unwritten rules, when the priority was given to the economic growth based on a private debt in conditions of deregulation and low taxes on the wealthy and the corporations….

As I have already mentioned, the coronavirus pandemic has only exacerbated these problems. In the last year, the global economy sustained its biggest decline since WWII. By July, the labour market had lost almost 500 million jobs…. In the first nine months of the past year alone, the losses of earnings amounted to $3.5 trillion. This figure is going up and, hence, social tension is on the rise.” (“Session of Davos Agenda 2021Online Forum, Putin Addresses World Economic Forum, Jan 27, 2021)

Why is Putin telling his elitist audience these things? 

Read more

Craig Murray on Belarus, Diplomacy and Color Revolutions

There is a misperception in western media that Lukashenko is Putin’s man. That is not true; Putin views him as an exasperating and rather dim legacy. There is also a misperception in the west that Lukashenko really lost the recent election. That is not true. He almost certainly won, though the margin is much exaggerated by the official result. Minsk is not Belarus, just as London is not the UK. Most of Belarus is pretty backward and heavily influenced by the state machinery. Dictators have all kinds of means at their disposal to make themselves popular. That is why the odd election or plebiscite does not mean that somebody is not a dictator. Lukashenko is a dictator, as I have been saying for nigh on twenty years.

My analysis is that Lukashenko probably won handily, with over 60% of the vote. But it was by no means a free and fair election. The media is heavily biased (remember you can also say that of the UK), and the weak opposition candidate was only there because, one way or the other, all the important opposition figures are prevented from standing.

The West is trying to engineer popular opinion in Belarus towards a “colour revolution”, fairly obviously. But they are on a sticky wicket. Western Ukraine was genuinely enthusiastic to move towards the west and the EU, in the hope of attaining a consumer lifestyle. Outside of central Minsk, there is very little such sentiment in Belarus. Most important of all, Belarus means “White Russia”, and the White Russians very strongly identify themselves as culturally Russian. We will not see a colour revolution in Belarus. The West is trying, however.

Unlike many of my readers, I see nothing outrageous in this. Attempting to influence the political direction of another country to your favour is a key aim of diplomacy, and always has been. ...

Read more

Also by Craig Murray:

Novichok, Navalny, Nordstream, Nonsense

Did Vladimir Putin Just Admit Russian Responsibility for the Novichok Poisonings in England's Green and Pleasant Land?

As anyone visiting here on a more or less regular basis will know, we have written a number of posts about the Novichok poisonings in England of the Russian traitor, Sergei Skripal, and his daughter Julia, and also the British citizens, Charlie Rowley and Dawn Sturgess.

Throughout, we have been skeptical of the British position that the poisonings were perpetrated by the Russian state, roused to seek vengeance against Skripal, despite having formerly pardoned him in connection with a spy swap. Rather, it seemed to us more probable that the poisonings were a charade undertaken by British security services as means to stoke public antipathy toward Russia.

Our assessment has now to be questioned in light of Vladimir Putin's remarks on the case that were addressed to former UK Prime Minister Teresa May during the recent G20 summit.

Specifically, Putin said:

“Treason is the gravest crime possible and traitors must be punished. I am not saying the Salisbury incident is the way to do it, but traitors must be punished.”

Sounds pretty much like a confession of Russian responsibility to me, which in itself, makes the statement remarkable. But if it is a confession, it raises the question: for what was Sergei Skripal being punished? Not presumably, for the treasonous acts for which he was formerly convicted, jailed and subsequently pardoned.

The Russian State English Language broadcaster, RT, puts some spin on Putin's comment, stating:

At the same time, [Putin] made it clear that the poisoning of the former double agent Sergei Skirpal and his daughter Yulia, which took place in the British town of Salisbury back in March 2018 and was blamed on Russia by London, is definitely “not the way to do it.” The president explained that the former Russian intelligence colonel already received his punishment under Russian law as he served his time in prison and was therefore “off the radar.” He reiterated that this whole affair had little to do with Russia, while maintaining that London has failed to present any sufficient proof of Moscow’s alleged guilt to the public till this day.

Which, does not, it seems to me, settle the matter. Putin has exceptional skill in the diplomatic use of words, and RT's spin does little negate what seems the most plausible interpretation of his comment.

However, it is possible that Putin's statement was, in fact, a taunt, a taunt based on the knowledge, shared with Theresa May to whom his remark was addressed, that Sergei Skripal was a triple agent, who, having moved to England, ostensibly to continue in the service of the British to whom he had betrayed Russia, was in fact, acting in the service of Russia.

It might well then have been that his allegiance to Russia, having been discovered by the Brits, became the justification for a British charade intended to demonize Russia. That would explain the look of disgust, or is it despair, on Theresa May's face, during her interaction with Putin at the G20 Tokyo summit.

One hopes that Rob Slane, former UK Ambassador Craig Murray, and others who have been skeptical of the official British narrative of this peculiar case will offer their perspective on Putin's comment.

Russian Nationalism

Russians do nationalism brilliantly, which may account in large part for the antagonism that Russia evokes among Western leaders.

Were Trump to attempt a show like Russia's Victory Day celebration, the streets of Washington DC would be filled with mobs of pussy-hat wearers for impeachment now, anti-Second Amendment gun controllers, and a rabble of Black Lives Matterers.

In London Thereason May would be beset by Remoaners demanding a second referendum, while in Paris, France's little President Micron would face loud contempt from Les Gilets Jaunes.

In appearance, at least, Russia is a lot sounder than any of the Western states.



Related:
Dmitry Orlov: A sour Russian view of America's position in the World

Trump Putin Meeting: What Does the Media Want to Hide?

Is this what upset them?

Putin's statement during Helsinki press conference with Trump?

President Putin: "For instance, we can bring up Mr. Browder in this particular case. Business associates of Mr. Browder have earned over $1.5 billion in Russia. They never paid any taxes. Neither in Russia nor in the United States. Yet, the money escapes the country. They were transferred to the United States. They sent huge amount of money, $400 million as a contribution to the campaign of Hillary Clinton. Well, that’s their personal case. It might have been legal, the contribution itself. But the way the money was earned was illegal. We have solid reason to believe that some intelligence officers, guided these transactions. " Source

Meantime, the deep state breaks cover:

Ex-CIA Chief Brennan: Intel Community may begin to "Withhold Vital Intelligence” From President Trump.

Fired FBI Director Comey: "vote for Democrats in midterm elections."

Trump responds:



And


Media-Ite: Trump Calls Media ‘Real Enemy of the People’ While Revealing ‘Second Meeting’ With Putin

Media-Ite: Matt Drudge Weighs in on Latest New Yorker Cover: The Left Has a ‘Fetish’ For Trump’s Death

Daily Caller: FBI Director Fingers The 'Most Significant' Spy Threat To The US, And He Isn't Talking About Russia

The Best One Hundred Words on the Trump–Putin Meeting

This morning, Craig Murray demolishes the hysterical media reaction to the Trump–Putin conversation in a couple of paragraphs:

The entire “liberal” media and political establishment of the Western world reveals its militarist, authoritarian soul today with the screaming and hysterical attacks on the very prospect of detente with Russia. Peace apparently is a terrible thing; a renewed arms race, with quite literally trillions of dollars pumped into the military industrial complex and hundreds of thousands dying in proxy wars, is apparently the “liberal” stance. Political memories are short, but just 15 years after Iraq was destroyed and the chain reaction sent most of the Arab world back to the dark ages, it is now “treason” to question the word of the Western intelligence agencies, which deliberately and knowingly produced a fabric of lies on Iraqi WMD to justify that destruction. It would be more rational for it to be treason for leaders to blindly accept the word of the intelligence services.

Read the rest of Murray's blog post: Detente Bad, Cold War Good

Are the Skripals in Mortal Danger From the British State?

British Prime Minister, Theresa May, claims that the Russian spy turned British double agent, Sergei Skripal, and his daughter, Yulia, were the victims of an attempted nerve-agent assassination conducted on British soil on the direct orders of President Putin.

However, the evidence presented by the British state to substantiate its extraordinary allegation is, as we discussed, here, (and here, and here) essentially non-existent. Rather it appears from the circumstances that the incident was staged by the British state to stoke Russophobia. That would explain the timing, in advance of this week's almost certainly fake chemical weapons attack on civilians in Syria by, so Western media assert without evidence or question, Russia's ally, the Government of Syria.

Consistent with that inference is that the two incidents have been acclaimed with joy by warmongers in both London and Washington, DC as justification for NATO intervention in support of ISIS head-choppers in Syria against the Russian-backed Syrian Government.

Who then constitutes the greatest threat to the well-being of the Skripals? Is it the British state that apparently mounted either a fake or a failed nerve agent attack on them, an attack it then vociferously blamed on the Russians? Or is it the Russians who pardoned Sergei Skripal and released him from gaol years ago?

As long as one or both of the Skripals lives, whether under their own name or another, they represent a risk to the government of British Prime Minister, Theresa May, since they might reveal what actually happened in Salisbury when they were, according to the unsubstantiated claim of the British Government, exposed to the deadliest known nerve agent on the direct orders of President Putin.

In that context, the British Government, with assistance from the CIA is offering the Skripals the opportunity to depart the scene for new lives in the US or elsewhere under new identities.

For the Skripals, the opportunity can hardly be appealing. Not only must they sever all ties with family and friends in Russia and elsewhere, but the offer entails obvious personal risk.

Having induced them to depart the scene in name, why would the British state or their friends in America, not have them depart the scene in body and spirit also. Their identities already erased, supposedly for their own good, who would know, or even think to ask, whether they had also been silenced permanently by the hand of a British or American state assassin?

To the Russians, however, the Skripals are more valuable alive than dead as witnesses to a British operation designed to stoke Western Russophobia as a prelude to war. That they are of potential value to the Russians, is of course, the reason why the appear to be at great risk as long as they remain in the hands of the British state.

Related: 

MofA: Trump Asks Russia To Roll Over - It Won't
Craig Murray: Yulia Skripal Is Plainly Under Duress
Peter Ford, Former UK Ambassador to Syria: At the Edge of Armageddon:
RT: Russia accuses US of plan to destroy evidence of fake chemical weapons attack in Syria
Stephen Lendman: The Nerve Agent Saga: Are the Skripals Being Held Against Their Will in Britain?

By Finian Cunningham: Skripal Poison Case Becoming British Hostage Scenario

NoviJoke: To Russia With Hate

Former British Ambassador, Craig Murray, has made a compelling case that Boris Johnson, Britain's Foreign Secretary, lied in claiming that the poisoning of Russian traitor Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, in Salisbury, England, was with a nerve agent, Novichok, "made in Russia."

Johnson's additional claim that the attack was ordered, personally, by Russian President Putin is almost certainly, therefore, as baseless. That such "mad and horrible" allegations against Russia, as they have been described by Russia's Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, are being made by the British Government suggests the existence of a propaganda campaign in preparation for war. For that reason, the Skripal poisoning story deserves close public examination.

Salisbury Terror Nerve Gas Attack: How We Know Putin Did It

Theresa May, House of Commons, March 12, 2017:

Re: The poisoning of Segei and Yulia Skirpal in Salisbury, England
Based on the positive identification of this chemical agent by world-leading experts at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down; our knowledge that Russia has previously produced this agent and would still be capable of doing so; Russia's record of conducting state-sponsored assassinations*; and our assessment that Russia views some defectors as legitimate targets for assassinations; the Government has concluded that it is highly likely that Russia was responsible for the act against Sergei and Yulia Skripal.

Mr. Speaker, there are therefore only two plausible explanations for what happened in Salisbury on the 4th of March.

Either this was a direct act by the Russian state against our country.

Or the Russian government lost control of this potentially catastrophically damaging nerve agent and allowed it to get into the hands of others.

So folks, no actual evidence, but still it's best just to place your trust in the politicians who in your hearts you know do what’s absolutely best for you, like, for example, bringing on the next ME war, with potential for escalation to World War III.

The fact that the incident in Salisbury occurred days before the Russian Presidential election has of course nothing to do with it.

The fact that the incident in Salisbury occurred just a couple of months before Russia is to host the World cup has of course nothing to do with it.

The fact that the incident in Salisbury occurred in the months leading up to completion of the NordStream II gas line to deliver Russian natural gas to North Western Europe, a project that US interests still seek to block to the benefit of US exporters of liquefied natural gas, a surplus byproduct of oil fracking, has of course nothing to do with it.

The fact that Trump is gunning for a war on a Russia-backed Iran for which the incident in Salisbury may yet provide a pretext, is not to be thought of.

The fact that Putin has no reason to seek a war for which the incident in Salisbury could so readily serve as a pretext, at a time when Russia and China are still racing to surpass the US in arms both quantitatively and qualitatively, is of course irrelevant.

No, clearly, Putin decided that since now was the worst possible time to murder a Russian spy — a man already pardoned by the Russian state — using a terror weapon with Russia’s signature on it, on foreign soil, then this was, in fact, the best time since no one would believe the Russians to be that damn stupid. Trouble for Putin is that everyone is so damn stupid that they really do think the Russians are that damn stupid.

* May defends use of drones to kill British terrorists overseas

* Tracking US drone strikes and other covert actions in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and Somalia

Related:

The Star: Canada’s Russia policy raises many questions (such as why expel diplomats in the complete absence of evidence of wrongdoing? Because it's all bollocks, that's why.)

Nation-Destroying Stupidity In the Age of Universal Higher Education

English novelist, wartime spy, journalist, editor, humorist, novelist, and TV personality, the late Malcolm Muggeridge, once remarked that when everyone has a university degree, no one will know anything at all.

We are now approaching the time when the truth of that prediction can be tested. Two-thirds of Canadians between the ages of 25 and 64 now have a post-secondary education. Since the proportion of those benefiting from higher ed continues to rise, it follows that the vast majority of younger Canadian adults have, or will obtain, a university degree or some other kind of post-secondary diploma.

UK Ambassador Trashes Claim Russia Hacked US Election

Hillary Clinton, in October, was the first to accuse Russia of meddling in the US Presidential election in order to prevent her winning, and to impose Donald Trump on the American people.

Now US "intelligence officials" are informing trusty mainstream media (i.e., globalist propaganda) outlets such as mostly-billionaire-Thomson-owned Reuters that:

U.S. intelligence agencies have assessed that as the 2016 presidential campaign progressed, Russian government officials devoted increasing attention to assisting Trump's effort to win the election.

Specifically, Reuters claims, based on statements from unnamed "U.S. officials briefed on the matter," and as reported in the Washington [Com]Post, on Friday that:

The Real Donald Trump

Donald Trump is a con man and failed businessman. He flies a Boeing 757 with his name on it solely to fool simple-minded persons into thinking that he is rich and successful.

At church, Trump habitually talks during the sermon, and steals from the collection plate.

Trump uses English at a Grade 4 level and his spelling is even worse.

He calls all women "fat pigs," "dogs," "slobs" and "disgusting animals," yet only marries actresses or high class models who for some reason seem to like him, even, or perhaps especially, when he's no longer married to them.

Trump calls  all Mexicans, male and female alike, rapists, criminals and drug dealers, etc., and wants to have them completely walled off from America, but somehow he's managed to con the Hispanics of Nevada to make him their first choice in the Republican primary.

He calls all Muslims radical terrorists, rapists, bombers, etc., etc., yet he has somehow managed to become the most popular Republican presidential candidate among Muslim Americans.

Trump is a racist and white supremacist who has managed to gain more support among American blacks than any Republican presidential contender in living memory.

Trump's a fake Christian (Pope Francis, verified) yet he gets more support among Republican fundamentalist Christians than the supposedly genuine article, Ted Cruz.

 Trump wants to be best friends with the richest man in the World, Vlad the Impaler Putin. And in a crass insult to past American statecraft, he claims that, by getting along with the Russkies, he will reduce the risk of nuclear war and stabilize the Middle-East. As if.

Then, to cap his fantastic foreign policy vision, he proposes to hand off responsibility for dealing with that Axis of Evil monster, Kim Jong-un, the madman of PyongGoneBonkers, to the world's other miniature regional power and nest of Commie bastards, China, as if those slitty-eyed folk could do anything.

Trump Claims that, as a business man, he bribed every politician alive, even Hillary, which is obviously a lie, since why, if it were true, would he have a bunch of politicians, including Hillary, running against him for the Presidency?

Trump thinks that Americans should make shoes and shirts, and computers and car parts for one another (and here), rather than buying them from American-financed sweatshops in Mexico and China. That way, he says, tens of millions of out-of-work Americans will get a decent job again. What he omits to say is that making Americans buy stuff from other Americans would raise the price of sneakers and jeans to the point where those with six-figure incomes would feel that buying stuff cost real money, which is preposterous.

Trump is a closet dipsomaniac and pot smoker, who pulls wings off flies and eats cookies in bed, and much more, as will be revealed in the next public statement by Mitt Romney.

Meantime, since Trump has so thoroughly wrecked their plans for a politically correct Union of Soviet Socialist American States, that William Kristol and the rest of the Neocons are threatening to emigrate to Russia and restart the Soviet Union.*

———
* This last claim may sound far-fetched, but it should be noted that at a meeting for GOP bigwigs and their tech-sector billionaire backers, remarks by William Kristol included repeated quotes from Karl Marks's Communist Manifesto:

William Kristol:

A specter was haunting the World Forum–the specter of Donald Trump. ...
The key task now, to once again paraphrase Karl Marx, is less to understand Trump than to stop him.

Karl Marx:

A spectre is haunting Europe — the spectre of communism. ... 

Related: 

Assassinate Donald Trump Page Does Not Violate Face-Book's Community Standards

If someone does shoot Trump, Melania should sue Mark Zuckerberg for a  billion or two.

Who does Mitt Romney's criticism of Donald Trump help? Seventy-four percent say Trump

Widespread reports of vote fraud to stop Trump

Neocon Warhawks Panic Over Trump Foreign Policy

Political Correctness Has Replaced Christianity As the Religion of the West

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the Communist religion of political correctness has replaced Christianity as the principal religion of the United States and its vassals and tributaries. To understand what this transition means, one needs to understand what constitutes a religion. A religion is not, essentially, a belief in God, or gods, the spirits of ancestors, or other supernatural entities; neither is it an organization, whether state-backed, for example the Russian Orthodox Church, or supranational, for example the Roman Catholic Church; nor is it a matter of ritual, prayer, worship, sacrifice, or fasting. Rather, the essential feature of any religion is a code of conduct applicable to every member of society.

The existence of a shared set of ethical beliefs is essential to any society, for without it there is no basis upon which to engage with strangers in social, business or other relations. But not all ethical codes are equivalent in their consequences. Far from it, as the impact of Political Correctness in the West clearly shows.

The precepts of political correctness are the antithesis of those of Christianity. In the matter of sexual morality, for example, Christianity condemns masturbation, fornication, adultery, contraception, abortion and no-fault divorce, all of which are accepted or positively encouraged under the code of Political Correctness. Contrary to the impact of Political Correctness, the Christian code, which derives directly from that of the Jews, strengthens family ties, promotes population growth, and thus encourage people to "go forth and multiply and rule over the nations of the Earth." This the European peoples once did with enthusiasm, establishing populous colonies in the Americas and elsewhere.

But then the Europeans began to backslide. God, they discovered, does not exist. The story about Jesus they realized was only a myth, so why not enjoy sex without the costs of child birth and child-rearing. And if there is no God in Heaven to punish selfishness, why not ditch the wife at 45 and take on a twenty-something cutie? Or if you cannot afford the alimony, at least have something on the side.

The result? A collapse in Western birthrates to little more than half the replacement rate in much of Europe. But no prob., lots of poor folk from the Third World are ready to take the place of the missing children of the West. Thing is though, many of these immigrants are God-fearing fundamentalist Christians from Africa or Moslems from Africa, the Middle-East and Asia, from which fact it requires little intelligence to anticipate how this will end. It will end with the destruction of both the people and the culture of Europe and their replacement by people from elsewhere who have a more viable religious code.

But to object to the PC-induced self-genocide of the West is Vorboten because, according to the PC code, the Judeo-Christian belief in perpetuating one's own people is — yeah — racist.

Still, folks are bound to wonder, what's driving this program of racial and cultural self-genocide and why?

An important factor is that the PC code appeals strongly to individual selfishness. It allows and even encourages every one of the seven deadly sins: not only lust, but gluttony (Noticed how many fat people there are in America and Europe? Though the PC code says we mustn't call them fat. It's not that they regularly pig-out on grease-filled hamburgers, fudge sundaes, Coke and Snickers bars, but that they are unfortunate sufferers of the disease of obesity; or simply that they are circumferentially challenged.); avarice (Ain't everyone just obsessed about money); anger (Haven't you noticed how the politically correct love to hate, especially white people, aka, racists, religious people, whether Christians or Muslims, and in particular, religious people who attempt to uphold the Christian or Muslim teachings on homosexuality, abortion, marriage, etc., etc.); envy and pride (Without which the advertising-driven Western economies would come to a virtual standstill.); and last but not least, sloth (Why should people work? "Each according to his need" as the Commies demanded, or "Share de wealf" as the rioters from London to Baltimore declare, with general support from President Obama and every other liberal).

But it is not just the innate selfishness of humanity that drives adoption of the PC religion: the push comes from the top, from the political class, the media, Hollywood, the publishing industry, the bureaucracy and the judiciary. Suggest that mixing men and women in the laboratory can be a distraction from the research in progress and the President of the Royal Society itself will trash your reputation as will the Provost of University College London and the President of the European Research Council.

So who's directing the people at the top: the university presidents, the school principals the police chiefs and bureau heads? The answer, as in all other matters that affect its interests, is the Money Power. It is the plutocratic elite, the people who control the mega-banks and giant international corporations that control both the media and the "elected", i.e, bought and paid-for, politicians.

So what's their purpose? To destroy the people, obviously, for reasons that are not difficult to understand. In the 19th century and early twentieth century the proletariat was, for the elite, a necessary evil: they worked the industrial machine and they provided the cannon fodder in wars of mass mobilization. But today they are needed for neither purpose in anything like their present numbers. Jobs in manufacturing, commerce, transportation and communication are being automated out of existence, leaving the need only for a small number of engineers and technicians to build and maintain the robotic systems. War, likewise, has become a high-tech business to be managed by a diminishing number of highly trained, full-time professional soldiers.

Political Correctness is thus a means to get rid of most of the people. Then the resources so uselessly consumed by the masses — land for cheap ugly houses, investments in highways for pointless shopping trips and recreational travel, hideous shopping malls for the vending of mostly useless junk, airports to take the swarming masses to the beaches the rich intend to privatize — will revert to the control of the elite at minimal cost. Then the surviving few will enjoy a much less crowded world, where a deracinated, mongrelized proletariat of a few hundred million people lacking any sense of national identity and without any stupid Western tradition of individual liberty will serve the elite with appropriate deference and in appropriate obscurity.

The takeover is to occur as in the demoralized and decadent post-Soviet states under the rule of corrupt agents of the Money Power such as Yeltsin in Russia, or Yanukovytch and Poroshenko in Ukraine, or in the West such as the Blairs, Clintons and Bushes.

But, hey, those damnable Russians have got their Orthodox Church back, and the Russian Orthodox church seeks to ban abortion. Already the bastards have stopped the collapse in Russia's population, and now that dastardly Putin runt is bestowing honors upon parents of large families. And the teaming masses of China are finding Jesus too. So who knows, the rule of PC in the West may have to be reconsidered.

Related:

Canspeccy: Atheists for Christ

TV.RU: Russians Think the EU Is a Moral Sewer. Child Molesters on the Evening News

David Hodges: The People vs. the Commie Barack Hussein Obama

Sam Rohrer, American Pastors Network: America and the West: Leaders of Moral Depravity

Michael Snyder: 11 Signs That America Has Already Gone Down The Toilet

Alexander Dugin: End of the 20th Century – The End of the Epoch of Modernity

Brandon Smith:The Future Costs Of Politically Correct Cultism

Marxism (collectivism) uses many vehicles or Trojan horses to gain access to political and cultural spaces. Once present, it gestates like cancer, erasing previous models of heritage and history in order to destroy any competing models of society. If you want to understand what is happening in America today, I suggest you research the Chinese Cultural Revolution of the 1960's. We are experiencing the same Marxist program of historical and social destruction, only slightly slower and more strategic.

Younger generations are highly susceptible to social trends and are often easily manipulated by popular culture and academic authority, which is why we are seeing PC cultism explode with the millennials and post-millennials. In my brief participation on the left side of the false paradigm, political correctness was only beginning to take hold. A decade later, the speed of the propaganda has far accelerated, and we now have a bewildering manure storm on our hands. The result is a vast division within American society that cannot be mended. Those of us on the side of liberty are so different in our philosophies and solutions to social Marxists that there can be no compromise. The whole carnival can end only one way: a fight. And perhaps this is exactly what the elites want: left against right, black against white, gay against religious and straight, etc. As long as the PC movement continues to unwittingly do the bidding of power brokers in their efforts toward the destruction of individual liberty, I see no other alternative but utter conflict.

Fred Reed: Googled, Gobbled, and Throttled: The Road to Samizdat

News Forge: More than 200,000 Germans formally left the Catholic Church in 2014, accelerating the downward trend in the Catholic proportion of the country’s population

Mish: Former US Democrat Presidential Candidate Calls for Internment Camps for "Disloyal" Americans

The Saker: How the Ukrainian crisis will eventually bring down the AngloZionist Empire