La Russophobe has moved!

You should be automatically redirected in 6 seconds. If not, visit
and update your bookmarks.

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

EDITORIAL: Well, Now We've Seen Everything


Well, Now We've Seen Everything

As if Russia had not already plunged far enough through the neo-Soviet looking glass and into the pigsty of self-delusion and destruction, two events last week make us think perhaps that now we've seen it all from the Russians. Anything after this can only be anticlimax.

First, a senile old goat who calls himself a "general" and just happens to have his finger near Russia's nuclear button belched out some fanatical ravings in which he boasted that Russia wouldn't hesitate to be the first to use nukes in the event of armed conflict. Apparently, he thought he was intimidating Russia's enemies, but what he actually was doing was confirming the utter impotency of Russia's conventional military forces and the total barbarity of Russia's leadership, inducing Russia's enemies to redouble their efforts to protect themselves. Only a Russian can accomplish such intense self-destructive stupidity in such a short space of time.

But that was just an appetizer. For the main course, as the Moscow Times reported, Russia announced that " if Britain resumed cooperation with the Federal Security Service and expressed a willingness to ease visa rules for Russians." Foreign Ministry spokesman Andrei Krivtsov stated that "everything started when the British refused to hold talks to simplify the visa regime and stopped cooperation with the FSB. After that, talks about the status of the British Council became impossible. That means conditions have to be created for the resumption of talks."

In other words, what the Kremlin has done is to openly admit that it is persecuting the British Council in an act of naked neo-Soviet foreign policy blackmail. But the Kremlin seems to have forgotten that it's told the people of Russia that the British Council is operating "illegally" (just as it accused Mikhail Khodorkovsky of doing), and that it is only enforcing the law. In fact, the Kremlin has openly accused the Council of harboring spies. This word has gone out across the country to the Kremlin's minions, who have been repeating it like a mantra across the blogosphere. The Kremlin's statement has just cut the legs out from under them, and destroyed even the absurd illusion that the Kremlin was acting pursuant to the rule of law. Just think of the precedent: If Russia is entitled to do this to Britain, then the world is entitled to do it to Russia. A weak, sick nation, Russia's only defense from such action was to claim the moral high ground. Now, that's gone out the window. Nice job, Mr. Putin. Way to protect your country!

Essentially, the Kremlin seems to be saying it's just fine if the British Council goes on spying and breaking Russian law, as long as the British government drops the Litvinenko prosecution. In other words, it's admitting that Russia is a banana republic.

The chart above is a snapshot of the Russian stock market, showing that in the four business days between January 16th and January 21st (last Monday, its worst trading day in 18 months) it lost over 17% of its value, dropping breathtakingly below the 2000 level before recovering slightly. The reason for this drop is that, despite Russian's energy resources and the skyrocketing world market for them, the Russian economy is fundamentally weak and totally subservient to those world markets. The U.S. market has tanked, and taken Russia's market right along with it. If Russians are cheering the U.S. losses, and they are, they are cheering their own demise. If Americans can't buy huge quantities of crude oil, the price of that commodity will collapse. If it does, Russia's entire house-of-cards economy will come down. Apparently, Russian fairy tale heritage doesn't include the story of the goose that laid the golden egg. Either that, or Russia is simply a nation of morons.

Amazingly, it's actually the Kremlin's policy to provoke and alienate the markets upon which it depends utterly even more than they already are, just as the USSR always used to provoke the countries that supplied the grain necessary to cover its shortfalls and keep its threadbare population alive.

There's only one word for that policy: Crazy.

There's simply no way, not in their wildest dreams, that Russia's so-called "enemies" (remember, Russians thought Solzhenitsyn was one, and Sakharov, and Pushkin . . .) could ever inflict a fraction of the damage upon Russia that the Russian people themselves, and their designated leaders, can deliver. Ever more cut off from the outside world, just like the famous Emperor with his "new clothes," the Russian people are dooming their children do a life of woe.

That is, if they have any life at all.


Artfldgr said...

belched out some fanatical ravings in which he boasted that Russia wouldn't hesitate to be the first to use nukes

The problem in the west is that we confuse unpalatable with fanatical. No, a nut job in a mental institution with a button from staples is a fanatic. A person who is a leader, who is saying something that one finds unpalatable, and unconscionable, is not a fanatic by either definition, or by the suggestions.

This is a mainstream false vanity. That these heinous acts are seen as the acts of the crazy, the mad, the insane, and more. that’s false. That’s just failure to understand the implications of pragmatism, and relativism, and the power they are presumed to grant someone over others who seem to have the limitations of propriety, sanity, rules, law, morals, ethics, and more.

I wonder this little tit bit that isn’t common knowledge.

If one digs a lot, one can find the unpopular truth that Russia smuggled nuclear arms into Europe. Yes, it’s true. If one can bring in two tons of cocaine, its not that hard to move a nuke. If Russia would have invaded before their seeming collapse/restructuring, they would have had a big advantage against the west as they had already stockpiled nuclear weapons in strategic points throughout Europe (its presumed that they also had them in the west).

They were found as a side effect of some interesting science, and once they were found that way, a lot more of these ‘scientific’ research things were created all over the world and monitored. In effect, they make it impossible to hide nukes that sit still for a length of time. [So it is unlikely that any nukes exist in Europe, or the west anymore that are in this state]. The US and west also had nukes stationed along the NATO lines. These are tactical and they are the reason the west made them.

The switch to using Islamic much more and gearing them up for the maintenance of false flag potential was their answer to this removal of their advantage.

Stanislav Lunev is ONE of the defectors that helped in this situation. He is the highest GRU officer to defect. While the tin hat press has gone nuts with such things, the more sober tactical truth of it is not as extreme, but also not deniable. As I pointed out in another post. The soviet union had much of its arsenal (many more times), devoted to tactical nukes, not strategic nukes like the US.

If one were to analyse this from all angles… it’s a given that it was done. the west could not make such a truth public, and so the exercise would only be between the states. The game would go on till they figured out how to find them, or a conflict would make it moot (or a tactic such as false flag of a third party came about). Once this was done, they would be removed, and no one in the public would ever know or believe it. short of showing them how they are located, then showing where there is a new one, then taking reporters to it, no one would believe it. So from the standpoint of good tactics, it’s a given to be done. the fall of russia and the new open borders facilitated the game change.

However no one here, except maybe me, is trying to do an analysis on facts. The fact is that being big and blustering to a entity that will not respond to such or in kind, is not a crazy thing. in fact you can find such as common in mating behaviors… why else does the peacock have such a big tail?

The point here is that if there is reputation and power and consideration to be gained from a group by playing such games, they become a fait accompli given that this small thing can dance in front of the big professional boxer and appear brave, while all the time knowing that if they don’t cross some real and well known line, they wont have any real response.

So is that crazy? Or is that banking that the US would hurt more responding to that than that would have problems playing with that?

inducing Russia's enemies to redouble their efforts to protect themselves. Only a Russian can accomplish such intense self-destructive stupidity in such a short space of time.

It’s well known that Russians are great at tactics, rotten at strategy. The first part is the point, the second part is a empty assumption.

How is this self-destructive? Its only self destructive if one accepts what they say about what they want publicly. However, until tanks roll into a country, and even then, everyone is going to give them every possible excuse in every possible area.

And when they cant find a cogent convincing reason and are backed up against the wall of either calling them what they are, or finding another out, that’s when they say they are nuts, crazy, self destructive, and more…

Crazy is not a medical term, it’s a public term. It comes into play when someone elses actions are inscrutable. This is why in the legal sense VERY VERY few are found to be crazy!!! Crazy is not measured by the nastiness of the acts, or how strange they are to other people. they are measured by effectiveness and life impact.

In this regard a crazy act that gets a cogent end is called tactics not lunacy.

They are leading one of the worlds most massive countries, with the most nuclear weapons on the planet, a conscripted military (of which they can get as many as they desire to grind up of which they have or have taken), and have figured out what Lenin and stalin never figured out.

How to transfer the wealth of a nation into the wealth of a person!!!

That’s not nutty, it’s ambitious. And wide ambitious plans do not come to fruition through meek and mild moves.

They are only crazy if one desires to measure them against how they think that rulers should be… AND totally ignores how they have been through history…

If one did that, then the US is the crazy one for trying something different and better… but since crazy is not defined as doing opposite what the majority do, the US is not seen as crazy by the meritocritous… but is seen to be crazy to the left whose whole life is wrapped up in one sentence. “if I had that kind of power I would do this, since they don’t do that, they must be crazy”

Russia makes more being the victim than it does standing on its own. Russia is like a feminist (actually feminists are communists). Russia is always the perpetual victim, facts don’t matter, everyone oppresses her (including herself), her actions should not be limited, she is completely entitled by any reason she can come up with that sticks, only the other must be held to contracts and agreements not her, crazy unlimited freedom is how they should be allowed to act or they are not free and downtrodden, she should be placed automatically up top of business and government around the world by virtue of the greatness everyone should see outright (not that she should earn her place by hard work). She claims if she is not part of every lucrative agreement, then its discrimination… however, she also claims that if she is in a bad agreement, then it’s ‘the other’. is it any wonder that all the feminists leaders and movements all want communist government and believe that they will get what they want out of it?

Living in a world with soviet style Russia is like trying to maintain a home when one of the partners is a feminist.

Her idea of perfection would be all the benefits of marriage split away from marriage, and that her partners are all her enemies. That the secret patriarchy/capitalism, like moriarty, foils all her plans for world perfection.

You cant tell the two apart!!!

And the same truth is visited on all of us. that in order for the world to become peaceful and productive, each of us must take on some roles. We define them, but we forget that, and we forget that we define them similarly since we are similar and figure out the same validity.

However, the world right now is about as successful as a modern western family where the husband (USA), wants an amical relationship with the wife (russia), but they cant live under the same roof, because the wife has taken an ideology as her way through the world. (the husband has too, but only because he is trying to accommodate the wife and connect. This is ujnder the idea that if they do connect the wife will wake up and things will rapidly get better for everyone).

Just like the married couple murdering the wife by the husband is not an option for a patriarchal capatlist guy… but murdering the husband IS valid for the feminist woman.

So this is the same thing writ large… not that russia and the USA are husband and wife… (watch how the idiots get wrapped up in the metaphor. Even after I warn them that it’s a metaphor, a tool to get ideas across, a temporary bridge, not a permanent construct).

Russia is the feminist wife that has vowed to kill the man who she lives with under the roof. Eastern countries are polygynous, not polygamous. Everyone tends to be married or bothered to everyone else. Its like a small tribe, there is little choice. Either get married and live under one home, or tear it apart and everyone dies.

So America is married to England as England is married to Europe. Where the partners cooperate and play their CHANGING roles that they define or are defined by circumstances, the families get better. So the family between the UK and US are very healthy full, and have a lot. The family between Russia and US, is like a feminist family that says… I aint having any oppressive babies, which to countries says… we cant cooperate… we are enemies… stop wanting to be my wife.. I am a lesbian, and can only love others like me… and so like feminists it defines peace as a world empty of men/patriarchs/capitalists.

Meanwhile, russia plays this out, just as a feminist would.. after all, wouldn’t a feminist say that deadly force with a gun is her right since she is equal but different, and that to make her equal to everyone else she requires entitlements top make her equal?

Of course… the logic IS communist, and so that is exactly what is going on here writ large. Russia, claiming to be equal but different is claiming that in order to be equal they have to have unequal things. (that’s Marxism).

So just as communist women in the west have redefined deadly force differently if a male needs it, than if a female needs it. russia is doing exactly the same thing!

See how the logic implied to everyone here ni their daily life can then be used to accept arguments in areas larger than life?

The logic that the weaker has a right to use more force, to hit while down, to have optiosn of attack that re not open, is the whole leftist dialectic OUTSIDE of russia!

So we have internalized this logic and for those that follow it in their lives in the west, they wont see the invalidity of the argument writ large.

In this way, you will see leftists in the coming weeks all make sense of this threat through their ideological views.

Russia is the oppressed one (she is woman, black, jew, poor, etc)

Under their dialectic can the oppressed oppress the oppressor? Nope… so anything that russia does, including nuclear weapons is a valid response of a oppressed to the oppressor!

The oppressed cant make a deal with the oppressor because by definition its not possible to have an honest deal with your oppressor. In this way, oppressors have to fulfil any of their agreements, but the oppressed does not have to fulfill theirs because by definition all agreements with the oppressor are not freely entered into (even if they are).

The oppressor must stand still and take any and all responses, otherwise the oppressor is using imperialistic force to insure that the oppressor always stays in power. so the oppressor is NOT allowed to defend itself, while the oppressed are allowed unlimited defense.

Feminists took communist thinking and used that to gain western power… power they would never have had if we didn’t accept some of these arguments of the downtrodden.

Well, these arguments and world view are theirs. this is who they are, this is how they see. this is why they are paranoid. Just as western women are paranoid of all men and their mates… and we don’t notice that these are the same modes of thought… one writ small in the battle in each lives, and one writ large as the battle between states.

Artfldgr said...

The U.S. market has tanked, and taken Russia's market right along with it. If Russians are cheering the U.S. losses, and they are, they are cheering their own demise.

there is a great editorial cartoon here that would work on many levels.

there is the capitalist saying that "in a rising tide, all boats are lifted", that one can qualify, to all seaworthy boats are lifted...

and so you can see this drawing... bush with a boat around his waist and putin with a boat around its waist.

the american boat is under water, but the head of the americas is out of the water...

the russian boat is around putins ankles and the water is over his head...

and little bubbles are coming up and as they clear the top of the water and pop, you can hear laughter.