Guest Post: 2014 - A Russian Viewpoint

Tyler Durden's picture

Via The Vineyard Of The Saker blog,

By any measure 2014 has been a truly historic year which saw huge, I would say, even tectonic developments. This year ends in very high instability, and the future looks hard to guess. I don't think that anybody can confidently predict what might happen next year. So what I propose to do today is something far more modest. I want to look into some of the key events of 2014 and think of them as vectors with a specific direction and magnitude. I want to look in which direction a number of key actors (countries) "moved" this year and with what degree of intensity. Then I want to see whether it is likely that they will change course or determination. Then adding up all the "vectors" of these key actors (countries) I want to make a calculation and see what resulting vector we will obtain for the next year. Considering the large number of "unknown unknowns" (to quote Rumsfeld) this exercise will not result in any kind of real prediction, but my hope is that it will prove a useful analytical reference.

The main event and the main actors
A comprehensive analysis of 2014 should include most major countries on the planet, but this would be too complicated and, ultimately, useless. I think that it is indisputable that the main event of 2014 has been the war in the Ukraine. This crisis not only overshadowed the still ongoing Anglo-Zionist attack on Syria, but it pitted the world's only two nuclear superpowers (Russia and the USA) directly against each other. And while some faraway countries did have a minor impact on the Ukrainian crisis, especially the BRICS, I don't think that a detailed discussion of South African or Brazilian politics would contribute much. There is a short list of key actors whose role warrants a full analysis. They are:

  1. The USA
  2. The Ukrainian Junta
  3. The Novorussians (DNR+LNR)
  4. Russia
  5. The EU
  6. NATO
  7. China

I submit that these seven actors account for 99.99% of the events in the Ukraine and that an analysis of the stance of each one of them is crucial.  So let's take them one by one:

1 - The USA

Of all the actors in this crisis, the USA is by far the most consistent and coherent one.  Zbigniew Brzezinski, Hillary Clinton and Victoria Nuland were very clear about US objectives in the Ukraine:

Zbigniew Brzezinski: Without Ukraine Russia ceases to be empire, while with Ukraine - bought off first and subdued afterwards, it automatically turns into empire…(...)  the new world order under the hegemony of the United States is created against Russia and on the fragments of Russia. Ukraine is the Western outpost to prevent the recreation of the Soviet Union.

Hillary Clinton: There is a move to re-Sovietise the region (...) It’s not going to be called that. It’s going to be called a customs union, it will be called Eurasian Union and all of that, (...) But let's make no mistake about it. We know what the goal is and we are trying to figure out effective ways to slow down or prevent it.

Victoria Nuland: F**k the EU!

Between the three, these senior US "deep-staters" have clearly and unambiguously defined the primary goal of the USA: to take control of the Ukraine to prevent Russia from becoming a new Soviet Union, regardless of what the EU might have to say about that.  Of course, there were other secondary goals which I listed in June of this year (see here):

As a reminder, what were the US goals in the Ukraine: (in no particular order)

  1. Sever the ties between Russia and the Ukraine
  2. Put a russophobic NATO puppet regime in power in Kiev
  3. Boot the Russians out of Crimea
  4. Turn Crimea into a unsinkable US/NATO aircraft carrier
  5. Create a Cold War v2 in Europe
  6. Further devastate the EU economies
  7. Secure the EU's status as "US protectorate/colony"
  8. Castrate once and for all EU foreign policies
  9. Politically isolate Russia
  10. Maintain the worldwide dominance of the US dollar
  11. Justify huge military/security budgets

I have color-coded objectives these objectives into the following categories:

Achieved - black 
Still possible - too early to call - blue
Compromised - pink
Failed - red

Current "score card": 1 "achieved", 5 "possible, 2 "compromised" and 3 "failed".

Here is how I would re-score the same goals at the end of the year:

  1. Sever the ties between Russia and the Ukraine
  2. Put a russophobic NATO puppet regime in power in Kiev
  3. Boot the Russians out of Crimea
  4. Turn Crimea into a unsinkable US/NATO aircraft carrier
  5. Create a Cold War v2 in Europe
  6. Further devastate the EU economies
  7. Secure the EU's status as "US protectorate/colony"
  8. Castrate once and for all EU foreign policies
  9. Politically isolate Russia
  10. Maintain the worldwide dominance of the US dollar
  11. Justify huge military/security budgets

New score card: 6 "achieved", 1 "possible", 1 "compromised" and 3 "failed"

At first glance, this is a clear success for the USA: from 1 achieved to 6 with the same number of "failed" is very good for such a short period of time.  However, a closer look will reveal something crucial: all the successes of the USA were achieved at the expense of the EU and none against Russia.  Not only that, but the USA has failed in its main goal: to prevent Russia from becoming a superpower, primarily because the US policy was based on a hugely mistaken assumption: that Russia needed the Ukraine to become a superpower again.  This monumental miscalculation also resulted in another very bad fact for the USA: the dollar is still very much threatened, more so than a year ago in fact.

This is so important that I will repeat it again: the AngloZionist Empire predicated its entire Ukrainian strategy on a completely wrong assumption: that Russia "needed" the Ukraine.  Russia does not, and she knows that.  As we shall see later, a lot of the key events of this year are a direct result of this huge miscalculation.

The US is now facing a paradox: "victory" in the Ukraine, "victory" in Europe, but failure to stop a rapidly rising Russia.  Worse, these "victories" came at a very high price which included creating tensions inside the EU, threatening the future of the US shale gas industry, alienating many countries at the UN, being deeply involved with a Nazi regime, becoming the prime suspect in the shooting down of MH17 and paying the costs for an artificially low price of gold.  But the single worst consequence of the US foreign policy in the Ukraine has been the establishment of a joint Russian-Chinese strategic alliance clearly directed against the United States (more about that later).

Can the US stay the course next year?  That is hard to predict but I would say that in terms of direction the US policy will be more of the same.  It is the magnitude (in the sense of will/energy to pursue) of this policy which is dubious.  Traditionally, US policies are typically very intensive in the short term, but lack the staying power to see them through in the long term and there is no reason to believe that this case will be different.  Furthermore, the US foreign policy establishment is probably simply unable to imagine a different approach: the United States do not really have a real foreign policy, rather they issue orders and directives to their vassal states and threats to all others.  Finally, just as some banks are considered "too big to fail" the US policy towards the Ukraine is "too crazy to correct" thus any change of course would result in a major loss of face for an Empire which really cannot afford one more humiliating defeat right now.  Still, when the political and financial costs of this policy become prohibitive, the US might have to consider the option to "declare victory and leave" (a time-honored US practice) and let the EU deal with the mess.  There is also the very real risk of war with Russia which might give some US decision-makers pause.  This is possible, but I am afraid that the US will try to play it's last card and trigger a full-scale war between the Ukraine and Russia.

Why would the US want to do that?  Imagine this:

A full scale war between Russia and the Ukraine

The Ukrainians are told to attack Novorussia again.  This time, they are more numerous, better equipped and their attack is fully supported, if not executed, by American "advisers" and retired US Army officers.  Imagine further that the Ukrainians are given full intelligence support by US/NATO and that their progress is monitored 24/7 by US/NATO commanders who will help them in the conduct of the attack.  Finally, let us assume that the Novorussians are overwhelmed by the sheer magnitude and speed of the attack and that Lugansk and Donetsk are rapidly surrounded.  At this point the Russians will face a stark choice: either to abandon Novorussia to the Nazis or intervene.  The first option would be catastrophic for Putin politically, and it would "solve" nothing: the Ukrainian junta, the US, EU, NATO have all clearly and repeatedly stated that they will never accept the reincorporation of Crimea into Russia.  Furthermore, if the Russians let the Nazis overrun Novorussia, the next logical step for the Ukrainians will be to move south and repeat the very same operation in Crimea at which point Russia will not even have a choice and she will be forced to engage the Ukrainians to defend Crimea.  Thus, if the Russians realize that the Ukrainians will push on no matter what, then Russia would be far better of engaging the Ukrainians over Novorussia then over Crimea.

If the Russians make the call that they have to openly intervene to save the Donbass from the Nazis, the Ukrainians don't stand a chance and everybody knows that.  The Russians would very rapidly defeat the Ukrainian forces.  Such a Russian move would be greeted by a massive media campaign denouncing the Russian "invasion" and Kiev would probably declare the Ukraine at war in which case the combat operations would probably spill over into other parts of the Ukraine or even Russia (the Ukrainians could, for example, try to strike Russians airports around Rostov or in Crimea). Whatever the Ukrainians decide, it is certain that they would have nothing to lose by escalating the situation further.  In military terms, Russia can easily handle whatever the Ukrainians can try to throw at them. However I would not expect the Russians push to Kiev or the Dniper River, even if they could.  They are most likely to do what they did to Saakashvili in 2008: protect the attacked region and only go as far as needed to disarm their enemy (in 2008 Russia could *easily* have occupied all of tiny Georgia, but she ended up withdrawing behind Ossetian and Abkhaz lines).

Such a Russian victory would be a crushing military defeat for Kiev, but not for the USA.  The Americans would have their 'proof' of Russian imperial "aggression" and declare that the EU needs "protection" from the "Russian bear".  The US would finally have the Cold War v2 it wants so badly, the EU politicians would play along, just to terrify their own population, and a "wonderful" arms race and a situation of extreme tension would pit all of Europe against Russia for a long, long time.  Even for the junta in Kiev a military defeat might be a wonderful opportunity to blame it all on Russia and a way to get the population to rally against the "aggressor".  Such a war between Russia and the Ukraine could also justify the introduction of martial law and a massive and vicious crackdown against "Russian agents" (i.e. any opposition) who would be designated as "saboteurs" and responsible for the inevitable Ukrainian defeat.

In the Ukraine and in Russia there is this black-humor joke which says that "the USA will fight Russia down to the last Ukrainian" and this is exactly what might happen as this option offers a lot of major advantages for the USA.  For one thing, it is a win-win proposition: either the Ukrainians re-take Novorussia and then the very same plan can be repeated in Crimea, or they are defeated by Russia, in which case the resulting crisis offers huge benefits for US imperial ambitions.

Now let's look at the options for the Ukrainian junta.

2 - The Ukrainian Junta

For the Nazi regime currently in power things are not going well and unless something changes they are headed for disaster: Crimea is gone, the Donbass is slowly but surely building up its instruments of statehood, the economy is basically dead and the "holes in the dam" harder and harder to plug.  An explosion of popular unrest is inevitable.  Worse, there are exactly *zero* future prospects for the Ukrainian economy and an official default is quasi inevitable.  So what can the junta do?

Here it is crucial to remember that no Ukrainian politician has any real power, not even Poroshenko, Iatseniuk or Turchinov.  The real rulers of the Ukraine are the US ambassador and the Kiev CIA station chief.  These are the people who literally administer the Nazi junta on behalf of the US deep state and its imperial interests.  As for the Ukrainian members of the junta, they all perfectly understand that their future is 100% dependent on being a faithful servant of the AngloZionist Empire.  They all understand that they came to power by means of an completely illegal coup, that the elections they organized this year were a total farce and that they will soon have to use repressive measures against their own population just to stay in power.  Last but not least, these are the folks who not only used chemical munitions, cluster bombs and even ballistic missiles against their own people, but who also send their own armed forces to be slaughtered in useless and criminally irresponsible "surprises" ordered by Poroshenko (the attempt to encircle Novorussia and to cut it off from the Russian border).  We are talking about hardened war criminals here, people with no conscience whatsoever, sociopaths with a total lack of any moral compass.  These are the folks who spoke a "barbecue of insects" in Odessa when 100+ people were tortured to death or burned alive and who giggled about shooting down the wrong place about MH-17 (Kolomoisky video).  In fact, they are currently engaged in a racist hate-campaign.

Check out these posters which were recently shown in Kiev as part of a competition of patriotic posters.  If a picture is worth one thousand words, just glancing at these few will tell you all you need to know about the wordview of the Nazi junta: (note: I translated the meaning of the slogans)

Russians don't get to speak
All together we will stop Russian terrorism
God's speaks through the people's voice
Fuck off Eurasian bastard!
May each slave wake up in a coffin
Getting a Russian passport makes you a Eurasian faggot
Don't pass by - kill!

I have to explain the last one: what you see is a  "Colorado beetle" (Leptinotarsa decemlineata) which has colors similar to the ones seen on the Russian Saint George Ribbon.  In other words, this poster says that if you pass by a Russian you should kill him.  Notice the other themes: the Maidan was God's voice, the Russians are "Eurasians" who are beasts who should have no right, not even the right to speak or live. This is exactly the same propaganda style as used by Hitler against Jews and we all know how this ended (yet again another proof that to refer to the junta as "Nazi" is perfectly justified).

But there is much more then just words to pay attention to.

The Ukrainian budget has finally been adopted by the Rada.  It can be summarized as such: less services, more taxes and everything for the military and security services (3% of the GDP for the former, 2% for the latter).  For a country which is essentially bankrupt this is a huge effort.  Not only that, but the junta has also announced that it will execute another mobilization next year (the 4th one in less than one year!!).  Now ask yourself a basic question: could such a truly titanic effort have been made without some very real expectations of a "return on investment"?  When you see a regime stirring up racial hatred against part of its own population and against a neighboring country while putting all of its tiny and much needed resources towards preparations for war - is that not a surefire sign that a war in imminent?

As a former military analyst myself I can tell you that by now the Russian intelligence community's "indicators and warnings" should be "flashing red" and that in all likelihood Russia is already preparing for war (more about Russia later).  But before we look at the Russian position, we need to look into the situation of Novorussia.

3 - The Novorussians (DNR+LNR)

The Novorussians are finishing the year in which they have achieved an absolutely amazing feat: from literally being *nothing* they spontaneously got together to stand up against the Nazi junta and they prevailed even with the entire Ukrainian military was launched at them.  It is hard to believe that just 12 months ago the Donbass only meekly requested some language rights and some local autonomy or that earlier this year very almost nobody predicted that the Donbass would rise up and defeat the junta's death squads.  And yet this miracle happened.  How much did Russia really help?  I would argue that not that much at all.

Initially, the Russian move to protect Crimea and the subsequent resolution of the Council of the Federation to allow Putin to use military power to protect the Russian minority in the Ukraine definitely played a key role in the first seizure of state buildings in Slaviansk and other town.  Furthermore, Strelkov apparently believed that if he held on long enough the Russian armed forces would come and relieve the exhausted Novorussian militias.  It never happened.

There is no doubt whatsoever that this apparent Russian "zag" left a lot of bad feelings in Novorussia and the theory that the Kremlin is about to "sell out" Novorussia is still discussed not only in the Russian blogosphere, but even on Russian TV (including yesterday on the most famous weekly talk show "Sunday evening with Vladimir Soloviev).  Here is how this version goes:  Putin is inherently weak and tries in vain to appease the West while Russian oligarchs are making a behind the scenes deal with their Ukrainian counterparts.  Truth be told, this version is plausible, even if incorrect.  The Kremlin's policy towards the West sure does look like appeasement while Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs have tried to arrange deals whether with or without the knowledge of the Russian government.

Any model is valid as long as it helps to explain the observed reality and this "Kremlin sells out Novorussia" does explain a lot.  But it fails in many crucial aspects:

  • It fails to explain why following Strelkov's removal the Novorussians went on their highly successful offensive which pushed the Ukrainians as far as Mariupol.
  • It fails to explain the Russian Voentorg.
  • It fails to explain why the Russian government has done nothing to stop the volunteers and supplies coming from Russia.
  • It fails to explain why Russia would provide full informational support for a region and it's leaders if she intended to trade it away.

But most importantly this theory is completely out-of-character if we look not only at what Putin says and writes, but at his entire political career.  Simply put, there is nobody on this planet which has done more to oppose the AngloZionist Empire than Vladimir Putin.  I think that the hysterical and vicious demonization campaign against him in the western media is the best proof of that.  I shall give my own explanation for the Russian zig-zags towards the West and the Ukrainian war in the next section, but so far let's just state that it created a lot of bad blood and anxiety amongst the Novorussians, including several of their field commanders.

For a while we witness the short lived but strong development of a "let's not stop before we win" party.  These are the folks who advocated at the very least liberating Slaviansk and Mariupol and who were absolutely disgusted when Russia clearly ordered the Novorussians to stop and pull back.  This party of what I could also call "let the strength of arms decide" has clearly lost as one after the other the top Novorussian commanders accepted, however bitterly, the Kremlin's demands.  Some gave their strong and total support to Putin (Givi, Motorola, Bezler) while others gave a more reluctant acceptance of the fait accompli (Mozgovoi, Strelkov).

I won't even bother discussing the "shoulda, coulda, woulda" about whether the Novorussians could have freed Mariupol, Slaviansk or other cities.  What is important here is something else: Novorussia and Russia have different priorities, different goals, different interests and if the two sides disagree, the bigger one - Russia - imposes her will.  In other words, the Novorussians simply cannot fight the Nazi death squads and try to politically prevail against Putin in the court of Russian public opinion.  They tried, and they failed.

So what's next?

The sad reality for the Novorussians is that they are stuck in the middle of a much bigger war and that what they see as "their" war is but a minor skirmish for the big players.  Yes, the future of Novorussia is crucial to Russia, but it is not enough.  Russia simply cannot live with a situation where a Ukrainian-Nazi equivalent of ISIS in Iraq remains in power in Kiev, regardless of who is in power in Novorussia (I would argue that neither can Novorussia, but that is an argument I made elsewhere already).  Clearly the Kremlin analysts made the call that while Novorussia should be protected from the Ukrainian Nazis it should not be allowed to fight an open-ended war to free all of Novorussia or, even less so, the entire Ukraine (I happen to agree with this conclusion, but that is immaterial for this discussion).

For a while I was under the impression that Strelkov might become a "spokesman for Novorussia" in Russia, but that clearly did not happen (for whatever reason).  In fact, right now there is no such ambassador or spokesman for Novorussia in Russia, nobody to make the Novorussian case in front of the Russian public opinion.  I don't think that this is a good thing, but that is the reality.

As a result, the Novorussians are basically stuck.  They have to prepare for the almost inevitable Ukrainian assault and pray that they will have the strength to push it back.  Should they fail, they will have no other option than to pray for a Russian intervention which, considering the undeniable Russian zigs-zags in this matter, will not appear certain to all.  This is a bad situation for the Novorussians, but they have no other options.  Putin has successfully imposed his will on the Novorussians and now their future depends on him, for better or for worse.

4 - Russia

So far Russia stands undefeated by the AngloZionist empire, but she is far from having prevailed either.  In fact, Russia is waging a much bigger war or, more accurately, a number of much bigger wars.

First, Russia is trying to survive the attempt by the AngloZionist Empire to economically blockade her.


Second, in order to survive that blockade, Russia is trying to reform her economy to make it less dependent on the export of raw materials, more autonomous and connected to new partners, especially in Asia and Latin America.


Third, Russia is trying to de-fang the Empire by pulling herself out from the dollar and the US/UK controlled international financial system.


Fourth, Russia is trying to prevent the USA from permanently installing a russophobic Nazi regime in power.


Fifth, Russia is preparing for both a major war in the Ukraine and a full scale US/NATO attack on Russia.

It is important to stress here that point #5 does not mean that the Kremlin has come to the conclusion that a full-scale war with the Empire is inevitable.  That only means that the Kremlin has decided that such a war is possible, even if most unlikely.  You think I am exaggerating?

Let me show you two videos.  One a commentary by the most senior journalist in Russia - Dimitri Kiselev - while the other one is a video report shown to President Putin at the end of the year by the Ministry of Defense during a conference on the status of the Russian military and later posted on the Ministry of Defenses' website.

First the political context:

And second, the military's preparations for war:

Combine the two and you will clearly see that a) nobody in Russia has any illusions about what the Empire really wants (submit Russia) or about the tools the Empire is willing to use (full scale war).  And to leave no doubt in anybody's mind, Russia has also revised her 2010 military doctrine to designate NATO expansion eastwards by name as the bigger threat to Russia and to restate that Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons if her conventional forces fail to protect her.

When in Mach of this year I wrote that Russia was ready for war I got a lot of replies accusing me of being over-the-top.  Today the writing is all over the wall: Russia does not want war, but she is definitely preparing for it.

I would, however, argue that the biggest threat for Russia is internal, not external.  Nothing is more dangerous for the future of Russia then what I call the "Atlantic Integrationists" and which Putin even called the "5th column".  And make no mistake here, we are not talking about Khodorkovsy in New York or Navalnii in the streets of Moscow.  We are talking about powerful, rich, influential people who for decades (since Gorbachev's times, or even before) have infiltrated all the levels of government and who today are even in the government of Prime Minister Medvedev.  True, these pro-AngloZionist 5th columnists have suffered a series of setbacks and they have been weakened by Putin's relentless assault on their power, but what does "weaker" really mean in our context?  According to Mikhail Khazin the Eurasian Sovereignists and the Atlantic Integrationists are now roughly at 50/50 in terms of power.  That's right, Putin is far from having total control of Russia and he is in fact locked into a war for survival against a formidable foe who will try to capitalize on every setback Russia suffers, especially in her economy.  Putin knows that and he is therefore in a race against time to de-couple Russia from the economic and financial mechanisms which make it possible for the AngloZionists to hurt Russia.

How much does this 5th column account for the apparent zig-zags and apparent appeasement of the West by Russia?

I honestly don't know.  Neither does anybody else who is not a true Kremlin insider.  In some cases, such as the Minsk agreements, I think that this apparent "zag" was an true expression of Russian political goals.  But when I see that Russia is selling coal to the Ukraine on credit (?!) I can only conclude that this is a case of sabotage of Russian national interests.  But we will never know for sure.  All we can do is to accept that Russia is like a ship or aircraft which is generally holding a specific course, but which regularly zig-zags on the way because the folks in the cockpit are fighting for the control of the helm.  In practical terms this means that next year Russia will mostly stay the course.  Why?  Because time is on Russia's side.  For Russia every month, week or day which can delay an overt confrontation with the Ukraine or the West is one day won for preparation internal reform.  It is also one more day for the junta in Kiev to slide down one further notch, for the EU economies to carry the full impact of anti-Russian sanctions and for the US to suffer the political consequences of their arrogant, irresponsible and generally unpopular imperial policies.  

The single most important political development for Russia is the Russian-Chinese Strategic Alliance (RCSA) which fundamentally changes the entire strategic posture of Russia.  I will discuss this tectonic shift in world politics further below, but right now I want to the position of the EU.

5 - The EU

2014 was truly a historical year for the EU marked by the wholesale and abject surrender of the EU political leaders to the United States.  From the EU guaranteed agreement between the opposition and Yanokovich which was broken the very next day, the Victoria Nuland's famous words which were never challenged, to the introduction of sanctions the day after the signing of the Minsk agreement, to the political and economic seppuku against South Stream, to the shameful silence and even collaboration with the murderers of the passengers of MH17 - the EU has proven to all that it is only a spineless colony of the AngloZionist Empire and that the EU and the Ukraine are equally subservient puppets of the United States.  There is no EU to speak of.  It is a US controlled territory whose administration is entrusted to Germany to whose power all the EU nations have bowed.  And in this system, countries such as Poland or Lithuania have a special role: to lead the EU in subservience to the USA.

From the latest statements of Putin and Lavrov it is pretty clear that they fully share Victoria Nulands opinion of the EU which they now seem consider as some kind of "geopolitical Conchita Wurst" not worthy of any respect or credibility.

Truly, the EU and its Eurobureaucratic elites have passed a point of no return.  If in the past they could still pretend like the EU project was making the EU stronger and that in maintained the sovereignty of its member, now this kind of statement will only be met with a disgusted laughter.  As a system the EU has committed suicide and nothing can be further expected of it until it collapses.  The riots which have taken place in almost every country of western Europe are a clear sign that most Europeans are either fed-up or desperate or both.  In a way, we could say that the EU is run by a Soviet-style nomenklatura which lives in complete detachment from the rest of the European people in a kind of US-built ivory tower high above the common people.  Exactly the kind of situation which results in bloody uprisings and revolutions.  I am personally convinced that an explosion of anger could happen anytime, especially in the EU countries bordering the Mediterranean.  But unlike the Russians, the Europeans prefer their revolution in the warm weather.  So maybe next summer?

6 -NATO 

The Russians have now officially declared that the NATO expansion into the east was the biggest threat for Russia. And yet I will make the case that NATO is a paper tiger, at least in military terms and that NATO simply does not have what it takes to attack Russia (for my reasons for stating that, please see here).  I recently explained that on the blog, and I think that it is worth repeating this once more today:

One more thing: the Russians are most definitely upset about the very aggressive NATO stance because they - correctly - interpret it as a sign of hostility. But, contrary to what a lot of bloggers say, the Russians have no fear of the military threat posed by NATO. Their reaction to the latest NATO moves (new bases and personnel in Central Europe, more spending, etc.) is to denounce it as provocative, but Russian officials all insist that Russia can handle the military threat. As one Russian deputy said "5 rapid reaction diversionary groups is a problem we can solve with one missile". A simplistic but basically correct formula. Putin said the very same thing when he clearly spelled out that in case of a massive conventional attack by "anybody" Russia would engage tactical nukes. In fact, if NATO goes ahead with its stupid plan to deploy forces in Poland and/or the Baltics I expect Russia with withdraw from the IRNF Treaty and deploy advanced successors to the famous RSD-10 (SS-20). As I mentioned before, the decision to double the size of the Russian Airborne Forces and to upgrade the elite 45th Special Designation Airborne Regiment to full brigade-size has already been taken anyway. You could say that Russia preempted the creation of the 10'000 strong NATO force by bringing her own mobile (airborne) forces from 36'000 to 72'000.

This is typical Putin.  While NATO announces with fanfare and fireworks that NATO will create a special rapid reaction "spearhead" force of 10'000, Putin quietly doubles the size of the Russian Airborne Forces to 72'000.  And, believe me, the battle hardened Russian Airborne Forces are a vastly more capable fighting force then the hedonistic and demotivated multi-national (28 countries) Euroforce of 5'000 NATO is struggling hard to put together.  The US commanders fully understand that, and they also know that the real purpose of NATO is not to attack Russia, but to maintain the US control over Europe.  As early as in 1949 the first NATO Secretary General, Lord Ismay, candidly admitted that NATO's true goal was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down" (notice that in the typical russophobic way of the western elites, Russians are considered as the source of the threat even though in 1949 a Georgian was at the helm of the Soviet Union and that Russians had paid a much higher price in repressions then the non-Russian ethnic groups).

Little has changed since, except that with the "Soviet threat" gone NATO had to scramble to find a justification for itself and that it now wants to find it in the "need to protect European democracy from the resurgent Russian Bear".  In other words, the ideal situation for NATO is a crisis just one notch below a full-scale war.  In case of a real, shooting, war against Russia NATO will be crushed, but as long as NATO can *pretend* it is defending Europe against Russia it is justifying its existence.  Hence the silly hunts for Russian ghost submarines, the "interception" of Russian aircraft in international airspace and the constant stream of dramatic statements that NATO will never allow Russia to attack Poland or Lithuania (as if Russia wanted to do that in the first place!).

NATO will continue doing exactly that: pretend like Russia was going to attack Moldova next and that NATO must prevent that.  The flow of incendiary and even frankly irresponsible statements will continue, NATO official will continue to deliver stark warnings to Russia with all the required gravitas and the Empire's corporate media will report them as if they had a factual connection to reality.  Keeping the Russians out, the German down and the Americans in will be an easy mission since the Russians don't want in, the Germans have totally surrendered along the rest of Europe, and the Americans are already fully in charge.

7 - China

It is amazing for me to see that most observers and analysts have apparently failed to realize that China is now a key actor in the Ukrainian war.  Anybody doubting this claim should read the Vineyard of the Saker White Paper written by Larchmonter 445 entitled The Russia-China Double Helix.  To make a long story short, China and Russia have decided to keep their own "hands" (their armed forces) and their own "heads" (their political leadership) but to share a common "torso" (their economies, natural and human resources, their industrial and technological know-how and everything else which allows a society to prosper).  I call this the Russia-China Strategic Alliance (RCSA) but really it is something even bigger then that - it is a long term decision to share a common fate and to take the risk to become inseparable.  An alliance, a treaty, can be broken or withdrawn from.  But once your "internal organs" are shared with another entity you are bound together, for better or for worse.  What has happened is truly a tectonic geopolitical shift: two empires have decided to join together while remaining sovereign and independent.  To my knowledge this has never happened in history and Putin and Xi have already changed the course of history by this monumental decision.

The two countries are ideal symbionts: everything one has the other needs and vice versa.  China needs Russian raw materials, especially energy, Russian high technology (aerospace, engines, power plants, etc.) and Russian armaments (everything from the rifle bullet to the ICBM).  Russia needs two things from China: money and "Walmart" (consumer goods).  Together these two giants not only have immense currency resources but the biggest stash of physical gold on the planet.  And, to make things even better, Russia and China are the undisputed leaders of BRICS and SCO.  Taken together these two countries are already far more powerful than the AngloZionist Empire and that trend will only grow.

A Russian, a Russian Asian and a Chinese solider

Of course, China will not intervene militarily in the Ukraine.  Remember - each country keeps its own "hands" so long as the other is not directly threatened.  But in the Pacific Russian and Chinese navies are already training together and even creating joint command centers.

In the Ukraine, China still play a crucial role by providing Russia will all the economic aid needed to overcome the western sanctions and restructure the Russian economy.  The Chinese have now officially declared that.  It is both ironic and beautiful that after decades of Russian fears that China might try to conquer Siberia (even Solzhenitsyn shared these fears) Putin and Xi have found a much more intelligent solution - Russia will sell Siberia's riches to China while China will protect Russia from the West.  Again, this is truly a historic development whose importance cannot be overstated.


*  *  *
Adding up all these vectors

So let's add it all up now.

In summary:

The USA now has no other option then to press on their assault on Russia because what is at stake is quite literally the future of the AngloZionist Empire and, therefore, the future of our planet.  China uniting with Russia is definitely bad news, but it is too late for the USA to back down now or even to change course.  The Americans probably realize that they have fired their best shots already and that the Ukrainian junta is in deep trouble and that the collapse of their Nazi "Banderastan" is just a matter of time.  In other words, the Empire is now in a "use them or lose them" situation and "fighting Russia down to the last Ukrainian" is now the best option for the US 1%ers.


The Ukrainian Junta members are basically in the same situation as the USA: they must realize that their days are numbered and that their best chance is to do the US bidding and trigger a huge crisis.


The Novorussians are stuck: they have to do whatever the Kremlin wants them to do, hope for the best, prepare for the worst and courageously face anything in the middle.


Russia needs to avoid an open confrontation with the West for as long as possible.


The EU will remain as irrelevant and pathetic as ever.


NATO will play a dangerous game of brinkmanship trying to create as much tensions as possible without triggering an actual conflict.


China will do whatever it takes to protect Russia from the economic war waged against her.


From the above I conclude that unless some major development substantially alters the current dynamic the resulting vector clearly points at the inevitability of a full-scale war between Russia and the Ukraine along the scenario outlined above ("A full scale war between Russia and the Ukraine").  There is no reason whatsoever to expect the US, the Nazi junta, NATO or the EU to begin acting in a responsible or constructive manner.  For these reasons, Russia will be alone in trying to avoid an intervention the Donbass and the inevitable war with the Ukraine following it.  The best way for Russia to achieve this goal is to arm Novorussia to the teeth, to provide much more humanitarian support then now, to try re-launch as much of the Novorussian economy as possible (preferably by investments and contracts, not just grants) and generally help to make Novorussia as viable as possible under the current conditions.  If the Novorussian could repeat their amazing feat once more and repel or, even better, deter the future Ukrainian attack this would be a crushing defeat not only for the junta in Kiev, but also for all its supporters in the AngloZionist Empire.  The "equation" is simple: if Novorussia can stand up to the Ukrainians and Russia is not forced to intervene the Nazi regime in Kiev is finished along with the entire Neocon plan against Russia.  If Russia is forced to intervene, Novorussia will be saved and the junta finished, but the Neocons plan will have succeeded and Russia will suffer a major geostrategic setback

Russia desperately needs more time and I expect the Russian diplomacy to try every possible delaying tactic imaginable to buy as much time as possible before the inevitable Ukrainian attack on Novorussia.  I am even willing to consider that the recent sale (really, a gift) of coal to Kiev might be such a delaying tactic, I don't know.  What is clear for me that most of these delaying tactics will look like "appeasement" to the external observer and that, in the end, our perception of these moves will depend on our assumptions and, basically, our take on the person of Vladimir Putin.  I might be wrong, but I personally trust him and short of very strong evidence I will never believe that he will "sell out" Novorussia or anybody else in the Ukraine.  Not only do I believe that he is way too smart to do such a stupid and self-defeating thing, but I have also come to the conclusion that he is a highly principled person who will never betray the people he took an oath to defend.

My very tentative "guesstimates" for 2015:

2014 has been a historic year and so will be 2015, if only because 2014 set a great deal of things in motion, but resolved none of them.  I have come to the conclusion that there is a 80% chance of a massive Ukrainian attack on Novorussia next year, probably in the first part of the year.  My best guesstimate is that Novorussia will probably be able to beat back this attack, albeit with great effort and big losses.  The Russian economy will continue to suffer and appear to be sinking for the next six months or so at which point it will gradually start reversing that trend.  The EU economy will enter into full and deep recession resulting in widespread social unrest.  As for the USA, they probably will be able to pretend like nothing big, not big disaster, is happening, if only thanks to the money printing machine and the best propaganda machine in history.  What the US will be unable to do is to prevent the gradual but inexorable de-dollarization of more and more of the world economy, lead by China and Russia.  The true and final collapse of the AngloZionist Empire is inevitable, but not for the next couple of years.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
conscious being's picture

Post turtle, you canfuck off. You are some kind of under cover faggot areN't you? OK, share with us. What did you find so elucidating about his empty post? Contribute something instead of your useless snide remarks. How about that for a change?

conscious being's picture

Chindit - just fuck off and go suck a hooka. What a waste of time and space you always are.

Infinite QE's picture

Ah, Herr Chindit, rousted from his deck-cleaning duties on one of Soros' yachts on New Years Eve of all times to address "conspiracy" talk on the "internets". How pathetic. Well, wishing you a better year Chindit, "Mister Successful". LOL.

Ghordius's picture

excellent post, chindit. lots of things I agree with, though not your central position: that the posts to Kiev were considered radioactive. not for wannabe world shakers

you are selling Vicky Nuland a bit too short, methinks. anyway, one parting salute: note how belitteling this very Russian position is of the EU contries. reminds me of the butthurted Freedom Fries

BigJim's picture

 excellent post, chindit.

Then you're more easily impressed than you should be, Ghordius, though I agree Chindit offers a unique line in smug sophistry.

lots of things I agree with, though not your central position: that the posts to Kiev were considered radioactive. not for wannabe world shakers you are selling Vicky Nuland a bit too short, methinks.

Well, yes, quite. Wife of Robert Kagan is a nobody? Kagan, Council on Foreign Relations member, and co-founder of the think-tank "Project for the New American Century" (PNAC)... charged with carrying out the Wolfowitz' doctrine, with particular reference to Brzezinsky's strategy of preventing Russia becoming a superpower by cutting it off from Ukraine?

And how's this for 'analysis': the amount shelled out to Ukrainians by the US over 22 years amounted to 'only' $18 million a month? Why, that's a mere $600,000 a day, which works out to less than $7 a second! How could the US buy influence over Ukraine for less than $7, for God's sake? What a ridiculous notion!

As it happens, in a post-Soviet hellhole like Ukraine, $20B can buy a lot of influence over the course of 22 years; and it clearly did.

Let's have a look at some more Chinditisms!

Indeed, the entire idea of fomenting popular revolt is both absurd and naïve.  Far too many variables are involved for any such effort to be effective.  A simple coup might be directed from outside, but when hundreds of thousands take to the streets, that is a popular movement.  Nobody can control that many. 

Chindit makes it sound as if there's something special about the hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian citizens protesting Yanukovich's rule. Er, no, Chindit, huge protests against corrupt Ukrainian rulers are the rule, not the exception; what's exceptional is the mass shooting of protesters and police* and the recruitment and organisation of far-Right thugs to provide muscle to the protest and turn it into a violent, illegal overthrow of a democratically-elected government.

If Vicky Nuland had any influence at all, it might have been with EU allies to get them to support the sanctions, but the Ukrainian people themselves rid their country of Yanukovytch.  If Nuland had wanted to play hardball (which at the State Dept she lacks the authority to do), she would have done what Putin did to bring down Yushchenko:  dioxin poison.

Ah! So the US does play dirty! Just not in Ukraine, where the US - a state that cheerfully nuked two civilian cities chiefly as a data-gathering exercise, firebombed millions in Indo-China, invaded Iraq, destroyed a functioning society in Libya and left it a failed state, and routinely uses radiological weapons in the form of depleted uranium - was only involved in Ukraine out of the goodness of its statist heart.

One irony in all of this is that all NSA data capture is bad, but Putin's capture of phone calls between Nuland and Pyatt, or the Foreign Minister of Estonia, is never criticized.

Well, here 'Putins' capture of phone calls is between two scheming public 'servants' plotting to install a leader in a foreign country, and whose disclosure led to the masses being better informed; can't say the same about the pervasive NSA eavesdropping of every Westerner, and their extensive database of malfeasances that can be used to make any person of influence an instant Quisling.

Hey, Chindit13 - you're good at what you do. But you're still a cunt, though I suspect a well-paid one.

*mass shootings that the new government has declined to investigate, 'oddly'

Ghordius's picture

chindit wrote: "the entire idea of fomenting popular revolt is both absurd and naïve"

you replied with: "Chindit makes it sound as if there's something special about the hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian citizens protesting Yanukovich's rule. Er, no, Chindit, huge protests against corrupt Ukrainian rulers are the rule, not the exception; what's exceptional is the mass shooting of protesters and police* and the recruitment and organisation of far-Right thugs to provide muscle to the protest and turn it into a violent, illegal overthrow of a democratically-elected government."

I applauded his view that you can't attribute hundreds of thousands protesters to one little cabal of conspirators. You seem to agree with that

perhaps I'm too european in this: in my worldview, even democratically elected governments can be toppled and replaced, hopefully with a freshly elected government

I still see both regimes, the Yanukowitch and the new one, as democratically elected. and legitimate. and with "the street" deserving to topple them, if they can

of course this means that on ZH both sides can shoot at me. fact is, democracy can always be subverted. the answer to that is renewal

BigJim's picture

 I still see both regimes, the Yanukowitch and the new one, as democratically elected. and legitimate. and with "the street" deserving to topple them, if they can

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here, but you appear to be saying that if a democratic government is violently toppled, that's OK, if the coup succeeds.

I'm not a statist, or a legalist; looking around, all I can see is varying degrees of tyranny, regardless of how any particular government came to power. So I'd be happy for 'the people' to overthrow governments everywhere. The problem is when 'the people' overthrow a government and another stooge government gets installed on behalf of the foreign power that assisted the overthrow in the first place - and which was clearly plotting that overthrow and working towards it (or something like it) over the space of many years. At that point, the 'revolution' is little different from a foreign invasion, just carried out under a legal figleaf by Ukraine 'leaders' who - if truth be told - ought to be wearing NATO uniforms.

Another example of Chindit's loathsome bullshit:

As much love and admiration admirers have for Putin’s chess-playing prowess, the man (if the $5B claims are to be believed) apparently was outsmarted by Nuland and Pyatt.  A more unlikely tag team of world shakers could not be found, and if Putin lost to these two, he is a very small man indeed.

As if Nuland and Pyatt were acting alone! As if the Wolfowitz doctrine was not the dominant playbook of the entire US foreign policy establishment! Or Brzezinky's ruminations on Russia and Ukraine were the idle ramblings of some drunk homeless person that no one in power ever listened to!

Chindit is a sneaky Establishment fluffer and I hope his state pension vanishes in a puff of hyperinflation... and he can eke out his miserable, lonely old age burning his own furniture to keep warm, muttering self-pityingly about the ingratitude of princes.. Neighbours will tut about his children never visiting, but the sad fact is that most lonely old people are lonely for a reason; their family can't stand them.

Ghordius's picture

excellent question, BigJim

who decides if a government was democratic, was toppled, is legitimate? the "police of the sovereigns"? is there a judge?

particularly if you regard governments as varying degrees of tyranny... I find the delegitimization process you seem to want to make... a bit misapplied, coupled with a delegitimization of "coups"

usually, in history, if a group succeds to take the helm, it is recognized. it's those who wants to spread whatever they want to spread that like to delegitimize other peple's setups

conscious being's picture

Big Jim, don't take this the wrong way, but I love you man. :) sasispas or something like that. I just find it hard to have the kind of patience you display to demolish one one these clowns, or more than one at a time, as you can, step-by-step. But I admire someone who can. HAPPY NEW YEAR!!


BigJim's picture

Happy New Year to you too, CB. Thanks for the compliment, but I couldn't even attempt to demolish a pro like Chindit if it weren't for reading, absorbing, and distilling thousands of posts here at ZH by all the other members. If you care about truth, ZH is an indispensable resource, despite the fact that none of us has anything like the full picture and we expend half our energies vituperatively disagreeing with each other ;-)

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Ghordius, apparently nursing a hangover, said:

excellent post, chindit.

Indeed, chindit's litany of lies and sleazy innuendo is a masterful example of sophistry.

Ghordius's picture

I applaud masterful examples of sophistry... if they contain kernels of ugly truths. I'm a fan of most of the Tylers, after all

but it's very kind of you to discount my hangover. wish you a wonderful new year, Stooge

conscious being's picture

Ghordius,  if there was a good zionist cop, and a bad zionist cop, you would play the good zionist cop. Wouldn't that be so Ghordius? I'm keeping an eye on you. We'll chat some more, but not about the useless and soon to die EU which you love so much. I don't care about that because the outcome is obvious. Its when you branch out with your nebulus comments into places like this, we'll be chatting. Happy New Year.

Ghordius's picture

conscious being, yes, I can imagine a good Zionist "cop". In fact I'm convinced that there are lots of good Zionists. I even knew a few

what is a Zionist? someone that wants a Jewish Homeland, and wants it safe. I can sympathize with this part

and so I see plenty of good Zionists that are horrified by what is happening around their cause, and would wish all the war and terror to stop, but are nevertheless perfectly willing to don their uniform and go to war in the case of a new attack on Israel

you are black, aren't you? (you recently made a comment about "nobody calling you a nigger, there"). If yes, don't you sympathize with the cause that led to the establishment of Liberia? meanwhile, aren't you horrified by all the human misery that was and still is involved with Liberia?

ok, it smacks of tribalism to wish for a Homeland. and it's fraught with potential conflict, then a Homeland immediately unleashes the "bad cops" to wish for... purity. and start to do their ugly work

but as such, it can be still seen as a "good, positive" cause, involving good people among the bad

I could as well ask you why you think the EU should be counted as useless, why you think I love it so much and why you think it will soon die

this is a Russian Nationalist point of view. I support the Russian Nation. Long live the Rodina. May we all steer to a world where we are all at peace with Russia

I also support the Ukrainian Nationalist point of view. Long live Ukraine. May Ukraine and Russia find an equitable peace and focus on prosperity of their populations

conscious being's picture

You have a lot of empty rhetoric Ghordius. Chew on this. There is no ethical way to justify the Zionist seizure of Palestine from the indigeous inhabitants. Zionism is a supremecist, racist ideology, which says they can murder and steal whatever they want because thry say their god said so. Why do you try to justify that if you are not one of them? I mean why don't I just go steal your pitch because my god said so? How is that any different?

BTW, I thought you were Black, because Ghordious is kind of a Black name isn't it?

Ghordious, who was Muhamed Ali? If you don't know, you should find out.

Obviously you are not American.

I'm serious about the first question. I'd love to hear your answer. I'm sure it would be entertaining. In the mean time, Happy New Year.

Ghordius's picture

and obviously I'm often misunderstood, particularly because I'm not American and so my discussion does not respect the established formats and narratives

what I meant is that I have little against people working for the establishment of a homeland for themselves. Zionists entered the world stage by working on that, in their first congress

as such, Zionist denotes only that. working for a homeland. and so many settlers went there, peacefully, and worked hard

where, in all that, you see my approval of any violence, stealing or murdering is beyond me

of course, the very word Zionist, in America, means the support of a completely different approach. the very moment it's used in a US political debate... You see? I'm not bending to American debate rules and it's vocabulary. I still make the difference between a peaceful Zionist and an aggreessive Zionist, instead of going for example into the "right to defend" debate and other endless side-debates

if this sounds like empty rhetoric, fine by me

BigJim's picture

 what is a Zionist? someone that wants a Jewish Homeland, and wants it safe. I can sympathize with this part

Unfortunately, being a 'zionist' entails a little bit more than that. It entails the belief that any 'Jew' has a right to live in Palestine, regardless of whether any of their immediate ancestors had any material connection with the place. Once you dig more than a millimetre below the surface, it becomes clear that to hold this belief also requires a fair dollop of racial supremacism.

I have yet to meet a Zionist who couldn't be placed on the continuum stretching between 'ignorant' and 'evil'. The ignorant ones don't realise that Zionism requires ethnic cleansing; the evil ones know full well, and don't care.

Ghordius's picture

Jesus himself told a parable of the Good Samaritan

when he told that parable, he described a Good Samaritan and an Uncaring Pharisee

Samaritan and Pharisee don't really resonate in their ancient meaning, today

if he had to rewrite that parable so that today people would understand it better, Samaritan would have to be exchanged with some group's name that is generally very hated and Pharisee with some group's name that is revered as very just and gentle


I have met "Good Zionists". Nevertheless, most damage in this Zionistic mess is done by Zionists that aren't even there, imho. the worst of them are in NY

which again reminds me of how long Ireland had to endure a near-civil war because of endless American-Irish support and hate sources

mind you, I'm not disagreeing with you in general, I'm just saying that many good deeds transform themselves in evils

Nestor Makhno's picture

5 billion over 20 years to ngos, ukraine got OTPOR'd.


And putin is reacting to the west not acting against it.

Donatan's picture

"The $5 billion woman was misnamed and misunderstood.... the figure actually represents ALL US foreign assistance to the country since it achieved independence in 1992.  ... They went to infrastructure improvements, medical upgrading, educational upgrades, weapons destruction and environmental clean-up"


Did you took that straight from Nulands power point presentation? Wow what Good Samaritan those people from USAID and NED are.

If I din't read it here I couldve sweared that this is an official press statement from State Department

conscious being's picture

Donatan, your comment here is hanging in limbo. When you hit 'reply' on a comment, you lock it. If you just make a general reply, for example, pointing out the errors in a post, they, whoever you are rssponding to, can change what they wrote, leaving your reply without context. Sowadi pi mai. Happy new year.

Volkodav's picture

Russia hostile action?

almost funny, if not so stupid...



blackhand's picture

I agree.  This article was all assertions and no evidence. 

Ukraine is controlled by the US Ambassador and the Kiev CIA station?  Where is the real evidence of that?  The author is just a nut job (with, I agree, a Putin man-crush).

Latina Lover's picture

Try reading the article again,  Then research some of his references.  The Kiev coup of Feb 2014 was backed by the CIA and  State Dept.  Or did you think that Biden, Brennan etc were visiting Kiev for the perogies?

sun tzu's picture

It's just a coincidence that the government was overthrown and the illegal government is ready to join NATO and the EU and appoints several US citizens to top government posts. Nah, the US had nothing to do with it. Some people are really dense. 

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Jen Psaki's parrot, using the handle BraveSirRobin, said:

No one has invaded Russia, but Russia has taken openly hostile action to regain territory lost in the Soviet break up.

Any specific examples of this? You can't cite Georgia in 2008, since Georgia initiated the hostilities and, after the Georgian forces were defeated, the Russians withdrew to their pre-conflict positions. You can't cite Crimea/Sevastopol, since their elected governments each held a referendum on secession from the Ukraine and, upon passing overwhelmingly, they each requested accession to the Russian Federation.

You also can't cite the Donbass. As you recall (or choose not to), Putin had requested that Donetsk and Lugansk postpone their secession referenda. He was still attempting to keep the Ukrainian situation from getting out of hand by trying to get all of the participants to honor and abide by the February 21 agreement. As a reminder, this agreement was something which the EU and US claimed to support (until a few hours after it was actually agreed to). Additionally, if you're going to claim any Russian "invasion" of the Donbass, please cite the actual date and location.

Poland and the Baltic states have been invaded by Russia so many times over the centuries. Their fear of Russia is quite real and well founded.

Your view of history is a bit limited. Unless you are deliberately ignoring it, you might want to look into Poland's invasion of Russia in 1919.

When the Russians invade, there tends to be a lot rape and out and out murder of innocent people (like mass shootings of army officers, politicians, etc.) and the then general rape of the land and its wealth, with political and cultural oppression.

The people of Iraq must be grateful that they were invaded by 'americans' instead of Russians. Will you next be claiming that the pre-WW2 Polish concentration camps and death squads were established by Russians?

And then there's this:

"He's just another facist with a Putin man crush."

"This is really quite undeniable unless you are a facist Putin man crusher."

"The only conclusion is you are a facist with a supressed homo-erotic crush on Putin. I can really see no other alternative."

Behold the primitive mind of a fappar*. Repeatedly frustrated in their attempts to criticize Putin by a lack of any credible supporting evidence, they flail away with the only remaining tool at their disposal: the fag hominem.

Their preoccupation with gayness and homoerotic fantasy is recognized by professional clinicians as an unconscious expression of their own repressed, retarded sexuality.


*fairies against President Putin and Russia

Donatan's picture

Sometimes you have to wonder how dumb can people really get, there is so much bullshit and lies, so much crap that you pulled out of your mouth its insane, how wrong can someone get.


-"but Russia has taken openly hostile action to regain territory lost in the Soviet break up. This is really quite undeniable unless you are a facist Putin man crusher"

Really? When? This is such an idiotic statment its hilarious, amazing what a dumb mind and propaganda can do. The Russians Are Comming! The Russians Are Comming!

"Poland and the Baltic states have been invaded by Russia so many times over the centuries"

List of wars between Poland and Russia

It was almost always Poland and Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth invading Russia, first ever war between them was in 1018 started by Poland when Boleslaw invaded and took opportunity of the crissis. Actually most times Poland invaded Russia was during some horrible Russian crisis like like in 1605 during Time of Troubles when 1/3 of Russian population died from famine and Poles took opportunity to invade or in 1919 during Russian civil war when Pilsudski invaded Russia and took western Ukraine, then Poles started crying when Russia (now Soviet Union) recovered from war and came to take its territory back. You are terribly uneducated

"Their fear of Russia is quite real and well founded. When the Russians invade, there tends to be a lot rape"

Your mind has been raped by stupidity


"It is not perposterous that smaller countries that have been invaded by Russians on numerous occassions throughout history might seek to voluntarily join a defensive alliance like NATO to ward off another Russina invasion. In fact, the act is quite rational"

What Russian invasion? Why dont you go to most of those countries and see what they citizens really think, look at latest memebre Croatia and horrible pro NATO propaganda that went into that country, or look at Montenegro, country whose supposed to be memeber soon, its governemt is Washington puppet and desperetlly is trying to convince its citizens that its great to be in NATO and join him even though vast majority HATES Nato, they were bombed by them in 1999 as a part of Yugoslavia, first victim was in Montenegro, first child killed by Nato in Yugoslavia was in Montenegro. Yet EVERY DAY, literally, tere is propaganda on main news about NATO and how Montenegro has great chances there and how some vice toilet cleaner or something from Nato said thats great for Montenegro to join NATO.


"And I will say one more time, there is no grand plan," thats right, there was also no grand pland to mas lie about Iraq and to convince people Sadam was behind 9/11 or Powell using washing powder as a proof of Saddams WMDs, it was all spontaneous, no plan


"This guy is a moron" you sure are, your idiotic, ignorant, moronic, rant was hilarious


'The only conclusion is you are a facist with a supressed homo-erotic crush on Putin" you have mentioned this homo eroticism about Putin so many times now that its clear you are trying to surpress your fillings, little uneducated fascist

avd's picture

Poland and the Baltic states have been invaded by Russia so many times over the centuries


Back in the time Poland and Lithuania invaded Russia too on few occasions. Prussia (a German kingdom) was occupying parts of the Baltics for centures. Actually Germans have been invading many countries for centures. France tried this as well. All the rape nonsense is the best the West have managed to make up against Russians versus undeniable crimes against humanity like death camps by Germans, death camps by UK in Anglo Boer war, virtual extinguishing of nagtive Americans, A-bombing of populated areas and so on.

zwanderer's picture

Ain't the bankers buying survival kits and hiring emergency planners with experience on DHS protocol?

New World Chaos's picture

Western civilization is infested with a mindkontrolling parasite.  Maybe better to ask what the luciferian talmudists want for the West.  I think they hate Western civilization so much that they would be willing to sacrifice it in a giant mushroom cloud.  This would also allow them to shift the blame for the inevitable financial collapse, set up the world government and world central bank they always wanted, and slaughter the only race that really threatened them.  Head for the bunker when the West has nothing left to steal.  Expect a nuclear false flag, framing Russia.

Payne's picture

Reminds me of intelligence briefings I used to get in the US.  Excellent read and you know the point of view in advance.

avd's picture

Not possible. Among Russians there is still widespread notion that Ukranians are their brethren who were fooled by bad guys into criminal activity under drugs or something. Russians will be reluctant to kill Ukranians, they would prefer to detox them.

thistooshallpass's picture

"I have come to the conclusion that there is a 80% chance of a massive Ukrainian attack on Novorussia next year, probably in the first part of the year.  My best guesstimate is that Novorussia will probably be able to beat back this attack, albeit with great effort and big losses."


As dictated by the press releases below. Summed up? Drama, drama, drama.. and some are capitalizing on it. Not ignoring the trends, just saying "no thanks."

tplink's picture

my best friend's half-sister makes $77 every hour on the computer . She has been laid off for 5 months but last month her pay check was $14292 just working on the computer for a few hours. read...

McMolotov's picture

Really? My half-sister's best friend makes eleventy kabillion dollars an hour on the computer, so your pal is obviously doing it wrong.

Latina Lover's picture

My dog makes 1 Trillon Zimbabwe dollars each day, pissing on the UN flag. 

ebworthen's picture


"Anglo-Zionist empire" an nice new phrase.

conscious being's picture

Well, it angers the dirt-bag zino-trolls so much its obviously an accurate description of the Washington-Tel Aviv Axis.

BearClaw's picture

The Vinyard Saker defines  what he means by the term AngloZionist at his blog


Farmhand's picture

I have been to Ukraine-Russia seven times in the last three years as a tourist. This is the best assessment of the true situation that I have ever read anywhere.

post turtle saver's picture

everything in this puff piece is complete bunk... the West hardly had to lift a finger to send Russia spiraling into recession with a single-digit run rate on its reserves... without a single NATO bullet chambered... what a joke...

here's a pro tip to the neoCom hordes here on RTHedge and to the RTylers in general... shooting wars cost MONEY which is what Russia does not have right now and will be in no position to have in any timeframe worth mentioning... you do not go into a shooting match with an opponent (NATO) that represents almost _half_ of the world's GDP! you'd be fucking insane to even consider it... "but but but China our buddy" you say, hogwash, China doesn't give a fuck about you and would drop you like a hot rock if you decided to go kinetic with the Western powers...

blah blah tactical nukes blah blah... last time I checked MAD was still in full effect, what do you think the outcome would be if Russia started lobbing nukes all over the place... no one and I mean NO ONE would want to have anything to do with them, they'd be considered a danger to the human race and made instant pariahs... seriously, get real, Putin is not that stupid so it's not going to happen, period...

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Desperate times for 'american' propagandists. Their argumentation is growing more pitiful each time.

MEFOBILLS's picture

I notice TD didn't mention a strategic weakness of Western/Zionist entity.  Namely, Oil Tankers - especially supertankers.  Break the oil flow and petrodollar and its associated hedges goes into instability, possibly triggering now legalized bail ins, which then release more instabilities inherent to  system of "international credit money."  Yes, by saying the word "international" I intentionally mean Zionist bankers.  If the war goes hot, Saudi Arabia itself is also a weak point, as their physical infrastructure can be easily interdicted.  Cut off the flow of oil to the West, and its industrial and economic machinery shut down.

By the way, being anti-zionist is usually a learned position.  Nobody is born to it, so usually anti-zionists are more self educated than average, and hence are not "reactionary racist idiots" by definition.  Any fair reading of recent history shows Zionism is indeed a major force shaping world events, including most if not all modern wars.  Those that object to this world view have not done their homework.  Also, letting go of certain shibboleths is difficult because it un-moors a person and they become adrift.  In other words, being anti-Jooooo is simply being healthy and acknowledging certain realities.  A healthy host will always try to shake off its parasite.  

There are many innocent Jewish sheeple who have no idea what their Zionist/Kaballah/Zohar satanic leaders are up to. These innocent sheeples are not the target of anti-jooos speak.   Usury on this private credit international money is in the Trillions per year.  Also, holding debt instruments on the world is another form of control.  Go ahead and deliver yourself into slavery if you do not believe this usury driven system is operative in Western World.  Anti-Jooos object to this form of control and soft slavery.  Stealing in the form of rents is inherently anti-human (diabolical and satanic) and prevents civilization from evolving.

China has State Banks.  She FORGIVES loans, and then her former credit as money has lost its credit association.  It becomes debt free money.  The West can never beat this type of money as it is inherently efficient as it circulates without a usurious cost.  This makes the Chinese economy permanently efficient.  Wall Street will continue to take wage arbitrage and hence hollow-out the west as wall street cannot let go of their rent-seeking ways.  Zionism and their rent seeking ways, have found their ultimate match, and their end.  When China has protected energy in the form of pipelines, and protected inputs of raw materials, and world class industry and science, and her own sovereign money and trading partners, then China has little in the way of weakness.

I definately see the West losing this war, as there are way too many internal contradictions and weak points. Western Goverments might become sane and adopt Sovereign Money with maybe even a bancor type international exchange unit, so nations can trade evenly without currency exchange rate manipulations.

 But, I doubt sanity will happen.  Being able to create private international credit money and usurious take rents is too close to GOD, and why would Zionist oligarchs give that up? Rental mechanisms has been working for them since the Apiru (Habiru/Hebrew) and their traveling donkey caravans starting in Neolithic period.  Also, their relgion has certain imperatives that must be met before holy-serpent messiah can leave Klippoth space to then reside in the rebuilt temple and hence control the world.  Tikkun is a very real ancient idea infesting Zionist philosophy, and it needs money power via usurious mechanisms.

Let's also not forget that Russia under Jewish Zionist-funded Bolshevism suffered terribly, with probably upwards of 20-30 million souls lost to starvation, terror, enslavement.

Hobo Sapien's picture

Extremely well said; thank you.

spinone's picture

It shoud be pretty easy for the USA to disrupt relations between China and Russia.  Like with oil prices.

snowlywhite's picture

obviously; this guy is in lalaland... He talks about how the airborne force increased from x to y. Like it'd take more than one nuke to wipe y than x...


Ukraine was Russia's; now it isn't the case anymore. It's as easy as that; rest is irrelevant... "Dedollarization" - rofl, when every oligarch in Russia or China sends his child in the west for education. What a friggin' joke...


a 2nd hand economy trying to play along with the big boys; than complaining it gets slapped... In the end, it's pretty easy - communism wasn't wiped out by an western conspiracy, was wiped out by the 2nd echelon who wanted a bigger piece of the pie. Which they got. And which I'm sure they're dying to give up for mother Russia... not.


l.e. - "AngloZionist Empire and, therefore, the future of our planet." - good grief, mein kampf was a really boring piece of shit. Glad we get it rehashed; AngloZionist Empire, rofl...

sun tzu's picture

Wealthy children being sent to US colleges is proof that those countries want ot be dominated by the US? LMAO!!!


Who's complaining? I don't hear any Russian complaints. They are buying gold and increasing trade with China and South America. Europe is sliding into deflation mode. US debt is > 100% of GDP. If anything, the EU and US are whining and complaining about Crimea while most of the morons didn't even know such a place existed a few months ago. They got bitchslapped in Syria. Got their asses kicked out of Afghanistan. 

Winston Churchill's picture

Funny really.

Like three generations of Swiss men being sent to English Public School to learn

how to work the English system, and blend in like chameleons.

What a maroon.

MrButtoMcFarty's picture

I've always heard that Kevin Henry was a total shit talker after a couple pops....

Counterpunch's picture
Counterpunch (not verified) snowlywhite Jan 1, 2015 1:16 AM

Why would the US and UK go against their stated ideals to repeatedly block the bare notion of the right of Palestinians, the native people of that patch of earth, but for Jewish and Zionist power?

Mein Kampf has much more to do with Likudnik Zionism than criticizing Israel's government for repeated, unequivocal war cries, and I question the intelligence as well as the decency of anyone who finds that to be controversial.