There is a Russian adage that dates back to the times of Napoleon`s invasion, that goes: "Father, I've caught a bear!" – "Then bring him here." – "But he won't let me go."
The moral is: Those who are going to come in Russia with weapons should clearly realize that they enter a real hell from which
there is no way out. Sapienti sat.
As of January 1, 2007, Russia possesses 927 nuclear delivery vehicles and 4,279 nuclear warheads for strategic offensive weapons, while the United States owns 1,255 and 5,966, respectively, according to the Russian Defense Ministry's department for contract compliance control.
On the 19th of January 2008, Russia's military chief of staff says Moscow would use nuclear weapons in pre-emptive strike if it felt threatened. General Yuri Baluyevsky said there were no plans "to attack anyone" but reasserted Russia's right to defend itself.
"To defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Russia and its allies, military forces will be used, including
preventively, including with the use of nuclear weapons," General Baluyevsky said.
My personal comment on this:
We Russians feel there is no more space for us to retreat. With the impending deployment of the American missiles in Poland and the radars in Czech Republic, we have, evidently, no other choice but to get ready to stage a new "Stalingrad" for those who have prematurely celebrated their imaginary "victory" in the last Cold War.
As the World's History has clearly shown, all the futile and reckless attempts to drive the Russian Bear to bay are lethally dangerous for the aggressors. M. Kuznetsov
America's Pathetic Putin-Envy: The Fear of Falling
By Mark Ames (Text "cleaned" up a bit)
This week's edition of Newsweek (September 2006, M.K.) features one of the most bizarre articles I've read in a long time. It's called "Why Russia Is Really Weak," and as the schoolyard-taunting title suggests, it's a desperate attempt to convince Newsweek readers that Russia isn't as strong as they think. Really. No, really, Russia really isn't! Dontcha believe us? #1
It's the "Really" in the headline that's really, really revealing. Because it suggests nervousness on the part of the authors – a pair of academic beigeocrats with appropriate ethnic names: Rajan Menon and Alexander Motyl.
They're nervous – they and the presumed Newsweek reading public – for the obvious reason that Russia is actually getting much stronger. As we know, the American way to react to unpleasant turns in events is to simply deny they're happening, and then to posit their opposite, and leave it at that.
Russia wasn't supposed to get stronger, certainly not on its own, without the West's help. It just doesn't make sense. Moreover, it's somehow cosmologically wrong that Russia should become stronger right at the time when American power is in a freefall. That just ain't right... so therefore, the authors offer a solution: cup your ears, close your eyes, and scream, "Russia is really weak! Russia is really weak!" and it'll all go away, like a bad dream...
Oddly enough, the authors claim in the first paragraph that alleged Western "news stories" uniformly tout a "predictable theme" – that theme being Russia's growing strength. Moreover, these Western media outlets are guilty of an even worse sin: they're supposedly going farther by calling on Western leaders to "adjust to this new reality." In other words: appeasement.
And now Newsweek is out to set the record straight.
Umm... what the f-ck are Menon and Motyl talking about? What media outlets have they been smoking? And can I score some of that sh-t? Seriously, where are these alleged rah-rah-Russia articles appearing? In the Washington Post? The Wall Street Journal? The New York Times?
Let's take a look over the recent past at these three leading papers, the most influential opinion-formers in mainstream America, and see just how predictable and pro-Russian their editorials have been.
First, the right-wing, pro-Republican Wall Street Journal. If you went into a drug-induced coma in 1986 and woke up last week on September 14th, 2006 with a copy of the Journal on your face, you'd be happily reassured that you didn't miss much in the way of historical events: the Cold War's still going strong, according to that edition's editorial, "The New New Russians," which argues that doing any business with Russia is dangerous for the free world: "For the Kremlin, gas, oil, metals, aircraft are not just tradeable goods. They are also tools of political power and security leverage. To devise the proper response on this side of the old Iron Curtain, that must be kept in mind." After reading that, you could smile, bang a couple more baggies of pure Persian Grey, and hibernate another 20 years without worrying about missing much.
Indeed, there's something comforting about the Journal editorial's choice of words and imagery: a nefarious Kremlin, the Iron Curtain, and the ever-naive West, which is such a decent, trusting fella, and so dedicated to keeping business and geopolitics apart, that it simply cannot fathom that another country, especially a country run by white guys, could be so cynical as to cheat, mixing business with politics. Wake up, guys! Before it's too late!
On the other side of the mainstream media political spectrum from the Journal is the Washington Post, whose Op-Ed page leans towards what you might call "Lieberman Democrats." You know, real leftie stuff. Because America has such a diverse and free press. So how does the Post's take on Putin's Russia differ from the Journal's? I won't keep you hanging, so here goes, the concluding paragraph to an August 23rd editorial: "The West relies on Russian energy supplies at its peril."
Wait, what? Isn't that what the Journal's point was? Bingo. But you wouldn't need to have read to the end to figure that out: the Post's editorial was headlined: "An Energetic Bully, Kremlin-backed energy monopolies are bad for Russia and Europe." Okay, it's a little strange that America's right-wing paper and its center-left paper repeat each other in ways not predicted by Newsweek. Indeed, the "right" and the "center-left" repeat each other so much – in the leadup to the G-8 summit in July, both the Journal and the Post essentially called on the West to either boycott or throw Russia out of the organization – you'd almost think that the same guy is penning both papers' Russia editorials.
Moreover, one might point out the raw hypocrisy of the Post attacking the Kremlin for mixing geopolitics with energy supplies when, after all... well, I'll just quote the Post's own story:
Politics Of the Pipelines: U.S. Seeks Ways to Route Natural Gas Around Russia
By Steven Mufson
Washington Post Staff Writer
July 11, 2006
"For a low-profile State Department official, Matthew J. Bryza gets around. A member of the bureau of European and Eurasian affairs, he frequents places such as Turkey, Georgia and Azerbaijan. This year, he's also popped in on people in Brussels, Rome and Berlin. One key item on his agenda: persuading governments and energy companies to build natural gas pipelines that skirt Russia."
Right, so there goes that argument.
But anyway, I don't want to dwell here about insane Western double-standards towards Russia, a problem as rampant as oral herpes. We're all sick of hearing about that. This article is focusing on something new: Newsweek's claim that a) the Western press is uniformly touting Russia's power and calling on the West to submit to the new reality, and b) the Western press is wrong, because what neither you, I, nor John Q Public knows is that in fact, Russia is weak. "Really" weak.
So back to our hunt for evidence of Newsweek's claim, let's look at the bane of Republicans and Fox News viewers everywhere, the radical-left-wing New York Times – you know, the paper that mainstream America is accusing of having committed treason? If anyone's gonna be predictably rah-rah-Russia and pro-appeasement, it's gotta be the Times, right?
Welp, read this recent Times editorial and tell me what you think: "With energy prices high and money pouring in, it would be easy for the Russians to see themselves in a position of strength and refuse to give ground. But behind the facade of strength are long-term weaknesses." Hey! Wait a minute! Did I just quote the New York Times or Newsweek? Let's go back and quote the first paragraph to the current Newsweek story: "News stories about Russia these days follow a predictable theme. The country is resurgent and strong, and the West must adjust to this new reality. But that story line is wrong. Russia is weak and getting weaker." And now the Times: "But behind the facade of strength are long-term weaknesses."
If Newsweek is right about anything, it's that stories about Russia do follow a predictable theme. And that theme is this: they all sound like the Newsweek article. Which is to say, they're all desperately scrambling for a way to convince themselves that Russia is not getting back on its feet, while at the same time, Russia is a menace. That's the point of the Newsweek article, and just about every other American media outlet opinion on Russia, as summed up in the conclusion:
"So, the received wisdom is wrong. What the West must live with is a weak Russia. And history shows that states that talk loudly while carrying a small stick often overreach, creating problems for themselves and others." Hell, who cares if this is completely self-contradictory and illogical.
Why the gloating and hatred? What bothers all of these journalists and opinion-makers more than anything is the fact that Russia is "confident," even "overconfident" – a word that they come back to over and over. "Confidence": it's a state of mind that America hasn't been feeling for, oh, about 3 years now. And that... hurts.
You have to understand that America values self-confidence more than life itself, more than health or happiness or family or food. Confidence = Winner = America. The only other people allowed to feel confident are those who are grateful to us. Their confidence is permissible only as a sub-set of our confidence – they can be confident only after adopting our way of life, like the Czechs, for example.
The nerve of Russia to both reject the US, to get back on its feet without our help (indeed in spite of what we've done here), and then, to top it all off, to publicly display confidence!
Suddenly Uncle Sam is turned into Yosemite Sam, steaming red and stomping around, shaking his fist at Bugs Russia: "Why you no good varmint! I'll show you confidence! I'm a gonna blast your self-confidence intah smithereens! Yup, I'll fill our newspapers with articles callin' yuh 'weak'! That's right! 'Weak'! Yuh hear that? Yer 'really weak,' even, Russia! Now how's that self-confidence of yers doin', yuh long-eared galoot! Mwah-hah-hah!"
The Newsweek article proving that Russia is "really weak" is not just one of the sloppiest examples of propaganda you'll ever read, it's downright nasty in a way that Americans are usually pretty good at concealing beneath a veneer of sentimental concern. If Russia is really as pathetically weak as the authors claim, then shouldn't the West feel compassion for its 142 million citizens? Shouldn't we want to help?
F-ck no, b-tch! Celebrate! The point that the authors want to make is that Russia is weak, and so therefore... are you ready?... if we want to, we can treat Russia like sh-t, and not worry about it much. Except that they're so weak that they're also a danger. Which is to say, it's okay to hate Russia and to despise it for being weak, because that's all the bastards deserve. But also have a kind of contemptuous caution towards them... you know, like how we used to in the good old days.
The problem is, to convince readers today in the face of so much contrary evidence, the authors have to flat-out lie, both by omission and by, well, lying. Interestingly, to prove Russia is weak, they start by noting that a new Russian missile designed to evade Bush's Star Wars system failed in a test launch a few weeks ago. That's odd, because the entire ABM program has been marked by nothing but a series of highly-rigged tests which repeatedly fail. Over and over.
You'd think that the authors wouldn't want to make this their first piece of evidence, but they do, and very consciously so: "The United States experiences such mishaps, too, of course. But in Russia they are signs of something deeper." Now you start to see the purpose of this article: it's about making America feel better about its own gaping problems, via a false comparison, something it desperately needs. America's highly-touted, highly-corrupt, highly-insane ABM system – which caused the first big rift in US-Russian relations post-9/11 – has failed and failed and failed; so what you do is you find a Russian system that failed a test, and then use that to make America feel better about itself.
And we need it. The Bush years are such a throbbing bummer that they're making the Carter years look like the '84 LA Olympics. The anti-depressant to counteract Bush-Era Reality? Point out that Russia is having the same problems we have – only worse. Their problems "are signs of something deeper," implying that America's inability to rig two successful Star Wars tests in a row is not a sign of anything deep at all, such as massive corruption, militarism, stupidity and evil. No, it's just that our tests are failed tests, while Russia's failed tests actually mean its military is in total chaos.
That's funny, because the accompanying article in the same Newsweek issue announces that Russia has "won" the war in Chechnya. A war that was considered unwinnable by every Western pundit and journalist... including this Newsweek article's coauthor. In 2004, Rajan Menon wrote, "Then as now, no military or political solution was in sight... The Chechen war, in short, is a stalemate, no matter the bravado of those waging it." And a few years before that, Menon wrote, in a Foreign Affairs article titled "Decline and Fall?" that "The Russian Federation may be falling apart and its war against Chechnya is showing why."
So here's the awful reality: Russia won a war it was thought impossible to win, even by Newsweek's own calculations; and America lost a war it was thought impossible to lose. What a f-cking bummer.
The authors follow that up with this strange bit of evidence: "India has bought more Russian tanks since 2001 than the Russian Army." India, with a population almost 10 times that of Russia, has fought a series of major wars with neighbors China and Pakistan, with whom it has major territorial disputes. Russia's biggest threat comes from guerrilla insurgency campaigns. Why the f-ck would Russia buy more tanks than India, unless it planned to do something as idiotic as America and run around invading other countries? For which tanks are eventually useless anyway... The sad truth is that, despite serious problems, Russia's military is on the ascendancy. And even Newsweek announces that on its cover: "Putin's Hollow Victory: He's Won The War in Chechnya, But At What Cost?"
Is that supposed to be a put-down? My God, what any American would give, what George Bush would give, to win a "hollow victory" in Iraq! At literally any cost! Give us a "hollow victory" any day, and let us rue the consequences. Anything but this horrible failure and defeat, please!
Pulling back, we have to ask, "Why did Newsweek publish this? Why does a story like this resonate with its readers?" The reason, again, is simple: Newsweek's middlebrow Western/American readers desperately need to believe that Russia's military is a joke, the joke that it used to be. Because, well, as it turns out, America – you know, the "hyperpower," the most powerful empire in the history of mankind? 'member? – welp, turns out that America can't even manhandle a few restive dust monkeys. The wars America thinks it won... it actually lost. And the war that Russia should have lost... according to Newsweek, has been "won."
Nothing could gall a nation of Bible-thumping, pious militarists more than this awful picture of opposing trajectories, America's pointing downward. Yet it's fitting: America thought they'd beaten the Taliban, and now they're back; thought they'd conducted an historical invasion/occupation of Iraq, and now they're getting their asses ground down; and thought they'd defeated Russia with the Cold War, only to see Russia rejecting the US, and worst of all, acting "confident."
Then there's the economy. We hate to think that Russia has been growing against all of our advice and help, which is why we desperately want and need to believe that whatever the case about Russia's booming economy, Russia had nothing to do with it: "What happens when – not if – oil and gas prices begin to retreat?" the authors posit, sticking their tongues out at Mother Russia.
Note the glee and hope in the sentence: "when – not if." Yeah, what happens then, huh?! Hey, I'm talkin' to you! I said, what happens then?! You're gonna be REALLY poor again, Russia, that's what'll happen. And you're gonna come runnin' back to us, America, for help. But this time, we may not be there for yuh! Think about that, Russia! Cuz even if you don't think about it, we in America will.
It's that pathetic. America really has fallen that hard and that fast. From the not-so-long-ago Golden Days of triumphalist Russia-bashing, to today's dumped-ex-girlfriend whining that Russia ain't shee-yit, and someday they'll need us again.
Folks, we have truly gone from the world's b-tch-slappers to the world's b-tch-niggaz.
And it all happened so quickly. If you google your way back in time a few years, to that Golden Age between early 2002 and the summer of 2003, you'd find a slew of insane articles describing America as, in the words of Newsweek, "the most powerful country in the history of the world." Or as best-selling historian Niall Ferguson argued, "The most powerful empire the world has ever seen." One winces when reading an article in the Washington Post from a couple of years ago, quoting neocon uberfag William Kristol boasting, "What's the point of being the greatest, most powerful nation in the world and not having an imperial role?" And no one around to smack him with a wet fish. Or a cold tire iron.
But what the hell am I saying, expecting Americans to have learned a lesson from their recent disasters and failures? I keep hearing from American friends that somehow "America is going to come to its senses" and "finally learn a lesson" because, hell, "we've lost the war." Wrong.
There's an antidote to learning lessons from harsh reality. Complete mass insane stupidity, combined with utter shamelessness. Kristol has absolutely no shame whatsoever for having led his country down the sh-thole to pursue his nerdoid imperial fantasies. He's been all over the airwaves lately, looking and talking all confident-like, first calling on America to support Israel's doomed war in Lebanon... and when that war went so well for Israel, Kristol was back bigger than ever, fresh from total defeat, calling for Bush to attack Iran. "Why wait?" he asked. I don't mean that paraphrasingly-like – Kristol actually used the "why wait" argument in an editorial in July. I'll quote it: "For that matter, we might consider countering this act of Iranian aggression with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait?" Yeah, because heck, what's the point of being the most powerful nation in the world if you can't invade Iran on your own time schedule, and not someone else's?
The kicker here is that not only has Kristol NOT been pulled out of his mansion and had his head shaven by angry Americans, but rather, he speaks their language! This is where, unless you're lying to yourself, anyone who's trying to understand America needs to look. Past Kristol, past the editorial offices and think tanks in coastal America, and into its rank, mean, stupid heart. In a poll released earlier this week, Bush's approval rating has soared – SOARED! – to 44%, the highest in ages. Even more shocking, Americans no longer believe that the war in Iraq was a mistake. The Bertrand Russell theorem applies to us too: we're getting what we deserve.
When I read that poll this past Monday, I exploded in laughter. The absolute, pure gullibility of the American public is without limit, bottomless... Everyone was asking last week "Why do they hate us?" all over again.
What a silly question! I mean, what's not to hate?! I hate us! We hate us! Anyone in his right mind would hate us!
The Republicans have thoroughly skull-f-cked America, but the suckers are squealing for more! The denial has reached new, hemorrhage-fever dimensions, exemplified in, for example, a recent US News and World Report cover with an American soldier and the headline: "The Battle For Baghdad: For U.S. Troops, this may be the last chance to head off a full-blown civil war. There's a plan, but will it work?"
Duh, gee George, I dunno if it'll work, doyee! It's only been 3-1/2 years, George. Duh, you think we can pull it off, doyee? Like Joe Montana, huh George? Boy, that's a toughee! Gimme a minute to scratch my balls, George... Doyeee...I'm the American public, and I just need ta scratch my balls, and then I'll give you my opinion... doyeeeee...
I can't help it, suddenly I find Americans not merely contemptible but also funny as hell, I mean if you imagine them as literary characters. Because even in the world of fiction, you couldn't possibly invent a nation of such grotesque, abject suckers if you tried. For one thing, it wouldn't sell. No one would buy it. If the American public were characters in a novel, no editor would let them pass without massive reworking: "Your American public are simply not believable. They're too stupid and credulous and predictable... not to mention completely unlikable... no reader will identify with them! You can only suspend reader belief so much! Fiction has its limits!"
This is the essence of the Newsweek article, and so many others like it. While annoying, what they really reflect is something much more disturbing (or funny, depending on your tastes): the sharp and savage decline of American power, and with it, America's self-confidence. What's left are festering new complexes.
Indeed, as I said, it's Russia's confidence that galls the most.
"On the wider global stage, Putin displays seeming strength and new confidence," the Newsweek article notes. And then there's the "but" – a pretty funny "but," in fact – because the authors claim that Russian confidence is not merely misplaced, but that it is leading to racial violence and could plunge the region into chaos, while at the same time increasing Russia's weakness. I swear I'm not making this kitchen-sink-of-evils up: "However much it resonates with a particular Russian political class, that [confident] rhetoric can itself breed weakness. You see this in the sharp rise of race-related hate crimes in Russia..."
There is no logic from A to B, but then again, there is no logic to A: Bush destroys American power while enriching his plutocrat donors, and so therefore B: the nation supports him and his party over and over again.
Perhaps an even sadder example of America's syphilitic decline comes from the Washington Post's Jim Hoagland. In a column published the same day as the Newsweek issue, he made this incredible, jaw-dropping claim:
"An ambitious American effort to spread democracy into Russia under President Bill Clinton in the 1990s faltered and was stalemated when Putin came to power. But seen from today, it did help create a reference point and toehold for future advances. This should offer some solace to Clinton, and perhaps for President Bush's beleaguered push for democracy in the Middle East as well."
If I go into every reason why Hoagland is talking Holocaust-denial nonsense here, my article will be even more unnecessarily long than it is. So I'll be brief: Russians themselves fought to instill democracy into their country in the late perestroika/early-Yeltsin years. The first huge blow to democracy came when Yeltsin destroyed the opposition parliament with tanks – with full support from newly-elected President Clinton. The next blow to democracy came from the creation of an oligarchy and the mass impoverishment of Russia, all due to economic policies that came straight out of the US Treasury Department. The last big blow came in 1996, when the once-free Russian media was coapted by the pro-government oligarchy. The media in turn was used to support Yeltsin's presidential run that year – which he lost, but which he stole with massive manipulation, with the help and support and cover of the Clinton Administration.
By the time of the economic collapse in 1998, democracy had become known as "sh-t-ocracy," a dirty word and a cruel joke. The Clinton Administration sacrificed every decent value here, starting with the concept of democracy, in order to both enrich their backers on Wall Street and to make sure that the Communists didn't return to power, whether the Russians wanted them or not.
That is America's legacy here.
But we need to feel good about ourselves. That's what Hoagland's soothing message is: "Yes, Russia is entering the darkness of authoritarianism as it slips out of our orbit, but hey, it's not our fault, and moreover, there's a little bit of yearning for democracy left, and that's all thanks to us! So smile, reader! I'm smilin'!"
So this, it seems, is how America is dealing with its horrific case of cognitive dissonance: rewriting the recent past to cast themselves as a force of good and light when in fact we f-cked the whole thing up horribly, relieving what should be a guilty conscience (but isn't – don't be fooled, Americans know only fear, not remorse); and even more desperate attempts to rewrite the unbearable present tense, to deny our own weakness and decline by projecting it on others whom we think SHOULD be weaker. Russia, again, is the fall guy.
Nothing speaks more clearly of the total decline of America than this: Russia going from its former role as punching bag which the Western media would smack around to celebrate its own triumph and superiority... to today's anti-creation, in which every cheap rhetorical weapon is employed to ward off having to face the reality of a resurgent Russia. It's like the old Hollywood adage about success, only now applied at the national level, and it's a lesson we didn't learn: as much as we enjoyed dissing Russia on our way up to hyperpower stardom, today we can't cope with passing by Russia – now ascendant, confident – as we freefall down to God knows where.
We deem it relevant here to add a short fragment from National Power, by David Jablonsky, Parameters, Spring 1997:
The psychological element of power consists of national will and morale, national character, and degree of national integration. It is this most ephemeral of the social power determinants that has repeatedly caused nations with superior economic and military power to be defeated or have their policies frustrated by less capable actors. #2
Thus there was Mao's defeat of Chiang Kai-shek when Chiang at least initially possessed most of China's wealth and military capability, the ability of Gandhi to drive the British from India, and that of Khomeni to undermine the Shah. And it is almost a cliché that any measurement of US economic and military power vis-à-vis that of the North Vietnam-Vietcong combination during the late 1960s would have led to the conclusion that US superiority in these two categories would result in an American victory.
Harry Summers recounts a story, in this regard, that was circulating during the final days of the US retreat from Vietnam:
When the Nixon Administration took over in 1969 all the data on North Vietnam and on the United States was fed into a Pentagon computer – population, gross national product, manufacturing capability, number of tanks, ships, and aircraft, size of the armed forces, and the like. The computer was then asked, "When will we win?"
It took only a moment to give the answer: "You won in 1964!"
While in reality, as is well known from history, the Vietnam war ended with the complete defeat of the US Army. Such are historical facts.
FOR THE FAITH INDEPENDENT STATE AND THE NATIVE COUNTRY
Russian armored column is rushing to stop the genocide in South Ossetia
SAVED!
A South Ossetian military man holds a child as he looks at
an armored Russian column arrived to save them from Georgian assault
A PATH TO PEACE IN THE CAUCASUS
By Mikhail Gorbachev, 12 August 2008 The Washington Post
MOSCOW - The past week's events in South Ossetia are bound to shock and pain anyone. Already, thousands of people have died, tens of thousands have been turned into refugees, and towns and villages lie in ruins. Nothing can justify this loss of life and destruction. It is a warning to all.
The roots of this tragedy lie in the decision of Georgia's separatist leaders in 1991 to abolish South Ossetian autonomy. This turned out to be a time bomb for Georgia's territorial integrity. Each time successive Georgian leaders tried to impose their will by force – both in South Ossetia and in Abkhazia, where the issues of autonomy are similar – it only made the situation worse. New wounds aggravated old injuries.
Nevertheless, it was still possible to find a political solution. For some time, relative calm was maintained in South Ossetia. The peacekeeping force composed of Russians, Georgians and Ossetians fulfilled its mission, and ordinary Ossetians and Georgians, who live close to each other, found at least some common ground.
Through all these years, Russia has continued to recognize Georgia's territorial integrity. Clearly, the only way to solve the South Ossetian problem on that basis is through peaceful means. Indeed, in a civilized world, there is no other way.
The Georgian leadership flouted this key principle.
What happened on the night of 7th August 2008 is beyond comprehension. The Georgian military attacked the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinval with multiple rocket launchers designed to devastate large areas. Russia had to respond. To accuse it of aggression against "small, defenseless Georgia" is not just hypocritical but shows a lack of humanity.
Mounting a military assault against innocents was a reckless decision whose tragic consequences, for thousands of people of different nationalities, are now clear. The Georgian leadership could do this only with the perceived support and encouragement of a much more powerful force. Georgian armed forces were trained by hundreds of U.S. instructors, and its sophisticated military equipment was bought in a number of countries. This, coupled with the promise of NATO membership, emboldened Georgian leaders into thinking that they could get away with a "blitzkrieg" in South Ossetia.
In other words, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili was expecting unconditional support from the West, and the West had given him reason to think he would have it. Now that the Georgian military assault has been routed, both the Georgian government and its supporters should rethink their position.
Hostilities must cease as soon as possible, and urgent steps must be taken to help the victims – the humanitarian catastrophe, regretfully, received very little coverage in Western media this weekend - and to rebuild the devastated towns and villages. It is equally important to start thinking about ways to solve the underlying problem, which is among the most painful and challenging issues in the Caucasus – a region that should be approached with the greatest care.
When the problems of South Ossetia and Abkhazia first flared up, I proposed that they be settled through a federation that would grant broad autonomy to the two republics. This idea was dismissed, particularly by the Georgians. Attitudes gradually shifted, but after last week, it will be much more difficult to strike a deal even on such a basis.
Old grievances are a heavy burden. Healing is a long process that requires patience and dialogue, with non-use of force an indispensable precondition. It took decades to bring to an end similar conflicts in Europe and elsewhere, and other long-standing issues are still smoldering. In addition to patience, this situation requires wisdom.
Small nations of the Caucasus do have a history of living together. It has been demonstrated that a lasting peace is possible, that tolerance and cooperation can create conditions for normal life and development. Nothing is more important than that.
The region's political leaders need to realize this. Instead of flexing military muscle, they should devote their efforts to building the groundwork for durable peace.
Over the past few days, some Western nations have taken positions, particularly in the U.N. Security Council, that have been far from balanced. As a result, the Security Council was not able to act effectively from the very start of this conflict. By declaring the Caucasus, a region that is thousands of miles from the American continent, a sphere of its "national interest," the United States made a serious blunder. Of course, peace in the Caucasus is in everyone's interest. But it is simply common sense to recognize that Russia is rooted there by common geography and centuries of history. Russia is not seeking territorial expansion, but it has legitimate interests in this region.
The international community's long-term aim could be to create a sub-regional system of security and cooperation that would make any provocation, and the very possibility of crises such as this one, impossible. Building this type of system would be challenging and could only be accomplished with the cooperation of the region's countries themselves. Nations outside the region could perhaps help, too – but only if they take a fair and objective stance. A lesson from recent events is that geopolitical games are dangerous anywhere, not just in the Caucasus.
The writer was the last president of the Soviet Union. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1990 and is president of the Gorbachev Foundation, a Moscow think tank.
RUSSIAN BEAR WILL GROWL THEN BITE DEADLY – IF PROVOKED
Well what did else the West expect? Any self-respecting bear will growl first as a sign to ward of attackers, then pounce and maul them if provoked sufficiently.
Remember the dire fate of Napoleon, Hitler, and all the other bloody murderous scum who dared to insult Holy Russia.
The Russian Bear is confident and proud and looking more for respect in international affairs rather than a fight. But we Russians are always ready to make mincemeat of any aggressor.
With 4,237 strategic Russian warheads, approximately 2,000-3,000 operational tactical warheads, and approximately 8,000-10,000 stockpiled strategic and tactical warheads Holy Russia is being remarkably well equipped to defend herself and her allies.
RUSSIA IS A SUPERPOWER – WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT!
Some say we are five minutes to a new Cold War
This is a false assertion
In fact, with the NATO Navy entering the Black Sea
THE WORLD IS ONE MINUTE TO A THERMO-NUCLEAR WAR
It is incredible!
1.5 MILLION HOMELESS CHILDREN IN AMERICA
It is incredible for a common Russian person like myself
to learn about the starving homeless people in the West
and especially about
1.5 million homeless children in America
because formerly we used to consider the USA to be
the wealthiest and happiest country in the world
Obviously, we were wrong in thinking thusly
Only one with a heart of stone
can fail to be moved by this video
Friends, I must admit that despite being myself
quite a hardy, tough, and experienced man, as I am
nevertheless
I could not hold back my bitter tears
when I was watching this
extremely heartbreaking video
Click on the picture to watch it yourself
No true Christian can ever watch this video
without tears in the eyes!
Now, you will have to realize
why we Russians love and esteem Stalin:
This is because
Stalin denied the Soviet children
the "freedom" to be homeless and marooned
He denied all of us the dubious "freedom"
to starve and perish in the street
as in America
IN THE SOVIET UNION
NOBODY HAD THE DUBIOUS "RIGHT"
EITHER TO BE HOMELESS, OR UNEMPLOYED
OR TO LIVE AND DIE IN THE STREET
HELPLESS AND ABANDONED
AS IN AMERICA
ALL OF US THE SOVIET PEOPLE
WERE DENIED SUCH WESTERN "HUMAN RIGHTS"
BY THE STALIN'S REGIME
In this regard I suggest that
you should have a look at the shrewd observations
by an American expat now living in Russia:
click HERE
IS THE WEST HELL?
NO, IT IS NOT HELL
THE WEST IS
TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE HADES
THE WEST IS
A REALM OF FEAR AND LOATHING
The West's Fundamental Slogan
has been this:
HOMO HOMINI LUPUS EST
Which means:
Man is a wolf to man
In contrast to the West's inhumane slogan
our Russian motto has always been this:
Человек
человеку
друг,
товарищ
и
брат
HOMO HOMINI AMICUS, SOCIUS ET FRATER EST
Which means:
Man is a Friend, Comrade and Brother to Man
This great Christian idea
has been a fundamental one for all of us
living both in modern Russia and in the Soviet Union
despite all the official communist anti-religious stance
because this great idea has been always based upon
the ingrained Russian sense of the Divine Justice
which moreover had happily conformed
to Stalin's own views on patriotism
Inasmuch as the former Soviet Union
used to serve formerly as a permanent open rebuke
to the Western inhumane godless way of life
so today's Russia continues to serve
as the same rebuke to the West
at the present time
And this is the only true reason
why our beloved great country Holy Russia
has been vilified, defamed, reviled and hated so much
by the West's ruling class
as well as by the mass media under their control
No wonder!
Freedom of Speech conquerred Freedom of Thought
Once a year, and even more often, the tragedy happens in America: the schooler buys weapon, goes to school and shoots at whom he meets. Why such things are accidental in Russia, China or Europe?
The Human Rights Disaster in the United States of America
An excerpt from the
REPORT
Each year, 30,000 people die in gun-related incidents in the USA.
There were 14,180 murders in 2008.
In the first ten months of 2009, 45 people were killed by police use of tasers, bringing the total for the decade to 389.
In 2008, 315 police officers in New York City were subject to internal supervision due to "unrestrained use of violence."
7.3 million Americans were under the authority of the correctional system, more than in any other country.
An estimated 60,000 prisoners were raped while in custody last year.
On democratic rights, the report notes the pervasive government spying on citizens, authorized under the 2001 Patriot Act, extensive surveillance of the Internet by the National Security Agency, and police harassment of anti-globalization demonstrators in Pittsburgh during 2008 G-20 summit. Pointing to the hypocrisy of US government "human rights" rhetoric, the authors observe,
"the same conduct in other countries would be called human rights violations, whereas in the United States it was called necessary crime control."
It does offer a few facts rarely discussed in the US media:
712 bodies were cremated at public expense in the city of Los Angeles last year, because the families were too poor to pay for a burial.
There were 5,657 workplace deaths recorded in 2007, the last year for which a tally is available, a rate of 17 deaths per day (not a single employer was criminally charged for any of these deaths).
Some 2,266 veterans died as a consequence of lack of health insurance in 2008, 14 times the military death toll in Afghanistan that year.
All this said, I do by no means wish, however,
that my readers could come to a wrong conclusion
that we Russians might have ever hated Americans
No, not at the least!
The following website will show you
WHICH AMERICA WE RUSSIANS LOVE
Click on the picture to have a look at
a huge collection of fascinating portraits of
the Americans in San Francisco, San Jose,
Carmel, Monterey, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz
and other places of the United States
THIS IS JUST THE AMERICA
WE RUSSIANS DO ALWAYS LOVE
It is worth being noticed here also that even in the height of the so-called Cold War, in the mid-1960s we used to consider America as a friendly country.
Why "the so-called"?
Because we Russian chidren had never been taught to regard the Americans as enemies. Hence we did never think about whatever "Cold War" at all.
Nor we Russians had ever had such moronism as the "Duck and Cover" idiotic drills like the American children had to have at the time.
On the contrary, we Russians never feared anything, which is why during the so-called Cold War in our cinemas we enjoyed watching good American movies that were perfectly dubbed into the Russian language, without any subtitles. I can recall how we Russian boys in the 1960s went to watch The Magnificent Seven film scores of times on end (sic!), over and over again, because the tickets in the USSR were incredibly cheap and the American movie was brilliant, most impressive and absolutely exciting.
I do remember by heart almost all of the dialogues from the famous movie The Magnificent Seven even to the present day, despite the fact that it is almost fifty years that have already lapsed since those blessed times of our youth. Of course we knew well that the famous Hollywood actor Yul Brynner was of the Russian descent, and we Russian boys were then very proud of the fact.
You can watch a short (3 min) trailer from the famous American movie
THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN
by clicking on the picture
ARE YOU READY FOR NUCLEAR WAR?
The Mindlessness is Total
By Paul Craig Roberts, August 19 2008
Nothing real issues from the American press, which is about demonizing Russia and Iran, about the vice presidential choices as if it matters, about whether Obama being on vacation let McCain score too many points.
The mindlessness of the news reflects the mindlessness of the government, for which it is a spokesperson.
The American media do not serve American democracy or American interests. They serve the few people who exercise power.
When the Soviet Union collapsed, the US and Israel made a run at controlling Russia and the former constituent parts of its empire. For awhile the US and Israel succeeded, but Putin put a stop to it.
Recognizing that the US had no intention of keeping any of the agreements it had made with Gorbachev, Putin directed the Russian military budget to upgrading the Russian nuclear deterrent. Consequently, the Russian army and air force lack the smart weapons and electronics of the US military.
When the Russian army went into Georgia to rescue the Russians in South Ossetia from the destruction being inflicted upon them by the American puppet Saakashvili, the Russians made it clear that if they were opposed by American troops with smart weapons, they would deal with the threat with tactical nuclear weapons.
The Americans were the first to announce preemptive nuclear attack as their permissible war doctrine. Now the Russians have announced the tactical use of nuclear weapons as their response to American smart weapons.
It is obvious that American foreign policy, with its goal of ringing Russia with US military bases, is leading directly to nuclear war. Every American needs to realize this fact. The US government’s insane hegemonic foreign policy is a direct threat to life on the planet.
Russia has made no threats against America. The post-Soviet Russian government has sought to cooperate with the US and Europe. Russia has made it clear over and over that it is prepared to obey international law and treaties. It is the Americans who have thrown international law and treaties into the trash can, not the Russians.
In order to keep the billions of dollars in profits flowing to its contributors in the US military-security complex, the Bush Regime has rekindled the cold war. As American living standards decline and the prospects for university graduates deteriorate, "our" leaders in Washington commit us to a hundred years of war.
If you desire to be poor, oppressed, and eventually vaporized in a nuclear war, vote Republican.
This is the final part of an article by P. C. Roberts.
Warning
This video contains images depicting the reality and horror
of war/violence and should only be viewed by a mature audience
with their nerves of steel
Massacre Caught on Tape: US Military Confirms Authenticity of Their Own Chilling Video Showing Killing of Journalists
One of the men on the ground, believed to be Chmagh, is seen wounded and trying to crawl to safety. One of the helicopter crew is heard wishing for the man to reach for a gun, even though there is none visible nearby, so he has the pretext for opening fire: "All you gotta do is pick up a weapon." A van draws up next to the wounded man and Iraqis climb out. They are unarmed and start to carry the victim to the vehicle in what would appear to be an attempt to get him to hospital. One of the helicopters opens fire with armour-piercing shells. "Look at that. Right through the windshield," says one of the crew. Another responds with a laugh.
Sitting behind the windscreen were two children who were wounded.
† PUTIN IN MUNICH
† BUCHANAN ET AL
† CURTAIN
† 
#1
#1
