Meet the New Boss…He’s not the same as the Old Boss
(https://scottritter.substack.com/p/meet-the-new-bosshes-not-the-same)
May 10, 2024
Vladimir Putin delivers his fifth inaugural address, May 7, 2024
Vladimir Putin was sworn in for his fifth term as Russia’s President. Mainstream Western Russian “experts” paint Putin as a corrupt autocrat governing over a failed system and nation. Their “reality” couldn’t be further from the truth.
In her July 27, 2020, review of Catherine Belton’s book, Putin’s People, in The Atlantic, Anne Applebaum concluded that following his re-election as Russia’s President in the Spring of 2018, Vladimir Putin and his cronies had “once again created a calcified, authoritarian political system in Russia,” including “a corrupt economy that discourages innovation and entrepreneurship.” Years of Putin presidential leadership, Applebaum noted, had left Russia destitute. “Instead of experiencing the prosperity and political dynamism that still seemed possible in the ’90s,” the Pulitzer Prize-winning author declared, “Russia is once again impoverished and apathetic. But,” she concluded, “Putin and his people are thriving—and that was the most important goal all along.”
Scott will discuss this article and answer audience questions on Ep. 158 of Ask the Inspector.
Applebaum is a much sought after speaker on post-Cold War Russia, where she specializes in picking apart Russia’s Soviet past while lamenting the rise to power of Vladimir Putin, whom she characterizes as an autocrat, at the end of the decade of the 1990’s. In Applebaum’s defense, she is not alone in this regard. Indeed, she finds herself in the company of former ambassadors (Michael McFaul), national security experts (Fiona Hill and Angela Stent), and intelligence officers (Andrea Kendall-Taylor, Steve Hall, and John Sipher), all of whom have used their Russian-laden résumés to insinuate themselves into what passes for a national dialogue in the mainstream media over the true nature of Russia and its leadership, and what that means for the United States and its European allies.
Anne Applebaum
Without exception, the cast of characters assembled above have echoed Applebaum’s summation of Putin’s legacy and future as Russia’s leader. There is one important difference, however—while Applebaum has been an observer of Russian events, the others were all players in the game, active participants in the formulation and implementation of American policy regarding Russia in the period immediately following the collapse of the Soviet Union. They helped propagate polices designed to exploit Russian political, economic, and security weaknesses to the sole benefit of the United States and, when Putin’s unexpected assimilation to the Russian presidency threatened to undo all that they had accomplished during the decade of ruinous governance under Boris Yeltsin, these same actors actively worked to undermine Russia in hopes of bringing Putin down.
Any analyst who speaks of the catastrophic decade of the 1990’s in terms of “prosperity and political dynamism” cannot be described as a Russian “expert,” but rather an anti-Russian propogandist. The same must be said of anyone who compares the social and economic condition of Russia circa 1999 with Russia in 2020, and opts to describe the present condition in terms of apathetic impoverishment. The fact that Applebaum and company articulate Russia’s current economic situation as corrupt and lacking in innovation and entrepreneurship might explain why they have all gotten it 100% wrong when advocating the imposition of harsh economic sanctions against Russia in the aftermath of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, believing that the Russian economy would collapse, only to witness its survival, revival, and explosive expansion. There are two words that describe the Russian economic environment today—innovation and entrepreneurship. The fact that these words are not in the lexicon of these erstwhile “experts” when describing the Russian economic reality today speaks volumes about the ignorance of this collective.
Applebaum and her ilk understand the roots of Russian political corruption and calcification all too well—they purpose-built this system under the leadership of former President Boris Yeltsin and married it to an economic scheme that saw pensioners robbed while robber barons thrived. The Russian oligarch class was midwifed by the present-day Russian “experts” who explain Russia to an American audience infected with the disease of Russophobia these experts help vector into the mainstream. The marriage of Russian oligarchs to Russian political power was part and parcel of an overarching US-driven scheme designed to destroy, not revive, the Russian nation. It was the living embodiment of societal calcification. And when Vladimir Putin’s rise to power threatened to unravel their grand plan, these experts turned on him, projecting their sins onto the new president in classic Orwellian fashion, flipping the script so that up was down, left was right, and right was wrong.
Mikhail Kodorkovsky, a corrupt Russian oligarch
The Applebaum class of erstwhile Russian “experts” cannot ever tell the truth about Russia, because to do so would require them to honestly reflect on their own wrongdoing when it came to destroying Russia to begin with, and seeking to keep it destroyed in the decades to follow. They have built careers and fashioned sinecures based on these lies, and their very existence depends on their ability to sustain the telling of these lies to the American public.
The Russia that Vladimir Putin inherited from Boris Yeltsin was a fundamentally broken nation. The oligarch class insinuated itself into the very fabric of Russian economic and political society, and the Russian people had lost faith with their own history and culture, instead seeking western-style fortune that required them to debase themselves on the altar of assumed western cultural superiority. A nation that far removed from its true nature is nearly impossible to govern—no politician could survive the shock therapy required to reverse course. Putin had to prioritize those parts of Russia that needed fixing first, forcing him to hold his nose at the rot that had to be left for the time being, since it provided the framework that kept what passed for Russia together.
Over the years, Putin was able to chip away at the corruption of the oligarch class, repairing the damage done by the decades of neglect, and slowly encouraging the healing process necessary to revive the Russian nation and the Russian people. But the residual taint of the Yeltsin years still attached itself to the Russian body, the infection running too deep to be purged without undoing much of the accomplishments that had been achieved regarding societal rejuvenation. The West’s response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, however, gave Putin an unexpected boost in this regard. First, hundreds of thousands of political opponents, the followers of Alexi Navalny, fled the country. Second, the West sanctioned the oligarch class, crippling them financially and weakening them in terms of the influence they could exert back in Russia. And finally, the West pushed for the near-total divorce with Russia economically, and in doing so pulled the plug on a politically powerful class of Russian businessmen who had become inextricably intertwined with the western business elite.
In short, the western response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, influenced by Anne Applebaum and her ilk, backfired dramatically. Not only did western sanctions destroy the political viability of the Russian oligarch class and business elites, but it boomeranged back on the West in a classic blowback that has crippled the European economy. Vladmir Putin was able to use the need to boost the Russian defense economy to pursue the kind of innovation and entrepreneurship Applebaum et. al. claimed was nonexistent in Russia today.
The war with Ukraine and the collective West accomplished something else as well—it awoken a dormant sense of patriotism among the Russian people. This patriotic revival has led to Russians falling in love with Russia, rediscovering their culture, their history, their religion, and their values. Vladimir Putin has been the driving force for the Russian renewal, building upon this new sense of national pride to redefine Russia’s role on the international stage as a great nation with a unique culture that is capable of self-sustainment, and as such never again dependent upon the West for anything. This new Russia can stand on its own two feet and protect itself from any enemy that might present itself.
The fly in the ointment of this current reality, however, is the degree to which Russia has become dependent upon the leadership of Vladimir Putin. Putin won reelection by securing 88% of the vote with a 77% turnout among eligible voters. This is a mandate for the kind of change that Putin previously could not consider for fear of tearing apart the fabric of Russian civil and economic society. With the oligarch class and the pro-western economic elites effectively neutered by sanctions, Putin can enact sweeping economic reforms designed to reinvigorate the Russian economy based upon the massive reinvestment of resources which had earlier been taken out of Russia.
Russian soldiers in the Special Military Operation
The war with Ukraine has freed up Putin in another, perhaps even more important, way. The residual rot of the Yeltsin years, in the form of regional politicians who were more concerned about their individual wealth than they were about the Russian collective, still existed and, in their numbers, were still a formidable power. By turning the war with Ukraine away from being a war between two brotherly Slavic peoples, which many Russians opposed, into an existential struggle for survival with the collective West, Putin has tapped into a pool of patriotism the likes of which has not been seen since the Second World War. Russian patriotism is now directly linked to support of, and service in, the Special Military Operation. Vladimir Putin has drawn upon this new patriotism and the mandate provided by his electoral victory to redefine the modern Russian political class, and by doing so, putting in motion the kind of structural changes necessary for Russia to continue to grow and thrive in a post-Putin era.
“It is often said here,” President Putin stated in his inaugural address, “that the head of state in Russia answers and will always answer for everything. This is still the case. But today,” Putin noted, “although I have a deep awareness of my own personal responsibility, I nevertheless want to emphasize that Russia’s success and prosperity cannot and should not depend on one single person or one political party, or political force alone. We need a broad base for developing democracy in our country and for continuing the transformations we have begun. It is my conviction,” he continued, “that a mature civil society is the best guarantee that this development will continue. Only free people in a free country can be genuinely successful. This is the foundation for both economic growth and political stability in Russia. We will do all we can to ensure that everyone here can realize their talents and abilities, to ensure that a genuinely multiparty system develops and that personal freedoms are strengthened.”
The “calcified, authoritarian political system” that Anne Applebaum decried is but a figment of her imagination, and that of those who, like her, have come to hate anything and everything affiliated with the Russia that Vladimir Putin has rebuilt from the ruins of the Yeltsin decade. She and her fellow Russian “experts” have gotten it wrong on Russia and its leadership, and will continue to do so going forward. Hopefully, those in positions of responsibility will understand the price that has been paid for giving credence to such warped analysis, and start listening to the assessments of those who seek to understand the reality of Russia as it is, and not the fiction perpetrated by those who are locked in the failed policies of the past. Only in this way can the disease of Russophobia that has gripped the psyche of the American public be overcome. And when that time comes—and it will come—we can all recognize the reality of what Vladimir Putin has already accomplished and appreciate that which is currently embarked on accomplishing.
(ikus beherago Neil Wilson-en lanak, Moneta-Teoria Modernoaren ikuspuntutik, jabetzeko Errusiaren aurkako ‘zigorren’ eraginaz.)
oooooo
Maria Zakharova:
“With a mix of fondness and bewilderment, I observe the chaotic debate in the West regarding the legitimacy of elections, inaugurations, government appointments, and other constitutional procedures in Russia.
It seems to me that all these “intellectuals” from NATO-centric structures should first sort out their own “legitimacies”. It’s utterly inexplicable why none of the Westerners, who advocate for democracy, legality, and human rights, pay any attention to the open declarations in the US about the “need to kill the presidential candidate, former president of the country, Donald Trump.” This is not being said in blockchain networks but in official media, not by Philadelphia junkies from Kensington Avenue but by Democratic politicians. Congressman Dan Goldman and political scientist Robert Kagan, who happens to be Victoria Nuland’s husband, are among those who have called for this.
If you think this is just rhetoric, let me tell you, this is simply part of US history. Let’s take a brief excursion into the reality of legitimacy in the American way.
• 1835 – Assassination attempt on President Andrew Jackson
• 1865 – Assassination of President Abraham Lincoln
• 1881 – Assassination of President James Garfield
• 1901 – Assassination of President William McKinley
• 1912 – Assassination attempt on President Theodore Roosevelt
• 1933 – Assassination attempt on President-elect Franklin Delano Roosevelt
• 1935 – Assassination of presidential candidate Huey Long
• 1950 – Assassination attempt on President Harry Truman
• 1963 – Assassination of President John F. Kennedy
• 1968 – Assassination of presidential candidate Robert Kennedy
• 1972 – Assassination attempt on presidential candidate George Wallace
• 1974 – Assassination attempt on President Richard Nixon
• 1975 – Assassination attempt on President Gerald Ford
• 1981 – Assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan
• 1993 – Assassination attempt on President George H.W. Bush
• 1994 – Assassination attempt on President Bill Clinton
• 2005 – Assassination attempt on President George W. Bush
• 2008 – Assassination attempt on presidential candidate Barack Obama
• 2011 – Assassination attempt on President Barack Obama.
The tradition is appalling, but it has, so to speak, persisted. And this is only part of what is declassified and available in open sources. It would be nice if all this Anglo-Saxon gang turned its attention to the monstrous problems with legitimacy, democracy, and human rights in their own electoral-constitutional procedures.”
ooooo
Eto Buziashvili@EtoBuziashvili
17 h“The United States and Europe have to wake up to the fact that perceived weakness in Washington has given encouragement to anti-democratic actors not just in Ukraine, but all over the world,” writes @FukuyamaFrancisand calls for action regarding Georgia.
oooooo
I thought Mr. Fukuyama said history ended three decades ago?
It looks like the drum beat of history continues to play its tune.
American hegemony, once touted by Fukuyama as the global ideal, is being frogmarched off the world stage by forces like Georgia Dream which put sovereign interests over neo-colonial subjugation
oooooo
My latest:
oooooo
Israel and Iran: A New Deterrence Paradigm
Published:
Fri, May 10, 2024
Author
For a worrisome moment in mid-April, the world watched as Iran and Israel appeared to be on the cusp of a full-scale war that would have had dire consequences for global energy security. Deterrence postures that had kept an active hybrid conflict between the two regional powers from escalating into open conflict collapsed in the aftermath of Israel’s attack on an Iranian consular building in the Syrian capital, Damascus. Iran, having declared the Israeli action to be in violation of both international law and Iran’s own publicly declared “red line” regarding attacks against sovereign Iranian territory (the consular building, as an extension of the Iranian embassy, was seen by Tehran as falling into this category), launched a massive military retaliation using hundreds of drones and missiles. Israel’s response, however, was muted, allowing both sides to back down from a dangerous escalation cycle. Iran’s action, when combined with Israel’s limited response, has redefined the deterrence posture of the region, with Iran challenging the deterrence dominance once enjoyed by Israel.
For decades, Israel and the US maintained a strategic deterrent against state-actor attacks on Israel through a collective military posture that presented any potential attacker with the perceived reality of a guaranteed overwhelming retaliation. This deterrence posture grew out of the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War, where Iraq subjected Israel to 49 Scud missile attacks over the course of five weeks.
Since then, Israel achieved a de facto level of deterrence dominance over its regional adversaries, including both Syria and Iran. Israel carried out numerous attacks targeting Iranian nuclear officials inside Iran, and Iranian military assets in Syria, without triggering any direct response. In both cases — but especially with Iran — the Israeli deterrence posture was backed by the perception that any Israeli action would be supported by US military power. The recent Iranian missile and drone attack on Israel has fundamentally shifted this paradigm. By attacking Israel, Iran demonstrated that it was no longer deterred by the threat of Israeli retaliation. And by not participating in the Israeli retaliation, the US put Israel on notice that, at least as far as Iran is concerned, Israel is on its own when it comes to responding to Iranian attacks stemming from acts of Israeli aggression against Iran.
A New Deterrence Paradigm
The Apr. 1 attack by Israel on the Iranian consulate in Damascus violated an existing Iranian red line concerning attacks against Iranian territory. As a result, the Iranian response of Apr. 13 was inevitable. At least nine Iranian missiles hit heavily protected targets inside Israel, penetrating a joint US-Israeli ballistic missile defense shield, but avoiding striking critical infrastructure or inflicting significant casualties. As such, Iran confronted Israel with the reality of an overwhelming Iranian retaliatory strike without subjecting Israel to the actual consequences of such.
This was similar to the approach taken by Iran in 2020 following the US assassination of Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani. The Iranians retaliated by striking the Al-Assad air base in Iraq with at least 10 ballistic missiles, making it clear to the US that the missiles hit what they were aimed at, while underscoring the fact that the Iranian attack was designed to avoid casualties, thereby reducing political pressure on the US to retaliate. The Iranian response to Soleimani’s assassination reversed a decades-long US deterrence posture that sought to prevent Iran from carrying out any direct attack on US miliary forces in the region. By attacking the Al-Assad air base, Iran put the US on notice that, going forward, there would be a retaliation for any direct US attack on Iran.
This new posture may have played out in the recent crisis. After Iran’s strike on Israel, the US informed Israel that any retaliatory strike it carried out would be done without the participation of US forces. While the US is seen as having a wider interest in avoiding a direct conflict with Iran, the US had also been put on notice by Iran that US military bases in the region would be subjected to attack should it participate in any action against Iran.
Israel had likely been working under the assumption that, if Israel were to attack Iran, the US would be a full partner to this action.
Any such Israeli assumptions were not drawn out of thin air, but rather were the direct result of military collaboration with the US. This saw US forces actively participate in major military exercises conducted by Israel in the past two years, which simulated a full-scale attack on Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile production infrastructure. One of the outcomes of these exercises was the realization by Israel that it lacked the military capacity to execute a militarily meaningful strike against Iran without US participation. By limiting Israel’s retaliatory options to an Israeli-only action, the US effectively undermined Israel’s long-standing deterrence superiority over Iran.
Unintended Consequences
The Middle East today is a very different place than it was before Apr. 13. Then, Israel’s national security posture — premised on deterrence superiority — allowed Israel to engage in aggressive regional actions without fear of retaliation. Today, because of Iran’s deterrence reversal against the US (in January 2020) and Israel (on Apr. 13), Israel must revise its behavior to take into account the clear message the US sent that its military support for an Israeli offensive operation against Iran is not guaranteed, and that Israeli military capabilities are not, in themselves, capable of achieving regional deterrence dominance.
Conventional wisdom would hold that this new reality would temper Israeli behavior going forward, including in Gaza, where Israel must consider the potential ramifications of its actions in a manner it never had to do previously. But the reality is that by losing deterrence dominance over Iran, Israel freed up its options in Gaza. Previously, regional actors allied with Hamas, such as Hezbollah, had threatened major escalation if Israel were to move decisively against Hamas. The Hezbollah threat was tied to a model of escalation management that concluded with a general war between Hezbollah and Israel where Iranian support was assumed.
This chain of escalation, however, has yet to play out over the Gaza war, with Tehran seen as reluctant to put its powerful Hezbollah asset at risk. But by resetting the regional deterrence model, the Iranian government has inadvertently tied its own hands when it comes to supporting Hezbollah and, by extension, Hamas. Before Apr. 13, the threat of a larger conflict with Hezbollah and Iran helped stay Israel’s hand when it came to provoking wider regional escalation. By limiting military strikes against Israel to retaliatory action predicated on an attack on Iran itself, the Iranian government has effectively reduced the threat that any conflict between Hezbollah and Israel would automatically expand to Iran, which previously gave pause to Israeli decision makers.
With reduced threat of Iranian escalation, Hezbollah becomes a more manageable problem. This, in turn, allows Israel to more confidently approach a military solution in Gaza. The current offensive in Rafah is evidence of this new reality. The irony is that Israel, having ceded deterrence dominance to Iran, has used the conditions to limit the military options of its regional adversaries, while maximizing its own strategic flexibility.
Scott Ritter is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer whose service over a 20-plus-year career included tours of duty in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control agreements, serving on the staff of US Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf during the Gulf War and later as a chief weapons inspector with the UN in Iraq from 1991-98. The views expressed in this article are those of the author.
Oooooo
Russia has DESTROYED the CIA and NATO after Putin’s brutal ultimatum |
https://youtu.be/Mzlbs_byldg Danny Haiphong [@SpiritofHo] May 9, 2024 #CrocusCityHall #Russia #ISIS #Chechnya #Dagestan #Georgia #USA #Afghanistan #Syria #AlQaeda #BRICS #WolfowitzDoctrine
oooooo
Scott Ritter: Russia has NATO Completely DESTROYED and Putin’s Ultimatum Shows No Mercy
Bideoa: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mzlbs_byldg
Former US Marine Corps Intelligence Officer and UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter joins the show to discuss the CIA’s historic regime change plot against Russia and how it fits into NATO’s overall policy. This video breaks down how Russia has come out on top anyway, leading to an ultimatum to by Putin to the West on Russia’s sovereignty.
Transkripzio:
0:00
that’s one of the main objectives of the
0:01
croa city hall was you know first of all
0:04
to disrupt the elections but also to
0:05
create uh a condition where Russian
0:08
society would start to unravel as the
0:11
Russians turned on the immigrants and
0:13
you started having these uh you know
0:16
these the various crises that thing
0:18
could be exploited because now you have
0:19
an you know a a segment of society that
0:23
uh now feels under attack and they may
0:26
now be induced into turning to Isis or
0:30
other Islamic fundamentalists to protect
0:32
themselves and now you have this fight
0:34
Russia’s an old hand at this they’ve
0:36
done they’ve done this they fought you
0:38
know these guys before in chchchchia
0:40
they fight them in in dagistan it’s not
0:42
their first rodeo so to speak but this
0:45
is the Strategic objective behind the
0:47
the crocus City Hall attack is to create
0:50
um a a sense of crisis between U
0:53
Russians and um Central agent immigrate
0:58
populations yeah I know I’ve I’ve kept
1:00
you longer than uh requested Scott but
1:04
maybe lastly on this I found Putin’s
1:08
response to this attack very interesting
1:11
and the ongoing response of course laser
1:14
focus on uh who is behind it right so so
1:20
initially I mean of course I I believe
1:21
there’s been lots of intelligence the
1:23
investigative committee has already uh
1:25
been doing a lot of work around um who
1:28
were the pay masters of this
1:30
operation and it’s likely we’re going to
1:32
find out who that is in some capacity uh
1:36
soon but I wanted your comment on the
1:41
political reaction from Putin was we’re
1:43
humanistic and he denounced a certain
1:46
kind of Russian nationalism which has
1:49
the risk of stoking these exact tensions
1:52
as you mentioned where uh there are
1:55
maybe a certain segment of the
1:57
population I don’t know how large which
1:59
sees uh Russia for Russians only when
2:03
Russia happens to be one of the most
2:05
diverse countries in the world with more
2:07
ethnic groups than even China I did not
2:08
even know that I believe uh Russia has
2:12
China is about 56 I believe Russia has
2:14
uh well more than that almost double
2:16
that if not more so Scott H what did you
2:20
make of that reaction and and a patreon
2:22
subscriber wanted to ask about Besson
2:24
the uh attack um in 2004 and how it
2:28
compares with regard to
2:31
Insurgency and uh maybe even the role of
2:34
you know outside forces uh uh in these
2:37
kind of attacks but I’ll kick it back to
2:39
you for maybe the last um comment well I
2:43
mean let’s talk about beston for a
2:45
moment this was an attack planned by a
2:47
um a
2:49
chin warlord uh Shamil basv um it was a
2:54
horrible attack it was launched against
2:56
a school uh if you know anything about
3:00
the former Soviet Union or or Russia um
3:05
there the
3:07
first I can’t remember exactly the date
3:10
but there’s a day in September where um
3:13
all the kids go to school and they dress
3:15
up they bring roses there’s a big
3:16
ceremony they present their teacher the
3:18
roses and it’s just the day of welcoming
3:21
the children to school and it was on
3:23
this day when parents had um arrived the
3:26
children went in that the terrorists
3:28
struck and took over the school and um
3:32
in a total chaos that followed um you
3:36
know Mis missed opportunities on the
3:38
part of the security forces um lack of
3:41
communication violence started it got
3:44
out of control and um tragically
3:48
hundreds of children lost their lives um
3:51
one of the great you know it’s in
3:52
Russian history it’s just it’s it’s
3:55
seared into the minds of everybody um
3:58
but this was in the middle of um the you
4:01
know the chin conflict um When Vladimir
4:04
Putin was working very hard with akmad
4:07
kadirov the president of uh of chia to
4:11
bring an end to this conflict and you
4:14
know this this kind of attack is is the
4:17
kind of attack that emotionally could um
4:20
have have gotten the Russian people to
4:21
rise up and say we will never ever ever
4:25
condone uh peace with these people
4:27
because remember at the same time I mean
4:28
shortly thereafter before I think it was
4:30
after um they you know the a group of
4:33
chin widows took over um a theater in
4:37
Moscow and um again there was an attack
4:40
mismanaged the use of knockout gas
4:42
people died uh horrible horrible uh
4:46
attack but the idea was to create a
4:48
division between white nationalist
4:51
Russians and um you know these chin and
4:54
it wasn’t just the chin the Russians um
4:57
you
4:58
know they’re there is a tendency among
5:01
Russia to be very racist against the
5:03
people of Central Asia and um and the
5:07
and the caucuses uh you
5:09
know Alexander naali is um on record at
5:14
one point in time talking about the
5:16
people of Georgia uh and calling them
5:18
cockroaches um in Vermin um there’s a
5:22
term um a Russian term chne and I won’t
5:26
use the second word but it uh it means
5:29
but
5:30
um you know but they call them black
5:31
asses um and they that’s what they call
5:33
you know that’s sort of the American
5:35
version of the nword and they use that
5:37
for Central Asians for southern Caucasus
5:40
people um and so if you don’t manage
5:44
this problem and and Putin was very
5:46
genius about how he brought peace to
5:49
chch you know working with the chin
5:51
elevating the catchin respecting their
5:54
religious differences their cultural
5:56
differences Etc to create this what I
5:58
call the chin miracle that that exist
6:00
today um and so Putin knows this he
6:03
knows the risks he knows because he had
6:04
to fight through this he had to fight
6:06
overcome that the the the desire on the
6:09
part of many Russians to turn on the
6:11
catchin to turn on these ethnicities and
6:14
Putin navigated Russia through that so
6:17
he understands what’s going on he
6:19
understands the dangers and so that’s
6:21
why his statement um about you know it
6:25
is a Russia is a a nation that has
6:28
multiple faiths um you know and and we
6:31
respect all religions and we respect all
6:33
peoples that we all have to get together
6:36
it’s it’s the perfect kind of leadership
6:38
statement that has to be made at the at
6:40
a time like that um and it needed to be
6:43
made when it was made to dampen down uh
6:46
the um you know the desire for Revenge
6:48
Revenge is an ugly business um you know
6:51
look at the United States after 911 how
6:54
quickly we uh you know Americans lost
6:58
all ability of rational thought all we
7:01
wanted to do is to attack uh the
7:03
president felt the political pressure uh
7:06
so we went into Afghanistan not to
7:08
defeat Al-Qaeda but we suddenly turned
7:10
it into we’re going to get rid of the
7:11
Taliban and take over the nation it’s
7:13
like what the hell are you thinking why
7:15
would you do that why would you take us
7:16
down this path where we’re not solving
7:19
the problem we’re supposed to be solving
7:21
and we never have by the way Al-Qaeda
7:22
has never been defeated it’s out there
7:24
functioning in fact at some point in
7:26
time we became allied with al-Qaeda in
7:28
Syria Insanity um you know because we
7:32
lost Focus we became Revenge oriented
7:34
and then we expanded the problem set to
7:36
a degree that we didn’t have an answer
7:37
for it Putin’s not gonna play that game
7:40
um he has a tremendous um success in
7:44
terms of stay remember it’s not just
7:47
what happened in Cheta a lot of people
7:49
don’t realize that um in in in in
7:52
tatarstan um you know during I think in
7:55
1995 the tatars were talking about um
7:58
breaking away from uh from Russia and
8:01
Boris yelson had to come in and
8:02
negotiate a deal that gave them control
8:04
of the tax revenue derived from oil
8:07
sales Etc um Putin inherited that and
8:10
Putin could have gone in there and
8:11
played heavy-handed games but he didn’t
8:13
he went in and he retreated the tatars
8:15
with respect and he you know they are a
8:18
um you know very much an autonomous uh
8:22
Republic um that has large levels of
8:26
autonomy in terms of the economic and
8:28
I’ve been to Kazan and I have to tell
8:29
you that uh the harmony between the
8:31
Russians and the and the tatars is never
8:35
it’s it’s there I mean they there is I’m
8:38
sure you can find tension there’s always
8:40
tension I mean there’s tension anywhere
8:42
you go but there’s not there’s not the
8:44
kind of tension that the West would hope
8:46
to exist you’re looking at the the
8:48
tatars who say we are part of the
8:50
Russian Federation and that’s the
8:51
mindset that we in the west don’t want
8:53
we want them to say we want to be
8:55
independent from the Russian Federation
8:56
but the tatars are very happy about
8:59
where they stand in the Russian
9:00
Federation one of the reasons why bricks
9:02
is going to be held in Kazan is that
9:05
Kazan is not just this city that has the
9:08
ability to absorb Outsiders um you know
9:12
they played host to the FIFA World Cup
9:14
um which meant a lot of people came
9:16
traveling in but it’s also a a Muslim
9:19
Republic and so when you’re bringing in
9:21
an expans of bricks that has a large
9:24
number of Muslim nations including Saudi
9:26
Arabia Iran and the United Arab Emirates
9:29
uh coming in you know that’s that’s the
9:33
Russia that Putin’s fighting for uh and
9:36
what he doesn’t want to do is give um
9:39
you know the enemies of Russia any
9:41
foothold into Russia by taking advantage
9:44
by breaking apart this harmony that he’s
9:46
worked so hard to to build and so that’s
9:49
why he gave the speech that he did it’s
9:50
a very important
9:52
speech yeah and I uh I I this is why I
9:56
bring you on Scott because you bring it
9:58
back out to the large picture a lot of
10:00
times when we’re looking at these
10:01
attacks even the conflict in Ukraine
10:03
we’re looking at the battlefield we’re
10:06
looking at um you know what’s happening
10:09
dayto day but this larger picture of
10:14
what benefits Russia’s larger strategic
10:18
Vision um as well as the uh political
10:22
and economic direction that uh Russia’s
10:25
on in this multi-polar world is always a
10:28
factor and it it makes a lot of sense
10:31
that this Division I mean this to me
10:33
feels like exactly like the image that
10:36
the wolfowitz doctrine had for Russia
10:39
this idea of you dividing up carving up
10:41
Russia similar to how the United States
10:45
and NATO wanted to divide up the entire
10:48
world especially in the post Soviet
10:50
period uh when it believed it had
10:52
everything that’s my kisan hat that’s my
10:54
T hat give it to me and you’re on your
10:56
way Scott any any final comments before
10:59
we head out of
11:01
here
11:05
um look we’re we’re we’re in a world
11:08
that’s in um in in transition right now
11:11
and the United States is uh is fighting
11:15
hard against the uh against that
11:17
transition because it means an end to um
11:20
the American Singularity it means an end
11:22
to the rules-based um International
11:25
order that when you look at the national
11:29
strategy documents of the United States
11:31
especially under the Biden
11:33
Administration um they they just say
11:35
that the foundation of of American
11:39
foreign policy national security policy
11:41
is the rules-based international order
11:42
and we’re looking
11:44
at the end of that and the Biden
11:47
Administration is starting to understand
11:49
that reality
11:51
but you
11:53
know we have an America that’s in a
11:55
state of Crisis right now political
11:56
crisis um
11:59
you know I’m
12:00
not neither option is a good option
12:03
right now um you know so you know it’s
12:06
it America is going to be in trouble no
12:09
matter who wins at the uh at the polls
12:11
um we have the fact that the Biden
12:14
Administration is totally
12:18
dysfunctional a president who um even on
12:22
his best day no one can articulate that
12:24
he is um in control of you know absolute
12:28
control of his faculty
12:29
um he is of diminished capacity and you
12:32
never want a president especially during
12:34
such a difficult trans transformation to
12:37
have um you know reduced mental
12:39
capacities and physical capacities of
12:41
being the president is a physically
12:44
demanding job and you need a president
12:46
who can wake up in the morning ready to
12:48
rock and work all day not a president
12:50
has to sleep in late get up be cuddled
12:52
maybe be given some supplements that
12:54
allow him to uh function more and then
12:57
he gets exhausted because supplements
12:59
create additional metabolism that
13:00
exhaust you further now you have to go
13:02
to bed early so you have a a president
13:04
who can’t fill that role then the
13:05
question is who’s filling that role and
13:07
when you have vice president like Camala
13:09
Harris that
13:11
is nobody likes um you know so you know
13:16
who’s running the government and to be
13:17
honest we can’t answer that question we
13:19
don’t know who’s running the government
13:22
and we’re supposed to be a democracy and
13:24
yet we don’t know who’s who’s really
13:26
pulling the strings um if it’s National
13:29
Security adviser understand that that
13:31
person wasn’t elected and they weren’t
13:33
confirmed by the US Senate um they’re
13:36
basically an unelected person handpicked
13:38
by the president that’s not a democracy
13:41
um and then we have his potential
13:43
replacement um you know Donald Trump um
13:47
whose big selling point is
13:52
chaos I mean on the one hand I’m I’m I’m
13:55
sort of you know like wow uh would he
13:58
really come in and Purge the Washington
14:01
DC establishment the way he claims he he
14:03
wants to um and what would the
14:05
consequences be because i’mi believes
14:07
that what we have is fundamentally
14:09
broken and so purging it and replacing
14:12
it might be an interesting exercise but
14:14
it’s a destabilizing exercise at a time
14:17
when what America really needs right now
14:18
more than anything is stability uh
14:21
economic stability political stability
14:23
geopolitical stability um and so either
14:28
way we’re uh it’s going to be an
14:30
interesting time which is why um believe
14:33
it or not for all the people out there
14:35
who hate Russia you know there’s all the
14:37
russophobe out there Putin’s a dictator
14:39
Putin’s this Putin’s that whatever you
14:43
don’t know what you’re talking about but
14:44
let’s just say that maybe you’re right
14:46
you’re not but let’s just I’m gonna give
14:47
you a chance to to feel good for a
14:49
moment
14:51
um if you take a look at Putin’s
14:54
response we come back to his uh his his
14:57
presentation after the the crocus City
14:59
Hall attack where he said we need to
15:01
take a chill pill we need to respect
15:03
religious diversity we need to respect
15:06
our ethnic diversity We Are One Russian
15:10
Nation um with different religions
15:12
different ethnicities but we work
15:14
together um this is the
15:17
mindset that we America need on on the
15:23
part of our adversaries um if Putin was
15:26
everything that we claim he is um he
15:29
would be seeking to destroy us to take
15:31
advantage of our weakness I’ve spoken
15:32
with enough senior Russian diplomats to
15:35
have a a good feel for the reality that
15:39
Russia doesn’t want a destabilized
15:41
America because that’s a destabilizing
15:43
force in the world today U Ambassador
15:46
anatol Antonov the Russian ambassador to
15:49
the United Nations one of his favorite
15:51
words is
15:53
predictability I mean it’s funny because
15:55
he’s like you know I I’d rather have a
15:57
president who has strong anti-russian
16:00
policies but stuck to those policies
16:03
because that provides predictability
16:05
that allows me as an ambassador as a
16:07
foreign policy practic uh practitioner
16:10
to you know understand where the United
16:13
States is going and how to formulate
16:15
policies to deal with this um I I what
16:18
he doesn’t want is somebody comes in who
16:21
pretends to be America you know to
16:22
friends with Russia but is really doing
16:24
this it’s unpredictable it’s exhausting
16:26
you don’t know what to do um so Russia’s
16:29
not in the business of promoting the
16:31
destabilization of America we are in the
16:33
business of promoting the
16:34
destabilization of Russia thank goodness
16:37
we have failed but Russia’s not in the
16:39
business of promoting either the
16:40
destabilization of Europe or America so
16:43
when we take a look at this as Americans
16:45
please take comfort in knowing that as
16:49
bad as it’s going to get in America
16:52
Russia and China are not in the business
16:55
of exploiting this because they don’t
16:58
want a destabilized America they want
17:01
America to get its act together again I
17:04
can’t speak for the Chinese directly but
17:06
you’ve you’ve dealt with them the
17:07
Chinese would prefer I believe a
17:10
predictable America an America that says
17:13
this is who we are this is what we do
17:15
this is what we stand for and China
17:16
would go all right now that and and
17:19
we’re against that but now we know where
17:20
you’re at we can create policies that
17:22
are designed to deal with this reality
17:24
and then begin to try and win you over
17:26
into normalized relations with China but
17:29
having an America that’s vacillating all
17:31
over the place that because of domestic
17:33
political crisis um is going to create
17:36
artificial Global crisis to off you know
17:39
distract away from domestic problems at
17:41
home but those crises aren’t found in
17:43
anything real the Chinese are going why
17:45
are you why are you doing this it’s not
17:47
about anything we’re doing it’s all
17:49
about what’s happening in America and we
17:50
can’t control that so you have a
17:52
situation where America’s you knowa
17:54
chaos translates into Global chaos but
17:57
the Chinese and Russians can’t deal with
18:00
that because the root cause isn’t
18:01
anything they’re doing it’s what’s going
18:03
on in America they don’t need that they
18:05
don’t want that they don’t desire that
18:08
so the good news is out there that um
18:11
the these these nations that we condemn
18:14
these nations that we spit on are
18:15
actually our best hope for survival in
18:17
the long term because they aren’t going
18:19
to exploit our weaknesses our mistakes
18:23
and they will be there to help us
18:25
stabilize because they need a stable
18:27
America they need it we’re too big you
18:29
know you’ve heard that term when it
18:31
comes to Banks too big to fail America’s
18:34
too big to fail in the world the world
18:35
can’t survive without America I know
18:38
there’s all the American haters out
18:39
there oh we don’t need America try
18:41
living without America just think about
18:43
it that’s what I tell Americans about
18:45
China try living without China just
18:46
imagine a world without China right now
18:48
you can’t because it’s there it’s a
18:51
reality well the Chinese understand that
18:52
about America you can’t imagine a world
18:55
without America America’s there it’s
18:57
everywhere and um and and so we’re too
19:01
big to fail uh but we can still cause a
19:04
lot of chaos as we thrash around they
19:06
want a stable America they’re actually
19:09
our best friends and in many cases our
19:12
best hope because they are going to
19:14
create political buffers and economic
19:17
buffers that give America a chance to
19:19
heal itself um but again given the two
19:23
choices we have for President I mean
19:25
that the period of healing could be
19:27
considerable
19:29
Oh indeed we didn’t even get to talk
19:31
about uh the US training Marines to
19:34
fight a war against China all across the
19:37
first island chain as if that’s going to
19:40
end well I mean the this you’re exactly
19:43
right Scott the Russia and China they
19:46
want the United States to be stable and
19:50
they want what’s in the best interest of
19:52
the entire global economy and the United
19:53
States will always be in it no matter
19:55
what shape or form that it takes of
19:58
course Russia and China would prefer the
20:00
shapee and form of the United States to
20:02
be one that is friendly that respects
20:05
international law that cooperates rather
20:08
than militarizes cooperates rather than
20:11
uh uh prepares for preparing for or
20:15
Waging War it would rather a United
20:18
States that is a partner in this
20:22
larger U uh world order that is emerging
20:26
that’s Unstoppable I mean it’s there’s
20:28
not going to be a
20:30
hegemonic uh world order one that is
20:32
dominated unipolar uh in terms of
20:35
unipolarity in terms of the United
20:36
States that’s just that’s not going to
20:38
be the future it already is looking like
20:41
it’s the past so uh Russia and China of
20:44
course are not they they don’t want war
20:46
war is coming to them and Scott you put
20:49
it very uh uh I think couldn’t have said
20:52
it better myself thank you for tuning in
20:55
to my latest video I appreciate all of
20:58
your support this channel however needs
21:01
your help I am seeking to make this
21:04
channel more sustainable in the long
21:05
term and upgrade necessary equipment to
21:08
ensure that this work continues onward
21:11
and makes progress to give you all of
21:14
the geopolitical analysis that you all
21:18
deserve for that reason I’m asking you
21:20
to become a member of my patreon
21:22
community at
21:23
patreon.com dannyy Fong you can find
21:27
that link in the video description or in
21:29
the pinned comment below for whatever
21:32
amount you choose to give just know you
21:34
are supporting Independent Media that
21:36
you can’t find anywhere else thank you
21:39
so much and I look forward to the next
21:41
video
21:44
[Music]
21:55
[Music]
oooooo
Ekonomiaren gaineko zigorrak direla eta, ikasi MTM, arren!
Errusia dela eta, eta haren gainean Mendebaldekoek jarritako zigorrak eta neurri desberdinak direla medio, ikusi Neil Wilson-en lanak, guztiak MTM-ren ildotik (Moneta-Teoria Modernoa).
Neil Wilson, aka Neil Wayland-en Errusiako petrolioaren prezioaren mugaz (https://www.unibertsitatea.net/blogak/heterodoxia/2022/12/09/neil-wilson-aka-neil-wayland-en-errusiako-petrolioaren-prezioaren-mugaz/)
Dakienak badaki, ez dakienak baleki: Neil Wilson: dakienak badaki, ez dakienak baleki
Ikasteko, MTM dago zure zain!
