The Saker blog now also in Russian!

ДОРОГИЕ РУССКОЯЗЫЧНЫЕ ДРУЗЬЯ!
Читайте блог Балобана по-русски щелкнув на эту ссылку:


http://www.vineyardsaker.ru/

The Saker Blog now also in French!

AMIS FRANCOPHONES!
Vous pouvez maintenant lire le blog du Saker en Français en cliquant sur ce lien:


http://www.vineyardsaker.fr/

The Saker Blog now also in German!

ALLE UNSERE DEUTSCHEN FREUNDE!
koennen jetzt den blog des Sakers auf Deutsch lesen - bitte hier anklicken:


http://www.vineyardsaker.de/

The Saker Blog now also in Oceania

TO ALL THE SAKER FRIENDS IN OCEANIA!
you can now also visit the Oceania Vineyardsaker Blog by clicking on this link:


http://www.vineyardsaker.co.nz/

The Saker Blog now also in Serbian

TO ALL THE SAKER FRIENDS IN SERBIA!
you can now also visit the Serbian Vineyardsaker Blog by clicking on this link:


http://www.thesakersrpski.rs/

The Saker Blog now also in Italian

TO ALL THE SAKER FRIENDS IN ITALY!
ora potete anche visitare il Blog Italiano VineyardSaker cliccando su questo link:


http://www.vineyardsaker.it/

The Saker Blog now also in Spanish

TO ALL THE SAKER FRIENDS IN LATIN AMERICA!
pueden ahora también visitar el blog de Latinoamérica haciendo click en este link:

http://www.vineyardsaker.es/

Monday, February 24, 2014

Ukrainian nationalism - its roots and nature

First, a short introductory sitrep:

The least one could say is that over the past 2 days the events in the Ukraine moved fast, very, very fast. While I had intended to take 2 days off, I still kept an eye on the most recent development and jotted them down on my computer's note pad. Here is what I wrote down (sorry for the shorthand):
  • Lukin did not sign
  • S&P downgrades Ukraine from CCC+ to CCC
  • Pogroms in Kiev
  • Attacks on Russian nationals
  • Burned buses (incl. Belarussian)
  • Yanuk did not attend Kharkov congress
  • Yanuk only cares about his security
  • Yanuk's mansion was looted
  • Kharkov congress 3000 delegates
  • Phone threats to all political opponents
  • Black Sea Fleet on high alert
  • In the East local authorities take full control
  • Two Yanuk minister arrested while trying to flee
  • NOBODY WANTS A SPLIT UKRAINE NOT EVEN RUSSIA
  • BUT ONLY YULIA CAN HOLD IT TOGETHER
  • RADA discusses limiting Russian TV channels
  • Region turncoats bought over and threatened
  • Not referendum but force of arms will decide
  • Hunger is a real risk
  • 7'000'000 Russians in the Ukraine officially
  • 50% of Ukrainians speak Russian
  • 15'000 volunteers mobilized in Crimea
  • Also on Sunday, US National Security Adviser Susan Rice warned Russia it would be a "grave mistake" to intervene militarily
  • Acting President Oleksandr Turchynov 2005 - Head of Ukraine Security Service (SBU)
  • New regime says Ukraine needs 35 billion dollars
  • Hunger now a real risk
  • Russia recalls ambassador
  • Russian language basically banned
  • Appointed Mayor of Sevastopol replaced by Alexei Chalyi, a Russian citizen, directly elected by the local people.
  • EU policians claim they can offer 20 billion dollar to the Ukraine. How they will explain that to Greece is unclear.
Wow!  Clearly, things have gone far beyond the terms of the capitulation of Yanukovich to the insurgency so "brilliantly" mediated by the EU bureaucrats.  Truly, a qualitative change in the terms of the conflict has happened and the country is now in a de-facto situation of civil war.  But first, in order to make sense of what is taking place, we need to take a look far back into the distant past, as far back as the 13th century.
 -------


Ukrainian nationalism - its roots and nature


PART ONE: a preliminary excursion in ancient history


Innocent III
1204 - The Eastern Crusade of Pope Innocent III:

Most people mistakenly believe that the Crusades only happened in the Middle-East and that they were only directed at Islam.  This is false.  In fact, while the official excuse for western imperialism at that time was to free the city of Jerusalem from the "Muslim infidels" the crusades also were aimed at either exterminating or converting the "Greek schismatics" i.e. the Orthodox Christians.  The most notorious episode of this anti-Orthodox crusade is the sack of Constantinople by the Crusaders in 1204, during the 4th Crusade, in which the city was subjected to three days of absolutely grotesque pillaging, looting and massacres by the western "Christians" who even looted and burned down Orthodox churches, monasteries and convents, raped nuns on church altars and even placed a prostitute on the Patriarchal throne.  This outpouring of genocidal hatred was hardly a fluke, but it was one of the earliest manifestation of something which would become a central feature of the mindset and ideology of the Latin Church.

There is, however, another no less important episode in the history of the Latin hatred for the Orthodox Church which is far less known.


Gregory IX
1242 - The Northern Crusades of Pope Gregory IX:

Unlike his predecessor who directed his soldiers towards the Holy Land, Pope Gregory IX had a very different idea: he wanted to convert the "pagans" of the North and East of Europe to the "true faith".  In his mind, Orthodox Russia was part of these "pagan lands" and Orthodox Christians were pagans too.  His order to the Teutonic Knights (the spiritual successors of the Franks who had pillaged and destroyed Rome) was to either convert or kill all the pagans they would meet (this genocidal order was very similar to the one given by Ante Pavelic to his own forces against the Serbs during WWII: convert, kill or expel).  In most history books Pope Gregory IX has earned himself a name by instituting the Papal Inquisition (which has never been abolished, by the way), so it is of no surprise that this gentleman was in no mood to show any mercy to the "Greek schismatics".  This time, however, the Pope's hordes were met by a formidable defender: Prince Alexander Nevsky.

Saint Alexander Nevsky's "civilizational choice"


Saint Alexander Nevsky
Even before dealing with the Pope's Crusaders Alexander Nevsky had already had to repel an earlier invasion of Russia by the West - the attempt to invade norther Russia by the Swedish Kingdom - which he defeated 1240 at the famous battle of the Neva.  No less important, however, is the fact that Alexander Nevsky was unable to defeat Mongol invasion from the East and so he was placed between what can only be called a civilizational choice: he understood that Russia could not fight the Papacy and the Mongols at the same time, so the choice was simple: to submit to one and to resist the other. But which one should he chose to submit Russia to?

Prince Alexander (who would later be glorified as a saint by the Russian Orthodox Church) was truly a deeply pious man who had a deep understanding of the Holy Scripture and who remembered the words of Christ when asked whether Jews should pay taxes to the Romans: "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's" (Matt 22:21) and "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matt 10:28).  Alexander, who was very well informed of the policies of his enemies knew that the sole goal of the Mongols was to extract taxes from the Russians, but that they had no desire to convert anybody or to persecute the Church.  Quite to the contrary, the putatively "savage" Mongols respected the Church and its clergy and they never persecuted it.  In contrast, the Crusaders were given the specific order to convert or murder all the Orthodox Christians they would encounter as the Latins had done many times before, and as they would do many times later.  Thus Prince Alexander Nevsky chose to submit to the Mongol Khan and to fight the Crusaders whom he defeated at the famous Battle of the Ice in 1242.

Western Russia occupied, fall of the 2nd Rome, rise of Moscow


Occupied Ukraine in the 14th c.
Having been defeated by Russia twice, western leaders temporarily renounced their invasion plans, but the Russian victory clearly did not endear the Russian people or culture to the western elites.  Predictably the next wave of invasions from the West began in the early 14th century and lasted until 1385 when the Union of Krewo sealed the union of Poland and Lithuania.  At that moment in time all of what would be called later "the Ukraine" was fully conquered by the Latins.

In 1453, the Fall of Rome in the East, in Constantinople, marked the end of the "2nd Rome" and the end of the Roman civilization which had survived the Fall of Rome in by a full one thousand years (the western Roman Empire fell in 476 AD; the eastern Roman Empire fell in 1453).

The Latins did attempt to submit the Orthodox world by a careful mix of threats and promises to assist Constantinople against the Ottomans at the so-called False Union of Florance, but they had failed, and Constantinople eventually fell to armies of Mehmet the Conqueror.  Thus, Moscow became the "Third Rome", the last free Orthodox Christian Kingdom, the civilizational heir to the Roman civilization.  Moscow would now become the focal point of the Papist hatred for Orthodox Christianity.  The next western strike would come in 1595 and it would be a truly devastating one.


Clement VIII
1595 - Pope Clement VIII conceives the Ukraine

By the end of the 16th century, most of western Russia had been occupied by the Latins for two hundred years (14th-16th), as long as the Mongol Yoke on eastern Russia (13th-15th century).  Predictably the situation of the Orthodox Christian peasants under the Latin occupation was nothing short of terrible.  For all practical purposes, it was enslaved, as Israel Shahak explains in his seminal book Jewish History, Jewish Religion:

Due to many causes, medieval Poland lagged in its development behind countries like England and France; a strong feudal-type monarchy - yet without any parliamentary institutions - was formed there only in the 14th century, especially under Casimir the Great (1333-70). Immediately after his death, changes of dynasty and other factors led to a very rapid development of the power of the noble magnates, then also of the petty nobility, so that by 1572 the process of reduction of the king to a figure head and exclusion of all other non-noble estates from political power was virtually complete. (...) This process was accompanied by a debasement in the position of the Polish peasants (who had been free in the early Middle Ages) to the point of utter serfdom, hardly distinguishable from outright slavery and certainly the worst in Europe. The desire of noblemen in neighboring countries to enjoy the power of the Polish pan over his peasants (including the power of life and death without any right of appeal) was instrumental in the territorial expansion of Poland. The situation in the 'eastern' lands of Poland (Byelorussia and the Ukraine) - colonized and settled by newly enserfed peasants - was worst of all.

Indeed, the local elites had been more then happy to apostatize and sell out to the Polish occupier to enjoy the privileges of slave-owning (before that Russia had never known serfdom!) while the enslaved peasants stubbornly held on to their faith (interestingly, this is also the period of history when Ukrainian Judeophobia was born - read Shahak for details).  Something needed to be done to find a "solution" to this "problem" and, sure enough, a Pope (Clement VIII) found it: the forcible conversion of the local Orthodox Christians to the Latin church: the so-called Union of Brest.  Thus began a long period of vicious persecution of the Orthodox peasantry by the combined efforts of the Polish nobility, their Jewish overseers and, especially, the Jesuits who justified any atrocity under the slogan "ad majorem Dei gloriam" (to the greater Glory of God).  One man, in particular, excelled in the persecution of Orthodox Christians: Josphat Kuntsevich (whose biography you can read about in this text: The Vatican and Russia).  Kuntsevich - who was eventually lynched by a mob of peasants - was buried in the Saint Peter basilica in Rome near, I kid you not, the relics of Saint Gregory the Theologian and Saint John Chrysostom (!).  The Latins still refer to this mass murderer as "martyr for Christ" (see here for a typical Papist hagiography of Kuntsevich) and he is still greatly respected and admired amongst modern Ukrainian nationalists.  And I can see why - it is during these years of occupation and persecution that modern "Ukraine" was created, maybe not yet as a territory, but definitely as a cultural entity.

The ethnogenesis of the "Ukrainian nation"

Nations, like individuals, are born, live and die.  In fact, as Shlomo Sands so brilliantly demonstrated in his book The Invention of the Jewish People, nations are really invented, created.  In fact, the 20th century has shown us many nations invented ex-nihilo, out of nothing (in order to avoid offending somebody or getting sidetracked, I shall not give examples, but God knows there are many).  A "nation" does not need to have deep historical and cultural roots, it does not need to have a legitimate historiography, in fact, all it takes to "create a nation" is a certain amount of people identifying themselves as a community - all the rest can be created/invented later.  Thus the argument of some Russians that there is no such thing as a Ukrainian nation is fundamentally mistaken: if there are enough people identifying themselves as "Ukrainian" then a distinct "Ukrainian nation" exists.  It does not matter at all that there is no trace of that nation in history or that its founding myths are ridiculous as long as a distinct common is shared by its members.  And from that point of view, the existence of a Ukrainian nation fundamentally different from the Russian one is an undeniable reality.  And that is the immense achievement of the Latin Church - it undeniably succeeded in its desire to cut-off the western Russians from their historical roots and to create a new nation: the Ukrainians.

As an aside, but an important one I think, I would note that the Mongols played a similarly crucial role in the creation of the modern Russian nation.  After all, what are the "founding blocks" of the Russian culture.  The culture of the Slavs before the Christianization of Russia in the 10th century?  Yes, but minimally.  The continuation of the Roman civilization after the Fall of the 2nd Rome?  Yes, to some degree, but not crucially.  The adoption of the Christian faith after the 10 century? Yes, definitely.  But the Russian *state* which grew out of the rather small Grand Duchy of Moscow was definitely shaped by the Mongol culture and statecraft, not Byzantium or ancient Rus.  It would not be incorrect to say that ancient Kievan Rus eventually gave birth to two distinct nations: a Ukrainian one fathered by the Papist occupation and a Russian one, fathered by the Mongol occupation. In that sense the russophobic statement of the Marquis de Custine "Grattez le Russe, et vous verrez un Tartare" (scratch the Russian and you will find a Mongol beneath) is correct.  Equally, however, I would argue that one could say that "scratch the Ukrainian, and you will find the Papist beneath".

At this point I do not want to continue outlining the history of the Ukraine because I think I have made my point clear: the Ukrainian nation is the product of the thousand year old hatred of Orthodox Christianity by the Papacy.  Just as modern rabbinical Judaism is really nothing more than an anti-Christianity, the modern Ukrainian national identity is basically centered on a rabid, absolutely irrational and paranoid hated and fear of Russia.  That is not to say that all the people which live in the Ukraine partake in that hysterical russophobia, not at all, but the nationalist hard-core definitely does.  And this point is so crucial that I felt that I had to make this long digression into ancient history to explain it.

I have to add one more thing: the Latin Church has undergone tremendous changes in the 20th century and even its Jesuits have long departed from the traditions and ideas of their predecessors of the Counter-Reformation.  Though hatred of the Orthodox Christians and Russian still exists in some Latin circles, it has mostly been replaced by a desire to "incorporate" or swallow the Orthodox Church into the Papacy by means of the so-called "Ecumenical dialog".  As for the rank and file Roman Catholic faithful - they simply have no idea at all about this history which, of course, is never taught to them

The Papacy's goal end is still the same - submission to the Pope.  But the methods and emotions have changed: it used to be hatred and terror, now its a "dialog of love".  Amongst the Ukrainian nationalists and Uniats, however, the mindset practically has not changed.  From the likes of Stepan Bandera to his modern successor, Dmytro Yarosh, leader of the Right Sector, the Ukrainian nationalists have kept the murderous hatred of Josphat Kuntsevich, hence some of the crazy statements these folks have made.

We now need to make a 3 centuries long jump in time and look at the roots of Fascism and National-Socialism in the early 20th century.  We have to do this jump not because these centuries were not important for the Ukraine - they very much were - but for the sake of space and time.  The key feature of the time period we will skip is basically the rise on power of Russia, which became an Empire under Peter I and the corresponding weakening of the Polish and Lithuanian states which ended up completely occupied by Russia on several occasion.

PART TWO: Fascism, National Socialism and their different roots

We are typically taught that WWII war saw the victory of the "Allied Powers" against the "Axis powers".   While not incorrect, these categories are often confusing.  For example, according to Wikipedia, France and Yugoslavia were part of the Allied Powers.  That, of course, depends on which regime one considers as legitimate, the one of Petain or de Gaulle or the one of Pavelic, Tito or Mikhailovich?  Also - does it really make sense to lump the Soviet Union with the British Empire and the USA?  What about Petain, Hitler and Hirohito?  Well, they were allies, no doubt here, but they were very different entities and their alliance was mostly one against common enemies rather than the result of real kinship.  This is particularly true of Hitler's allies in Europe: Mussolini, of course, but also Franco, Petain or Pavlic.  Indeed, while both Hitler and Mussolini were atheist (and even rabid anti-clericalist), Franco, Petain and Pavelic were all devout Roman-Catholics.  And if the Papacy never felt comfortable with the secularist, nationalist and socialist ideas of Hitler or Mussolini, it gave its full support to Franco, Pavelic and Petain.  Hitler and Mussolini were primarily the expression of the views and interests of the petit bourgeois and worker classes, while Franco, Pavelic and Petain were very much an expression of the interests of the financial elites and noblity.  In France, in particular, the Petainist movement always had a very strong anti-1789 almost monarchist ethos.  Deeply, of course, there was not much love lost between the atheist-populist and Papist-monarchist groups.  But what did united is a common hatred for Jews, Bolsheviks, Russians and Orthodox Christians in general combined with a profoundly reactionary ideology.

The two different Drang nach Osten

Both the atheist-populist and the Papist-monarchists factions had in common a very strong "Drang nach Osten" and both saw themselves as Kulturträger, literally "carriers of civilization" to the savage barbarians of the East.  Hitler's beef with the Soviet Union was, of course, the very high numbers of Jews in the Bolshevik Party (hence his talk of Judeo-Bolshevism) while the Papacy hated Jews, atheists and Orthodox Christians pretty much equally (Franco liked to speak of the "conspiración judeo masonica pagada con el oro de Moscú" or "Judeo-Masonic conspiracy paid for by Moscow's gold").  And while Hitler looked towards the East to provide land and slaves for his Master Race, the Papacy saw a fantastic opportunity to finally submit the "Photian schismatics" to Rome: already on the eve of WWI, Pope Pius X (who was canonized in 1954) pronounced "Russia is the greatest enemy Of the [Roman] Church" and "If Russia is victorious, then the schism is victorious" (and keep in mind that according to Latin doctrine - these folks are infallible when speaking ex-cathedra, in the name of the Church and on issues of faith).  Thus these two originally very different movement joined forces and united against the arch-enemy: Russia (whether atheist, Jewish and Bolshevik or Russian and Orthodox - it did not matter to them).  Needless to say, this toxic brew of hatred found an absolutely perfect Petri dish for its views amongst the Ukrainian nationalists, especially, in the Western Ukraine.

Again, for a lack of time and space I will no go into a history of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, Stepan Bandera or the "Ukrainian" SS Division Galizien, you can read about on the Internet.  I will just say that these forces were amongst the most cruel and murderous of any in WWII.  In fact, the most rabid atrocities of WWII were not committed by Hitler's forces, not even the SS, but by the forces fully inspired and supported by the Vatican: the Croatian Ustashe of Ante Pavelic and the Ukrainian nationalists.  Eventually, the Ustashe and the Banderovsty were defeated, but a lot of its members not only survived the war, but prospered in exile, mostly in the USA and Canada, were the Angloshpere kept them away from actual politics, but active enough to be "defrosted" should the need arise.  And, sure enough, following the end of the Cold War, the AngloZionist Empire saw an opportunity to subvert and weaken its enemies: the descendants of the Ustashe were tasked with breaking up Yugoslavia while the descendants of Bandera were tasked with breaking the Ukraine as far away form Russia as possible.  In the same time, both in Yugoslavia and Russia, the AngloZionists directed another of its terrorist franchises - the Wahabi international aka "al-Qaeda" to join the Neo-Nazis and Papists in a common struggle against the Orthodox/Socialist Yugoslavia and Russia.  We all know what happened to Yugoslavia after that.

PART THREE - the Ukraine - back to the future

2014 -  The belly is still fertile from which the foul beast sprang

At this point in time I want to say a few things about the (now ex-) Ukrainian "opposition".  During the past months, we were mostly told that it was represented by three men: Vitalii Klichko and his UDAR movement, Arsenii Iatseniuyk and his Batkivshchyna Party, and Oleh Tiagnibok, notorious leader of the Freedom Party.  Of course, the real leader of the Batkivshchyna Party always was Yulia Tymoshenko, but since she had been jailed by Yanukovich, she could not directly participate in the most recent events.  Most western observers have neglected to ask the question whether any of these political figures really could control the demonstrators on the Maidan square.  Furthermore, they also neglected to look into how a crowed armed mostly with stones, baseball bats, iron bars and Molotov cocktails had "suddenly" been replaced by a well-organized and well-armed force of what can only be called insurgents.  The force which really packed the most strength and firepower, was not composed of members of the UDAR, Batkivshchyna or even Freedom Party - the real owner of the Maidan and now of the rest of Kiev is the so-called Right Sector, a terrorist organization headed by Dmytro Yarosh:
 
Dmytro Yarosh and his troops

If the photo above looks like it might have been taken in Chechnia during the war, that is because it could have been: many Ukrainian nationalists fought on the side of the Wahabis in Chechnia, often under the banner of the UNA-UNSO terrorist organization.  They also fought in Georgia against Russia, hence the visit Saakashvili made twice to the Maidan Square.

It would be logical to ask what percentage of the people of the Ukraine support Mr Yarosh and his Right Sector.  It is hard to tell, but probably a seizable but small minority.  By most estimates, the most popular leaders of the new regime are Tymoshenko and Klichko, followed by Tiagnibok - at least that was true before the revolution of last Sunday.  But that is hardly relevant: most Chechens were not Wahabis, most Croats were not Ustashe and most Kosovo Albanians were not KLA - that did not prevent these small but well armed groups from having a decisive control over the events.

This places the new regime in a very difficult situation: either it complies with the agenda of the likes of Yarosh and his Right Sector, or it risks to be swiped away by an armed insurrection.  Keep in mind that the Ukrainian military basically exists only on paper and that the police forces are in no condition to impose their authority on the extremists.


What is worse, the Presidency of Yushchenko has shown that the so-called "moderate" nationalists constantly kowtow to the extremists.  Thus Yushchenko even made Bandera "hero of Ukraine" (the decision was later rescinded) and printed nice little stamps with his face.  The problem with that is kind of seemingly innocuous action is in reality a rehabilitation of genocidal ideology and that it sends a truly terrifying and revolting message to the East Ukrainians and Russians in the Ukraine: we are back and we mean business.

It has mostly been overlooked, but a similar situation took place in Croatia at the moment of the breakup of Yugoslavia: the Croats, even the so-called "moderates" found nothing more intelligent to do than to immediately reintroduce the checkered flag of the Ustashe of Pavelic as a "Croatian national symbol".  To what degree this encouraged the Serbs in the Krajinas to take up arms is open to debate, but it certainly did not help.

The same thing is now also taking place in the Ukraine.  Besides the yellow and blue flags of the western Ukraine, one can also see lots of black and red flags, the flag of the Banderovsty, along with all sorts of neo-Nazi symbols.  And, again, it does not really matter how many Ukrainians are suffering from genocidal tendencies, what matters is how these flags are seen in the eastern Ukraine or by the 7 million Russians who live in the Ukraine.

The reaction to the coup in Kiev was immediate.  Check out this screenshot of a video showing a mass rally in the city of Sevastopol:


Mass rally in Sevastopol
Notice the flags?  Before the coup, the rallies in the east featured almost exclusively Ukrainian yellow and blue flags, now the flags are mostly Russian with a few interspersed Russian Navy flags: the people are either angry or frightened.  Probably both.  And the potential for violence therefore rapidly escalates.

Check out this video of an attempt by pro-regime activist to hold a demonstration in the city of Kerch and see for yourself how rapidly the situation gets of out control.  The angry crowd begins with screams of "go away!" and "Fascists!" but soon the cops lose control of the situation and a mob begins to assault the nationalist activists.  See for yourself:



Just as in Croatia and Bosnia, EU and US politicians have ignored (whether by stupidity or deliberately) that fear begets violence which, in turn, begets more fear, in an endless positive feedback loop which is almost impossible to stop.

So where do we go from here?

Frankly, I had some hopes that Yulia Tumoshenko might still save the Ukraine.   No, not because I like her, but because I recognize the strength of her personality, especially when compared to the either terminally stupid (Tiagnibok, Klichko) or spineless (Iatseniuk, Yanukovich) men in Ukrainian politics.  As one Russian journalist put it yesterday: its good to finally see a "real man" entering the Ukrainian political scene.  And indeed, for all her other faults, Yulia has three things going for her: she is very intelligent, she is strong willed and she is very popular.  Or, at least, that was what she had going for her before Yanukovich threw her in jail.  When I saw the footage of her appearance on the Maidan, on a wheel-chair, her face puffed up, sounding hysterical and completely unaware of the fact that she was surrounded by neo-Nazis I began having my doubts.  Clearly, she had a very bad time in Yanukovich's dungeon.  And to those who will say that she has every bit as corrupt as all the other oligarchs I would say this: while all the other oligarchs see power as a way to make money, Tymoshenko sees money as a way to seize power.  There is a huge difference here.

Then, unlike Tiagnibok or Yarosh, Tymoshenko does not look genocidal, not has she ever tried to play the role of a "modern Bandera".  Then, unlike the typical Ukrainian neo-Nazis, Yulia is nominally Orthodox, not "Greek Catholic" (i.e. Latin).  Not that I believe that any of them are particularly religions, no, but at least Tymoshenko was not raised with the kind of maniacal hatred for everything Russian in which "Greek Catholic" kids are typically raised.

Finally, Tymoshenko is definitely smart enough to understand that there is no way to keep the Ukraine as a unitary state if the neo-Nazis are de-facto in power, whether directly of through a number of "moderate" puppets.

So maybe I was naive, but I had some hope that Yulia could keep the Ukraine together.  No, not because I am such a true supporter of the "Independent Ukraine", but because I would find any solution preferable to a partition of the Ukraine which would inevitably become violent.

Why is violence inevitable?

Paradoxically,  the main cause here are not the followers of Bandera.  Some of them have, in fact, spoken in favor of a separation of the western Ukraine from the rest of the country.  As far as I know, they are in the minority, but it is still interesting that at least some of then are aware that the notion of turning all of the Ukraine into Galicia is simply ludicrous.  Most nationalists are, however, dead set against any partition for two reasons.  Prestige: they know that "their" Ukraine is, in reality, much smaller than the Ukraine inherited form the Soviet era.  Money: they know that all the real wealth of the Ukraine is in the East.  Last, but not least, the real puppet-masters of the Ukrainian nationalists (the US) want to deprive Russia of the wealth of the eastern Ukraine and of the Ukrainian Black Sea coast.  So anybody expecting the nationalists to gracefully agree to a civil divorce between West and Southeast is day dreaming: it ain't happening, at least not by referendum or any other form of consultations.

History also teaches us that it is impossible to force two groups to coexist when the hate and fear each other, at least not without *a lot* of violence.

The situation in the East is as simple as it is stark: Yanukovich is politically dead.  The party of regions has basically exploded and new politicians are pupping up in Kharkov, in Sevastopol and in other cities.  Large self-defense forces are being organized locally and the population is basically ready to fight.  Considering the circumstances, these are all positive developments.  On the negative side there is the fact that the eastern oligarchs are still here, still ready to betray their own people for profit (just as the Ukrainian elites did during the Union of Brest) and that the local political forces are, by most accounts, being rather amateurishly organized.  Finally, there is a great deal of uncertainty about what Russia really wants.

What about Russia in all this?

I think that Russia truly does want to avoid a civil war in the Ukraine and that it prefers a separate Ukraine to a partition.  Why?  Think of it:

For Russia a separate and independent Ukraine is first and foremost a way of avoiding being drawn into a civil war. If, say, Tymoshenko managed to supress the neo-Nazis and negotiate some kind of modus vivendi between, on one hand, the western Ukraine and Kiev and, on the other, the eastern and southern Ukraine there is little doubt that she and Putin could find some peaceful and pragmatic way to coexist.  Oh, I am not speaking about a love-fest, that is simply not going to happen, but at least some mutually beneficial, civil and pragmatic relations are imaginable.  That would most definitely be the Kremlin's preferred option (which just goes to show how stupid and paranoid the Ukie nationalist - and Susan Rice - are when they hallucinate about a Russian invasion of the Ukraine).

The other option is to have the nationalists take full-control over all of the Ukraine.  That seems extremely unlikely to me, but who knows?  I have been disappointed with Ukie politicians enough to put the worst possible outcome past them.  That would mean that the Russian-Ukrainian border would turn into something between the Wall which separated the two parts of Germany during the Cold War or the DMZ between the two part of Korea.  From a military point of view, not a problem at all.  As I wrote in the past, even if NATO deploys troops in the Ukraine, which they would, that close to the Russian territory military assets basically turn into lucrative targets: Russia would deploy enough Iskanders to cover its target list and that's all.  As for the Black Sea Fleet, it could either simply refuse to leave and see if NATO has the stomach to try for force it, or engage in the costly but possible fallback option of relocating to Novorossiysk (admittedly, not a good option, but better than nothing).  But, again, this is an exceedingly unlikely scenario.

Which leaves option three: the nationalist attempt to subdue the south and east and fail. The violence escalates and eventually Russia is drawn in.  Now in purely military terms, Russia could very easily defeat any Ukie army which would attempt to fight it.  As for NATO and the US - they don't have the means to deploy some "combined joint task force" to repel the Russian military in the Ukraine.  So short of starting a mutually destructive nuclear war, they would have to accept the facts on the ground.  But just imagine the nightmare resulting from a Russian military operation in eastern Ukraine!  It would be back to a new Cold War, but this time on steroids: western politicians would scramble over each other to denounce, declare, threaten, condemn, proclaim, sanction, and pledge God knows what kind of nonsense.  Hysterical russophobia will become the order of the day and the AngloZionist Empire would finally find the kind of eternal enemy it has desperately been seeking for since the end of the First Cold War.  If they got really ugly, and they probably would, China would most likely get involved too and we would have exactly the kind of planet the 1% plutocracy has been dreaming about for so many years: Oceania locked into a total war against Eurasia and Eastasia, just like Orwell had predicted it:



This is most definitely not what Russia - or China - need.  And yet, this is a real risk if a civil war breaks out in the Ukraine.  One "least bad" option to avoid such a scenario would be to make sure that the east and southern Ukrainians are strong enough to repel a nationalist invasion by themselves so that the Russian military can stay out of the conflict.

So there is the difficult judgment call the Kremlin needs to make: the Kremlin has to decide whether:

a) the eastern and southern Ukrainian people are disorganized, demoralized, made passive by the rule of corrupt oligarchs and basically unable to defend themselves.

or

b) the eastern and southern Ukrainian people are united, organized and determined enough to really make a stand and fight the neo-Nazis down to the last bullet.

In the first case, the Kremlin would have to basically protect the Russian borders and prepare to manage the large numbers of refugees which will inevitably cross the border.

In the second case, the Kremlin would have a strong incentive to assist the eastern and southern Ukrainians by all possible means short of an over and direct military intervention.

Both of these options are dangerous and none of them is preferable to a united Ukraine lead by a more or less rational leader.  This is why, at least at the initial stage, I expect Russia to *really* support any halfway sane regime in Kiev in the hope to avoid a breakup of the Ukraine.

What about the US and the EU in all this?

Well, as I recently wrote, the US and the EU have very different objective in the Ukraine: the EU wants a market for its goods and services, the US want to hurt Russia as much as possible.  We have all seen the total lack of effectiveness of the EU bureaucrats and their naive attempts at finding a negotiated solution.  The US foreign policy goal has the advantage of being simple yet clear: fuck Russia and fuck the EU!  From the US point of view, the worse the situation becomes, the better it is for Uncle Sam.  At the very least, this hurts Russia, at the very best, it gives the US a wonderful pretext to "protect" Europe from the "resurgent Russian bear" while standing up for civilization, democracy and progress.  A Neocons wet dream...

And then, there is the "S factor": stupidity, plain and simple.  What often seems to be the result of some machiavellian plan cooked up in a deep basement of the White House, the CIA or the Pentagon is often a mind-blowing example of the truly phenomenal stupidity, ignorance and arrogance of our leaders.  They believe themselves to be so powerful as to be free from the need to understand a culture, a history or even a single foreign language.  After all, if a US policy was to failed somewhere, the response could always be the same: fuck them!  Fuck the Yugoslavs! Fuck the Serbs!  Fuck the Iraqis!  Fuck the Afghans!  Fuck the Pakistanis!  Fuck the Libyans, and the Egyptians, and the Palestinians, and fuck the Somalis, the Koreans, the Colombians and the Venezuelans and, of course, fuck the Canadians, the Mexicans, and the Africans, and, of course, fuck the Russians, fuck the Chinese, and fuck everybody else with it!   No matter how stupid or how destructive a US policy towards another party it - it either works, or fuck them!  Ms Nuland's words could really become the State Departments or the CIA's official motto.

My conclusion?  Pessimistic, of course :-)

Those reading my blog for a while already will not be surprised to see that, yet again, I have reached a very pessimistic conclusion: the future of the Ukraine looks absolutely terrible: the country is ruined, it has no economy, it is socially, culturally and politically nonviable, it will most likely be lead either by imbeciles or by racist manics and the biggest power on the planet will spare no efforts to add more fuel on the fire.  Keep in mind that no a single Ukrainian politician has anything even remotely resembling a plan to resurrect the currently dead Ukrainian economy.  The only and last chance for the Ukraine was to survive on the "Russian financial respirator" - but that has now been turned off, at least for the foreseeable future: the Ukies can have their Banderovite Revolution, but the Russians don't have to pay for it.

Last November I wrote a piece entitled The gates of Hell are opening for the Ukraine in which I pretty much predicted what has happened since.  I wrote:
I am assuming that the the Eurobureaucrats and the Ukrainian nationalists will eventually prevail, and that Yanukovich will either fully complete his apparent "zag" and reverse his decision, or lose power. One way or another the the Eurobureaucrats and the Ukrainian nationalists will, I think, prevail. There will be more joyful demonstrations, fireworks and celebrations in Kiev, along with lots of self-righteous back-slapping and high-fiving in Brussels, and then the gates of Hell will truly open for the Ukraine.
We are now at this point: the Ukraine has now crossed the gates of Hell and has fully entered in a long cycle of tragedy and violence.  This is truly immensely sad.  And the blame for what will happen next lies first and foremost with those forces who recklessly opened the Pandora's box of medieval and 20th century hatreds and who encouraged the nationalist demon to strike yet again and with those who stood by and did nothing: the US and EU politicians amongst whom not one single one could be found to speak the truth.  May they all rot in hell for what they have done!

The Saker

PS: guys, I wrote the above in one long session today and I have neither the energy nor the time to correct, nevermind edit, this text.  I am publishing it "as is" - with its gazillion typos and non-academic language - because I want to share it with you as soon as possible.  Over the next few days, God willing, I will have time to re-read myself (always a tedious task) and clean it up the best I can.  If you want to hunt down and spot the innumerable mistakes this post contains, please feel free to post your finding in the comments section or email me.  Also, I know that for many of you, a lot of what I wrote above will sound very over-the-top - that is fine by me.  It is my role to share with you what I think and believe and yours to take what you want and leave the rest.  If God forbid a doubleplusgoodthinking Ukie nationalist comes across this post, I have no doubts at all about what kind of comments he/she will leave.  So let me say immediately that I simply have not time to answer every single comment or email, and I have no desire at all to be drawn into a flame war over historical issues.  I will answer those comments which will inspire me to write a reply and I will ignore those who simply bore me.  I promise to try my best to reply to as many well-intentioned comments as possible (please don't email me with a comment you could post here!!), but nasty comments will simply be posted and ignored.  Anybody who has a problem with that can have his/her money back ;-)

Many thanks and kind regards,

The Saker

62 comments:

Alexander Mercouris said...

Dear Saker,

This is an utterly, utterly brilliant article.

I cannot discuss the pre modern history of the Ukraine but your analysis of the present situation and of Russia's options seems to me spot on. We are entirely in agreement on this one.

Anonymous said...

Very interesting history. As a 'Latin' I view with much sadness the sack of Constantinople in 1204 - and can you believe that scumbag Enrico Dandolo is/was entombed in the Hagia Sophia?- but I was somewhat surprised by the degree of russophobia fostered by the Church post-medieval times. There is a lot to answer for, and while we are, and rightly so, post Vatican II, instructed to abjure the "mazzachristo" libel of the jews, little is said of our orthodox brothers, with whom we are in schism, but who are not heretical.

My one quibble - no mention of Stalin's mass starvation of the kulaks in the 1930's?? I would think that the more proximate cause of anti Soviet atrocities than any vatican inspired plot.

John-Albert said...

I posted earlier today under a Juan Cole article that raised the fear of another Crimean war, and -I am glad to say- made some of the points that are verified in your blog. Now I know a lot more. Thanks, and keep it up!

Lysander said...

Thanks a lot Saker,

A great and very informative essay, as always.

I agree Russia should not, and indeed need not, do anything rash. Just as after the Orange "revolution" the NATO puppets will eventually hang themselves. It is much better that they spend their own money trying to prop up a dysfunctional Ukraine than for Russia to have to do it. It is just fine for the fascists to rule for a while so that EVERYBODY gets to know what they are truly about.

It also seems that everyone is expecting Germany to do the bulk of the financial rescuing. Not sure how that will work, but I'm guessing that will only cause resentment and dissension within the EU ranks.

At the same time, Russia should do what it can to organize the east and south. Sessession should exist as a strategically viable option, even if it should never be used. It will keep the fascists in line and will encourage rational leaders to step carefully.

Sokenekos said...

Dear Saker,

God bless you for this brilliant article!

There are so many things I am tempted to comment, but the events are going too fast. In short, it's ex-YU 2.0.

I don't know what can this be called, but French president, Oland, phoned Putin and asked him to (1) recognize the new government and (2) to pay the remaining $12 billion he promissed because "Ukraine has no time to lose."

Are these idiots out from some other universe or are they so arrogant / shameless / cinical beyond obscene?

And one disagreement: Russia should not care whatsoever about being crusified for defending its interests in Ukraine for, a mountain of lies against it is going to happen regardless.

Remember how much Miloshevic hesitated, & we got accused for what was done to us, not for what we have done to others.

To me, this is the continuation of WWII just as it was in YU where all Hitler's allies were nicely awarded by the NAZO maniacs.

It's all upon the will of the (pro)Russians within the Ukraine to defend themselves.

And one more thing: either, Russia has an ace in its sleeve, or it's caught off the guard; there can't be a third option.

Anonymous said...

Magna cum laude!

Nothing less than I expected from you. I could hardly be surprised because I know (I studied) the same history. The Uniate problem was acute in Romania and created the same hallucinatory anti-Russian Euromania.

I will repeat myself, I know. The assault against Orthodoxy starts immediately in the wake of the sack of Constantinople. We'll have to look at the role of Hungary which started as an Imperial (Orthodox) dependency only to become a Latin turncoat when it chose to be an "Apostolic Kingdom" i.e. the military arm of the Papacy in the Balkans and Galicia. The growth of the Hungarian Kingdom was the result of a sustained attack against the Orthodox populations. Between 1204-1235 Hungary organized expeditions in the Principalities of Halicz and Vladimir (Volynsky).

The Teutons have been installed in the north of Hungary in 1211 at the confines of "Cumania" with the ostensible aim of defending the realm and converting the Cumans. The documents extant speak of the existence of "schismatic pseudo-bishops who seduce into schism the local population" in the area. I need to pass over a long and tedious historical controversy which engaged the Romanian historians, but the Cumania where the Teutons encounter those pseudo-bishops and later on created the fantomatic "Bishopric of Milkovia", or "of the Cumans" was clearly in Galitia which was destroyed by the Mongols in 1241. There might be much to re-think about the Russo-Mongolian relations (the coincidence of the victories of Alexandr Nevski against the Teutons and the Mongolian attack in Hungary suggest a common policy, even if of convenience).

Now in fact we need to see the beginning of the assault against the Orthodox Est squarely in the unholy alliance of the Papacy with the Carolingians. Charlemagne was the first to conclude an alliance with the Abbasid Khalifate against Byzance. It remains to dig deeper to document relations between the Carolingians and the Khazar "Empire" (the main provider of slaves for the western market). BTW it is hard not to notice the heavy presence of the "Khazars" in all the rigmarole. There is no wonder on the other hand why are the Americans so heavily involved in the events (Europeans are more reserved). All the ne-cons, the "deep state" of USA are descendants of Ukrainian Jews (including the F*** EU Vicki). It is a matter of "coming home to roost".
In fact the anti-Russianism is a constant of Western politics. In some people views Russia must be "punished" for being Orthodox. I view as symbolic the attack against the Lavra Pecerska. The baptism of Rus coincided with the chasing of the Khazars from Kiev!

A bientot,
WizOz


Anonymous said...

Dear Saker,
I'm more pessimistic than you. What I think is this: We're on the verge of WWIII. Wahhabists and zionists want Russia to pay for when they prevented the USA and France to attack Syria. No common sense prevails here. They want revenge and will get it by their Western puppets.

Hysterical russophobia has started long ago and just ask any bystander what he/she thinks of Putin and you'll know what I mean.

guest77 said...

"My one quibble - no mention of Stalin's mass starvation of the kulaks in the 1930's??"

A simple look at even Wikipedia will show the idea that the famine was an intentional act is still controversial among historians. The "politics of history" - and the irony of that phrase shouldn't be lost there - are extremely important aspect of contemporary Eastern European politics - and not always in the healthiest or most truthful ways.

My opinion: the controversy surrounding the famine should be viewed in the light that it is one of the key pillars of the "Stalin = Hitler" mythology that is key to the narrative of American exceptionalism. The fact that the history on it is still so controversial, with numbers and narratives that vary so wildly, is proof that, to whatever degree, it has been used by ideologues in the US/UK (as well as by Nazi Germany) for their own political purposes - of which establishing a solid, uncontroversial history of the event based on indisputable fact is not always one.

There was certainly a huge famine, and an incredible tragedy for the people of the Ukraine. But to just throw out as fact things that historians still debate I don't think is wise. It should be examined carefully, thoroughly, and without emotion - especially at a time like this.

guest77 said...

"My one quibble - no mention of Stalin's mass starvation of the kulaks in the 1930's??"

A simple look at even Wikipedia will show the idea that the famine was an intentional act is still controversial among historians. The "politics of history" - and the irony of that phrase shouldn't be lost there - are extremely important aspect of contemporary Eastern European politics - and not always in the healthiest or most truthful ways.

My opinion: the controversy surrounding the famine should be viewed in the light that it is one of the key pillars of the "Stalin = Hitler" mythology that is key to the narrative of American exceptionalism. The fact that the history on it is still so controversial, with numbers and narratives that vary so wildly, is proof that, to whatever degree, it has been used by ideologues in the US/UK (as well as by Nazi Germany) for their own political purposes - of which establishing a solid, uncontroversial history of the event based on indisputable fact is not always one.

There was certainly a huge famine, and an incredible tragedy for the people of the Ukraine. But to just throw out as fact things that historians still debate I don't think is wise. It should be examined carefully, thoroughly, and without emotion - especially at a time like this.

Anonymous said...

WikiPedophilia? Really? Debate among historians?
Alas, the folks that lived through that event are pretty much gone, those that survived only spoke of it in trusted company.
There was no famine - only starvation due confiscation. The wheat was stolen to finance Stalin's desire to militarize the State.
Who was responsible? Ultimately it was Stalin; but there was the NKVD and its tribal horde that descended upon Ukraine to plunder.

T1

Anonymous said...

Saker,
If you have time,I would much appreciate your evaluation of 'Icebreaker' by Suvorov and 'Bloodlands' by Snyder (I only got through half of the latter due to disgust with its evenhanded premises).
When'if you have time/energy - thanks.
BTW, thanks for the current article, it certainly connects the dots for me. I've traveled through much of Ukraine some years ago trying to understand the virulent hatred that Uke's in the US have for Russians. Being half and half it's been of some concern to me since childhood.
FWIW: even inremote parts of the Carpathians folks spoke Russian not Ukrainan.
T1

Mario Medjeral said...

Excellent and clear article on the unfolding tragedy in Ukraine. I have confidence that Putin will eventually place Europe/US in a situation where they will come scrambling to Moscow for assistance.What makes me think this? US policy/politicians are known for their ignorance and stupidity in matters of history & culture. Europeans are a concoction of disparate interests. They may start something but have no strength to finish anything.
Rgds
Mario Medjerl

Anonymous said...

The so-called holodomor industry is as manipulative and propagandistic as that of the holocaust industry, though not exactly in the same ways. If the myths sold by the holodomor industry had actually been true, there wouldn't have been a bandera and the current flock of fascists running amok under full ziofascist/western fascist control in the Ukreaina would simply not exist.

Those who invented the holodomor myth are the same ziofascist/western fascists who created the present bandero rebellion in the Ukraine, who were behind the "orange" coup, and all the rest of of the coups and terror campaigns the NWO west has been engaged in trying to expand their flagging dominance. The same people are pushing both, and the holodomor industry is part of their overall propaganda campaign.

The holodomor propaganda is of the same order as all the other demonisations the ziofascist/fascist western oligarchs have engaged in. It's part of the on going demonisation of Russia and everything Russian (which is mostly the cheesy cold war fascist propaganda repackaged), and is used for the same purpose as it was then. To demonise and divide.

Similar demonisation propaganda is used against Iran, Syria, Venezuela. If a country, or it's leadership are not full-fledged quisling to these fascists, these demonisations are what they get. These people use the same strategy in the Muslim world with their Shia-Sunni divisiveness. In fact, everywhere these ziofascists/fascists are allowed to operate, they are engaged in the same sorts of demonisations and divisive propaganda.

I was wondering what the purveyors of this western invented holodomor industry would say now that their people took over Kiev since it only takes a little digging to see that the bandera nazis are the most ardent purveyors of this propaganda in the Ukraine. At least on sites opposing this bandera rebellion, the usual holodomor propaganda seems to have been put on hold, or toned down some. It is rather difficult to oppose a repulsive political group, while at the same time championing the very same divisive partisan propaganda that makes them tick. As many stealth ziofascists found out when they took their thinly disguised anti-Assad demonisations to pro-Syrian sites and tried to pass that Tel Aviv inspired BS off as realistic, balanced approaches to the "facts".

вот так

Shelia Cassidy said...

First of all, a brilliant article. If you do not use Dragon, you should. It saves a lot of time. Did you also know that, according to Robert Perry, " Assistant Secretary of State Nuland, the wife of prominent neocon Robert Kagan, acting as a leading instigator in the Ukrainian unrest, explicitly seeking to pry the country out of the Russian orbit." But I also am aware of this history and the fact that since the Mongols, the invasions have been at least mostly from the West, with the exception of the Japanese and American ships that were skulking around the Siberian coast in the 1850's, along with the Brits. The Japanese were back during the civil war in the 1920's. Russia will always be a target and so I have to disagree politely of course, with keeping Ukraine in one piece. It might be better to cut the losses and let the East secede and re-unite with Russia. That will keep the base and curb the NATO/US gains and keep the Black Sea a contested area instead of another NATO lake, which it would become. Make no mistake about it, this is a game for keeps that will not stop until Russia is completely destroyed and is in "68 pieces" according to the wishes of that paragon of "The Grand Chessboard" Brzezinski. In other words, Russia is fighting for her life, even if not all of her politicians realize it. The Cold War never really stopped. It just went underground.

Whazzo said...

Thank you for the history lesson. Very informative. On the Khazar issue:

Funny that on the one hand we have the coup makers Victoria Jewland, Kagan & Pyatt all prominent members of the tribe and rabid zionazi´s, together with their local tribal clients, Tymoshenko & "Yats" Yatsenyuk.

On the other the local Rabbi calling for every Jew to flee Kiev (preferably to occupied Palestine i presume).

Tymoshenko & the very caricature of a cunning weasel "Yats" Yatsenyuk wont go anywhere apparently and Jewland & Co are rushing back to claim "mission accomplished".
No rivalry between Nazi´s and Zionazi´s there...

Anonymous said...

Saker

Thanks for taking the time to flesh out the religious differences among people in the Ukraine. I knew about the history of the region very generally, but not of the powerful part religions seems to have played.

"And, sure enough, following the end of the Cold War, the AngloZionist Empire saw an opportunity to subvert and weaken its enemies: the descendants of the Ustashe were tasked with breaking up Yugoslavia while the descendants of Bandera were tasked with breaking the Ukraine as far away form Russia as possible."

Refreshing to see that mentioned. In past discussions on the war against Yugoslavia at other sites, nobody seemed to know about that aspect.

Disagree about Tymoschenko, though. I think she is probably one of the more dangerous people in the Ukraine.

"while all the other oligarchs see power as a way to make money, Tymoshenko sees money as a way to seize power. There is a huge difference here."

I agree there is a huge difference, but the power seekers I think are far more dangerous in the long run, and more difficult to unseat. Tymoshenko getting along so well with the bandero arse bandits surrounding her in Kiev is a case in point. They are the power there, I can see her happily embracing their support to further her own power. I literally think she is psychotic about wielding power and psychotic, period. I'm fairly sure the west very much wants an intact Ukraine to control, Tymoshenko seems to be their best prospect to manage that right now. The threats to Russia from the latest example of "Uncle Ben's (Tom's?) Converted [White] Rice" leave no doubt in my mind the zionazis want all of the Ukraine.

As for the people of eastern Ukraine, and the Russians, dividing the country seems like it could be a golden opportunity to take out the garbage and make a fresh start. Such a divisions would be a very difficult undertaking, though, given that the central part of the region is very mixed and trying to fix a border would between east and west would entail a lot of stranded populations and population transfers.

вот так

Anonymous said...

A give away of the remote planning of the unrest is the story of the "golden toilet". It appeared the first time in 1989 when the Romanian "revolutionaries" broke in the residence of Ceausescu and made a big fuss of the "golden taps" in the bathroom, sign of the extravagant life style of a "brutal dictator". The same with Saddam Hussein. I can't remember what they found in Gadafi's tents.
Another common feature is more sinister. All "revolutions" had to be sealed with the blood of the "hated dictators".
WizOz

Pour la Syrie said...

Money!
I think we will have the usual circus, but unless a very serious incident, no military intervention. The country is for sale, anyone with 35 billions of euros or dollars, me, you, can buy it, and the eastern oligarchs will do anything to stay in power, meaning trading their fellows in South and East. May be there is a new generation of leaders not corrupted to replace them? I don't know.

Gagarin Thespaceman said...

Saker,

What a joy to read! Very enlightening. Your idea about the ascendancy of the Russian and Ukrainian nations from two different occupations: from the east by the Mongols and from west by the Latins, makes perfect sense indeed. And it's very pleasing to see your effort in reversing the disinformation, or even presenting to us the omitted chapters of history.


@ Shelia and everyone else,

It is of crucial importance to keep in mind that the possibility of reunification of Crimea with Russia is not as simple as it may seem. If it were to happen, even by peaceful means, it will forever be labelled as "disputed territory", similar to the current Abkhazia & South Ossetia.

But one distinction in this comparison needs to be highlighted. South Ossetia and Abkhazia are quasi-independent: only recognised by Russia and a handful of allies. A very uncertain and impractical status. In the case of Crimea, only through direct incorporation into the Russian Federation can there be the possibility of avoiding such a statehood uncertainty, which is not a permanent solution, but rather a permanent problem.

mujahedin مجاهدين said...

Hi Saker,

I've been following for a while now, always quite interesting and balanced what you write. However, I have a few issues with this one.

I'll start by making clear what my position on the underlying issue is: I think it's disgraceful what's happening in Ukraine, and I understand that it's all about hurting Russia. That much is clear.
And I'm portuguese, by the way.

The first issue I have is your general lumping and implication of all Catholics in whatever happened in Russia. You call them "Latins". Well, we portuguese are latins and catholics, - we were many other things, but we'll get there - and, as far as I know, we've never been involved in any crusades in Russia except the napoleonic adventure in which case we were forced to and our country was invaded and occupied.
I should also point out that Lisbon was sacked and pillaged by the crusaders on their way to the Middle East. Even after it was taken from the Muslims. These crusaders were all nordic or people from the north. That doesn't justify me saying that northerners hate the mediterranic (more atlatic in our case) people, I think.
There's a saying in Portugal that goes like: call the bulls by their names. So, I think "Latins" isn't really a good name to call, perhaps there are better and more enlightening ones?


Just as modern rabbinical Judaism is really nothing more than an anti-Christianity

Perhaps. But I think it's undeniable that it the Catholic faith they hate more, and it has been their target for a long time. Protestants are also Christians and they ally with the talmudics and partake of that same "anti-Christianity" as well.

Though hatred of the Orthodox Christians and Russian still exists in some Latin circles, it has mostly been replaced by a desire to "incorporate" or swallow the Orthodox Church into the Papacy by means of the so-called "Ecumenical dialog". As for the rank and file Roman Catholic faithful - they simply have no idea at all about this history which, of course, is never taught to them

You are right that this particular rendition of history isn't taught to us. However, and even if I don't completely dispute it, I wonder if it can all be pinned on this "Latin" hatred of the Orthodox... Russia has always been a great power. And great power do great things, both good and bad.

(continues)

mujahedin مجاهدين said...

(continuation)

Indeed, while both Hitler and Mussolini were atheist (and even rabid anti-clericalist),

I don't know about Mussolini, but I'm pretty sure Hitler wasn't an atheist. He certainly talks about Providence and the Creator in his books and speeches. As for anti-clericalism, as far as I know, the church - any church - as such, never had any problems in Nazi Germany. A Concordata was even signed.

while Franco, Pavelic and Petain were very much an expression of the interests of the financial elites and nob[i]lity.
I don't know about Pavelic or Petain, but this is certainly not true of Franco. It suffices to consider the writings of Primo de Rivera to see that it wasn't like that. The nobility yes. The financial elites, not by a long shot.

But what did united is a common hatred for Jews, Bolsheviks, Russians and Orthodox Christians in general combined with a profoundly reactionary ideology.

Reactionary yes. No doubt. But c'mon, even your writing would be considered reactionary by a lot of people... :)
But I take issue with your "common hatred for (...) Orthodox Christians."
Again, that is nonsense when applied to Spain (and Portugal). No christians are hated in our countries. In fact, no people is hated and that's what the catholic faith preaches, despite any wrongdoings that might have been committed in it's name. The Catholic faith is a popular faith over here. And you'll certainly find a lot more atheists in the so called "upper" ou bourgeois "classes", than amongst the people.
Jews and Bolcheviks are the ones who hate. And a lot of blood they have shed in our countries. And they hate Russia today more than any other nation, because Russia doesn't bow to them anymore. The hate the Muslims because Islam doesn't bow. The will soon hate the Chinese for the same reason.

Please don't put us all in the same bag. Portugal was a nation that spanned over four continents. It was the first - and I dare say only - nation in the world truly pluri-racial. On March 15, 1961 death and terrorism was brought to our doorstep in Africa, - after "pacifist" Indian Union (with Soviet support in the UN) invaded and occupied the 500 year old Portuguese State of India - and for thirteen years the portuguese - white, black, brown, catholic and muslim - fought to protect our people of Angola, Moçambique and Guiné from the the Communist - therefore Russian - organised and sponsored violence.
However, only a fool would put Soviet Russia together with the Russia of today. In fact, only a fool would blame the Russians for what they themselves were forced to do. For something that wasn't even "Russian" to begin with.

I am happy to see that the Russians are freeing themselves. In fact, I think that if there is hope for Europe, it's Russia and the still resisting Orthodox Church.
I could say much more, but I think my point is made. Please don't think this is in any way hostile. But still, things must be said as I'm sure you'll agree.

Anyway, I very much enjoyed reading. All in all, it's quite informative.
Thank you!

Anonymous said...

Brilliant article! Thanks for your time and devotion.

known said...

Dear Saker,

chunky writing with bulk of info, to play devils advocate i could put myself in pope's shoes, but that would take us beyond the scope of this article. In sports we are fed a load of statistics based on facts of the past to mesmerize the mental handicaps in front of tv screens, but when it comes to the game these facts never matter. All that matters on that day is how men in red will play and how men in white will respond.

I dont think hungry of ukraine care about the past, they care about the future. Will they be able to see beyond the nationalism and daily propaganda it is really up to them and they should be left in peace to mourn the present and find a way in a less bleak future.
Ukraine although heavily populated , has considerable natural resources like shale gas, arable land, timber, and iron ore that could feed industrial output and distribute goods to MENA provided stable society and sound legal system.

they will not get anything from europe, they can ask their fellow greeks and other easter europeans for opinion. all they will get will be expensive loans and imposed regulation that will cripple their economic growth and make them fail to service debt. they wont be able to penetrate saturated european markets because of german iso quality demands, so EU trade deal and movement of capital and goods is of little benefit to ukrainians.

Russian trade pact assuming good faith is a viable option but does not go far enough to imminently better the bleak economic outlook . Julia Timoshenko is blinded by hate and hungry of revenge and I doubt she will make decisions that are in the best interest of Ukrainian people and will seize dialog with Russian. These interest are to stay united, protect their resources, secure possible trade agreements in the region , keep the vultures out of their country, default on debt and start allover..

Putin does not have to do anything. European proposals are a laughstock in indebtet eu members and EU cant do anything but forward ukraine to IMF colleagues without loosing credibility internally. Americans think strategy and ukraine is too unstable to US to become an ally or a military base it seems that american involvment just a move to keep putin busy and region stable. US is way too stretched militarily to engage in another conflict. Neoisolationism in US is on the rise following new energy equlibrium shifted by shale exploatation.

Noone can really save Ukraine but themselves. I hope the will be able to stay calm, disregard political figures pushed by west and east, take time for selfreflection and move ahead.

wishful thinking, i guess...

Wikispooks said...

First- Another brilliant article. Thanks.

There is an aspect to this that remains obscure and puzzling, but which is at the heart of the issue. It goes like this:

Most readers here will be pretty familiar with Judaic involvement (not to say total dominance) in the early Bolshevik movement and the vile excesses of the Cheka/NKDV through to at least the 1930's. There can be little doubt in fact that the great majority of the vast genocide of the native Russian peasantry and the destruction of thousands of churches was driven by a Judaic inspired anti-Christian animus. In the US/UK/NATO Victors' history of WWII to date, all that has morphed into 'the wickedness of Communism' but honest, deeply-uncomfortable investigation leaves no room for doubt that 'Occult' (for want of a better word) Judaic interests were both their real inspiration and became a major factor in the subsequent rise of the NAZI's and their treatment of the Jews.

The NAZI regime has ever since been the West's trump card in justifying it's no less murderous (though carefully spun, suppressed and generally obfuscated-by-anti-communist/terrorist rhetoric) treatment of populations too numerous to mention ever since. Likewise - arguably even more so - with the Judeo-Zionists that now control US/UK/NATO Globalist policy.

QUI-BONO is, as ever, the question that points to the REAL powers behind what happened back then and to what is happening here IMHO. There are disturbing parallels'. The 'Right sector' is virulently 'anti-semitic'. Can they REALLY not see that they are being used - and very effectively used - by the very same Judaic powers they claim so vehemently to hate? Are they really so ignorant of REAL history?

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Saker for this very enlightening historical background, which never came up in our (W European) history lessons!

The other major crisis, Venezuela, is at least as important in my opinion: If Venezuela falls, it could take the whole continent, including Cuba, back to a Monroe/ Pinochet-like era!

Penny said...

HI Saker

that was a very interesting read, that will require a reread.

Much to absorb there.

I don't know what to say other then
your conclusion; solid
How can it be optimistic?
Sitting here in Canada far from Ukraine, it looks dark and ominous.

Regarding the gas princess.... I don't see her as a potential unifier at all.

Dramatics were always her forte from what I recall of her
During the whole swine flu psyop she annoyed me to no end with her grandstanding.
And undoubtedly she was corrupt.
NO different then Yanukovich, but certainly, no better.

commenter at 5:13
regarding Crimea
Crimea is a fully autonomous state if I understand correctly
I believe it is not considered an oblast or province if, again, I am understanding that situation...

And for South Ossettia and Abkhaz being recognized by a handful of states...
Like Kosovo, unrecognized by all..

but Crimea, I don't know, would it be anymore of a problem to turn to Russia then it is now?

Someone mentioned a WW3 scenario
as ugly as it is to contemplate
I worry that this is the real plan
Looking at the financial mess
The global economic collapse


How better to create order, then out of disorder?

I mean, just look at the Ukraine..


big, big sigh....
thanks Saker :)


Anonymous said...

It was a joy to read such a brilliant article. Great insight into the complexities before us. The end result will surely be determined by the level of stupidity of the West and careful acts of Putin. Time to make a new slogan:"Fu.k the US!".

Anonymous said...

Hi Saker,
I have become a regular reader of your blog due to the rich information you provide. And, this one is just excellent piece!

I have two queries to you:
(1) I feel, instead of using the word 'nation' to describe a 'state', the word 'country' is better. Don't you feel that, using the word 'nation' you are bringing in a very very difficult concept (the identification of 'people' with ethnicity, religion, language, culture, history & when can the resultant be called as 'nation')which otherwise can easily be described by 'country' (a geographical region where a 'state' power exist - how the peoples come to form that state can be set aside. I don't think even 25 'countries' of the current world can be called as 'nation')
(2) Do you really think 'cold war' is over with break up of USSR? In fact, past 20 years history shows a relentless anglo-zionist push into ALL regions of world - this is expected to last until ALL very large countries of the world (Russia/China/India/ Brazil/Iran/Turkey/Indonesia/Congo etc.) get broken up into pieces leaving the US-Canada-Australia as the largest block of landmass+ people in the world ! There will be much more bloody struggle in coming decades for ALL other peoples.
Anonymous

VINEYARDSAKER: said...

@EVERYBODY

Thank you all for your comments and kind words of support, I immensely appreciate them!! I will try to answer your questions one by one in a separate post tomorrow, but I already want to thank you for brining up excellent points such as the Holodomor, the role of Jews in the Soviet state or the Crusaders pillaging Portugal - all EXCELLENT points I will address tomorrow (God willing).

Many thanks and kind regards,

The Saker

bfrakes said...

Thank's for history lesson.I agree. There wil be much talk but avtamat will have final word. Breakup is inevitable. Symbolism is important. Germany forbade swastika-USA never did. Fascism survived in West. US "reset" w/Russ was in fact declaration of war...since 23/2/2014 US at war w/Russ Fed. USans don't know it yet...

Vopice said...

Tymoshenko sees money as a way to seize power.

WTF??? You must be crazy...

Anonymous said...

at spanned over four continents. It was the first - and I dare say only - nation in the world truly pluri-racial. On March 15, 1961 death and terrorism was brought to our doorstep in Africa, - after "pacifist" Indian Union (with Soviet support in the UN) invaded and occupied the 500 year old Portuguese State of India - and for thirteen years the portuguese - white, black, brown, catholic and muslim - fought to protect our people of Angola, Moçambique and Guiné from the the Communist - therefore Russian - organised and sponsored violence." Nation is a conceptual generealiztion, it is the name given to a culture that persists for an aprechiable amount of time. The portugese who were the first to engage in the "new world" slave trade also had the largest volume in trade of slaves. The above was in order to contextualize your words, because it seems you have a nostalgia for the "good old days" when portugal was an empire because you refer to lands that were brutally colonized, their people enslaved as your "people" heir people enslaved as your "people"

I mention the slave trade in this connection because the word slave is derived from slav,

mujahedin مجاهدين said...

it seems you have a nostalgia for the "good old days" when portugal was an empire because you refer to lands that were brutally colonized, their people enslaved as your "people" heir people enslaved as your "people"


I cannot have nostalgia for a time I didn't live on.

However, I dispute that the Portuguese "brutally colonized" anything or anyone. And Africa least of all places.

Perhaps you don't know, but slave trade wasn't an invention of the Portuguese. I was going on for a long time even before the first sailors reached the coasts of sub-saharian Africa.
In fact, the north-Africans indulged in that practice enslaving not only the blacks but also Portuguese, Castillians, etc they took as prisoners. Moreover, it's not like the Portuguese, when they did indulge in slave trading, actually hunted for slaves. It was the Africans themselves that sold their own as slaves.
Further, slave trading was never positively looked upon by Portuguese society and was actually despised. Coincidentally, the biggest most successful slave traders were Marrano (jewish fake converts) families. Some of which became quite powerful in Southern US. Google it.

Now, this isn't to justify such practice - it is unjustifiable. But rather, as you say, to provide a bit of context.

But if slaving is enough to keep Portugal out of Africa, then you have to keep the Africans themselves out. And the Arabs, and the Chinese, and, and, and...

mujahedin مجاهدين said...

Now, I don't refer to the African Portuguese as my people because Portugal was an empire. Those people were Portuguese. I'm Portuguese. Therefore they were my people. I couldn't care less of what you think a nation is. I know what the Portuguese nation was and is. And it was never a nation that discriminated on race. The Portuguese have always mingled with whomever was where they settled. And they most definitely never committed anything than can remotely be classified as genocide.

Moreover, I claim that the Africans - the black Africans, that is; for there were also white Africans - never actually desired the expulsion of the Portuguese or Portuguese culture or even Portuguese administration. Here's why, synthetically:

- the terrorism in the Portuguese African territories of Angola, Moçambique and Guiné, was foreign instigated, organized and financed. It operated from across the borders into Portuguese territory. It coincides with the arrival of Daniel Solod [1] - soviet expert on subversion and guerrilla tactics - to Konakry to serve as ambassador. [2] The massacres of 61 in northern Angola were perpetrated by ethnic Bakongos - a tribe whose territory spans across the border to Congo. The leader - Holden Roberto - was not even Angolan, but Congolese. The Bakongos hated the southern tribes and were quited hated back as well.

[2] http://ultramar.github.io/pieter-lessing-substitute-for-an-introduction.html#titulo

- these massacres were atrocities that could well be classed as crimes against humanity. Tens of thousands of people - mostly blacks - were murdered and butchered in the most savage ways conceivable [3]. Holden confesses to this, quite candidly to the the French newspaper Le Monde.[4] This was the true reason why the Portuguese - all Portuguese - fought. Contrary to Katanga, for instance, where the whites abandoned the blacks to their fate, in Angola the Portuguese stayed and fought. They knew what would come - and it did came, after they finally left.

[3] See Teixeira's The Fabric of Terror: http://www.amazon.com/The-fabric-terror-Three-Angola/dp/B0006BMSTE
[4] http://ultramar.github.io/a-justificacao-da-tortura.html#titulo

- the terrorism couldn't have been internal, because the Portuguese "empire" simply did not have enough resources to squelch *any* rebellion whatsoever in such a vast, overseas territory - Angola alone is bigger than France. If it had actually been a revolt of the people, there would be no way on earth it could have been contained even for a year, let alone thirteen [5].

[5] http://ultramar.github.io/os-terroristas-de-palco-ou-o-jornalismo-que-a-democracia-portuguesa-nunca-viu-nem-quer-ver.html#titulo

- The official policy, which became military strategy, of the Portuguese Government was anti-racism and economic development. That can be proved by both internal and external policy statements and speeches, given at all hierarchical levels: from the Prime-Minister to overseas Governors to generals. It was understood that any racial discrimination was a weakness on which the terrorists and international propaganda would immediately capitalise. Furthermore, it was also understood that the only sustainable strategy to keep subversion and violence away was to make every effort to develop those territories. And the effort was made, as can be attested by the economic stats of those territories in the sixties and early seventies. No other place in Africa and even Europe was growing at that pace. We're talking of consistent 7 to 10 percent economic growth per year across all African territories, especially Angola and Moçambique.

- having successfully contained terrorist activity at the borders, inner African territory was safe and lightly policed. Governors, high-ranked official, foreign dignitaries, all traveled through the African vastness with nothing but a light escort if any at all. This can be verified by the accounts of ambassadors - US, Japan, Germany off the top of my head - visiting the territories.

mujahedin مجاهدين said...

And last, but not least, the Africans were never actually asked whether they wanted a) expulsion of whites b) independence. No consultation, referendum or scrutiny was ever made to actually find out what their will was. In fact, it was denied to them by the revolutionary Portuguese who delivered these territories to neo-imperialist war which rapidly ensued "liberation". Democracy was ruled out on the grounds that the people "weren't prepared". Of course, they must've been "too primitive" for the bien-pensante intellectuals leading the "people's vanguard"...
Moreover, what about Cape Verde and S. Tomé? There was never any problem there whatsoever, and yet democracy was denied as well by the "liberators". And what to say of Timor? Oh Timor... The "liberators" understood it didn't deserve independence, that it belonged to Indonesia. It took twenty years of brutal occupation for the world to recognise the plight of that people, and it had to be Portuguese society to force the issue on the international community. And still, in the referendum for independence, in the nineties, only two alternatives were given: independence or Indonesia. Not Portugal. The world would not give them the right to be Portuguese. And yet, even today, it is the Portuguese they love, it is the Portuguese police amongst the international peacekeepers they trust... This is no secret. But at least they're free now.

I don't have nostalgia for any empire. I do however feel sorry for the the people that were abandoned there, whom my country had the duty to protect for they were our brothers, citizens and compatriots.
If they really wanted independence, if they really wanted separation, it wouldn't be tiny European Portugal that could keep it away from them. Like she couldn't keep it from Brazil, an empire on it's own.
But that's not what they got. They got death, misery and hunger. They were sent back to the stone age. They are exploited and stolen and oppressed by the people that were meant - or so we were and are told - to liberate them.

This isn't politically correct. But I don't give a shit about political correctness. I give a shit about people and about the truth. And this is the truth.

I apologise to The Saker for such a long text. But it's hard to argue without doing it properly, and there would be no point to it otherwise. Besides, it's a story worth to be know so we can see what happens when extreme ideology takes over common sense. Africa is the unfortunately pungent example.

jo6pac said...

Thanks for the education.

Vasco da Gama said...

@mujahedin

I'm also portuguese but our identities couldn't be more at odds. I would suggest you to take that nationalist bs somewhere else.

Portuguese society was done with Salazar dictatorship and foreign policy nearly 38 years ago. Those key to the success of that ousting where the very same low ranking officers which where sent to "provincias ultramarinas" to combat native "turras" (still used today, a very endearing term, short for terrorists when refering to native africans).

"The official policy, which became military strategy, of the Portuguese Government was anti-racism and economic development."

You mean the exploitation of the country's natural and human resources... It all boils down to what all empires did/do. Paint it in your favourite colour and still that was 20th century Colonialism in practice.

The above amounts to revisionism of the nationalist sort... we all know Saker likes to keep comments open to anything, it serves well in exposing these types, they simply can't get a hold of themselves.

@Saker please do keep bringing the information "latins" lack about the eastern europe history.

Media here today, to great appreciation of this portuguese "mujahedin", was very busy with a football hero of yester, which has past away. The twist is that as a glory he is portuguese, nevermind his Mozambique ascent during colonial oppression. In the meanwhile the world is falling apart, nothing like football to keep holligans and oblivious folks in the loop so to speak.

Odin's Raven said...

Very interesting article, thank you.

I wonder whether the Russian response to American subversion might be to see what $5 billion or so might buy if slowly spent encouraging several varieties of disaffection within the USA.

There was a story a few years ago of a supposed man from the future, or a close timeline, who allegedly returned to his youth in contemporary America, and reported a civil war a few years ahead. It was between urban and rural America and ended with the Russian allies of the rural rebels nuking American cities.

Those Neocons may be buying more trouble than they expect.

Anonymous said...

Navy relieves USS Taylor's commander after ship ran aground

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/02/25/352260/navy-relieves-uss-taylors-commander/

"The Taylor and the USS Mount Whitney, an amphibious command ship and the 6th Fleet flagship, entered the Black Sea on Feb. 4 on what the Navy said was a routine and pre-scheduled deployment to the region. The Taylor was scheduled to continue on to 5th Fleet waters in the Middle East."

Incompetent USN jokes aside (of which there are deservingly many). Previously, the claim was those 2 ships went to the Black Sea to save the Russians by "preventing terrorist attacks". :D

I suspect they had an intended role in supporting the bandera rebellion Ukraine, probably in an intelligence gathering support role. As the Taylor is still not repaired, the damage is probably greater than the Americans want publicly known. The way they are going after the commander also hints at that. It also hints at the possibility that the Taylor's grounding, and subsequent neutralisation, may have been major problem for their bandera rebellion support ops since Taylor was to be Mount Whitney's escort. I'm wondering how this lack of escort infringed upon Mount Whitney's ops? Were they scaled back or canceled? Or did they go on little changed without Taylor?

вот так

Jay Meltesen said...

Not to discount your analysis, but if you ground your ship in the USN you loose the command and probably have ruined your career there.

Armenovic said...

In general agreement with the broad lines of your analysis, it looks like The EU and US master strategists ended up (for now) with a hot potato in their hands, which they pulled out of the oven in such haste that they forgot to wear gloves. In what has become a typical imperial recklessness, the Western mucho macho strategists are in the process of adding another Gordian knot in the long line of mayhem they have been creating globally as their supremacy of yesteryear slips away relentlessly. They fuel chaos and devastation wherever they can and whenever an opportunity arises. Russia's Putin is waiting for the fluid situation to solidify before deciding on his strategic move. He will not be the loser whether Ukraine stays in one piece or divides in two. Because Russia will never let the Eastern and Southern Ukraine to go with the West. Meantime The Western marauders
will have their hands burnt as they seek a way to handle the hot potato they will be unable to digest.

Guy Moyssen said...

What a lot of stupid things one has to read sometimes. You portuguese were so colonialist and imperialist as any other european power. But now your time has passed away and you want to plunder Angola again!

Guy Moyssen said...

Portugal was an expansionist and imperialist power just like any other in Europe. But your time has passed away and now you have to beg for money and oil in Berlin/Brussels and Angola. Boa sorte!

Anonymous said...

@mujahedin

I would pass over the cognitive dissonance induced by the warm defence of the Catholic Faith from a mujahedin.
But who can pass over the calls to the "Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of our Lady of Fatima"?
"During WWII Pope Pius XII encouraged Catholics to volunteer for the Russian front. Catholics—most of them devotees of the Virgin of Fatima—joined the Nazi armies from Italy, France, Ireland, Belgium, Holland, Latin America, the USA and Portugal. Spain sent a Catholic Blue Division. In October 1941, while the Nazi armies rolled near Moscow, Pius XII, addressing Portugal, urged Catholics to pray for a speedy realization of the Lady of Fatima's promise". (From 'The Vatican's Holocaust' by Avro Manhattan).
The cult of Fatima continues today.
WizOz

Anonymous said...

Saker, thank you so much for your splendid work on such important issues of this 21st century of History. It seems that, along with economic issues, our future will be set in one way or the other, depending on who will prevail.

I’m not a religious person and so I never took in my life a POV like yours, that is, seeing the backbone of History as an infighting among religious ideologies (lacking a better word,, but I think it fits very well in your analysis), but as a tool to dupe people into other one fight and interests. You say, at some point, that «Thus these 2 originally very different movements joined forces … against the arch-enemy Russia (whether atheist, Jewish, Bolshevik or Orthodox, it didn’t matter)…». While it makes all the sense, because it explains very well why WE STILL SHOULD LOATH RUSSIA IN SPITE OF IT being not anymore a communist country), it still conveys an important tenant of strategy,, that is only a country with a enough large territory, enough resources and enough self-identify can be a world power. And Russia fulfills completely that requirement and because of that it still is one of the few countries that may counter balance other super powers. History in the 20th and 21st century is being shaped by a few countries and a few wealthy people, first the oil sector, nowadays in finance sector.

One second thought: I tend to agree with Shelia Cassidy and Lysander: Georgia provided a very good way to counter NATO expansion (you don’t like it, Kerry? Suck it!) and it seems it should be a venue for Russia to explore if thins get bad enough. Being in the defensive doesn’t bode well – we all saw that happen with Yanukovich stance. In this sense, I don’t subscribe to Gagarin Thespaceman schism

Ana

Anonymous said...

@BOT TAK: The so-called holodomor industry is as manipulative and propagandistic as that of the holocaust industry


Really?
Where's the evidence for that?
Where is this Holodomor industry?
The Holodomor industry is virtually invisible as far as I can see, whereas the Holocaust industry is unavoidable.

BOT TAK you are very partisan in favour of the USSR. Don't you realise that the ZioCommies of the USSR were every bit as bad as the ZioNazis? Take your blinkers off.

mujahedin مجاهدين said...

WizOz

Not quite sure what you refer to as "Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of our Lady of Fatima", in that I don't know what that actually means. I'll need to inform myself on that. Thanks for pointing it out.

As for Pius XII, I never heard of any appeals like that. But, again, I need to inform myself.

And you are right that I'm attempting a soft defence of the Catholic faith. I can't say I'm a believer, but I'm not an atheist either, and I think some if not most of the catholic social doctrine is sound. And I think it's good that we understand each other and share our views.

As for the cognitive dissonance, it's the world we live in isn't it? A world of chimeras. Hell, you have the EU and US - beacons of light and democracy in the world as everyone knows... - financing and supporting ultra-nationalist neo-nazi, etc, etc thugs in Ukraine, thugs which in turn have tactical and operational leadership by ex-IDF jews.
Is it any wonder that in the black/white manichaeist worldview they paint to us everyday in the media, this confuses the fuck out of everybody to the point that it's just easier to deny it?
---
Vasquinho:

" I would suggest you to take that nationalist bs somewhere else."

No, I will not. And it's not nationalism. It's truth. And I'm ready to have my statements under critical analysis as opposed to merely telling people of different opinions to "take their bs somewhere else".

" Those key to the success of that ousting where the very same low ranking officers which where sent to "provincias ultramarinas" to combat native "turras"

Actually, those "key to success" - low ranking professional officers were almost all in specialties that didn't fight in the frontlines: engineering, transmissions, etc.
Moreover, the bulk of the portuguese forces in early seventies was made of "natives". The most distinguished portuguese soldier EVER is a Guinean - Lt. Colonel Marcelino da Mata.

"You mean the exploitation of the country's natural and human resources... It all boils down to what all empires did/do. Paint it in your favourite colour and still that was 20th century Colonialism in practice."

Yeah right. Whatever. The fact is the economy WAS growing at the percentages I referred. The fact is that there was NO racial discrimination. The two together mean there was actual progress and development for EVERYBODY.
It's you that it's painting it in your own favourite colour. Address specific points, provide references, and then we'll see who's painting what.

It's ironic though that you choose to identify yourself with the name of one of the greatest colonialists ever, according to your view. After all, da Gama was Viceroy of India. Talk about cognitive dissonance...

You people are a joke. Your ideologic fanaticism blinds you so much that you accuse your own country of crimes it didn't commit and laud her most infamous and despicable act in her history as the best thing ever: plunging the largest part of herself in civil war. All to conform yourselves to what ideology tells you to think.

You also conveniently don't mention Timor. Your "key to success" low ranking officers didn't loose too much time delivering her to Indonesia... or rather, abandoning her to them... It was all about "freedom" wasn't it?...
You also conveniently don't explain exactly why didn't these "liberators" organize free elections in the "liberated" territories...

Anonymous said...

Poor guy, that usefull idiot Marcelino da Mata: forgotten and abandoned as today and as is expected for all those who work for another's masters!
Ana

Anonymous said...

Jay Meltesen said...

Not to discount your analysis, but if you ground your ship in the USN you loose the command and probably have ruined your career there.

Thanks for the correction.

вот так

Anonymous said...

The Ustasha and The Roman Catholic Church

https://www.ithaca.edu/hs/history/journal/papers/sp02ustasha.html

An interesting essay on the Catholic church's support and active involvement in the Ustasha bloodbaths. The bandera nazis are already acting in the same manner. Replace hate of Serb with hate of Russian and one can see the two fascist groups are pretty much identical.

As for the Catholic church leadership, I think this short paragraph fairly sums up what they have consistently been about since formation:

"Here(Croatia) the Catholic Church erected a State in complete accord with all her tenets…implementing all her principles, unhampered by opposition, or by fear of world opinion. The uniqueness of the Independent Catholic State of Croatia lies precisely in this: that it provided a model, in miniature, of what the Catholic Church, had she the power, would like to see in the West and, indeed, everywhere."

вот так

KZeese said...

I wonder what people think of George Soros' commentary on The Ukraine. He seems to be looking at it as a potential European success story and a place for future investment.

There is no mention of the dominance of the Right Sector or US involvement in the overthrow of the government.

In the end he does make a good point of not making Russia the enemy and Merkel needing to reach out to Putin to try and achieve that.

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/george-soros-calls-on-the-eu--and-germany-in-particular--to-take-the-lead

Vasco da Gama said...

@mujahedin

"And it's not nationalism. It's truth"

The problem is you guide your truth through fallacies:

"(Black Africans)... never actually desired the expulsion of the Portuguese or Portuguese culture or even Portuguese administration. Here's why, synthetically:"

Leading readers to a reason which is never presented, at most, presenting instead a reason to grieve other foreign presence aside of the portuguese, but never a reason which could hipotheticaly ground your premise. The flaw is at the basis, logical, not of fact or of opinion.

References to their grievances with portuguese oppression, on the other hand, are not hard to come by: Baixa de Cassanje revolt, highlighting the conditions which workers were subjugated to under portuguese rule and the Portuguese-Belgian cotton enterprise (made into February 4th National holiday in Angola), but also more generaly the forced labour enforced in portuguese colonies since the turn into 20th century. And after some conscience issues back in the metropolis where the system was abolished:

"In 1926, the 28th May 1926 coup d'état empowered António de Oliveira Salazar in Portugal. Later that year, Salazar reestablished forced labour, ordering colonial authorities to force nearly all adult, male, ethnic minorities in Portugal's African colonies to work. The government told workers that they would only have to work for six months of every year. In practice, this obligation was a life sentence of forced labor. Civil rights for natives, no longer treated as natural law, had to be "earned" on a case by case basis under the designation of assimilade. Less than 1% of the native population ever achieved this designation. By 1947, 40% of workers died each year with a 60% infant mortality rate" - wikipedia > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Angola

I merely qualified your description as "nationalist" because it avoids the otherwise hard undisputed facts, in order to whitewash the portuguese fascist dictatorship.

"anti-racism and economic development." you keep saying. For whom I ask? Were the general angolans, mozambicans the recipients of such treats? To an extent, as with all colonialism (of the old and new kind everywhere), some complacence was awarded to those indigenous which kneeled and submited themselves the the white rule and interests.

"the Africans were never actually asked whether they wanted a) expulsion of whites b) independence. No consultation, referendum or scrutiny was ever made to actually find out what their will was"

Another flaw in your arguments, your "a)" and "b)" opposition actually reflect your racism. In theory, given a non racist premise, there is no reason Africans could not be independent and share their life with "whites" in a common land, condition being they respect each other. Africans were not presented with a consultation because the outcome of it is obvious, and we were far from people consultations at that point in time, not even portuguese back in the metropolis where allowed such kind of democracy. Don't deceive yourself.

(continues)

Vasco da Gama said...

@mujahedin (cont.)

The actual reason I qualify that as racism is because you can only envision along with africans independence the presumable "expulsion of whites", and now I let myself speculate why is that so: most probably you well know that would be the natural outcome of the, therefore, recognized grievances africans had towards their opressors whom you sympathise so much. Deny it once more.

But it gets worse, because, in this day and age, but already by then, presumably human civilization does not question a peoples right to self determination. The onus was on the Portuguese governement to submit their own, honouring its United Nations signature:

"[regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories] Also in 1960, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 1514 (XV), promulgating the "Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples", which declared that all remaining non-self-governing territories and trust territories were entitled to self-determination and independence. The following year, the General Assembly established the Special Committee on the Situation with Regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (sometimes referred to as the Special Committee on Decolonization, or the "Committee of 24" because for much of its history the committee was composed of 24 members), which reviews the situation in non-self-governing territories each year and reports to the General Assembly." wikipedia > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_list_of_Non-Self-Governing_Territories

It wasn't a matter of consultation as you put it, it was a matter of implementation and compliance under International Law.

"It's ironic though that you choose to identify yourself with the name of one of the greatest colonialists ever, according to your view. After all, da Gama was Viceroy of India. Talk about cognitive dissonance..."

No irony at all, just a treat for you to jump the gun on. I haven't described him in any way, the words are yours. I am much more careful than yourself when looking at the past, soon it became obvious at school that Portuguese Discoveries was thought with a level of condescension towards indigenous people of those "discovered" lands which I simply couldn't digest, shadows only hinted by portuguese literature:

"Kings likewise of glorious memory
Who magnified Christ and Empire,
Bringing ruin on the degenerate
Lands of Africa and Asia;
And others whose immortal deeds
Have conquered death´s oblivion
-These words will go whereever there are men
If art and invention steer my pen."

Os Lusíadas - Luíz Vaz de Camões
Translated by Landeg White 2001 (http://landegwhite.com/the-lusiads/)

That is the second strophe in the very opening. Of course, of literature and poetry anything can be said, opinions abound. My personal one is that, art as an expression of human experience can be more truthful than historical accounts, not necessarily an endorsement of who finances its forms or author's personal way of life, it is what inevitably transpires. The above in its original portuguese and in stronger words just highlights the christian nature of the portuguese expansionist empire.

Our very national heroes the ones exposing our flaws, that is indeed, the irony.

Anonymous said...

KZeese said...

"I wonder what people think of George Soros' commentary on The Ukraine"

He's salesman with a friendly smile. The investment opportunities are sales pitches to partake in an increase in the clout of himself and his political/business cronies in the Ukraine. Since he's been working to take over the Ukraine so long, he probably knows what are the best theft opportunities and how he can squeeze the most from both the Ukraine, and those hoping to make a "killing" there.

As for wanting "friendly" relations with Russia? Well, of course. When mugging somebody, approaching them in a friendly manner, getting them to "drop their guard" and then sticking the knife in the back is a lot easier, and safer, than coming at them baseball bat in hand, hoping they don't pull a gun. The former is generally the zionist/Israeli way of "friendly" foreign relations, to whom Soros is most closely aligned with, BTW.

вот так

Anonymous said...

@mujahedin,

I agree that the present world is in a state of confusion. I just wondered why would you want to increase it by using at the same time incompatible notions. Mujahedin is a fighter against Catholicism.

WizOz

paul vereshack said...

Saker, in only a month of knowing you, I have come to a region of delight in your writings. A man who steps forth and injects a virus of his truth into a troubled and lost world. I am at the dinner table with a friend. And as a comrade, I do what you do on my website, and we will green the earth even as it stutters in its own confusion.
Paul Vereshack B.A,M.D.,Psych.

Serendipity said...

Indeed a brilliant, informative and highly insightful article -- many thanks! Now we have a much better understanding of the background to what's going on in that part of the world.

The Saker requested some help in fixing typos, etc. There were too many to list, but they have all been corrected in the republication of the article here:

Ukrainian Nationalism — Its Roots and Nature

Links to this are welcome.

Stalker said...

National "states" - as opposed to traditional kingdoms - were specifically designed as well-disguised and readily-accepted means of enslaving self-sustaining communities via deadly poisons like public debt, usury and central depravity, including politics. Hence, no indebted state is allowed to break apart, as it will mean default, i.e. freedom! Almost nobody understands the basic economic fact that a lender will do anything in his power to make sure the debtor is alive and pays his debt + interest, or (at least) that the warantees can be executed. In the case of a state, there is no mortgage, but only "moral" guarantees: as long as the nation accepts the debt as its own debt, it will pay for it. But when a country splits, a deal for splitting the debt is hardly possible; I don't know of any such deal in recent history. That's why the lenders are so opposed to the secession of heavily indebted countries and support even unwelcomed leaders as long as they keep the country undivided and the debt rising - i.e. the leverage over that nation remains strong. Sometimes, secession is the only way for a new start, so it is not allowed to happen without a war - which brings huge new debt and fire sale of best national assets by both fighting parts. It happened with USSR, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, etc.- either by war loans or by giving up assets more valuable than the canceled debt, hence the main lenders got a higher profit.

Ukraine was one of the few free countries in the world, but some of its people gave their birthright in exchange for a bowl of western stew. The freedom was in large part due to xenophopbia, for they didn't respect occupied nations' rights. In Chernivtsi, capital of a former Moldavian province (Bukovina), after the Ukrainian takeover people were sent to Siberia for only daring to speak in their mother tongue. They are still too frightened to use it in public, even at a travel office. By repeating the faults of Habsburg Empire - former oppressor of Bucovina and of the Ukrainians themselves, they will only share the fate of that wicked empire. About their "patriarchate", St. Lavrenty of Chernigov (greatest saint of modern Ukraine) foretold its creation and named it a terrible wrongdoing, which will bring God's wrath. They have been warned, but to no avail. This leaning toward segregation and lack of hospitality may come from the ancient Sarmatians and Scythians. When Saint Andrew left Dacia for the east at Barbosi (near Galati), the crowd started to cry as those savages over the river Prut would kill him. Indeed, the apostle was beaten close to death, and his disciples Inna, Pinna and Rimma were martyred at Kiev:
www.antiochian.org/content/st-inna-st-pinna-and-st-rimma-martyrs-and-apostles-st-andrew

Traveler

Anonymous said...

In the 20 years of fascism in Italy the country was 300% Catholic. It was the State religion. Mussolini signed an important Pact with the Vatican State that yes was regulating the sphere of influence of the Church and the State.
I agree on everything except your statement of similarities between Germany and Italy regarding the Religion.
Hitler was probably a fierce atheist, Mussolini I would say maybe anti-clerical in his youth, but not when he was in power.
Please re-check just this part of your interesting article ;))

Anonymous said...

An opinion piece, but not based on fully historical facts. You should not present your opinion as historically accurate.

Neward Thelman said...

Most of your "history" is wrong, or made-up, starting with [and especially] the notion that there was no historic Ukraine, but only Russia. Of course, that's what Ukraine-hating, Ukraine-denying Russians have said for hundreds and hundreds of years. Nothing new there. From that fraudulent beginning you proceed to make up a Latin church covert war against Orthodox Russia, which you credit with "creating" Ukraine [giving no details; just a bald statement - equivalent to bellowing "Richard Nixon invented hot dogs in, uh, 1971!"], and careen like a nitwit into the WWII era, repeating all of the false, Russian disinformation about Stephan Bandera and his struggle. Without diving into a lengthy historical account, let me just set the foundational history straight. Kievan Rus is not the history of Russia. Russia didn't even exist at the time. It's the history of Ukraine. The beginning of the Ukrainian Nation begins with Rus - Kievan Rus. Russian origins may be found in the primitive, Ural-Finno-Ugarik Asian settlements of Vladimir-Suzdal. I know - it stings like hell to have the cornerstone upon which Russians have built their fraudulent history, but facts are facts. Oh, and as has been repeated ad infinitum, the name 'Rus' should never be confused with the unfortunate name created centuries later in a desperate bid for legitimacy, "Russia". What you, and your fellow travelers, should realize is that, despite centuries of relentless effort by the Russians [among many others] to exterminate any trace of Ukrainian identity and nationhood, both still exist and continue to grow. The truth, as is often said, always has a way of rising to the top.

voltaire1964 said...

I am reading this article months after its original publication but I am very glad I found it. Excellent!
Given, however, Tymoshenko's hysterical rantings against Russia, I wonder if you still harbor the same feelings - unless you think that her externations (nuke them, abolish the language etc.) were but a ruse to maximize her political chances. Be well and long live Reason!