Answer to a russophobic bigot I get remarkable little hate mail these days.

When I began this blog, I got qui te a few emails accusing me of being an anti-Semite, but that tide gradually pet ered out. It was replaced by letters from various Jew-hating types who had hope d that I also hated Jews, only to realize that I did not. That got them angry at me too. And then, I had the Right-wingers who hoped that I was one of their ow n, only to realize that I hated reactionary politics and a few Marxists who had felt that I was on their side, only to realize that while I very much shared Mar x's critique of capitalism, I was deeply hostile to the solutions offered. What else? I got a few really offended Baathists, one well-meaning but naive Wahabi, two really offended Latin Christians, and a couple of Palestinians who were dee ply outraged at a post of mine entitled Why Hamas should release Gilad Shalit. I think that this list pretty much covers it. But today I got one comment which really pissed me of and I decided to dedicate a full post to reply to the sorry individual who posted it. This is the comment which I feel deserves a full ans wer: Seems to be a huge pro-Russian bias here, why, exactly? My family has lost several members directly to Russian police-state enforcem ent tactics, the usual, arrest in the middle of the night, then prison or a bull et in the back of the head. If you are wondering why so many think that the only good Russian is a dead Russian, that would be the reason. I am sure you will never publish this comment , which only proves you are just another pro-Russian propaganda organ. OK, now let me know reply to this guy point by point: Seems to be a huge pro-Russian bias here, why, exactly? It impossible to prove a negative and I cannot prove the absence of a bias in me . Besides, we all have our more or less subconscious biases. Add to this that I was born in a family of Russian refugees and that I feel culturally fully Russ ian, and you have a slam-dunk "evidence" of my bias. Except that the implicatio n here is not only that I have a bias, but that this bias makes me lose my sense of truth, fairness, justice, honor and the fraternity of all men, all that whic h is so much higher than parochial nationalism or patriotism. The implication h ere is that I would side with Russia no matter what, even with a murderous, geno cidal and imperialistic Russia. And that I categorically deny, and to make my c ase, I will use the next sentence: My family has lost several members directly to Russian police-state enforcement tactics, the usual, arrest in the middle of the night, then prison or a bullet i n the back of the head. So? My family also lost several of its members to the Boshevik regime. One of m y relatives was boiled alive (literally) by revolutionaries. Another spent 20 y ears in the Gulag (in Magadan) for something he never did. Later, the Soviets s end their NKVD agents abroad to spy on my family. My great-father fought agains t the Communists during WWII in Russisches Schutzkorps of the German Wehrmacht ( something I do not approve of, but which I understand), and I myself spent almos t 10 years of my life fighting the Soviet regime and, especially the KGB in vari ous types of anti-Soviet activities (sending books of Solzhenisyn or Solonevich into the Soviet Union thought merchant ships, disseminating information to count er the Soviet propaganda, sending money to the families of political prisoners, etc.). I think I did a pretty good job since was listed internationally by the Soviet representations abroad (with photo and all!) as a "dangerous activist" a nd I even got a bona fide (but illegal) death threat from a frustrated KGB agent . I also worked with Polish exiles who were assisting Solidarnosc from aboard and I had frequent contacts with a covert representative of Ahmad Shah Massoud i n Europe whom I helped making important contacts. Last, but not least, I used t o be a military analyst for the General Staff of the country in Europe were I wa

s born, with a rank of Specialist (Major) for operational training and strategic analysis. Can you guess against what military I was training our forces to fig ht? So, believe me, I had many years to think 'Russia, wrong or right my countr y", but I never did that. And let me ask you now: what did YOU do to fight the Soviets and their secret po lice? After 1991, was first hopeful but soon I was horrified and disgusted by what I s aw in the regime of Eltsin and his Jewish oligarchs. I was in Moscow in 1993 wh en these US-supported thugs crushed the opposition with tanks, snipers and Betar commandos. At that point I just turned away in utter disgust. And when finall y Putin came to power I though "oh God, the KGB is back in command". But then, to my absolute amazement, I saw something completely different gradually happeni ng. First, in small steps, but then in bigger and bigger strides: for the first time in my life I saw Russia doing something right, standing up for things like freedom, international law, respect for human and civil right. And one day I c aught myself on the really amazing thought that I actually agreed with almost ev ery single policy of the Kremlin (with a few exceptions like joining the WTO, be traying Iran twice, letting NATO attack Libya and a few others). So here is the key thing you seem to miss: I began supporting Russia only when Russia began st anding for everything that is right, decent, honorable and truthful. I assure y ou that for a longtime anti-Soviet activist like myself, it is very, very counte r-intuitive to say anything good about the Kremlin and yet I am now honestly com pelled to say not only that I fully support Putin, but that I consider him to be one of the greatest statesmen in Russian history. If in 2000 another Eltsin li ke US puppet had been elected Russia would have simply vanished from the world m ap as a country. Instead, Putin literally resurrected it in something like 10 y ears! Yes, there are still plenty of bad problems in Russia and a lot still nee ds to be changed, but just look back and consider the kind of Russia Putin inher ited in 1999. So this is why, after some hesitation and soul-searching, and afte r seeing Mark Sleboda on Crossfire yesterday, I decided to place a Saint George ribbon on the top left of my blog: because today Russia does stand for freedom! If you are wondering why so many think that the only good Russian is a dead Russ ian, that would be the reason. Wrong. The reason why not "so many" but the *western plutocrats* want Russians dead is because Russia never submitted to their rule. Because in polar oppositi on to the western propaganda and cultural racism, Russians are by far the most f reedom loving people in Europe who rejected every single wannabe planetary overl ord that Europe produced: the Popes, Napoleon, Hitler and even Lenin/Trotsky. A nd now Russia is refusing to bow down to Emperor Obama. That is the real reason why people like you hate and fear Russia. The so-called progressive and enligh tened West not only produced all the tyrants, it also very eagerly submitted to them: Hitler was elected democratically I remind you, and with the exception of a few brave souls, very few opposed him (the Serbs, the Dutch and a few others). The Russian civil war which followed the Bolshevik insurrection really lasted from 1918 to 1946 (even Stalin understood that the ROA was a continuation of the civil war)! And even after that there were regular insurrections (Novocherkass k, 1962), even in the Gulag (Ekibastuz 1952, Kengir 1954)! How does that compar e with the so-called "freedom loving West" which systematically bows down before each dictator/emperor (like Obama today)? The reason why so many want Russians dead is because they believe that Russia is what stands between them and world power. And they are absolutely right about that. I am sure you will never publish this comment, which only proves you are just an other pro-Russian propaganda organ. That just goes to prove how stupid and narrow-minded you are: you project unto o thers your own ugliness. FYI - I never censored a single post on this blog, nev

er, I believe in 100% freedom of speech and 100% freedom of thought. And I loat he censorship with a special intensity, if only because I myself have been censo red many times. So is this blog just another pro-Russian propaganda organ? You can think whatev er the hell you want, but in my mind I am simply following the principle of Malc olm X who said "I am for truth, no matter who tells it" and that, today, means t hat, yes, I am for Russia. But only because Russia today itself is for truth! The Saker PS: I forgot to mention one more accusation: some folks accused me of being a "f ake Orthodox" and a Muslim which, I suppose, in their sick minds is something li ke the ultimate insult. At the time I simply ignored that bonehead.

The self-defeating fuite en avant of the US in the Ukraine The past few days have seen an amazing acceleration of developments which has cr eated a totally new situation. In simple and plain language the following three momentous events have happened: 1) In Kiev an armed insurrection overthrew the elected President and replaced hi m with a new revolutionary regime. 2) Crimea completely broke-off from the rest of the Ukraine. 3) An counter-revolutionary insurrection has begun in the eastern Ukraine. The situation in the eastern Ukraine is a complex one and I don't want to addres s it at this point in time. What I propose to do here is to re-state some wellknown and undeniable facts, organize them, and then do a basic "compare and cont rast" exercise with the two clearly defined regimes/entities which have now form ed in the Ukraine: the revolutionary regime in Kiev (which I will refer to as RR K and the secessionist regime in Crimea (which I will refer to as SRC). I think that this exercise will allow us to fully qualify the decisions made by various governments to recognize and support one side or the other and it could also pr ovide some hopefully useful talking points. Finally, I want to repeat that I wi ll refer to well-known facts only and I will try to refrain from loaded judgment al statements until I come to the conclusion part. So let's look and compare the RRK and the SRC by a basic set of criteria. 1) Legal basis of the regime: RRK: came to power by violent overthrow of the last lawfully elected President. Then, an self-appointed group of political activists split the main government functions between themselves and went to the Maidan square to get popular approv al of the assembled crowd. Some candidates seems to have been endorsed, others were booed, but all were declared endorsed. Nobody knows how many people were p resent at that moment on the Maidan, nor does anybody have any information as to who these people were. SRC: came to power by peacefully declaring that the local officials would tempor arily taken upon themselves all the functions of the federal authority which at that moment in time had already been overthrown by the RRK. In some cities he f ormer mayors which had been appointed by the Yanukovich regime have been replace d by locals also elected by crowd support. 2) Legality of their decisions: RRK: Since the former President had fled but never resigned, none of the decisio

ns of the RRK are legal, not by the old constitution, not by the new one. SRC: The act of taking over the powers of the federal authority was illegal, but considering that the federal authority literally did not exist any more, it cou ld be interpreted as a case of force majeure. Special forces showed up overnight 3) Popular support: RRK:by most accounts the RRK enjoys a majority support in western Ukraine, centr al Ukraine, including Kiev, and north-central Ukraine; it has a probably the sup port of a minority in some parts of the eastern Ukraine. In other words, and ba sed on population density, it is most unlikely that more than 50% of the people in the RRK controlled areas actually support this regime. SRC: I would estimate that the vast majority of Russian-speakers in Crimea suppo rt the SRC, something in the 95% or more, and I think that a seizable minority o f Tatars also support it. Still, assuming a 100% opposition of the Tatars and a ssuming a 15% opposition amongst Russian and Ukrainian speakers that leave no le ss than 75% of support for the SRC. 4) Foreign patrons: RRK: whatever the degree of popular support the RRK enjoys in the part of the Uk raine it controls, there is no doubt that its political leaders are basically US appointed (Ms. Nuland said so much). Furthermore, we also know that the US has spent 5'000'000'000 dollars to overthrow the Yanukovich regime. As for the arm ed mobsters which gradually filled the Maindan square, there are numerous report s that these were specially trained groups of the so-called Right Sector which w ere trained in the Baltic States, in Poland and in Canada. In other words, the RRK is a pure creation of the West. SRC: one can speculate what would have happened if the Russian military had not intervened in Crimea, but the fact remains that it did. There is overwhelming e vidence that the "mysterious" armed men which suddenly appeared in Crimea are pa rt of the Russian Spetsnaz GRU, probably the 3rd Independent Spetsnaz Brigade no rmally based in the city of Toliatti and, possibly supplemented by elements from the 15th peacekeeping brigade or the 31st peacekeeping division. In other word s, the SRC is fully backed by Russia, which also promised it financial support. 5) Ideology: RRK: nobody denies that the Freedom Party and the Right Sector are neo-Nazis and racists. The other parties in he RRK could be described as "nationalists", but nationalists who have no problems working hand in hand with neo-Nazis (both Tia gnibok and Iarosh have been offered top positions in the new government). Also telling is the fact that the first two laws (illegally) adopted by (the illegal) "revolutionary Rada" were to re-authorize the propaganda of Fascism and to revo ke the status of Russian as an official language (the RRK as now "revoked this r evocation"). Nationalist demonstrations are full of photos of Stepan Bandera an d neo-Nazis symbols, which the putatively "moderates" never remove. Their goal is a unitary Ukraine in the image and likeness of the western Ukraine. SRC: it has no clear ideology at all. It is not unreasonable to suspect that so me if its supporters are communists, but by no means a majority. It is clearly pro-Russian, so it could be labeled as both "capitalist" (Russia is a capitalist society) and possibly as "Putinist", though that is by no means certain. Their goal is a multi-ethnic Crimea which would be a sovereign state in a Ukrainian c onfederation. The only real "Ukrainian Army" today

6) Future prospects: RRK: a lot will depend on the situation in the eastern Ukraine where an insurrec tion against the RRK seems to be growing in power and resolve and which could se e a real civil war taking place. But even assuming that nothing at all happens in the east, Iatseniuk himself openly said that there is no money at all left an d that his entire government is a "kamikaze government". The RRK has no army, n o police, nobody at all to ensure law and order. Russia will cease its financia l support to the RRK and Russian gas will be sold only a the previous price. A social explosion is simply inevitable at this point. At this point in time, the re are already shortages everywhere and many stores and companies are closed. SRC: the SRC enjoy a complete monopoly on power in Crimea, thanks to the numerou s defections which took place over the past 24 hours, the SRC has its own milita ry, its own police, its own special police (Berkut) and even its own security se rvice (the SBU in Crimea switched sides). Not only has Russia committed to assi st the SRC financially, the SRC has a guaranteed source of revenue from the leas e of the bases to the Black Fleet and from the huge amount of wealthy Russian to urists (about 6 millions each year). At this point in time, all stores and rest aurants are open, business is working as usual and there are no signs of social tensions. Now let's sum it all up: The USA and the EU have put their full support and political credibility behind a regime which is: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Illegal and came to power by violence. Has no right to pass any law. Whose popular support is dubious at best Which is a pure creation of the West. Whose ideology is basically neo-Nazi and/or rabid nationalism. Which no matter what is headed for disaster.

Russia has put its full support and political credibility behind a regime which is: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Which Which Which Which Whose Which is arguably legal, at least over the territory it controls. has been forced to temporarily over-step its legal rights. clearly enjoy the full support of a majority of the population. has been secure in power by Russian military power. ideology is most likely social/liberal and pluralistic. has all the means needed to be successful.

From the above I think that it is pretty undeniable that the West is not only su pporting the wrong side, and also that this decision is only completely immoral but also amazingly short-sighted. This is yet another case of what the French c alled fuite en avant (literally "to flee forward"): when somebody does something clearly and obviously mistaken and then, frightened by that, instead of reversi ng course decides to run forward at even a higher speed. In contrast, Russia's decision is not only morally right, it is also pragmatically correct. But there is more to this than just pragmatism. Western-backed nationalists As I have written in the past, for the USA, wrecking the Ukraine is a way of den ying it to Russia. This is a Cold War like logic, a zero-sum game and a way of making Russia pay for being independent of the AngloZionist Empire. Still, this is also clearly a choice, an "optional crisis", a conflict which really does no

t have a strategic impact on US national security. Not so for Russia. For Russia the conflict on the Ukraine has become an existential issue. For 20 years Russia did put up with corrupt, oligarchic, pro-Western and anti-Russian r egimes, which blackmailed Russia and Europe over gas pipelines and which printed stamps of Stepan Bandera (whom Yushchenko even made "hero of the Ukraine"). Ev en when the Ukies sent neo-Nazis to support the Chechen Wahabis and when they ar med Saakashvili to the teeth, Russia did nothing other than denounce it (nobody gave a damn). But when it became clear that millions of Russians and Russian-sp eaking Ukrainians were threatened by neo-Nazis and that a bloodbath in the east was inevitable, Russia decided to act not only to protect its citizens abroad, b ut to protect itself. There is also another phenomenon taking place. Unlike the the USA or Europe, Ru ssians have a much longer attention span. While in the West nobody cares to eve r remember that, Russians do remember the promise made to Gorbachev not to move NATO to the East, they remember the US bombing and invasion of Bosnia and Kosovo , they remember the West's support for Chechen Wahabis and Jewish oligarchs like Berezovsky, they remember the West's full support for Saakashvili's attack on R ussian peacekeepers and the people of South Ossetia, they remember the deploymen t of missiles all around Russia and they remember the war on Libya, and the US a nd EU sponsored butchery of Syria. And as one commentator put it yesterday, "th is time it is not about Syrians or Ukrainians, it's about us, we are next in lin e". Russian forces Some have said that I make too much of the unanimous decision in the Duma and th e Council of the Federation to authorize the use of force because these bodies a re controlled by the Kremlin and basically rubber-stamp whatever Putin says. Fi rst, this is not quite true, though there is much truth to it, but what this ove rlooks is the huge swelling of popular anger and even rage to which these politi cians responded as least as much as to order from the Kremlin. So when I wrote that "Russia is ready for war" I was not exaggerating. True, in the general pub lic nobody believes that a war will start: most Russians think that Obama, Merke l & Co. will run as soon as Putin bares his fangs, but that is not how people in the Kremlin or the General Staff think. They know that wars can start for the wrong reasons, that the use of force is always dangerous, that before using mili tary force each possible consequence and effect must be carefully calculated and assessed. They also know that Obama is the worst and most incompetent Presiden t in US history and that they should never assume that he will do the rational, pragmatic thing, even in his own interests. And I can promise you that when the military took the decision to tell Putin "we can do this" they did consider eve n the unlikely possibility of a US/NATO military response, either to protect the regime in Kiev, or even in Crimea (where and international coalition lead by An glo powers already had attacked Russia in the past). Russians don't do operatio ns like sending the Marines into Beirut or Somalia. If they use military force they are committed to it. In this case, it is obvious that they felt that they had no other choice than to draw a thick and clear line in the sand to stop furt her US aggression by proxy. Obama and the Neocons: I have received many emails suggesting that the Neocons imposed that mess upon O bama who did not need that at all. I don't necessarily disagree with that versio n. We know that the Republicans negotiated with the Iranians behind Carter's ba ck and we know that the Republicans have a proud tradition of not giving a damn about legalities anyway. Finally, there are also plenty of Neocons in the Obama administration itself. But none of this can serve as an excuse. If Obama real

ly did let himself become a hostage of an operation run behind his back, he did not have to be a coward and fully endorse it when it became obvious. Yes, I kno w, Kennedy was murdered for, amongst other things, not supporting the Bay of Pig s. So what? That just proves my point: Kennedy was no spineless coward whereas Obama is exactly that. As are Merkel, Hollande and the rest of them in the EU. Thus we see these 1%ers still at time: holding emergency sessions in NATO HQ, co ndemning Russia at the G7, making more threats on TV (Kerry) and at the UN (Powe rs) - they are all in the fuite en avant mode. They hope that if enough words a re spoken and loud statements are made, this will change something on the ground . It's wont. Magical thinking does not work in real life. Right now there are two possibilities: either a civil war starts in the east of the Ukraine, or the RRC simply collapses and vanishes in thin air (a very real possibility). After all, what can it do with no money at all and no basic resources? Sing the Ukie anthem and blame Moscow for it all? That is hardly a real program. And even t hough the western corporate ziomedia tries hard to conceal it - nobody, and I me an *nobody*, in the new regime has *any* idea as to how to begin to address the current problems. The best they could come up so far is to appoint to multi-bil lionaire oligarch to run the east and southeast of the Ukraine. Check out this headline from the Kyiv Post: Oligarchs step in to save Ukraine s sovereignty It would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic: the so-called "anti-corruption" re volutionary regime appoints oligarchs to save the Ukraine. When I saw that one it really felt like we were entering the twilight zone or lala land where the mo st ridiculous and crazy things could happen. This makes for great stories, but for politics this is a recipe for disaster. Sure, these oligarchs have more mon ey that the RRK, but they made that money by robbing the Ukraine of everything i t had. And if anybody seriously believes that the Russians will deal with these two thugs then they are dreaming. They really mean it As I wrote in November, the Gates of Hell are opening for the Ukraine. What is amazing is that the entire western ruling class seems to be determined not only to encourage the Ukraine to step in, but also to risk following it. For the lif e of me I cannot imagine a more self-defeating, dangerous, immoral and stupid po licy. The Saker Obama, Kerry, the Ukrainian military, Yulia and Klichko Over the past couple of hours it was it was interesting to observe the reactions to the Russian decision to be read to use military force in the Ukraine. Let's take them one by one Obama and Kerry: frankly, I did not expect much, by I still was baffled by how o ut of touch the White House is with the real world. To deter Putin from using a rmed force, the White House decided to threaten him boycott the next G8 summit in Russia. Boo hoo!! I am sure that Putin is now terrified. Not. Listening t o the Idiot in Chief and his Secretary of State I truly marveled that this still threw the full political weight and credibility of the USA behind a government which even Iatseniuk himself called a "kamikaze government'. Anybody with an IQ at or above room temperature understands that this so called "Ukrainian governme nt" is bound to fail if only because it literally has no money to do *anything*. And yet, the boneheads in Washington are totally backing this quasi-dead regim e. The Ukrainian military: I am sure that you have heard that the Ukrainian militar

y is now on maximal alert and is read to repel any Russian aggression. Guys, th is is laughable. There IS NO UKRAINIAN MILITARY. There is a lot of old hardwar e lying around, there are a number of units with basically zero training and the re are a few units of higher combat readiness. Do you know what that list is ca lled in military terms? It's called *TARGETS*. I also suspect that if the wester n politicians and a few Ukie crackpots speak about the Ukrainian armed forces, t he officers there, and even the soldiers, fully realize that they are just targe ts. Hence the wise decision of the flagship of the Ukrainian Navy, the Hetman Sa haidachny frigate, to quickly switch sides even before getting back home (it is in eastern the Mediterranean according to the latest reports). I suppose you al l know that the notion of the Ukies developing their own nuclear weapons is laug hable, so I will not bother dwelling on it now. Yulia and Klichko: As I suspected from her appearance on the Maidan, Yulia clear ly lost it and her latest statement about the crisis just proves to me that she is "gone fishing". In contrast, however, and to be great surprise, it was Klich ko who came out with the sanest proposal: he wants to create a special commissio n in Kiev tasked with negotiating a peaceful resolution of the current crisis be tween Kiev and Moscow. Unlike Yulia's hysterical nonsense, Kichko's statement c ontained no grandstanding or lyrical appeals. It was all business-like and prag matic. Well, who knows, maybe the man can get something done since I am quite sure that as long as the Ukies do not use force in the east or south the Russian s will stay on high alert, but on their side of the border. That's it for this short update. Later today I hope to have the time to post a somewhat more analytical look at the recent developments. Cheers, The Saker