Why Russia won't invade the Ukraine, the Baltic statelets or anybody else

by The Saker on The Saker

The views expressed are solely those of the authors or commentators and may or may not reflect those of Radios.cz.

The AngloZionist propaganda machine is constantly warning us that Russia is about to invade some country. The list of candidates for invasion is long and ranges from Norway to the Ukraine and includes the Baltic statelets, Poland and even countries further West. Of course, we are also told that NATO and the US are here to prevent that. Well, thank God for them, right?

But what is conspicuously missing from this narrative is a discussion of the possible Russian motives for such a military move. Typically, we are merely told that Russia has broken the European post-Cold War order and borders by "annexing" Crimea and by sending military forces into the Donbass. Anybody with an IQ at room temperature or above by now realizes that both of these claims are total bunk. The ones who indeed broke the post-Cold War international order and borders were the NATO member states when they used military force, in complete illegality, to break-up Yugoslavia. As for the people of Crimea, they had the opportunity to vote about their future in a referendum, very much unlike the inhabitants of Kosovo which had no such opportunity. As for the 08.08.08 war, even the Europeans who eventually, and very reluctantly, agreed that it was, in fact, Saakashvili who started this conflict, not Russia.

But let's set all this aside and assume that the Russian leaders would not hesitate to use military force again if it was to their advantage. Let's assume that, yes, the Russians are up to no good and that they might well try to bite-off some other piece of land somewhere in Europe.

Such an assumption would immediately raise a crucial question: why would the Russians want to do that?

For some reason, this question is rarely, if ever, asked.

Oh sure, we are told that "Putin wants to rebuild the Soviet Union" or some other type of empire but, again, nobody seems to wonder why he would want that!

So let's look at possible rationales for such an attack:

Reason number one: to gain more land

That is probably the least credible reason of all. Russia is a vast country (17,098,246 km2) with a relatively small population (144,526,636) resulting in a very low population density. Not only is Russia huge, but her territory has immense natural resources. The very last thing Russia needs is more land.

Reason number two: to increase the Russian population

Well, yes, Russia has a population deficit for sure. But that does not mean that just any population increase would be a bonanza for Russia. For example, Russia will only be in a worse shape if the number of people depending on unemployment, social services or pensions increases. Likewise, Russia would not benefit from a politically hostile population. So while Russia could benefit from having a larger population, what she needs is more young and well-educated *Russians*, not unemployed and destitute Ukrainians or Lithuanians! The massive influx of Ukrainian refugees, by the way, has already contributed to an increase in qualified specialists, including medical doctors and highly qualified engineers from the Ukrainian military-industrial specialists who, when they saw their bureaus and industries collapse in the Ukraine, moved to Russia to continue to work. There is no need for the Russia to invade anybody to get those highly qualified specliasts. As for Ukrainians without special qualifications, they have already shown up in Russia, and the last thing Russia needs is more of them (they can go scrub toilets in Poland or the UK). Furthermore, there are already a lot of immigrants from other parts of the world in Russia and getting more of them is hardly a good idea. So while Russia would benefit from more qualified young Russians, invading other countries is not the way to get them.

Reason number three: geostrategic reasons

What about the Baltic ports? What about the Ukrainian gas pipelines? The truth is that in the Soviet times the Baltic ports or the Ukrainian pipelines were crucial strategic assets. But since their independence, these countries have not only ruined themselves and destroyed the infrastructure they inherited from the "Soviet occupiers," but Russia has also successfully replaced the infrastructure and industries she lost after 1991. Thus, for example, Russia has actively developed her own commercial ports on the Baltic Sea, and they have now outgrown the ones found in the Baltic states (see here for a good comparative chart). As for the Ukrainian pipelines, not only are they in terrible shape, Russia has successfully built "North" and "South" streams which allow her to completely bypass the Ukraine and the need to deal with the crazy Banderite junta in Kiev. The simple truth is that while the Baltic statelets or the Ukronazis can fancy themselves as a very precious prize, Russia has absolutely no need for them whatsoever.

In fact, the opposite is true: right now, Russia can barely finance all the reconstruction programs which are so urgently needed after decades of nationalist rule in Crimea. In the future, Russia will also have to help the Donbass rebuild. Does anybody seriously believe that the Russians can afford to rescue even more countries or territories?!

Reason number four: revanchist motives

That is the Hillary Clinton/Zbigniew Brzezinski argument: the Russians are inherently expansionists, imperialists, militarists, and revanchists and they don't need a motive to invade somebody: that's simply what they do – invade, terrorize, oppress. Well, a quick objective look at history would prove that it is the West which has always displayed such behavior, not Russia, but we can even ignore that fact. The truth is that while there are a lot of people in Russia who have good memories of their lives in the Soviet Union, there is just no constituency pushing for the re-birth of the Soviet Union or for any kind of imperialism. If anything, most Russians are much more isolationist, and they don't want to get involved in wars or the invasion of foreign countries. This is not only a result of memories of wars in Afghanistan or interventions in Germany, Hungary or Czechoslovakia, but also the bitter realization that even the so-called "Orthodox brothers" (some of whom even owe the existence of their country on a world map to Russia!) have now fully turned against Russia and have become willing NATO-colonies (think Bulgaria or Romania here). Yes, Putin did say that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a tragedy (objectively, it was, and it brought immense suffering to millions of people), but that does not at all mean that Putin, or anybody else, actually wants to "resurrect" the Soviet Union, even if it was feasible (which it is not). If anything, it was the US, NATO, and the EU which, for purely ideological reasons chose to expand their influence to the East and which are now constantly engaged in a nonstop campaign of russophobia (phobia in both meanings of "fear" and "hatred"). Yes, Russians are disgusted with the West, but that hardly means that they want to invade it.

Reason number five: megalomania

Well, maybe the Russians are mad that they lost the Cold War and now want to become a superpower again? In fact, no. Not at all. Not only do Russians not feel that they "lost" the Cold War, they even feel that they are already a superpower: one which successfully defies the Empire and which continues to struggle for full sovereignization at a time when all European countries are competing with each other for the title of most subservient lackey of the Empire. Just like the USSR after WWII, Russia, after the nightmare of the 1990s, has very successfully rebuilt, in spite of the constant subversion and sabotage of the "united West" which tried every dirty trick in the book to prevent Russia from recovering from the horrors which the western-backed (and, really, run) "liberal democracy" imposed upon her during the Eltsin years. Sure, Russians want their country to be prosperous and powerful, but that does not mean that they want to become a USA-like world hegemon which gets involved in every conflict on the planet. Truth be told, even the bad old USSR was not anti-USA and never had the kind of global ambition the USA has (well, except for Trotsky, but Stalin gave the boot to those crazies, many of whom later emigrated to the USA and re-branded themselves as Neocons). Of course, there is the eternal Russian "court jester," aka "Zhirik" aka Vladimir Zhironovskii. He has made all sorts of threats (including nuclear ones) against various countries neighboring Russia, but everybody knows that he is just that, a court jester and that what he says is basically utter nonsense.

Reason number six: to save Putin's "regime."

It is true that unpopular regimes use war to distract from their failures and to make the population switch off their brains for the sake of "circling the wagons" and being "patriotic." That is most definitely what Poroshenko is doing right now. But Putin has no such need! Even if the pension reform did cost him quite a bit in terms of popularity, he is still far more popular at home (and even internationally!) than any political leader in the West and the Russian economy is doing just fine, in spite of the famous sanctions. True, the mostly Atlantic Integrationist Medvedev government is not very popular, but those officials (like Shoigu or Lavrov) who are typically associated with Putin and his Eurasian Sovereignists remain very popular. The simple truth is that Putin has no need for any "distracting crises" because he remains remarkably popular in spite of all the difficulties Russia is currently facing. If anything, it is the Trumps, Macrons, Mays, and Co. who need a distracting war, not Putin!

I could go on listing more nonsensical pseudo-reasons for why Russia would want to occupy some piece of land somewhere, each more far-fetched and baseless than the previous one, but you get the point: Russia has no interest whatsoever in military interventions. In fact, what Russia needs more than anything else is peace for as long as possible.

Now, let's come back to reality,

Putin is a continuator of another great Russian reformer: Petr Arkadievich Stolypin

The Chairman of the Council of Ministers and Prime Minister of Russia from 1906 to 1911, Petr Arkadievich Stolypin, once famously said "Next comes our main task: to strengthen our lower classes. In them lies the strength of our country. There are more than 100 millions of them and the roots of our state will be healthy and strong and, believe me, the voice of the Russian government before Europe and the rest of the world will sound very differently. Our motto, of all of us Russians, should be a united, common labor based on mutual trust. Give Russia 20 years of peace, internal and external, and you will not recognize today's Russia" (this is my own, free, translation. This is the original text: На очереди главная наша задача — укрепить низы. В них вся сила страны. Их более 100 миллионов и будут здоровы и крепки корни у государства, поверьте — и слова Русского Правительства совсем иначе зазвучат перед Европой и перед целым миром… Дружная, общая, основанная на взаимном доверии работа — вот девиз для нас всех, Русских. Дайте Государству 20 лет покоя, внутреннего и внешнего, и вы не узнаете нынешней Poccии).

Of course, Stolypin was eventually murdered by a Jewish revolutionary, Mordechai Gershkovich Bogrov, and Russia was forced to enter WWI. Eventually, the Russian monarchy was overthrown by a Masonic conspiracy lead by Alexander Kerensky. These "liberals" (i.e., plutocrats) did exactly what their successors did under Eltsin and plunged Russia into utter chaos. Eight months later, the Bolsheviks seized power, and the civil war began. Instead of 20 years of peace, Russia got 30 years of wars. After immense sacrifices and many horrors, Russia only succeeded in recovering after the end of WWII.

Nobody in Russia wants to repeat this terrible experience even if, in the end, Russia would prevail. The costs are just too high.

Today, just like in 1911, Russia needs internal and external peace more than anything else, and that is not what she would get if she got involved in some foreign military adventure! In fact, attacking an alliance which includes three nuclear power would be suicidal, and the Russians are anything but suicidal.

If Russia needs peace so badly, why the constant rumors of war?

That is really simple! First, Poroshenko is in deep trouble and short of a major crisis his only option is to completely steal the election. That latter option might be tricky, because if the "collective West" as always, turns a blind eye to the actions of the Ukronazi regime, the internal opposition to Poroshenko might not. Then some serious civil unrest, or even a counter-coup, are real possibilities. Hence Poroshenko's desperate need for a crisis.

They say that an image is worth a thousand words. Well, in that spirit, check this one:

Left: martial law regions Right: regions which voted against Poroshenko in 2014 (by the way, this does suggest some kind of future border, don't it? :-)

QED, right?

There is also another reason, a particularly shameful one: while it is true that Hitler and the AngloZionists did, eventually, fight each other, it is also true that in many ways Hitler truly embodied the dream of a "united Europe" and a "reborn western civilization" (albeit a pagan one!). In the history of European imperialism, Hitler represents something of an apogee, at least until the USA superseded the Nazis as a global hegemon after WWII. There is not much difference between Hitler's (oh so modestly promised) "thousand year Reich" and Fukuyama's "end of history" (or, for that matter, the Marxist idea of realized Communism which also would end history by solving the dialectical contradictions which are the engine of history). On a psychological level, Hitler was the continuator of the Popes and Napoleon - a self-described "Kulturträger" bringing "western civilization" to the barbaric subhuman "Untermensch" mongoloid hordes of the East. So while Hitler was most definitely an "SOB," he sure was "our SOB" (hence the impotent rage my use of the term "Ukronazi" elicits in various type of defenders of "Western civilization" or, even better, a supposed "White civilization"!). Well, we all know how these Nazi "culture-carrying" White supremacists ended, don't we:

sic transit gloria mundi indeed...

These carriers of the values of a "united Europe" and "western civilization" were totally defeated by these men:

These are the men who destroyed 80% of the Nazi military and who *really* won WWII (not Patton or MacArthur!)

These memories are what truly terrifies the western elites: the existence of a different civilizational realm which not only dares to defy the AngloZionist Empire openly, but which has already defeated every western hegemonic power which dared to attacked it in the past.

The Russian people, by the way, see the current confrontation in the very similar "mental coordinates" as the western Russophobes, just with an inverted value sign meaning that they perfectly understand that the kind of war the Empire is waging against Russia right now has its roots in the outcome of WWII. This is one of the reasons they all cherish the memories of the millions who died fighting "western civilization" and a "united Europe." This is best shown by the "Immortal Regiments" in all the Russian cities:

The "Immortal Regiment" as an expression of the acute historical awareness of the Russian people

This historical awareness is also shown in the parade of Ukronazi POW in Donetsk:

Again, the reference to WWII is unmistakable.

As I have said many times in the past, one of the most significant differences between Russia and the "collective West" is that Russians fear war but are nevertheless prepared to fight it, whereas the westerners do not fear war, even though they are not prepared for it at all. Truly, "fools rush in where angels fear to tread" (think Pompeo, Mattis and the rest of them here). And yet, despite this apparent insouciance, the leaders of the AngloZionists have an almost genetic fear and hatred of Russia, because they remember how all their predecessors were eventually defeated by the Russian nation.

And, finally, let's remember the crucial question which Bertolt Brecht asked: "How can anyone tell the truth about Fascism unless he is willing to speak out against capitalism, which brings it forth?". Yes, in words, and in words only, the collective West has condemned Fascism and National-Socialism. But in deeds? No, not at all. This is why Fascist scum à la Poroshenko *always* get the support of the western elites under the pious heading of "he is an SOB, but he is our SOB"?

Sidebar: think of it,during the Crimean War the putatively "Christian West" united with the (Muslim) Ottoman Empire Against Russia. During the revolutionary years, US Jewish bankers fully financed the Bolsheviks. Just before WWII, the Brits likewise financed Hitler. During WWI and WWII the West backed Ukie separatists, including bona fide Nazis. During the Cold War, the West fully backed the Wahabi nutcases in Saudi Arabia (no, MBS is not the first bloodthirsty Saudi maniac!) and in Afghanistan. The West also supported Apartheid South Africa for as long as politically possible. In Latin America the USA gladly supported what Roger Waters called Latin American "meatpacking glitterati", that is the many military regimes who all were garden variety Fascists. In Kosovo the USAF became the KLA's Air Force even though the USA had previously considered the KLA as a dangerous terrorist organization (that was against the Serbs but, according to Strobe Talbott, the main goal here was to show Russia what could happen to her if she resisted). During the Chechen wars, the West fully backed the Takfiri crazies. Then, after 9/11, the USA finally got fully in bed with al-Qaeda (especially in Syria) even though the official fairy tale wants us to believe that al-Qaeda and Bin Laden were responsible for the death of 3000 people (nevermind that NIST admitted by direct implication the destruction of WTC7 with explosives (1)). Does anybody doubt that if Satan himself took on a body and appeared before us the USA would fully and totally back him as long as he promised to be anti-Russian or, even better, anti-Orthodox? By allying itself for decades with what can fairly be described as the worst evil scum of mankind, as the not already been allied with Satan for many, many, year?

Honestly, we should have no illusions about the nature of the western plutocracy, and we should always heed the Marxist truism which states that "the state is an apparatus of violence which fulfills the will of the ruling class." We all know who the ruling class of the AngloZionist Empire is composed of, don't we?

Western liberal democracies are, in reality, plutocracies which were created by a class of capitalist thugs with the purpose of controlling our entire planet. This was true before WWII. This was also true during and after WWII and this has not changed, notwithstanding all the sanguine denunciations of Fascism and Nazism.

What this means is that it is the western ruling elites which need war to survive and preserve the New World Order they have attempted to impose on all of us. Russia does not need war – she only needs peace.

Conclusion: relax, folks, the Russians ain't coming, I promise!

AngloZionist paranoid collective hallucinations notwithstanding, the Russians are not coming. Yes, they will annihilate you if you are crazy enough to attack them but, no, they are not coming, at least not of their own volition. Not even to liberate the Russian minorities in Apartheid Latvia or the Nazi-occupied Ukrainian Banderastan. The Russian policy towards these regimes is very simple: let them collapse on their own. After all, they will all eventually come knocking sooner or later, as ideological delusions are powerless against geographical realities.

I will let a much better person than myself conclude this article.

This is what Professor Stephen Cohen recently had to say about the risks of war:

He indeed is the "voice of one crying in the wilderness."

Will enough people listen to him to avoid an apocalypse?

I don't know.

The Saker

Footnote 1: the US government – through NIST – officially recognized the fact that the WTC7 building fell at a free-fall speed for 2,25 seconds (for a detailed discussion of this please check out the video which I posted here). Do those 2,25 seconds really matter? Hell yes!! What this means is that the US government admits that for 2,25 seconds WTC7 fell without any kind of resistance to slow it down and this, therefore, means that there was nothing under the collapsing section. So this begs an obvious question: since we now know that there was nothing under the collapsing section and since we also know that there was a steel frame building there seconds before the collapse – what happened in between those two events? There is only one possible answer to this question: the steel-framed section of the building which would have normally slowed down the collapsing section of the building was removed a) extremely rapidly b) symmetrically. There is only one technology which can do that: explosives. The above is simply not a matter of opinion. This is a fact. Likewise, it is a fact that fires could not have removed a section of WTC7 the way it was observed. Amazing but true: NIST itself admitted that explosives were used.

    last comments from The Saker
    David J Gill 19 Aug 2019 | 4:42 am

    "The Anglo-Zionist propaganda machine…" Use of this kind of conspiratorial, antisemitic terminology automatically discredits the author and the publisher of this material.

    says who? by your own authority? LOL!
    sorry, but that kind of empty gravitas only works with dim people.
    try it somewhere else, ok?
    The Saker

    Anonymous 21 Dec 2018 | 9:50 pm

    In reply to Harry_Red.

    A global Nuclear Conflict (spending all 15000 nuclear heads) results:
    Cannot breathe the air for 2 years.
    Cannot plant for 10 Years.
    Some may survive in underground shelters, but after 10 years, must start from scratch.

    Me 21 Dec 2018 | 7:59 pm

    In reply to Miguel (Michael) Hughes.

    Don't use the terms whites and westerners when describing bad things of the past because there bare many white europeans who never,EVER did the things you say.
    For expample greeks.
    Greeks are white, Greece is in the European continent but they never engaged in black african slave trade,never colonised territories that already had native population.
    Even when Alexandre conquered Asia, he didn't expell/genocide the locals:he just made local rulers obey him and let them live their lives they way they did before.

    On the other hand greeks and other balkan nations were enslaved to the turks who even took their smartest and fittest sons to forcibly convert them into fanatic muslims (the janissaries).
    Also took by force whoever girl they wanted to take her to the harem as sex slave.

    Arthur 13 Dec 2018 | 11:43 pm

    Even a cursory review shows the US-EU view of Russia fails to measure up.
    Morally on many issues they do not hold the high ground and the public in American and Europe (an elsewhere) either knows this or is beginning to realize this. As a result their plans will not have support and with fail.

    They will eventually start to question just how much public spending is going into armaments and whether it should be cut and be redirected into more beneficial things like infrastructure or perhaps space exploration. But there will always be a need for defense spending in case of emergency conditions – eg the military is needed during natural disasters.

    American squeals of Russian bombers in Venezuela recently are an example. Russia is there to stop unwanted US interference there. US has no right of medalling there and if they do they will find all of South America will turn on them.

    While Putin and Russia are not perfect they certainly arent the aggressor in these conflicts and merely react to attacks on them.

    America lost the moral majority in 1965 when Lyndon Johnson corrupted the entire system and little has changed since. Ever since then they been on a downhill slide and the result is the mess the country is in now. Russia on the other hand, has clawing its way out the the deficiencies of Communism since 1991 and is trying to rebuild in a difficult world environment.

    Most people should agree with the above article, apart from the fact historically Russia has never sought to take over other countries for its own people (only sought to establish its political ideaology during the Red period in the Baltic States). Russia doesnt need to invade because it has ample territory of its own it only went into Eastern Europe after WW2 to establish a buffer zone to prevent attacks on it.

    Its time that Govts and their backers in US, EU & Russia sat down at a conference and worked out a solution to issues between to them – so that unnecessary conflict can be avoided and world resources diverted into better things.

    A Reader 12 Dec 2018 | 7:02 pm

    In reply to Anonymous.

    Great points… but truly, I doubt the "jihadists" represent the Muslim world to any extent near to that which the breaking of God's Commandments (that is, sin) represents practically the entire Western world through-and-through, right down to the filthy and adulterous songs heard on the grocery store speakers.

    Anonymous 12 Dec 2018 | 12:47 am

    In reply to A Reader.

    And what about the "culture" of the assorted jihadists—Taliban, Daesh-ISIS, their backers, and the ideology of the "father of modern anti-West Islam" Saiid Qutub,—their prime obsession being to keep the women in a status
    of essentially house arrest, and declare that warfare is a "holy thing" and thinking that way they become morally and spiritually superior to everybody else on the planet.—If only they had the top of the line weapons technology to go out and truly conquer much of the world.—Not sinful and not satanic?

    grrr 11 Dec 2018 | 11:24 pm

    In reply to Outlaw Historian.

    tes, with 6+ % growth per year China's economy will be >1.5 times larger than now in just 6-7 years. Their PPP index is roughly equal the USA's today. And 1.5 times better?…

    Mathias 11 Dec 2018 | 11:01 pm

    Europe will be repopulated by Muslims and especially Africans during the next 200 years.

    Even as soon as in 2050 demographic change will be huge.

    1 India 1,658,978,162 17 % (2)
    2 China 1,364,456,723 14 % (1)
    3 Nigeria 410,637,868 4.2 % (7)
    4 U.S. 389,591,663 4 % (3)
    5 Indonesia 321,550,686 3.3 % (4)
    6 Pakistan 306,940,443 3.1 % (6)
    7 Brazil 232,688,044 2.4 % (5)
    8 Bangladesh 201,926,816 2.1 % (8)
    9 DR Congo 197,404,202 2 % (16)
    10 Ethiopia 190,869,632 2 % (12)
    11 Mexico 164,279,302 1.7 % (10)
    12 Egypt 153,433,492 1.6 % (14)
    13 Philippines 151,293,435 1.5 % (13)
    14 Tanzania 138,081,621 1.4 % (24)
    15 Russia 132,730,511 1.4 % (9)
    16 Viet Nam 114,629,852 1.2 % (15)
    17 Japan 108,794,446 1.1 % (11)
    18 Uganda 105,698,201 1.1 % (32)
    19 Turkey 95,626,879 1 % (19)
    20 Kenya 95,467,137 1 % (28)

    Anonymous 10 Dec 2018 | 11:03 pm

    In reply to Anonymous.

    If you only 'believe' that Elizabeth was contemporary with Ivan IV, then you may believe that the evidence of high treason at the court of the Terrible Tsar was just 'paranoia'. You probably never heard of Prince Andrei Kurbsky, much admired in the West as a harbinger of 'liberalism'.

    A Reader 10 Dec 2018 | 9:10 pm

    From your article:

    "By allying itself for decades with what can fairly be described as the worst evil scum of mankind, (h)as the (USA) not already been allied with Satan for many, many, year(s)?"

    From itscalledsin dotcom/letter-11.html (which agrees):

    "There is no doubt that Satan holds a special place in his murderous, lying heart for the purveyors of US culture. Even in the exhaustive limits of his wretched imagination, the devil must still find it hard to believe how easily and extensively almost an entire society buys into each and every one of the evils that he sells; and also how readily they push along his evils to each other, and to everyone else.

    The US first and foremost, but also their Western vassals, literally do Satan's job for him !

    On top of that, the US and their Western vassals, as the hypocrites they are, have the audacity to "demonize" (literally) any others who try to refuse their sinful ways ! Any nations who wish to reject the USA's greedy, covetous, permissive, adulterous, dishonest, violent, life-destroying, Earth-destroying, and other God-hating ways are subjected to constant threats and harassment by the USA and their vassals, who, deceived by pride, take it upon themselves to act as bullying enforcers for Satan. It's literally, "Sin like us or die !"

    Could Satan be more proud of his own ?

    No !"

    Anonymous 10 Dec 2018 | 7:17 pm

    In reply to Anonymous.

    Ultimately it would depend on whether objective evidence existed of "state reasons, high treason, plotting to overthrow the sovereign".—Or was it the leader who was delusional-paranoid-bloodthirsty who saw any slightest expression of dissent as "high treason" or threat of high treason, so need do a preëmptive strike, etc. I suppose it is all a matter of degree. Say, compare the rulership of Queen Elizabeth I in Britain who was,
    I believe, contemporary to Tsar Ivan the Terrible.—There were plots and issues of treason in both royal courts, but if the record be reliable, Elizabeth did not find such treason as to kill or chase away almost all the elite in her country. So why was so much more "treason" found in the royal court of Tsar Ivan? Was the difference simply that Ivan was a very paranoid, demented and "extraordinarily bloodthirsty" ruler? He was Russia's great misfortune.
    The same thing would apply to Stalin and his slaughter of his top ranking and talented military officers. If he suspected them of some "treason" he could have just demoted them, fired them, and they would end up nothing but bums on the street. But still existing to perhaps be called back for the sake of "patriotic duty" when the German invasion began and there were all those reverses. A simply normal leader would have demoted or fired those men and not go on to outright kill them. But not a paranoid vengeful megalomaniac such as Stalin. And by setting such an example, Stalin in effect telegraphed to all elites in Western Europe that if he ever got his hands on them, they and likely all their families would be put to death—fast. Therefore, they financed "their own s.o.b." and you know, all in all, there burst out simply this huge outpouring of rage energies and fear energies worldwide. As I say, look at the whole system, and it seems like we humans are just some stupid gladiators fighting in an arena and putting forth certain energies for the true benefit of something else out there…

    Leo 10 Dec 2018 | 6:58 pm

    Well, Russia should liberate Novorossiya and Malorossiya and get it over with! Just leave Galicia to the europeans because that dustbin is full of nazis.

    Steve Naidamast 10 Dec 2018 | 6:13 pm

    In reply to Anonymous.

    I have taken your arguments quite seriously and did some further research on the issue. The first link I came across was the following that demonstrates that people who support Suvorov's analysis and those who are critical of it are evenly divided in the historical community… Soviet offensive plans controversy… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_offensive_plans_controversy#Books_that_advance_the_existence_of_Soviet_offensive_plans

    Though found on Wikipedia, which is often a hot-bed of inaccuracy and even disinformation, the historian listing in this link seems evenly divided making it appear to be an impartial attempt on the page's editor.

    Though I understand where you are coming from in terms of your own analysis, until I can be provided unequivocal evidence to the opposite, I will still rely on Suvorov's analysis as a primary source.

    This is not to say that other historians who are his critics do not merit consideration. For example, the book, "Grand Delusion: Stalin and the German Invasion of Russia" (https://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/93) does offer a dissent based on the diplomatic history between Hitler and Stalin. Nonetheless, this is diplomacy and not military analysis where the two can actually be light years apart. So this particular book has to be taken within the context it was written.

    Two links that are primarily comments on the subject take both sides of the matter. However, one commentator in each link provides a distinct reasoning for favoring Suvorov's work; that of western promotion of the victor's version of the events of WWII. When you look at the amount of disinformation that the United States especially, has fed the world, especially its own citizens, these two comments make a lot of sense.

    Link 1…

    Link 2…

    For example, studying the history of the Southern War for Independence in which one goes deeper than the drivel that is taught in America high schools, you find a wealth of information that turns the North's version of events that led up to this conflict completely on its head.

    Finally, the Institute for Historical Review often has some very well written pieces on a variety of subject matter that can be often corroborated as a result of the author notes that are provided…

    Two such articles on the issue can be found at the following links…

    Link 1…
    "Revising the Twentieth Century's 'Perfect Storm' – Russian and German Historians Debate Barbarossa and Its Aftermath"

    This link attempts to demonstrate an impartial analysis of both sides of the argument.

    Link 2…
    "New Evidence on the 1941 'Barbarossa' Attack – Why Hitler Attacked Soviet Russia When He Did"


    Despite the distorted reputation of the Institute for Historical Review, I often find its articles quite impartial and well written.


    Lastly, until we know definitively how this part of the conflict came about, one piece that can help secure some excellent background information is David Hoggan's, "The Forced War", which is one of the very few micro-detailed diplomatic histories of the inter-war period. A difficult but fascinating read, it describes the German and Russian sides of this aspect of history to such an extent that you literally feel you spend time with the participants when they go to the toilette.

    I haven't read such finely grained history since reading Krankshaw's, "The Fall of the House of Hapsburg"…

    Anonymous 10 Dec 2018 | 1:48 pm

    In reply to Steve Naidamast.

    Luigi Albertini wrote his "Le origini della guerra del 1914" in 1942-43 (published in English as "Origins of the War of 1914″ in 1953.
    Fritz Fischer wrote his " Griff nach der Weltmacht: Die Kriegzielpolitik des kaiserlichen Deutschland 1914–1918″ (published in English as "Germany's Aims in the First World War") in 1961.
    Fischer's book was criticized (furiously) as 'anti-German', but never 'debunked' or convincingly 'refuted'.

    Anonymous 10 Dec 2018 | 8:23 am

    In reply to Anonymous.

    You are churning the same stale poncifs of the Russophobic propaganda. 'Devil whorshiping' Oprichnina 'cult', Stalin's 'megalomania', 'who killed off anyone who might possibly rival him'. It never occurs to anybody that there was state reason behind. High treason and plotting the overthrow of the sovereign (that is the real meaning of 'taking power from him') incur in any Penal Code, even today, severe punishment. The Oprichnina was disbanded after just eight years.

    Anonymous 10 Dec 2018 | 5:30 am

    In reply to pogohere.

    Farrell should be taken with a handful of salt. He jumped too eagerly on the 'anti-Nazi' bandwagon.
    Central Banks everywhere are supposed to be creations of Jewish finance. Therefore BIS as 'central bank' of the central banks was a Jewish finance creation as well (Warburg-Rothschild, anyone?).

    Anonymous 10 Dec 2018 | 2:10 am

    From how it all looks there is a competition in atrocities going on throughout the world, and has been going on like this throughout history,—given that weird what I would call "emotional organisms" operating as "machines of rage" are influencing and possessing millions of humans.—The whole system is organized to generate the maximum amount of rage energies and fear energies as the end in itself.—This is why you have endless warfare but no one ever wins, only everything is kept endless churning out rage energies and fear energies.

    It would seem this is really going on on the "spirit level" and is part of corrupt fallen human nature.

    I think only the flexible detached intellectual analysis can be enlisted to defuse the crazy and evil emotions which grip the humans.—Sorry for any offense to Orthodox or even Catholic friends, but practices of monasticism and asceticism [done by the way centuries before advent of Jesus by Hindus and Buddhists without any appreciable real benefits] will not suffice and will not work against something which operates on the level of snarling beast, snarling demon.

    But today as always before, hidden evil leaders like to play on emotions and oppose the intellectual energies.

    By the way, Stalin I contend won the war by default, because Hitler was even more ferocious and was governed by insane racism [just because Western European whites only within last few centuries mastered
    the advanced mathematical language which gave them the means to design and build the best machines].

    When word got back to the Soviet Union that all Soviet soldiers who surrendered ended up quickly starved to death — some 3 or more million of them, in German captivity, most people in the Soviet Union realized that they were facing wholesale extermination, then dug their heels in and really fought back and fought hard and won. Some local nationalists, looks like, believed that they could get the Germans to arm them and then eventually they would kick the Germans out, but that may have been a naiive belief, who knows.—All events everywhere were geared to simply produce the maximum amount of rage energies and fear energies, as the end in itself.

    Good to know that today's Russians are far more intelligent and reasonable.—Too bad they still want to idolize the likes of Stalin, megalomaniac who killed off anyone who might possibly rival him in prestige, abilities and take power away from him, and also the ancient Ivan the Terrible, leader of devil-worshiping Oprichchina cult who also chased away or killed anyone who had significant abilities and might take power away from him—and also put an end to the whole Rurik dynasty by murdering his only viable son, and the Time of Troubles followed soon after in the whole chaos.—Stalin was "lucky" that he faced a kind of "crazy-demon" enemy whose end was simply to generate the maximum amount of rage and fear energies, and who did not follow intelligent strategic approaches.—If Alexander the Great followed Hitler-style policies toward the Persians [as Aristotle reportedly advised him to do] to be sure the people of the Persian empire would have risen with great energy and kicked him and his army all the way back to Macedon and even beyond.

    Anonymous 10 Dec 2018 | 1:27 am

    In reply to gunther.


    The 'Totenkopf' was the badge of several units of the German Armies.

    "Brunswick Ducal Corps (German: Herzoglich Braunschweigisches Korps), commonly known as the Black Brunswickers in English and the Schwarze Schar (Black Troop, Black Horde, or Black Host) or Schwarze Legion (Black Legion) in German… Most units of the corps wore black uniforms, leading to the "black" nicknames of the unit, though some light units (such as sharpshooters and uhlans) wore green uniforms. The Brunswickers wore silvered skull badges on their hats. Their title originated from Duke Frederick William, who claimed the Duchy of Brunswick-Lüneburg, which the French had abolished in order to incorporate its lands into the French satellite Kingdom of Westphalia. The Black Brunswickers earned themselves a fearsome reputation over the following decade…"

    "One regiment [of the Prussian Cavalry] stood out above the others. It dressed in black and took as its badge a skull. The regiment became known as the Death's Head Hussars ("Totenkopf-Husaren") and struck fear into the enemy for many years. It was the 1st Life Hussar Regiment (1. Leib-Husaren-Regiment)…

    "The skull continued to be used by the Prussian and Brunswick armed forces until 1918, and some of the stormtroopers that led the last German offensives on the Western Front in 1918 used skull badges.[5] Luftstreitkräfte fighter pilots Georg von Hantelmann and Kurt Adolf Monnington are just two of a number of Central Powers military pilots who used the Totenkopf as their personal aircraft insignia.
    The Totenkopf was used in Germany throughout the inter-war period, most prominently by the Freikorps. In 1933, it was in use by the regimental staff and the 1st, 5th, and 11th squadrons of the Reichswehr's 5th Cavalry Regiment as a continuation of a tradition from the Kaiserreich".

    Obviously the black uniform and the skull badge of the SS were inspired by the Schwarze Legion. Pure Second Reich tradition.

    @Thule society

    One of the founders of the Thule society, Rudolf von Sebottendorf (aka Adam Alfred Rudolf Glauer) boasted it had paved the way for the Führer: "Thulers were the ones to whom Hitler first came, and Thulers were the first to unite themselves with Hitler." This claim was not favourably received by the Nazi authorities: after 1933, esoteric organisations were suppressed (including völkisch occultists), many closed down by anti-Masonic legislation in 1935. Sebottendorff's book was prohibited and he himself was arrested and imprisoned for a short period in 1934, afterwards departing into exile in Turkey (Sebottendorf was a German spy in Turkey during WW1 and there he converted to Islam, while maintaining a close contact with Jewish Kabbalistic and Rosicrucian Freemasons in Thessaloniki).
    Hitler had no contacts with it and it results from 'Mein Kampf' that he kept all those 'esoteric' Lodges in utter contempt (extended to the "persons that they rant about ancient Teutonic heroes of the dim and distant ages, stone axes, battle spears and shields, whereas in reality they themselves are the woefullest poltroons imaginable…[the] people who brandish Teutonic tin swords that have been fashioned carefully according to ancient models and wear padded bear-skins, with the horns of oxen mounted over their bearded faces").
    It is doubtful that he was more than a nominal Catholic (he was Austrian, one should not forget).


    I was referring to the fact that Suvorov's 'well' documented analysis is not so 'well' documented, so it is pointless to recommend him to disclaim contrary arguments.

    Full Spectrum Domino 9 Dec 2018 | 8:47 pm

    Excellent and comprehensive summing up by the Saker. How poignant the Stolypin quote, given all that would transpire in the wake of his assassination:

    "Give Russia 20 years of peace, internal and external, and you will not recognize today's Russia."

    The world is aching to be unrecognizable to itself a generation from now. But there are forces who won't let it. We're being inexorably dragged into the mire once again with WW3 looming on the horizon.

    Our collective capacity for proper functioning is impaired by generations of cascading cultural trauma. Cultural anthropologists tell us it takes three generations for a culture to fully digest the angst and emerge cathartically out the other side. A respite would be nice. Alas the end of the world might have to happen first.

    Steve Naidamast 9 Dec 2018 | 7:30 pm

    In reply to gunther.

    Thank you for your suggestions, Gunter…

    I would like to add the original versions of "Mein Kamp" and "Hitler's Second Book" to my expanding library at some point. I believe The Barnes Review sells these original versions.

    I am aware of the Skull & CrossBones for the Waffen SS. However, I believe this symbol, though a bit odd to me, was the result of the fact that the SS began as much as a military order as it was a fighting unit. However, why such a symbol is beyond me. However, from a cursory search on the subject, I found that the Waffen-SS' use of this symbol was a result of a long history of its use within the German military forces. See the link… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totenkopf

    B.F. 9 Dec 2018 | 7:09 pm

    In reply to Anonymous.

    Yes, the Russians did join the war against Japan in 1945, honoring their pledge to do so three months after the end of hostilities with Germany. What you forgot to mention is the number of prisoners the Russians took in Manchuria, some 700.000 Japanse troops, who were hoping to invade Siberia, but never did. What if those troops were used againt the US in the Pacific ? For example, the US was seriously contemplating withdrawing their forces from Okinawa in 1945, due to stiff Japanese resistance. They only won because the Japanese withdrew one of their divisions for the defence of Japan.

    Erelis 9 Dec 2018 | 4:39 pm

    Great analysis and insights. I was taken by "… they (Russians) perfectly understand that the kind of war the Empire is waging against Russia right now has its roots in the outcome of WWII." Pundits in the West refer to a new Cold War which is in many ways a continuation of the previous one. No, the current conflict is not a continuation of the old Cold War, but a continuation of World War II. The Cold War was an ideological struggle. World War II was a ethnic, civilizational, and racial war against the Slavic East. Wandering through the tents of the so-called Resistance, the anti-Russian narratives have nothing to do with idealogy, but are aimed at the country, religion, the people, and the culture. Russiagate is not amendable to reason and logic as it is not based in reason and logic.

    Great take down of all the reasons the West thinks the Russia/Putin is intent on invasion. There is another one which I can't seem to properly categorize. It is somewhat religious in nature. And that is that Putin is evil. He is pure malice. Putin is like the Satan of Western Christianity. It is one thing to be a jerk, but Putin has been elevated beyond just being a mean guy. I was watching Aaron Matte interview Luke Harding about his book. Aaron kept pushing him for evidence for Harding's charges, and Harding basically answered he knew these things were true because Putin is evil. He did not use the word evil, but it was implicit in his answer. Harding if I remember hung up at that point.

    gunther 9 Dec 2018 | 4:25 pm

    In reply to Steve Naidamast.

    Hello Steve,
    the German people were Lutheran and Catholic.
    Hitler is a different story, look at the symbols of his private army, the SS (Schutzstaffel) The distorted skull is not of christian origin to put it mildly.
    For the spiritual side look for "Thule Gesellschaft" in german.
    Concerning "Mein Kampf" There may be a difference in the early versions and later ones starting with the fith print. I have not read either version but there is a video interview of guy called Wilhelm Landig (in german) on youtube who was close enough to hitler to know about this stuff.
    The newer versions of "Mein Kampf" have been changed to please someone who financed the Nazi party according to his statement.

    Steve Naidamast 9 Dec 2018 | 3:22 pm

    In reply to Anonymous.

    I would suggest that you review the military analysis by Suvorov on the matter. His analysis has been corroborated by other military historians (ie: Eric Margolis).

    Also, "Mein Kampf" was written, I believe in 1923, when Germany had been traumatized by Bolshevik insurrections. Hitler saw the Bolsheviks as "godless", while despite propaganda to the contrary, both he and the German people were devout Catholics and Lutherans…

    Anonius 9 Dec 2018 | 1:18 pm

    In reply to Jen.

    Jen, Thanks for this eye opening comment (I also read the article you pointed to). Somehow I never read about this conflict before.

    Anonymous 9 Dec 2018 | 7:57 am

    this comment is off topic for this thread… no responses will be allowed

    > So this begs an obvious question: since we now know that there was nothing under the collapsing section and since we also know that there was a steel frame building there seconds before the collapse – what happened in between those two events?

    That's misleading. We know that WTC7 was built spanning 2 buildings of different heights, with a road in between. The video of the collapse was probably shot at TV speeds – 25 frames per second, so the "free fall" timing is only going to be in 1/25 second chunks. Is that accurate enough to say conclusively "the WTC7 building fell at a free-fall speed for 2,25 seconds." ?

    Steve Naidamast 9 Dec 2018 | 5:04 am

    In reply to pogohere.

    The idea that the Germans wanted to dominate Europe and was a war aim of WWI has been thoroughly debunked. This concept was promoted by the historians Albertini and Fischer in the 1920s. Recent historians who have written on the subject such as Meyer have completely refuted this idea.

    As to WWII, primary source documentation has shown no such inclination regarding Third Reich plans to dominate Europe or the even more ridiculous claim, the world. See Hoggan's, "The Forced War".

    If one were to simply analyze Germany's military forces prior to WWII, it would be found that such expansionist plans could never have been supported. A case in point… The lack of a strategic bomber…

    Anonymous 9 Dec 2018 | 4:47 am

    In reply to Steve Naidamast.

    The intention of 'Russia' (not the Soviet Union!) to attack Europe is not 'well' documented, but a speculation in the same vein as the present day denunciations of 'Russia's aggression', 'threat', 'pretensions', you name it.
    Instead, Hitler intention to dismantle Russia as a state is and was repeatedly stated in 'Mein Kampf'* and various pronouncements at Party rallies'**.

    "…we, National Socialists, must stick firmly to the aim that we have set for our foreign policy; namely, that the German people must be assured the territorial area which is necessary for it to exist on this earth… And only for such action as is undertaken
    to secure those ends can it be lawful in the eyes of God and our German posterity to
    allow the blood of our people to be shed once again… The territory on which one day our German peasants will be able to bring forth and nourish their sturdy sons will justify the blood of the sons of the peasants that has to be shed to-day. And the statesmen who will have decreed this sacrifice may be persecuted by their contemporaries, but posterity will absolve them from all guilt for having demanded this offering from their people…
    Here I must protest as sharply as possible against those nationalist scribes who pretend
    that such territorial extension would be a "violation of the sacred rights of man" and
    accordingly pour out their literary effusions against it….
    State frontiers are established by human beings and may be changed by human beings.
    The fact that a nation has acquired an enormous territorial area is no reason why it should hold that territory perpetually. At most, the possession of such territory is a proof of the strength of the conqueror and the weakness of those who submit to him. And in this strength alone lives the right of possession. If the German people are imprisoned within an impossible territorial area and for that reason are face to face with a miserable future, this is not by the command of Destiny, and the refusal to accept such a situation is by no means a violation of Destiny's laws. For just as no Higher Power has promised more territory to other nations than to the German, so it cannot be blamed for an unjust distribution of the soil. The soil on which we now live was not a gift bestowed by Heaven on our forefathers. But they had to conquer it by risking their lives. So also in the future our people will not obtain territory, and therewith the means of existence, as a favour from any other people, but will have to win it by the power of a triumphant sword…
    The right to territory may become a duty when a great nation seems destined to go
    under unless its territory be extended. And that is particularly true when the nation in question is not some little group of negro people but the Germanic mother of all the
    life which has given cultural shape to the modern world. Germany will either become a World Power or will not continue to exist at all. But in order to become a World Power it needs that territorial magnitude which gives it the necessary importance to-day and assures the existence of its citizens…
    Therefore we National Socialists have purposely drawn a line through the line of
    conduct followed by pre-War Germany in foreign policy. We put an end to the
    perpetual Germanic march towards the South and West of Europe and turn our eyes
    towards the lands of the East. We finally put a stop to the colonial and trade policy of
    pre-War times and pass over to the territorial policy of the future.
    But when we speak of new territory in Europe to-day we must principally think of
    Russia and the border States subject to her. Destiny itself seems to wish to point out the way for us here. In delivering Russia over to Bolshevism, Fate robbed the Russian people of that intellectual class which had once created the Russian State and were the guarantee of its existence. For the Russian State was not organized by the constructive political talent of the Slav element in Russia, but was much more a marvellous exemplification of the capacity for State-building possessed by the Germanic element in a race of inferior worth. Thus were many powerful Empires created all over the earth. More often than once inferior races with Germanic organizers and rulers as their leaders became formidable States and continued to exist as long as the racial nucleus remained which had originally created each respective State. For centuries Russia owed the source of its livelihood as a State to the Germanic nucleus of its governing class. But this nucleus is now almost wholly broken up and abolished. The Jew has taken its place. Just as it is impossible for the Russian to shake off the Jewish yoke by exerting his own powers, so, too, it is impossible for the Jew to keep this formidable State in existence for any long period of time. He himself is by no means an organizing element, but rather a ferment of
    decomposition. This colossal Empire in the East is ripe for dissolution. And the end of
    the Jewish domination in Russia will also be the end of Russia as a State. We are chosen
    by Destiny to be the witnesses of a catastrophe which will afford the strongest
    confirmation of the nationalist theory of race.
    But it is our task, and it is the mission of the National Socialist Movement, to develop in
    our people that political mentality which will enable them to realize that the aim which
    they must set to themselves for the fulfilment of their future must not be some wildly
    enthusiastic adventure in the footsteps of Alexander the Great but industrious labour
    with the German plough, for which the German sword will provide the soil…
    Not only among the members of the German-National Party but also in purely nationalist circles violent opposition is raised against this Eastern policy…
    And in connection with that opposition, as in all such cases, the authority of great names is appealed to. The spirit of Bismarck is evoked in defence of a policy which is as stupid as it is impossible, and is in the highest degree detrimental to the interests of the German people. They say that Bismarck laid great importance on the value of good relations with Russia…But then, honourable sirs, permit me to remind you that the Russia of to-day is no longer the Russia of that time. Bismarck never laid down a policy which would be permanently binding under all circumstances and should be adhered to on principle. He was too much the master of the moment to burdenhimself with that kind of obligation.
    Therefore, the question ought not to be what Bismarck then did, but rather what he
    would do to-day. And that question is very easy to answer. His political sagacity would
    never allow him to ally himself with a State that is doomed to disappear."

    ** "If the Urals with their incalculable wealth of raw materials, the rich forests of Siberia and the unending cornfields of the Ukraine lay within Germany, under National Socialist leadership the country would swim in plenty. We would produce, and every single German would have enough to live on" (Nurnberg Parteifest of 1936).

    Verstehen Sie?

    Anonymous 9 Dec 2018 | 4:30 am

    No, Russia won't invade the Baltics or Ukraine.

    But America will invade the world–and indeed it already has to a significant degree. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, the Balkans, as well as the ever expanding American Empire and its military outposts in over 100 nations around the planet….

    Yet, the vaunted American free press and supposed "alternative" media don't want to address this Gorilla-in-the-Living-Room issue to the maximum degree that it deserves.

    The essential truth to remember about the United Snakes of America is this: the Americans always psychologically project their own crimes onto other nations.

    Whatever the hell the Americans are accusing their geopolitical opponents of, this is what America itself is guilty of to the Nth degree.

    If you keep this rule of thumb in mind, you can gain critical insights into what the self-proclaimed "Land of the Free" is actually doing around the world.

    America's oh-so-precious values are actually Orwellian values–an upside down world where the American Victimizer tries to masquerade as the morally righteous Victim.

    America is able to get away with its aggressive behavior, its predatory war, its sundry crimes against humanity because it is the master of deception and deceit.

    The United States of America is not just a land of lies. America IS a lie.

    pogohere 9 Dec 2018 | 12:21 am

    In reply to Steve Naidamast.

    Re: "Unlike Napoleon, who did want to unite all of Europe under one government, there is no evidence that Adolph Hitler was interested in such an endeavor."

    See: "The new Germany and the old Nazis Hardcover" – 1961
    by Tete Harens Tetens

    "The Third Way: The Nazi International, European Union, and Corporate Fascism" – August 15, 2015
    by Joseph P. Farrell

    from a review:

    The political and economic plans of the Germans, starting back in the 2nd Reich of Kaiser Wilhelm II, are traced through the world wars and into today's world picture. The people involved in the financial and political machinations of the German desire for dominance are discussed and mapped out in sufficient detail to get a much clearer picture of what was (and is) going on in the world.

    Find out about the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) and its Nazi roots. Discover how banking and cartel formation has been used to extend political power and undermine democracy around the world. Discover how many prominent American business and political figures were ardent Nazi supporters, and how they have pushed the U.S. further and further into Nazi behavior and goals. There is even some discussion of the infiltrated Communists fighting infiltrated Nazis in U.S. politics in the 50s and 60s. (I now have a whole new understanding of the McCarthy era.)

    There is also a great deal of information on how the European Union has been a German goal (with Germany at the lead, of course) since the 1800s, and was seen as a core Nazi survival strategy in the last days before Germany (NOT the Nazi Party itself) surrendered.

    And, perhaps most frighteningly, read how CERN and the LHC may very well be a continuation of the Nazi Bell black project, and be about far more than just a few sub atomic particles. The information about the finances and "sovereign" nature of CERN alone is worth the read.

    As always, Farrell is adamant in citing valid documentation as opposed to using un-named "whistleblowers" as is done by so many authors (and agents provocateur) polluting the alternative research community. His research is always accurate, well cited, and documented. His reasoning is always sharp, intelligent, and carefully drawn out.

    Miguel (Michael) Hughes 8 Dec 2018 | 11:30 pm

    In reply to Anonymous.

    Yup whites or westerners have never done violence sexual or otherwise, never invaded countries, never imposed their will or immigrated without the natives consent in other continents. O and lets not forget that most serial killers especially in North america are overwhelmingly white. Yup white people are poor eternal victims, saints, martyrs and angels, according to the pathetic belief of al-rightist like you anonymous, al-right are the pathetic and wussy versions of neo-nazis.

    one minion 8 Dec 2018 | 9:22 pm

    In reply to Ingrian.

    Yes, I found it fascinating too, with a lot of nuance that I, a non-historian, was not aware of. Thanks, Ingrain.

    Steve Naidamast 8 Dec 2018 | 8:51 pm

    The Saker wrote a very interesting article regarding the myths of current Russian expansionist trends.

    Given that both the Ukrainian Donbas and Crimea are actually moot points in such a discussion one has to ask… If Russia is so intent on fulfilling some imperialistic agenda why haven't they already? They certainly have the military forces now to do so.

    What is so odd about the western propaganda as it relates to this claim is that there is absolutely no concrete evidence for any level of Russian movement in such an imperialistic manner but the propagandsists keep stating that Russia is actually doing this with only The Crimea (which has always been historically Russian) and the Donbas to show for it, which again, is primarily inhabited by ethnic Russians. In Syria, Russia has sent only the actually needed to forces to assist with Syrian Army and Air Force operations. That is it.

    Though The Saker outlines the distorted reasoning as to why the West views Russia in such an imperialistic way, there is still no evidence that such ideas have ever crossed the minds of the Russian leadership making such claims nothing more than a lot of noise.

    The only point I would like to make about The Saker's piece is his references to Adolph Hitler. First, the German attack on Russia had nothing to do with taking over the Russian landmass as again western propagandists like to claim. Hitler wanted to instead wipe out the Bolshiviks who caused Germany terrible trauma after WWI as well as the entirety of Russia after 1917. His only land interest was in the acquisition of parts of the Ukraine to push all the Jews into that region.

    Nonetheless, the German attack on Russia in 1941 was prompted by Stalin's preparations to attack Germany slightly later than the date of the German attack. As a result, the German strike was a pre-emptive strike against offensive formations sitting on the borders of Germany. This has been well documented by quite a few military historians and analysts.

    Had germany not attacked Russia when she did, all of Europe would have come under the aegis of Bolshevism; again all well documented.

    Unlike Napoleon, who did want to unite all of Europe under one government, there is no evidence that Adolph Hitler was interested in such an endeavor. He and Germany simply wanted to be left alone to pursue their own national interests and had no real interest in conquering any European country. The only exception to this was the The Czech Republic as he brought it with the German Reich's authority as a protectorate; this the result of internal dysfunction and the threat of Russian invasion…

    B.F. 8 Dec 2018 | 5:53 pm

    In reply to vk.

    Yes, the West backed the "Whites" out of political and historical reasons, to conceal the fact that they financed Lenin and Trotsky. It was also in the interest of the West that a civil war be provoked in Russia, the intent being to weaken the country even more. What Russia survived in the 20th century was incredible. Even so, it survived.

    Bacchante 8 Dec 2018 | 5:42 pm

    Russians before 1917 were as good expansionist as any empire gets at those times. What they lacked in development, they made it in their immense manpower and natural resources. I believe that genuinely changed after 1917 due to socialist doctrine, where they needed to invade Iran and Finland to win a very difficult war against Germany. But before that, they fought in more than 10 different wars with the Ottomans, winning most of them, and in one, on their way to capturing the Ottoman capital if it were not for the British. Romania and Bulgaria gained their independence from the Ottomans due to these wars. Crimea was always a hot topic. The Russians also waged several wars against the Persians, merely not annexing them out of inconvenience due to facing British interests in India.

    But the times have changed. Russians are on the defense for more than a century, and at the moment they are almost entirely contained by the Empire and its proxies, however possible that one might think. I do not think the Russians are the aggressors in Ukraine or Georgia, it is pure incompetence of the Empire to think the bear will not defend itself when you poke it at her very own home. What US or UK is doing now is equivalent to Russia staging a coup in Canada or Scotland, supplying weapons for them, performing drills at the borders of US or UK with these countries. Think how these countries would respond (i.e., Cuban missile crisis). I could even argue Russia responded with less than what is appropriate in those occasions on its borders.

    Anonius 8 Dec 2018 | 3:06 pm

    In reply to Anonius.

    If I may I would like to present some interesting videos (Persian wars and Napoleon in Russia), which show that stats mean nothing.
    History in pictures Persian War and Salamina:

    This video at 3:01 shows Persian armor, at 4:15 Greek armor:

    Marathon (panic, soldier's worst enemy), English video, at 35:15 Greek commentator talks about death trap
    35:25 English commentator talks about fog of war and panic:

    Field Marshal Kutuzov, used the same method as Athenians, he evacuated Moscow
    in order to starve Napoleon's army.
    French invasion of Russia:
    If you look at the stats on this page you will see immense losses on both sides, because in those days they faced each other and kept shooting at close range until the proverbial "last man was left standing". This was a daft way to conduct war but this is not how people fight today. Today we lob missiles from afar, where opponents do not see each other.
    Russian movie with English subtitles 4 parts (Part 4 shows Napoleon in Moscow):

    This is an example of Russian war philosophy, Russian twin wing plane nicknamed kukuruznik, it got it's name because it could land and take off corn fields (airports are hard to come buy in a war).

    bernie 8 Dec 2018 | 7:58 am

    to moderator,
    i put a comment here yesterday but it has not appeared may I know the reason way ?
    It has happened a few times before already

    Anonthistime 8 Dec 2018 | 7:26 am

    In reply to Babuška.

    I especially see ongoing trauma in my wife's family, some from WW2, but mostly from the Vietnam war and also the later middle east wars. Suicide, murder, "sinful lesbianism", etc. all ongoing effects of these wars. Much, if not most, of the ongoing cultural sickness and decay of the USA and the west is from largely unacknowledged trauma caused by the wars of the USA (or at least it's MIC).

    Eddie Andersson 8 Dec 2018 | 5:15 am

    awesome article, as always. well wrìtten and researched with a uñique understanding of the çurrent geopolitical situatìon.

    Jacques Cuse 8 Dec 2018 | 2:47 am

    In reply to Flopot.

    "To hammer home the point, the AZE includes many nuclear nations, not just Israel — yet not one nuclear false flag."

    Next time better do some more homework. 2 nuclear weapons have been used by Israel in the 2 exploded reactors (of which one was under service, no fission material in the reactor) of the Dai-ichi nuclear plant.

    Those huge explosions were many times more powerful than possible for a hydrogen/oxygen mix explosion. They ripped the massive steel reactor cores out of their foundations and high into the sky.

    Look up the work of Jim Stone and others (Did the Dimona Dozen murder the Fukushima 50?). The ultra high resolution pics available on the internet show you the incredible damage done to the plant. No tsunami damage there…

    Anonymous 8 Dec 2018 | 2:39 am

    In reply to CriticalUser.

    For once Solzhenitsyn was wrong. Although you can't dismiss the fact that the Okhrana was infiltrated by revolutionaries. Bogrov himself was a 'sotrudnik' (secret collaborator – 'agent Alenski'), like many others. But ultimately their real allegiance was to the SR hard core terrorists (mostly Jews).

    Sturm 8 Dec 2018 | 2:36 am

    Excellent writing as usual. I enjoyed reading the article.

    That bit on Petr Arkadievich Stolypin is intriguing for an outsider. Was he erased or buried in history? That quote is very powerful because it tells of a man who truly understands the meaning of a nation and the pillars that support it. In ancient days, if he was born earlier, it is a mark of a wise king.

    Thus it was not surprising he was ended quickly, no less by powers in the shadow.

    Babuška 8 Dec 2018 | 1:06 am

    In reply to anon.

    Yours is a brave and true comment anon, with which I and my life story completely resonate, being born of parents who survived The Great Depression and World War 11 Netherlands. Their traumas were perpetually projected onto me and my sister, who in turn projected our traumas onto our children.
    I 'woke up' having first run away, while my sister died from cancer, too afraid to run away; the Family terrorised her with the taunts that she might end up like her sister.

    "Suffer the little children…"
    From the moment I first heard those words, I clung to them with dear life

    Peace to You

    Anonius 8 Dec 2018 | 12:55 am

    In reply to MarkU.

    MarkU, sorry bud, just trying to open your eyes. Just pray that we do not find out "which side is better".
    If you had studies world's history you would find the the opposite to what you are saying is true.
    Alexander the Great conquered all of Asia (the one that mattered to him, which did not include far east)
    with 25,000 hoplites and perhaps 10,000 horsemen (these numbers do not include the auxiliary people like archers, etc).
    In every battle he was facing no less than 150,000 well armed Persian armies, which included Greek mercenaries (hoplites).
    When Leonidas faced Persian army, which by old records was as high as 1-5 million (of all people including all the sailors and marines on 1200 ships), he had about 20,000 hoplites (from Thessaly, Theva and Beotia and his 300 volunteer Spartans). He knew that he and his men were going to certain death, but when asked he said he was doing this for all his Greek brothers to give them time to organize their defenses. The battle lasted ~1 week, but it psychologically damaged Persian morale. Themistocles not much later sunk Persian fleet little in Salamina. This was not the end though. Year later, Persian army was totally destroyed and this was the end of this adventure, but 20 years later Alexander went to Asia Minor to seek revenge.

    You see my boy, you "needs" to reed some before reciting some propagandistic stats and accusing me of siding with Russians, who do not need my voice anyway.

    Zeljko 7 Dec 2018 | 11:05 pm

    In reply to Arthur G Brina.

    If the USA elite (together with it's vassals and apologists) is hoping that the total war in Ukraine would be limited to Ukraine they bettter check their "marbles" while it is not too late.

    Zeljko 7 Dec 2018 | 10:56 pm

    In reply to Ingrian.

    Great contribution Ingrain.

    Ralph 7 Dec 2018 | 10:35 pm

    Saker, do you know about this?:
    'We must turn Russia into a desert populated by white Negroes upon whom we shall impose a tyranny such as the most terrible Eastern despots never dreamt of. The only difference is that this will be a left-wing tyranny, not a right-wing tyranny. It will be a red tyranny and not a white one. We mean the word 'red' literally, because we shall shed such floods of blood as will make all the human losses suffered in the capitalist wars pale by comparison.' trotsky, aka lev davidovich bronstein – ukrainian-jewish.
    So, the USG has unleashed & aided the bat-shit crazy ukronazis loose to cause problems again for Russia, and the Russian speaking people of the Donbass.

    Ralph 7 Dec 2018 | 5:46 pm

    The american PNAC is still in play, 20 years on, but it has more than met its match in Russia/Putin, that is why so much hatred and lies have been directed at him. Worse, it has shown up america not to be the sole superpower it claims to be, as its power diminishes faster than it would have done without the implementation of PNAC.
    And the yanks know – and fear – Eurasia, which has a population of 5:1 v the Americas combined, with a much greater land mass (& africa attached to it and closer) and with the GDP to exceed it too.
    So if the USA can't stop it, it will try and slow it down. See also the original wolfowitz doctrine for background info.

    Outlaw Historian 7 Dec 2018 | 5:35 pm

    In reply to gunther.

    What Fischer found as proof for the Kaiser's animus was annotated notes in his hand to secret government documents in the several years prior to 1914. Fischer didn't further make the case for WW1 being a Race War; rather, he let the Kaiser speak for himself, although Fischer alludes to other high officials sharing the Kaiser's view. Nowhere is the Kaiser's mother mentioned. Proving your assertion would take lots of digging into the private papers of those concerned, which might well become a wild goose chase after something of little historical value as it wouldn't explain why such animus was shared. Furthermore, very few people are informed of the facts of the Kaiser's views as far too few have read Fischer's work despite it being translated into English from German. Most major works about Hitler's rise to power were written prior to Fischer's publication and thus no connection between the Kaiser's and Hitler's feelings towards Slavs is made, which is an historical error, IMO.
    [Please take any further discussion on this subject to the MFC. Thanx. The Mod.]

    Wind of Siberia 7 Dec 2018 | 5:31 pm

    In reply to Arthur G Brina.

    More than 85% of humanity lives in a circle encompassing India, China, and Asia. Russia remains on good terms with most of them. It's the West that is being ostracized. People are moving away from the US as fast as they can. That's why they are getting desperate – they know they are losing.

    Ralph 7 Dec 2018 | 4:56 pm

    In reply to Tom Welsh.

    There is something much worse than the radioactivity unleashed by nuclear weapons: the meltdown of the nuclear reactors in the Northern Hemisphere. There are over 400 of them, and they will be giving out radiation for at least tens of thousands of years. Even if humans survive, you can imagine the mutations that will happen to animals and plants, and that is, of course, not including for instance, a 50 megaton detonation – or more – at Yellowstone Park…

    Arthur G Brina 7 Dec 2018 | 3:23 pm

    In reply to Wind of Siberia.

    The American Ziocons intend to cripple Russia; but they do not believe that they need to do this by military means directly. They are, however, preparing for the eventuality that Russia will reach a point where it must either succumb to the cumulative disintegrating effect of sanctions, isolation, internal dissent, and hedonism, or retaliate with the only strength that it can maintain: its military.

    Crazy as it may seem, these Ziocons believe that the most important elements of western civilization can survive a "limited" nuclear war. They believe that they can -at some point in the not too distant future- nullify the bulk of Russia's nuclear stockpile. They are working toward that end.

    As they approach the point at which this capability is realized, Russia will either have to strike first or concede. Of course Russia is trying to advance its own technical capabilities in order to put off the point when this nuclear advantage is realized; but the resources that it is able to deploy toward this effort is much less than what the West has at its disposal. Of course Russia is using diplomacy and economics to entice other countries to put off joining the American Ziocons; but most of these countries are also anxious to maintain good relations with America nonetheless.

    The 2020's will be a precarious time, by the end of which either Europe has rejected globalism and and gained true independence from America, or it will have joined America in its BDS campaign against Russia. True independence is impossible as long as the Americans maintain a military presence in Europe. The Americans won't leave voluntarily, no matter how unpopular NATO may become among the general population. When it comes down to an ultimatum from America, it looks like Europe will choose to join the BDS movement against Russia rather than fight for its independence.

    And that will leave Russia ostracized and a nation in exile. The Russian people won't accept that. Either the nationalists and communists will take aggressive counteraction before it comes to that; or the Atlanticists and the hedonists will settle for whatever will keep their little lives devoted to the pursuit of happiness.

    MarkU 7 Dec 2018 | 3:00 pm

    In reply to Anonius.

    Just what is your agenda here? Are you seriously trying to talk up the Russian "threat". I think the numbers speak for themselves, one would have to assume a completely improbable degree of superiority in both training and equipment for the Russians to be a credible threat to Europe, or even to be able to defend themselves without resorting to nuclear weapons.

    Before anyone else wades in with comments on this subject, perhaps they might like to decide whose side they are on. Do you really want to promote the idea that the Russians are well-nigh invincible supermen with vastly superior technology poised to attack at any moment? seriously?

    It seems obvious to me which side is doing all the sabre rattling, the demonisation, the lying and the military buildups and which side is the real threat to peace.

    gunther 7 Dec 2018 | 2:49 pm

    In reply to Outlaw Historian.

    Your point may well be true, but then the blame goes to the Kaiser's mom who was british.

    anon 7 Dec 2018 | 2:13 pm

    There may be another reason why the Russiand do not want war.
    War trauma.
    This seems to be almost a taboo topic in the western discussion but it affects a lot of the survivors of war be they military or civilian.
    If the russian leadership is halfway aware of this topic they will try to avoid war just for that reason.
    I am German, my one granddad got wounded in WW1 in Verdun, the other sank three times with a ship in the baltic sea, my dad was soldier in WW2 and my mom was eleven when the russians conquered Danzig.
    When I watched a discussion called "grandkids of war" (Kriegsenkel) I started to understand myself a lot better; trauma gets handed down to kids and grandkids. Russian stories are in all likelihood similar, there is a lot of trauma to be dealt with.

    In more recent wars the trauma seems to affect soldiers more: I once talked to a peacekeeper who was in the former yugoslavia and he said that after the war a lot of his comrades "ate a bullet."

    A lot of people must have similar stories but are not aware of the trauma.

    This contains quite a bit of personal experience, thus I want to keep this post anonymous.

    Ilja 7 Dec 2018 | 2:00 pm

    In reply to _smr.

    Well I thought they don't need any foreign population.
    About populating eastern areas I do not have enough information to make any conclusions, but my unsupported estimation would be that things are fine as they are. Any area capable of feeding more people on the Earth is already populated. To populate Siberia would lead to massive deforestation (already a problem due to Chinese activities there) and thus to rapid decline of precipitations which are low even now due to enormous landmass in every direction. these wouldn't be very favorable living conditions, by my opinion such move would lead to global ecologic consequences of unthinkable scale. So I think there no possibility to populate Siberia up to some EU density, but surely there is still a space for more people. How many 20 or 500 millions I would not argue.

    CriticalUser 7 Dec 2018 | 1:32 pm

    There is a theory that the killing of prime-minister Stolypin was a false-flag by the Tsarist secret police (tsarist Deep State), who hated him.
    Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn extensively investigated and gives full credit to this conjecture in his book August 1914.

    Yet i must warn that I don't know enough about it to say say that the theory is true, i haven't read the book and didn't research the matter, by looking up what different scholars have to say about it!

    _smr 7 Dec 2018 | 1:00 pm

    In reply to Ilja.

    "Russians do not need any more population"

    A slight growth in population – say up to 300 million, 500 million – might actually be desirable, specially in the Eastern regions bordering China and Japan.

    Anonymous 7 Dec 2018 | 12:49 pm

    In reply to Anonymous.

    Actually, the total number of American dead was 405,399 and 670,846 wounded. A comparison with Soviet and Chinese (and German and Japanese) loses is almost obscene.

    Tom Welsh 7 Dec 2018 | 12:06 pm

    In reply to Harry_Red.

    I think it's the other way round, Harry_Red. A thermonuclear exchange between the USA and Russia alone (without allowing for the likelihood of thermonuclear launches by other nations such as the UK, France and China, or the possibility of chemical and/or biological warfare) would obviously cause immense damage to the infrastructure of our civilization. All cities and large towns would be utterly destroyed; transport would cease to function; trade would stop; hundreds of millions or billions would starve within a year.

    Then the real problems would start. Nuclear winter, long-term radiation caused by fallout, disease, starvation – and the survivors (if any) would have to face all that without any of the social and industrial support we are used to.

    I suppose a few handfuls of survivalists might remain – but for how long?

    In any case, I think it is up to those who think a thermonuclear war would be survivable to prove their case.

    Flopot 7 Dec 2018 | 12:04 pm

    In reply to Sally Snyder.

    No-one will ever start a nuclear war. The maniacal, crazy, supremacist Zionists have had 'em for 2 generations and no nukes have been fired in anger, hubris or conspiracy (think false flags). "Nuke fear porn" as it is called, is a key weapon of the AZE. Don't fall for it.

    To hammer home the point, the AZE includes many nuclear nations, not just Israel — yet not one nuclear false flag. Iran could've been framed years ago; and Russia. There will never be a nuclear war.

    A dirty bomb is a different story: one dressed up as a fake nuclear attack is entirely feasible. Sure Israel is down on record as testing a "dirty bomb" in the Negev. Testing for what, is the question?


    Wind of Siberia 7 Dec 2018 | 11:59 am

    In reply to Arthur G Brina.

    There is no way for the US to 'check mate' Russia. Russia can always guarantee mutually assured destruction. Sure, the US could nuke most of Russia, but in doing so the entire mainland of the United States would be vaporised.

    Provided Russia has the ultimate deterrent, it doesn't matter how many missiles the US puts on the border.

    Nobody will survive in any event.

    Ilja 7 Dec 2018 | 11:57 am

    I agree totally that Russians have no reason to invade any European country. But there are some points which showing signs of manipulation and wishful thinking. First- to call Baltic states "statelets" is a pretty good sign of reason No. 5- megalomania suggesting that "We, Russians are here to declare, who's got the right to call themselves a state." It is true, that some Russians are suffering from that, but it can be hardly a majority. Author is not a part of this majority, obviously.
    Some arguments in reasons number two and three may be truth in general but misguiding in particular cases. Russians do not need any more population, especially the hostile one, what was not stated here is that Russians were since the fall of USSR very keen to protect "non hostile" population abroad i.e. ethnic Russians in post Soviet republics. Often it was protection almost to the point of intervention. It is logic, from Russian point of view even moral, yet it is still worth of mention. In geopolitical sense Russia indeed do not need Baltic ports, having her own, but the notion, that 140 mio. nation has twice as big traffic in their busiest ports than 4 mio state is nothing to be proud of, just logical development after years of urgently needed investments into infrastructure. Baltic republics may not be in the best economic shape, but still the worst of them have GDP to capita significantly higher than Russia.They don't need and definitely don't want Russians to "save them". This doesn't apply to Ukraine of course, it is probably that much bankrupted, as suspected and may be even worse.
    To point no. four it is simple question how could it only happened this completely non expansionist Russia gained biggest territory of all countries in the world? Was it given by good Orthodox God? Or deduskha Moroz? And here, in former Czechoslovakia we don't call something that lasted 20 years an "intervention".
    So thanks for an excellent (as usually) article Saker and again try to reduce mindf*** a little bit and hold on facts.

    Anonymous 7 Dec 2018 | 11:45 am

    In reply to Jen.

    Soviets denounced the neutrality pact with Japan due to expire in April 1946 ahead of time, most likely in order to prevent the American occupation of Manchuria, had the Kwantung Army surrendered to the Americans.

    Anonymous 7 Dec 2018 | 11:27 am

    In reply to Anonymous.

    Americans had 111,606 dead or missing and another 253,142 wounded in the war against Japan.
    Soviet casualties: roughly 14 million dead and missing service personnel.

    Sanjin 7 Dec 2018 | 10:22 am

    In reply to Wallach.

    In the case of a wider war, the Russians will transfer operational and strategic combat activities to any country. it does not depend on Putin good will but about a real military situation. if the world has to continue to function multipolarically in the economic sense, the US military claw on the globe will have to be significantly reduced. all American economic activities around the world are covered by contingents of the American Army. but how much reduced to not trigger small regional wars between small nations? invading some country is sometimes necessary for military action. this is not much about resources, it is much about geography.

    Chris k 7 Dec 2018 | 10:13 am

    Greetings; regarding plutocracy and oligarchy of the West:

    "Western liberal democracies are, in reality, plutocracies which were created by a class of capitalist thugs with the purpose of controlling our entire planet."

    This is not easily disputed; plutocratic prejudice is ingrained, inherent; to think otherwise is unAmerican. Yet, in full reality America has matured beyond the mundanity of temporal wealth and power; grown beyond the simple enslavement principle of the mere flesh and blood; and eclipsed the colonialist and conquistador alike in all comparative development. How so? Because it is fully nihilistic, and good-hating, and destructive of any and all life, even its very own. Could this perceived anti-development be just a logical mutative and cancerous off-shooting, the unnatural, but inevitable heir and scion of plutocracy? Or, maybe, after all, it is just plutocracy true and proper? But of the true Pluto, and the subterranean pull of an underworld god of the nethermost realms.

    Here is an excerpt from the introduction to D. Bacu's, Pitesti:

    "There were books written about Pitesti by people who did not even see the communist prisons and who thought that they were solving a problem which was in fact metaphysical, by using aesthetic criteria or laboratory psychology. The antidote is wrong, the solutions are false, the feelings unjust and the criteria absurd.
    There was something there that is beyond human comprehension because it was a war between two superhuman armies. Seen from outside, there was a space in which the war was won by satan, because psychologists and aestheticians confuse appearances with the reality of the spirit and ignore the fact that this world is an interval given to attain salvation— the only time given for a person to attain salvation."

    I believe that there is a confusion now, and it is further obscured by the smoke of our own complicity; America is the genetically scripted child of the socialist revolution, and become a queen of Pluto.

    Chris k 7 Dec 2018 | 8:40 am

    In reply to nazcalito.

    the "Politics" of the Pacific Theater, were simple: castrate the Japan empire; seize All their hard-stolen spoils; expand America West, with a permanent bridgehead. Okinawa is and was the apex of WWII for America. The Island-hopping jazz and aircraft carrier/hollywoodesque sea battles were the prelude and distractor. As for "science" experiments, the a-bomb was aimed at Stalin's heart. That Hirohito capitulated is merely secondary.

    Chris k 7 Dec 2018 | 8:17 am

    In reply to Larchmonter445.

    Don't forget the great and devastating U-boat! The largest, wartime submarine fleet, in history, some three-hundred boats, was used to totally kneecap Japan — a country 100% dependent on shipping imports for their war-time economy — Japan was more-or-less powerless to stop the American U-boats. Also, Americans, resultingly, killed a fair number of the allied POW's shipped to Japan, as much as half by official records, with their ruthless and unchecked U-boat terror of WWII.

    Arthur G Brina 7 Dec 2018 | 7:14 am

    The United States is waging an asymmetric warfare against the Russian Federation.

    While employing measures to contain and weaken the Russian economy, and to isolate Russia diplomatically from Europe, and to foster dissent and dissatisfaction both within Russia itself and within the former soviet republics, America is working on the development and deployment of weapons systems that could paralyze Russia before it could effectively respond with its own military force.

    This strategy is similar to the one employed by America during the Reagan era. Once the Germans and British voted to allow the Americans to deploy their Pershing missiles on their soil, the pace of the arms race became too much for the Soviets to counter.

    At some point, the Russians will have to face a choice: either to seek terms of "surrender" (like Gorbachev in 1987) or to cripple the American military before it is in a position to checkmate their own military (like the Japanese in 1941). Before the Americans have militarized Ukraine, and before their own version of the Iskander missile is deployed in Europe, Russia will have to attack or to seek terms.

    Therefore it is not illogical for NATO to anticipate a Russian attack sometime in the near future.

    Epithet 7 Dec 2018 | 6:03 am

    In reply to B.F..


    Another well reasoned and thought provoking post. Been missing your commentary. Good to have you back.

    BiloxiMarxKelly 7 Dec 2018 | 5:25 am

    When the Rothschilds decide war there is going to be war. Russia successfully got rid of the blood thirsty Rothschilds. But, the vassal state of Jewish Order of Rothschild is USA and of course, also, the European Union. Jews of the Orient and other countries that are also not fully enlightened cannot stop the "Traders of Flesh" House of Dracula i.e., Rothschilds. Rothschilds control the Middle East. Time is a ticking bomb and the Economist magazine owned by Rothschilds ~ 2019 ~ black.
    Gardening is therapeutic as well as nourishment.

    Anonymous 7 Dec 2018 | 4:11 am

    If Russiawas going to invade someone, the best target would be Mongolia. VAst resources, tiny population, …

    jax 7 Dec 2018 | 3:47 am

    In reply to Anonymous.

    Anon wrote
    "The Pacific war against Japan was fought almost entirely by the British Empire and the Americans."

    What about the Chinese? They fought the Japanese for 8 years. Twice the time the Western allies did, and as I understand it, in 1941-45, the majority of Japanese ground forces were actually tied down in China?

    Anonymous 7 Dec 2018 | 3:23 am

    In reply to vk.

    The 'Whites' were still the allies of the Entante, whereas the 'Reds' became virtual allies of Germany after the Brest-Litovsk Peace.

    Anonius 7 Dec 2018 | 3:16 am

    In reply to MarkU.

    You guys are missing the point. It's not who spends more money or has more soldiers. It's who has more effective weapons, better soldiers and can kill the opposing side faster.

    Zalamander 7 Dec 2018 | 3:09 am

    Saker, I hope you exempt the ICFI of the World Socialist Website.The ICFI are Trotskyites and you may disagree with their philosophy, but they are not crazy neoconservatives. While I personally don't consider myself a Trotskyite, the anti-imperialist, pro-working class WSWS provides much more valuable information than the neoliberal MSM.

    Anonymous 7 Dec 2018 | 1:51 am

    The 'West' hates and fear the Church of Christ and waged war against it since its very establishment on Earth. Its failure to destroy it fill the demonic 'Legion' with dread and paranoia. "What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beg you, don't torture me!"… "And they begged him repeatedly not to order them to go into the Abyss".
    This is the real reason of 'Russophobia'. They feel that this time Jesus will not show them any mercy and order them into the Abyss.

    MarkU 7 Dec 2018 | 1:40 am

    In reply to Citymouse16.

    What you are saying is true but the Russians would need to get 5 times more bang for the buck just to reach parity with Europe in military spending and they would still have only 1/3 of the population and a massively lower GDP. The idea of a Russian threat is absurd and is purely a pretext for the build up of an offensive force to threaten them.

    Citymouse16 7 Dec 2018 | 1:01 am

    In reply to MarkU.

    Money spent does not equate to quality or return on investment. One need only look at the ridiculous amounts of money spent on the F-35, which still has over 1000 'problems', including many deemed lethal. Then there were the German soldiers who turned up at an exercise last year with broomsticks to use for pretend weapons. Remind me when the last time Russian soldiers did that was. Russia gets far more bang for their buck, because for them this is about genuine defense, and they understand that well from their history. They can't afford to waste their defense dollars giving private defense companies 900% profits. Their weapons work, over and over and in deserts and in deep snow. It's life or death for them, not more rubles in someone's pocket. Military spending proves nothing except that the West has no idea how to get a genuine return on their investment–but then that was probably never the idea.

    Wallach 7 Dec 2018 | 12:10 am

    In reply to Sanjin.

    @ Sanjin
    Interesting what your can find in your Croat history books nowadays. Jovan Ducic, Serbian poet and diplomat (1871 – 1943) once said: "The Croats are the most courageous people in the world, not because they don't fear anyone but because they are not ashamed of anything"

    Everyone – please take this discussion to the MFC – it is going off-topic. Any further will go to trash. Thx. Mod

    grrr 7 Dec 2018 | 12:09 am

    In reply to B.F..

    Yes, mostly due to stupidity of Russia's elite at the time. Putin seems to be much smarter so the chances of him being able to steer Russia to prosperity are getting larger with every new peaceful year. It looks like their main prob. is slow economy: 5%, India > 7%, and US >4%. Endemic corruption and lawlessness doesn't help either. I think that if they will be able to accelerate the economy to consistent ~5% for a few years in the row, USA establishment will start to sing a completely different song. However, if they will continue to slog at < 2%, they will (to paraphrase Putin) "miss their chance forever".

    Joван П 6 Dec 2018 | 11:52 pm

    In reply to Sanjin.

    Nice try. Ustasha's killed all resistance regardless of nation, if by resistance you mean tens of thousands of Serbian children killed in Croat extermination camps.
    Ustashe were all Croats, supported by the Domobrani who were also Croats, organized, helped and constantly blessed by the local Catholic Church authorities consisting of Croats (many of the beasts who murdered babies, children, women, etc. belonged to the Croatian Catholic clergy in Bosnia and Hercegovina, Croatia, Dalmatia, Slavonia, etc.)
    They murdered predominantly Serbs, and minorities like Gypsies and Jews. When you slaughter hundreds of thousands of your neighbor Serbs, in ways people think are unimaginable to the human mind, of course you'll kill some ,,of your own" Croats, who has the courage to try to be a decent human being. All that during the glory times of the Independent State of Croatia, when thousands of Serbian, Jewish and Gipsy children were exterminated in special Croat extermination camps.
    For people who are not interested in Croatian hasbara, but the horrible and sad truth, more info can be found on https://orthodoxhistory.info/category/history/holocaust-in-croatia/

    Epithet 6 Dec 2018 | 11:45 pm

    In reply to Anonius.

    Anonius, you have nothing to apologize for. You always write and spread truth, my brother.

    Epithet 6 Dec 2018 | 11:39 pm

    In reply to Sanjin.


    Forgive my tone, but your words are nothing but regurgitated communist propaganda . Easily disproved by historical records. That you would hurl such lies effortlessly, towards the Serbian army and Serbian resistance, the Cetniks, is nothing new. Your communist masters have been trying to rewrite history in lock step with the Anglo-Zionists and the Vatican.

    My grandfathers both fought in WWII. One, a captain in the Serbian Kingdom of Yugoslavia army, the other, my paternal grandfather forced at gunpoint to fight in the Partisans. (Partisans were also 90% Serbs). So, I'm very immune to your concocted "spiel". The partisans never had anything to do with the liberation of Yugoslavia. It was the Cetniks that welcomed the Red army when it reached Belgrade, not Tito. Later, the red army disarmed the The Cetniks and were responsible for the mass slaughter of Serbs at the hands of polish -jew Tito.
    You might want to read a book from actual third party witnesses. 2 excellent resources:

    1.The Rape of Serbia: The British Role in Tito's Grab for Power, 1943-1944

    2.The Web of Disinformation: Churchill's Yugoslav Blunder

    On YouTube, you can find interviews with living Partisans, who admit that it was Tito who was collaborating with the Nazis and that the Partisans were were based mere kilometers from the croatian death camps and did nothing to save the Serbs.

    Below is an excellent documentary in English that destroys the communist propaganda , you've regrettably echoed here. It's chock full of eye witness testimony and supported by extensive historical documentation. Cheers!

    Draza Mihailovich Documentary

    Outlaw Historian 6 Dec 2018 | 10:29 pm

    In reply to Ingrian.

    Did you know it was the Kaiser who viewed WW1 as a contest between the Slavs and Teutons for mastery of Europe–a Race War? Hitler merely built on that drive pushed on by Anglos. See Fritz Fischer's Germany's First World War Aims for the documentation.

    B.F. 6 Dec 2018 | 10:25 pm

    In reply to grrr.

    In fact Stolypin said more than that, stating that by 1920 the GDP of Russia would surpass that of the US and Germany. Result ? He gets assassinated, Russia gets into World War One, gets the Western financed Bolshevik Revolution, the murder of the Tsars family and civil war. Millions perished, as intended by someone. Even so, Russia survived.

    Jen 6 Dec 2018 | 10:18 pm

    In reply to Anonymous.

    The Soviets did not have to fight Japan until the very last days of the Pacific war because the Soviets had already defeated Japan in Mongolia and the Soviet Far East in the late 1930s.

    The significant battles were fought at Khalkhin Gol in mid-1939 by Soviet-Mongolian forces against Japan. The Soviet victory forced Japan to give up its ambitions of invading and colonising Mongolia and parts of the Soviet Far East and to adopt the alternative strategy of invading Southeast Asia and the western Pacific. The USSR and Japan later signed a neutrality pact in 1941 (which the Soviets later denounced in 1945).

    This meant that when Germany and its allies invaded the Soviet Union that same year, the Soviets were able to concentrate their forces in fighting the enemy coalition without having to worry about Japan mounting an attack on their eastern borders.

    Rakesh Simha Krishnan, "War in the East: How Khalkhin-Gol changed the course of WWII" (Russia Insider)

    Sanjin 6 Dec 2018 | 9:59 pm

    In reply to Epithet.

    @ Epithet
    Serbs fought for the monarchy of Karadjordjevic and his wider Serbia and mercilessly murdered members of the Communist movement who were preparing for the guerrilla war against the Nazis. Croatian Ustashas fought for power and even surrendered part of the Croatian territory to Italy only to be accepted by fascists. and they relentlessly killed the members of the resistance regardless of whether they were Croats, Serbs or Muslims. Serb monarchists and Ustashas were the bad guys who fought one another and partizans, and that was very brutal fight, which included the elements of genocide. Yugoslav Partisans under the Communist ideology were the only fighters against the Nazis, Fascists, Ustasha and Serbian Chetniks until the end of the war. putting Serbian monarchist-chetniks along the Russian side is an insult. the historical and documented truth is that the Croatians were multiple in brigades rather than Serbs in Serbia. the partisan movement on the territory of the then Croatia was remarkably higher than the resistance movement throughout France. the racial politics NDH did not win in Croatia nor will it, no matter what it is today's youth "in, fancy, etc". then Yugoslavia was a rural country full of wounds and the backward injustices and poverty from which the idea of ​​equality of fraternity and unity among people irrespective of race, nation and religion or anything that divided people. it was Yugoslav communism.

    Anonius 6 Dec 2018 | 9:58 pm

    In reply to Epithet.

    Small addition, Tito did not want to alienate his Croats so he insisted on calling Serb resistance "Yugoslav"

    grrr 6 Dec 2018 | 9:54 pm

    I am pleasantly surprised that someone remembers Stolypin. Yes, his vision was correct: with 20 years of peace Russia would have been able to catch up with the US. And yes he was killed by some revolutionary, but, please, also notice that this revolutionary was well known to secret police and that than existing powers in Russia were very much against Stolypin's reforms. So it is quite possible (I would incline to say probable) that it was a collaboration between powers-to-be and socialists (if not the outright use of later by former).
    With regard to a torrent of accusations against Putin's gov. (in full spectrum from somewhat silly to outright idiotic, and always vicious) they are not (in my op, anyway) designed to provoke a war. Rather it is to deny Russia a proverbial 20 years of peace, or slow down its development as much as possible. Why? People why define US foreign policy know that Russia doesn't need to strive for hegemonic status. Its geographical location in the center of Eurasian mass kind of forces such destiny. FDR deliberately led the US to such hegemonic position and he was successful against GB (a sole maritime power at the time) with the background of total disorder on the entire Eurasia due to various competing phantastic ideologies. As soon as Eurasia will organize (socially and economically) it will not even need to struggle for such hegemony – it will coalesce naturally.

    B.F. 6 Dec 2018 | 9:41 pm

    Brilliant article by The Saker. Enjoyed it tremendously. I would like to add the following:

    For globalists to succeed, they need to eradicate the presence of Russia and China. Both world wars were fought to defeat Russia and prevent a Russian-German political and economic alliance, something Bismarck favored in the 19th century, when the Kaiser had him foolishly removed. Instead of creating an alliance, Germany and Russia ended up fighting each other. Makes you wonder who gained by this. Well, we all know.

    The Korean and Vietnam wars were fought so that globalists could obtain a foothold in both countries, as both have borders with China. The intent was to destablize China and then move troops into the country. It failed. The intent of the Kiev coup d'etat in 2014 was to drag Ukraine into the EU and NATO and have NATO troops position themselves against Russian borders. That too failed. As I have written before, the coup d'etat in Kiev started a chain reaction which cannot be stopped. Yanukovich was overthrown and oligarchs took over, plundering the country and in the process both impoverishing and shocking the population, which now regrets what happened. No, Putin does not need to invade Ukraine. It will breakup in due course, with some 75 % of it ending up in Russia, where it belongs.

    The Western elites are defeating themselves. They intend to continue with their liberal globalist economic order, and countries are rebelling against it, turning towards Russia and China. NATO is becoming unpopular and difficult to finance. The EU, a copy of the US Federation, is also becoming unpopular. We are seeing populist reactions from the masses. And the globalists ? They respond with cheap, World War One type of propaganda, labelling Russia as the "aggressor" and a "threat", hoping the masses will swallow it. Many wont. Worse, the Western financial system is looking into a melt down. As political economist Lyndon LaRouche has stated, the only thing that can save the US dollar is the plunder of Siberia and the Caspian region. Too late for that. And Putin ? All he has to do is sit back and watch developments. They are going his way. The fact that Russia and China have established an economic alliance, with Germany looking towards it, cannot hurt.

    Englishman 6 Dec 2018 | 9:40 pm

    In reply to Anonymous.

    Interesting post with much detail,one of my Uncles was a Orlikon gunner on HMS Victorious aircraft carrier,part of a British Carrier Battle Group attached to the US fleet in the Pacific,he never really told me much about it,like many of those Men he probably wanted to forget it,his carrier was hit three times off Okinawa by Kamikazi attacks.

    Anonius 6 Dec 2018 | 9:39 pm

    In reply to Epithet.

    Epithet, my apologies. You are so correct. Serbs were fighting Croat fascists (Ustashe) as well as the Germans and their friends.

    Englishman 6 Dec 2018 | 9:33 pm

    In reply to Harry_Red.

    Question is who would WANT to survive such a war? I wouldn't,but the Dr Strangelove maniacs in Washington probably think it would be worth it.

    Ingrian 6 Dec 2018 | 9:18 pm

    Important points relating to the USA – Nazi relationship are omitted. First, the Nazis explicitly based racial policies on US's Jim Crow racial segregation laws and the US's 'manifest destiny' genocidal western expansion. They were not going to 'bring western civilization to the slavs, they were going to do to them exactly what the US did to the native Americans, up to the Urals rather than up to the Pacific. There is an important point, besides the well documented US's and UK's financial, business and technical involvement with the Nazis, the the racial policy inspiration and waiting to open a 2nd front until the Nazis had done as much damage to the USSR as possible (sadly for 'the west' not liquidating it). Contrary to precedent, the US demanded remuneration from the UK and France for assistance provided in WWI. This led the latter countries to draft the famously harsh reparations into the Treaty of Versailles. Germany had not been responsible for starting the war any more than anyone else and had not committed any crimes in WWI more serious than anyone else. For the prior 40 years it had arguably been the most successful, progressive and flourishing country in most fields of human endeavour. They were completely unfairly economically hobbled and humiliated.

    I find white Russian claims the Bolsheviks were simply tools of anyone, German or Jew quite silly. Financiers get ahead by not letting sentiment get in the way of profit. As much as debtors are beholden to their lenders, the complex web of historical realities determining the capture and wielding of power is just too complex. The Soviet Union was a weird fluke of history, amazing that it lasted as long as it did, and was never what it said on the tin. Another Party, the Socialist Revolutionaries, won the election to the constituent assembly (in Russia and the 'Ukraine' though at that time the concept of 'ukraineness' was still very nascent) over winter 1918-19, *after* the October coup, but the Bolshies clung to power anyway. Before the Bolshies took power the much more by-the-book Marxist, Rosa Luxumbourg, gasp, a jew, wrote to Lenin that his Vanguard Party/Democratic Centralism (top down 'socialism') ethos would result in a bureaucracy so unwieldy it would eventually collapse. She was killed in the abortive german revolution, which the Bolsheviks believed would be the real main event from which international socialism would spread, they were just holding on till then, and after the failure of which, Lenin himself gradually lost faith in the cause.

    Since we must always judge an agent (and I'd argue that a country rare qualifies, look at truly apartheid Latvia, the largest party in parliament is the pro-Russian social democratic one, yet it is not permitted to form a government. nevertheless, the fake news mass media will undoubtedly refer to the actions and statements of the makeshift coalition which will be formed as those of 'Latvia') by its actions rather than it's self-proclaimed motivations, its best to view the USSR, particularly but not only after the purge of the internationalists, as a permanent war cabinet with indefinite martial law. Its entire social order was not really that different from that of say Britain during WWII, Top down industrial planning and kitschy propaganda posters included. In contrast to Luxembourg's doctrinal Marxism, the Bolsheviks were self-proclaimed improvisers, and practically all of their policies after the first few years were pragmatic, perhaps paranoid (but it's a fine line between complacency and naivety), but much more fluid and doctrinaire than often assumed. Marx and Engels did not believe in banning religion, they thought it could only be educated out of existence, Cuba and Yugoslavia were infinitely more lax on religion. One original motivation for persecuting it in Russia was that nationalizing vast church resources could help alleviate hunger. I'm not saying it was the best solution and i'm relying on hazy memory here, but let's always approach history with a cautious appreciation for its nuance.

    I also doubt that Stolypin's reforms were all that effective and well intentioned. I'd prefer to praise the Great Reforms of Alexander II, and wish the democratic mir system was relieved of its debt for serf liberation earlier and the model extended to manufacturing, so that we may have had an effective orthodox cooperative Mondragon-style economy, but counterfactuals are for fools.

    Outlaw Historian 6 Dec 2018 | 9:08 pm

    Yes–WHY?–Precisely the most obvious question no one in the West's allowed to ask.

    Another point about Russia not wanting war–it would lose many of those young people it needs to grow and flourish, which is an obvious but omitted point.

    Today, the leader of the dilapidated US Navy threatened the planet along with Pompeo, RT putting it thusly:

    "Pax Americana: Pompeo tells UN, WTO, ICC to bow and comply with US-led world order." https://www.rt.com/news/445731-new-pax-americana-pompeo/

    The extraterritorial arrest of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou is a very big provocation aimed at China that might generate very severe consequences.

    As a fact-focused historian, let me say that within the Outlaw US Empire a sort of anti-history's being taught that grows more Orwellian yearly and faces few powerful challenges, like Dr Cohen's. Combined with BIgLie Media and rotting educational system that fails teaching critical, rational thinking and open debate, as long as Neoliberals continue to attack the majority of the populous, the citizenry will provide opposition. But without critical educational skills and a false historical background, the masses are unlikely to stop the Oligarchy before it goes too far–likely too far against China is my bet.

    Epithet 6 Dec 2018 | 8:57 pm

    In reply to Anonius.

    Anonius, excellent assessment. Thank you for putting these sacrifices in the proper perspective. Apologies, But it was not the Yugoslavs who suffered terribly. It was the Serbians. Thankfully most posters here know the truly immeasurable sacrifices made by the Russians. But few realize the sacrifices of the Serbs.

    The Nazi led croatian and bosnian muslim populations did not perish in great numbers. The first allied resistance in Occupied Europe and only ethnicity to be genocided (along with Jews and gypsies) in the Balkans, in WWII, were the Serbs. According to the official German records (the best positioned to know), over 750,000 Serbs were slaughtered in the Nazi puppet state of croatia, alone. More than 20% of the entire Serbian population, was killed in WWII. That's in addition to the death of 30% of all Serbs in WWI. Take a moment and please truly reflect on those horrific totals.

    Serbs, the nation forced by the Anglo-Zionists to create this fictional name of Yugoslavia, instead of what those lands were named for over a millennium, Serbia. You would think that the heroes of WWI, who lost a third of their population, would have won the right to call their reclaimed ancestral lands , by their rightful name, Serbia. Heinous as that is, It pales into comparison to the Anglo-Zionist and communist theft and betrayal, suffered by the Serbs after WWII.

    Every nation's sacrifices and losses were a tragedy. But Serbs and Russians have a truly

    Monte George Jr 6 Dec 2018 | 8:33 pm

    In reply to Anonymous.

    "For instance, there are no stories of finding dedicated nazi SS soldiers in bunkers in Europe who are continuing the fight for their Fuhrer years after the end of the war,…"

    They don't hide in bunkers, they parade on the Maidan in full Nazi regalia in Kiev. Nazi sentiment persists in much of rural Europe. If the immigration invasion continues, a reconstituted neo-Nazi movement will soon manifest as a major factor in European elections.

    vk 6 Dec 2018 | 8:19 pm

    "During the revolutionary years, US Jewish bankers fully financed the Bolsheviks."

    Maybe some Jewish bankers have financed the Bolsheviks out of personal sympathy. Maybe.

    But the main imperialist powers of the time — including the USA (see the "Red Scare") — officially backed (with financial and material resources) what would become known as the White Army. This was the first regime change operation as we use the term nowadays.

  • write comment

This material is distributed without profit for research and educational purposes.
Radios.cz has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this material.

Text to Speech by: ResponsiveVoice-NonCommercial licensed under 95x15
website no use cookies, no spying, no tracking
to use the website, we check:
country: US · city: North · ip:
device: computer · browser: CCBot 2 · platform:
counter: 1 · online:
created and powered by:
RobiYogi.com - Professional Responsive Websites
 please wait loading data...