State repression in France only makes the Resistance grow stronger

Last November I wrote a piece entitled "Is a new revolution quietly brewing in France?" in which I described struggle which was taking place between the French people and the Zionist plutocracy which has ruled France over the past decades (roughly since 1969) and today I am returning to this topic as events have rapidly accelerated and taken a sharp turn for the worse.  A number of most interesting things have happened and the French "Resistance" (I will use this collective designator when speaking of the entire Dieudonne/Soral movement) is now being attacked on three levels.

Intellectual level:

Eric Naulleau

This is, by far, the most interesting "counter-attack".  A well-known French commentator, Eric Naulleau, agreed to a "written debate" with Alain Soral in which both sides would discuss their differences and the transcript would be published in a book entitled "Dialogues Désaccordés" (which can roughly be translated as "detuned dialogs" or "dialogs out of tune" or even "disagreeing dialogs").  To explain the importance of this publication I have to say a few words about Naulleau himself.

Everybody in France knows Eric Naulleau as one of the two partners of a "journalistic tag team" called "Naulleau and Zemmour" in which one of the partners - Eric Naulleau - is a Left-leaning progressive and the other - Eric Zemmour - is a Right-leaning conservative.  Together they form a formidable and, sometimes, feared team of very sharp and outspoken critics and commentators which was featured on various shows on French TV.  Zemmour, in particular, is an extremely intelligent and very charming person whose wonderful sense of humor combined with a outspoken attitude often got him in trouble.  He is one of the few French Jews who actually got sued by the notorious LICRA (rabid Zionist organization formed by Trotskists to attack those opposing them) for daring to say "French people with an immigrant background were profiled because most traffickers are blacks and Arabs... it's a fact" on TV.  Together, Naulleaua and Zemmour are known for being formidable debaters and very tough and even blunt critics who can take on pretty much anybody.

Naulleau explained that, according to him, it made no sense at all to ban Soral from the mass media because that still gave the option for Soral to record his shown on the Internet were they would be viewed by million of people (that is not an exaggeration, by the way, Soral's videos do score more views that some national TV channels!).  Naulleau explained that in his videos Soral was always alone, free to say whatever he wanted, without anybody contradicting or challenging him and that his goal was precisely that - to unmask, challenge and defeat Soral in an open debate in which he would show all the fallacies and mistakes of Soral's theses.  To say that Naulleau failed in his goal would be an understatement.  Soral absolutely crushed every single one of Naulleau's arguments to the point where I personally felt sorry for Naulleau (whom I like a lot as a person).  Worse, not only did Soral absolutely obliterate Naulleau, he also made a prediction and said: "you will see the shitstorm which will hit you for agreeing to make this book with me!".  And that is the crux of the disagreement between Soral and Naulleau: do the Zionists control the French media yes or not? Can they blacklist somebody or not?  Is there a shadow "Zionist censorship" in France or is public speech still free?  Soral's thesis is that France is in the iron grip of a "behind the scenes" Zionist mafia which is exactly Naulleau vehemently denies.  The problem for Naulleau is that he proved Soral to be right.

The French media immediately attacked Naulleau for "providing Soral with a platform to spew his hateful theories" to which Naulleu logically replied that Soral was already doing so on the Internet and that, besides, he - Naulleau - did not believe in censorship but in a strong and free debate.  Naulleau also got attacked for not saying this or not saying that - in reality for getting so totally defeated by Soral in the debate. The book, by the way, became an instant bestseller with, indeed, made it possible for even more French people to think through Soral's arguments and make up their own mind.  So, ironically, and even though Naulleau clearly wanted to challenge Soral, he did him a huge favor by allowing him to break the media blockade around his name - Soral is never ever invited on a talkshow - and by allowing the ideas of Soral to come right back into the public debate via this book, Naulleau de facto helped Soral.  Some have even speculated that Naulleau might be a secret sympathizer of Soral and that he did all of this deliberately.  I don't believe that at all - Naulleau is sincere, and Naulleau is also naive: he is now only slowly coming to grips with the fact that Soral's core thesis - that the Zionists completely control the French media - is a fact and that Soral's prediction about Naulleau getting in trouble for this book was spot on.  Right now, Naulleau and his friend Zemmour still have a show on a small local TV station, but clearly Naulleau has now deeply alienated the French plutocracy.  As far as I know, nobody has dared to speak in Naulleau's defense.  The funniest thing of all is that even though both Soral and Naulleau are officially coauthors of this book and even though Naulleau attempts to deny that Soral is blacklisted, only Naulleau got interviewed on the French talkshows, never Soral.  Not once.  What better way could there be to prove Soral right?

"Personalities lynch mob" level:

While Naulleau was trying to defend himself against attacks from all sides for daring to coauthor a book with Soral, something absolutely unprecedented took place: day after day after day, media personalities were shown on TV trashing Dieudonne and his "quenelle" gesture.  This really looked like a "virtual lynching" or a Stalinist trial - politicians, journalists, comedians, commentators, actors - you name it - all took turns to ridicule, insult, denounce and otherwise express their hatred for Dieudonne.  This truly became an orwellian "two minutes of hate" in which Dieudonne was designated as the target of an absolutely vicious hate campaign.

Bedos as "Dieudo Hitler Bin Laden"

A mediocre comedian named Nicolas Bedos was even given 12 minutes of uninterrupted air time to compare Dieudonne to both Hitler and Osama Bin Laden and his shows to a Gestapo interrogation room.  It was surreal, really.  If an extraterrestrial had just tuned in and watch this display of vicious hatred he would have imagined that Dieudonne was a 2nd Hitler about to invade France with a huge army of bloodthirsty Nazis.  For me, it was clear that the reason why all these different personalities were standing in line for the chance to outdo each other in taking a shot at Dieudonne was to prove their loyalty to the Zionist "deep-state".  This was as transparent as it was sickening.  And again, it proved that Soral was right and that, if anything, he was under-standing the degree of control of the Zionist plutocracy over France.

State level:

Finally, from more or less covert, the persecution of Dieudonne and Soral by the French state became completely overt.  I already mentioned how in early January the French Minister of the Interior, Manuel Valls, used his powers to ban the latest show of Dieudonne (see here and here).  Over the last weeks, this repression has reached a new level with even more lawsuits against Soral (12 simultaneous lawsuits, see Google-translated list here) and administrative harassments (evening "visits" by bailiffs, abusive arrests, threats, police search of his small theatre in Paris) against Dieudonne.  All these events taken together - and it is really not hard at all to connect the dots - for a very clear picture: the power of the state is used to persecute, harass and repress Dieudonne and Soral.  And that, of course, just goes even further in proving that Soral is right in his central thesis about France being run by a shadow occupation "deep government" whose loyalties are not to the French people, but to the Zionist plutocracy and Israel.

The reaction against this state of affairs is also becoming stronger and the amount of people supporting Dieudonne and Soral has literally skyrocketed.  The reason for that is not only that a lot of French people share the same views as Soral and Dieudonne, but also a deep running French cultural tradition of admiring rebels and disliking the state.  Add to this that Hollande is the most hated President in French history and that the French economy is doing down the tubes triggering untold suffering and rage in the people suffering form the crisis, and you get a very explosive mix: the so-called "Day of Rage".

Check out these videos before they are removed form YouTube (like this one):



Anybody who knows France well will tell you that this is very serious stuff because unlike other demonstrations which typically oppose a law, or a policy or a specific event, these demonstrators clearly are rejecting the legitimacy of the entire political system: they want regime change.  So far, the French media has tried to minimize the coverage of this event and the French elites are trying hard to pretend like this is some small, fringe, extremist group, which is utter nonsense.  France is bubbling with rage.

Zionist panic:

The Zionists are actually aware of that, and they are now in the panic mode.  Just take a look at the headlines of this Israeli-French website:

On the top right, you can see the Israeli founder of this website - Jonathan-Simon Sellem and on the top left you see Arno Klarsfeld, a well-known "French" (Israeli/German/French) lawyer and rabid Zionist.  Here is what they are quoted saying:

Jonathan-Simon Sellem: "Dieudonne, you will never be a martyr.  You will not a hero.  Your name will be cursed in history, by history".

Arno Klarsfeld: "They is a crucial moment in history: Jews are already beginning to leave France".

Clearly, these two gentlemen see Dieudonne as some modern mix of Agag, Hamman, Titus, Hitler and Bin Laden - a terrifying, bloodthirsty and infinitely dangerous and evil man who threatens the survival of the Jewish race (nevermind that Jews are not a race).  

Could that be a little bit of an over-reaction?

What are these folks so terrified of?

I think that the answer is obvious: what they are so terrified of is not that Dieudonne and Soral will reopen Auschwitz somewhere near Paris, or that French Jews will be expelled from France.  They know that this is paranoia (which Gilad Atzmon calls "Pre-Traumatic Stree Disorder") is absolute crap: French Jews are safe, happy and welcome in France and nobody is seriously out there to do them any harm.  No, what this small clique of  Zionist Jews (representing a tiny fraction of the much more diverse French Jewry) really fears is that the truth about them and their power over the French deep-state will come out.  And this is not only about Jews.  There is a non-Jewish plutocracy formed around the Jewish core of French bankers and financiers which is also completely in bed with the Zionists and whose future depends on maintaining the Zionist control over France: politicians, of course, but also actors, journalists, academics, etc. - a full constellation of Shabbos Goyim willing to do Israel's Sayanim's dirty job for them.  It is this entire elite and the system which it built which is threatened by Soral and Dieudonne and by what the movement "Equality and Reconciliation" stands for: a union of all the French people (native or immigrants) which together are determined to resist the Zionist oppression of France and who, just as in WWII, will resist the occupier until the Liberation.

When and how could such a "Liberation" occur?

I don't know.  These events are very complex and multi-dimensional and it is, I believe, impossible to predict what could happen.  What I am sure of, is that this movement, this Resistance, will not be crushed, nor will it somehow magically disappear.  To paraphrase the Communist Manifesto, the French people "have nothing to lose but their chains": their country is ruined and they are ruled by an evil foreign occupier.  In terms of dynamics, every move which is made against Soral and Dieudonne only makes things worse for the occupation regime - the harder the strike, the harder the blowback.  The legitimacy of the regime, in particular, is greatly affected by such absolutely ridiculous actions like the "overkill" of a Minister of Internal Affairs using the highest court in the country (the State Council) in an emergency session to ban a single comedian's stand up show.

Sure, for the time being most people in France comply, obey, or look the other way.  But everybody know, everybody understands and very few believe in the official lies, especially in the younger generation.

This all reminds me of the Soviet Union of the 1980s were externally nothing much was happening and where the system itself look ugly but safe.  Russians were making anti-Brezhnev jokes at private parties while the KGB from time to time attested dissidents.  But nobody - not even the KGB officers - had any respect for the system, the regime, the official ideology and its propaganda.  Everybody did what they were told, but nobody believed in what they were doing.  That is the exact situation not only for the French cops who are constantly used to ban, harass and arrest Dieudo and his supporters, but also of an increasing percentage of the general public.

Right now the pressure on the dam is getting stronger and stronger, and the cracks more and more visible.  So far, the elites have had enough fingers to stick into the cracks, but this is clearly a futile attempt to delay the inevitable.  And when the French dam will burst, it will impact on only France, but also a good segment of western Europe.  So while the pro-US Ukrainian nationalists want to subordinate their country to the EU, the EU is threatened with an inevitable and violent explosion.  But, like on the sinking Titanic, the media's "orchestra" will be playing its music until the last second.

The Saker

Another counter-example: Justice Minister Elena Lukash

I just wanted to also mention another interesting counter-example of resistance to the mob: Ukrainian Justice Minister Elena Lukash who, when her ministry was invaded by armed rioters went on TV and issued an ultimatum: either leave the ministry or I will introduce martial law.

Elena Lukash

The mob withdrew.

The Ukrainian government denied that it was considering introducing martial law.

Typical.

Nevertheless, this goes to show that the these rampaging mobs are well organized and centrally commanded by folks who fully realize that the government does, at least in theory, have the means to stop the riots.  When these mobs are met with a firm and determined officials, they back down.

There are decent people in the Ukraine and there are courageous people even in the government.  The problem is clearly with the spineless fat protoplasm in charge of the Presidency.

In the meantime the Zapadentsy, probably overcome by a "democratic impulse", have banned the Regions Party and the Communist Party for the areas which they currently control.  In retaliation, the authorities of Crimea have banned the neo-Nazi "Liberty" party form the territory of the Peninsula.

Intense negotiations are under way before tomorrow's session of the Ukrainian Parliament which could see the nomination of a new coalition government if an agreement is found.  

Two rumors: 1) Ukrainian weapons depots in the western Ukraine are being taken over by the nationalists 2) the security forces are preparing a 10'000 strong force to clear the Maidan square, possibly tomorrow.

Stay tuned.

The Saker

A very interesting counter-example: Energy Minister Eduard Savitskii

Something really interesting happened on Sunday in Kiev.  As several times before, a group of about one hundred rioters stormed the building of the Energy Ministry which is located close to the Maidan square and city center.  The heavily armed rioters rapidly overcome the building's security service (which had orders not to shoot) and penetrated into the building which they immediately began to tear about.  Then something really interesting happened: the Minister of Energy himself, Eduard Savitskii, came out and confronted the rioter.  The scene was filmed by a bystander.  This is the dialog shown in the video:

Savitskii: do you understand that you are threatening all our lives?  Get the hell out of here!

Rioter: we need to control the activities of the ministry

Savitskii: according to the Ukrainian law I am the one in charge of this ministry and your actions are illegal!  You have crossed the line, you have penetrated a high-security facility.  Do you understand what it means to provide an entire country with energy?  If you are a terrorist, just tell me, and I will deal with you like with a terrorist.  I have all the reasons to treat you as a terrorist!

See the video for yourself:



Savitskii, a former coal industry worker, told the rioters to get out, and they complied.  And that just goes to show what one strong personality can achieve even in the worst kind of situation.  The example of Savitskii also shows the catastrophic role a personality like Yanukovich has had in this crisis who, by failing to show any leadership qualities at all, only ended up exiting and angering the rioters even more.  Frankly, even I feel like throwing a brick each time I see his face, how could I blame other for feeling likewise?

The other lesson from this small side-event is that crisis situations to often create their own personalities and that it is possible that some strong and respectable leader will come out of the current chaos.  There is only that long that a country can exist with no power at all, sooner or later somebody will seize power. I just hope that this "somebody" will be a decent and pragmatic person of courage.

The Saker

City of Sevastopol officials are threatening to create their own sovereign state

According to the Regnum news agency the Sevastopol City State Administration is threatening to break-away from the Ukraine and create a "Federal State of Ruthenia/Small-Russia".  Here is a rough and quick translation of the article:

The Chairman of the Sevastopol City State Administration Volodymyr Yatsuba appealed to citizens in connection with what is happening in the country, and especially in its western regions, the correspondent of IA REGNUM reports.  

Yatsuba thanked citizens who had prevented a "Evromaidan" type of rally in Sevastopol.  He also thanks the  "Berkut" riot police, which, according to him, "coordinated everything to make sure everything remained clam".
 
"Sevastopol will not surrender! If things become critical and we get information that they (the nationalists) are coming - I will make an address on the TV and ask the people to come defend our city.  Together with the security forces we are in control of all the entrances into our city, its railway station and all the  roads.  Should something happen I will issue a alert on the local TV station"- said the official.

"All of our strength is in the fact that we are united. Our task is to be united and to all obey a single authority, because many provocateurs, they are prepared. People are afraid that the brown plague (Nazi) will come here. I beg eveybody to remain calm and to obey a single authority "- said Yatsuba.

He appealed to "all sensible people, men who can protect Sevastopol." "My main task is to assemble on the people who are willing to participate in the defense of Sevastopol.   There is no need to defend myself and my family. I grew up in this area, and I can defend myself if needed. I'm not asking you to defend any specific building, but I ask protect the entire city Sevastopol "- said the head of the administration.
 
In the meantime 12 local NGOs form the city Sevastopol have declared that they are considering the option of creating a "federal state Ruthenia" and that appeals to the local population explaining this are being prepared.  These appeals will also be sent to the local councils south, east and centeral  Ukraine.

"We have prepared appeals to regional, city and district councils of deputies southeast and center of Ukraine to establish a "Federated State Ruthenia" with a focus on Russia and we are also preparing an appeal to the people of Russia and the Russian authorities, the EU and the international community.

In connection with the real threat of a coup and violent overthrow of the government of the Ukraine, a meeting was held in the headquarters of Russian social and political organizations with representatives of the Russian youth, sports, Cossack, political and social organizations of city of Sevastopol.  It was decided that in the case of a coup and and an overthrow of the government in Kiev, Sevastopol would use its right to self-determination and remove itself from the jurisdiction of the Ukraine"

Just to clarify.  The possible future state these officials are thinking about would be called "Федеративное государство Малороссии" which Google translated as "Federated State Ruthenia" but which could also be translated as "Federated State of Small-Russia" (Malorossii).  The terms "small" here is not to be understood as referring to size, but in the ancient Greek meaning of "small Greece" i.e., central Greece as opposed to the "greater" (peripheral) Greece.  In other words, by planning to call their state "Federated State of Small-Russia" they are really saying that they aim to be recognized and seen as the historical core of the Russian nation which, of course, the Ukraine has been in the past.  I just wanted to clarify this point because all too many people think that the term "small Russia" is somehow condescending or derogatory while in reality it is quite the opposite: it means "central" or "core".  As for the term "Ruthenia" it really can mean either ancient Rus' or, more frequently, a region around modern Galicia.  This is why translating "Malorossia" as "Ruthenia" when speaking of Sevastopol makes no sense at all.

As for the statement itself, it sure contains some very strong words.  Whether the population of Sevastopol is truly that determined or not I cannot tell.  My personal and highly subjective feeling is that two factors indicate that there might be more bark than bite here:  first, the population of southern and eastern Ukraine has been amazingly passive since 1991 and, second,  I still don't see any credible political party or leader in the anti-nationalist camp.  There are quite a few decent politicians in the anti-nationalist camp but no real leader-figure has emerged so far.  As for the "Regions" party of Yanukovich, well, it is precisely that - the party of Yanukovich.  Still, cataclysmic events often generate their own historical figures so I would not dismiss the possibility of a charismatic anti-nationalist figure appearing to lead the reaction to the nationalist revolution in Kiev and the northwestern Ukraine.

The Saker

Yanukovich's latest move might make a partition of the Ukraine unavoidable

In my past articles about the Ukraine (see here, here, here and here) and in many posts in the comments section I have expressed my complete disgust with Yanukovich whom I see as absolutely immoral, weak, stupid and corrupt.  Every move he has made so far has only strengthened my absolute loathing for this man whose role in igniting the current chaos in the Ukraine cannot be overstated.  But I have to admit that his latest move has caught me by surprise.

Following days of intense rioting in which many government buildings were stormed, in which over 100 riot cops were hospitalized and 2 kidnapped and 1 killed, following clear and unequivocal threats by the leaders of the opposition to "go on the attack" and overthrow the government, Yanukovich did not send in the cops to clear the center of Kiev, neither did he order the opposition leaders arrested for sedition, attempted coup, conspiracy to commit terrorist attacks or anything like that.  No, Yanukovich met with the leaders of the so-called opposition and offered them the following "concessions":

• To change the Constitution back to its pre-2004 model
• To allow early Presidential and Parliamentary elections
• To repeal all the anti-rioting laws recently passed
• To grant a full amnesty to all the folks arrested since the riots began
• To appoint Klichko Vice-Prime Minister for Humanitarian Issues
• To appoint Iatseniuk as Prime Minister of the Ukraine

No, alas, this is not a joke.  He actually did that.

And you know what the opposition's reply was?

"Well, we will think about it" and "we agree to changes, but not on your terms, but on our terms".

Guys, I am serious.  This all really happened.

So Yanukovich's idea of negotiations is "as soon as you get to the table, cave in on every single demand".  How is that for an opening position?

By the way, I think that the opposition did the right thing.  When you are dealing with such a spineless idiot who begins the negotiations with a full surrender the correct reply is to look disappointed, keep a poker face, and say that you need time to formulate a counter-offer.  Why?  Because if your opponent begins with a surrender, you can clearly squeeze him for everything he has got and since the opposition has already de-facto won everything they wanted and, frankly more than in their wildest dreams, the opposition leaders might as well take a slightly annoyed look and express disappointed over the unconditional surrender they have been offered.  At the very least, that will give them the opportunity to further humiliate Yanukovich who, frankly, richly deserves any humiliation these clowns can now heap on him.

Why do I say "clowns"?

Think of it.  Klichko is just a dumb gorilla.  Iatseniuk is a little Jewish weasel who has no compunction working with a notorious Jew-hater like Tiagnibok (whose supporters have already attacked Jews in Kiev triggering a concerned note from the Israeli government), while Tiagnibok himself is your typical neo-Nazi racist punk as only the Ukraine and Croatia can produce.  These are the folks to whom Yanukovich is essentially handing over full power.  The fact that nobody has given Yanukovich to change the Constitution or even repeal laws is besides the point.  After all, who could object, right?

Well, there is somebody who might: the southeastern regions of the Ukraine.

This has, of course, not been reported in the western Ziomedia, but the eastern Ukraine is now also bubbling with political actions.  To make a long story short, the folks in the southeastern Ukraine have no desire whatsoever to let folks like Iatseniuk, Klichko or Tiagnibok rule over them.  In fact, several local assembles - including the Parliament of Crimea - have adopted resolution calling on the President to restore law and order and warning that they would never accept a "regime change" in Kiev.

Now, as I have mentioned many times before, it is wrong to believe the western Ziomedia that the folks in the southeastern Ukraine are "pro-Russian".  They are not.  They are not demanding to be reattached to Russia, they are not claiming that their nationality is Russian and not Ukrainian, and when the organize a meeting they always fly the (West) Ukrainian yellow-blue flag.  No, these guys are not pro-Russia, but they are pro-Ruble: their wealth (and that is the wealthiest part of the Ukraine) fully depends on economic ties with Russia.  Besides being pro-Ruble, they are also strongly anti-Nazi and they are fully aware that the kind of nationalism currently represented by the opposition is the nationalism of the "Zapadentsy" - the West Ukrainians whose national hero is Stepan Bandera.  In other words, even though most southeastern Ukrainians are hardly Russia or even pro-Russian, they are resolutely opposed to what is going on in Kiev because they really have everything to lose and nothing to gain from the EU.

It is hard to tell, but my sense is that when the local authorities in the southeastern Ukraine threaten not to accept any regime change in Kiev they probably do really mean it.  This very much reminds me of the repeated warnings of the Bosnian-Serbs that they would not accept to live in an Islamic state run by an rabid fanatic like Itzebegovich.  At the time, and just like today, nobody took these warnings seriously and we all know how that ended.  The big difference between Bosnia and the Ukraine is first and foremost one of dimensions: Bosnia has an area of 19,741 square miles and a population of 3,791,622 while the Ukraine has an area of 233,090 square miles and a population of 44,854,065.  That is a huge difference which make a direct foreign intervention a much more complicated endeavor.  Second, the entire "Bosnian project" was a US State Department PR move to try to restore some pro-Islamic credibility to the USA.  The root causes of the events in the Ukraine are far more complex and while it is true that Hillary Clinton did clearly indicated that any re-integration of the Ukraine into Russia was absolutely unacceptable to the West, it would be wrong to say that the West, the EU, Soros or any other external factor is the prime cause of the events in the Ukraine.

The real cause of the crisis in the Ukraine can be found into two basic facts:

1) The Ukraine is a completely artificial country
2) The Ukraine is completely bankrupted by oligarchs

These are the two fundamental truths about the Ukraine which most observers and politicians - even from the southeastern Ukraine - are trying to avoid mentioning.  Why?  Well, simply because it is very very painful to the national ego of the Ukrainian people.  These are the folks who welcomed the breakup of the Soviet Union and their separation from Russia with the idiotic slogan "Тому бідні, що невільні" (we are poor kuz we are not free) only to now find themselves both very вільні (free) and very бідні (poor).  In contrast, the hated Moskals (derogatory word for "Russians") have enjoyed an economic boom and Russia has essentially fully recovered her superpower status in the 2000-2014 period while Forbes gave Putin the title of most powerful man on earth.  But make no mistake, if after the collapse of the Soviet Union the Ukraine had done very well economically, nobody in the southeastern Ukraine would have shed a tear about being torn away from Russia.  This is why I can only repeat that the southeastern Ukraine is not pro-Russia, but pro-Ruble and anti-Zapadentsy.  Still, the southeastern Ukrainians are becoming acutely aware that they now risk finding themselves cut-off from the Ruble and under the political control of the Zapadentsy, and that is something which they are willing to resist.

So what could happen now?

The first scenario is that Yanukovich will eventually yield to the pressure of the southeastern Ukraine and a few key politicians and finally crack-down on the rioters and restore law and order.  It is hard to know for sure, but my sense is that he probably has the resources to do so in Kiev.  However, the northwestern Ukraine is likely to rise up, reject such move and basically slip out from under the authority of the central government.

The second scenario is that Yanukovich full caves in the the opposition and that the latter essentially takes over the reigns of power.  At which point it will be the southeastern part of the Ukraine which will rise up, reject such a move and basically slip out from under the authority of the central government.

Frankly, I do not see any room for real compromise between Yanukovich and the opposition for a very simple reason: by opening the negotiation with with complete surrender which Yanukovich offered the opposition Yanukovich essentially closed the door to any compromise: why would the opposition accept any kind of compromise when it has already been offered it all?  With his mind-bogglingly stupid move Yanukovich has, paradoxically, made any form of compromise impossible: from now on it is "all or nothing" for both sides.  Yanokovich can either withdraw his offer and crack down on the opposition, or he can fully cave in.  But he cannot offer less and hope that this offer will be accepted.

The really scary thing is that the opposition is of the same "quality" as Yanukovich: absolutely incompetence, spineless ideological leaders who can't even control the demonstrators on the Maidan square, nevermind restoring order to the entire country.  And that brings me to one more possible solution of sorts, but a weird one: getting Timoshenko out of jail and into power.

Yes, I know, it does sound crazy.  But think again.  For one thing Iulia Timoshenko is smart.  And for all her fancy hair-styles and inclinations to theatrics, she can be a very pragmatic negotiator. By all accounts, she had an excellent rapport with Putin.  Furthermore, her basis of popular support is probably pretty good, especially in light of the recent events.  Finally, I would not put it beyond Putin, Lavrov, Obama and Kerry to "gently suggest" that getting Iulia out of jail might be the "least bad" solution.  But yeah, I know, this is most unlikely to happen.

So then what?

If either the northwest or the southeast both threaten to break out from under the control of the central government, what can happen after that?  Violence, for sure.  But keep in mind the figures for the size and population of the Ukraine above.  It will be very difficult for the folks on one side to actually get across the country to put down a local movement.  For one thing, the southeastern Ukrainians will only be delighted to get rid of the northwestern part of the Ukraine.  After all, it is the southeast which feeds the northwest this is why the northwest is so totally and categorically opposed to any partition.  So really the question is can the northwest really crackdown an impose its will on a potentially secessionist southeast?  I am not so sure, mainly because of the distances involved.

Right now, the entire "theater of operations" is composed of a few streets in central Kiev.  And just to hold on to that, the nationalists had to bus in people from all over the western Ukraine.  But anyway east of Kiev the Zapadentsy would run into "hostile territory" which could make things very difficult very fast.

Of course, if the Ukrainian military decided to move in support of the nationalist regime it could definitely reach any part of the Ukraine.  But the problem with that is that the military is probably split as badly as the civil society.  Finally, the Ukraine is not Bosnia were the distances were measured in kilometers and Banja Luka (pop. 150'000) is considered a big town.  The Ukraine is big and it would require big, very big, forces to try to control it.  This is also the main reason why I think that NATO will stay out of it, at least militarily.  Bosnia or Kosovo are "NATO-sized" "bites".  Not the Ukraine.  That is the good news.  The bad news is that terrorism and local clashes are very likely, especially if the nationalist movement continues to enjoy the unconditional support of the West.

And Russia in all that?

I can only repeat that Russia should stay out of whatever happens in the Ukraine.  The Russian government should prepare for an influx of refugees and the Russian military should be placed on high alert to avoid any provocations or cross-border violence.  A special goal for Russia should be to use all the means possible to avoid any violence on the Crimean Peninsula because of the presence of the Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol which can find itself in the position of the 14th Army in Transdniestria when it simply had not other choice than to get involved due to the high number of officers with relatives living in the republic.  If, God forbid, the nationalist try to militarily take over the Crimean Peninsula or Sevastopol I don't see how the Black Sea Fleet could stay uninvolved - that is simply impossible and this is why that situation needs to be avoided at all costs.

As for the Ukraine, there is no good outcome.  Whatever side "wins" it will find itself at the head of a ruined and bankrupt country which the EU will not help - if only because it simply does not have the money to do so.  In terms of resources, all the Ukraine has to offer to the EU is cheap labor and agricultural products (mostly chernozem).  It's potential for economic collaboration with Russia are much better (although even they are dwindling), but that is not something acceptable to the nationalists.

For all these reasons I see no other outcome (notice, I did not use the word "solution") to the current situation besides a breakup of the country into two or three separate entities each going its own way.  As a concept, as a project, the Ukraine inside the ex-Soviet administrative borders has clearly outlived outlived its resource.  As things stand right now, there is nobody out there with the qualities needed to try to salvage this country and we can be confident that whoever wins the current contest between Yanukovich, Klichko, Iatseniuk and Tiagnibok will only make things worse.

The interesting thing is that, at least officially, nobody, and I mean nobody, wants that.  Not the regime, not the opposition, not the US, not the EU, not even Russia or any major political figure in Russia.  Of course, not all of them are always honest about their real goals.  Still, it will be interesting to observe whether anybody will be capable of avoiding what appears inevitable to me: a breakup of the Ukraine within the next few years as a result of what I can only call a "Ukrainian national suicide".

The Saker

Kiev tonight

Kiev burns

EU official and Klichko meet to coordinate the insurrection

Kiev burns

CrossTalk: Kiev Burning

Alexander Mercouris and Mark Sleboda make minced meat out of Anders Aslund.  And just for the record, keep in mind that "from November 1991 to January 1994, Åslund worked as a senior advisor to the Russian reform government under President Boris Yeltsin and Acting Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar. He worked also with Deputy Prime Ministers Anatoly Chubais" (Wikipedia).  So that "democrat" was hard at work for democracy while Russia was being pillaged by the oligarchs and Eltsin used tanks to shoot at the Russian Parliament.  QED.

Two Ukraine-related items

First, this is an pic of a list of cities in the Ukraine were nationalists have stormed local government buildings (some attacks were successful, other were not).  Sure looks to me like one more step towards a civil war:

2nd, for context, here is an interesting report on how such revolutions are prepared: (thanks to J. for sending this to me!!)

Some confused musings about the legitimate use of violence by the state

In the recent weeks I have been struggling with very unpleasant thoughts which I want to share with you in the hope that you will help me make sense of the doubts and dilemmas I am dealing with.  To explain what I am referring to, I will use a few of the examples which elicited these thoughts in me:
 
Syria:

Readers of this blog might remember that when the first demonstrations against Assad in Syria began I was supportive of them.  My reasons were basic and, frankly, primitive:

1) I don't like Baathism, Baathists and Arab secularism generally.
2) I knew for a fact, from contacts with Syrians, that Hafez al-Assad rule was a brutal one: his Mukhabarat(s) was universally feared, his officials corrupt and I was aware of the fact that he had crushed an Islamist uprising in 1982 at a cost of anywhere between 10'000-40'000 deaths (depending on sources).
3) As for the son, Bashar al-Assad, my beef with him was that he had tortured CIA detainees for the USA and that he had allowed the Israelis to murder Imad Mughniyeh in a high-security neighborhood of Damascus.

I don't want to go into a polemic here over whether my reasons were valid or not.  For one thing, at this point in time, this is irrelevant.  I will just summarize my personal evolution by saying that while I did not like Assad or, while I actually disliked the Assad regime, and while I mistakenly assumed that the demonstrations were in support of democracy, human rights, free speech and political pluralism, I soon came to realize that I was completely mistaken.  What was taking place was not an expression of popular demands, but a CIA backed, KSA financed and Wahabi executed attempt at regime change and that Syria was at the edge of becoming a hybrid of the so-called "Islamic state of the Caucasus Emirate", Somalia and Afghanistan.  I also understood that for better or for worse, but the person of Bashar al-Assad, the Baathist regime, the Syrian state and the Syrian nation were, de-facto, one and the same and in the context of a foreign intervention it was simply unreal to defend one without defending the other.  Yes, at a future date, I would love to see these categories become separate again.  But at this moment in time they are one and the same, they are "Syria".

But my topic today is not Syria, but the most disturbing thoughts I have been struggling with ever since the war on Syria (not in Syria, but on Syria) began.  By various estimates, the war on Syria has already caused something in the range of 100'000-150'000 deaths.  For a total population in the range of 22 million, that is very big.  But what really hit me is this thought:

Was Hafez al-Assad wrong to crush the Islamic uprising in 1982 at the cost of up to 10'000-40'000 deaths and within one month or was he wise?  On one hand 10-000-40'000 deaths in one month and on the other 100'000-150'000 deaths in over two years.

Of course, one could say that the 1982 "Hama massacre" eventually resulted in today's civil war.  But what if that 1982 massacre gave the Syrians 20+ years of relative peace instead and what if Bashar al-Hassad had crushed the current uprising as rapidly and brutally as his father did in early 2011?

In hindsight - if I had a time travel machine and if I could travel back to 1982 and speak with Hafez al-Assad about the Islamic uprising taking place, would I really advise him to refrain from the use of force, or would I tell him "go ahead and crush this monster before it fully materializes!"?

The Ukraine:

I am looking at the footage coming out of Kiev and I can't help wonder what I would recommend to Yanukovich if I was his advisor.  Something interesting happened two days ago: the regime told the riot cops to push back the demonstrators by a few hundred yards and to tear down the catapult they had build.  Well, the riot cops did that very easily, even without using any kind of lethal weapons, they pushed back the "elite" combat teams of the so-called "Right Sector" (Ukie neo-Nazis) in minutes.  Everybody was amazed at how easily the riot cops tore through what appeared to be well prepared defenses and how rapidly the order to clear a section of the Grushevsky street was executed.  I mention that because this probably indicates that the riot police could probably clear up all of central Kiev overnight if given the order.  Yes, such an operation would almost certainly result in fatalities, but there is no reason to suspect that their numbers would be large.

So, should the regime use violent force and simply clean up central Kiev?

From Maidan to Tiananmen to Moscow:

Maidan square brings back memories of another square, Tiananmen square in China.

Now please consider this: I was brought up in a rabidly anti-Communist family and I had been deeply involved in what the Soviets used to called "anti-Soviet activities" for many years.  In 1989 I was still more or less believing all the crap which I had been fed in my youth and I was studying in Washington DC towards a MA in Strategic Studies where most of my teaches were either from the White House, or the Pentagon, or the CIA or some branch of the US military.  Worst of all,  I was still under the delusion that you could get information from the mass media.  All this is to say that when the Tiananmen demonstrations began I was jubilant - to me this was yet again an example of "the people" overthrowing "Communism".  Sure, when the Chinese students put their ridiculous "Goddess of Democracy" even I got a little suspicious.  Something just did not look right.  But then the crackdown happened and the iconic picture of that historical moment, Tank Man, really blew my mind in its political perfection, or so I thought at the time: one simply man stops a column of tanks with his unprotected body.  What can be more noble, more inspiring, more touching than this amazing symbol of humanity?

Three years alter, in 1991, the Soviet Union "was collapsed" (let's not go into "who really did it" and "how" right now) and I rushed to my first trip to Russia ever.  I landed in Moscow and immediately went to the center of the city were the barricades were still standing.  My lifelong dream of seeing the Bolsheviks bite the dust had finally happened, and I was standing in the capital of a new, free Russia.  Or so I thought.  I spent a lot of time in Moscow between 1991 and 1993, and I saw it all: the complete collapse of the economy, the astronomic rise in crime, the ugly way in which ex-CPSU re-branded themselves as "democrats" only to steal away the wealth of the nation, the total breakdown in public services and the criminalization of the economy.  By 1992 my imbecilic enthusiasm had already been very much toned down and my outlook on things was beginning to get more sober, more cynical and more disillusioned.  The process of disillusionment reached its peak with in 1993 I witnessed with my own eyes the bloody orgy of violence unleashed by the Eltsin regime in Moscow.  Just before it all began I had spent many hours with all the parties involved in a struggle and I knew one thing for sure: both sides were ex-Communists, both sides were accusing the other of Fascism, and both sides were claiming to act in defense of democracy.  In fact - both sides were extremely similar and I was disgusted by all of them.  Eventually, the USA backed ex-Commies turned "democrats" won by using tanks to shoot at the Parliament building and Russia sank even deeper into another 7 years of "democratic nightmare".

Now playing the "what if" game - I wondered what if Gorbatchev had done in 1991 what the Chinese had done in 1989?  What was worse - the Tiananmen square "massacre" or 9 years of "democracy" in Russia?

I think that any sane and rational person who would compare the fantastic economic boom China saw in the 1990s compared to the complete collapse of Russia over the same time period has to admit that Deng Xiaoping was a much wiser statesman than Gorbachev.  Keep in mind that Deng Xiaoping himself once said that the Tiananmen crackdown had prevented a civil war in China.

Looking back in time:

By 1993 I had very few illusions left, my career had not taken the fatal plunge yet (that would happen by 1997), but my eyes were slowly opening to a far more complex reality than I had assumed.  Still, the fate of Russia was still very much on my mind and I was avidly reading all the books I could get my hand on about the Bolshevik revolution and the reign of Czar Nicholas II.  The mountain of lies written about these two topics must be something of a historical "Mount Everest" mainly because almost all the parties involved had a stake in spreading and maintaining the same pack of lies.  It goes something like this:

Under Nicholas II Russia was a poor authoritarian country ruled by a weak and incompetent Czar, who was eventually overthrown in 1917 in a popular uprising which brought the Communist to power.

In that sentence above literally every word is a lie.  Now, I don't want to write an analysis of the causes, mechanism and nature of the so-called "October Revolution", but I have to share with you some of what had found out:

1) 1917 Russia was wealthy and the economy was booming
2) 1917 Russia was economically socialist and politically pluralist
3) Nicholas II was neither weak nor incompetent
4) The real regime change happened in February of 1917
5) All the Bolsheviks did is to boot the liberals out of power after 8 months of utter chaos

I know that many of you will disagree, but I ask you to ignore my reasons and just look at my conclusion as it is the only thing pertinent to my current dilemma:

There is no doubt in my mind that Czar Nicholas II could have *easily* crushed the February 1917 Revolution had he wanted to.  His reasons for not doing so are complex (he was a complex person), but the bottom line was this: he did not want to maintain himself in power by violence.   On a human level, I understand him completely.  On a religious level (Nicholas II was very deeply religious) I also can understand him.  My question is this:

But for the future of Russia, was his decision the correct one?

I am personally convinced that if Nicholas II had ordered the arrest of no more than 50 key personalities and if he had also ordered a few trustworthy generals to clear the streets of Saint Petersburg from the rampaging mobs (by shooting on sight if needed) there would have been no February Revolution, no October Revolution, no Civil War and, possibly no World War II or even no Cold War.  I know, "shoulda, coulda, woulda" and to-rewrite history is always easy.  But still, think of it: the lives of, say, a few hundred of the worst scum of Russia in 1917 or the lives of many tens of millions of innocent people?

The counter-example: Argentina 1976

In 1976 I was still a 13 year old kid, but I had two cousins in the Argentinian military and I was spending all my winter holidays in Buenos-Aires.  I remember the daily bombings and terrorist attacks of 1975-1976 when the country was torn up by rampaging guerrillas from the Montoneros and the even more frightening ERP on one hand, and a totally clueless and corrupt police on the other.  Bombings, kidnappings, shootings everywhere, every day.  Police barricades all over the city.  Regular riots and demonstrations by students, unions, political parties.  Semi-official rightwing death squads - called AAA - lead by, I kid you not, the "Minister of Social Welfare" - Jose Lopez Rega - also known as "the sorcerer" because he was deeply involved in black magic.  And to top it all off, an entire province of central Argentina - Tucuman - totally under the control of the ERP guerrillas who simply executed all the government officials and basically declared their own state.  Scary stuff, I can tell you, not only for a 13 year old boy.

So when the Argentinian military lead by General Jorge Rafael Videla took power, I promise you that most Argentinians were extremely relieved and had high hopes for the restoration of law and order.  Well, we all know what happened, from then on it was all downhill and the military dictatorship's rule of incompetence and violence ended in the absolutely stupid and mis-managed invasion of the Malvinas (yes, I do consider that these islands should belong to Argentina, but no, I don't think that invading them made sense).  Looking back at the rule of the military in Argentina it was a disaster.

I recently spoke to my old cousin, who retired from the Argentine military with the rank of Lt-Colonel, and he told me: "you know, we did win the military war, but we lost the ideological one".  I think that he is right.  They did crush the guerrillas, rather fast really, but they did so at the cost of alienating the vast majority of the Argentinian people.  Which brings me full circle to my original dilemma.

The legitimate use of violence by the state

Clearly, and by definition, there is a general consensus amongst most people that the state can, and should, use violence in defense of its people.  This is, at least in theory, why we have a police and a military.  In theory, the police is supposed to use violence when needed inside the country, while the military is supposed to deal with foreign threats.

Now, since I know that I have a lot of readers in the USA, and since I know that amongst them there will be those who define themselves as anarchists or libertarians, let me immediately deal with their objections to the above.

Anarcho-libertarians are basically opposed to the very existence of the state.  At best, they want the least possible amount of state, at worst, they want no state at all.  It is not my purpose today to debunk one by one all the fundamentally mistaken assumptions (political, historical, sociological or economic) which anarcho-libertarians make, but I will just say that the ideal anarcho-libertarian society is even more impossible than the ideal Communist society of Marx.  I know, that will not convince anybody who believes in the state-less myth, but I would ask them to set aside their own preferences and accept, for argument's sake, the following three postulates:

1) If the function of a state is to maintain law and order, its purpose is to defend the weak.  Why?  Because the powerful do not need a state to defend themselves.  A rich man does not need the police - he can hire his own bodyguards, investigators or enforcers.  A rich man does not need universal heath care - he can pay for his medical costs.  A rich man does not need regulated highways - he will chase the poor off the roads no problem.  And if the rich man every needs a military, its only because he does not have enough hired guns for himself, because he is comparatively weak alone.

2) Only a state can uphold the rule of law.  All non-state entities are regulated by the rule of the ruler, not the rule of law.  Remove the state and, by definition, you will have lawlessness.

3) History is replete with examples of very, very bad states.  History is also replete with examples of very, very bad medecine.  Yet we do not want to live without medicine.  To reject the state on principle is "throwing the baby out with the water". The solution to "bad state" is "good state", not "no state".

I hope that this takes care of any accusations of "statism" and other such naive accusations.  Anyway, back to the topic at hand:

In theory a state is entitled to use violence.  The problem with that is that a state which relies on violence to impose law and order becomes a violent state and that is, I think we can all agree, a very bad and most undesirable thing.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn once developed a very interesting concept.  He said that regimes can all be placed on a conceptual continuum ranging from "regimes whose power is based on authority" to "regimes whose authority is based on power".  He is right.  And in an ideal world, all regimes would be enjoying the support of its people because the latter would feel well represented, heard, taken care of, etc.  In the real world, of course, this is rarely so, especially at a time when the capitalist nature of the international economy is running the entire planet into the ground and when the top 1% rule more and more overtly by violence only.  It is no wonder that the anarcho-libertarian ideas are so strong in the USA where most people have not seen an European-style state taking care of weak, sick, poor or needed and where the state is really fully an instrument in the hands of US corporations, special-interests groups and various lobbies.  And, to nobody's surprise, the US state is amazingly violent with 16+ intelligence agencies, cops everywhere and on all levels, uniformed hire-a-cops everywhere too, TSA goons, 2 million Americans in jail, daily police shootings, taserings, beating, etc, etc, etc.  You spend enough time in the US will will become anti-state too!

But what happens when a state which does have authority based on more than just power is challenged by a minority of very aggressive people who do not recognize any authority to the state and who actually want to use power to overthrow the state?  That is what we see in the Ukraine today, that is also what is taking place in Syria and that is what was happening in the streets of Saint-Petersburg in the first months on 1917.  What should the state do to defend the people?  Do like Nicholas II and refuse to stay in power by violence, or do like Hafez al-Assad who deliberately killed many thousand of Syrians thereby protecting many millions more?  What the "Tiananmen massacre" a way for the "Chinese commies to just stay in power and resist reforms" as the corporate media would have us think, or was the the only way to save democracy in China and avoid a civil war?  And what if Gorbachev had categorically ordered his forces to arrest Eltsin, Kravchuk and Shushkevich - would that have been better or much worse?

My doubts and fears

Frankly, I think that Yanukovich should send in the riot police to clear the street of the city of Kiev from the nationalist scum rioting there.  I would also arrest the top opposition leaders for sedition, armed insurrection, conspiracy to overthrow the government, treason, etc. etc. etc. - whatever the Ukrainian penal code offers.  Let them all join Iulia Timoshenko in jail or, better, let them replace her in jail as I really don't see at all what she deserves being put in jail for.

But then what?

Yanukovich clearly has little to no authority in Solzhenitsyn's terms.
I suppose that Hafez al-Assad did.
As for Videla, I think that he had it, but lost it pretty soon.
So if Yanukovich uses his cops, would he gain or lose authority for doing so?
I think that showing some spine and being a statesman is better than being a jellyfish.  But that's me.

Keep in mind that the famous Ukrainian "Berkut" is no Spetsnaz at all, even if the moronic media says so.  They are just riot cops, something like the French CRS or the Russian OMON.  Using them to clear the city center is not like "sending in the tanks".  Right now these poor guys are told to get burned, beat up, shot at and abused and just stand there and take it.  I really feel sorry for them.  And Yanikovich is a scumbag to denounce them every time he sends them in to do something.  I wish they could turn their batons on him and beat the crap of of his fat body, but that is not going to happen either, alas. But if he sends them in, they are probably going to delight in beating the ever-living shit of the neo-Nazi punks which have been abusing and assaulting them for weeks now.  To ask them to gently and kindly escort these armed nationalist thugs out of the city center is also unreal.  So if they go in to really clear not only Grushevski street but also Maidan square, there are going to be many casualties and even fatalities.  Right now, about 100 of these Berkut cops are already in hospitals with various injuries and more are sent there every day.  Finally, I strongly suspect that the combatants of the "Right Block" have stores of firearms hidden in Kiev and the surrounding areas and that they will use them should the government send in the cops to clear the city center.  At that point, the Berkut guys will have no other choice than to shoot back and which point even more blood will be shed, and the western Ziomedia will go in hyperdrive with indignation at the "gross human rights violations" of a "discredited regime" which has "turned against his own people" who "peacefully demonstrated" for "reforms and democracy".

So should Yanukovich sit tight and wait?

I honestly don't know but I have a strong feeling that a Tiananmen square like outcome (remember - they even had to use soldiers, armored assault vehicles and tanks!) is the best the Ukraine can hope for at this time.

What do you think?  Please let us know!

Kind regards and many thanks!

The Saker