Clarifications about certain issues mentioned in today's SITREP

As is often the case, my previous SITREP has touched superficially on a number of issues which have raised some eyebrows and, since I have the time, I feel that it might be a good thing to clarify my position on some of them.

A "limited" Russian military option

First, this is clearly a possibility whose main quality is that is falls short of a full-scale ground operation.  However, those who advocate for this option often do not really understand what it entails.  Let me give you an example by using a grand favorite of Americans: a no-fly zone.

The standard US/NATO practice if to precede the imposition of a no-fly zone by a almost total suppression of enemy air defenses.  US/NATO generals always do that because they want to make it look like this is a clean, victim-less operation since, after all, nobody gives a damn about who many "bad guys" die as long as "our boys" come home.  The problem with that is that a total suppression of enemy air defenses rarely works.  This is particularly true of the Ukraine which holds large stocks of Soviet air defense systems which remain very capable even when old are.  I remind you that the super-dooper mega-secret "invisible" and "we own the night" US F-117 stealth fighter bomber was shot down by an export version of the 1960s Soviet 125 Neva/Pechora (SA-3 GOA in the NATO classification) air defense system.  The US also lost another two F-117 to the Iraqi Air Defenses (I know that for a fact, but that is officially denied).  The Ukraine inherited some very powerful systems like the S-300, S-300V, several versions of the Buk, the Tunguska and the Igla MANPADs.  They are not as new as the Russian systems, but they are still way more capable then anything Yugoslavia had.  Furthermore, we also know from the war in Georgia that Ukie air defense systems have been modernized by the Ukrainians themselves and, in some cases, with Israeli help.  So while the Ukrainian military is more or less a joke, the Ukrainian air defense capabilities are not to be dismissed too easily.  In other words, it is one thing to impose an no-fly zone over Libya and a very different thing to try that with the Donbass.

Also, this scenario simply assumes that the Ukies will take a Russian attack sitting like ducks and without taking action.  This is naive.  There are a lot of very capable senior officers in the Ukrainian military and they know that just sitting and waiting is no option.  Does anybody know what they might or might not do if the Russians attack?  I sure don't.

Limited and "no fly zone" types of operations have this way of getting out of control which makes them all very risky.

Finally, while there are people dying every day in the Donbass, there will be many more people dying if Russia intervenes.

Wars are messy and ugly and they typically refuse to proceed according to the plans of those who start them.  This is why Russia is doing the right thing by avoiding such a war for as long as it is possible.

Objections to my mentioning the "sads"

This time again I got not only comments but even emails objecting to my reference to the "sads".  My recent post of the Conchita Wurst photo with a bearded man from the Donbass has also irked some readers.  Mostly what I am told is this:"stop your anti-sads rethoric or your readers will be upset" (of course, were I use "sad" they use "gay").  My reply is simple:

I never wrote a single word on this blog with the intent to become popular or not to ruffle any feathers.  If fact, I don't give a damn about catering to the modern sociological and cultural trends of the day.  I simply write the truth as I see it and in this case it is very simple: what modern society calls "sexual diversity" I consider as psycho-sexual pathologies, personality disorders.  Second, I object to the instrumentalization of sexual pathologies for political purposes: sex belongs in the bedroom and it should stay there.  And third, I consider that the so-called "West" suffers, among other ailments, of an acute case of psychological, moral and spiritual "AIDS": an acquired deficiency in its ability to distinguish between what is wholesome, healthy, natural and contributing to the growth of the individual and what has the opposite effect.  In Russia there is a comprehensive rejection of this "western societal model" which I fully approve of and I have no intention of catering to the micro-agenda of those single-topic folks who would have me join the passive herd of bystanders who dare not call things by their name.  This is why I refuse to use the term "gay" which I consider a ridiculous misnomer.  Solzhenitsyn used to speak of a "decline in courage" and I personally see everywhere and in everything.  If I was also afraid of offending somebody for simply speaking the truth, I would not be able to look at myself in the mirror.  People should come here to get my honest opinion, not to get my support for whatever lifestyles they fancy.  The more pressure I will get to shut up or accept the modern dogmas of political correctness, the more I will push back and denounce that kind of pressure for what it is: an attempt to silence the opposition.

The Eurosceptics: Right-wing racists or anti-system progressives?

Let me begin by saying that the only country in Europe whose politics I follow really carefully is France.  I do not know what the Eurosceptics are like in other countries.  With this caveat in mind, is the French National Front anti-Muslim and racist?  The answer is, I believe, yes and no.

Yes, there is most definitively an anti-immigrant core in the FN.  This group is represented by Marine LePen who, logically, is also rather Right-wing in her politics.  But you have to look beyond that and understand the following:

First, immigration in Europe is, objectively, a real and very serious problem.  Denying that makes no sense at all.  Second, this problem has been created the capitalist classes who saw in it a way to not only get cheap labor, but also to break the resistance of the European workers and to deconstruct the social state.  In other words, from the point of view of the worker in France or German the immigrants and his capitalist bosses are very much part of the same threat to his lifestyle.  Add to this toxic brew the Euro-bureaucrats who took it all one big step further and opened the EU to the huge and poor people of Central Europe.  For the German or French worker what used to be a problem of Arabs and Africans has now turned into a problem of Poles and Romanians, especially Gypsies.  In fact, a lot of the French Arabs from northern Africa now vote with the FN against immigration because they now see their very hard earned benefits melt away under the influx of Romanian and Moldovan immigrants.  Likewise, it used to be that Islam was seen as a threat, now it is Muslims who are on the front lines of the fight against thefts and muggings which take place in London or Paris.

So, yes, the first-step of the rejection of the system often goes through an anti-immigrant phase.  And some remain stuck there.  But the next step is a realization that immigrants and local workers are both equally the victims of the capitalists.  This is what Alain Soral's movement Equality and Reconciliation stands for.  This movement is probably 40% Arab or African by now and yet while E&R does not make the political endorsement of any one party, Alain Soral (himself both ex-Communist and ex-National Front) clearly states that the FN is the only non-system party in France.  And since E&R is clearly pro-Muslim I think that it is likely that most anti-Muslim voters of the FN could easily turn their position to a pro-Islamic one if they are explained what really happened to Europe and how both local workers and immigrant Muslims have been used and artificially pitied against each other by the plutocrats.

Does the French model hold true for the rest of Europe?  I don't know.  But I have no doubt that very voter for the FN is at least a potential member of E&R at which point he/she will automatically drop his/her anti-immigrant and anti-Islamic stance.  Does that mean that there are no racists or bigots inside the FN?  No, of course not.  But even if their rejection of the "system" is initially polluted by racist or secularist bigotry, these elements rapidly disappear as soon as they are explained how misguided these views are and that immigrants and Islam are not a risk for Europe, but a fantastic and possibly life-saving opportunity against the real threat: the plutocracy, globalism, turbo-capitalism and imperialism. 

To those who still would not accept that I have a simple peace of advice: study Soral and see what E&R does day in and day out.  They are the "proof" of my thesis: the real enemy of the patriots in Europe is not the immigrant, it is the globalist.  In his book 1984 Orwell has Winston saying "if there is hope it lies with the proles".  So to paraphrase him I will say this: "if there is hope for Europe it lies with the extremes" (whether Left or Right).

Kind regards,

The Saker