Is Bezler really naive?

"A united federated Nazi-free Ukraine?"

 Please, that train has left the station.

Total fantasy at this point"

Andreas Walsh

This issue is one which divides many sincere and good people and which I rarely see addressed directly.  And yet, it is a crucial one.  Today, I want to address is head on.

The realistic argument (version one)

As Otto von Bismarck said, "politics is the science of the possible".  It is all well and dandy to hope for the best, but unless you are delusional or believe in magic-thinking, you have to prepare for the worst and settle for anything in the middle. There are plenty of conflicts which end in some kind of compromise which neither side likes, but which both sides accept simply because the alternative is even worse. And as Andreas Walsh correctly points out, a "united federated Nazi-free Ukraine" (to use Bezler's words) is a very tall order.  In fact, there are growing signs that the support for the so-called "anti-terrorist operation" (ATO) is *growing*, that the zombificaton if the Ukrainian people is very successful.  For example, just two days ago I was watching yet another videoconference between the some citizens of Kiev and some citizens of Donetsk and I was horrified to see that the folks from Kiev still seriously spoke, apparently with all sincerity, about the "Russian army being involved in the battles in Novorussia".  As for the latest Ukie Rada, it is chock-full of Nazi field commanders, death-squad leaders, clearly Nazi politicians and, of course, oligarchs.  The truth is that there are no signs of even a slight de-Nazificaton in the Ukraine, quite to the contrary, all the signs are of a rapid and strong Nazification of the Ukrainian society.

That is all true, but that is only part of the picture.  A small part.

The realistic argument (version two)

The big problem with the realistic argument above is that is is completely focused on the short term.  Worse, it replies to the wrong question which is this: "are there any signs of de-Nazification in the Ukraine or not?"  The correct question is very different, and it is this one:"is a Nazi regime in the Ukraine viable?".  That is also a realistic argument, I would argue more realistic than the first one.  To answer this question, we really need to answer to sub-questions:

a) Is a Nazi regime in the Ukraine intrinsically viable?  That is, in the best of external circumstances, could a Nazi regime remain in power in the Ukraine?  In practical terms this means this: can the Nazis prevent the total "somalization" of what is left of the Ukraine?  Could they, if given enough support from abroad, stabilize and somehow rebuilt some form of statehood?

b) Even if a Nazi regime in Kiev is viable, can the countries around the Ukraine accept a Nazi Ukraine as a long-term neighbor?  After all, Hitler was never voted out of power, it took the Soviet military (with some late assistance by the Anglo powers) to get rid of him.  I would argue that there are some regimes which are inherently so terrible that nobody can ever accept them (ISIS for example).

Now let's begin by the first question.

I don't think that anybody will deny that the Ukraine is a sinking ship.  The Ukrainian economy is gone, finished, dead.  There is no money left, no cash, no gold.  Right now, the Ukraine is literally "coasting by inertia on an empty tank" and when it finally comes to a standstill things will get really, really ugly.  Right now, the regime in power is busy doing all sorts of very "patriotic" but utterly useless things.  They are re-writing history books (even though they lack the money to print them), they are accepting non-citizens in top government positions (Americans, Poles, Germans, Lithuanians, Georgians, etc.) and they are changing the name of WWII.  Great stuff, for sure, but it is painfully clear that they Junta has no plan to fix the economy and that it won't even pretend.  So we are dealing with a sinking ship whose crew is not even pretending to make an effort to prevent her from going to the bottom of the ocean.  How viable is that?

Now let's look at the second question:

It is also undeniable that neither Europe nor Russia can simply turn away from the Ukraine like they have from sub-Saharan Africa and pretend that it does not exist.  No matter how much the Ukraine will end up resembling Somalia, the Congo or Liberia, the Ukraine does exist, millions of people live there, and they don't want to die.  And they have guns, lots of guns.  So no matter what the politics are, the EU and Russia will have to rescue the Ukrainian people and neither side has the means or the will do to so alone.  That, in turn, means that both sides have a veto power on any rescue plan for the Ukraine.  Including Russia.

Russia, by the way, has the option of rescuing only the Donbass, which is the richest and best educated part of the Ukraine anyway, and leave the rest of it to the EU bureaucrats.   Russia is also far more capable of isolating herself from a "africanized" Ukraine then the EU.  In other words, the EU is far more threatened by chaos in the Ukraine than Russia, and far less capable of dealing with the consequences of that chaos than Russia.  And the Russians understand that.

Last, but most certainly not least, no matter who is in power and no matter what the politics of the situation, geography dictates a simple reality: Russia will always be the Ukraine's biggest trading partner. To think otherwise simply ignores the nature of market forces.  In other words, any, and I mean any, plan for the reconstruction of the Ukraine will have to center on the reestablishment of economic ties with Russia.

All of the above can be very simply summed up like this: in the long run, no regime in Kiev is viable unless it has the support of Russia.  It is really that simple.

Of course, in the short term and even mid term, the AngloZionists can prop up a Nazi regime in Kiev, but in the long run this is futile, they simply don't have anywhere near the resources needed to make that happen.

Pretend wars and real wars

The recent flurry of pretend-wars presented to us by CNN have resulted in a complete misconception by the general public of how real wars are fought.  We are used to the US attacking, the "bad guys" shooting something back, then the US wins, and everybody goes on to the next pseudo-war.  This is not how real wars happen.

First, real wars take years to resolve.  I don't mean pseudo-wars like Desert Storm or the bombing of Serbia.  I mean *real* wars.  Like WWI and WWII.  Or the US war against Japan in the Pacific.  Or the Korean war (which technically is still ongoing).

Second, in most real wars the attacked side is mostly unprepared to defend itself, hence the attack.  This is very true of Russia, as some of correctly deduced from the Khazin Q&A: by 2014 Russia was not ready to fight the AngloZionist Empire (Russia would have preferred to have the conflict happen in 2020).  But when you get attacked, you don't get to chose the time of the attack, that advantage is inherently for the attacker.

Third, because of this, most real wars begin by a retreat of the attacked party.  That directly flows from the second point above.  Right now, Russia has "retreated" to less than the full Donetsk and Lugansk regions and she had to "give up" not only most of historical Novorussia, but the entire Ukraine.  This is normal and entirely predictable.  It is, in fact, quite amazing that the entire Ukrainian military has not managed to subdue two fairly small regions.

But anybody who seriously believes that this is were this war will end is completely naive and does not understand what is at stake here: the very existence of Russia as a nation and a state.  Russia will never ever allow this conflict to just freeze anywhere near the current line of contact.  In fact, Russia will never allow a Nazi regime in Kiev to remain in power and, as I have explained above, Russia does have the means to prevent that.

The old folks in the Donbass who immediately compared the current war to WWII are correct.  In both cases, these wars were about the very survival of Russia not only as a nation and a state, but even as a civilizational realm.  The fact that WWII was fought mainly with the German Wehrmacht while the modern war is fought primarily by advanced propaganda techniques makes absolutely no difference.  In both cases we are dealing with an attempt to destroy "Russia" in the largest sense of the word.  Having met a lot of people who lived through WWII, including Russians who lived in Germany, and having studied the history of that war, I would argue that today's level of russophobia is even worse then during Hitler's times.  At least during WWII most Germans were not brainwashed into hating Russians (that kind of crap was only believed by NSDAP Party members, and that not even by all!), whereas nowadays the russophobia has become generalized and completely hysterical, especially in the USA and the Junta-controlled Ukraine.

If you can, read the Ukrainian nationalist press, listen to their speeches, read their websites, including social ones, try to expose yourself to as much real Ukrainian nationalist thought as you can and you will come to realize a simple thing: at its very core, the "Ukraine" is nothing but an "anti-Russia".  The Ukraine as a concept does not have a positive content, in fact, it does not even have any inherent reality.  The Ukraine is only anti-Russian, it is defined by its opposition to Russia.

Historically, the Ukrainian project was first created by the Papacy as an "anti-Orthodoxy", but following both the decline of Christianity in the West and the rise of nationalism the "Ukrainian project" turned from being primarily anti-Orthodox to its modernized, secular, version - being anti-Russian.

Just like Judaism is, in historical, cultural and religious terms, nothing but an anti-Christianity, so is "Ukrainianism" just an "anti-Russism".  You think that I am kidding?

Just look at the freaks in power in Kiev: US-born immigrants, Jewish oligarchs, bona-fide Nazis, Uniat priest, "Gay-rights" activists, death-squad commanders and pro-European students.  Tell me, is there any idea, any real value which  unites this freaks zoo?  Only one: hate, rabid hate for Russia.

Realistic realism

The ontological relationship betwen Russia and the Ukraine is similar to the one of a electron and positron: combined the explode and release a lot of energy (in the form of violence, hopefully without gamma-rays).  The good news for Russia is that it's mass of matter is way bigger than the mass of the Ukrainian anti-matter, by several orders of magnitude.  In plain English this simply means that the "Ukrainians positrons" (the real hardcore Russophobic Nazis) will lose, at least in the long run.  Russia's mass is bigger in economic, demographic, geographic, intellectual, cultural, social, spiritual and, of course, economic terms.  The Nazis don't stand a chance.

So Bezler, far from being naive, is simply looking further in the distance.  Of course, the immediate task at hand is to protect Novorussia and allow it to survive the Winter.  Then the short term task will be to rebuilt Novorussia (which you should think of as "liberated Ukraine" as opposed to "occupied Ukraine" i.e. Banderastan).  The mid term task will then be do reach some kind of deal with whoever is in power in Kiev which will provide temporary but good security for Novorussia.  Lastly, the long term task will be to apply the correct political pressure to covertly foster a process of de-Nazification of the Ukraine while appearing to be doing almost nothing (let the Ukies think that they are "de-Nazifying themselves").

Yes, this will take years, just like any war does.  But there is no other solution.  It is the hight of naiveté to believe Russia can afford to live next to an "anti-Russia", nevermind the tiny Novorussia.  And, finally, the people of the Ukraine, most of them at least, deserve so much better than to live under a Nazi regime!  Yes, the Imperial propaganda today appears to be winning, but the first cracks are already appearing, especially in Europe, and the more the freaks in Kiev show their true face, the harder it will be for the Europlutocrats to sell them as the "good guys" to an already impoverished and mostly hostile European population.  This will be just as with the "heroic Afghan Mujahideen" who began as "freedom fighters", but who were then downgraded to "Islamic Fundamentalists", then to "al-Qaeda terrorists" and now "ISIS Über-villans".

After all is said and done, and the dust settles, and the war is over, two things will remain: the fact that the Ukraine is an artificial entity and the fact that nobody will want to re-start that war.  In theory, breaking the Ukraine up into several parts is possible, but presents huge risks: the issue of borders is potentially the best way to restart violence and terror.  A far better solution is to make sure that each region is allowed to maintain and develop its identity.  So for all these reasons, a "A united federated Nazi-free Ukraine" is not only  a possible solution, it is the only solution.

Bezler is right.

The Saker

The key sentence in Putin's interview with the German TV channel ARD

You can read the full interview here: http://eng.kremlin.ru/news/23253

But the following quote is, I believe, crucial:

Today there is fighting in eastern Ukraine. The Ukrainian central authorities have sent the armed forces there and they even use ballistic missiles. Does anybody speak about it? Not a single word. And what does it mean? What does it tell us? This points to the fact, that you want the Ukrainian central authorities to annihilate everyone there, all of their political foes and opponents. Is that what you want? We certainly don't. And we won't let it happen.

The Russian original sentence is: Вы этого хотите? Мы не хотим. И не позволим.  I personally would translate this sentence "You want that?  We don't.  And we will not allow this."  You could also translate the last part as "we will not permit this".  This is not an expression of a preference or a much more vague "we won't condone" or "we oppose".  This is a very categorical statement which warns that Russia will proactively prevent such an outcome.

As I said it many times here already: Russia will not let the Nazis overrun Novorussia.

The Saker

Something very, very interesting has happened in Novorussia

Something fantastically interesting has happened in Novorussia: two senior Novorussian commanders, Igor Bezler and Alexei Mozgovoi have attempted to communicate with those Ukrainians who are on the other side.

Though I am not sure about the exact dates of the events (all I have is the dates of the posting on YouTube), this apparently began when Igor Bezler agreed to be interviewed by three TV crews at the same time: a Russian one, a Novorussian one, and a Ukrainian one.  The big news here was, of course, that a Ukrainian journalist was given access to the city of Gorlovka, currently surrounded by Ukrainian forces, and that she got to speak with the local people, including combatants and then that she was given access to Bezler himself.   Since all the journalists were more or less openly accusing each other of "filtering the truth" all parties agreed that the full recording, unedited, would be made available on YouTube.  Now please keep in mind that in Banderastan, Russian journalists are blacklisted, Russian TV stations banned, and that the people in the junta controlled Ukraine are told that the other side are terrorists and Russian soldiers.  Oh, and the Ukrainian media is the most disgusting, sold out, subservient, propagandistic you can imagine.  And then suddenly, at least one Ukrainian TV crew agrees to show the face of one of the most feared Novorussian commanders and he get's to speak his mind.

But the next event was even more amazing.  Alexei Mozgovoi agreed to a videoconference with not only Ukrainian journalists, but with actual field commanders of the Ukrainian military.  To see Mozgovoi and the Ukrainians speak directly to each other was absolutely amazing.  And here I have to apologize.  I will not ask our translators to translate and subtitle the full thing.  First, there were not one, but two such videoconferences.  Then, we are talking about three long videos, see for yourself:

Bezler interview: Published on Oct 21, 2014
http://youtu.be/uVN2wkuL88w (length: 2 hours 17 min)

First videoconference of Mozgovoi: Published on Oct 22, 2014
http://youtu.be/WYy5Y9MQozA (length: 1 hour 20 mins)

Second videoconference of Mozgovoi: Published Oct 28, 2014
http://youtu.be/tC7YGe0SmqQ (length:1 hour 51 mins)

I do hope that somebody somewhere will translate it all, but this is way too big a load for me to ask any of our volunteers.

Also, these are very complex videos.  There are discussions, some short moments of yelling and interrupting, there is cross-talk and there are even two songs.  This is complex, very emotional stuff, very hard to convey in a translated text.  Besides, who will have the time to sit through it all?

No, what I propose is to share with you the elements which struck me so much.

But first I need to clarify an important point: while the original idea apparently had been to have combatants talking to combatants, the Ukrainian side only had a few commanders and a few activists.  The Novorussian side was composed of actual soldiers.  Apparently, the Ukrainian side did not feel comfortable putting their foot-soldiers on the spot.

First and foremost, it was amazing to see how much both sides fully agreed upon.  Both sides agreed that this war was useless and only benefited the enemies of the Ukraine.  Both sides expressed contempt, disgust and even hatred for the politicians in power and the oligarchs who rule over Banderastan today.   Both sides also agree that Yanukovich was a scumbag and that the Maidan protests were absolutely legitimate but that the original protests had been hijacked by enemies of the Ukraine.  Both sides also agreed that this war had to be stopped.  Now, please keep in mind that Ukrainian Nazis were, of course, not invited.  These were mainly regular Ukrainian military speaking to Novorussian military and Ukrainian activists speaking to Mozgovoi.   There were also some real disagreements.

The Ukrainian position was this (paraphrase - not real quote): "the Maidan was legitimate and correct but you - the Novorussians - took up arms and you thereby created a crisis which the illegitimate junta used and which prevented us from defending our political goals.  We don't want our country to further break up and what you are doing is exactly that.  Also, we know that the Russian "Polite Armed Men in Green" are fighting on your side and many of you are not representing true Ukrainian interests, but Russian interests.  Stop fighting and join the political process to clean our country from the crazies".

To which Mozgovoi replied (paraphrase - not real quote): "we did not choose to fight, you came to our land and you are killing our people.  If you really want to clean Kiev from the Nazi scum, then don't stand between us and Kiev and let us pass - we will take care of them no problem.  You are taking orders from Nazis and oligarchs and you are doing nothing to stop them from killing our people.  If we were to lay down our arms, we would all be massacred.

One interesting thing was that when the Ukrainians accused the Novorussians of doing Russia's bidding, Mozgovoi replied that the Ukrainians were pawns of the CIA and, amazingly, the Ukrainians pretty much agreed that the CIA was running the show.  As for Mozgovoi, he did not deny that Russia was helping.

Both sides were expressing frustration that they could not unite their forces and jointly get rid of the oligarchs and Nazis.

During the Bezler interview, there was one amazing moment was when the Ukrainian crew asked Bezler if he spoke Ukrainian, to which he replied that 'yes'.  Unconvinced, the Ukrainian crew asked him if he could recite a poem by the famous poet Taras Shevchenko.  Then, to everybody's surprise, Bezler recited the poem "to the Poles" in which Sevchenko describes how happy the Cossaks were,

Until in the name of Christ
The ксьондзи (Latin Priests) came and set afire
To our quiet paradise. And spilled 
A huge sea of tears and blood,
And killed and crucified orphans 
In the Name of Christ
The heads of Cossacks then dropped
Like trampled grass,
The Ukraine cried, and moaned!
And the head after head
Fell to the ground. As if enraged,
A priest furious tongue
Screamed: «Te Deum! Hallelujah! .. "
And this is how my Polish friend and brother!
Evil priests and rich men
Separated us from each other
When we could have lived together happy

[nb: this is my own translation, I could not find this poem in English anywhere; as any Russian, I mostly understand Ukrainian, but I can easily misunderstand a word or expression so, caveat emptor, and don't take this translation to the bank!  The Saker]

It was quite amazing to see how well Bezler spoke Ukrainian and how he used this opportunity to remind his Ukrainian counterparts how already in the past they were used and manipulated by Russia and Orthodoxy -hating westerners, and he did so using verses of their own national hero!

In another rather surreal moment, a Novorussian solider took out a guitar and sang a song about the war.  The Ukrainians were clearly moved, although they were also disturbed by the fact that the song repeatedly said that these were "Russians fighting Russians".  This issue came up several again later in the conversation.  From the Novorussian point of view, the Ukrainians were also part of the "Russian cultural realm" (as opposed to state or nationality) albeit with a different accent and a different history.  The Ukrainians insisted that they were a different nationality, albeit one with strong ties to the "Russian cultural realm".

During both the Bezler and Mozgovoi interviews the issue of prisoners was raised.  Both sides reported that their men were mistreated and even tortured while in captivity.  Interestingly, during the Bezler interview there were two Ukrainian officials present, one human right activist and another who was representing the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense for the topic of POWs.  They both readily admitted that Bezler treated the Ukrainian prisoners not as prisoners at all, but as guests: they were free to walk around, they ate and slept with Bezler's men, they were treated with kindness and hospitality. In once instance he even fed them red caviar!  But the very same Bezler openly admitted that "we take no prisoners from the Nazi death squads" confirming  what I have said many times: the Russian kindness and generosity towards Ukrainian POWs only extends to regular army units - captured death squad members are immediately executed.

There are hundred of small moments and exchanges which I wish I could convey to you, but that would take too much space and time.  What I will say is that it was quite amazing to see enemies talking to each other in a very friendly manner.  I was also amazed at how readily the Ukrainians agreed that the Ukraine must rid herself from the Nazis and the oligarchs.  In various occasions people on both sides said "let's do that together!".  Others were more dubious.  Frankly, I am extremely impressed by the courage and decency of many of the Ukrainians in these interviews who, while standing their ground on the issue of the territorial integrity of the Ukraine, quite openly said how much they hated the Nazis and the oligarchs.  I sure hope that God will protect these men for their courage.

Both Bezler and Mozgovoi looked very, very good.  The latter especially surprised me by explicitly stating that his goal was regime change in Kiev and not just the separation of Novorussia which he clearly sees as a only temporary solution and as a necessary self-defense measure.  Clearly, both Bezler and Mozgovoi are first and foremost anti-Nazis and both of them see that there is not "Novorussian solution".  Mozgovoi explicitly stated that he think that both sides could live together if the Ukrainians got rid of their Nazis and oligarchs.

While I have always said that the only possible stable solution of the crisis is a de-nazification of the Ukraine and a conversion of the current Banderastan into a "mentally sane" Ukraine, I am not naive and I also see that this might take a decade or more.  However, seeing how Mozgovoi and his Ukrainian counterparts agreed on the need to de-nazify and de-oligarchise (is that English?) I see that there is hope because the bottom line is this: both sides have much more in common than what separates them!

Again, these were regular Ukrainians, not crazed Nazi death-squad members, I understand that.  And the two sides do disagree on fundamental issues.  I see that too.  But I also see that there is a basis, a minimum in common, to negotiate.  This does not have to be a war of extermination.

The Ukraine as we knew her is dead.  Now we have Crimea and Novorussia which are gone forever, and a rump-Ukraine I call "Banderastan" which is occupied by the US CIA, Ukie Nazis and oligarchs.  My hope is that the just as the Ukrainian civil war turned into a war for the self-determination and liberation of Novorussia, so will the war for self-determination and liberation of Novorussia turn into a war for the liberation of Banderastan from its US/Nazi/oligarchic occupiers.  If that happens and if a new Ukraine eventually emerges, then I have no doubt that the people of the Ukraine will agree that each region should have the right of self-determination ranging from cultural right to full separation.  Only then will we really find out which regions want to stay and which ones want to leave forever.

In the meantime, I am very positively impressed by the Novorussian field commanders.  Bezler and Mozgovoi of course, but also Givi, Motorola, Zakharchenko, Kononov  and the others are all strong figures capable of both fighting and talking.  Strelkov, alas, is still more or less in political no man's land and I am very concerned about his proximity with the blogger el-Murid who is clearly a "gateway" to the "hurray-patriots" and "Putin bashers" which are being used by the Empire to try to discredit Putin. Still, the political infighting amongst Novorussian leaders continues and there is still no clear leader.  Hopefully, the upcoming elections will help to solve this issue.

The Saker

What could the next Junta offensive against Novorussia look like?

Dear friends,

On July 1st of this year - just before an imminent Ukie attack - I made a short post entitled Novorussia - Hope for the best, prepare for the worst, and settle for anything in the middle in which I was trying to prepare my readers for the possible consequences of a massive Ukrainian assault.

Разбор полетов - "after action report"

Looking back, I would say that what actually took place was neither the best, nor the worst, option, but an "in the middle" kind of outcome: initially, the Ukies almost severed Donetsk from Luganks, but they never had the capability to really enter these cities and execute urban offensive operations.  The junta forces did penetrated deeply in Novorussian territory, but they were soon surrounded and the famous "cauldrons" began to form.  The biggest loss for the Novorussians was the loss of Slaviansk and Kramotorsk which Strelkov attempted to hold as long as possible apparently in the hope of a Russian military intervention, even though he always knew that Slaviansk was indefensible.  When it became clear that the Russians would not come, Strelkov did the right thing and pulled his forces out of Slaviansk and into Donetsk.

All in all, the Novorussian Armed Forces (NAF) proved to be a force far superior to the Junta Repression Forces (JRF) which suffered from the following problems:

• Criminally incompetent top commanders in Kiev and at the operational headquarters.
• Terrible logistics
• Poor morale
• Poor training
• Poor coordination
• A hostile local population

The strong points of the JRF were:

• An overwhelming advantage in firepower
• An overwhelming advantage in armor
• An overwhelming advantage in numbers
• A monopoly on heavy weapons
• A total control of the skies
• The individual courage and resilience of the soldiers of the regular and, especially, special army units

The Novorussians negated these advantages by never presenting a lucrative target, by their high mobility and by their extremely successful air-defenses.

The weak points of the NAF were:

• A acute lack of firepower
• A acute lack of armor
• A acute lack of men (especially specialists)
• The total absence of heavy weapons
• The absence of a true central command

The strong points of the NAF were:

• The extremely high morale of the all the fighting men and woman
• Very competent commanders and experienced officers
• Very strong tactical skills
• An excellent knowledge and use of the terrain
• Excellent intelligence (no doubt with Russian GRU help)
• Extremely effective air-defenses (which imposed a no-fly zone on the Ukies)
• Strong support from the local population
• A remarkable network of highly skilled technicians capable of repairing, cannibalizing and even rebuilding weapons with old, damaged and abandoned Ukie hardware

All in all the Novorussians did a superb job negating all the advantages of the Ukies while maximizing on their own strong points.  There were ups and down, but I would say that the bottom line of the July-September offensive was a crushing and humiliating defeat for the Ukies and a superb victory for the Novorussians.

What if the Junta attacks again?

Bu now - Sunday morning - there is a quasi-consensus that the Junta is about to launch yet another massive offensive.  Assuming that this is true - and I personally think this is very likely - what are we likely to see?  Furthermore, since the same causes tend to produce the same effects, the key question is this: what have the Ukies learned from their defeat this summer and what could they do differently this time around?

Alas, I don't have access to any first hand information about how the Junta has been preparing itself for the new assault.  Here is what I have found out through the Russian and Ukrainian media:

Junta-controlled military factories have been working night and day to produce a large number of tanks, APCs, IFVs and artillery pieces.  The Ukrainians have been training their SU-25 and Mi-24 pilots.  New volunteer units have been created and regular army units have been re-organized.  The Ukies have built defensive lines along key sectors of the front (such apparently "defensive" preparations are actually crucial for any offensive plans since a highly prepared defensive sector can be held by a numerically smaller forces while preventing an counter-attack or envelopment from the other side).  We have to assume that more men have been mobilized and trained and that the next Ukie assault will again pit a very large Ukrainian force against a much smaller Novorussian one.  But will that be enough for the Ukies to prevail?

I don't think so.

What the Ukies are preparing is rather obvious.  They will pick several key axes of attack along which they will unleash a massive artillery attack.  This fire preparation will serve to prepare for a push by Ukrainian armored units (this time around we can expect the Ukrainian infantry to properly defend their tanks and not the other way around).  The Ukrainians will not push deep into Donetsk or Lugansk, but rather they will try to, again, cut-off and surround Donetsk in a pincer attack and then negotiate some kind of quasi-surrender by the Novorussians.  At most, they will try to enter a few important suburbs.  I don't expect much action around Luganks - Donetsk is far more exposed.

Now, if I am correct and this is what happens, then please understand and remember this: the correct Novorussian response to this plan is to begin by retreating.  It makes no sense whatsoever for the Novorussians to sit and fight from positions which are densely covered by Ukrainian artillery strikes.  During the first Ukrainian attack I was dismayed to see how many people clearly did not understand the importance retreats in warfare.  The "hurray-patriots" in particular were adamant that the initial Novorussian retreat was a clear sign that, as always, "Putin had betrayed Novorussia" (when the NAF went on a long and brilliant counter-offensive, these "hurray-patriots" fell silent for a while until the moment when Moscow stopped the NAF from seizing Mariupol, at which point they resumed chanting their mantra).  The fact is that retreating against a superior forces is the logical thing to do, especially if you have had the time to prepare for a two, possibly, three echelon defense.  While I do not know that for a fact, this is what I expect the Novorussians have been doing during all the length of the ceasefire: preparing a well-concealed and layered defense.

My hope and expectation is that once the JRF attacks the NAF will, again, carefully retreat, pull the JFR in, and then being to gradually degrade the attacking force. I particular hope that the Russians have finally send some much needed guided anti-tank weapons through the voentorg.

Second, the lack of political unity in Novorussia is not as big a military problem as it is a political one.  Most Novorussian commanders are clearly very gifted and at least as competent as Strelkov.  Folks like Bezler, Kononov, Zakharchenko, Mozgovoi, Khodakovskii, Motorola, Givi and many others do not need to be told what to do to do the right thing in their area of responsibility.  The weaker Cossack units have now apparently been reassigned to the Russian-Novorussian border and only combat proven units are facing the Ukie side.

I don't think that the Ukie air force will be of much use, if anything the Novorussian air defense probably got even better.  Mostly, I fear their long range artillery and their sheer numbers.  But even if we look at the worst case scenario (successful Ukie attack cutting off Donetsk) I don't think that the the JRF will prevail.  There is still no doubt in my mind whatsoever that if Novorussia is really threatened then Russia will intervene, overtly if needed.  From what all sources are reporting, the voentorg is working at full capacity and weapons are flowing in in very large numbers including sophisticated ones.  I think that Putin's plan is to try to keep the Nazis out of Novorussia only by means of voentorg.  But should that not be enough, I am confident that Russia will overtly move in.  There is no way that Russia can accept the fall of Novorussia to the Nazis.

The good news is that the Ukies most definitely don't have what it takes for a long, sustained effort.  They will risk it all on one powerful push.  If that push fails, we will see a flurry of US/EU/OSCE "diplomacy" to save the Ukies and come right back to the negotiating table.  At that point the conflict with be "frozen" again (on the Ukie side literally) and the focus will be on keeping the regime in power or replacing it with something else.  After that, the next attack can only come in the Spring on 2015.

Finally, there is also a more optimistic possibility: the real reason behind the chorus of warnings about a Ukie attack might be the Russian way of telling them "we know what you are up to and we are ready".  In theory that should deter a Ukie attack.  Alas, we need to remember that a) there is no real power in Kiev - all the decisions are taking by the USA and b) the goal of the next attack might not be to win, but to draw Russia into an overt intervention.   I personally believe that this was the plan all along and I have been saying that for months: the real goal of the AngloZionists is to force a Russian military intervention in Novorussia while the real goal of the Kremlin is to stay out and keep Novorussia alive by means of voentorg on one hand, and chaos in Banderastan on the other.  So far the Kremlin has prevailed.  We will probably soon find out if that strategy will work again.

The Saker

Geopoliticians discuss the Russian response to America's 'declaration of war'

Dear friends,

Today, thanks again to the absolutely fantastic work of the Russian and Oceania Saker Blog I can share with you a fully translated and subtitled video of a Russian talk show which I find particularly important. Let me explain.

The show in question called "Sunday evening with Vladimir Soloviev" is one of the most watched shows on Russian TV. It airs at prime time, right after the main Sunday evening news. The people invited to this show are typically very well-known public figures and the topics discussed are the hot topics of the day. What I am trying to say here is that this show is a very good reflection of the mood in Russia. I can hear the objection "this is state controlled TV!". Okay, let's say it is. But in this case, is it not interesting to see what kind of ideas the state is trying to sell to the general public? Same goes for the "oligarch controlled TV" argument. What are the oligarchs paying for? Finally, if this channel is trying to appeal to the general public, then it shows what the publics wants to hear. In reality, this is a state controlled TV channel, a very "mainstream" and "approved one", but also a very popular one. The host, Vladimir Soloviev, is a Russian Jew who is very patriotic and who regularly *blasts* Russian "liberals" (in Russia that means pro-US russophobes) and who makes no secret of his disgust for the Ukie junta.

Please watch this very mainstream "state approved" discussion and ask yourself the following questions:

a) If the Kremlin wanted to backstab Novorussia - would it allow such shows on prime time TV?
b) What will happen to Putin if he lets Novorussia be over-run by the Nazi death squads?
c) Do you detect any sign of fatigue, fear, demoralization, surrender or weakness which would indicated to you that "the sanctions are biting" and the Russian public opinion getting weary or otherwise willing to negotiate with the Ukraine, the EU or the USA?

Again, this is very "mainstream", I could *easily* have found far more "patriotic" or "anti-Nazi" shows. But I wanted to share with you something very "middle of the road", the tip of a much bigger iceberg. I hope that you will find this interesting.

Kind regards,

The Saker

PS: please press "cc" to see the English subtitles
Credits:
English Transcription & Translation by: VineyardSaker Video Team ->Marina,Katya,GC,Gideon, Denis & S
Editing & Production: Augmented Ether *Oceania Saker*

The Russian response to a double declaration of war

The context: a double declaration of war

Listening to Poroshenko a few days ago and then to Obama at the UNGA can leave no doubt whatsoever about the fact that the AngloZionist Empire is at war with Russia.  Yet many believe that the Russian response to this reality is inadequate.  Likewise, there is a steady stream of accusations made against Putin about Russia's policy towards the crisis in the Ukraine.  What I propose to do here is to offer a few basic reminders about Putin, his obligations and his options.

First and foremost, Putin was never elected to be the world's policeman or savior, he was only elected to be president of Russia.  Seems obvious, but yet many seem to assume that somehow Putin is morally obliged to do something to protect Syria, Novorussia or any other part of our harassed world.  This is not so.  Yes, Russia is the de facto leader of the BRICS and SCO countries, and Russia accepts that fact, but Putin has the moral and legal obligation to care for his own people first.

Second, Russia is now officially in the crosshairs of the AngloZionist Empire which includes not only 3 nuclear countries (US, UK, FR) but also the most powerful military force (US+NATO) and the world's biggest economies (US+EU).  I think that we can all agree that the threat posed by such an Empire is not trivial and that Russia is right in dealing with it very carefully.

Sniping at Putin and missing the point

Now, amazingly, many of those who accuse Putin of being a wimp, a sellout or a naive Pollyanna also claim that the West is preparing nuclear war on Russia.  If that is really the case,  this begs the question: if that is really the case, if there is a real risk of war, nuclear or not, is Putin not doing the right thing by not acting tough or threatening?  Some would say that the West is bent on a war no matter what Putin does.  Okay, fair enough, but in that case is his buying as much time as possible before the inevitable not the right thing to do?!

Third, on the issue of the USA vs ISIL, several comment here accused Putin of back-stabbing Assad because Russia supported the US Resolution at the UNSC.  

And what was Putin supposed to do?!   Fly the Russian Air Force to Syria to protect the Syrian border?   What about Assad?  Did he scramble his own air force to try to stop the US or has he quietly made a deal: bomb "them" not us, and I shall protest and do nothing about it?  Most obviously the latter.

In fact, Putin and Assad have exactly the same position: protest the unilateral nature of the strikes, demand a UN Resolution while quietly watching how Uncle Sam turned on his own progeny and now tries to destroy them.

I would add that Lavrov quite logically stated that there are no "good terrorists".  He knows that ISIL is nothing but a continuation of the US-created Syrian insurgency, itself a continuation of the US-created al-Qaeda.  From a Russian point of view, the choice is simple: what is better, for the US to use its forces and men to kill crazed Wahabis or have Assad do it?  And if ISIL is successful in Iraq, how long before they come back to Chechnia?  Or Crimea?  Or Tatarstan?  Why should any Russian or Syria soldier risk death when the USAF is willing to do that for them?

While there is a sweet irony in the fact that the US now has to bomb it's own creation, let them do that.  Even Assad was clearly forewarned and he obviously is quite happy about that.

Finally, UN or no UN, the US had already taken the decision to bomb ISIL.  So what is the point of blocking a perfectly good UN Resolution?  That would be self-defeating.  In fact, this Resolution can even be used by Russia to prevent the US and UK from serving as a rear base for Wahabi extremists (this resolution bans that, and we are talking about a mandatory, Chapter VII, UNSC Resolution).

And yet, some still say that Putin threw Assad under the bus.  How crazy and stupid can one get to have that kind of notion about warfare or politics?  And if Putin wanted to toss Assad under the bus, why did he not do that last year?

Sincere frustration or intellectual dishonesty?

But that kind of nonsense about the Syria is absolutely dwarfed by the kind of truly crazy stuff some people post about Novorussia.  Here are my favorite ones.  The author begins by quoting me:

"This war has never been about Novorussia or about the Ukraine."

and then continues:

That statement is too vacuous and convenient as a copout. Do you really mean to say that the thousands of people murdered by shelling, the thousands of young Ukrainian conscripts put through the meat grinder, the thousands of homes destroyed, the more than 1 million people who have turned into refugees... NONE of that has anything to do with Novorussia and Ukraine? That this is only about Russia?  Really, one would wish you'd refrain from making silly statements like that.

The only problem being, of course, that I never made it in the first place :-)

Of course, it is rather obvious that  I meant that FOR THE ANGLOZIONIST EMPIRE the goal has never been the Ukraine or Novorussia, but a war on Russia.  All Russia did was to recognize this reality.  Again, the words "do you really mean to say that" clearly show that the author is going to twist what I said, make yet another strawman, and then indignantly denounce me for being a monster who does not care about the Ukraine or Novorussia (the rest of the comment was in the same vein: indignant denunciations of statements I never made and conclusions I never reached).

I have already grown used to the truly remarkable level of dishonesty of the Putin-bashing crowd and by now I consider it par for the course.  But I wanted to illustrate that one more time just to show that at least in certain cases an honest discussion is not the purpose at all.  But I don't want to bring it all down to just a few dishonest and vociferous individuals.   There are also many who are sincerely baffled, frustrated and even disappointed with Russia's apparent passivity.  Here is an excerpt of an email I got this morning:

I guess I was really hoping that perhaps Russia, China The BRICS would be a counter force. What I fail to understand is why after all the demonisation by the U.S and Europe doesn't Russia retaliate. The sanctions imposed by the West is hurting Russia and yet they still trade oil in euros/dollars and are bending over backwards to accommodate Europe. I do not understand why they do not say lift all sanctions or no gas. China also says very little against the U.S , even though they fully understand that if Russian is weakened they are next on the list. As for all the talk of lifting the sanctions on Iran that is farcical as we all know Israel will never allow them to be lifted. So why do China and Russia go along with the whole charade. Sometimes I wonder if we are all being played, and this is all one big game , which no chance of anything changing.

In this case the author correctly sees that Russia and China follow a very similar policy which sure looks like an attempt to appease the US.  In contrast to the previous comment, here the author is both sincere and truly distressed.

In fact, I believe that what I am observing are three very different phenomena all manifesting themselves at the same time:

1) An organized Putin-bashing campaign initiated by US/UK government branches tasked with manipulating the social media.
2) A spontaneous Putin-bashing campaign lead by certain Russian National-Bolshevik circles (Limonov, Dugin & Co.).
3) The expression of a sincere bafflement, distress and frustration by honest and well-intentioned people to whom the current Russian stance really makes no sense at all.

The rest of this post will be entirely dedicated to try to explain the Russian stance to those in this third group (any dialog with the 2 first ones just makes no sense).

Trying to make sense of an apparently illogical policy

In my introduction above I stated that what is taking place is a war on Russia, not hot war (yet?) and not quite an old-style Cold War.  In essence, what the AngloZionists are doing is pretty clear and a lot of Russian commentators have already reached that conclusion: the US are engaged into a war against Russia for which the US will fight to the last Ukrainian.  Thus, for the Empire, "success" can never be defined as an outcome in the Ukraine because, as I said previously, this war is not about the Ukraine.  For the Empire "success" is a specific outcome in Russia: regime change.  Let's us look at how the Empire plans to achieve this result.

The original plan was simplistic in a typically US Neocon way: overthrow Yanukovich, get the Ukraine into the EU and NATO, politically move NATO to the Russian border and militarily move it into Crimea.  That plan failed.  Russia accepted Crimea and the Ukraine collapsed into a vicious civil war combined with a terminal economic crisis.  Then the US Neocons fell-back to plan B.

Plan B was also simple: get Russia to intervene militarily in the Donbass and use that as a pretext for a full-scale Cold War v2 which would create 1950's style tensions between East and West, justify fear-induced policies in the West, and completely sever the growing economic ties between Russia and the EU.  Except that plan also failed - Russia did not take the bait and instead of intervening directly in the Donbass, she began a massive covert operation to support the anti-Nazi forces in Novorussia.  The Russian plan worked, and the Junta Repression Forces (JRF) were soundly defeated by the Novorussian Armed Forces (NAF) even though the latter was suffering a huge deficit in firepower, armor, specialists and men (gradually, Russian covert aid turned all these around).

At this point in time the AngloZionist plutocracy truly freaked out under the combined realization that their plan was falling apart and that there was nothing they could really do to rescue it (a military option was totally impossible as I explained it in the past).  They did try economic sanctions, but that only helped Putin to engage in long overdue reforms.  But the worst part of it all was that each time the West expected Putin to do something, he did the exact opposite:

• Nobody expected that Putin would use military force in Crimea in a lightening-fast take-over operation which will go down in history as at least as amazing as Storm-333. 
• Everybody (including myself) expected Putin to send forces into Novorussia.  He did not.
• Nobody expected Russian counter-sanctions to hit the EU agricultural sector.
• Everybody expected that Putin would retaliate after the latest round of sanctions.  He did not.

There is a pattern here and it is one basic to all martial arts: first, never signal your intentions, second use feints and third, hit when and where your opponent doesn't expect it.

Conversely, there are two things which are deeply ingrained in the western political mindset which Putin never does: he never threatens and he never postures.  For example, while the US is basically at war with Russia, Russia will gladly support a US resolution on ISIL if it is to Russia's advantage.  And Russian diplomats will speak of "our American partners" or "our American friends" while, at the same time, doing more than the rest of the planet combined to bring down the AngloZionist Empire.

A quick look at Putin's record

As I have written in the past, unlike some other bloggers and commentators, I am neither a psychic not a prophet and I cannot tell you what Putin thinks or what he will do tomorrow.  But what I can tell you is that which Putin has already done in the past: (in no particular order)

• broken the back of the AngloZionist-backed oligarchy in Russia.
• achieved a truly miraculous success in Chechnia (one which nobody, prophets included, had foreseen).
• literally resurrected the Russian economy.
• rebuilt the Russian military, security and intelligences forces.
• severely disrupted the ability of foreign NGOs to subvert Russia.
• done more for the de-dollarization of the planet than anybody before.
• made Russia the clear leader of both BRICS and SCO.
• openly challenged the informational monopoly of the western propaganda machine (with projects like RussiaToday).
• stopped an imminent US/NATO strike on Syria by sending in a Russian Navy Expeditionary Force (which gave Syria a full radar coverage of the entire region).
• made it possible for Assad to prevail in the Syrian civil war.
• openly rejected the Western "universal civilizational model" and declared his support for another, a religion and tradition based one.
• openly rejected a unipolar "New World Order" lead by the AngloZionists and declared his support for a multi-polar world order.
• supported Assange (through RussiaToday) and protected Snowden
• created and promoted a new alliance model between Christianity and Islam thus undermining the "clash of civilization" paradigm.
• booted the AngloZionists out of key locations in the Caucasus (Chechnia, Ossetia).
• booted the AngloZionists out of key locations in Central Asia (Manas base in Kyrgyzstan)
• gave Russia the means to defend her interest in the Arctic region, including military means.
• established a full-spectrum strategic alliance with China which is at the core of both SCO and BRICS.
• is currently passing laws barring foreign interests from controlling the Russian media.
• gave Iran the means to develop a much needed civilian nuclear program.
• is working with China to create a financial system fully separated form the current AngloZionist controlled one (including trade in Rubles or Renminbi).
• re-establised Russian political and economic support for Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Brazil, Nicaragua and Argentina.
• very effectively deflated the pro-US color-coded revolution in Russia.
• organized the "Voentorg" which armed the NAF.
• gave refuge to hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian refugees.
• sent in vitally needed humanitarian aid to Novorussia.
• provided direct Russian fire support and possibly even air cover to NAF in key locations (the "southern cauldron" for example).
• last but not least, he openly spoke of the need for Russia to "sovereignize" herself and to prevail over the pro-US 5th column.

and that list goes on and on.  All I am trying to illustrate is that there is a very good reason for the AngloZionist's hatred for Putin: his long record of very effectively fighting them.  So unless we assume that Putin had a sudden change of heart or that he simply ran out of energy or courage, I submit that the notion that he suddenly made a 180 makes no sense.  His current policies, however, do make sense, as I will try to explain now.

If you are a "Putin betrayed Novorussia" person, please set that hypothesis aside for a moment, just for argument's sake and assume that Putin is both principled and logical.  What could he be doing in the Ukraine?  Can we make sense of what we observe?

Imperatives Russia cannot ignore

First, I consider the following sequence indisputable:

First,  Russia must prevail over the current AngloZionist war against her.  What the Empire wants in Russia is regime change followed by complete absorption into the Western sphere of influence including a likely break-up of Russia.  What is threatened is the very existence of the Russian civilization.

Second, Russia will never be safe with a neo-Nazi russophobic regime in power in Kiev.  The Ukie nationalist freaks have proven that it is impossible to negotiate with them (they have broken literally every single agreement signed so far), their hatred for Russia is total (as shown with their constant references to the use of - hypothetical - nuclear weapons against Russia).  Therefore,

Third, regime change in Kiev followed by a full de-Nazification is the only possible way for Russia to achieve her vital objectives.

Again, and at the risk of having my words twisted and misrepresented, I have to repeat here that Novorussia is not what is at stake here.  It's not even the future of the Ukraine.  What is at stake here is a planetary confrontation (this is the one thesis of Dugin which I fully agree with).  The future of the planet depends on the capability of the BRICS/SCO countries to replace the AngloZionist Empire with a very different, multi-polar, international order.  Russia is crucial and indispensable in this effort (any such effort without Russia is doomed to fail), and the future of Russia is now decided by what Russia will do in the Ukraine.  As for the future of the Ukraine, it largely depends on what will happen to Novorussia, but not exclusively.  In a paradoxical way, Novorussia is more important to Russia than to the Ukraine.  Here is why:

For the rest of the Ukraine, Novorussia is lost.  Forever. Not even a joint Putin-Obama effort could prevent that.  In fact, the Ukies know that and this is why they make no effort to win the hearts and minds of the local population.  If fact, I am convinced that the so-called "random" or "wanton" destruction of the Novorussian industrial, economic, scientific and cultural infrastructure has been intentional act of hateful vengeance similar to the way the AngloZionists always turn to killing civilians when they fail to overcome military forces (the examples of Yugoslavia and Lebanon come to mind).  Of course, Moscow can probably force the local Novorussian political leaders to sign some kind of document accepting Kiev's sovereignty, but that will be a fiction, it is way too late for that.  If not de jure, then de facto, Novorussia is never going to accept Kiev's rule again and everybody knows that, in Kiev, in Novorussia and in Russia.

What could a de facto but not de jure independence look like?

No Ukrainian military, national guard, oligarch battalion or SBU, full economic, cultural, religious, linguistic and educational independence, locally elected officials and local media, but all that with Ukie flags, no official independence status, no Novorussian Armed Forces (they will be called something like "regional security force" or even "police force") and no Novorussian currency (though the Ruble - along with the Dollar and Euro - will be used on a daily basis).  The top officials will have to be officially approved by Kiev (which Kiev will, of course, lest its impotence becomes visible).  This will be a temporary, transitional and unstable arrangement, but it will be good enough to provide a face-saving way out to Kiev.

This said, I would argue that both Kiev and Moscow have an interest in maintaining the fiction of a unitary Ukraine.  For Kiev this is a way to not appear completely defeated by the accursed Moskals.  But what about Russia?

What if you were in Putin's place?

Ask yourself the following question: if you were Putin and your goal was regime change in Kiev, would you prefer Novorussia to be part of the Ukraine or not?  I would submit that having Novorussia inside is much better for the following reasons:

1. it makes it part, even on a macro-level, of the Ukrainian processes, like national elections or national media.
2. it begs the comparison with the conditions in the rest of the Ukraine.
3. it makes it far easier to influence commerce, business, transportation, etc.
4. it creates an alternative (Nazi-free) political center to Kiev.
5. it makes it easier for Russian interests (of all kind) to penetrate into the Ukraine.
6. it removes the possibility to put up a Cold War like "wall" or barrier on some geographical marker.
7. it removes the accusation that Russian wants to partition the Ukraine.

In other words, to keep Novorussia de jure, nominally, part of the Ukraine is the best way to appear to be complying with AngloZionist demands while subverting the Nazi junta in power.  In a recent article I outlined what Russia could do without incurring any major consequences:

1. Politically oppose the regime everywhere: UN, media, public opinion, etc.
2. Express political support for Novorussia and any Ukrainian oppositionContinue the informational war (Russian media does a great job)
3. Prevent Novorussia from falling (covert military aid)
4. Mercilessly keep up the economic pressure on the Ukraine
5. Disrupt as much as possible the US-EU "axis of kindness"
6. Help Crimea and Novorussia prosper economically and financially

In other words - give the appearance of staying out while very much staying in.

What is the alternative anyway?

I already hear the chorus of indignant "hurray-patriots" (that is what these folks are called in Russia) accusing me of only seeing Novorussia as a tool for Russian political goals and of ignoring the death and suffering endured by the people of Novorussia.   To this I will simply reply the following:

Does anybody seriously believe that an independent Novorussia can live in even minimal peace and security without a regime change in Kiev?  If Russia cannot afford a Nazi junta in power in Kiev, can Novorussia?!

In general, the hurray-patriots are long on what should be done now and very short any kind of mid or long term vision.   Just like those who believe that Syria can be saved by sending in the Russian Air Force, the hurray-patriots believe that the crisis in the Ukraine can be solved by sending in tanks.  They are a perfect example of the mindset H. L. Mencken was referring to when he wrote "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong".

The sad reality is that the mindset behind such "simple" solutions is always the same one: never negotiate, never compromise, never look long term but only to the immediate future and use force in all cases.

But the facts are here: the US/NATO block is powerful, militarily, economically and politically and it can hurt Russia, especially over time.  Furthermore, while Russia can easily defeat the Ukrainian military, this hardly would be a very meaningful "victory".  Externally it would trigger a massive deterioration of the international political climate, while internally the Russians would have to suppress the Ukrainian nationalists (not all of them Nazi) by force.  Could Russia do that?  Again, the answer is that yes - but at what cost?

I good friend of mine was a Colonel in the KGB Special Forces unit called "Kaskad" (which later was renamed "Vympel").  One day he told me how his father, himself a special operator for the GRU, fought against Ukrainian insurgents from the end of WWII in 1945 up to 1958: that is thirteen years!  It took Stalin and Krushchev 13 years to finally crush the Ukrainian nationalist insurgents.  Does anybody in his/her right mind sincerely believe that modern Russia should repeat that policies and spend years hunting down Ukrainian insurgents again?

By the way, if the Ukrainian nationalists could fight the Soviet rule under Stalin and Krushchev for a full 13 years after the end of the war - how is it that there is no visible anti-Nazi resistance in Zaporozhie, Dnepropetrivsk or Kharkov?  Yes, Luganks and Donetsk did rise up and take arms, very successfully - but the rest of the Ukraine?  If you were Putin, would you be confident that Russian forces liberating these cities would receive the same welcome that they did in Crimea?

And yet, the hurray-patriots keep pushing for more Russian intervention and further Novorussian military operations against Ukie forces.  Is it not about time we begin asking who would benefit from such policies?

It has been an old trick of the US CIA to use the social media and the blogosphere to push for nationalist extremism in Russia.  A well know and respected Russian patriot and journalist - Maksim Shevchenko - had a group of people organized to track down the IP numbers of some of the most influential radical nationalist organizations, website, blogs and individual posters on the Russian Internet.  Turns out that most were based in the USA, Canada and Israel.  Surprise, surprise.  Or, maybe, no surprise at all?

For the AngloZionists, supporting extremists and rabid nationalists in Russia makes perfectly good sense.  Either they get to influence the public opinion or they at the very least can be used to bash the regime in power.  I personally see no difference between an Udaltsov or a Navalnii on one hand and a Limonov or a Dugin on the other.  Their sole effect is to get people mad at the Kremlin.  What the pretext for the anger is does not matter - for Navalnyi its "stolen elections" for Dugin it's "back-stabbed Novorussia".  And it does not matter which of them are actually paid agents or just "useful idiots" - God be their judge - but what does matter is that the solutions they advocate are no solutions at all, just pious pretexts to bash the regime in power.

In the meantime, not only had Putin not sold-out, back-stabbed, traded away or otherwise abandoned Novorussia, it's Poroshenko who is barely holding on to power and Banderastan which is going down the tubes.  There are also plenty of people who see through this doom and gloom nonsense, both in Russia (Yuri Baranchik) and abroad (M. K. Bhadrakumar).

But what about the oligarchs?

I already addressed this issue in a recent post, but I think that it is important to return to this topic here and the first thing which is crucial to understand in the Russian or Ukrainian context is that oligarchs are a fact of life.  This is not to say that their presence is a good thing, only that Putin and Poroshenko and, for that matter, anybody trying to get anything done over there needs to take them into account.  The big difference is that while in Kiev a regime controlled by the oligarchs has been replaced by a regime of oligarchs, in Russia the oligarchy can only influence, but not control, the Kremlin.  The examples, of Khodorkovsky or Evtushenkov show that the Kremlin still can, and does, smack down an oligarch when needed.

Still, it is one thing to pick on one or two oligarchs and quite another to remove them from the Ukrainian equation: the latter is just not going to happen.  So for Putin any Ukrainian strategy has to take into account the presence and, frankly, power of the Ukrainian oligarchs and their Russian counterparts.

Putin knows that oligarchs have their true loyalty only to themselves and that their only "country" is wherever their assets happen to be.  As a former KGB foreign intelligence officer for Putin this is an obvious plus, because that mindset potentially allows him to manipulate them.  Any intelligence officer knows that people can be manipulated by a finite list of approaches: ideology, ego, resentment, sex, a skeleton in the closet and, of course, money.  From Putin's point of view, Rinat Akhmetov, for example, is a guy who used to employ something like 200'000 people in the Donbass, who clearly can get things done, and whose official loyalty Kiev and the Ukraine is just a camouflage for his real loyalty: his money.  Now, Putin does not have to like or respect Akhmetov, most intelligence officers will quietly despise that kind of person, but that also means that for Putin Akhmetov is an absolutely crucial person to talk to, explore options with and, possibly, use to achieve a Russian national strategic objective in the Donbass.

I have already written this many times here: Russians do talk to their enemies.  With a friendly smile.  This is even more true for a former intelligence officer who is trained to always communicate, smile, appear to be engaging and understanding.  For Putin Akhmetov is not a friend or an ally, but he is a powerful figure which can be manipulated in Russia's advantage.  What I am trying to explain here is the following:

There are numerous rumors of secret negotiations between Rinat Akhmetov and various Russian officials.  Some say that Khodakovski is involved.  Others mention Surkov.  There is no doubt in my mind that such secret negotiations are taking place.  In fact, I am sure that all the parties involved talk to all other other parties involved.  Even with a disgusting, evil and vile creature like Kolomoiski.  In fact, the sure signal that somebody has finally decided to take him out would be that nobody would be speaking with him any more.  That will probably happen, with time, but most definitely not until his power base is sufficiently eroded.

One Russian blogger believes that Akhmetov has already been "persuaded" (read: bought off) by Putin and that he is willing to play by the new rules which now say "Putin is boss".  Maybe.  Maybe not yet, but soon.  Maybe never.  All I am suggesting is that negotiations between the Kremlin and local Ukie oligarchs are as logical and inevitable as the US contacts with the Italian Mafia before the US armed forces entered Italy.

But is there a 5th column in Russia?

Yes, absolutely.  First and foremost, it is found inside the Medvedev government itself and even inside the Presidential administration.  Always remember that Putin was put into power by two competing forces: the secret services and big money.  And yes, while it is true that Putin has tremendously weakened the "big money" component (what I call the "Atlantic Integrationists") they are still very much there, though they are more subdued, more careful and less arrogant than during the time when Medvedev was formally in charge.  The big change in the recent years is that the struggle between patriots (the "Eurasian Sovereignists") and the 5th column now is in the open, but it if far from over.  And we should never underestimate these people: they have a lot of power, a lot of money and a fantastic capability to corrupt, threaten, discredit, sabotage, cover-up, smear, etc.  They are also very smart, they can hire the best professionals in the field, and they are very, very good at ugly political campaigns.  For example, the 5th columnists try hard to give a voice to the National-Bolshevik opposition (both Limonov and Dugin regularly get airtime on Russian TV) and rumor has it that they finance a lot of the National-Bolshevik media (just like the Koch brothers paid for the Tea Party in the USA).

Another problem is that while these guys are objectively doing the US CIA's bidding, there is no proof of it.  As I was told many times by a wise friend: most conspiracies are really collusions and the latter are very hard to prove.  But the community of interests between the US CIA and the Russian and Ukrainian oligarchy is so obvious as to be undeniable.

The real danger for Russia

So now we have the full picture.  Again, Putin has to simultaneously contend with

1) a strategic psyop campaign run by the US/UK & Co. which combines the corporate media's demonization of Putin and a campaign in the social media to discredit him for his passivity and lack of appropriate response to the West.
2) a small but very vociferous group of (mostly) National-Bolsheviks (Limonov, Dugin & Co.) who have found in the Novorussian cause a perfect opportunity to bash Putin for not sharing their ideology and their "clear, simple, and wrong" "solutions".
3) a network of powerful oligarchs who want to use the opportunity presented by the actions of first two groups to promote their own interests.
4) a 5th column for whom all of the above is a fantastic opportunity to weaken the Eurasian Sovereignists
5) a sense of disappointment by many sincere people who feel that Russia is acting like a passive punching-ball.
6) an overwhelming majority of people in Novorussia who want complete (de facto and de jure) independence from Kiev and who are sincerely convinced that any negotiations with Kiev are a prelude to a betrayal by Russia of Novorussian interest.
7) the objective reality that Russian and Novorussian interests are not the same.
8) the objective reality that the AngloZionist Empire is still very powerful and even potentially dangerous.

It is very, very, hard for Putin to try to balance these forces in such a way that the resulting vector is one which is in the strategic interest of Russia.  I would argue that there is simply no other solution to this conundrum other than to completely separate Russia's official (declaratory) police and Russia's real actions.  The covert help to Novorussia - the Voentorg - is an example of that, but only a limited one because what Russia must do now goes beyond covert actions: Russia must appear to be doing one thing while doing exactly the opposite.  It is in Russia's strategic interest at this point in time to appear to:

1) Support a negotiated solution along the lines of: a unitary non-aligned Ukraine, with large regional right for all regions while, at the same time, politically opposing the regime everywhere: UN, media, public opinion, etc. and supporting both Novorussia and any Ukrainian opposition.
2) Give Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs a reason to if not support, then at least not oppose such a solution (for ex: by not nationalizing Akhmetov's assets in the Donbass), while at the same time making sure that there is literally enough "firepower" to keep the oligarch under control.
3) Negotiate with the EU on the actual implementation of Ukraine's Agreement with the EU while at the same time helping the Ukraine commit economic suicide by making sure that there is just the right amount of economic strangulation applied to prevent the regime from bouncing back.
4) Negotiate with the EU and the Junta in Kiev over the delivery of gas while at the same time making sure that the regime pays enough for it to be broke.
5) Appear generally non-confrontational towards the USA while at the same time trying as hard as possible to create tensions between the US and the EU.
6) Appear to be generally available and willing to do business with the AngoZionist Empire while at the same time building an alternative international systems not centered on the USA or the Dollar.

As you see, this goes far beyond a regular covert action program.  What we are dealing with is a very complex, multi-layered, program to achieve the Russian most important goal in the Ukraine (regime change and de-Nazification) while inhibiting as much as possible the AngloZionists attempts to re-created a severe and long lasting East-West crisis in which the EU would basically fuse with the USA.

Conclusion: a key to Russian policies?

Most of us are used to think in terms of super-power categories.  After all, US President from Reagan on to Obama have all served us a diet of grand statements, almost constant military operations followed by Pentagon briefings, threats, sanctions, boycotts, etc.  I would argue that this has always been the hallmark of western "diplomacy" from the Crusades to the latest bombing campaign against ISIL.  Russia and China have a diametrically opposed tradition.  For example, in terms of methodology Lavrov always repeats the same principle: "we want to turn our enemies into neutrals, we want to turn neutrals into partner and we want to turn partners into friends".  The role of Russian diplomats is not to prepare for war, but to avoid it.  Yes, Russia will fight, but only when diplomacy has failed.  If for the US diplomacy is solely a means to deliver threats, for Russia it is a the primary tool to defuse them.  It is therefore no wonder at all the the US diplomacy is primitive to the point of bordering on the comical.  After all, how much sophistication is needed to say "comply or else".  Any petty street thug know how to do that.  Russian diplomats are much more akin to explosives disposal specialist or a mine clearance officer: they have to be extremely patient, very careful and fully focused.  But most importantly, they cannot allow anybody to rush them lest the entire thing blows up.

Russia is fully aware that the AngloZionist Empire is at war with her and that surrender is simply not an option any more (assuming it ever was).  Russia also understands that she is not a real super-power or, even less so, an empire.  Russia is only a very powerful country which is trying to de-fang the Empire without triggering a frontal confrontation with it.  In the Ukraine, Russia sees no other solution than regime change in Kiev.  To achieve this goal Russia will always prefer a negotiated solution to one obtained by force, even though if not other choice is left to her, she will use force.  In other words:

art: Josetxo Ezcurra

Russia's long term end goal is to bring down the AngloZionist Empire.  Russia's mid term goal is to create the conditions for regime change in Kiev. Russia's short term goal is to prevent the junta from over-running Novorussia. Russia's preferred method to achieve these goals is negotiation with all parties involved.  A prerequisite to achieve these goals by negotiations is to prevent the Empire from succeeding in creating an acute continental crisis (conversely, the imperial "deep state" fully understands all this, hence the double declaration of war by Obama and Poroshenko.)

As long as you keep these basic principles in mind, the apparent zig-zags, contradictions and passivity of Russian policies will begin to make sense.

It is an open question whether Russia will succeed in her goals.  In theory, a successful Junta attack on Novorussia could force Russia to intervene.  Likewise, there is always the possibility of yet another "false flag", possibly a nuclear one.  I think that the Russian policy is sound and the best realistically achievable under the current set of circumstances, but only time will tell.

I am sorry that it took me over 6400 words to explain all that, but in a society were most "thoughts" are expressed as "tweets" and analyses as Facebook posts, it was a daunting task to try to shed some light to what is turning to be a deluge of misunderstandings and misconceptions, all made worse by the manipulation of the social media.  I feel that 60'000 words would be more adequate to this task as it is far easier to just throw out a short and simple slogan than to refute its assumptions and implications.

My hope that at least those of you who sincerely were confused by Russia's apparently illogical stance can now connect the dots and make better sense of it all.

Kind regards to all,

The Saker