Dear friends,
Thank you all for your inputs. By general consensus, the new moderation and comments policy is now adopted. I will post a note about that in the left sidebar.
Now, back to business (-: finally! :-)
Cheers,
The Saker
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
Monday, April 21, 2014
Personal announcement: New moderation policy plan adopted
Dear friends,
The following comments moderation policy has now been adopted:
1. Comments must contribute to the interest of a thread, a post or of the blog. Just venting or totally inane comments will not be allowed.
2. Comments must be respectful. Criticisms are welcome, but they must be fact based on logically outlined. Name calling does not qualify.
3. Off-topic comments are allowed, but have to offer something of interest to the readers. For example the recent posts about MoA are of interests to many, even if off-topic, thus they should stay.
The main intention for me is not to censor any form of speech, but to make it interesting and enjoyable for people to read the comments and participate in an intelligent exchange of ideas.
Now I need to tackle a more complex issue: racist comments.
I must begin by stating what I subjectively consider to be racist for the purpose of this blog:
1) the idea that humans differ from each other in essence.
2) the idea that your genetic makeup restricts your freedom of choice.
3) the expression of irrational hostility to an ethnic group or race.
4) the denial that all humans are equally precious to God or that some humans deserve a special status not granted to others.
And, just to clarify, here are a few examples of what I do not consider racism:
1) Criticisms of religions, tribes or ideologies because a person has to make a choice to belong to a religion, tribe or a political movement. Thus it is absolutely legitimate to criticize Judaism, the Jewish tribal identity or Zionism. It is, however, not legitimate to criticize somebody born Jewish just for that fact. Nobody chooses his/her ethnicity.
2) The opinion that races are different in certain aspects; saying that Blacks have a lower IQ then Whites is a hypothesis which must be proved or disproved based on facts. Facts, whatever they are, are neither racists nor non-racist. They just are.
3) It is not racist to state that one is of the opinion that Italians and Greeks tend to be louder than Norwegians, it is not racism to state that Hungarians are taller than the Japanese or that Argentinians are more musical than Iraqis. In all these cases what is being asserted is that races, nations, ethnicities are different in some aspects, but not in essence.
4) It is not racist to say that the gas chambers were never used to kill Jews, that Stalin was about to attack Germany when Hitler preempted him with his own attack, or that the Turks never committed a genocide of Armenians. These are historical topics which should be freely investigated and either affirmed or disproved, not censored.
(Just for the record and to be clear: I endorse none of the examples I have given above to illustrate my point)
In other words, there are race or ethnicity related opinions which can be controversial or which some of us mind find offensive, but which still are part of the realm of legitimate speculation and investigation.
For the purpose of this blog I will try to stick to a narrow definition of racism because I do want to avoid censorship of ideas as much as possible.
Frankly, I will try to use common sense first and foremost. I think that for 99.9% of you this should make no difference at all. But a few trolls, freaks or paid provocateurs will now be shown to the door.
Many thanks and kind regards,
The Saker
The following comments moderation policy has now been adopted:
1. Comments must contribute to the interest of a thread, a post or of the blog. Just venting or totally inane comments will not be allowed.
2. Comments must be respectful. Criticisms are welcome, but they must be fact based on logically outlined. Name calling does not qualify.
3. Off-topic comments are allowed, but have to offer something of interest to the readers. For example the recent posts about MoA are of interests to many, even if off-topic, thus they should stay.
The main intention for me is not to censor any form of speech, but to make it interesting and enjoyable for people to read the comments and participate in an intelligent exchange of ideas.
Now I need to tackle a more complex issue: racist comments.
I must begin by stating what I subjectively consider to be racist for the purpose of this blog:
1) the idea that humans differ from each other in essence.
2) the idea that your genetic makeup restricts your freedom of choice.
3) the expression of irrational hostility to an ethnic group or race.
4) the denial that all humans are equally precious to God or that some humans deserve a special status not granted to others.
And, just to clarify, here are a few examples of what I do not consider racism:
1) Criticisms of religions, tribes or ideologies because a person has to make a choice to belong to a religion, tribe or a political movement. Thus it is absolutely legitimate to criticize Judaism, the Jewish tribal identity or Zionism. It is, however, not legitimate to criticize somebody born Jewish just for that fact. Nobody chooses his/her ethnicity.
2) The opinion that races are different in certain aspects; saying that Blacks have a lower IQ then Whites is a hypothesis which must be proved or disproved based on facts. Facts, whatever they are, are neither racists nor non-racist. They just are.
3) It is not racist to state that one is of the opinion that Italians and Greeks tend to be louder than Norwegians, it is not racism to state that Hungarians are taller than the Japanese or that Argentinians are more musical than Iraqis. In all these cases what is being asserted is that races, nations, ethnicities are different in some aspects, but not in essence.
4) It is not racist to say that the gas chambers were never used to kill Jews, that Stalin was about to attack Germany when Hitler preempted him with his own attack, or that the Turks never committed a genocide of Armenians. These are historical topics which should be freely investigated and either affirmed or disproved, not censored.
(Just for the record and to be clear: I endorse none of the examples I have given above to illustrate my point)
In other words, there are race or ethnicity related opinions which can be controversial or which some of us mind find offensive, but which still are part of the realm of legitimate speculation and investigation.
For the purpose of this blog I will try to stick to a narrow definition of racism because I do want to avoid censorship of ideas as much as possible.
Frankly, I will try to use common sense first and foremost. I think that for 99.9% of you this should make no difference at all. But a few trolls, freaks or paid provocateurs will now be shown to the door.
Many thanks and kind regards,
The Saker
Ukraine SITREP April 21, 1932 UTC/Zulu
The situation in the Ukraine continues to be characterized by complete chaos and a gradual and steady strengthening of the resistance in the East.
Following the attack by pro-regime forces on a resistance checkpoint in Slaviansk over the week-end Foreign Minister Lavrov has accused the revolutionary regime in Kiev of breaking the terms of the accord.
One could argue that this attack was decided by the Right Sector (that is the conclusion that the Russian-speakers have come to based on the weapons and documents they seized) and that the cannot control them. That is probably quite true (even though the Right Sector has denied being involved). But the regime also declared that the demonstrators which are currently occupying the Maidan square in Kiev have a permit and are there legally. Truly, whether the regime does not want to enforce the terms of the agreement or whether it cannot do so make very little difference to the Russian-speakers in the East: they still have to bury the same number of people and they still face the same threat. Take a look at what Right Sector thugs did to a Russian-speaker yesterday: (no translation needed)
And this is just one example amongst many.
Another telling video is the one of the man trying to stop an armored vehicle by standing in front of it: (again, no translation needed here either)
To be really honest, I have the feeling that a negotiated solution is pretty much impossible at this point. The East really has nobody to negotiate with.
At this point in time I see the following developments taking place:
1) The resistance in the East get more weapons, more men, more checkpoints, better communication, better organization and discipline.
2) Most cities in the East will organize some kind of referendum.
3) The government in Kiev will nothing done at all.
4) The Right Sector will continue to try to attack all those who dare disagree.
5) The Ukrainian military will not assist the regime in Kiev
6) The West will remain eyes wide shut and defend the regime and everything it does or does not do.
If the above is correct, the the East might as well forget any notion of federation and they should secede. If they do that, they would probably have to join Russia just for their own safety. As for Russia, if the East secedes and asks for protection, it will have no choice other than to provide either troops or some kind of security guarantees. Either way, the West will have a hysterical fit of truly monumental proportions and NATO will even probably organize some grand maneuver to show how determined the West is to resist should Moscow decide to invade Poland, Germany or even Portugal.
As for the regime in Kiev, it is really in complete disarray. Sometimes, this become outright comical. It actually went as far as publishing on open letter of the Ministry of Internal Affairs praising the Berkut police for their courage and asking them to help defend the Ukraine. If these neo-Nazis are now trying to get the help from the very same Berkut which they attacked, stabbed, stoned, shot at, defamed, burned, humiliated and even disbanded - this means that they are really desperate.
As for the West, it has discredited itself with the East to such a degree that I would find it hard to imagine that anybody would take its promises seriously.
If I am correct, we should now enter a phase of decay and break-up.
Stay tuned,
The Saker
Following the attack by pro-regime forces on a resistance checkpoint in Slaviansk over the week-end Foreign Minister Lavrov has accused the revolutionary regime in Kiev of breaking the terms of the accord.
One could argue that this attack was decided by the Right Sector (that is the conclusion that the Russian-speakers have come to based on the weapons and documents they seized) and that the cannot control them. That is probably quite true (even though the Right Sector has denied being involved). But the regime also declared that the demonstrators which are currently occupying the Maidan square in Kiev have a permit and are there legally. Truly, whether the regime does not want to enforce the terms of the agreement or whether it cannot do so make very little difference to the Russian-speakers in the East: they still have to bury the same number of people and they still face the same threat. Take a look at what Right Sector thugs did to a Russian-speaker yesterday: (no translation needed)
And this is just one example amongst many.
Another telling video is the one of the man trying to stop an armored vehicle by standing in front of it: (again, no translation needed here either)
To be really honest, I have the feeling that a negotiated solution is pretty much impossible at this point. The East really has nobody to negotiate with.
At this point in time I see the following developments taking place:
1) The resistance in the East get more weapons, more men, more checkpoints, better communication, better organization and discipline.
2) Most cities in the East will organize some kind of referendum.
3) The government in Kiev will nothing done at all.
4) The Right Sector will continue to try to attack all those who dare disagree.
5) The Ukrainian military will not assist the regime in Kiev
6) The West will remain eyes wide shut and defend the regime and everything it does or does not do.
If the above is correct, the the East might as well forget any notion of federation and they should secede. If they do that, they would probably have to join Russia just for their own safety. As for Russia, if the East secedes and asks for protection, it will have no choice other than to provide either troops or some kind of security guarantees. Either way, the West will have a hysterical fit of truly monumental proportions and NATO will even probably organize some grand maneuver to show how determined the West is to resist should Moscow decide to invade Poland, Germany or even Portugal.
As for the regime in Kiev, it is really in complete disarray. Sometimes, this become outright comical. It actually went as far as publishing on open letter of the Ministry of Internal Affairs praising the Berkut police for their courage and asking them to help defend the Ukraine. If these neo-Nazis are now trying to get the help from the very same Berkut which they attacked, stabbed, stoned, shot at, defamed, burned, humiliated and even disbanded - this means that they are really desperate.
As for the West, it has discredited itself with the East to such a degree that I would find it hard to imagine that anybody would take its promises seriously.
If I am correct, we should now enter a phase of decay and break-up.
Stay tuned,
The Saker
One more thing about the "Saker correspondents" project - USA correpondents
Dear friends,
I realized that I was missing on a good opportunity here to involve some correspondents from the USA.
While I myself currently live in the USA, I think that I might very much need the help from US correspondents, but not from this or that state or region, but from different specializations.
While it makes little sense to compare Fox News in San Diego and Boston, the USA can be very diverse in terms of professional strata. What I would be very interested in is in those amongst you who have a professional or personal interest in the following area of study:
Basically, I am interested in the "big stuff" which involves lots of money and, therefore, special access to power. I am also interested in the instruments of power themselves.
Important note:
Now, this might be obvious, but I have to state this very clearly here: I do not want anybody with any current security clearance (no matter how low) applying for this project and I want to make it absolutely clear that the only source of information I will accept is publicly available information. I am am mostly looking retired professionals, students, sharp hobbyists, public journalists or reporters, academics, etc. If somebody ever sends me anything classified even at a very low level I myself will immediately inform the authorities. That is common sense and basic self-protection. I do not need any trouble with Uncle Sam. I need 100% transparency and 100% legality. Nothing less will do. I don't like this regime, but I will not disobey its laws.
This being made clear, I also believe that somebody smart kind find out what he/she wants by using open source information. It its classified, it is of no interest to me. What I am after is a good understanding of how the US functions, its system, evolution, the factors which affect it. You get the idea.
If you have a passion for, say, the World Bank or the US aerospace industry, you probably read specialized magazines and you probably visit specialized websites. Magazines or websites which I do not read. Then you can definitely help me out.
So, same concept as geographical correspondents, but applied to professional areas of expertise.
If you are interested, please drop me an email confirming that you have no current security clearance and a short bio or description of your interests.
Many thanks in advance and kind regards,
The Saker
I realized that I was missing on a good opportunity here to involve some correspondents from the USA.
While I myself currently live in the USA, I think that I might very much need the help from US correspondents, but not from this or that state or region, but from different specializations.
While it makes little sense to compare Fox News in San Diego and Boston, the USA can be very diverse in terms of professional strata. What I would be very interested in is in those amongst you who have a professional or personal interest in the following area of study:
- US Fiscal & Monetary polices
- US Foreign Policy
- Congressional Politics
- Big Corporations
- Banking, Credit, Insurance
- Investment, capital venture, hedge funds
- US foreign investment
- US foreign aid
- US Navy
- US Army
- US Air Force
- US Marine Corps
- Military academies
- Intelligence agencies
- US Space programs
- US international trade
- IMF
- World Bank
- Defense industry
- Diplomacy
- "Democracy promotion" (NED & Co)
- Energy (oil, nuclear, etc.)
- Ecology
- Imports/Exports
Basically, I am interested in the "big stuff" which involves lots of money and, therefore, special access to power. I am also interested in the instruments of power themselves.
Important note:
Now, this might be obvious, but I have to state this very clearly here: I do not want anybody with any current security clearance (no matter how low) applying for this project and I want to make it absolutely clear that the only source of information I will accept is publicly available information. I am am mostly looking retired professionals, students, sharp hobbyists, public journalists or reporters, academics, etc. If somebody ever sends me anything classified even at a very low level I myself will immediately inform the authorities. That is common sense and basic self-protection. I do not need any trouble with Uncle Sam. I need 100% transparency and 100% legality. Nothing less will do. I don't like this regime, but I will not disobey its laws.
This being made clear, I also believe that somebody smart kind find out what he/she wants by using open source information. It its classified, it is of no interest to me. What I am after is a good understanding of how the US functions, its system, evolution, the factors which affect it. You get the idea.
If you have a passion for, say, the World Bank or the US aerospace industry, you probably read specialized magazines and you probably visit specialized websites. Magazines or websites which I do not read. Then you can definitely help me out.
So, same concept as geographical correspondents, but applied to professional areas of expertise.
If you are interested, please drop me an email confirming that you have no current security clearance and a short bio or description of your interests.
Many thanks in advance and kind regards,
The Saker
Sunday, April 20, 2014
Update on the "Saker correspondents" idea
Dear friends,
A few days ago I posted an idea to create a network of "Saker correspondents". Here is what I wrote:
Which is pretty good, but I still have a DIRE NEED of the following regions:
You can write to me using an alias, pen name or nick - I don't need to know your real identity. If you would like to write sort articles about developments about you area of responsibility and if I find them to be interesting for this blog, I will publish them here and give you full credit for it under whatever identity you prefer.
I hope that many of you will reply and that we can set up a pretty decent network of correspondents.
Many thanks and kind regards,
The Saker
A few days ago I posted an idea to create a network of "Saker correspondents". Here is what I wrote:
I think that it might be extremely useful to create a group of "correspondents" of this blog. Here is what I mean by that:As of today, I got replies from the following countries or regions:
I need local folks to go through the local Internet resources (not the big national news, those I parse myself) to seek out interesting stuff and then simply send me the links. Though a commentary or evaluation of these links could be helpful, the links alone would be helpful enough. Here are the languages which I can read more or less decently: very easily: French, Italian, Spanish, German, Russian, Ukrainian, Belorussian, and English, of course. With some difficulties Portuguese, and Dutch. Slowly and preferably with the help of a machine translator, I can also understand a text written in Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, Bulgarian, Serbo-Croatian, Polish, Afrikaans, Slovak and Macedonian.
Also, there are four languages which I don't know at all and with which I would really need a person willing to translate or even just summarize interesting articles in the local Internet (in order of priority): Arabic, Chinese, Farsi and Hebrew.
Should that work, my goal would be to completely bypass the AngloZionist media and to offer the readers of this blog information from the small news sources which are little known but which are trying hard to become more visible. Sure, we all know about RussiaToday, PressTV or TeleSur, but who knows what kind of interesting stuff is published on the local Internet in Omsk, Isfahan or Cochabamba?
Tlaxcala does a great job of translating "alternative" information in many languages and IPS tried to being local information sources. But for the former does not use local correspondents or specialize in English-language information while the latter has, shall we say, a "not always adequate political agenda" with some pretty darn big blind spots.
So here is my idea: if some of you are interested in becoming "Saker correspondents" we could have your just scan the local press in your area (it don't need to be in Timbuktu - the local press in France or Romania might be very interesting too) and send me the links. I could then either publish the full article if it is worth it, or just post a few links so those interested can read it for themselves, or simply read the stuff myself to help me understand a region or a current event. If there will be Arabic, Chinese, Farsi or Hebrew speakers willing to be "Saker correspondents" then they would work somewhat differently: they could email me and say, "the local website has a reader's forum where one guy just posted his impression after a 3 day trip to the town of X and he is describing something interesting. Do you want a summary or full translation?" Depending on the place, situation and source I would have to decide whether this is worth the correspondent's effort.
Alternatively, you could bypass me completely and contact each other directly and jointly decide to try to get the local information sources to the English-speaking world, either through my blog or through any other outlet you like (God knows there are many very good ones today). Then my role would be just to help put you in touch with each other and then you could work without intermediaries.
Just think about it. All I know is that there are regular readers here from all over the planet, with lots of languages and excellent expertise and education. Not to flatter you all, but there is *a lot* of brainpower available which we could put together if you guys are interested.
- Hawaii
- Canada
- Scandinavian countries
- Balkan countries
- France
- French speaking Africa
- Benelux
- Germany
- Greece
- Italy
- Czech Republic
Which is pretty good, but I still have a DIRE NEED of the following regions:
- Latin America
- China
- India
- Afghanistan
- Pakistan
- Lebanon
- Israel
- KSA
- Far East Asia
- Central Asia
- Russia
- The Ukraine
- Maghreb
- Australia and New Zealand
- Turkey
- Iran
- Iraq
- Syria
- Korean Peninsula
- Vietnam
- Indonesia
- English speaking Africa
- Portuguese speaking Africa
- Japan
- United Kingdom
- Mexico
- Cuba
- Central America
You can write to me using an alias, pen name or nick - I don't need to know your real identity. If you would like to write sort articles about developments about you area of responsibility and if I find them to be interesting for this blog, I will publish them here and give you full credit for it under whatever identity you prefer.
I hope that many of you will reply and that we can set up a pretty decent network of correspondents.
Many thanks and kind regards,
The Saker
Request for comments about my moderation policy
Dear friends,
I have decided to take the opportunity of a lull in my Sunday afternoon to seek your advice as to what to do about my comments policy.
After quite a few years of relative obscurity, this blog has seen a sudden and massive explosion in readership. For years I was getting about 1000 visitors per week, now it regularly gets over 20'000 visitors per day from literally all over the world. With that influx of visitors, a lot of weird, sick and outright deranged also showed up - that is normal, even 1% of 20'000 is still 200 and my sense is that the freaks are even much less than that - possibly 20 or about 0.1%. That really ain't much, but that is enough to be a real pain in the ass, pardon my French. These freaks fall into several categories.
1) Your typical garden variety trolls
2) Obsessive compulsive racists
3) Monothematic delusional folks completely fixated on Jews
4) Nazis
5) Plain old idiots who simply cannot make sense
In the past, when my blog had few visitors I had a 100% freedom policy. Except for commercial spam, I would literally allow anything no matter who stupid or insulting. Then a little over a month ago I got really fed up with some exceptionally dumb Nazis so I decided to kick them out. Or rather then banning them, I began sending any moronically racist or Nazi post to the trash. When I asked for your inputs only one person got angry at me. Everybody else told me that they fully supported that decision and that I had waited enough. This new policy definitely helped and some of the worst offenders packed and left.
And yet I still get way, waaaaaaay to much comments about Jews and while I do not get many Nazis any more, I still get some world class idiots posting their nonsense. So I am not sure what to do next.
One thing I could do is drop my normal policy of "there is no such thing as off-topic on this blog" and require comments to remain generally pertinent to the topic at hand. But that would also mean losing the opportunity of having some very interesting off-topic comments posted. Or I could use my discretion and decide that off-topic comments I find worthwhile publishing and which not.
I could try to set up some pretty sophisticated and detailed posting guidelines, but that would be very time consuming and still probably leave loopholes.
Or I can ask you to trust my judgment and basically toss out anything I would find too offensive or too stupid. What I do not like about this option is that it sort of implies that every comment that I would allow would then get my implicit endorsement but that would be completely wrong. If, say, somebody posts a comment saying that Russia should try to vaporize the USA in a preemptive surprise nuclear strike I would categorically disagree with that, but I cannot say that this is not a legitimate comment in a threat discussing Russian options to stop US aggression. But if I do let such a comment through, would that not look like an implicit endorsement?
Bottom line - I need some advice from you all. I consider this blog as much yours as it is mine, and I want it to meet your expectations. I do not want to allow freaks and morons to pollute it, but I don't want to censor it either. So, please, post your suggestions here or email me.
Many thanks and kind regards,
The Saker
I have decided to take the opportunity of a lull in my Sunday afternoon to seek your advice as to what to do about my comments policy.
After quite a few years of relative obscurity, this blog has seen a sudden and massive explosion in readership. For years I was getting about 1000 visitors per week, now it regularly gets over 20'000 visitors per day from literally all over the world. With that influx of visitors, a lot of weird, sick and outright deranged also showed up - that is normal, even 1% of 20'000 is still 200 and my sense is that the freaks are even much less than that - possibly 20 or about 0.1%. That really ain't much, but that is enough to be a real pain in the ass, pardon my French. These freaks fall into several categories.
1) Your typical garden variety trolls
2) Obsessive compulsive racists
3) Monothematic delusional folks completely fixated on Jews
4) Nazis
5) Plain old idiots who simply cannot make sense
In the past, when my blog had few visitors I had a 100% freedom policy. Except for commercial spam, I would literally allow anything no matter who stupid or insulting. Then a little over a month ago I got really fed up with some exceptionally dumb Nazis so I decided to kick them out. Or rather then banning them, I began sending any moronically racist or Nazi post to the trash. When I asked for your inputs only one person got angry at me. Everybody else told me that they fully supported that decision and that I had waited enough. This new policy definitely helped and some of the worst offenders packed and left.
And yet I still get way, waaaaaaay to much comments about Jews and while I do not get many Nazis any more, I still get some world class idiots posting their nonsense. So I am not sure what to do next.
One thing I could do is drop my normal policy of "there is no such thing as off-topic on this blog" and require comments to remain generally pertinent to the topic at hand. But that would also mean losing the opportunity of having some very interesting off-topic comments posted. Or I could use my discretion and decide that off-topic comments I find worthwhile publishing and which not.
I could try to set up some pretty sophisticated and detailed posting guidelines, but that would be very time consuming and still probably leave loopholes.
Or I can ask you to trust my judgment and basically toss out anything I would find too offensive or too stupid. What I do not like about this option is that it sort of implies that every comment that I would allow would then get my implicit endorsement but that would be completely wrong. If, say, somebody posts a comment saying that Russia should try to vaporize the USA in a preemptive surprise nuclear strike I would categorically disagree with that, but I cannot say that this is not a legitimate comment in a threat discussing Russian options to stop US aggression. But if I do let such a comment through, would that not look like an implicit endorsement?
Bottom line - I need some advice from you all. I consider this blog as much yours as it is mine, and I want it to meet your expectations. I do not want to allow freaks and morons to pollute it, but I don't want to censor it either. So, please, post your suggestions here or email me.
Many thanks and kind regards,
The Saker
Saturday, April 19, 2014
Today is Holy Paskha - Christ is Risen!
Χριστός ἀνέστη! Хрїстóсъ воскрéсе! المسيح قام! حقا قام!
 |
| 11th century fresco of the Resurrection, Chora Church, Constantinople |
Today is by far the biggest and most joyful day of the year for Orthodox Christians. This is also the day when Christians greet everybody, regardless of their faith or lack thereof with the words "Christ is Risen!". The ancient tradition has many meanings, but one of them is the fact that Christ did not only resurrect for the pious believers, but for all of mankind and in His resurrection he "co-resurrected" all of humanity. I think that it is therefore only appropriate for me to also greet you all with this ancient greeting - Christ is Risen!
For those of you more theologically inclined, regardless of your religion or denominaton, I am posting an except from the first epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians which has a profound exposition of the importance of the resurrection of Christ for all of mankind.
I will "see" you all on Monday, kind regards and have a peaceful and joy-filled Holy Paskha,
The Saker
-------
Saint Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians (chapter 15 verses 12-58)
Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise. For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable. But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all. Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead? And why do we stand in jeopardy every hour? I affirm, by the boasting in you which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily. If, in the manner of men, I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantage is it to me? If the dead do not rise, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!” Do not be deceived: “Evil company corrupts good habits.” Awake to righteousness, and do not sin; for some do not have the knowledge of God. I speak this to your shame. But someone will say, “How are the dead raised up? And with what body do they come?” Foolish one, what you sow is not made alive unless it dies. And what you sow, you do not sow that body that shall be, but mere grain—perhaps wheat or some other grain. But God gives it a body as He pleases, and to each seed its own body. All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of animals, another of fish, and another of birds. There are also celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies; but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed— in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.” “O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?” The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord.
Friday, April 18, 2014
The thing which everybody seems to be missing
Okay, I decided to squeeze in one more post before taking time off for Holy Paskha, this is well worth it.
Some of you have asked about China's role in all this, in what the real interests of the USA are, how the EU is positioning itself and what Russia does or does not want. And, somehow, bogged down by the minutiae of the unfolding events I managed to never mention something which Putin, Lavrov and many other top Russian politicians have repeatedly said:
What is happening today before our eyes is the end of one international system and the birth of a qualitatively different one.
Interestingly, Putin has declared that for him the point of no return was reached when the USA and its allies at the UNSC and NATO clearly and grossly twisted the intention of the UNSC on Libya and "upgraded" what should have been a "no fly" zone to a free-fire zone to attack and bomb Libya [of course, it was pretty darn clear to Putin that the "all necessary means to protect civilians" of the resolution was an open ended invitation for the AngloZionists to "interpret" it in any way they wanted; now his says that Russia was "lied to" in order to not blame Medvedev for walking into a 10 foot wide hole. But that is irrelevant here]. Putin says that from then on he had acquired the conviction that the West could not be negotiated with and had to be simply stopped. Then Syria happened: for the first time since the end of WWII the USA had decided to do something and was stopped by an outside power in the most humiliating way possible.
The Russian stance on Syria was an overt challenge to US world hegemony. It was clearly understood as such in Washington and now, following the crisis in the Ukraine, the Russians have openly admitted this.
So this is the real stake of the civil war in the Ukraine: for the USA it is to punish Russia for daring to challenge the world hegemon; for Russia it is to unseat this hegemon and replace him by a multi-polar international system in which sovereign countries act within the bounds of international law. You could say that even though most of the Security Council is vehemently opposed to that, Russia is trying to show to the world that the USA does not own the UN and that it only represents 1/5th of the P5 and 1/15th of the UNSC.
The West has slouched into a position of total submission to the USA and its domination tools over Europe: the EU and NATO. The central Europeans have even volunteered to become a US protectorate, a territory to house US missile systems and secret CIA prisons.
With the exception of Iran and Syria, the Arab and Muslim world has sold out, some to the USA, others to Saudi Arabia, most to both at the same time. Latin America tries hard, but is still heavily dependent on the USA while Africa just wants to survive the best it can. As for Asia, some parts are as sold out as Europe (Japan, Korea), others are trying to keep a low profile, while China is clearly quietly standing behind Russia but in an externally undeniable way even though China stands to benefit more than any other country on the planet from a change in the international order.
The Russians would have much preferred to wait, to buy time, but the US determination to punish it for daring to oppose it on Syria literally forced them to fold and surrender or openly accept the US challenge and stand firm.
I will repeat that again and again - Putin had no other choice.
And now that this is all in the open, you can be absolutely sure that Russia is not playing to return to the status quo ante. With an amazing candidness both Putin and Lavrov have openly spelled out their goal on Russian TV (Lavrov on the show "Sunday Evening with Vladimir Soloviev" and Putin on during his 4 hours long Q&A yesterday).
So this is the Russian end-goal: to unseat the USA from its role as a world hegemon. And that goal implies a much longer, bigger and more sustained effort that just force the freaks in Kiev to the negotiating table. Among other things, this goal implies that Russia must:
1) Force the Europeans to fully realize the outrageous price they are paying for being the obedient and silent vassals of the USA and slowly drive a wedge between the USA and Europe.
2) Force the USA to admit that it does not have the military might to punish or, even less so, "regime change" anybody they don't like.
3) Encourage China and other Asian powers to openly stand with Russia in demanding that international law be adhered to by the West.
4) Gradually replace the dollar with other currencies in international trade and thereby slow down the financing of the US debts by the rest of the planet.
5) Create the conditions for Latin America and Africa to be able to make choices about its future and replace the current monopoly enjoyed by the West in setting the terms of North-South relations.
6) Present another civilizational model which openly reject the current Western paradigm of a society run by small and arrogant minorities.
7) Challenge the current liberal and capitalist economic order embodied in the Washington Consensus and replace it by a model of social and international solidarity (call it "21 century socialism" if you want).
All of the above can be summed up in one word: re-sovereignization.
Since he got elected, Putin mentioned many times the need for a re-sovereignization of Russia. The Ukrainian crisis has forced him reveal the real end goal of his agenda: to re-sovereignize the entire planet.
This is a tall order and it will take many years, possibly decades, to achieve this goal, though my personal feeling is that the total incompetence and infinite arrogance of of the 1%ers plutocrats which rules over the western world will continue to accelerate that process.
The big question now is this: can the AngloZionist Empire follow the example of the Soviet Empire and collapse without triggering a massive bloodbath on its way down?
There will be violence, for sure, as has been with the former Soviet Union. But if we can avoid a global conflagration or even a large scale massive war then that would have to be considered as success because it is when they collapse that empires become the most dangerous and unpredictable.
I hope that the above answers many of the questions which have been posted here.
Many thanks and kind regards,
The Saker
PS: I just got this amazing video of a woman stopping a APC in Kramatorsk with her bare hands. I guess she could be seen as a symbol of what Russia wants to do with the AngloZionist Empire:
Some of you have asked about China's role in all this, in what the real interests of the USA are, how the EU is positioning itself and what Russia does or does not want. And, somehow, bogged down by the minutiae of the unfolding events I managed to never mention something which Putin, Lavrov and many other top Russian politicians have repeatedly said:
What is happening today before our eyes is the end of one international system and the birth of a qualitatively different one.
Interestingly, Putin has declared that for him the point of no return was reached when the USA and its allies at the UNSC and NATO clearly and grossly twisted the intention of the UNSC on Libya and "upgraded" what should have been a "no fly" zone to a free-fire zone to attack and bomb Libya [of course, it was pretty darn clear to Putin that the "all necessary means to protect civilians" of the resolution was an open ended invitation for the AngloZionists to "interpret" it in any way they wanted; now his says that Russia was "lied to" in order to not blame Medvedev for walking into a 10 foot wide hole. But that is irrelevant here]. Putin says that from then on he had acquired the conviction that the West could not be negotiated with and had to be simply stopped. Then Syria happened: for the first time since the end of WWII the USA had decided to do something and was stopped by an outside power in the most humiliating way possible.
The Russian stance on Syria was an overt challenge to US world hegemony. It was clearly understood as such in Washington and now, following the crisis in the Ukraine, the Russians have openly admitted this.
So this is the real stake of the civil war in the Ukraine: for the USA it is to punish Russia for daring to challenge the world hegemon; for Russia it is to unseat this hegemon and replace him by a multi-polar international system in which sovereign countries act within the bounds of international law. You could say that even though most of the Security Council is vehemently opposed to that, Russia is trying to show to the world that the USA does not own the UN and that it only represents 1/5th of the P5 and 1/15th of the UNSC.
The West has slouched into a position of total submission to the USA and its domination tools over Europe: the EU and NATO. The central Europeans have even volunteered to become a US protectorate, a territory to house US missile systems and secret CIA prisons.
With the exception of Iran and Syria, the Arab and Muslim world has sold out, some to the USA, others to Saudi Arabia, most to both at the same time. Latin America tries hard, but is still heavily dependent on the USA while Africa just wants to survive the best it can. As for Asia, some parts are as sold out as Europe (Japan, Korea), others are trying to keep a low profile, while China is clearly quietly standing behind Russia but in an externally undeniable way even though China stands to benefit more than any other country on the planet from a change in the international order.
The Russians would have much preferred to wait, to buy time, but the US determination to punish it for daring to oppose it on Syria literally forced them to fold and surrender or openly accept the US challenge and stand firm.
I will repeat that again and again - Putin had no other choice.
And now that this is all in the open, you can be absolutely sure that Russia is not playing to return to the status quo ante. With an amazing candidness both Putin and Lavrov have openly spelled out their goal on Russian TV (Lavrov on the show "Sunday Evening with Vladimir Soloviev" and Putin on during his 4 hours long Q&A yesterday).
So this is the Russian end-goal: to unseat the USA from its role as a world hegemon. And that goal implies a much longer, bigger and more sustained effort that just force the freaks in Kiev to the negotiating table. Among other things, this goal implies that Russia must:
1) Force the Europeans to fully realize the outrageous price they are paying for being the obedient and silent vassals of the USA and slowly drive a wedge between the USA and Europe.
2) Force the USA to admit that it does not have the military might to punish or, even less so, "regime change" anybody they don't like.
3) Encourage China and other Asian powers to openly stand with Russia in demanding that international law be adhered to by the West.
4) Gradually replace the dollar with other currencies in international trade and thereby slow down the financing of the US debts by the rest of the planet.
5) Create the conditions for Latin America and Africa to be able to make choices about its future and replace the current monopoly enjoyed by the West in setting the terms of North-South relations.
6) Present another civilizational model which openly reject the current Western paradigm of a society run by small and arrogant minorities.
7) Challenge the current liberal and capitalist economic order embodied in the Washington Consensus and replace it by a model of social and international solidarity (call it "21 century socialism" if you want).
All of the above can be summed up in one word: re-sovereignization.
Since he got elected, Putin mentioned many times the need for a re-sovereignization of Russia. The Ukrainian crisis has forced him reveal the real end goal of his agenda: to re-sovereignize the entire planet.
This is a tall order and it will take many years, possibly decades, to achieve this goal, though my personal feeling is that the total incompetence and infinite arrogance of of the 1%ers plutocrats which rules over the western world will continue to accelerate that process.
The big question now is this: can the AngloZionist Empire follow the example of the Soviet Empire and collapse without triggering a massive bloodbath on its way down?
There will be violence, for sure, as has been with the former Soviet Union. But if we can avoid a global conflagration or even a large scale massive war then that would have to be considered as success because it is when they collapse that empires become the most dangerous and unpredictable.
I hope that the above answers many of the questions which have been posted here.
Many thanks and kind regards,
The Saker
PS: I just got this amazing video of a woman stopping a APC in Kramatorsk with her bare hands. I guess she could be seen as a symbol of what Russia wants to do with the AngloZionist Empire:
Full text of the Geneva Statement of April 17, 2014 and a short commentary
The Guardian published the full text of the Geneva Statement. This is what eight hours of negotiations produced:
The big deal is that Uncle Sam had to accept Russia as an equal party to the solution of this mess.
The big deal is that Kiev had to accept the East as an equal party to the solution of this mess.
This might look obvious to any mentally sane person, but for die hard imperialist who believe their own hubris and for neo-Nazis thugs who thought that they could built their Banderastan and basically eliminate the East in one way or another, this is a very painful concession one, in fact, they will try as hard as they can to renege on.
Furthermore, this "statement" (it is not even an agreement) has a huge flaw which is already becoming obvious: it was signed by "the Ukraine" as if there was such an entity in the first place. But that, of course, is a fiction. The two biggest forces which really matter are the Right Sector and the Russian-speakers of the East, neither of which was invited. Instead, it is this fictional and wholly illegitimate regime of oligarchs and CIA agents which put it's signature in the name of all Ukrainians. The problem is that this regime is about as representative of the Ukrainian people as the Kerensky regime was in 1917 Russia: it represented only itself.
As for the Right Sector and the Russian-speakers in the East, they are not bound by this agreement and the latter have already declared so. As for the Right Sector, there is one word in this document which refers directly to them, the word "square" as in "all illegally occupied streets, squares and other public places in Ukrainian cities and towns must be vacated". That they won't like one bit. Of course, all the revolutionary junta needs to do is to deliver the "Maidan" a public demonstration permit and, voila, they will be "legal", except that the Maidan is a much bigger threat to the regime than to anybody else. So doing that might be very dangerous.
The bottom line is this: this "statement" is only a "partial acceptance of reality" by the USA and its puppets in Kiev, that's it. What made them cave in is the absolute failure of the so-called "anti-terrorist operation" which far from crushing the East saw several instances of units switching sides (the 24th Airborne Brigade, were most of these defections occurred, is now reportedly being disbanded, thus Kiev is basically getting rid of what is probably the comparatively best trained and most combat capable unit in the entire Ukrainian military).
The most important thing to understand at this point is that the future of the Ukraine will not be decided by this document, but only by the correlation of forces on the ground. That is the only thing which the AngloZionist Empire responds to: force. With the Empire, written agreements, treaties, promises and pledges are not worth the paper they are written on, and the Russians knows that better than anybody else.
Putin gave the Ukrainians one month to, at the very least, resume paying their electricity bill and negotiate a payment plan, then Russia will switch to a monthly pre-payment option in which the Ukies will only get the energy they have paid for in advance. The effect of that will be nothing short of an economic nuclear explosion, especially in the context of the promised Presidential election. And even if by a mix of halfway measure (loans, reverse gas deliveries, etc.) the West managed to keep a few streetlights in Kiev on over the summer, by September the severity of the shortage will be nothing short of apocalyptic.
As for the Russian-speakers in the East, nobody currently has the means to disarm and crush them by force. I see no way this could change in the foreseeable future. What the East will do over the summer is simply to organize itself better and prepare for any attempts by Kiev to crush its people. As for Russia, it now has all the time it needs to covertly assist the Donbass financially, organizationally and even militarily.
Time is most definitely not on the USA's side and with the passing weeks the position of the current oligarchic regime will get weaker and weaker and that will force it to more and more concessions. Frankly, a much better solution at this point would be to have direct negotiations between the Right Sector and the Russian-speakers. I know, this sounds far fetched, and it it, but at least these two parties do most definitely have power and legitimacy (with their own people, that is).
One more thing: some of you have expressed concerns about the planned OSCE monitors mission. You have to understand that all this is is a fig leaf to try to give the impression that all parties want to de-escalate the violence. Furthermore, and I assure you that this is true, nobody on the planet knows the OSCE better than the Russians, especially Putin, as they saw how these "observers" "observed" in Chechnia! As a result, if and when these so-called "observers" show up in the eastern Ukraine, they might as well wear T-shirts with "CIA", "MI6", "DGSE" or "KSI" written in big letters.
The bottom line is this: this agreement is first and foremost a symbolic concession by the AngloZionists and nothing else. It will have zero real impact on the ground. One should not be distracted by all the hot air being currently released in the corporate media and the blogosphere because words are just that - hot air, political flatulence. Only one thing will decide the eventual out come of this crisis: the correlation of forces on the ground and it unambiguously indicates that the "Ukrainian experiment" is over. It is now just a matter of time.
The Saker
The Geneva meeting on the situation in Ukraine agreed on initial concrete steps to de-escalate tensions and restore security for all citizens.That's it. Good thing that they called it "initial" because it really contains only vague well-intentioned truisms. They might as well have written something along the lines of "give peace a chance" or "we are the world, we are the children, we are the ones who make a brighter day". So if there is nothing of substance here, what is the big deal? Why did it take so long?
All sides must refrain from any violence, intimidation or provocative actions. The participants strongly condemned and rejected all expressions of extremism, racism and religious intolerance, including anti-semitism.
All illegal armed groups must be disarmed; all illegally seized buildings must be returned to legitimate owners; all illegally occupied streets, squares and other public places in Ukrainian cities and towns must be vacated.
Amnesty will be granted to protestors and to those who have left buildings and other public places and surrendered weapons, with the exception of those found guilty of capital crimes.
It was agreed that the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission should play a leading role in assisting Ukrainian authorities and local communities in the immediate implementation of these de-escalation measures wherever they are needed most, beginning in the coming days. The U.S., E.U. and Russia commit to support this mission, including by providing monitors.
The announced constitutional process will be inclusive, transparent and accountable. It will include the immediate establishment of a broad national dialogue, with outreach to all of Ukraine’s regions and political constituencies, and allow for the consideration of public comments and proposed amendments.
The participants underlined the importance of economic and financial stability in Ukraine and would be ready to discuss additional support as the above steps are implemented.
The big deal is that Uncle Sam had to accept Russia as an equal party to the solution of this mess.
The big deal is that Kiev had to accept the East as an equal party to the solution of this mess.
This might look obvious to any mentally sane person, but for die hard imperialist who believe their own hubris and for neo-Nazis thugs who thought that they could built their Banderastan and basically eliminate the East in one way or another, this is a very painful concession one, in fact, they will try as hard as they can to renege on.
Furthermore, this "statement" (it is not even an agreement) has a huge flaw which is already becoming obvious: it was signed by "the Ukraine" as if there was such an entity in the first place. But that, of course, is a fiction. The two biggest forces which really matter are the Right Sector and the Russian-speakers of the East, neither of which was invited. Instead, it is this fictional and wholly illegitimate regime of oligarchs and CIA agents which put it's signature in the name of all Ukrainians. The problem is that this regime is about as representative of the Ukrainian people as the Kerensky regime was in 1917 Russia: it represented only itself.
As for the Right Sector and the Russian-speakers in the East, they are not bound by this agreement and the latter have already declared so. As for the Right Sector, there is one word in this document which refers directly to them, the word "square" as in "all illegally occupied streets, squares and other public places in Ukrainian cities and towns must be vacated". That they won't like one bit. Of course, all the revolutionary junta needs to do is to deliver the "Maidan" a public demonstration permit and, voila, they will be "legal", except that the Maidan is a much bigger threat to the regime than to anybody else. So doing that might be very dangerous.
The bottom line is this: this "statement" is only a "partial acceptance of reality" by the USA and its puppets in Kiev, that's it. What made them cave in is the absolute failure of the so-called "anti-terrorist operation" which far from crushing the East saw several instances of units switching sides (the 24th Airborne Brigade, were most of these defections occurred, is now reportedly being disbanded, thus Kiev is basically getting rid of what is probably the comparatively best trained and most combat capable unit in the entire Ukrainian military).
The most important thing to understand at this point is that the future of the Ukraine will not be decided by this document, but only by the correlation of forces on the ground. That is the only thing which the AngloZionist Empire responds to: force. With the Empire, written agreements, treaties, promises and pledges are not worth the paper they are written on, and the Russians knows that better than anybody else.
Putin gave the Ukrainians one month to, at the very least, resume paying their electricity bill and negotiate a payment plan, then Russia will switch to a monthly pre-payment option in which the Ukies will only get the energy they have paid for in advance. The effect of that will be nothing short of an economic nuclear explosion, especially in the context of the promised Presidential election. And even if by a mix of halfway measure (loans, reverse gas deliveries, etc.) the West managed to keep a few streetlights in Kiev on over the summer, by September the severity of the shortage will be nothing short of apocalyptic.
As for the Russian-speakers in the East, nobody currently has the means to disarm and crush them by force. I see no way this could change in the foreseeable future. What the East will do over the summer is simply to organize itself better and prepare for any attempts by Kiev to crush its people. As for Russia, it now has all the time it needs to covertly assist the Donbass financially, organizationally and even militarily.
Time is most definitely not on the USA's side and with the passing weeks the position of the current oligarchic regime will get weaker and weaker and that will force it to more and more concessions. Frankly, a much better solution at this point would be to have direct negotiations between the Right Sector and the Russian-speakers. I know, this sounds far fetched, and it it, but at least these two parties do most definitely have power and legitimacy (with their own people, that is).
One more thing: some of you have expressed concerns about the planned OSCE monitors mission. You have to understand that all this is is a fig leaf to try to give the impression that all parties want to de-escalate the violence. Furthermore, and I assure you that this is true, nobody on the planet knows the OSCE better than the Russians, especially Putin, as they saw how these "observers" "observed" in Chechnia! As a result, if and when these so-called "observers" show up in the eastern Ukraine, they might as well wear T-shirts with "CIA", "MI6", "DGSE" or "KSI" written in big letters.
The bottom line is this: this agreement is first and foremost a symbolic concession by the AngloZionists and nothing else. It will have zero real impact on the ground. One should not be distracted by all the hot air being currently released in the corporate media and the blogosphere because words are just that - hot air, political flatulence. Only one thing will decide the eventual out come of this crisis: the correlation of forces on the ground and it unambiguously indicates that the "Ukrainian experiment" is over. It is now just a matter of time.
The Saker
*Very* interesting reply of Putin during yesterday's Q&A
Yesterday Putin had a four hour long Q&A on Russian TV. I will not post it here, but one reply by Putin is really interesting. See for yourself:
Q: MARIA SITTEL: More from anxious pensioners. “If the West refuses to purchase gas from Russia, how will that affect people’s well-being, especially that of pensioners?” – Lyudmila Budarina, Tambov Region.
A: VLADIMIR PUTIN: I have to say that oil and gas revenues make up a large part of the Russian budget revenue. This is a serious component for us in addressing economic development, budget funding for our development programmes and, of course, and meeting of our social commitments to our citizens.
I’ll tell you what. I am not sure that I’ll get the figures right, but, if my memory serves me correctly, the bulk of oil and gas revenue comes not from gas but from oil. In terms of the dollar equivalent, our oil revenues last year amounted to $191-194 billion and gas revenues to about $28 billion. See the difference? 191 from oil and 28 from gas.
Oil is sold on world markets. Is there any way to do us harm? One may try. But what would be the result for those who would attempt to do it? First of all, how would this be done? Of all the countries in the world, only Saudi Arabia has the real potential to increase production and thus bring down world prices. Saudi Arabia’s budget assumes a price of $85-$90 per thousand cubic metres.
Q: KIRILL KLEYMENOV: President Obama has already visited them.
A: VLADIMIR PUTIN: I’m sorry, I meant oil, not gas. The budget assumes a price of $85-$90 per barrel, and our budget, I think, $90. So, if one goes below $85, Saudi Arabia will be on the losing end and have problems. For us a drop from $90 to $85 is not critical. That is first.
Second, we are on very good terms with Saudi Arabia. We may, for example, differ in terms of our views on Syria, but we practically have identical positions on the development of the situation in Egypt. There are many other things where we see eye-to-eye.
I have great respect for the custodian of the two Muslim shrines, the King of Saudi Arabia. He is a very clever and balanced man. I don’t think that our Saudi friends would make any abrupt changes to harm themselves and the Russian economy.
Furthermore, they are members of OPEC, where we have many supporters. It is not that they have sympathy for us, but that they have their own economic interests and sharply reducing production – which can only be done in a manner agreed upon within OPEC – is a fairly complicated business.
Finally, in the United States, which is developing shale gas and shale oil production, production costs are very high. These are expensive projects. If world prices tumble, these projects may turn out to be unprofitable, loss-making and the nascent industry may simply die.
And one last point. Oil is priced and traded in the world in dollars. If prices fall, demand for dollars will plummet and the dollar will start losing its significance as a world currency. There are very many factors involved. The wish to bite us is there, but the opportunities are limited. That said, some damage can be caused.
Now about gas. We sell gas by pipeline (most of our sales are by pipeline) mainly to the European countries that depend on Russian supplies to cover about 30-35, 34 percent of their needs. Can they stop buying Russian gas altogether? I don’t think that this is possible.
Some of our neighbours, very good neighbours with which we have very sound relations, such as, for example, Finland…Finland gets 90 percent of its gas from Russia. Some countries that used to be called People’s Democracies in Eastern Europe depend on Russian gas if not for 90 percent, then for 60, 50 or 70 percent of their needs.
Can supplies be stopped altogether? I think that this is totally unrealistic. But one can do this at one’s own cost, by hurting oneself. However, I cannot imagine such a situation. Therefore, of course, everyone is keen on diversifying their sources of supplies. Europe is talking about greater independence from Russia as a supplier, and similarly we are beginning to talk and act to become less dependent on our consumers.
However, so far, there is a measure of balance between consumers and suppliers. The only problem is transit countries. And the most dangerous part, of course, is transit via Ukraine with which we have tremendous difficulties in agreeing on energy problems. But I hope that we will be able to bring things back to normal, considering the contracts that have been signed and are functioning.
MARIA SITTEL: Thank you.
-------
Also, FYI, a reader sent me this chart from Zerohedge:
Thursday, April 17, 2014
Making sense of the latest Kerry Lavrov deal
Ok, first the necessary caveats:
1) Kerry and Lavrov already had a deal on Syria, also made in Geneva, but then the USA reneged.
2) The EU also had a deal on the Ukraine with Yanukovich, who was overthrown literally the next day.
3) The USA, NATO and the EU have lied, cheated, mis-represented, twisted and simply betrayed pretty much every promise which they made to Russia ever since Russia freed itself from the yoke of Communism in 1991.
4) The USA probably has as much control over the Ukrainian crazies a la Right Sector as it does over al-Qaeda, tenuous at best.
5) Putin does have a lot of "street cred" in the eastern Ukraine, but it is far from being infinite.
6) The USA does have full control over the Ukrainian oligarchs, but they, in turn, are clearly in a struggle with the nationalist crazies who probably have more firepower and crowd muscle than these oligarchs.
To these caveats, I also want to add a few basic reminders because from the comments I have seen on my previous initial post, a lot of you are over-reacting to this latest developments. So, just for context, please keep in mind that
1) The Kiev regime has proven that it does not have the means to crush the rebellion in the East.
2) For reasons I have already mentioned many times, NATO and the US do not have a military option in the Ukraine.
3) Western sanctions are not significantly hurting Russia and they are very significantly help Putin's personal popularity and reforms program.
4) Time is not on the side of the regime in Kiev as the West cannot rescue the Ukraine; Russia can, but will not do so as long as the regime in power remains both illegitimate and crazy.
5) Popular militia can which materialize overnight can also disappear overnight.
6) Until now Kiev has rejected any negotiations with the East.
7) Kiev hold tens or even hundreds of anti-Fascist activists in its jails.
8) The population which would suffer from open warfare is in the East.
Ok, now that we have set the context, let us look at what happened today:
1) Kiev has agreed to negotiate with the East.
2) All illegal armed groups will have to disarm (that was already agreed between Yanukovich and the EU).
3) OSCE monitors will be dispatched to the East to monitor the situation.
4) Kiev has committed to legal reforms for greater autonomy.
5) The Crimea has not even been discussed.
6) The EU has accepted Putin's proposal to discuss gas deliveries.
7) Nobody will face prosecution except for major crimes.
Now, in my opinion, very little has in fact been agreed to, and all that has been agreed to is vague, ambiguous and lacks any verifiable landmarks to achieve within a clear timetable.
So I very much disagree with those who see that as a sell-out by Russia or, even more so, who call a truly top-notch diplomat with fantastic diplomatic skills all sorts of bad names.
Furthermore, and that is the only big news, the USA, the EU and Kiev have agreed to negotiate with Russia, something they had categorically refused to do in the past (except for the EU agreement with Yanukovich which lasted less than a day and which the US never committed to). As for Crimea, it is simply not part of any negotiations and will just remain a great opportunity for western politicians to spew some more hot air when they feel the need to.
The illegal formations and their weapons? I suppose that if things go well they will very gradually vacate some buildings which are only needed for symbolic reasons, as for their weapons, they will hide them (and use extra time to get more!). None of the activists will be detained, at least not legally and, frankly, I see no other option at this point for the Kiev authorities then to release the anti-Nazi activists they are holding. So far, the Russian speakers, far from vacating any building, have seized one more.
The sanctions? Those in place will stay, the West will make lots of empty threats about more sanctions if these evil Russkies don't behave, Putin will assume not only that no sanctions will be lifted, but also that many more will be introduced (that serves his economic reform agenda).
Crimea? It will see a huge economic boom starting this summer with a wave of "patriotic tourism" and *massive* investments from the Russian business community which will now get a chance to bid and invest in all the neglected infrastructure the Ukies left after them and all the numerous millionaire mansions the Ukrainian oligarchs have built. Crimea will become the "jewel of the Black Sea" and the economic powerhouse of southern Russia. Military contracts, huge ones, will begin pouring in (the Russian Navy already ordered 5 ships today).
The Ukraine? It will get poorer, more unstable, totally dependent on western emergency aid which will barely let the regime stay in power unless the revolutionaries come to their senses or tell Uncle Sam to buzz off. Either way, as long as the rump-Ukraine remains anti-Russia (nevermind a Nazi Banderastan) it will remain a bankrupt failed state.
Russia? It will continue exactly on the same course and adapt its policies depending on the exact ratio of sanity/delusion it will detect in its "western partners".
So today agreement is really neither good, nor bad, in fact - it's no big deal at all. Either it will be as short-lived as the agreement between the EU and Yanukovich, or it will be slowly implemented with lots of zig-zags on the way. Regardless of which option proves true, it will not affect the deep dynamics which have been set in motion which have now acquired a momentum so powerful that probably nobody can stop it.
The attempt to put down the eastern Ukraine appears to have petered out and the chance to turn the Donbass into a "East Banderastan" lead by a clique of neo-Nazi freaks are as small as ever. In other words, chances are the at least the current phase of the Ukrainian civil war is over.
All in all, that is pretty good news, I think.
The Saker
1) Kerry and Lavrov already had a deal on Syria, also made in Geneva, but then the USA reneged.
2) The EU also had a deal on the Ukraine with Yanukovich, who was overthrown literally the next day.
3) The USA, NATO and the EU have lied, cheated, mis-represented, twisted and simply betrayed pretty much every promise which they made to Russia ever since Russia freed itself from the yoke of Communism in 1991.
4) The USA probably has as much control over the Ukrainian crazies a la Right Sector as it does over al-Qaeda, tenuous at best.
5) Putin does have a lot of "street cred" in the eastern Ukraine, but it is far from being infinite.
6) The USA does have full control over the Ukrainian oligarchs, but they, in turn, are clearly in a struggle with the nationalist crazies who probably have more firepower and crowd muscle than these oligarchs.
To these caveats, I also want to add a few basic reminders because from the comments I have seen on my previous initial post, a lot of you are over-reacting to this latest developments. So, just for context, please keep in mind that
1) The Kiev regime has proven that it does not have the means to crush the rebellion in the East.
2) For reasons I have already mentioned many times, NATO and the US do not have a military option in the Ukraine.
3) Western sanctions are not significantly hurting Russia and they are very significantly help Putin's personal popularity and reforms program.
4) Time is not on the side of the regime in Kiev as the West cannot rescue the Ukraine; Russia can, but will not do so as long as the regime in power remains both illegitimate and crazy.
5) Popular militia can which materialize overnight can also disappear overnight.
6) Until now Kiev has rejected any negotiations with the East.
7) Kiev hold tens or even hundreds of anti-Fascist activists in its jails.
8) The population which would suffer from open warfare is in the East.
Ok, now that we have set the context, let us look at what happened today:
1) Kiev has agreed to negotiate with the East.
2) All illegal armed groups will have to disarm (that was already agreed between Yanukovich and the EU).
3) OSCE monitors will be dispatched to the East to monitor the situation.
4) Kiev has committed to legal reforms for greater autonomy.
5) The Crimea has not even been discussed.
6) The EU has accepted Putin's proposal to discuss gas deliveries.
7) Nobody will face prosecution except for major crimes.
Now, in my opinion, very little has in fact been agreed to, and all that has been agreed to is vague, ambiguous and lacks any verifiable landmarks to achieve within a clear timetable.
So I very much disagree with those who see that as a sell-out by Russia or, even more so, who call a truly top-notch diplomat with fantastic diplomatic skills all sorts of bad names.
Furthermore, and that is the only big news, the USA, the EU and Kiev have agreed to negotiate with Russia, something they had categorically refused to do in the past (except for the EU agreement with Yanukovich which lasted less than a day and which the US never committed to). As for Crimea, it is simply not part of any negotiations and will just remain a great opportunity for western politicians to spew some more hot air when they feel the need to.
The illegal formations and their weapons? I suppose that if things go well they will very gradually vacate some buildings which are only needed for symbolic reasons, as for their weapons, they will hide them (and use extra time to get more!). None of the activists will be detained, at least not legally and, frankly, I see no other option at this point for the Kiev authorities then to release the anti-Nazi activists they are holding. So far, the Russian speakers, far from vacating any building, have seized one more.
The sanctions? Those in place will stay, the West will make lots of empty threats about more sanctions if these evil Russkies don't behave, Putin will assume not only that no sanctions will be lifted, but also that many more will be introduced (that serves his economic reform agenda).
Crimea? It will see a huge economic boom starting this summer with a wave of "patriotic tourism" and *massive* investments from the Russian business community which will now get a chance to bid and invest in all the neglected infrastructure the Ukies left after them and all the numerous millionaire mansions the Ukrainian oligarchs have built. Crimea will become the "jewel of the Black Sea" and the economic powerhouse of southern Russia. Military contracts, huge ones, will begin pouring in (the Russian Navy already ordered 5 ships today).
The Ukraine? It will get poorer, more unstable, totally dependent on western emergency aid which will barely let the regime stay in power unless the revolutionaries come to their senses or tell Uncle Sam to buzz off. Either way, as long as the rump-Ukraine remains anti-Russia (nevermind a Nazi Banderastan) it will remain a bankrupt failed state.
Russia? It will continue exactly on the same course and adapt its policies depending on the exact ratio of sanity/delusion it will detect in its "western partners".
So today agreement is really neither good, nor bad, in fact - it's no big deal at all. Either it will be as short-lived as the agreement between the EU and Yanukovich, or it will be slowly implemented with lots of zig-zags on the way. Regardless of which option proves true, it will not affect the deep dynamics which have been set in motion which have now acquired a momentum so powerful that probably nobody can stop it.
The attempt to put down the eastern Ukraine appears to have petered out and the chance to turn the Donbass into a "East Banderastan" lead by a clique of neo-Nazi freaks are as small as ever. In other words, chances are the at least the current phase of the Ukrainian civil war is over.
All in all, that is pretty good news, I think.
The Saker
Lavrov press conference in Geneva after agreement with USA (with link to Kerry's press conference)
Important:make sure to also listen to the press conference by John Kerry gave in another room (to signal that the US and Russia are really enemies I suppose) at the same time. Click here to listen to it. The video is choppy and "jumps", blame the US State Department or YouTube, not me. If I get a clean one I will post a link to it here below.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
