We had hopes for Putin. Now all we can hope is that someone from Russia's patriots replaces him in the next election. That will probably take a miracle though.
I often compared situation in Russia today to 1916, but looking at how things are developing now I have to correct myself and say that things are looking much more like 1612. "Poles" are already in Kremlin, Boyars are playing on two sides trying to profit from both ends, Tsar is not real (Царь не настоящий! (с) - Иван Васильевич меняет профессию), and people slowly but surely are beginning to realize there is nobody from outside to save them from turmoil, only realization that motherland is indeed in great danger and self organization to take matters into their own hands. I'm beginning to see a lot of intelligence signals that in the face of really unimaginable incompetence, covert sabotage and power paralysis at the top people are beginning to self organize. It is still early in the process as situation inside of Russia is relatively stable, but events move fast so we can see a lot of abrupt changes already by spring time next year. Let's hope that inside the bowels of the deep folk 21-st century Minin and Pozharsky are already present and are getting ready to fullfil their role. I agree with you, it may take a miracle for this to happen, but Russia often relied on miracles that were helping country to get through tough times. Putin, btw, could still redeem himself by playing a symbolic role in people's uprising, as there are still too many people in Russia that believe in him. Ah, we were so poor in the nineties and look how he lifted us out of poverty, they tell me without realizing that at 1%-2% annual growth Russia was falling far behind everyone else and thus losing historic time and opportunity. But is he capable of elevating himself above his clan's interests? I wouldn't give him my vote of confidence, though I wish he could perform such act for the nation as it would make transition less bloody.
"The US-NATO-UK Ukrainian Proxy War on Russia is an existential war of survival, for Russia. The West as well. It is now a Zero Sum Game Conflict. American political and economic goals are to destroy the Russian state, apply regime change strategies and steal Russia's vast natural resources.
This campaign comes as the culmination of several hundred years of Western global dominance, not by the superiority of Western ideas and values, of which we hear much, but rather by The West's superiority in applying organized violence, mass murder and resource theft, notably against technologically inferior states. It thus is a test of The West's dominant Geo-Political and Geo-Economic Success Paradigm. Russia is not a technologically inferior state.
The Ukrainian people are entirely expendable cannon fodder for this campaign and they are the modern equivalent of a Pyramid of Skulls".
McGregor and Ritter are waiting on методичка (instructions) from Moscow on how to cover this attack. So are The Duran(s). As people who grew up in the Western, more assertive culture, than what emerged in Russia with coming of Gorbachev, they are at loss on how to react to the absence of reaction by Russian authorities. On hopey-changey, I'm an optimist after all. These are the shortcomings of Soviet upbringing, I guess. Sigh...
Btw, on your offer to proofread my texts. I don't hide that English is not my mother tongue, though I spent significantly more time of my life in English-speaking world than I did in Russian, Ukrainian, Spanish Dutch, or German. As long as text is readable and easy to follow including other people of ESL (English as second language) category, I'm happy. Occasionally misplaced article doesn't bother me as much, but if you see some glaring incongruities, that affect the sense of a sentence, let me know - I'll be happy to incorporate your suggestions. I usually do minor edits of my articles several times after I publish them anyway. Hit me with your suggestions, I like being corrected, as this is the essence of learning!
Stanley, thank you for writing the way you do. No editing needed.
I just hopped over from Riley's email and subscribed. I have a similar background to yourself, I think, and I tend to use the same shortcuts in informal writing - who needs articles when the text is perfectly legible without them. It just reads like personal flair to me.
Hi, Elkavera! I was actually about to explain the way I write to subscribers in the next text. Many, if not most, of the Substack authors are using a lot of references, quotes and other means to show how well researched and factual their material is. To my taste this makes reading of their articles a somewhat fractured experience. I prefer to write essay-like articles that are flowing uninterrupted. If someone is reading it already, I assume they trust me to an extent not to need a direct quote or a translated article I refer to.
So, thanks for noticing that and dropping me a note!
Посылаю обратно пиндостанский привет! Правда с канадским душком, так как я канадец что живёт в США.
методичка, a new word. Thanks. I will never forget it.
I don't know if that is actually true and have no way to confirm or refute your assertion. I'm not calling you out exactly, but maybe examine your bias?
Mcgregor and Ritter come off as honorable men but it appears they neglect their own role in this ongoing human trainwreck.
For example, both conduct themselves as if they have never heard of Frédéric Bastiat ("When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will.”) or Smedley Butler ("War is a racket"). And we bloody well know they both have heard of them, and read their works.
Col. (Lt.Col.?) Ritter often misquotes von Clausewitz, and von Clausewitz himself was wrong. Here is what he meant to say:
"War is the continuation of BUSINESS by other means."
Which brings me to this important discussion moderated by the inimitable Reiner Fuellmich. Interviewees are Rodney Atkinson and Alex Thompson (otherwise know as the Walking, Talking Encyclopedia). The subject is "Hostile takeover through corporatism?" If I understood Mr. Thompson correctly, what we are experiencing now is the Fourth Reich extended to include both the east and the west.
Thanks for the video link you shared from ICIC site, I started watching that video but it requires more time to watch it in an environment where I can process the content properly.
For the word методичка - this is a Soviet legacy word where it meant a methodical instruction sheet for the teachers that came with course material to explain how to cover it properly. In US we call this a teaching aid. But today this word is used mostly in the context of propaganda, when seemingly independent media outlets begin to use the same thesis in explaining news events, sometimes even using exactly the same words. Remember the famous video clip when news anchors on different TV channel are popping up one after another saying exactly the same words about COVID? That means they all received and follow the same "методичка".
For Scott Ritter, Douglas Macgregor and others in this category. I think of these people with respect as of brave people not afraid to go against the grain of the huge media and government machine with clear negative consequences for themselves. I'm even OK with their pro-Russian officialdom bias - someone has to be on that side too. Now, is their always positive view of Russian actions actually good for a deep understanding of the situation? No, I don't think so. We need to look at the situation objectively without constantly getting into "now all is lost!" mindset.
Agree, it seems that Ritter and MacGregor think everything is as it looks on the surface. Little details like Zelensky, Putin, Netanyahu, and many members of the Biden admin and most other NATO governments being members of Chabad and therefore bound to loyalty to each other and Israel over even their home country would short-circuit their brains. I think it's part of the psychology of being a soldier that I mentioned in another comment. They need there to be a 'good' side in every conflict, because they envision themselves as on that good side always.
Agree that Maj Ritter and Col MacGregor don't take responsibility for their own role, but that's an important part of the American identity. The US military is a benevolent organization that defends freedom and 'democracy' everywhere, and the bad things that happen are either 'mistakes', or because of a few 'bad apples'.
I'm not so sure they've read Bastiat. Reading one Bastiat essay could un-do years of government education, so most Americans have never heard the name.
I don't trust Fuellmich. I think his task is to be at the lead of a fake prosecution effort in order to control it, and to give the appearance that something is being done.
Dr. Reiner Fuellmich - a steam release whistle in the grand scheme of things? Perhaps. But this type of activity requires to be good to the cause most of the time and only periodically play for the other side, so let's support this German-American lawyer in what we think is his good work. We live during very confusing times, on one hand people are beginning to wake up, but on the other hand we are getting sometimes contradicting messages from people and organizations we thought we could trust. Also what complicates the matters are psyops played on us constantly. Some are easy to decipher, like "flat earth" or Qanon, but other ones, like Dr. Fuellmich and his "trials" are not so easy to understand if they are good or counterproductive.
Well, at this point, Fuellmich is pretty easy to decipher for me, but probably because of my law enforcement background and understanding of the legal system.
I was very positive about Fuellmich at the beginning. But within the first 6 months his 'investigation' became odd.
The most basic strategy of any big civil investigation like that is to get before a judge relatively quickly, because then you get the power to depose the alleged guilty parties under oath, and you get the power to subpoena documents and other records. So as soon as the preliminary investigation finds evidence of something illegal, either a civil or criminal court filing would happen quickly, and then the real investigation would begin with the court's subpoena power opening the doors.
And so here we are more than two years into his 'investigation', and still nothing filed in any court. Instead, early this year he directed his 'grand jury' proceeding, which was nothing more than a theater production for the clueless public. If the grand jury wasn't empaneled by a prosecutor who intends to act on the jury's findings, then it means absolutely nothing. And Fuellmich knows this.
And a grand jury proceeding is never public, for the obvious reason that all of the witnesses would be exposed before any charges could be filed. So what Fuellmich has done with his public circus is to expose as many potential witnesses as possible. The ruling cabal now has a list of those who are a threat should a real case ever be brought to a non-corrupted court.
I won't dispute this. In fact, your argument is strong. The breakup of the Stiftung Corona Ausschuss left many of us wondering WTF? I'm not sure who - or what - to believe anymore. I think Tucker Carlson is allowed to perform as he has merely to light the fuse, so to speak.
I've said it before and will say it again now: EVERYTHING is a psyop and nothing meant for public consumption is really real.
Yep, Ritter shows his identity is still a Marine, and that he has some emotional issues. The brainwashing is strong. A 'good soldier' must have unbreakable cognitive dissonance.
That was interesting.. Granted, the question itself was a tad unhinged. Listened a little bit past that, and yes, Ritter really shows himself toeing the party line.
I saw an interview with MacGregor from Dec. 8, and it seems he's not buying the story of TU-141's flying from Ukraine. He said his inside sources are saying it was likely drones launched from inside Russia, and apparently they used commercial airline routes to avoid detection by air defenses.
Just like everything about this war, nothing about this 'attack' makes sense within the prevailing narrative. The big thing about it that raises a red flag for me is that there's a principle in military intelligence by which if you've identified a weakness in the air defenses of the enemy, allowing an attack deep inside their territory, you'd save it for an attack that really hurts them, because it's likely the same trick won't work again. Looking at the damage, it's merely symbolic in nature, having no impact on Russia's military whatsoever. NATO would never reveal a major air defense weakness to the enemy in order to strike a little nuisance blow. The story makes no sense.
So I have to ask, what could be the motives for the attack? What did it accomplish?
Seems to me what it accomplishes is further rallying support for Putin and the SMO in Russia by showing Russians that they're all in danger even deep inside Russia. That's a negative benefit to Ukraine, if things are as we're told.
Once again, NATO's actions have the effect of strengthening Putin politically, and further insuring the complete annihilation of Ukraine.
And of course Putin's nonchalance about it is just another confirmation of my instincts. He really isn't the least bit concerned about a real NATO attack, and he has no intention of retaliating against NATO. Everyone on both sides are being played, which historically is the rule in major wars.
Thanks, that had crossed my desk but I hadn't watched it. Definitely a higher level of discussion than we see normally.
Possibly the most important question of the whole interview never got answered. Vlahos asked something like 'why did Britain commit to fighting three major powers in WWII when they had no chance of fighting them on their own?' He was sort of suggesting that it was some kind of big mistake. Then he went right on to another topic.
Of course Britain did that because they knew with certainty that they, the elite British/Jewish alliance, had complete control of the US, and would easily get the US into the war after baiting their enemies into a fight. That reality rules today, and is the reason the US is in Ukraine.
Their talk of Britain being a vassal of the US is ignoring everything except direct military strength.
Anyway, I'm curious what MacGregor would've said. He probably knows more than he would say publicly. Probably same for Vlahos.
We had hopes for Putin. Now all we can hope is that someone from Russia's patriots replaces him in the next election. That will probably take a miracle though.
I often compared situation in Russia today to 1916, but looking at how things are developing now I have to correct myself and say that things are looking much more like 1612. "Poles" are already in Kremlin, Boyars are playing on two sides trying to profit from both ends, Tsar is not real (Царь не настоящий! (с) - Иван Васильевич меняет профессию), and people slowly but surely are beginning to realize there is nobody from outside to save them from turmoil, only realization that motherland is indeed in great danger and self organization to take matters into their own hands. I'm beginning to see a lot of intelligence signals that in the face of really unimaginable incompetence, covert sabotage and power paralysis at the top people are beginning to self organize. It is still early in the process as situation inside of Russia is relatively stable, but events move fast so we can see a lot of abrupt changes already by spring time next year. Let's hope that inside the bowels of the deep folk 21-st century Minin and Pozharsky are already present and are getting ready to fullfil their role. I agree with you, it may take a miracle for this to happen, but Russia often relied on miracles that were helping country to get through tough times. Putin, btw, could still redeem himself by playing a symbolic role in people's uprising, as there are still too many people in Russia that believe in him. Ah, we were so poor in the nineties and look how he lifted us out of poverty, they tell me without realizing that at 1%-2% annual growth Russia was falling far behind everyone else and thus losing historic time and opportunity. But is he capable of elevating himself above his clan's interests? I wouldn't give him my vote of confidence, though I wish he could perform such act for the nation as it would make transition less bloody.
For those who know not enough . . . God Favours Russia.
https://les7eb.substack.com
Sample . . .
"The US-NATO-UK Ukrainian Proxy War on Russia is an existential war of survival, for Russia. The West as well. It is now a Zero Sum Game Conflict. American political and economic goals are to destroy the Russian state, apply regime change strategies and steal Russia's vast natural resources.
This campaign comes as the culmination of several hundred years of Western global dominance, not by the superiority of Western ideas and values, of which we hear much, but rather by The West's superiority in applying organized violence, mass murder and resource theft, notably against technologically inferior states. It thus is a test of The West's dominant Geo-Political and Geo-Economic Success Paradigm. Russia is not a technologically inferior state.
The Ukrainian people are entirely expendable cannon fodder for this campaign and they are the modern equivalent of a Pyramid of Skulls".
Вы неправильно написали "мир во всем мире", должно быть взбитый горох (whirled peas).
Otherwise I agree with your analysis and sentiment, hopey-changey though it is. It's all we've got.
BTW, no input yet from Col.s Mcgregor or Ritter on the airfield attacks. I've got my eyes peeled.
McGregor and Ritter are waiting on методичка (instructions) from Moscow on how to cover this attack. So are The Duran(s). As people who grew up in the Western, more assertive culture, than what emerged in Russia with coming of Gorbachev, they are at loss on how to react to the absence of reaction by Russian authorities. On hopey-changey, I'm an optimist after all. These are the shortcomings of Soviet upbringing, I guess. Sigh...
Btw, on your offer to proofread my texts. I don't hide that English is not my mother tongue, though I spent significantly more time of my life in English-speaking world than I did in Russian, Ukrainian, Spanish Dutch, or German. As long as text is readable and easy to follow including other people of ESL (English as second language) category, I'm happy. Occasionally misplaced article doesn't bother me as much, but if you see some glaring incongruities, that affect the sense of a sentence, let me know - I'll be happy to incorporate your suggestions. I usually do minor edits of my articles several times after I publish them anyway. Hit me with your suggestions, I like being corrected, as this is the essence of learning!
♡
Stanley, thank you for writing the way you do. No editing needed.
I just hopped over from Riley's email and subscribed. I have a similar background to yourself, I think, and I tend to use the same shortcuts in informal writing - who needs articles when the text is perfectly legible without them. It just reads like personal flair to me.
Пламенный привет из Пиндостана )))
Hi, Elkavera! I was actually about to explain the way I write to subscribers in the next text. Many, if not most, of the Substack authors are using a lot of references, quotes and other means to show how well researched and factual their material is. To my taste this makes reading of their articles a somewhat fractured experience. I prefer to write essay-like articles that are flowing uninterrupted. If someone is reading it already, I assume they trust me to an extent not to need a direct quote or a translated article I refer to.
So, thanks for noticing that and dropping me a note!
Посылаю обратно пиндостанский привет! Правда с канадским душком, так как я канадец что живёт в США.
пиндостан/пиндостанский, another new word.
Please define this word for me and your other non-Russian speaking readers, explain in what context it is used, and to whom it refers.
I'll wait.
методичка, a new word. Thanks. I will never forget it.
I don't know if that is actually true and have no way to confirm or refute your assertion. I'm not calling you out exactly, but maybe examine your bias?
Mcgregor and Ritter come off as honorable men but it appears they neglect their own role in this ongoing human trainwreck.
For example, both conduct themselves as if they have never heard of Frédéric Bastiat ("When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will.”) or Smedley Butler ("War is a racket"). And we bloody well know they both have heard of them, and read their works.
Col. (Lt.Col.?) Ritter often misquotes von Clausewitz, and von Clausewitz himself was wrong. Here is what he meant to say:
"War is the continuation of BUSINESS by other means."
Which brings me to this important discussion moderated by the inimitable Reiner Fuellmich. Interviewees are Rodney Atkinson and Alex Thompson (otherwise know as the Walking, Talking Encyclopedia). The subject is "Hostile takeover through corporatism?" If I understood Mr. Thompson correctly, what we are experiencing now is the Fourth Reich extended to include both the east and the west.
https://video.icic-net.com/w/86RcxS4JwCPLtDfPSDypLg
Thanks for the video link you shared from ICIC site, I started watching that video but it requires more time to watch it in an environment where I can process the content properly.
For the word методичка - this is a Soviet legacy word where it meant a methodical instruction sheet for the teachers that came with course material to explain how to cover it properly. In US we call this a teaching aid. But today this word is used mostly in the context of propaganda, when seemingly independent media outlets begin to use the same thesis in explaining news events, sometimes even using exactly the same words. Remember the famous video clip when news anchors on different TV channel are popping up one after another saying exactly the same words about COVID? That means they all received and follow the same "методичка".
For Scott Ritter, Douglas Macgregor and others in this category. I think of these people with respect as of brave people not afraid to go against the grain of the huge media and government machine with clear negative consequences for themselves. I'm even OK with their pro-Russian officialdom bias - someone has to be on that side too. Now, is their always positive view of Russian actions actually good for a deep understanding of the situation? No, I don't think so. We need to look at the situation objectively without constantly getting into "now all is lost!" mindset.
Agree, it seems that Ritter and MacGregor think everything is as it looks on the surface. Little details like Zelensky, Putin, Netanyahu, and many members of the Biden admin and most other NATO governments being members of Chabad and therefore bound to loyalty to each other and Israel over even their home country would short-circuit their brains. I think it's part of the psychology of being a soldier that I mentioned in another comment. They need there to be a 'good' side in every conflict, because they envision themselves as on that good side always.
Agree that Maj Ritter and Col MacGregor don't take responsibility for their own role, but that's an important part of the American identity. The US military is a benevolent organization that defends freedom and 'democracy' everywhere, and the bad things that happen are either 'mistakes', or because of a few 'bad apples'.
I'm not so sure they've read Bastiat. Reading one Bastiat essay could un-do years of government education, so most Americans have never heard the name.
I don't trust Fuellmich. I think his task is to be at the lead of a fake prosecution effort in order to control it, and to give the appearance that something is being done.
Dr. Reiner Fuellmich - a steam release whistle in the grand scheme of things? Perhaps. But this type of activity requires to be good to the cause most of the time and only periodically play for the other side, so let's support this German-American lawyer in what we think is his good work. We live during very confusing times, on one hand people are beginning to wake up, but on the other hand we are getting sometimes contradicting messages from people and organizations we thought we could trust. Also what complicates the matters are psyops played on us constantly. Some are easy to decipher, like "flat earth" or Qanon, but other ones, like Dr. Fuellmich and his "trials" are not so easy to understand if they are good or counterproductive.
Well, at this point, Fuellmich is pretty easy to decipher for me, but probably because of my law enforcement background and understanding of the legal system.
I was very positive about Fuellmich at the beginning. But within the first 6 months his 'investigation' became odd.
The most basic strategy of any big civil investigation like that is to get before a judge relatively quickly, because then you get the power to depose the alleged guilty parties under oath, and you get the power to subpoena documents and other records. So as soon as the preliminary investigation finds evidence of something illegal, either a civil or criminal court filing would happen quickly, and then the real investigation would begin with the court's subpoena power opening the doors.
And so here we are more than two years into his 'investigation', and still nothing filed in any court. Instead, early this year he directed his 'grand jury' proceeding, which was nothing more than a theater production for the clueless public. If the grand jury wasn't empaneled by a prosecutor who intends to act on the jury's findings, then it means absolutely nothing. And Fuellmich knows this.
And a grand jury proceeding is never public, for the obvious reason that all of the witnesses would be exposed before any charges could be filed. So what Fuellmich has done with his public circus is to expose as many potential witnesses as possible. The ruling cabal now has a list of those who are a threat should a real case ever be brought to a non-corrupted court.
All the evidence says it's sabotage.
I won't dispute this. In fact, your argument is strong. The breakup of the Stiftung Corona Ausschuss left many of us wondering WTF? I'm not sure who - or what - to believe anymore. I think Tucker Carlson is allowed to perform as he has merely to light the fuse, so to speak.
I've said it before and will say it again now: EVERYTHING is a psyop and nothing meant for public consumption is really real.
Gotta go. My garden is calling.
... aaaand the answer is: incoming! cognitive dissonance!
https://www.bitchute.com/video/v0CiY315p94n/
required viewing begins at 25:32
Yep, Ritter shows his identity is still a Marine, and that he has some emotional issues. The brainwashing is strong. A 'good soldier' must have unbreakable cognitive dissonance.
That was interesting.. Granted, the question itself was a tad unhinged. Listened a little bit past that, and yes, Ritter really shows himself toeing the party line.
>должно быть взбитый горох (whirled peas)<
Loool
“… this is the first attack by anyone on the element of a nuclear defense system of any country …”
That’s a good point
I saw an interview with MacGregor from Dec. 8, and it seems he's not buying the story of TU-141's flying from Ukraine. He said his inside sources are saying it was likely drones launched from inside Russia, and apparently they used commercial airline routes to avoid detection by air defenses.
Just like everything about this war, nothing about this 'attack' makes sense within the prevailing narrative. The big thing about it that raises a red flag for me is that there's a principle in military intelligence by which if you've identified a weakness in the air defenses of the enemy, allowing an attack deep inside their territory, you'd save it for an attack that really hurts them, because it's likely the same trick won't work again. Looking at the damage, it's merely symbolic in nature, having no impact on Russia's military whatsoever. NATO would never reveal a major air defense weakness to the enemy in order to strike a little nuisance blow. The story makes no sense.
So I have to ask, what could be the motives for the attack? What did it accomplish?
Seems to me what it accomplishes is further rallying support for Putin and the SMO in Russia by showing Russians that they're all in danger even deep inside Russia. That's a negative benefit to Ukraine, if things are as we're told.
Once again, NATO's actions have the effect of strengthening Putin politically, and further insuring the complete annihilation of Ukraine.
And of course Putin's nonchalance about it is just another confirmation of my instincts. He really isn't the least bit concerned about a real NATO attack, and he has no intention of retaliating against NATO. Everyone on both sides are being played, which historically is the rule in major wars.
I am disinclined to link to a juicetube video. In the unlikely event this escaped your attention:
https://www.youtube.com/@Dr.MichaelVlahos
spoiler alert: nothing you've stated above is contradicted by these videos
Thanks, that had crossed my desk but I hadn't watched it. Definitely a higher level of discussion than we see normally.
Possibly the most important question of the whole interview never got answered. Vlahos asked something like 'why did Britain commit to fighting three major powers in WWII when they had no chance of fighting them on their own?' He was sort of suggesting that it was some kind of big mistake. Then he went right on to another topic.
Of course Britain did that because they knew with certainty that they, the elite British/Jewish alliance, had complete control of the US, and would easily get the US into the war after baiting their enemies into a fight. That reality rules today, and is the reason the US is in Ukraine.
Their talk of Britain being a vassal of the US is ignoring everything except direct military strength.
Anyway, I'm curious what MacGregor would've said. He probably knows more than he would say publicly. Probably same for Vlahos.