Positively impressed. Some pieces of the puzzle that made me frown:
- Putin as someone who was Boris Yeltsin's hand picked appointee for the president's role ........
You've probably heard of the story that goes like this: The 1999. bombing of Serbia made the Russian security deep state alarmed, and they pressed the drunkard president to accept this aparatchik with background in security, ... as a man of compromise and continuity.
What's wrong with this theory.
- the real reasons behind this military campaign? I can assure you, these were not the security concerns about imminent Ukrainian attack on Donbass. It would have been to Russia's advantage to wait for Ukraine to start attacking and then to unleash all out war against the aggressor ...........
Hm. People get regularly surprised about the turn of events in their own households, so it's difficult to understand how one can make such categorical judgements in geopolitics.
But, if you just mean to launch a plausible and stimulating theory, ok.
- Hegelian "dialectics" ........
I invite you to read this, and check it against other sources:
Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Dors, the for the other one on the article about Dugin and Olshansky. I have been writing more extensively about Putin and the reasons for the SMO where I explain my theory about it, perhaps I'll produce another post instead of referring a difficult to find comment. For "Hegelian dialectic" I'll read the article you referenced, but how I used it here was in a sense of the classical Soviet school of Marxist-Leninist philosophy that I had a fortune or misfortune to learn in my higher ed courses back in USSR.
The first English major joint stock company was The Muscovy Company, chartered in 1555, even before The East India Company. I would consider it as a sign of great interest -- in Russian riches--which remains to this day. As far as Queen Elizabeth I is concerned, she rejected all other suitors too.
Absolutely correct on Elizabeth - she decided to be married to her county instead of any noble man. Need to add this point to the article. For the trade with Russia and through Russia, Muscovy Company was organized during the early years of emerging capitalism, but the trade through the territories that later became Russia was active since the VIII century when Arabs conquered Hispania and another route for trade with Eastern Mediterranean and Persia was needed. Obviously this involved trade with East Slavic tribal unions too - pelts, honey, bee wax for candles were the principal trade items that came out of those lands.
On the idea that Russia should have refrained from a pre-emptive strike in the form of the SMO and wait for Ukraine to make the alleged expected first strike for reasons of optics and opinion in the West. The assumption that Russia in that case would have been portrayed differently and its actions considered as legitimate is an assumption not supported by the facts from the recent past.
Even during the eight years of 'ATO' aka state sanctioned democide by way of the indiscrinate shelling of military but mainly civilian targets in the Donbas, the Kiev regime in conjunction with the collective West did neither have any scruples nor difficulty to portray and convince their public that Russia was the eternal and sole aggressor and culprit of the whole crisis. No security or any other concern expressed by president Putin beforehand has even ever been remotely taken into account, let alone acknowledge. The same goes for Georgia, the undoubtedly mainly humanitory intervention of Russian troops there has without exception been presented as an unprovoked attack of imperialistic and warlike Russia on the sovereign state and people of George. Try to find a Western source where the truth of Georgia that attacked South Ossetia first is mentioned. En conclusion, whether the given reasons given by Russia for the SMO are legit or not, everything points to the undeniable reality that the portrayal of the Russian intervention as an unprovoked aggression would not have been different if Russia would have waited to act in reaction to an attacking initiative of Ukraine. In this perspective, in expectation of the totally untruthful and biased propaganda in the collective West, only the operational military perspective had to be taken into account e.g. the importance and benefit of a first strike, the pre-emptive and surprise attack of Russia had no real disadvantages, only tactical and strategic operational advantages.
Thanks so much for your kind words, циник! Gives me a reason to write more for a target audience like you, people who want to go beyond the headlines to understand the internal forces driving events. I may take you up on your offer to be a proofreader. Even though I spent last 30 years fully immersed in the English speaking world and was considered to be a good writer in a corporate setting for the ability to bring a point across, nobody is perfect and I readily admit that my writing could take another pair of eyes and a native English speaker with a knack for writing to further refine the text. This is especially useful for the larger pieces.
Positively impressed. Some pieces of the puzzle that made me frown:
- Putin as someone who was Boris Yeltsin's hand picked appointee for the president's role ........
You've probably heard of the story that goes like this: The 1999. bombing of Serbia made the Russian security deep state alarmed, and they pressed the drunkard president to accept this aparatchik with background in security, ... as a man of compromise and continuity.
What's wrong with this theory.
- the real reasons behind this military campaign? I can assure you, these were not the security concerns about imminent Ukrainian attack on Donbass. It would have been to Russia's advantage to wait for Ukraine to start attacking and then to unleash all out war against the aggressor ...........
Hm. People get regularly surprised about the turn of events in their own households, so it's difficult to understand how one can make such categorical judgements in geopolitics.
But, if you just mean to launch a plausible and stimulating theory, ok.
- Hegelian "dialectics" ........
I invite you to read this, and check it against other sources:
https://21stcenturywire.com/2016/05/15/hegelian-dialectics-dont-mess-with-hegel
Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Dors, the for the other one on the article about Dugin and Olshansky. I have been writing more extensively about Putin and the reasons for the SMO where I explain my theory about it, perhaps I'll produce another post instead of referring a difficult to find comment. For "Hegelian dialectic" I'll read the article you referenced, but how I used it here was in a sense of the classical Soviet school of Marxist-Leninist philosophy that I had a fortune or misfortune to learn in my higher ed courses back in USSR.
The first English major joint stock company was The Muscovy Company, chartered in 1555, even before The East India Company. I would consider it as a sign of great interest -- in Russian riches--which remains to this day. As far as Queen Elizabeth I is concerned, she rejected all other suitors too.
Absolutely correct on Elizabeth - she decided to be married to her county instead of any noble man. Need to add this point to the article. For the trade with Russia and through Russia, Muscovy Company was organized during the early years of emerging capitalism, but the trade through the territories that later became Russia was active since the VIII century when Arabs conquered Hispania and another route for trade with Eastern Mediterranean and Persia was needed. Obviously this involved trade with East Slavic tribal unions too - pelts, honey, bee wax for candles were the principal trade items that came out of those lands.
On the idea that Russia should have refrained from a pre-emptive strike in the form of the SMO and wait for Ukraine to make the alleged expected first strike for reasons of optics and opinion in the West. The assumption that Russia in that case would have been portrayed differently and its actions considered as legitimate is an assumption not supported by the facts from the recent past.
Even during the eight years of 'ATO' aka state sanctioned democide by way of the indiscrinate shelling of military but mainly civilian targets in the Donbas, the Kiev regime in conjunction with the collective West did neither have any scruples nor difficulty to portray and convince their public that Russia was the eternal and sole aggressor and culprit of the whole crisis. No security or any other concern expressed by president Putin beforehand has even ever been remotely taken into account, let alone acknowledge. The same goes for Georgia, the undoubtedly mainly humanitory intervention of Russian troops there has without exception been presented as an unprovoked attack of imperialistic and warlike Russia on the sovereign state and people of George. Try to find a Western source where the truth of Georgia that attacked South Ossetia first is mentioned. En conclusion, whether the given reasons given by Russia for the SMO are legit or not, everything points to the undeniable reality that the portrayal of the Russian intervention as an unprovoked aggression would not have been different if Russia would have waited to act in reaction to an attacking initiative of Ukraine. In this perspective, in expectation of the totally untruthful and biased propaganda in the collective West, only the operational military perspective had to be taken into account e.g. the importance and benefit of a first strike, the pre-emptive and surprise attack of Russia had no real disadvantages, only tactical and strategic operational advantages.
Wonderful piece. You are the voice we have been missing for so long.
(If you would like a proof reader, I volunteer)
Thanks so much for your kind words, циник! Gives me a reason to write more for a target audience like you, people who want to go beyond the headlines to understand the internal forces driving events. I may take you up on your offer to be a proofreader. Even though I spent last 30 years fully immersed in the English speaking world and was considered to be a good writer in a corporate setting for the ability to bring a point across, nobody is perfect and I readily admit that my writing could take another pair of eyes and a native English speaker with a knack for writing to further refine the text. This is especially useful for the larger pieces.