Tag: politics

If I were Russian (in February 2022)

[23/06/22: Jacques Baud, a former member of the Swiss Strategic Intelligence Service and former NATO adviser and analyst, pointed out in an informative article three reasons why Russia launched its military action against Ukraine in February 2022. Reason one: The encroachment of NATO to Russian borders and the threat it poses to Russia. Reason two: The refusal of the government of Ukraine to implement the Minsk II Treaty, mediated by France and Germany in 2015. The treaty would have given the south-eastern parts of Ukraine some autonomy in a federal system within Ukraine and entrenched the language rights of the Russian-speaking inhabitants of these areas. Reason three: The aggressive military attacks launched by the government in Kiev against the population of the Donbas (in south-eastern Ukraine) since 2014. The majority of this population was opposed to the coup carried out in Kiev in 2014 – a coup encouraged and supported by the US government. Most of the inhabitants in these parts of Ukraine have close ethnic, cultural, historical, and linguistic ties with the Russian population on the other side of the border. These attacks on urban centres in the Donbas increased significantly in February 2022 – shortly before the Russian military operation, with fatal consequences for ordinary civilians. However, the following note from May only focuses on how I believe many Russians are seeing NATO’s encroachment.]

THURSDAY, 25 MAY 2022

I understand why Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022.

I don’t know if Vladimir Putin, or the Russian Foreign Minister, or perhaps the Russian representative to the United Nations put it exactly this way, but here’s how I think many Russians could have explained the situation:

“In the last hundred years or so we have been invaded three times from the west. The last time, in 1941, we underestimated the threat. It cost us the destruction of 70,000 villages, and more than 1,700 larger towns. Forty percent of our housing was destroyed or damaged. Twenty-five million Soviet citizens were left homeless. More than 26 million people lost their lives, of which 14 million came from the Russian Soviet Republic alone. We lost almost all the wealth we had built up during industrialisation in the 1930s. Our economy shrank by 20% between 1941 and 1945 and did not recover to pre-war levels until the 1960s.

“It will not happen again that we underestimate a military threat from the west.

“NATO was established in 1949 to oppose the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. Since 1991, this threat has ceased to exist. NATO has, however, continued to expand its membership and its military capacity. The expansion of NATO closer and closer to Russia since 1999 makes it clear that Russia – as the primary successor state of the Soviet Union – is the target. Russia no longer sees NATO as a defensive alliance. Actions in the former Yugoslavia and Libya make it clear that NATO sees it as its right to pursue an aggressive policy towards any target that does not enjoy their protection.

“Russia cannot afford to be caught off guard again. We see NATO’s growing proximity to our most populous urban centres as an existential threat. A military alliance with nuclear weapons in their arsenal is antagonistic towards your motherland. For what reason would you ignore or underestimate such a threat? We will not wait to be attacked again, and then try to defend ourselves. If a red line is crossed, we attack first. That is the only way we can expect to continue to exist as a nation.”

* * *

Scott Ritter says the following on Consortium News: “[If] the U.S. cannot understand how the accumulation of military power encompassed in a military alliance which views Russia as a singular, existential threat to its members’ security is seen by Russia as threatening, then there is no comprehension of how the events of June 22, 1941 have shaped the present-day Russian psyche, [and] why Russia will never again allow such a situation to occur […]”

* * *

I think people have a choice. Learn some basic facts about the history of Russia before the revolutions of 1917. Learn about the area that is now Ukraine – especially the difference between the western and eastern parts. Learn about the way Crimea was incorporated into the Soviet Republic of Ukraine in 1954. Learn about the price the Soviet Union (with Russia as the primary republic) paid to defeat Nazi Germany in World War II, and learn about the brutal plans that Nazi Germany had with the inhabitants of Russia and other Soviet Republics. Learn some basic facts – or learn nothing and understand nothing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union_in_World_War_II

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_transfer_of_Crimea

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements#Minsk_II,_February_2015

* * *

Egor Kholmogorov writes in an article on Russia Today on 27 May 2022: “Russians living in Russia, as well as those living in Ukraine, cannot understand why Ukrainian land should be used by NATO. In Russia, Ukraine’s possible accession to the US-led military bloc is not construed as a free choice made by the country in its own security interests, but as a means for the West to build advance bases for launching a direct attack on Moscow.”

Saturday, 25 June 2022

Interesting point about the reliability of Jacques Baud, the Swiss analyst I referred to at the beginning of this piece. In an interview with The Postil Magazine, the following question is asked, with Baud’s answer:

“[The Postil Magazine]: You have written two insightful articles about the current conflict in the Ukraine […]. Was there a particular event or an instance which led you to formulate this much-needed perspective?

[Jacques Baud]: As a strategic intelligence officer, I always advocated providing to the political or military decision-makers the most accurate and the most objective intelligence. This is the kind of job where you need to keep you prejudice and your feelings to yourself, in order to come up with an intelligence that reflects as much as possible the reality on the ground rather than your own emotions or beliefs. I also assume that in a modern democratic State decision must be fact-based. This is the difference with autocratic political systems where decision-making is ideology-based (such as in the Marxist States) or religion-based (such as in the French pre-revolutionary monarchy).”

Of course, the most deceptive liar in the history of intelligence can also give such an answer, and then proceed with an inaccurate, subjective analysis of a situation. You simply have to look at the totality of such a person’s work and form your own opinion.

Monday, 29 August 2022

After finishing this piece, I read a book titled, Moscow Calling: Memoirs of a Foreign Correspondent, by Angus Roxburgh. In the chapter, “The Fear of War,” the author confirms many of the sentiments and opinions already expressed in this piece.

The author states that it took him decades, and personal meetings with numerous Russians, before he understood the huge difference between the British perception of war and that of the Russians: “Brought up in a country where Second World War on the home front means Dad’s Army, our senses were – and are – truly numb to the reality of total war. The battles of the eastern front were the most devastating in all human history. Between 1941 and 1944 the Germans occupied or destroyed major Soviet cities: Kiev, Minsk, Smolensk, Stalingrad. Almost half of the entire population of the USSR experienced occupation by Nazi forces. In Leningrad, which was besieged and bombarded for 900 days, a million civilians – a third of its population – starved to death.”

Roxburgh also confirms death tolls during World War II: Britain had 67,000 civilian deaths, and the continental US no civilian deaths, compared to the Soviet Union’s 16 million deaths. Furthermore, Britain had 380,000 military deaths, America 400,000, and the Soviet Union 10 million.

According to the author, many Western “experts” believe that Russia only became obsessed with NATO expansion with the arrival of Vladimir Putin. He points out, however, that Yeltsin and Gorbachev were equally baffled by the alliance’s decision to expand into Eastern Europe. He reckons that Putin has become a handy excuse to justify a policy that started long before anyone had heard of Putin.

Roxburgh concludes the chapter by referring to his earlier belief in Gorbachev’s vision of a common European home at the end of the Cold War. By 1995, however, he was on the border between the part of Russia that houses Kaliningrad, and Poland. The border was in the process of being fortified. He quotes his report for a TV news program: “Seen from here, NATO’s expansion sends all the wrong signals. It tells the Russians they’re still not really accepted by the West. It tells them they’re still seen as the enemy. No matter how sweetly NATO tries to sugar the pill, Russia’s going to feel once again like a pariah in Europe.”

______________________

Some rough thoughts on the WEF, US Imperialists and Critical Social Justice

WEDNESDAY, 23 MARCH 2022

According to some people on social media, the World Economic Forum (WEF) is an evil organisation bent on world domination.

Other people call this doom and gloom a textbook conspiracy theory and point to good work the WEF is doing in areas like health and science.

Here’s what we know: The WEF was formed in 1971 by Klaus Schwab. The objectives of the organisation are no secret. Its own website states the following:

The World Economic Forum is the International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation. The Forum engages the foremost political, business, cultural and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas. […] The Forum strives in all its efforts to demonstrate entrepreneurship in the global public interest while upholding the highest standards of governance. Moral and intellectual integrity is at the heart of everything it does. […] We believe that progress happens by bringing together people from all walks of life who have the drive and the influence to make positive change.

In an article titled, “How do we do our work?”, the WEF explains that they hold four annual meetings: a meeting in Davos-Klosters, Switzerland, that aims to shape global, regional and industry agendas at the beginning of each calendar year; a meeting in the People’s Republic of China on innovation, science and technology; a meeting in the United Arab Emirates that brings together experts in the knowledge community to share their insights on major challenges facing the world; and a meeting that aims to shape industry agendas and explore how industries can shift from managing change to pioneering change.

The WEF’s founder has also authored two books: The Fourth Industrial Revolution, published in 2016, and Shaping the Fourth Industrial Revolution, published in 2018. The objectives of his organisation are again spelled out in the two publications.

At least they can’t be accused of being secretive about their goals.

It is also true that they have a program for young and promising leaders in politics, business, and other sectors of society: the Forum of Young Global Leaders, for leaders under 40, started in 2004, and the Global Shapers Community for potential leaders between 20 and 30, started in 2011. The aims of these forums are to train potential leaders of the future in the objectives of the organisation. Leaders who have been part of the program include high-profile US Democrats (Peter Buttigieg and Tulsi Gabbard) and Republicans (Tom Cotton and Daniel Crenshaw); the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, Chrystia Freeland; the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern; Emmanuel Macron, the President of France; the Prime Ministers of Belgium and Finland; the Crown Prince of Norway; several other members of European cabinets; several high-profile politicians in the Middle East, Africa, and South America. Then there are Elon Musk; Mark Zuckerberg; co-founder of PayPal, Peter Thiel; the founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales; co-founder and CEO of YouTube, Chad Hurley; and other influential members of media, arts, culture, sports, and sciences in countries over the world.

According to Wikipedia:

The [WEF] suggests that a globalised world is best managed by a self-selected coalition of multinational corporations, governments, and civil society organizations, which it expresses through initiatives like the “Great Reset” and the “Global Redesign”. It sees periods of global instability – such as the financial crisis of 2007–2008 and the COVID-19 pandemic – as windows of opportunity to intensify its programmatic efforts. […] The World Economic Forum and its annual meeting in Davos have received criticism over the years. Challenges raised about the conference and the WEF include: the organization’s corporate capture of global and democratic institutions, and institutional whitewashing initiatives; the public cost of security, the organization’s tax-exempt status, unclear decision processes and membership criteria, a lack of financial transparency, and the environmental footprint of its annual meetings. As a reaction to criticism within Swiss society, the Swiss federal government decided in February 2021 to reduce its annual contributions to the WEF.

So, are they evil and bent on world domination? Call it a conspiracy theory if you will, but it certainly raises eyebrows if a “self-selected coalition of multinational corporations, governments, and civil society organizations” decide on their own what the best way is to manage a “globalised world”. [Counterpoint: Why shouldn’t people who are already in positions of power and responsibility get together to learn from each other and optimise their efforts? This is not saying their efforts are noble, but it’s surely not outlandish that these specific people would come together and talk politics.]

To make it more interesting, some people also mention the Open Society Foundations of George Soros, and his veritable army of Non-Governmental Organisations that operate in 37 countries. Stated aims: advancing justice, education, public health, and independent media. However, there are people who have accused some NGOs of serving Western interests rather than those of local communities since the end of the Cold War. One example: “The NGO Invasion of the Arab World”.

It could be argued that the WEF’s aim is in a way similar to that of the Bolsheviks after the revolutions of 1917 in the old Russian Empire. The plan was for an elite to rule absolutely over the masses in the name of a noble cause. In the case of the Bolsheviks the cause was “The proletariat and the landless peasant”. In the case of the WEF their mandate to rule would be no less a noble goal than “The Continued Survival of Humanity on Planet Earth”. Of course, when you are acting in the name of such a lofty goal, when you are acting for the good of humanity, what type of dissent can be reasonable and legitimate? Is there any hope that heterodox thought, and protest in any form will not be crushed?

The WEF is, however, not the only group with plans that might look to some like world domination. There are people who can be described as on the “old” left of the political spectrum (Consortium News, The Grayzone) who make solid arguments about US ambitions to remain the number one power in a unipolar world (one example: “The Target is China”), where the resources and national concerns of other countries are subject to American needs (again, an example: “Super Imperialism: The economic strategy of American empire with economist Michael Hudson”). This is a world where countries that are recalcitrant or less than enthusiastic to play supporting roles to the US’ sole dominant power are punished, or isolated until they redeem themselves.

How do the people of the WEF/Open Society – mostly Europeans and/or non-Americans – see their aims play out on a planet where one powerful country sees itself as fulfilling a God-given mandate to be Undisputed Rulers of the World?

Another question is what effect Critical Race Theory is going to have on American society in the next decade or two.

In case you’ve been too busy to notice: Critical Race Theory emerged from academic obscurity in the last quarter of the previous century to dominance in especially the English-speaking academic, political, corporate, educational and entertainment worlds. Some thinkers, notably John McWhorter, make a good argument that Critical Race Theory/Critical Social Justice qualifies as a religion. What does he mean by this? A review of McWhorter’s book, Woke Racism, sums it up nicely:

McWhorter’s case rests on identified similarities between wokeness—disciples of which he calls the “Elect” – and religion. The Elect have internally inconsistent views, which require dogmatic commitment to hold. They have “superstition,” which is to say questions they deem it impolite to ask or try to answer. They have “clergy,” in the form of woke influencers like Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X. Kendi. They have “original sin” in the sense that being born white confers an irremovable moral stain. They evangelize. They have an eschatology, a belief in a coming “racial reckoning” when America will own up to its racial sins and be purified. And of course they “ban the heretic” wherever possible.

If there’s doubt that the adherents of this ideology act and speak with the certainty and sense of moral superiority reminiscent of fundamentalist religious disciples, consider the following cases: “Why America Needs College Football — Part 2”, “Good-bye, Theresa. Hello, Boris?” (scroll down to the sub-heading, “New York City’s Illiberal Education Department”), and “Evergreen State and the Battle for Modernity Part 2: True Believers, Fence Sitters, and Group Conformity”. And some video footage: “Yale University Students Protest Halloween Costume Email” and “Campus Argument Goes Viral As Evergreen State Is Caught In Racial Turmoil”.

What long-term effect will this ideology have on American society? Will its foundations be hollowed out? Will conflict and differences of opinion become too much for the union that has held since the end of the Civil War in 1865 to remain standing? Does Critical Race Theory serve the goals of the WEF/Open Society? Will a revolt against the new religion favour the imperialist goals of the US political establishment?

______________________

Is it possible for a fundamentally bad idea to receive broad support?

TUESDAY, 5 OCTOBER 2021

I saw this satirical headline on Twitter: “Parents who think that their children don’t belong to the State are dangerous, explained.”

Of course, most people won’t accept this idea (right?) and the headline itself is from a non-existing website with satirical headlines. Yet, if an article like this were to appear on mainstream media like CNN or BBC, I bet at least 20% of readers would support the idea.

Imagine being the editor of the online media that publishes such an article. The person truly believes in the concept that children belong to the state. They are committed to pushing this idea.

Now imagine this editor is not alone. Hundreds of other editors, journalists, reporters, and presenters at high-profile media outlets agree with them.

Imagine thousands of academics also support the idea. So do TV and movie stars, and other celebrities – once it has been convincingly framed as “progressive”.

Parents who believe they have a right to educate and raise their children as they see fit, and that their rights supersede any claim the state has over their offspring, are presented in hundreds of TV shows, talk shows, academic journals and newspaper and magazine articles as “traditional”, “unbearably conservative”, “radical” and even “fundamentalist”. Because the idea that children belong to the state is being presented as cool and progressive, teenagers increasingly show their support to the idea, and in timeless fashion influence their younger siblings to do the same.

And yet, is the idea good? (Remember: the state claiming your kids is just a useful example.)

Is it possible for a fundamentally bad idea to receive broad support amongst those with the most powerful voices and with access to millions of minds through social media and educational spaces? And how many millions of readers and viewers would support such an idea simply because of its favourable framing?

______________________

Media and other voices creating a narrative

______________________

Even the cruellest behaviour and the most senseless policies can be justified

TUESDAY 21 SEPTEMBER 2021

15:00

Someone puts a plate with something that’s supposed to be edible in front of you.

You look at the plate and try to work out what it is.

“This is not a banana,” you then declare. “It’s not a piece of meat. And it’s definitely not a potato. I don’t know what it is, but if people claim it’s a banana, a piece of meat, or a potato, they are definitely trying to deceive you.”

[click here if tweet doesn’t load]

Are all these mandates and regulations part of an evil conspiracy to regulate ordinary people with an ever heavier-pressing iron thumb? I don’t know. But it’s becoming increasingly clear that this is not about Covid-19, or people’s health.

15:12

The Nazis justified it in academic works at university, sermons in the church, lessons at school and in public speeches, and clearly explained why Jews should be deprived of their German citizenship, and why the government should come up with … a final solution.

For decades, the Soviet government justified why dissenters should be thrown into prison, deported, or executed as enemies of the state.

In South Africa, white governments for decades convinced the public that Apartheid is the only solution for South Africa’s racial relations. Pastors justified it to congregations from the Bible, and teachers explained it to pupils.

In Mao Zedong’s China in the 1960s and early 1970s, teenagers with red booklets in their hands could justify why teachers should be humiliated, and why it was absolutely necessary to kick people’s doors off their hinges in the middle of the night to search for Western musical instruments and books which could undermine the revolution.

Fact is, anything can be justified. Words are extremely useful means of spinning just about anything to make wrong look right, and right wrong.

Be aware of what you are saying. Express, as a matter of principle, the other side’s argument in such a way that that person must admit that you understand it correctly.

Can’t do it, or don’t do it because some crisis currently doesn’t allow the luxury? Then I have bad news for you: Your opponent is also inventing excuses as to why your argument is not worthy of proper consideration.

Do you furthermore find that you increasingly think of your ideological opponent as a caricature, not someone with a complex personality and dreams and fears just like you? Guess what? On the other side of the dividing line are people who make a similar caricature of you.

______________________

In short, the Individual, the Community, and the State

MONDAY, 30 AUGUST 2021

A personal manifesto on political beliefs should begin with your view on three concepts:

1. The Individual

2. The Community

3. The State

Without consulting a search engine or a dictionary, I’d say the State is an organised effort by adults within a geographic area with historical and other ties to manage common interests. These interests include infrastructure, education, international relations, military defence, and the drafting and enforcing of laws that represent the values of the community.

Community can be your neighbourhood, but also people who share a particular language, ethnicity, or religious belief.

And the Individual is a single child or adult.

Your personal political manifesto will need to pay attention to the relationships between Individuals, between the Individual and the Community, and the relationship between the Individual and the State, and relations between respective Communities and the State. It will also set out the rights of the Individual and duties of the Individual (if any) towards both the Community and the State, and the duties of the State towards Individuals and Communities.

______________________