All posts by Algora Blog

Scott Ritter Explains Why Russia’s Kherson Withdrawal is a Pyrrhic Ukrainian Victory

via Sputnik

image
Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu has ordered the withdrawal of Russian troops from parts of Kherson to form defensive positions on the left bank of the Dnepr River, after commander of all Russian forces in Ukraine Sergei Surovikin warned of Kiev’s plans to launch a massive missile attack on a local dam and indiscriminate strikes on civilians.
Speaking with Sputnik, Scott Ritter, a military analyst and former US Marine Corps intelligence officer, has explained why the decision to relocate Russian troops to the left bank of the Dnepr River shouldn’t be viewed as a “Russian defeat,” but rather as a “pyrrhic Ukrainian victory.”
Sputnik: What are the main reasons for the Russian withdrawal from parts of Kherson? Is this a reasonable move, given circumstances such as the approaching winter?

Scott Ritter: I think the decision was made irregardless of the weather. This is a decision that seemed to focus on preserving the lives of thousands of Russian soldiers over holding on to territory which has no intrinsic value in the short term. I think it was a just decision, one that was made based upon purely military objectives. I think the decision had been made because it was too difficult to reliably supply the Russian troops stationed on the right bank of the river in the vicinity of Kherson with the materiel necessary to ensure their victory over attacking Ukrainian forces and that ultimately these lives could be saved by going back to the left bank, securing their defensive positions and then holding off the Ukrainians, until such time Russia was able to accumulate sufficient offensive military power necessary to retake Kherson, reoccupy the right bank and possibly advance further into Ukraine.
Sputnik: What does Ukraine win and lose by occupying the right bank?
Ritter: First and foremost, this will be a very big political victory for Ukraine. There should be no doubt about this. Ukraine will be capturing or recapturing from their perspective the only major administrative center that had been captured by the Russians in their special military operation. The recapture of Kherson has been a strategic objective of the Zelensky government and the Ukrainian military from the start of their major counter-offensive in September. And if they are able to put troops in Kherson, raise the Ukrainian flag over the administrative buildings of Kherson, this will be seen as an extraordinarily important political victory for them, one which will be able to be used to argue for continued military and financial support from NATO, from the United States and from other nations.
But it’s a political victory only because unless the Ukrainian occupation of Kherson occured in partnership with a larger peace agreement that guaranteed them possession of Kherson in perpetuity, this is, I believe, simply a temporary state of affairs that ultimately, once Russia is able to assemble the totality of the 300,000 men that were mobilized and then carry out combat operations reflective of this new military capacity, that Russia will recapture Kherson, reoccupy the right bank of the Dnepr River and as I said before, have the possibility of advancing further into Ukraine up to and including the capture of the city of Odessa.
Sputnik: In his report to the defense minister, commander of Russian forces in Ukraine Surovikin pointed out that Ukraine’s losses are 7-8 times greater than Russia’s. Can Ukraine really continue to rely on rapid advances?
Ritter: This is ultimately the military math that must be considered by everybody who is assessing the situation. The fact of the matter is, Ukraine cannot continue to operate under conditions where it’s suffering seven to eight times casualties as their Russian opponents and expect to emerge from this conflict victorious. The casualty rate is too high. It’s unsustainable, and ultimately, if it continues, will lead to the strategic defeat of Ukraine.
This is why the Kherson operation must be viewed not as a Russians defeat, but as a pyrrhic Ukrainian victory, that means that Ukraine may have achieved a political victory, but the military cost that they take was too high, unsustainable and ultimately will lead to the defeat of Ukraine.
Sputnik: What does this move say about the Russian strategy? Is Moscow playing the long game in Ukraine? What are the advantages and disadvantages of such a strategy?
Ritter: First and foremost, this should demonstrate to the Russian mothers, wives and daughters that the Russian government takes the lives of their loved ones, the men who have been sent into combat very seriously and is not willing to sacrifice them needlessly.
That’s an extraordinarily important statement being made by the Russian government, where they are willing to accept short-term embarassment in exchange for preserving the lives of Russia’s most precious asset, which is its human resources, in this case, the men who wear the uniform of the Russian army.

It also shows that Russia is in no hurry to get this conflict over with, that Russia is willing to consolidate its defenses in order to preserve life potentially extending the conflict, but in a manner which allows Russia to gain the advantage at a time and place that’s more beneficial to Russia, so that not only will Russia ultimately achieve the military victory it seeks, but it will do so without needlessly sacrificing thousands of Russian military lives.

On the World Economic Forum’s Plan for Mankind and What Comes Next

by Doug Casey via International Man

International Man: The World Economic Forum (WEF) describes its mission as the “international organization for public-private cooperation.”

What do you make of the WEF and the power it wields?

Doug Casey: “International organization for public-private cooperation” is a code phrase for economic fascism—which is to say, the hand-in-glove melding of the political power of the State with the economic power of corporations.

Things like the WEF, and other NGOs (non-governmental organizations), institutes, and think tanks, have proliferated in recent years. They’re almost all destructive parasites on productive society.

Almost all of them are leftist, statist, and collectivist in orientation. They’re typically populated by intellectuals and academics and funded by tax-exempt foundations, usually set up by elderly do-gooders interested in leaving a “legacy.”

The WEF is by far the most successful of the breed. Instead of just cadging donations so intellectuals could hang around and seem prestigious, in 1971, Klaus Schwab formed a club where the rich and powerful could discuss ideas with other members of the overlord class. Political and financial types could find a philosophical home, disguising the quest for money and power with a patina of benevolence. It’s become an amazingly large and powerful organization. They have roughly 800 full-time employees, most of them very highly paid. They have an annual budget of over $300 million. Their balance sheet indicates that the WEF is worth over $1 billion, funded by major corporations who give it millions of dollars, as do various governments. Most of the world’s political leaders and corporations are members.

Schwab was very clever to have put together an organization where the richest, most powerful, and most influential people in the world are charged huge amounts to be introduced to each other and talk about how they can become even richer, more powerful, and more influential.

It seems clear that members of the WEF have to toe the party line or be disinvited. Nobody wants to be excommunicated from the WEF or cut off from association with other rich and powerful people. It’s safe to say that WEF members share a common philosophy, one that’s in line with Schwab’s weltanschauung.

FWIW, I think it’s wrong for public corporations to make political, charitable, or indeed any kind of contributions. A corporation’s raison d’etre is to generate money for its shareholders, not allow management to play big shot. Managements often like to give away shareholders’ money; it costs them nothing, but they reap the prestige of giving. Better that the money be distributed to shareholders so they can dispose of it as they wish. If that were the case, outfits like the WEF would have a lot less money and power. And wouldn’t be in a position to promote the pernicious ideas it does.

For instance, it would appear that Klaus Schwab actually originated, or at least popularized, the term “stakeholder.” Stakeholderism believes that business is obligated to treat employees, customers, local residents, and anyone who claims to be affected by business as if they had some right to what a company produces. People who identify as stakeholders easily develop into mooches and leeches. Schwab was also an early supporter of the ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) and DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) movements. And political correctness in general.

With as much money, power, and influence as the WEF has, it’s easy for them to groom up-and-comers. They created several sub-organizations for people who are under 40 years old—where they can reinforce their beliefs that the world ought to go in a certain way—under the direction of WEF-type people.

Schwab has to be complimented for having built the WEF from nothing and making himself one of the most powerful people in the world. But the WEF is a dangerous and despicable organization. It’s basically what’s known as a self-licking ice cream cone—it serves no useful purpose but to perpetuate itself and its members.

International Man: Yuval Noah Harari is a key adviser to the WEF.

He has risen to fame as reviewers and editors have anointed him as a public intellectual.

What’s your take on the rise of Harari?

Doug Casey: Harari is a perfect example of how, when an organization like the WEF gets in the back of somebody, they can make him rich, famous, and influential. These people all feed each other and scratch each other’s backs.

Harari apparently came from a perfectly average middle-class Israeli family, but I would think that he’s got to be worth at least $50 million, just based upon sales of 30 million copies of his books. He appears to be an ideal court intellectual, living quietly with his husband in a modest suburb of Tel Aviv, promoting the party line.

International Man: Harari has made several disturbing statements, including:

“Covid is critical because this is what convinces people to accept, to legitimize, total biometric surveillance.

We want to stop this pandemic. We need not just to monitor people, we need to monitor what is happening under their skin.

Governments want to know not just where we go or who we meet. Above all, they want to know what is happening under our skin.”

What do you think about this?

Doug Casey: Well, he really wants to transform the world, and it’s kind of clever the way he proposes to do it.

His book Sapiens, which I read about 10 years ago, is a competent enough summation of how humans evolved over the course of the Pleistocene during the last 2.5 million years. It doesn’t make any cosmic breakthroughs but tells a basically correct story. He explains how technology started to take on a life of its own and how we changed the world. And how technology’s now changing us at the rate of Moore’s Law. Fair enough.

The problem lies in his projections of how and where humans will evolve over the years to come. In particular, who will guide that evolution. And if things continue advancing at the rate that they are, it’s likely that machines will integrate with humans.

I see no problem with that. If you voluntarily want to replace body parts with mechanical parts—a new knee, a new heart, be a $6 Million Man—that’s wonderful. Taking it one step further, if you can put a chip in your brain and instantly access all the knowledge on the Internet without going through a computer, that could be even more wonderful, except for the fact the Social Credit System and hackers will have access to your chip.

The problem is that the WEF people think that they know what’s best for the rest of humanity. And they feel it’s for the good of all that they be closely monitored, controlled, and guided. They’ve made statements to the effect that most people are “useless eaters,” which is probably true at this point. Or it will be once everybody gets a Guaranteed Annual Income—enough to keep them sated with avocado toast and vanilla lattes while they watch cat videos at the local Starbucks. They’d really like to do without superfluous humans and just have the elite calling the shots. Humans that remain would amount to serfs. The WEF have said, “You’ll own nothing and be happy.” They’re very bold.

It’s very disturbing how they talk about guiding the advance to the next stage of human evolution. As pessimistic as I am about the current state of the world and where it’s going, I still believe in The Ascent of Man— but I believe it can only happen if individual liberty is maximized. From the point of view of personal freedom, Harari is actually talking about regressing to feudal times. Albeit a kinder and gentler version, where wise solons like Klaus and Yuval are in charge.

As far as I can tell, his values are antithetical to those of Western Civilization. But he’s an effective mouthpiece to convince the hoi polloi that their leaders have their best interests at heart. And I suppose they do. At least the way a farmer has the best interests of his dairy—or beef—cattle at heart.

International Man: Harari has often described a high-tech totalitarian future where a small elite with access to the latest technology evolves into different beings. At the same time, drugs and video games pacify the masses until their eventual extinction.

What are your thoughts about this dystopian future? Is it inevitable?

Doug Casey: Harari projects a certain inevitability to the evolution of technology, and he may actually be right.

I don’t mind change. Rapid technological progress has been accelerating for the last 10,000 years and, with a little luck, will go hyperbolic with the evolution of nanotechnology, computers, biotech, space exploration, robotics, and artificial intelligence. These are all good things.

The question is whether these things will be imposed upon humanity or will they be something that individuals can adopt or not as they choose? To me, this is the essential ethical and moral question.

Harari, and for that matter, the rest of these WEF people, never examine any ethical or moral issues.

For instance, Harari is very big on transgenderism, which he seems to want to make into a political hobby horse—where it’s not just accepted as a psychological aberration, but is almost imposed on society, whether you like it or not.

He’s a vegan. I have no problem with being a vegan. It’s just that he wants to impose his views of the correct way to deal with animals (absolutely including humans) on everybody else. He’s certain that he knows what’s best for everybody else.

I’ve long believed in the arrival of the Singularity, which Ray Kurzweil has discussed in detail. I think it’s a good thing. Technological progress has always been a good thing—whether we’re talking about the invention of gunpowder that allowed the average man to overthrow his medieval rulers, or the printing press, that allowed peasants to access the knowledge of the ruling classes.

But the problem is that the bad guys usually get control of technology first. The powers-that-be use tech to impose their will upon the little people until the cat gets out of the bag.

I’m all for the rapid evolution of technology, even though it’s very dangerous because the power-mongers, the bad guys, and the minions of the State usually get it first.

On the bright side, I suspect that under the influence of Schwab and his muchacho de mantequilla Harari, the WEF will collapse. The snakes in the snake pit will eventually turn on each other. Optimism is warranted because stupid ideas have always come and gone throughout history. Evil is usually vanquished over the long run.

The WEF is promoting destructive ideas in a dangerous time. If you value free thought, free minds, and free markets, recognize the WEF as an enemy.

Editor’s Note: Sociopaths are drawn to the government and international organizations like the World Economic Forum. They seek power and control over others through coercion, taxation and more.

Unfortunately, there’s little any individual can practically do to change the course of these trends in motion.

The best you can and should do is to stay informed so that you can protect yourself in the best way possible, and even profit from the situation.

New York Times best-selling author Doug Casey and his team just released a guide that will show you exactly how. Click here to download the PDF now.

Ukraine ‘Just a Warmup’ for ‘Very Long’ Struggle With Russia, China

by Fantine Gardinier via Sputnik News


Since 2018, the US has seen its primary strategic focus as preparing for so-called “great power competition” with Russia and China. It claims the two nations are spearheading an effort to overturn the US-run global order established at the end of the Cold War.

US Navy Adm. Charles Richard, the head of US Strategic Command, recently warned the US would soon face a protracted conflict with China unlike anything it’s faced before. Stratcom is responsible for handling the country’s nuclear weapons, as well as the suite of defensive and offensive information capabilities termed C4ISR.

“We have to do some rapid, fundamental change in the way we approach the defense of this nation,” Richard said at a Navy symposium last week.

“This Ukraine crisis that we’re in right now, this is just the warmup,” he said. “The ‘big one’ is coming. And it isn’t going to be very long before we’re going to get tested in ways that we haven’t been tested in a long time.”

Richard warned “the ship is slowly sinking” because China is fielding new capabilities faster than the United States, which will soon find itself outnumbered and outclassed on the battlefield.

“[I]t isn’t going to matter how good our [operating plan] is or how good our commanders are, or how good our horses are – we’re not going to have enough of them. And that is a very near-term problem,” Richard asserted.

Richard also criticized US stagnation, saying it had “lost the art” of delivering new systems quickly.

“The Air Force went from a request, almost written on a napkin … when they figured out in the late 1950s that the Soviet integrated air defense systems were getting to the point that the B-52 just wasn’t going to make it in, and we needed a thing called a ‘cruise missile,’” Richard recalled. “And so, they envisioned what a standoff weapon looks like.”

The US is already behind China in the key field of missiles, with China fielding a generation of ultra-long-range cruise missiles, a bevy of ballistic missile varieties, and several varieties of hypersonic weaponsfor which the US has no equal and no answer.

Making their debut in the general public for the first time, DF-17 hypersonic missiles join China's National Day parade held in Beijing on October 1, 2019 - Sputnik International, 1920, 07.11.2022

Making their debut in the general public for the first time, DF-17 hypersonic missiles join China’s National Day parade held in Beijing on October 1, 2019 © Fan Lingzhi; Global Times

Beijing has also developed a radar capable of detecting stealth aircraft and begun equipping its newest warships with it, putting the US’ vaunted F-22 and F-35 fleets at risk.

However, the Pentagon is especially worried about what it fears was a fractional orbital bombardment system China tested last year, saying it is a part of China’s militarization of space. The US formed a separate Space Force in 2019, although its foundational doctrinal documents made clear that its goal was defending US space supremacy, not preventing the militarization of space.

Comparisons between Russia’s special operation in Ukraine and a presumed Chinese invasion of Taiwan have been made by American leaders since the operation was launched in February, despite Chinese protests otherwise. However, the US has been preparing for a conflict with China since at least late 2017, when the Trump administration began introducing a series of new strategic documents outlining a shift in US foreign policy.

The latest National Defense Strategy, published by the Pentagon last month, continues planning for what it calls “great power competition” with Russia and China, specifying that it sees Russia as an “acute threat” and China as the long-term competitor. In it, US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin refers to Beijing as Washington’s “most consequential strategic competitor for the coming decades.”

Jeffrey Sachs On Nord Stream & Wuhan Lab

Here is the conversation with Professor Jeffery Sachs, while discussing many controversial topics like Ukraine war, Media Lies & Wuhan Lab Leak. If you want to see more click the link below… on Rumble.

The actual interview starts at minute 24:50. Highly recommended. Worthwhile your time.

Or, Watch it on YouTube.

A Republican Winter May Be Coming for Ukraine


If the Republican Party’s representatives succeed in the midterm congressional elections on November 8, the United States may reduce or even stop helping Kiev, arranging a “republican winter” for it. This opinion was expressed on Monday by the columnist of the American newspaper The Washington Post and an expert on international relations Ishaan Tarur.

The publication cites the statement of Republican Marjorie Taylor Green, who said that Ukraine under the Republicans “will not receive a penny.” “Her party is expected to make significant gains in the midterm elections on Tuesday and may correct the entire approach of the United States on the issue of supporting the resistance of Ukraine,” the newspaper columnist writes.

According to him, there is no consensus in the Republican Party on the degree of support for Ukraine. Green represents the point of view of a part of the Republican electorate, the opposite position is expressed by more prominent representatives of the party, like Mitch McConnell, the Republican minority leader in the Senate, who advocates increasing military assistance to Kiev, the publication says.

“The Republican-led House of Representatives, among other things, is expected to increase pressure on the administration of [US President Joe] Biden in connection with its actions to withdraw American troops from Afghanistan, as well as increase political pressure on Iran,” the newspaper columnist writes. In his opinion, Ukraine should not count on support either, given that Congress has already approved the allocation of aid in the amount of up to $ 60 billion, and Kiev is persistently asking the West to increase the amount of aid. On the eve of the elections, various candidates and legislators from the Republican Party indicated that funding should be stopped, the author of the material reminds.

In European countries, he added, they fear a reduction in aid to Kiev, since European politicians may not be able to show “the political will to fill the gap.” They are also concerned about the prospects of assistance from the United States in Kiev, the newspaper writes.

Washington Post

US Godfather Makes a Chip Offer You Can’t Understand

‘I’m gonna make him an offer he can’t refuse’ – Don Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando), The Godfather (1972), one of the most paused scenes in movie history. Screenshot via INF News
A baffled group of chip industry experts, in a symposium discussion published November 4 by the ChinaTalk newsletter, tried and failed to explain Washington’s new export curbs on chip tech to China.
A close reading of the Commerce Department’s specifications shows ignorance about the technologies involved and confusion – if not duplicity – about the ban’s implications for China’s military. The experts’ group concluded that the new policy was rushed into effect in panic mode, without weighing its civilian or military implications.
The new export controls “will restrict the People’s Republic of China’s ability to both purchase and manufacture certain high-end chips used in military applications,” the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security wrote October 7.
That makes no sense, according to the experts, who included Jay Goldberg of Digits to Dollars, Doug O’Laughlin of Fabricated Knowledge, ChinaTalk’s Jordan Schneider and Martin Chorzempa of the Peterson Institute for International Economics. At the laboratory level, they observed, China can make enough advanced chips to power its key weapons systems.

Jay Goldberg:

I think there is an important distinction here between technical capability and commercial capabilities. I’m sure that there is some research lab in China somewhere that has a small EUV system and can produce 5nm chips, but they can’t do it at scale. They can do a wafer a day as opposed to 30,000 a month.

Doug O’Laughlin:

It’s one thing to make one wafer, but it’s another thing to make thousands of wafers with 99.999% accuracy over and over and over again. That’s the real problem: this is a cumulative benefit. If this is all you’ve ever been doing since the 1980s, all that cumulative knowledge and experience comes with you.

Jordan Schneider:

If you can do a wafer a day in a lab, you can probably make enough for your missile systems, no? And if so, then it really is just an economic competition.

In fact, China has had missiles that can destroy US aircraft carriers hundreds of miles from its coast since 2015, as Office of Net Assessment Director Andrew Marshall told me at the time.
The 5-nanometer chips that contain 57 billion transistors in Apple’s latest incarnation are powering 5G handsets and Big Data/AI applications, but the computer that guided Apollo 11 to the moon had just 36,000 transistors. Military systems use older chips that China makes at home, according to a 2022 RAND Corporationreport.
But if China requires the most advanced 5nm chips for AI-driven military applications – for example, drone swarms controlled by a 5G broadband network and guided by artificial intelligence – China can make enough of them, although at high cost.
The US ban won’t affect weapons systems, but it will delay China’s rollout of autonomous vehicles, data centers and other civilian applications.
Yes, “it really is just an economic competition,” as ChinaTalk’s Schneider concluded.

Chinese swarm drones. Photo: Twitter

Martin Chorzempa:

I think there’s been a shift away from trying to freeze or hold back China’s advances in chips. I see this as an attempt to roll back and degrade China’s existing capabilities. China can produce 14-16nm logic chips. Biren can produce GPUs at these thresholds. YMTC can produce NAND at this threshold too. What’s very interesting is that [Washington officials] did not set the thresholds at an aspirational level for China. They set them at levels that China already is able to do, and it’s cutting off their ability to do it.

If the Austro-Hungarian Empire was a tyranny tempered by incompetence, as the old joke goes, the BIS export controls are an economic blockade mitigated by ineptitude. In the rush to publish the new guidelines, the BIS produced an incomprehensible jumble of half-baked tech criteria.

Jay Goldberg:

I would love to hear from the people who wrote the regulations: In crafting these rules, which agencies showed up and really did their homework? And who phoned it in? Because it feels like some people did more work than others. Some things are incredibly specific, like the rules around AI performance. [In] other areas, it’s just like, “supercomputers.”

Doug O’Laughlin:

They go ham on metals deposition. They talk about 14 different types of metals, different types of processes, ALD.… And then they don’t talk about etch once. Whoever did the etch part mailed it in, and whoever did the deposition became an industry expert. The metals deposition part was mind-blowingly specific, and then they talk about ion implantation, which is something that I know a little bit about, and it’s so vague it could mean the entire set of tools that have ever been made.

Jordan Schneider:

There is limited expertise in the US government on this stuff, and I think it’s probably pretty spiky for certain things and not others.

Jay Goldberg:

In last week’s show, Kevin was really clear that the timing between [the] announcement and implementation of the rules was deliberately very, very short. I understand they had valid reasons for keeping that window tight, but it opens up all sorts of unintended consequences. In the rush to get the rules out, there was very little or no consultation with industry.

Goldberg concluded, “I’ve heard that it was deliberate: they wanted to keep certain industry bodies out of the process because they have a lot of lobbying weight.”
US chip equipment makers like LAM Research and Applied Materials, and design tool providers like Synopsis and Cadence, stand to lose the 20% to 30% of revenue they derive from China, with devastating consequences for their CapEx and R&D budgets.
Scott Foster of Asia Times reported October 17 that US semiconductor firms would suffer more damage than China from the new regulations.

US President Joe Biden wants more advanced semiconductors produced in America. Image: Twitter
The shoddiness of the Commerce Department’s technical specifications and the exclusion of US industry from the policy loop suggests a sudden onset of panic in the Biden administration over China’s technological advancement.
In January 2020, by contrast, the Pentagon overruled a Commerce Department plan to block exports of chip technology to just one Chinese company, namely Huawei, because US chip equipment firms would “lose a key source of revenue, depriving them of money for research and development needed to maintain a technological edge,” the Wall Street Journal reported at the time.
The Biden administration has made sure that the industry wouldn’t have the opportunity to object.

Who is Zelenski? A Comedian for Hire!?

A stand-up comedy performance by Vladimir Zelensky on “Vecherniy Kvartal 95”, 11 october 2014. 

White Russia’s Revival Explained by Putin

Russian President Vladimir Putin honored the country’s National Unity Day by meeting with historians and dignitaries – including leaders of religious communities – and discussing the role of history in protecting national sovereignty, identity, and culture. Here are some key points from his speech and the subsequent discussion.

Conflict in Ukraine was “inevitable”
“Russia’s clash with the neo-Nazi regime that arose in Ukraine was inevitable, and had our country not undertaken the actions it did in February, nothing would have changed, only our position would have been far worse,” Putin said.

“Our so-called friends brought the situation in Ukraine to the stage where it was a mortal threat to Russia.” Putin compared the situation with what happened in 1941, when the USSR had ample warning about the upcoming Nazi invasion but did not take steps to defend itself, suggesting that this was one of the reasons millions of Soviet citizens died before victory over Nazism was achieved.

The West twisted Ukraine’s history
Western countries meddled in Ukraine’s internal affairs after the fall of the Soviet Union and “managed to instill such pseudo-values ​​into the minds of millions of people, which led to the fact that an anti-Russia was created on this territory, sowing hatred, violating the minds of people, depriving them of true history,” Putin said.

Ukraine has been turned into a grave danger for Russia, but also something suicidal for the Ukrainians themselves, he explained. “It is Ukraine, the Ukrainian people, that is the first and main victim of the deliberate sublimation of hatred towards the Russians and Russia. In Russia, everything is exactly the opposite – you know this very well: we have always treated the Ukrainian people with respect and warmth. It remains so, despite today’s tragic confrontation.”

A civil war, just like 1917 Speaking further about the current conflict in Ukraine, Putin drew parallels with the Russian Revolution over a hundred years ago. “In fact, the confrontation is going on within one people – just like it was after the upheavals of 1917.” Back then, “foreign powers warmed their hands on the tragedy of our people. They did not care about either the Whites or the Reds, they pursued their own interests, weakened and tore historical Russia to pieces.”

The West is doing the same in Ukraine today, Putin said, sacrificing the Ukrainian people to achieve their geopolitical goals, which he described as “weakening, disintegrating and destroying Russia.”

Weaponizing the distortion of history
Russians need to know the full past of their country, the president argued, without repeating the “mistakes of the Soviet period,” where academia worked to fit ideological patterns. “Something similar is happening now in some countries in the West, where much is determined by the current radical-liberal establishment. To please it, key historical events are presented in a completely distorted, inverted form, and the truth is canceled,” Putin said.

“When someone wishes to deprive the state of sovereignty and turn its citizens into vassals, they begin by twisting the country’s history, in order to deprive people of their roots, doom them to unconsciousness,” the Russian president explained, condemning this as a“deliberately perverted attitude to history.”

Pointing to Ukraine as an example of this, Putin said that “there have been similar attempts against Russia, and they do not stop, but we firmly and in time put up a solid barrier against them. “

The colonial era is over
While Russia is absolutely a part of European civilization, there is no denying that many major colonial empires in the West are now “medium-sized or small countries,” Putin said, comparing the population of Portugal with its former colony Brazil, the UK with India, and how China’s Guangdong province alone has 1.5 times the population of Germany. “European capitals were [once] the center of the universe – but this is already in the past,” the Russian president said.

Batman, or historical heroes?
Putin also opted to broach a slightly less political issue. During the question-and-answer session, he noted that academic work won’t be enough without teaming up with popular culture and merchandising.

Russian children “know of Batman but not of our own heroes,” Putin said, noting that historical education starts from an early age. “There should be cartoons, films, children’s literature… All of these things are needed. That’s why we’re here today, to nudge this process forward.”

The “Times of Troubles” and the Birth of a Nation – Interesting History

Planning the Partition of Ukraine

 

❗️Polish military analyst shares plans for the partition of western Ukraine 

Polish military analyst and former UN staff officer Colonel Ryszard Wozniak has posted a plan for the partition of western Ukraine on his Facebook page. 

It turns out that Romania, Hungary, and Poland are having consultations at the level of state secretaries ( it’s kind of a first deputy foreign minister) on how to “divide” Western Ukraine. Meanwhile, possible disputes over border demarcation will be dealt with by a tripartite commission. 

Earlier it was reported that both Poland and Hungary, whose relations have improved considerably, are gradually mobilizing. 

The worst thing for Kiev here is that Ukraine is already a”thing of the past ” and everyone is plotting its partition. This includes Ukraine’s immediate neighbours and allies