Majorityrights Central > Category: Russian Politics

Three Russian dolls and one other emerging but not yet not fully in view.

We mere citizens of the West, we voters for the Uniparty, we victims of propaganda do not get to hear the words spoken in the highest geo-strategic reaches of the US State Department, or in the Pentagon, or in the CIA, much less in the rival bodies in Moscow and Beijing.  What trickles out of the mouths of presidents and ministers is the usual finessed, platitudinous semaphore by which vast power structures publicly communicate with one another.  Sometimes a “government source” or someone “close to such-and-such” will add vital context, on or off the record, which is presumably then pored over by analysts a world away.  But precious little of the resultant analysis ever reaches the mass of Americans or Russians or Chinese.  Every leader’s statecraft and long and short-term geopolitical strategies are locked away in the black box that is government.  Basically, the masses are only required to think one simple thing at a time.  We must support our leaders in “difficult” (ie, costly) decisions.  We are to be compliant workers and consumers.  Under no circumstances are we to make domestic difficulties.

If opacity is necessary in certain (obvious) respects, nonetheless it is a primary cause of the fine mess which is “right-wing” opinion on Moscow’s war in Ukraine.  Many, many people still operate from the mechanical assumption that, no matter how inhuman the Russian military’s deeds, “the West” … meaning Washington + NATO …  is the real evil-doer in this world.  So Moscow gets a free pass.  Scarcely anyone troubles to analyse the geopolitics.  Russia as an historical geopolitical dynamic … expansionist Russia, therefore … the Russia which has bloody borders, and whose small neighbours can never be entirely safe … that Russia goes unexamined while the past excesses of American power are held up for ritual condemnation and blamed for everything.  It’s a wilful blindness.

READ MORE...

Bakhmut under fire [Daily Aviation]

As anyone who isn’t a Stone Age, bone-in-the-nose, bow-and-arrow tribesman in some patch of the Andamans must now know, last Friday was the anniversary of Vladimir Putin’s misconceived 3-day conquest of Ukraine.  By a year ago on Saturday the Spetznaz squads roaming Kiev were meant to have decapitated the government.  By a year ago yesterday the designated Putin puppet was meant to have made the short flight from Minsk to Hostomel for the drive through cheering crowds to the city centre for his victory broadcast from the president’s office.  Putin’s masterly use of surprise would be taught at military colleges for generations.

Where we are, instead, has been summed up by countless opinion pieces across what, in military speak, is now called “the information space”.  One pithy and accurate piece was published on Friday’s anniversary at Geopolitical Monitor by occasional contributor Nicholas Velasquez.

He summed up the current disposition at the front in a single sentence:

The stockpile phase of the Russo-Ukraine war has ended and it is clear that the conflict is now attrition based.

The stockpile, it should be noted, was always expected to be the likely deliverer of Russian victory.  Western military specialists spoke from the beginning about the several million shells and deep stores of missiles of all kinds available to the invader.  After Kiev, when the Russian command’s focus was scaled back to the east, Russian shell consumption was estimated during the successful artillery battles for Lysychansk and Sievierodonetsk at 20,000 shells a day.  But, ultimately, the stockpile was not deep enough.  The old Soviet artillery strategy of soaking the ground, allied to the widespread employment of missiles on civilian targets, has resulted in shell starvation and reliance on ageing and non-optimal missiles plus the forty or so that Russian manufacturers can actually produce each month.  The result is the switch to attrition (which is, of course, also a traditional Russian military strategy).

Accordingly, the world waited for the grand offensive to begin, and Russian numbers to overwhelm the defenders.  It now transpires that it did, in fact, begin about a fortnight ago, which one can see in the jump in Russian dead reported by the defenders.  Of course the losses render the generation of the required mass much slower than intended.  Yes, there is a build up, and pressure is increasing on the defenders entrenched in and around Bakhmut.  But so far meaningful advances remain elusive, in part surely because the dead tend to be experienced soldiers while their replacements are green mobiks who are not particularly sure why they are fighting.  Western media are reporting that Putin “is considering” mobilising another 500,000 men.  But his army doesn’t have the capacity to train that number for an offensive operation in much under a year.  It also doesn’t have the hardware to support them.  All it can do is to continue the same asymmetrical attritional process and hope that an exhausted West is driven to, in turn, drive the Ukrainians to the negotiating table.

Meanwhile, the Ukrainians are able to hold on so far, and are organising for an offensive when Western weapon and ammunition supplies allow – thought to be late spring/early summer, when the spring rains, the rasputitsa, are over and the ground is baked hard.  Their language is of a victory before winter comes again in which case, if it holds now, the fortress of Bakhmut will have survived more than a year under siege.  Unsurprisingly, this prospect is concentrating minds in Europe’s capitals and in the Kremlin about the consequences of defeat for Russia.  In his GM article Velasquez lays out what is at stake:

If the West, led by the United States, supports a peace deal where Russia gets even a mile of land in Eastern Ukraine, it sends a message to authoritarian regimes with designs on foreign lands that they can seize land by force of arms with impunity so long as the invaded state acquiesces. If the United States supports any peace settlement featuring any territorial concession it will serve as a tacit acknowledgment that the post-World War Two international order is dead.

… with the consequence that ...

Though international peace and stability should always be the object of the security policy of the West and the United States, peace in it of itself is not a noble aspiration if it can produce a world where malign states may wage war on their weaker neighbors with impunity. The Western states, as the primary architects of the rules-based international order, are responsible for its maintenance. As a result, the West must ensure that Russia’s revisionist aspirations are defeated in Ukraine and at the negotiating table.

All that is true enough.  However, I do think it stops short of the real motivation of Washington, which is to defend not the rules-based order per se but the Western investor, central banking and corporate elites’ geo-economic model for the Globality.  In that respect, internationally recognised legal restraints on the ambitions and predations of military powers are a fundamental precondition (not, of course, through any intent on the part of the Allies after WW2, but certainly by the effect of those restraints today).  Why, because the Western elites have to escape the limitations of “the West” in order to become the economic masters of the whole globe.  So Washington - the political arm of those elites - must re-engineer all the machinery of its own global hegemony in a multipolar environment secured by every other national elite consenting to leave the conflicts of history and borders behind forever.  At least that’s the expectation.  But, as stated on several MR threads, there are two other models for the Globality in play, and both are geopolitical in kind.  One, sometimes denied, subtly hidden from the historical light, is the CCP’s.  The other is Putin’s eurasianist model.  A nightmare of only superficially economic blocs, each ruled over by a single militarily dominant force, it is the polar opposite of the Western elites’ idea and an absolute challenge to the rules-based order.  The war in Ukraine is precisely a battle, and probably the final battle, in the existential conflict of these two models.  Defeat will be terminal for one of them, and it will be the Russian one.

As Velasquez puts it:

Putin, though a liar on most issues, is correct to fear that the West wants to “inflict a strategic defeat” on Russia. The West should inflict a strategic defeat on Russia that echoes throughout the Russian decision-making apparatus, such that it changes Moscow’s strategic culture from here on out.

In other words, while Russia’s future is without doubt as a part of the international architecture, perhaps even sharing in China’s economic hegemony, in military defeat there can be no eurasianism, none of the imperial adventurism, land grabs, frozen conflicts, and satrapy of old.  It is likely that Russia will be stripped of Kaliningrad and Transnistria, and Crimea too, if the Ukrainians do not take it themselves.  Across the southern republics borders will be re-drawn.  For the first time in four and half centuries Muscovy must find sufficiency in the peoples and the immensity of its own landmass.

That being so, only one question remains for the Western elites to ponder: can they really constrain Chinese ambitions, particularly in the southern hemisphere, within a geo-economic globalist corset?  In essence, is the very idea of a multipolar world an impossibility and a blind denial of the nature of men?

Given that the West is saddled with a tradition of freedom and democracy (which its elites want to retire, of course, but never mind for now), and given that a Sino-Russian global hegemony is the end-game of the Ukraine adventure, should we not look into the Eurasian face, mindful of its natural affinity for authoritarianism and conformism, and ask the final question:

Would it be easier for us to fight for our people’s life and land in a Western hegemonic system or in a socialist system under the tutelage of, principally, China, with input from Russia, India, and Iran, if these are indeed the alternatives?

Yesterday the UN General Council voted by the required two-thirds majority to exclude the Russian Federation from the UN Human Rights Council.  This morning the Kremlin’s reply landed at a train station in the Donbas - not one missile but two, and not a single-warhead but cluster munitions.  Initial reports say thirty people were killed on the spot, and a further hundred injured.  It is totally apparent from the personal items and clothing strewn about the place that this was not a military target.  The local mayor has stated that there were some 4,000 civilians at the station at the time.  The strikes were a perfectly clear statement to the effect that the Kremlin doesn’t give a damn about the safety and human rights of the people of the Donbas, never gave a damn about the safety and human rights of the people of the Donbas, and will break any and every moral boundary it pleases.  Even to make a bitchy political point.

One awaits the first Western nationalist to explain that if only the UN General Council hadn’t been so aggressive in pushing Putin to the limits, those refugees might still be alive.

Well, three days ago the Spectator carried a piece on the massacre in Bucha.  It referred to a remarkable article which had appeared in the state-owned, Russian-language news service RIA Novosti.  The Spectator article was written by one-time resident in Putin’s fiefdom Christopher Booth.  It set out the future of endless de-Nazification for Ukrainians in the Donbas and the south who cannot free themselves from Russian occupation and control.  Of the Novosti article it says:

It speaks in detail of how Russia might achieve the ‘denazification’ of Ukraine – the first stated aim of the invasion.

The piece comes just as the Kremlin would have us believe that the goals of the so-called ‘special military operation’ have been recalibrated, and perhaps all will end in some sort of queasy compromise in the east of the country. In case you have fallen for this idea, here’s a quote from the RIA Novosti article in question:

“Apart from the Ukrainian leadership, a substantial part of the population is also guilty of being passively Nazi, and facilitators of Nazism. They supported the Nazi regime and urged it forward… The further denazification of the population will require re-training through ideological repression and fierce censorship, not only in the political sphere but also in the sphere of culture and education.”

The author goes on to say: ‘History teaches us that Ukraine cannot exist as a nation state’. Note – this was written less than a week ago. He recommends further that Ukrainian school textbooks be confiscated; that the population should be compelled to denounce one another for the greater good; that memorials to Russian soldiers should be erected to commemorate the war against Ukrainian fascism; and that ‘anti-Nazi’ commissions should be established in what remains of the country for at least 25 years.

So, a Russian propagandist writing in a state-owned Russian publication, giving advice that cannot be at odds with Kremlin thinking, is seeking a “de-Nazification” that is not at all restricted to the Azov Battalions but is code for a population-wide cleansing of “guilt”.  This is precisely how the horrors of the Soviet Union proceeded.  It explains what a survivor of Bucha told the Western media, namely, that the Russian soldiers were demanding where “the Nazis” were and, in some cases, stripping villagers in search of incriminating tattoos.  Some of this behaviour has been ascribed to Chechens.  But it is also ordinary Russian soldiers ordinarily brutalising and murdering people of their own accord, because such behaviour is, if not ordered, more or less given licence from above.  Russian military operations have been that way in Chechnya and in Syria.

So we come to the matter of support among Western nationalists for Putin and the Russian military.  For years now I’ve been referring to the borderline personality types who populate our world.  These are people who are unable to “fit in” with the general Mind.  But they are perfectly able to withstand all the hatreds that are visited upon nationalism, rather like bacteria in hospitals that survive the action of chemical cleaners.  Our politics, therefore, is a natural home for these people.  On the Spectator thread there was an explanatory comment by someone named Venk (evidently not a nationalist himself) which I found relevant:

It puzzled me too until I realized that their hatred for western elites has twisted their worldview. They loathe our leadership class and they admire Putin because he’s a strong-man alternative to woke green-obsessed liberal western elites. Unfortunately, they lack common sense and moderation, so they adopt a “see no evil” approach.

If the western media says it; it must be a lie. If Putin’s propagandists say it; it must be true. If Putin’s forces do something obviously evil, it must be a western lie or a justified action given the circumstances. It’s a bit like the trait psychologists call splitting in people with Borderline Personality Disorder.

They remind me a little of the Cambridge Five, upper class communists who hated our system so much they sided with the enemy. They managed to convince themselves that the USSR was the solution to Western shortcomings, and they either ignored evidence to the contrary or explained it away as a necessary evil on the path to the greater good.

I don’t think it’s a phenomenon that can be attributed to the left or the right, but to certain personality types who can’t process complex realities or balance the good and bad in any scenario.

One would hope that the missile strikes on Kramatorsk train station might cause some of these folk to think again.  But for many, I think, the itch to attack “the West” and “the Jews” will be just too powerful, and they will go on, like the Russian propagandist who apparently wants the gulags back for the next twenty-five years, giving voice to the same certainties in fulfilment of the same emotional needs.

Apart from the hair.  And about a week.  And the use of military firepower.

Puteau, or possibly Trudin

Example 1

a) Autocrat commences upon a population control project on the pretext of public health measures.

b) Autocrat portrays protesters in dehumanising and deceitful terms.

c) Autocrat gives himself war powers.

d) Autocrat employs paramilitaries to crush protest, employs legal and financial terrorism against dissenters.

Example 2

a) Autocrat commences upon an empire building project on the pretext of supporting separatist fighters in neighbouring independent nation.

b) Autocrat portrays neighbouring nation as never really being separate from his own nation.

c) Autocrat obtains formal consent from the Federation Council for his military deployment.

d) Autocrat launches his military against neighbouring independent nation.

Western elites response to first autocrat: Delicate silence based on the fact that they, too, are trying to transition to a population control model.

Western elites response to second autocrat: Constantly ramping-up economic sanctions against Russia, supplying “defensive” weapons to Ukraine.

This latter is geopolitics, of course, and not merely a moral issue; so we mere members of the public don’t get to see much of the real picture until the historians get to work perhaps a decade or more later.  One would assume that the principal objective of the Western elites is to avoid entangelement in Ukraine while discouraging further Russian expansionism.  One would hope that there are no voices arguing in the private councils of power for conflict as a fast route to the Re-Set; though I wouldn’t rule out the possibility.

If that world is veiled to us, we can at least see what our fellow British nationalists are thinking.  Until now they have tended to support Putin because they think he is a defender of the Russian people against corrupt Western neoliberal and neo-Marxist values.  They tend to see Ukraine, on the other hand, as a nation created by a Jewish neocon revolution, now led by a Jew, and exploited by the West and by NATO as a vehicle for anti-Russian expansion (though Jewish support for Pravi Sektor, based on a shared hatred of Russia, throws them a bit).  Nationalists here probably won’t quibble too much if the Russian Army goes beyond the two areas in which separatists are fighting, say to the Dneiper or down the coast to establish a land route to the Russian-held Crimean Peninsula.  However, everything should change if the Russians push on to occupy the entirety of Ukraine, which seems inevitable.  Likewise, a future threat against Lithuania should cause nationalists to totally re-assess their thinking about the autocrat Putin.

Ultimately, human freedom and the democratic model (or some form of it, anyway) are not contrary to any of the nationalisms beyond the fascisms.  The more of both the better.  It is their scarcity, together with the absence of a genuinely independent and honest press, which constrains the political efforts of not just the nationalists but all the minor parties in the West.  We should be in no doubt which side to support in Ukraine.

And the autocrat Trudeau?  Well, his actions have revealed that the left all across the West isn’t remotely interested in the cause of the freedom and independence of the working man.  It is interested in its own pathological hatred for him because he’s just too white, and for that clarity we can thank the little Canadian autocrat.  Likewise, in one brief, ruthless act he has probably done more than anyone since Henry Morgenthau Jr. in 1944 to demonstrate the morality and ambitions of Power in the supposedly democratic West.  One would desire that he pays a steepling high political cost for it, and the woman Freeland with him.  But then the stress test on his minority government was passed with some ease, so he will probably continue serenely and untroubled in his labours on behalf of the folk in Davos.

Part 1

Part2

Part 3

READ MORE...

Press image for Audio/Video, Part 8

This part, 8, will conclude the introduction to a series which will be open ended and ongoing as necessary to address issues as they emerge relevant to the purpose of separating ethnonationalism from Nazism and Hitler redemption.

We’ve begun with Poland for obvious reasons, since that’s where World War II started.

But we will defend all ethnonationalism against imperialism, with particular focus on the necessity to defend against Nazi association.

We will address various aspects and any perspective that emerges relevant to removing this albatross from our necks.

Those who defend Hitler frequently think, very mistakenly, of Belarus as if it were a part of Russia and tending to be on its side.

Of acute relevance is the fact that all nations between Germany and Russia were against The Soviets. The Poles defeated the Soviets at Warsaw in 1920 when the Soviets were otherwise on their way to Berlin. Stab in the back? how about having your capital, Warsaw, leveled, hundreds of thousands of civilians murdered in thanks by the Nazis.

But all of these nations between Russia, including Ukraine, like Poland, had awareness of the J.Q. while being nationalistic and anti-Soviet; there’s been almost no awareness of Belarus, its entirely distinct ethno-nationalism and consciousness - wise to the J.Q., with a long, bitter history of fighting the Russians for independence, a fight on religious levels too, translating to an extreme ethnonationalist willingness to fight the Soviets.

These facts were ignored by Hitler because he wanted lebensraum and the fertile lands of Ukraine. Thus, he set out propaganda, no matter how absurd, to depict his imperialist eastward aggression as necessary despite the fact that these nations hated the Soviets.

Hitler didn’t have to engage this war. As Professor MacMillan observed, he wanted it. It cost over 50 million European lives, for his quest of imperialist expansion on top of what were already imperialistically expanded lands of Frederick the Great.

Schneidemhul (now Pila, Poland).

His supremacist, imperial war, left Europe prostrate, vulnerable to all that beleaguers us now, jeopardizing the very survival of European people, even in our homelands.

In the context of the lives lost, exploited, land appropriated by the Nazis and forebears, for the fact that it was Stalin who reset the borders and moved the populations back west…the sympathy sought for Germans moved to re-establshed borders after the war by the millions is eclipsed. I feel sorry for those killed in transit.

But of expulsion, my Polish cousins were moved west too (from what is now Belarus to what was then Schneidemuhl) and I do not play the violin. In fact, the borders of Poland now very much assimilate the lands occupied by Polish tribes prior to some losses in its west, including Breslau/Wroclaw, due to the Mongol invasions in the 1200s.

While Germans lost land and property being forcibly moved west by Stalin’s borders, so were the Poles moved west

I like L’viv, a city that the Poles built, better than Wroclaw. But as it keeps the peace for it to be a part of Ukraine now, so be it.

I’m very glad that the ancient Polish city of Zamosc, next big city to its west, didn’t become Himmlerstadt as proposed, eastern capital of the Third Reich. If Nazi Germany didn’t plan on expanding eastward, why whisk out plans like that? As if this wasn’t a necessary war of defense for ethnonational patriots of these nations adjacent to Nazi Germany.

Bromberg formed a German salient and fifth column activities.

Consider 110,000 Poles expelled from this region and moved into forced labor camps, over 5,000 Polish children kidnapped for Germanification. While 60,000 Germans were moved into the region for their lebensraum generalplan Ost…

Then take into account the start of the war, surprise attack on Danzig,

the panic of the retreating Polish army, as it was sniped passing through Bromberg three days later. Acting on long standing intelligence, much gathered through its decription of the enimga cypehr (in fact, the chief cracker, Rejewski, was from Bromberg),

Rejewski, enigma code-breaker

seeing that there was fifth column of Nazi activity going on there; they took out and shot any Germans who had guns in their houses (my depiction in the audio/video of the Polish response in the so-called “Bloody Sunday” doesn’t capture some of the imminence of the situation begun in fire fight against Nazi partisans; and the image I show of people being executed was not of exemplary Poles: the Polish mayor and teachers were among those executed in retaliation);

but, as we said, the Nazis more than made up for it, killing exponentially the number of Poles (a policy of retaliation that they’d repeat in other nations); then we can talk about Wielun, where the Nazi aerial bombing started off (Bombing of Wielun on September 1, 1939, three days before the Bromberg incident)...  the utter destruction of Warsaw, all the civilians killed there ..

The Jablunkov Pass, site of the Jabłonków incident

But Pat Buchanan wants you to believe that the Poles were imperialists, full of hubris, exemplified by their taking a small strategic train pass. David Duke wants you to believe Hitler was a man of peace with bonafide offers as such.

We’ve yet to discuss the millions of Russian, Belarusians, Ukrainians, French, Czechs, English and on who were killed (supposedly because of Versailles). Where does the absurdity end? Well, it’s beginning is with imperial supremacism, and its end is with a coordinated ecology of ethnonationalism.

Now we’re dealing with generations of suppressed American reactionaries for whom William Pierce is often the common denominator for his misleading depiction of Hitler, misleading otherwise intelligent, would-be nationalists.

End of text to audio

.......

World War II was an unnecessary war? True, and Hitler shouldn’t have started it.

While the British position was awkward, with their article of faith, seeking a balance of power on the continent, it coincided with a moral position regarding smaller ethnostates.

It didn’t work out strategically for them, but morally, their position in opposition to Hitler was correct; while Hitler turned out wrong on both counts, strategically and morally.

From here on, Per and I will address particular aspects of the war as they emerge relevant, and we’ll address individuals who insist on defending Hitler and Nazism across the board, or at least more than we think they should..  ...we’ll also talk to people who are more in agreement with us, or who are coming around.

Part 1 vid is now on line,  Part 2 vid is now online,  Part 3 vid now on line,  Part 4 vid is now on line, Part 5 vid now on line, Part 6 vid now on line, Part 7 vid now on line, Part 8 vid now on line

Debunking and rejecting association with Hitler/Nazi redemptionism in service of coordinating White and other ethno-nationalisms.

Hitler was Not White Nationalist Part 2. Audio now online.