Category Archives: Russia

Return to Poltava

Posted on by
Reply

In the 17th and early 18th centuries Sweden was a great power in Europe, with a formidable army. It’s hard to credit now, but back then the Swedish king was an aggressive military campaigner and had hegemonic ambitions. He fought the Great Northern War against Russia and its allies at the beginning of the 18th century, but his early successes ended with a devastating defeat at the Battle of Poltava, in what is now Ukraine, in the summer of 1709. Sweden’s failure in the Great Northern War broke its control of the Baltic region, and effectively ended the Swedish Empire.

Last Tuesday Sweden suffered a new defeat at Poltava when some of its military advisors were reportedly killed by a Russian missile strike on a military training center. Accounts of what happened at Poltava are hedged about with propaganda from both sides, as is true of everything in the Russo-Ukrainian War, so that determining an accurate casualty count is very difficult. The official Ukrainian report of the number of dead has now risen to 58, with well over 250 wounded, so there’s no doubt it was a devastating setback for Ukraine. Estimates from other sources give much higher totals, and say a large number of foreign “mercenaries” (which I gloss as incognito NATO troops) were among the dead. The casualties include an undetermined number of Swedish military personnel, who were at the site to train the Ukrainians in the use of two AWACS aircraft that had been delivered by Sweden.

That’s the bare bones of what occurred in Poltava last Tuesday. As I mentioned, the incident is clouded by massive amounts of propaganda and disinformation put out by both sides, making it hard to determine what actually happened.

If you want to begin separating the wheat from the chaff, Simplicius the Thinker is the one to read. He’s very much pro-Russia, but he’s a fair reporter. He tells you when something is rumor, and when it’s well-sourced. Rather than relying on official Russian sources alone, he sifts information from various milblogs and social media. And despite his support for Russia, he doesn’t hesitate to criticize it when he thinks such criticism is warranted.

He’s one of the few writers covering the war in Ukraine whose predictions have a very good track record. Predictions made by partisans on both sides have generally been wildly off, but Simplicius’ matter-of-fact outlines of what he expects to happen usually turn out to be quite accurate. That’s one of the main reasons I read his stuff regularly.

I mentioned the official Ukrainian casualty figures above — 50+ dead, 250+ wounded — but other Ukrainian sources, milblogs and so on, give much higher numbers, with a lot of NATO “advisors” among the casualties.

Now we come to some of the dezinformatsiya surrounding the missile strike in Poltava.

Two posts on X give a lurid account of the massive numbers of Ukrainian and NATO troops killed and wounded. I’m not going to quote from them, because I don’t want to extend the reach of what I consider disinformation.

I searched the Internet using specific phrases from the posts, and could find only the same X account, and other posts quoting from it. Nothing else.

Both posts credit “24 News” as their source. There are two news sites called “24 news”, one in India, in the Malayalam language, and the other in Pakistan, in English. I couldn’t find any stories remotely like these on either of those sites.

So I think we’re being Twitter-played, yet again.

The Poltava strike was probably much worse than is being reported in the media. However, it looks like someone, maybe the CIA, is running a QAnon-type operation on us, laying out flypaper for right-wingers by making the situation look sensationally worse than it is, so that when the information is eventually revealed as being bogus, it will discredit any reports that paint a more horrific picture than what the MSM is telling us. Then anything other than the official line can be dismissed as right-wing “conspiracy theories”.

Once again, in order to separate what seems reasonably credible from the obvious fakes, I recommend a careful reading of Simplicius’ material. I’ve collected some extensive excerpts below from two of his recent posts. When his block quotes are not explicitly sourced, I assume they come from X, but I’m not certain of that. See the original posts for the image inserts and videos.

The first is from last Thursday:

Continue reading →

Theocracy in Democracy

Posted on by
1

The following essay was originally published by the online German magazine Fassadenkratzer (“Façade Scratcher”). Many thanks to Hellequin GB for the translation. The translator’s comments are in square brackets:

The theocratic rule structure in democracy

States are still permeated by pyramidal power and administrative structures through which, as in the theocracy of ancient Egypt, individuals or a few can rule over the great masses of people and impose their own will on them. Today we only notice this in totalitarian dictatorships. But even the democracy movement has not fundamentally changed this. The fundamental democratic right of self-determination of the citizen is politically exhausted in the election of his rulers, for which he casts his vote in both senses of the word for years and has to follow their all-round laws and regulations, which are increasingly turning against him. A step forward is urgently needed.

The “Egypt problem” in Russia

In his highly recommended book about the Ukraine War and its long history, Valentin Wember points out how the communist dictatorship of the Soviet Union practically created a copy of the ancient Egyptian pyramid of power and also took over the embalming of the rulers of the time after their death.

“When Lenin and Stalin died, their bodies were elaborately mummified. Both were laid out in the mausoleum, a stepped pyramid on Red Square in Moscow. There is hardly a more fitting symbol of what happened in Russia during the Bolshevism period between 1918 and 1989: a 4,000-year-old, no longer contemporary system of rule was imposed on the Russian state.

“In the ancient Egyptian social order, the pharaoh was at the top and the working people were at the bottom. Above the people were the overseers, above the overseers were their overseers, above them were the overseers of the overseers of the overseers, and so on and on up to the top of the social pyramid.”

The Egyptian overseers were replaced in the Soviet Union by the KGB secret service, which monitored everything. There were departments that controlled the intellectuals, others that controlled the state media, and still others that monitored the churches, sports, science and research — a ghostly revival of ancient Egypt.

“But what was historically justified 4,000 years ago and represented not just a local but a global cultural epoch became murderous madness in Russia in the 20th century — and not only there.

“The Pharaoh was replaced by the great leaders of one party, first Lenin, then Stalin. Khrushchev was no longer considered a great leader and was therefore not embalmed, but the popular red commander Grigory Kotovsky was given this honor.

“Lenin, Kotovsky and Stalin were fake Pharaohs… All three were the antithesis of a Pharaoh. They were criminals and mass murderers.

“In the greatest possible contrast to this, the pharaoh was originally a high spiritual initiate. ‘He was two-thirds human and one-third god’ is what the Epic of Gilgamesh says of the Mesopotamian ruler Gilgamesh, and that probably also applied to the Egyptian pharaohs of the early period. As a high initiate, the pharaoh was a real spiritual force that could influence the people.

“Lenin and Stalin were not pharaohs. But they were obsessed with an ancient Egyptian principle, as if the spirit of ancient Egypt had been wandering around Russia like a zombie and wreaking catastrophic havoc there.”

Continue reading →

The Epistemology of Flat Tires and Chiggers

Posted on by
12

Epistemology: The theory or science of the method or grounds of knowledge. (OED)

How do we know what we know?

How do we distinguish fact from inference, speculation, hypothesis, or outright fabrication?

This is what the discipline of epistemology is intended to address. In the last hundred years or so, epistemological discourse has proliferated, creating a dense layer of abstruse philosophical jargon that is intimidating for a layman to penetrate (which is probably intentional).

But you don’t have to read a cubic mile of phenomenological bumf to get the hang of epistemology. There’s no need to unpack the writings of Husserl or Heidegger. All that’s required is common sense, an alert intellect, and ready access to Occam’s Razor.

Consider two very different examples of things that I might profess to know:

1.   I know that the attempted assassination of Donald Trump was orchestrated by the Deep State and implemented by various three-letter agencies of the federal government.
2.   I know my car has a flat tire.
 

The second type of knowledge is distinctly different from the first. My flat tire isn’t a psyop. I can’t be gaslighted into believing my tire is flat when it isn’t. Media propaganda will not convince me that I can safely drive on my flat tire. Fact checking plays no role in my assessment that my tire is flat. My flat tire is not a conspiracy theory.

In other words: Only that which is immediately apprehended by the senses is known.

Unfortunately, very little of what is commonly accepted as knowledge is actually known. The vast bulk of what we think we know is simply inferred, deduced from available data, or received from authority, but it is not known in the same way I know I have a flat tire.

What I find most interesting is the process in which people think they know something, but they really don’t. I’ll give you an example from my own personal experience, one with no political connotations, which means it’s unlikely to spark any controversy. It concerns those nasty little creatures known as chiggers.

For readers who don’t live in the South: chiggers are tiny red mites that are also called red bugs. They’re a type of arachnid, roughly analogous to harvest mites in England. (The word “chigger” is considered rude. “chegro” is the polite word for them, but the mites themselves prefer the term “Arachnid American”. [Yes, this pathetic parenthetic aside is a joke — don’t take it seriously.])

From as far back as I can remember, until I was well into my adulthood, I knew that chiggers burrowed under the skin and remained there indefinitely, which was why they caused intense itching for such a long time. When I was in my thirties, however, I learned from a friend of mine that chiggers did not in fact burrow under the skin. He was a scientist, but not an arachnologist or even an entomologist. He had also thought that chiggers burrowed in, and had only recently learned otherwise.

That’s what everybody thought: we had all learned from an early age about the repulsive behavior of chiggers. Everybody knew it, both young and old.

But it wasn’t true.

Prior to the Internet Age it was more cumbersome to learn the facts, but now it’s a simple matter to look them up: chiggers bite and suck blood like other obnoxious pests. They just happen to secrete a digestive enzyme when they bite that breaks down skin cells and causes the formation of a structure known as a stylostome, a hardened cylinder of dead tissue. The stylostome remains in the skin for days or weeks after the bite and causes the maddening, burning itch for which chiggers are notorious.

So that’s the real story about chiggers. Yet in the area where I grew up, everyone knew that chiggers burrowed under the skin. It was a simple fact, and we all knew it.

The point is: What you know may not in fact be true.

Epistemology is the discipline that strives to discern the basis for what is known, and how knowledge is acquired.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Earlier this year I wrote about the terrorist attack on Istanbul airport in 2016. I have no direct knowledge of the deeper causes behind that incident — I only know what I read in various media accounts at the time. By patching together the different data points, I came to the conclusion that the Russian state had ordered the hit on Istanbul, in retaliation for Turkey shooting down a Russian fighter plane over the border between Turkey and Syria. The circumstantial evidence was sufficient to convince me that Russian responsibility was a fact, but it wasn’t something I knew. In order to be able to consider it knowledge, I would have had to have direct access to sources at the highest levels of Russian and/or Turkish intelligence.

This brings us up to the paranoia of the current moment.

Continue reading →

The Enemy’s Chatbot Spills the Beans About the Endgame

Posted on by
5

Our Hungarian correspondent László sends the summary of a very interesting encounter with Machine Intelligence.

The Enemy’s Chatbot Spills the Beans About the Endgame

by László

“More power to the One World Government” seems to be part of the endgame of the Ukraine war — as ChatGPT put its foot in its mouth by suggesting that a peace process should be overseen by “international mediators” like the UN (which is a camouflage for the World Government).

From this perspective, the whole “Ukraine war” and “WW3” Line of Effort and narrative attacks are parts of a classic Problem / Reaction / Solution strategy. At the moment Europe seems to be in the Problem phase, with some (such as Hungary, demanding peace) already displaying the Reaction. Then, later on, we will most probably get the Solution.

How much the hoi polloi of the West will be made to suffer from a potentially escalated war, and the fearmongering opportunity that comes with that potential, before they start demanding the Solution is another issue.

So that you don’t have to read all the artificial gobbledygook, I highlighted (in bold) in the article below the most relevant parts the AI let slip. But it may be worth reading in its entirety, as it’s a kind of text that Vlad of Vlad Tepes blog calls “initiate language”. For instance, “non-aggression” means, in my opinion, that only our globalist overlords are entitled to aggression. Where the small-font part is that we, the peasants, and our nations are entitled only to submit.

Translation of the article from Pesti Srácok:

Artificial Intelligence has come up with a surprising peace plan to settle the Ukrainian-Russian war

Artificial intelligence is often mistaken for a sentient, thinking robot. This is perhaps the furthest from the truth. These “robots” do not think, but they can interpret text and draw logical conclusions in a split second. We could ask them to write a computer program for us, analyse it or create a poem, a picture, etc. We have just asked ChatGPT, developed by OpenAI, to come up with a peace plan for the Ukrainian-Russian war. The result was surprising.

It’s important to note that although ChatGPT, Gemini and Alexa are all quite liberal-minded, if we phrase our questions cleverly, they miss the underlying intent. If you ask ChatGPT to analyse a family photo, for example, it will say that it contains both men and women. However, if you ask how it knows their gender if it hasn’t asked them before, it will apologise and change its answer.

We now asked ChatGPT what is the key to peace in Ukraine. Since he is a logical “robot”, he gave a logical answer. His peace plan looks like this:

1.   AN IMMEDIATE CEASEFIRE
    Both sides should commit to an immediate and complete ceasefire. International observers should ensure that this is respected.
2.   THE START OF PEACE NEGOTIATIONS
    Peace talks should begin immediately in a neutral venue, with both parties represented and international mediators (e.g. UN, OSCE).
3.   SETTLEMENT OF TERRITORIAL ISSUES
    Develop a long-term plan to settle the status of disputed territories, taking into account the views of the local population (e.g. through a referendum).
4.   HUMANITARIAN AID
    Organise immediate humanitarian assistance in conflict-affected areas, including food, water and medical supplies.
5.   ECONOMIC RECOVERY
    Initiate economic recovery in war-affected regions, including reconstruction and job creation, with international support.
6.   SECURITY GUARANTEES
    Ensure international treaties and guarantees to avoid future conflicts, including respect for borders and non-aggression.
7.   LONG-TERM COOPERATION
    Develop mechanisms to promote long-term cooperation and confidence-building between the parties concerned, including cultural and economic relations.
 

We also asked ChatGPT what happens when neighbouring countries continue to support one of the warring parties with arms, to which it gave an interesting, but most importantly, logical answer:

Continue reading →

Viktor Orbán: We Don’t Want to Shed Hungarian Blood in Ukraine

Posted on by
5

As a follow-up to Sunday’s post, the video below contains excerpts from remarks made by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán during his most recent weekly appearance on Hungarian state radio (Friday May 31). Continuing in the same vein as the previous week, he outlined the dangerous situation Hungary and the rest of Central Europe face as NATO continues its push to foment war with Russia.

Many thanks to László for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes and RAIR Foundation for the subtitling:

Video transcript:

Continue reading →

Sleepwalking Into World War Three

Posted on by
15

Despite the title of this post, we’re not really sleepwalking into World War Three — at least our leaders aren’t. For whatever reason, they’re marching with eyes wide open into a war with a major nuclear power.

I can’t pretend that I understand why the Powers That Be think that war with Russia is a good idea, but it’s obvious that they are hoping for one. Almost all NATO countries are discussing contingency plans for conscription, accelerated arms production, and preparing citizens for the hardships and privations of war. Possibly nuclear war.

It’s insane.

Few Western political leaders are willing to resist the pressure to jump on the war bandwagon. Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico was one, but he got shot. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is another. So far he hasn’t been shot, or stabbed, or blown up by a would-be assassin. But if I were he, I’d definitely have a food-taster on the payroll.

Mr. Orbán makes an appearance on Hungarian state radio every week to discuss relevant issues of public importance. Below are excerpts from his talk on May 24, in which he focuses on the difficulties Hungary faces in its stance against participation in the Ukrainian war.

Many thanks to László for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes and RAIR Foundation for the subtitling:

Video transcript:

Continue reading →

Matteo Salvini: “Not in the Name of the Italian People”

Posted on by
3

The following video features remarks by Deputy Italian Prime Minister Matteo Salvini about the current wave of war fever among the governing classes of Europe, and the push to send NATO forces to fight in Ukraine.

Many thanks to HeHa for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes and RAIR Foundation for the subtitling:

Video transcript:

Continue reading →

Liberal Hegemony

Posted on by
3

Karl-Olov Arnstberg is a Swedish writer, ethnologist, and retired university professor. His essays are posted at his blog, Invandring och mörkläggning. Below is today’s installment of his “Sunday Chronicle”. Many thanks to our Swedish correspondent LN for the translation:

Sunday chronicle: Liberal hegemony

by Karl-Olov Arnstberg

At the international level, the liberal order is characterised by economic openness, i.e. low barriers to trade and investment, relations between states being regulated by laws and institutions such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and multilateral alliances such as NATO.

At the national level, the liberal order is synonymous with:

  • Democratically elected leaders
  • The rule of law
  • Market economy
  • Religious and social tolerance
  • Human rights

Proponents of a liberal world order do not believe that this dream society arises spontaneously or automatically sustains itself. On the contrary, they believe that the liberal order requires active leadership. They also agree the United States, as the only superpower, is uniquely qualified to take the lead. Because it faces no threats in the Western Hemisphere and is shielded from the rest of the world by two vast oceans, it can intervene in distant countries without jeopardising its own survival. The two fundamental beliefs of liberal hegemony:

  • The United States must remain far more powerful than any other country.
  • It should use its superior military power to defend, spread and deepen liberal values around the world.

In the 1990s, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, history seemed to be moving in the US direction and it was considered easy to spread the American version of liberalism. The victory in the Cold War, the so-called Velvet Revolutions in Eastern Europe and a wave of democratic transitions in Latin America convinced many that liberal democracy was the only logical end point for modern or even postmodern societies.

US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright called the United States ‘the indispensable nation that sees beyond what others do.’ The Washington Post hailed US foreign policy as ‘the landmine that protects civilisation from barbarism.’ Only so-called rogue states, led by dictators and international troublemakers, opposed the exercise of US power, but they were comparatively weak and politically isolated. In any case, they were assumed to be heading for the dustbin of history.

The political scientist Francis Fukuyama captured the zeitgeist perfectly when he argued that the great ideological battles of the past were now behind us and that humanity had reached the end of history. In the future, he said, there would be no struggle or conflict over major issues and consequently no need for generals or statesmen. Fukuyama warned that boredom could be the greatest danger of the future.

The enlargement and deepening of the EU in 1992, and the introduction of the euro as the single currency, fitted into this optimistic narrative. The EU was further proof that democracy, and the gradual development of international institutions, could bring lasting peace between countries that had previously fought bloody wars with each other. Overall, the future seemed bright not only for the United States but also for much of the world. Liberal values were on the rise and seemed to be inexorably pulling the world in the direction American leaders wanted it to go.

Continue reading →

Send ’Em Back — The Ukrainians, That Is

Posted on by
15

Germany, like other Western European countries, is averse to deporting migrants, whether legal or illegal. Unless, of course, they’re Ukrainian men of military age: then they must be sent back so that they can serve as cannon fodder and be fed into the Russian meat grinder. All for the sake of Ukrainian democracy.

Many thanks to Hellequin GB for translating this article from Junge Freiheit. The translator’s comments are in square brackets:

CDU politician Kiesewetter wants to encourage Ukrainians subject to military service to return home

Ukraine lacks soldiers. That’s why CDU politician Roderich Kiesewetter is pushing for Ukrainians subject to military service who are currently living in Germany to return to their homeland. He also wants to build up financial pressure.

Berlin

The CDU member of the Bundestag Roderich Kiesewetter has called for Ukrainians in Germany who are subject to military service to be persuaded to return home. “There are at least 200,000 Ukrainian men of military age living in Germany, who are missing in Ukraine to support the country in the defense struggle,” he told the editorial network Germany (RND).

The Federal Republic should support Ukraine in making fair offers to men capable of military service and providing incentives for voluntary return. “In return, Germany could, for example, suspend citizen’s benefits for this group and help with the registration and delivery of notices,” added Kiesewetter, emphasizing that not all those affected necessarily have to fight at the front. There is also a lack of staff in other areas.

Kiesewetter: “Question of patriotism, supporting one’s own country”

In Germany there is, for historical reasons, a great understanding of conscientious objection. But there is a difference between a country waging war voluntarily or whether it is about the country’s existence in a war of aggression, argued the CDU politician. “It is a question of patriotism and solidarity to support your own country.” [Funny that the same doesn’t seem to apply to Muslims and Africans. I wonder why?]

The reason for Kiesewetter’s statements is Ukraine’s decision to no longer issue passports to men of military age in its consulates. It is unclear whether conscripts in Germany will receive replacement documents.

Afterword from the translator:

Continue reading →

Wokist Socialism

Posted on by
10

MC includes a discussion of various types of socialism as a preface to his latest update from Sderot.

Wokist Socialism

by MC

Marxism is just the most successful of a long line of ‘socialisms’ and most people have been programmed to perceive Marxism as the only socialism.

This is simply not true. In the period after the First World War, three socialisms started competing against each other for popularity: Class-based socialism (Marxism), Race-based socialism (Nazism) and Nation-based socialism (Italian Fascism and maybe FDR-driven Americanism).

The US Supreme Court scotched ‘Blue Eagle’ FDR’s version of full on socialism pretty quickly.


National Recovery Administration (NRA) logo from the 1930s

Also, other centuries had other forms of socialism; Islamic (religious) socialism and Jacobin (equality-based) Socialism stand out as being highly lethal in their respective heydays. The Spanish Inquisition could also qualify as religion-based socialism, but was by no means as lethal as other forms.

Under pressure from Marxist class-based socialism, Nazi race-based socialism was contorted into a supposed ‘right-wing’ slot, and yes, compared to class-based Marxism, it was a little bit to the right.

Marxists have proven to be extremely good at lies, and their propaganda reflects it. Marxist propaganda creates a fictional fantasy of Utopian ideals, much like the Star Trek picture of the planet free from religion and capitalism.

As Marxists began to grab hold of the institutions, so Marxist socialism began to dominate Western culture, and the other ‘socialisms’ were suppressed and (relatively) demonized.

Race-based socialism (Nazism) was somehow equated to conservatism because of a perceived ‘racism’ amongst conservatives. But it was Democrats (Marxists) who demonstrated this particular racism: Jim Crow, the KKK, etc.

This race-based socialism of the Nazis was particularly focussed on Jews, but also Slavs (whose land was needed for Lebensraum) Gypsies, gays and Jehovah’s Witnesses. Those with non-white skin colours were perceived as just a slave class of Untermenschen.

Jews were ‘dangerous’ Untermenschen and a threat to the Aryan culture, whereas Africans were compliant Untermenschen.

Marxism redefined ‘socialism’ in its own image. To many, it became the only standard of socialism, and Marxism became “king of the castle” as such.

The Moral High Ground of ideas has always been a feature of Marxism. It is like a Wild West street at Universal Studios, a theatrical foreground shielding the Gulag mass killing machine behind the façade. The stars were Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin, all mass murderers with a smile for the camera.

They had many acolytes in the West. They infiltrated Defence, Administration and the executive and probably even the FDR White House (Hopkins).

All socialism is a death cult where unbelievers forfeit their right to life and can be exploited as slaves, or just plain exterminated.

Continue reading →

Daddy Warbucks is Doing Just Fine

Posted on by
4

Many thanks to Hellequin GB for translating this article from JournalistenWatch:

Arms industry in full swing: global military spending is rising to a new high

After the political actors and henchmen of global economic powers have fed the pharmaceutical industry with taxpayers’ money in recent years, it is now the arms industry’s turn. And things are going really well for the “corpse makers”:

Global military spending rose to a new high last year. This emerges from a new report by the Stockholm Institute for International Peace Research (Sipri), which was published on Monday.

According to this, global military spending increased for the ninth year in a row — it climbed to a record level of 2.44 trillion US$. For the first time since 2009, military spending also increased in all five geographical regions defined by Sipri, with particularly high increases in Europe, Asia and Oceania, and the Middle East.

Russia’s military spending rose 24% to an estimated $109 billion in 2023, a 57% increase since 2014, according to the report. NATO members accounted for $1.34 trillion last year, equivalent to 55% of global military spending. U.S. military spending rose 2.3% to $916 billion in 2023, accounting for 68% of NATO’s total military spending.

China spent an estimated $296 billion on the military in 2023, up 6.0% from 2022. This was the 29th consecutive year-over-year increase in Chinese military spending. China accounted for half of total military spending in the Asia and Oceania region. Several of China’s neighbors also linked their own spending increases to China’s rising military spending.

It doesn’t really matter who goes to war against whom, the profiteers are the same everywhere.

Afterword from the translator:

Continue reading →

The Play’s the Thing

Posted on by
13

Concerning the events of the last 24 hours: the Iranian attack on Israel resembles an extravagant theatrical production. Just look at all the media hoopla about an operation that didn’t kill or seriously injure anyone.

Iran was behind the Hamas attacks last October 7. It has also been behind the recent Hezbollah attacks on northern Israel, which have driven thousands of people from their homes. Those two operations (and many others) show that the Iranians can be very effective at harming Israel when they want to.

Conclusion: the mullahs didn’t really intend to do any serious damage to Israel last night.

I’m not sure what the motivation was for all the theatre, but I’m convinced it’s theatre. Mark Steyn has reached similar conclusions. And so has Sundance at Conservative Tree House. (That last link features some plausible speculation about what’s behind the scrim.)

Everything I say here is pure speculation. I’m no expert. I don’t know what’s going on. I just know there’s more to this than meets the eye.

Whenever I encounter indications of skullduggery, the first question I ask myself is: Cui bono? In this case, the answer is not at all obvious. There are, however, some data points that are worth examining.

According to The Jerusalem Post:

Iran informed Turkey in advance of its planned operation against Israel, a Turkish diplomatic source told Reuters on Sunday, adding that Washington had conveyed to Tehran via Ankara that any action it took had to be “within certain limits.”

Turkey, which has denounced Israel for its campaign on Gaza, said earlier on Sunday that it did not want a further escalation of tensions in the region.

The Turkish source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan had spoken to both his US and Iranian counterparts in the past week to discuss the planned Iranian operation, adding Ankara had been made aware of possible developments.

So the USA gave the green light for Iran to attack Israel “within certain limits”. And what might those limits have been? Based on what eventuated last night, it seems that Iran was enjoined not to cause significant Israeli casualties or do serious damage to the infrastructure of the Jewish state.

Those are pretty hard terms for a jihad-based entity like the Islamic Republic of Iran. Why would the mullahs agree to such humiliating restrictions?

After all, the Israelis did severe damage to Iranian honor by attacking that building in Damascus and killing major Iranian assets. Iran was honor-bound to mount a decisive response against Israel. They needed something to that would make faithful Muslims take to the streets all over the world, shouting with joy and handing out candy. But they also knew that if they were effective in their actions, Israel might do them significant damage. The Jewish state is quite capable of doing grievous harm to Iran. Doing so might trigger World War Three, with mushroom clouds waiting just over the horizon, but Israel can certainly nobble Iran if the situation is dire enough to require it.

Knowing all this, the State Department made Iran an offer that would allow it to salvage its international honor without ushering in Armageddon. Presumably the panjandrums at State also had enough leverage to persuade the Israelis to go along with the dirty deal.

So that’s a possible explanation for what Iran got out of the deal. What did the USA and its British mini-me get?

Continue reading →

The Moldavian Gambit

Posted on by
5

Moldova did not exist as a sovereign nation-state until after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. Earlier in its history it had been Moldavia, which was variously part of the Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire, Romania, and then the Soviet Union. When the USSR fell apart, the Moldavian SSR declared its independence as Moldova, and along with Ukraine became an autonomous state.

Like much of Eastern and Central Europe, Moldova is an ethnic hodge-podge. Its largest ethnicity is comprised of Moldovans (who are, for all practical purposes, Romanians who happen to live in Moldova). Ukrainians, Russians, and Gagauzes (a Turkic ethnicity) form small minorities within Moldova. Gagauzia is an autonomous region within Moldova for those who speak the Turkic Gagauz language, but are Eastern Orthodox Christians. The region across the Dniester from Moldova proper is known as Transnistria. It is ethnically distinct, with a slight Russian plurality, followed closely by Moldovans (Romanians) and then Ukrainians. It seceded from Moldova back in the ’90s and declared its independence as the Pridnestrovian Moldovan Republic, although it is not internationally recognized.

The potential for civil strife is ever-present, because the Gagauzes and the Russians in Transnistria lean towards Russia, while the rest of Moldova leans towards Romania and the EU. To complicate matters further, Gagauzia recently threatened to declare independence if Moldova moves to unite with Romania.

Now NATO has stuck its nose into this cauldron of boiling Black Sea tar. According to a report published by The New Voice of Ukraine:

Moldova’s Defense Ministry announced the commencement of the JCET-2024 military exercises with US and Romanian forces starting April 1, the country’s Defense Ministry’s press service reported.

These exercises, set to run through April 19, aim to foster training and experience exchange among special forces and enhance the interoperability of the troops involved.

The training will encompass a range of activities, including parachute jumps, live-fire exercises during both day and night, and field training on specialized tasks, tailored to various scenarios.

This military collaboration occurs against the backdrop of NATO’s extensive Steadfast Defender exercises, which started on January 24 and are expected to extend through spring 2024.

An essay on the topic by Stephen Bryen has a wealth of additional detail, and Simplicius the Thinker, who is always worth reading, has woven it into his latest Substack.

Continue reading →

Data Points

Posted on by
23

On November 24, 2015 a Turkish F-16 shot down a Russian Su-24 supersonic tactical bomber over either Syria (the Russian version) or Turkey (the Turkish version). The crew ejected from the Russian aircraft, and one of them met a horrible fate when he parachuted into the hands of the mujahideen of a Turkmen militia in Syria.

As might be expected, the Russian government objected vehemently to what the Turks had done, and demanded that the Turkish government make amends. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was defiant, however, and responded belligerently to Russia’s communications. He continued with his customary bombast and braggadocio for months afterwards.

As I followed these events in the news, I assumed that Turkey would eventually pay a price for its actions. Russia does not let that sort of attack go unanswered, especially one that is carried out by a less powerful adversary. But the Russians were (and are) patient and thorough, and I knew they would wait until the moment was right to exact their revenge on the strutting popinjay of Anatolia.

Mr. Erdogan continued in the same vein until the middle of the following June, when he suddenly changed his tune. Without any prior indication of contrition, on June 27, 2016 he made a groveling apology to Russia, obsequiously asking forgiveness for Turkey’s “mistake”.

A few days before the Turkish president said sorry, the Russian government had cut off all flights across the Black Sea to Turkey. The Anatolian beach resorts were favored destinations for Russian holidaymakers during the summer months, so this was a significant move. The Russian government also advised any of its citizens who were in Turkey to leave.

For his part, Mr. Putin declined to accept Mr. Erdogan’s apology. He said that unfortunately, an apology was not enough, and that Turkey needed to experience harsher consequences.

At that point I said to Vlad: “Holy [excrement]! Putin is about to do something to Turkey — wait and see!”

It was one of those rare occasions when, after putting a lot of data points together, I went out on a limb and made a specific prediction, on the record, with Vlad as my witness.

On June 28, 2016 — the very next day — a group of mujahideen carried out a suicide bombing attack at Atatürk Airport in Istanbul. 45 people were killed and more than 200 others wounded. Vladimir Putin expressed his sincerest condolences to the citizens of Turkey for the horrible tragedy that had befallen them.

Strangely enough, no terror group ever claimed credit for the attack. The attackers were eventually identified, and they hailed from the “stans” — Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. Their atrocity may have been organized and coordinated by Chechen terrorists.

The FSB, continuing the work of its Soviet-era KGB predecessors, is known to have thoroughly penetrated all the terrorist networks in that part of Central Asia.

All of the above data points led me to conclude that Vladimir Putin had ordered the hit on the airport in Istanbul. As far as I’m concerned, that’s a fact, regardless of whether it can ever be proven.

Turkey was required to experience harsh consequences for shooting down a Russian jet, and it did. Afterwards Mr. Putin and Mr. Erdogan shook hands and made up. Cordial relations between the two countries were re-established.

And you can bet that Turkey will never, ever shoot down another Russian jet, not as long as Recep Tayyip Erdogan is in power.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

I wrote the above recap of what happened eight years ago as a preface to the events of March 22, 2024. I assume that readers know the general outline of what happened at Crocus City Hall last Friday, so I won’t give a detailed account of the attack and its aftermath.

Here are some relevant data points that I have observed:

Continue reading →