David just posted this comment on the blog:
“Trying to read between your lines, Saker, has become an interesting pastime activity, from time to time. Sometimes I can make much sense of what you say, at other times I cannot make much sense at all, unless I complete the analysis with respect to some disguised or veiled purpose. Your earlier writings and thoughts ( I have been reading you for many years ), displayed amazing boldness and straightforward talk, devoid of the mandatory practice of couching every argument into a shape, such that it may qualify and pierce the filter into the various main stream press and media outlets. As your readership expanded and multiplied into a cohort of pupils, zealots, students and devotees – a direct function of contemporary and past/recent geopolitics, but also due to the initial forthright approach (in my opinion) – the nature of the content also underwent an evolution to perhaps, maximise the acceptance of all “proselytes”. The unequivocal, guileless and up-front analysis’ of the past – the very reason I began reading your writings – have, from my point of view, evolved into a typical format, a humdrum pattern, lacking the dynamics of the blog in its cradle. When Russia is about to make a bold move, you often call it unrealistic, and unprobable. When Russia has made the bold move, you call it potentially disastrous or ill-fated. Time and again, you also underestimate the ability of the Russian Federation to act to enforce its own security, as well as defending its allies. Maybe living in America does indeed make people soft. Indecisiveness, the indisposition to defend its interests – domestic and abroad – lacking the foresight of emergency, the wavering and waffling of allies with common interests, to uphold international law, is in and of itself, encouraging the set of arsonists to inflame anything up for grabs. For every new generation of psychopaths entering the scene, the aggregate data, supporting the rejection of passivity, grows in logical substance“
Since a lot of you might have the same concerns as he does, I decided to reply to him not only in the comments section, but as a full post here. Please feel free to join in this conversation with your own comments and criticisms, okay?
Answer to a disappointed reader
First, I appreciate your honest critique of my work. God knows I am not perfect in any way and that a good kick in the butt can be helpful to me :-) There are a few things I would like to reply to though.
the nature of the content also underwent an evolution to perhaps, maximise the acceptance of all “proselytes”.
Think about it – if my intention was to make myself popular, I would jump on every rumor and predict that Russia will single handedly defeat the entire Empire in less than a year. Except that, in reality, why I did is the UNpopular thing: I sounded an alarm and encouraged caution. Do you think that doing so made me more or less “popular”? Here is your own reply:
When Russia is about to make a bold move, you often call it unrealistic, and unprobable. When Russia has made the bold move, you call it potentially disastrous or ill-fated.
David, look at where the US got itself with the self-delusion of being almighty! I don’t want Russia to repeat the same mistake. I also know that underestimating the Empire is extremely dangerous. Do you remember that in the 19th century Marx already predicted the fall of the British Empire and look were we are today: it is still here, though it has morphed into a US-Israeli AngloZionist one. People have been predicting the imminent fall of that Empire for, literally, over 100 years, only to find out that it actually did adapt to new circumstances.
Look, in intelligence process goes through what is called the “three As”: acquisition, analysis and acceptance. The first one is “getting the data/info”. The second one means making sense of it and presenting it to your “client” (in this case: all of you). The third one is always overlooked: acceptance by the “client” – i.e., the willingness to hear a negative or disappointing analysis. This is the part which YOU (collective “you”) must do (or refuse to do).
I have been called a Putin fanboy (which is true) and a paid Putin agent (alas, not true). But in reality what I have ALWAYS aimed to do is to present YOU (collective “you”) with my very best analysis. Period. I am not trying to make myself popular, look at all the groups I have offended and pissed off: Nazis, Zionists, Papists, Wahabis, homosexuals, (some) Orthodox Christians (Sergianists, modernists and extremist zealots), laissez-faire capitalists, gun control freaks, Russian “hurray patriots”, supporters of the French National Front, feminists, defenders of the “Western civilization”, French “Charlies”, believers in the official 911 fairytale, racists, Islam haters, Hamas and Fatah supporters, etc. etc. etc. etc.
Do you REALLY believe that I am trying to ingratiate myself to somebody here?!
Please believe me that I am 100% pro-Russia and pro-Putin. But that does not make me blind or naively optimistic. There are A LOT of risks in the strategy chosen in Syria and while I do, at the end of the day, trust Putin, that kind of trust is no basis for sound analysis.
Analysis must be fact-based, not faith-based.
Recently we saw a lot of very poor pseudo-analysis about the Russian intervention in Syria. I was RIGHT to casts doubt on shitty analyses backed by shitty sources. Then, Russia did intervene, but in a much more complex manner than anybody (including myself) had predicted. Was I wrong to cast doubt these shitty analyses backed by shitty sources? Heck no! At least not in my opinion. I saw bullshit and I called it. Now I am ABSOLUTELY DELIGHTED that Russia did something much more complex and refined that anybody (including myself) had predicted. But I am not “paid” (by you, collective you, the readers who ‘pay’ in reading and, of course, those who support the blog with donations) to cheer every rumor which makes Russia look good.
I might be a Putin-fanbody, but I am not ‘paid’ to be a Putin cheerleader.
Maybe living in America does indeed make people soft.
You mean like Sayyid Qutb, Saint Patriarch Tikhon or Leon Trotsky? :-)
Dear David, if living in the USA had made me ’soft’ I would have joined the crowd of those who want me to write stuff that makes them happy. My idea of, well, maybe not ‘hard’ but, at least, ’sharp’ it to COMPLETELY IGNORE the “acceptance” part of the three “As” of intelligence. I do the best I can, in the most honest and professional way I can, and then I submit it to you with no strings (or expectations) attached.
For every new generation of psychopaths entering the scene, the aggregate data, supporting the rejection of passivity, grows in logical substance.
If you really think that my caution is a form of softness or passivity then you really misread me and the purpose of this blog. You probably know that it is a well-known problem with despots and dictators when the gradually surround themselves with only those kind of advisors who enthusiastically agree with everything the despot wants to hear and with everything the despot says. My question to you is simple: do you want to turn into a “despotic reader” – somebody who will come to this blog to hear his views supported, his ideas vindicated and his hopes affirmed? Or do you prefer to come here, get what I hope is an honest, if generally cautious, analysis which you can then either accept or reject?
At the end of the day, this blog is like a AA meeting: you come here to “listen” (read) and then you take what you want back with you and you leave the rest. That is your decision and I leave you the choice. My job is to try to present to you the truth as best as I can distinguish it. Even when that truth is cautious or, worse, unpleasant.
Again, it is your decision, dear David. I offer my ‘product’ (the blog) in a highly competitive environment. There are tons of blogs out there who will tell you that Putin will kick ass, that nobody dares to fuck with Almighty Russia, that Obama and his Empire are beat and dead. There are also tons of blogs who will tell you that Putin is just a pawn of the NWO, that he has sold out Novorussia, that Russian oligarchs run the show and that the Russian intervention in Syria will end up in a humiliating disaster. Use your own instincts and common sense to pick and chose between all those “offers” and see which ones “serve” you best, especially in the long run.