(You can download this file directly by following the links at this source.)

 

Transcript of podcast no. 4

Provided by the kind help of a wonderful lady “A”

 

Dear friends, welcome to the Saker podcast #4. Today, we’ve got alot of questions. I think its 69 total. And I look forward to this one, some of them are very very interesting. Indeed, other questions, I have to tell you guys, you think way too highly of me. You’re asking me questions which are completely out of my field of expertise. And rather than pretending, I rather ‘fess up honestly, when that will happen. So I thought, you know, maybe I could just skip the questions which I can’t answer, but that’s not very honest because you will never know why I skipped them. Maybe you would think that I think there’s something wrong with your question, when there isn’t. So what I’ll do, I will read them out, but confess to my ignorance. And maybe even skip to the next one, just so you know that I read it and I don’t have a problem with it. But the first one is a good one, and I think I can answer it.

Anonymous is asking Saker “What do you think of the risks of the situation between Russia and the US evolving into nuclear war ? Writers like Robert Parry and Paul Craig Roberts have hinted at this outcome seeming to be very likely ?”

Well, as often in this case, the answer depends on your working hypothesis. If you assume that the leaders of the Empire are rational people, then I would say that the risk is zero. Simply because, there is no winning strategy thinkable, in the case of war against Russia. As I’ve written a few times on the blog, a conventional war has way too many chances of turning into a nuclear war. Military specialists are very very good at modeling ‘escalation’. We’re not good at modeling ‘de-escalation’. And its really hard to imagine how you stop THAT one, once the ball starts rolling. So I think, at least during the cold war there was an acute awareness of that, on both sides. And I have to say that American military behaved very responsibly. I don’t know what the data is on those instances that have not been reported, but I know of quite a few instances where the US did its part in NOT making things worse. I want to believe that this is still the case today. That we’re dealing with rational people, who maybe have, you know, an agenda, and not necessarily a good one, and their own ideology, and their own goals, and you know, they’re not going to turn into lambs, they are evil, but I don’t think they’re insane.

However, in a conversation with a friend a couple of days ago, she brought to my attention something which I find very disturbing. That is, for the 1% that runs the West, somehow losing that status, could be worse than death. And they might consider that a war, maybe, is not a winning strategy for them. And therefore, they will take more people. First of all, at the last moment they might hope that the Russians will back down. Which I can tell you they won’t!! Or they might hope that somehow, you know, in a desperate attempt to make it, THEY will survive, and also then, maybe keep their status. But if they can’t REALLY keep their status, then … “to hell with the rest of mankind.” That’s a scary idea. And I have to say that its not impossible. We have the example of Hitler, who thought that, literally down to the last block. In Berlin. Which shows that some rulers can decide, you know, fighting to the very end at any cost is acceptable.

Then we have the example of the Soviet Communist Party, that did not take such a decision. And Soviet [?] did allow the Soviet system to fall, even though they lost their status. At least, not all of them did. Alot of them did just fine in the new status. But the other example is South Africa, where Apartheid was dismembered, but still, the ‘old elites’ are doing well. So hopefully this is what will inspire the modern elites now, the 1% elites in the West. That is, that they will make the bet, that even if the Anglo-Zionist empire collapses, they will remain in a position of power. Which is not unreasonable, by the way. There’s a good chance of that.

So I don’t see, I don’t have a rational scenario of how a nuclear war could be started. But is it a possibility ? Yes. Do I consider it likely ? Honestly ? No.

Ok, the next question is from Anonymous. “What do you think about the geopolitical theory of ‘Offensive Realism’, elaborated by John Mirsheimer ? And explain to us the famous strategy of ‘Great Power Politics’.”

Well,that’s asked by Frederico in Italy. Frederico, I’m sorry to disappoint you, I haven’t read the book. Don’t know the theory, so that’s #1 for my ignorance.

Next question. Cubula is asking “Saker do you think that Putin could ever abandon Novorussia or even Crimea ? Lets say Putin’s replaced or by a coup, or normal leaving after the next elections. What do you think his successor would do ? Lets take the example of Medvedev.”

Well, first of all…No I do not think that Crimea will ever ever ever be returned by Russia, no matter who’s in power. Its just not happening. Even if, I think, in the worst, I mean the absolutely worst case scenario, we’re dealing with an absolutely, exceedingly unlikely event. But lets say, Kordokovsky, or Casperov [?]or one of those clowns, comes to power. They could not give Crimea back, because if they did ? They would lose power. So that is, I would say Crimea is 100% safe. Politically. They’re not going to give it up. And not militarily, they’re not taking it back. I am working, Artea [?] is working on a translation of a report by the Russian military, a year-end report that I hope to publish pretty soon. Where they describe the counter forces available now in Crimea. I mean, Crimea at this point is part of Moscow, as is the Red Square.

Novorussia ?? Well, different. I wouldn’t place it as high, on the bar of ‘Improbability’, but I think its exceedingly unlikely. I am personally convinced that Russia WOULD go to war over Novorussia, and I think that if the Nazis are successful, and they could destroy the Novorussian Resistance, and if they really start threatening, (like they did), the links between Donetsk and Lughansk, and actually surround these cities ? … I think the Russian Army will intervene. I mean, never say never, but I am convinced of that. So I hope that answers your question.

Aussie John is asking me, “Hello Saker, could you please give us a run-down of the current state of the Ukrainian Air Force ? At the start of the conflict in Donbass, they seemed to have everything, to be everywhere, but they seem to have gone quiet. Are they a ‘spent force’, or are they building up for a spring campaign ?”

Well, they lost, I think something like a third of their air force was shot down. Novorussia has extremely good air-defenses. You have to know, that no country in the world has better air-defenses than Russia. Russian air defenses are absolutely ‘bleeding edge’, top of the line, absolute best that there is on the planet. And Russia infiltrated enough equipment into Novorussia to make that air-space very well defended. It goes way beyond, you know, just Man-Pads. You know Man Pads are those you hold on your shoulder like a Stinger Missile. So Russia, it goes WAY beyond that. They have various radars, they have command centers, they co-ordinate, and they did. They estimated the Ukrainian Air Force at the beginning of the conflict. So they lost most of their attack aircraft. I mean, I’m sure they have some SU-27’s left over, probably a few SU-25’s and some helicopters, and some, I hear they’re getting some reinforcements. I hear regular reports that SU-25’s were brought in from Poland and Bulgaria. I cannot confirm or deny that.

But fundamentally what will change in Spring from the point of view of an air campaign ? I would argue…Nothing. Its going to be every bit as hard and as dangerous to crack that air defense as it was this year. If anything, they’re [Novorussia] going to be better prepared. And I don’t see a tactic or any equipment that would fundamentally change that reality. This is a bad place to use air-force. They can use it to a certain degree, if you look at what the Israelis did over Lebanon. They can fly high, they can go into a ravine to reconnaissance. They can do this, they can try to hit specific targets, but that’s not the problem. There are no good targets to hit in Novorussia. Its exactly the same thing as what Hezbollah did with the Israelis. They are not lucrative targets. There’s no Ministry of Defense Headquarters, or Intelligence, etc. All these are dispersed inside urban areas, well protected, hidden, and highly secret. So what do you use an air-force for ? To support an attack? To do what is called “Close Air Support”, which is what you’d think would be the best thing to do. Which is literally helping your troops advance forward. And that’s low level missions, that’s not something you can do from very high. And you’re exposing yourself from all sides.

So again. No. To answer your question, I don’t see the Ukrainian Air Force making much of a difference. And if it got into a real shooting war with Russia, over Novorussia ? The Russians would obliterate that air-force very very fast. So no, I don’t see much of anything happening in the air, over Novorussia next Spring.

Ok, I have here Saudi Man, telling me the following, “My blog is the antithesis of MSM, and the incessant disinformation that goes along with it. Therefore I find it very disappointing every time you mention Saudi Arabia and Wahhabi a. I’m confused as to what your understanding of Wahhabism is, and the light you portray Saudi Arabia in. Is it not known to you, the concerted efforts the Saudi government has put into fighting terrorism over the last 20 years. ?” And it continues on…..

No offense intended, but are you serious ???? The Saudi government is THE prime sponsor of terrorism, and always has been so. Beginning with the very foundation of the… the Saudis and the Americans together federated the Islamic Forces in Afghanistan, in what later turned out to be called Al Qaeda., and at that time was called ‘Freedom Loving Muhajeen Fighters’. Where do you think Mr Bin Laden himself came from ??

And secondly, they’re still doing it. They were involved, completely involved in the Syrian thing. I mean, who are you trying to kid ??? You’re saying their rulers are fighting terrorism ??? They even went to Moscow to threaten Putin WITH terrorism, if he didn’t back down over Syria !! So I’m sorry, I don’t repent for one bit. I consider Saudi Arabia the single most irresponsible and dangerous state on the planet, after the US and Israel. I consider them as being completely ‘in bed’ with Israel and the United States. They work hand in glove, those three together. They are a part of the same constellation of absolutely terrorist sponsoring entities. I mean I’m not taking back one bit. And if you look at the history of Wahhabism itself, how Wahhabist followers behaved for instance in Kerballa [?]and with people of other faiths. Terrorism is part, its part and parcel, its completely integral to Wahhabism. So if you want to convince me otherwise you have a lot of proof you have to bring, because I’m completely disagreeing with your thesis over that.

Ziggy is asking me, “Give me your opinion of Yenovich Fedorov and the concept of Russia being a colony, since 1991 or ‘3 until to date.”

Ah… Fedorov. I’ve been trying to avoid that topic as hard as I could. But I will answer. How shall I say that ? I like him on a personal level, he seems to be a nice guy. I’m sure we’d get along and I’m sure, I agree with most of what he says. For instance, I completely agree with his theory that Russia was a colony since 1991 or ‘3. And to date ? I would say that it is still not a sovereign state, but that Putin has tried to reverse that. But I won’t go into the details of Russian sovereignization because I’ve touched upon that elsewhere and it would take too long to reply. However, to answer your question about Fedorov. Fedorov is regularly ‘over the top’. He makes big statements. Loud statements, its the same thing as Dugin, and that’s why I have a problem with both of them. I don’t like, you know, statements which make for catchy headlines, but very poor analysis. And both of them tend to privilege sensationalist statements and big loud statements over calm, systematic analysis of the facts. So that’s why you won’t see his videos on my blog. There’s a reason for it. But I have not, unless I was asked, openly criticized them either, because I feel basically sympathy for the guy and I don’t want to say anything bad about him. I just don’t think its something, somebody, I want to be associated with.

Not’ems is asking me “What do I know about the role of resource extraction in the future under different scenarios ? What about agriculture ? What type of investment would be best for the population ?”

Every part of that question…there’s three parts…deserves a PhD thesis in economics, to answer. I mean I wouldn’t even know where to begin. I’m really sorry, its not a question I can answer. Its too much. I could literally spend 6 hours, and I would probably be wrong during most of it, because its not my specialty. So unfortunately I have to decline answering this one. I apologize for that.

Wally Cour is asking me “What do I think of Paul Krugman’s analysis of the ruble crash ?”

Answer short and sweet. Nothing. I don’t read the New York Times and I don’t care at all about reading what Paul Krugman has to say. I’m not. I guess I could be reading the New York Times under the heading “New York Times Enemy” but its just that I can’t stand them. I’m sorry, I have sort of a mental hygiene, I have no TV. I don’t have a radio, I don’t read the newspapers, I get all my information off the Internet and I stay away from the corporate media in all its manifestations. So I’m sorry, another person disappointed, but I cannot answer this.

Frederico is asking me “What do I think of the fracking industry with the oil so low ? Do I think this could trigger failures in the shale industry in the US, with all the economic consequences in terms of banking and bail, with the government ?”

I don’t know about the fracking part, but for sure, fracking is suffering already from it. I know enough about that, and its not viable. They need high costs, so that’s my really short, very amateurish answer. Sorry, I can’t do any better than that.

Nulysses is asking me “What do I think of the current Space Race ? Is there a point, of going to Moon or Mars ? Who’s going to get there first ?”

I don’t know. I wasn’t aware that there was a Space Race right now. As far as I can tell, the US is grounded. So that leaves Russia, China and a couple of other countries. I don’t think there’s much of a Space Race except for communications, and commercial satellite delivery. Last time I checked Glosnast [?] is finally doing well. They want to integrate with the Chinese positioning system. I have no idea what the European one is doing, I think its called Galileo, I’m not even sure of that. I live right north of Cape Canaveral, and I used to see the shuttle take off from my garden. That does not make me an expert. So I’m sorry I will have to also not go into any further details, I apologize for that.

Gary’s asking me, I won’t read his exact question, but he’s asking me “Some of the material on your site implies that the US will attack Russian militarily. I think this is mis-leading.”

I agree. But Gary, please be aware that I do regularly post material which I find interesting. Without necessarily agreeing with it. First of all, if I only posted what I agree with it would be a phenomenal example of megalomania, where I think that I am always right, and everybody else is wrong. And if somebody is wrong, he doesn’t deserve to get a hearing. I don’t operate that way. I post plenty of stuff that I don’t agree with, and I agree with you. No. I don’t see a US attack on Russia.

Steven Starr is asking me a really interesting question. I’m about to write an article about that. He’s saying basically, his thesis is this: “Kiev will launch a major new offensive against Don Bass, which causes Russia to enter the war. In such an event, I think that Russia would quickly destroy the Ukrainian Army.” Agreed. “Take Kiev and clean house.” Not sure they would go that far, but I certainly agree they could do it. “Now that Ukraine has achieved ‘Major Ally’ status with the US, I wonder if the US NATO Forces would become involved ?”

Well, you are touching on what is currently my worst nightmare, which is, I do believe that NATO doesn’t have a chance in a war against Russia. I don’t think they can do it. But you are quite correct. They can use the Ukrainians as expendable foot soldiers, as cannon fodder, to trigger a major war with Russia. Major in terms of size, not in terms of duration. I mean even if Russia would easily achieve superiority over the Ukrainian military, because, keep in mind, I would say the technological gap between Russia and the Ukrainian Military ? Well, no less than thirty years. So that is alot. And moral is extremely high in Russia and extremely low in the Ukrainian. Equipment ? The Ukrainians have exactly zero chance.

But. Your fear is that NATO could get involved and maybe provide support to the Ukrainians by participating in combat operations. I think there is even a worse scenario. Which is:: The Empire sends in the Ukrainians. They start a major war, I mean the way it would happen of course, is they would attack the Donbass, and Russia would counter attack in the Donbass, to protect Novorussia. The Ukrainian would then start a full scale war against Russia. They would declare a war against Russia. Russia would then defeat the Ukraine of course. And at that point, instead of getting involved with the combat operations, the Americans could say, “Well, there’s nothing we can do.” But they could then declare a major crisis, and basically militarize, completely take control over Europe. Sounds alot more creditable. Speaking of a Russia threat. We can expect completely hysterical reactions.

If Russia gets involved in a real war against all of the Ukrainian military, you can expect hysterics in the Baltic countries, and in Poland. So I can see NATO troops taking a stance along the Polish border, ready to die for freedom and democracy, and all that kind of nonsense. Same deal around the Baltics. In the Baltic States they [NATO] might be really concerned about getting stuck there and being destroyed. So if I was NATO I would do that kind of posturing more, kind of towards Poland. Not in the Baltics, because that is just a stupid place to deploy anything. But the nightmare is this. Alot of innocent Ukrainian conscripts getting killed. Relationships between Russia and the rest of Europe becoming somewhat akin to what’s between the two Koreas today.

You know, the demarcation line which probably neither side would cross, could be along the Dneiper, depending how far the Russians want to push. I don’t think the Russians, under any circumstance would go as far as Lviv, to the Western Ukraine. But whatever, doesn’t matter where that line is, you will have some kind of demarcation line where they would stop. And then the crisis would be massive. I mean it would be the kind of war footing that you could see in a neutral country during WW2, like in Switzerland. They never had a shooting war but they had alot of, you know, they were fully mobilized, and people were planting food in their garden and the army was in full combat gear etc. I mean that kind of military hysteria would be happening in Western Europe and Central Europe. Thereby giving the Americans all the arguments they would need to be “The Protectors” of Europe, and for all ages to come, NATO would be ‘essential’ to stop the Russia Hordes from invading. So that is my nightmare scenario. Its pretty close to yours, but I don’t think that NATO countries, particularly not the Anglo Saxon ones for sure, maybe some idiot Poles would go, but I just don’t see French, German, or US or British soldiers driving up to the Russian lines or shooting at Russian equipment or personnel. Because they know, that over that terrain specifically, remember combat operations are ‘terrain specific’. They know that they don’t have a chance. They would get hurt very fast. And then they would have to sort of be, either beaten back, which would be politically embarrassing, or go forward, and that would bring the rest. Of a nuclear war. Which I personally want to believe, the elites don’t want.

So I don’t think they’re going to push it that far. But they’re going to get it very very close. So they would stop short of attacking Russian militarily, but would create a complete combat hysteria. Like what’s happening still nowadays in Korea. That’s my worst case scenario.

Miguele from Chile, is asking me “What do you think could be Russia’s next move ? It could be a deal. In Latin America, or in Africa, could be a ‘militarily-backed’ [deal] maybe sometime in the future ? I also do believe that Russia can catch up within the next decade with areas of Cybernetics, Nano Technology and Quantum Computers.” [note: typist did not fully understand question]

Well, I am not an engineer, so I think I’d rather skip the second part of your question. But I don’t think Russia will engage in military alliances. Particularly not in Latin America, because, what if something happens and they have to ‘deliver’ on it, and they can’t ?? So, remember the US has anywhere between 700 to 1000 military bases, worldwide. Russia doesn’t. They have exactly two. And they are not major ones anyways. So Russia simply doesn’t have the means to intervene militarily. At least, to intervene in Latin America. Oh I know they sent a bunch of, first they sent a couple, at least one Black Jack 1-60 Tovolev [?] to Caraucus, and I think there have been a couple of Bear Flights over the Gulf of Mexico, but that’s just, that’s nothing. Militarily speaking its irrelevant. There’s no Russian bombing strategy on the American continent. There cannot be.

So for purely practical reasons, I mean, warfare still in our days is geography dependent. If the Russians are in a place of ‘superiority’ at their border, they are in a position of massive ‘inferiority’ outside their border. And if Russia couldn’t help Syria militarily, other than by deploying a naval task force with radars, off the coast of Syria, they’re certainly not able to, for instance, if the US decided to invade Venezuela, there’s nothing Russia can do.

But Russia can contribute politically. To unite and assist the process of unification of Latin American countries, particularly the Bolivarian ones. I think that’s the future. I was discussing that with a friend today also. Russia and China are not countries who are going to build a global empire, they’re not interested in that. Russia and China want a multi-polar empire. So promoting multi-polarity for instance, creating some kind of a union of Latin American countries. That would be interesting for Russia. And China. So that’s more what I see. They can help economically, they can help politically, but I don’t see Russia, or China fighting, very far away from their own borders.

Ok, I got another question about again, Fedorov…. I think we’ve covered that, so I will just cowardly skip it. I hope for a next one that will be easier ! But there is a question here, part of the question #2, and its Kale that’s sending the question. She says “You’ve said before that Islam should be a natural ally of Russia. However it seems that this is more true for Shia Islam, than Sunni. Would you agree that Shia Islam is generally more progressive and Sunni Islam more reactionary ? Are there any good political, Sunni political forces that Russia and our allies can work with ?”

Well I would have to disagree with some of what you say here. Let me take the last statement here. “Shia Islam is generally more progressive than Sunni Islam” which is you describe is more reactionary. Yyhmmmm, yes and no. Nowadays, yes. But Sunni Islam has its own progressive types. I mean the very famous Egyptian author, Siad Kutb [?] for instance. That’s spelled KUTB and you can find his books online. He was definitely a very progressive person in terms of his ideas. So Sunni Islam nowadays, particularly the ones sponsored by the Saudis, is extremely reactionary. I mean bordering on insanely reactionary, but that’s not the case necessarily for Sunni Islam generally.

Then, Islam in Russia is mostly Sunni. There are Shia, but they’re a minority. And those Sunni Muslims, who come from Chechnya, who today are defending, with weapons in hand, they’re fighting and dying when needed, for Orthodox Christians in the Donbass. They are not Shia. They are Sunni. Kadyrov is Sunni. So is Molcazaq [?], and who are very close to Russia. People [who] are Sunni. So again, right now Sunnis Islam has a very bad image in the West because its associated with the Wahhabi crazies – the Takfiri. You know the heart eaters. But that is a relatively local phenomenon that suddenly matatisized over a bigger part of the world, thanks to Uncle Sam and his CIA.

But Sunni Islam was not always like that. The Islam of Northern Africa was not always the CIA and the crazies over there. The Sunni Islam that you can see in Pakistan is not necessarily at all, the kind of crazies that we think of as shooting statues of Buddha. That is fairly recent again, and its promoted by specific interests. So I would caution you against somehow equating Sunni Islam with reactionary ideas, or considering it somehow, not able of being an ally of Russia. That is partially true nowadays.
But certainly not inherently, and not inside Russia.

Now Shia Islam is probably, by enlarge, more progressive, for a very simple reason. That is that Sunni Islam had a better position, particularly in the Middle East, closer to power. And that corrupts. Shia Islam, having been more persecuted, being a minority group, is probably that it had a natural inclination towards being more progressive. But again I would avoid even reducing Islam to two schools. This is incorrect. There’s many more, its much more complex. It depends literally on a specific time frame, and on a specific region.

You know, you could say that Shia Islam is like this or like that, in this country, during that century. And then you could sort of make a fairly good assessment of it. But global discussions of, you know, “Shia Islam, versus Sunni Islam” I think are inappropriate, usually because they’re factually wrong.

But of course, Hezbollah and Iran are natural allies for Russia. Maybe not as important as China, but they’re on the bleeding edge. Make no mistake, Hezbollah is somewhere the equivalent of Novorussia. Except they are in the Middle East, and they started long before Novorussia did. But they’re the bleeding edge. You know, the ‘front line’ combatants. A Resistance to Empire. So a big debt of gratitude and my utmost respect for these two very courageous forces, who stood for a long time completely alone. That’s another thing. You know Novorussia has a common border with Russia and has the backing of Russia. Hezbollah was alone at the beginning. Even against parts (but not all) of Lebonese Shiates. There was a party called Amara [?] that had very different views.

And Iran certainly was isolated in that region. And as soon as they had their revolution ? What happened was that pretty much everybody, the Soviets, the French, the Americans, all supported Sadam Hussein for an attack against Iran. And they [Iran] stood for a long time on their own. So I think that its a remarkable feat of courage and a remarkable testimony to the wisdom of the leaders of Iran and Hezbollah as an organization.

John is asking me “How many homosexuals are in Russian prisons ?” he says that “Today the Kremlin is making it that women, holding hands in public, to be in prison, for promoting homosexuality between two minors.”

That’s all nonsense. Its complete propaganda. Russians, you will see Russian women holding hands, and that doesn’t make them lesbians. Or if they are lesbians, that wouldn’t get them into jail. Russia is just not allowing, the real problem is not the ‘rights of homosexuals’, in Russia. They are actually respected. The law about ‘promoting homosexuality’ to children is really a symbolic law. I’ll explain exactly what I mean in a second. And its not that homosexuals spend their time promoting their lifestyles to kids, at least not in Russia. (In the West they already do), but not in Russia. So what’s the big deal ?

The big deal is this. And be careful, there’s a nuance here, and its an important one. It is one thing to, lets say, discriminate, or PERSECUTE every single person in a place that has the flu, or that has a tumor. Its a quite different thing to say “The tumor or the flu is a pathology, and its not desirable for the healthy part of the population”. See, that’s a huge difference, and that’s what happens in Russia. In Russia, homosexuality is openly considered a Personality Disorder. An abnormality, that is not acceptable by the norms of Russia society. And its not accepted as a model.

If you’re interested in that process, I forgot the name of the author but I’ll put it in the ‘show-notes’. There’s a book called “Making Gay Right” I have to double check. I’ll put it in the ‘show-notes’. A book, that says how this happens, in the United States. “Making Gay Ok” I think that’s the title of the book. I highly recommend it, its a fantastic reading and its THE one book that you should read if you haven’t read much on this topic.

The basic disagreement is this: Is homosexuality a normal phenomenon, part of normal human sexuality and personality, or not ? The answer in the West, is ‘yes’. The ‘yes’ answer was, by the way, adopted by vote, by the American Association of Psychologists. By the Psychology Association during a convention, under political reasons. They had no scientific proof for that, they just went, “We decided that it is healthy, and normal.” This was clearly a political decision. And in Russia this just simply doesn’t fly. In part because of religious reasons, where Orthodoxian and Traditionalists are not going to put up with that, as an acceptance of normal-icy.

But that does not mean that people get persecuted by the State. It does mean, to a certain degree, that people who are described as being ‘abnormal’ are at risk from being mistreated by the lower, dummer and more, you know, aggressive part of society. I mean clearly, if you are Russian and if you want an easy victim to pick on, because you have yourself, severe problems, and you think that beating up somebody makes you ‘more of a man’, its easier to go into the street of Moscow and you know, start beating up a homosexual, than to do that to, say a Chechen that happens to be walking by. Because the latter one will just rip you to shreds.

So a typically cowardly person will pick on homosexuals. And we see that in those videos. And always notice, there is usually three to four thugs, versus one homo. That’s typical. Because these guys are cowards. So they kind of use that justification by saying, “You guys are not normal, therefore we’re going to beat you up.”

But you cannot blame the government for what a minority of thugs and frankly, idiots, do. Its the same thing, you can’t blame you know, American gun laws. I mean if you know anything about them of course. Its ridiculous to blame guns for violence in America. Same thing here. Its part, the ownership of guns is part of American culture. The proclamation, that heterosexuality is the only form of sexual reality, is part of the Russian culture. You can’t take that out of it. And if you do, you will end up alienating all Russians. So the best thing that homosexuals can do, is be aware of that. And basically I would say, try to, as much as you can, to not shove your sexuality in other people’s faces. And I don’t think its an unreasonable request. After all, most people that I know, including heterosexuals, don’t constantly shove into other people’s faces, their own sexual practices. And they don’t demand a special protection or a special status, or say “You know, this is the kind of sex I enjoy, please declare me normal, and normative.” I don’t see why homosexuals should do that. If they want to do that in the West ? Great, the culture here seems to have accepted it, so its a safe thing to do. I just don’t consider that safe.

And I would say, that’s the case for most traditional Muslim countries. Its just not going to fly. Its a matter of reality. Some cultures have specific social norms. These are the norms of Russia. And all the elites really did, is uphold these norms by certain political statements, such as banning Gay Pride parades in Moscow, or banning the propaganda of ‘homosexual lifestyles’ among children. But really, its not about the parade, or about you know some kind of propaganda for kids. Really what’s at court here is that the elites have said, “No this is not normal, this is a pathology. We will not give you equal status.” That is the core of the disagreement.

But frankly, your chances of getting beat up in the street of Moscow, if you are a homosexual, are not that dramatically different from many European cities. And certainly not different from what can happen in many other parts of the world. So I think this entire idea of the State persecuting homosexuals is just an invention. Used for political purposes.

Ok, Next question. I’m totally changing subjects. “What is your take on the USS Donald Cook saga in the Black Sea ? Reality or spin ?”

For those who don’t know it, if I’m not mistaken, what Anonymous is referring here to, is an American destroyer, a frig it [?], was overflown by a [Russian] SU-24, which wasn’t armed, but reportedly had jamming equipment on board. And reportedly, basically shut down the electronics of the USS Donald Cook.

I actually have a background in electronic warfare. Now its an old one and I ‘m hopelessly out-of-date. Mine is from the ’80’s. So what is happening in modern times is not an area of my expertise. So I might be saying something very stupid here, or missing something very obvious. But as far as I know, electronic warfare is a factor of two things. The power of your signal, and the closeness to the target.

I just don’t see how a Russian aircraft can generate enough energy to jam American equipment. I just don’t see it personally as possible. But maybe I’m missing something, maybe my idea of electronic warfare is tactical. Its really with ground forces that I can tell you about that. I don’t know, it seems dubious to me that such an advanced ship could be shut down by one electronic warfare pod. But who knows, maybe I’m missing something.

Anonymous is asking me a question. “Would you like to explain the relationship between Israel and Russia in more detail ?”

This is a very interesting question. And its a very complex one. It really would require a full podcast to explain that. And as a matter of fact, I recorded something similar for the book I’m writing. So you’ll have to wait for the book to get the ‘long version’ of it. But to make a long story short, and I’m really compressing it to the extreme, I would say the history between Russians and Jews has been a conflictual one and a complex one, born out of alot of circumstances which oppose the two sides.

I think most of that is now irrelevant, particularly with the breakup of the Soviet Union and particularly with the breakup, the departure of the Ukraine from the rest of Russia. Because Russia never had the kind of virulence of anti-Jewish feelings that existed in the Ukraine, and still exists there today. There is actually, for a number of reasons, reasons for a certain degree of closeness. I mean, again I can’t go that far back in history, wait for the book for that, I promise you its coming. But if you look at recent times, I would say, just say a couple of pointers.

First of all, there was a Russian, the immigration of Russian Jews, towards the West and Israel. Then there was the immigration of Russians who were not Jewish, but who left after 1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed. Alot of people left. But alot stayed. Most stayed, and simply put, those who didn’t leave, didn’t leave because they didn’t want to leave. Because it was not too hard to leave…it wasn’t easy but it wasn’t too hard.

As a result, most of the people left over, are actually fairly patriotically oriented. Which was not the case of alot of people who left. That’s why you see alot of Jews today in Russia, who are, who have an open Jewish identity. Who either never left, and the example I can think of is the very very well known Russian journalist Vladimirov Soloviev. But there’s another one called Alexander Gordov, Gordon in English, left and lived in the US and then came back to Russia ! He also has show on Russia TV, and he’s also very famous. And these guys are really very patriotically oriented. Which was not the case of those who wanted to leave. Either because they really had Zionist feelings towards coming back to their promised land, or you know, because they truly hated Russia and wanted to get out. Whatever their reason is, most of those who left were very different from those who stayed.

And well, Russians have alot of contacts with Jews. Be it, you know, because they had relatives or because they had friends, or because they still work together. For instance, Russian Jews obviously speak Russian and understand Russian, and the culture. They’re very good to work with, when you analyze Russia. They kind of , the negative example of that is the mob. I mean, when in the US you hear people speak about the Russian mob, well its mostly Jewish really. But there is also a real Russian mob, who’s more than happy to work with the Jewish mob, because they understand each other very well. They have a common enemy, and alot of common interests. That’s why you see bizarre connections between Russian Oligarchs and Jewish Oligarchs, and Israel. There’s a reason for that. Really, these people are linked. They have a common history. So for all these reasons, there is a proximity to Israel in Russia, that is not the case for most non-Jews, in the West.

Add to this, what’s going on in the Ukraine today. In the West, even a Jewish organization like AIPAC, like IDL, they deny that the regime in Kiev is Nazi. “Nah” they say, “maybe a couple of people here and there, but most of them ? Nah, they’re democratic.” That’s not at all the position of Jewish organizations in Russia, and not the position of most Israeli organizations. In Israel, people know full well that the regime is choc full of bonifide Nazis. They know that very well. So there is this common history. You know, remember the German camps were liberated by the Soviet military. And alot of Jews struggled on the Soviet side. Alot of them were killed because alot of them were commissars and the political organization.

The reality is that Russian non-Jews and Jews, fought alongside, very often, during WW2 and after. And it still is the case today. So again, I would say that events in the Ukraine today are only strengthening a general sympathy, or at least a lack of hostility towards Jews, among Russians. Now there are still plenty of people who are very critical of Jews. But particularly Jewish ideology, such as Zionism, or you know, Rabbinical Judaism.

You’ll find intellectuals who denounce Zionism, the Neo-Cons in the United States, the Talmudic teachings about Christianity, I mean, there’s plenty of stuff in Russia that would be considered anti-Semitic in the West, but really, we’re talking about ideas, more than people. There is a certain level of disgust, like everywhere else in the world, with Israel and with Israeli policies. But there is also a certain degree of admiration and understanding.

I mean the reality is that the Wahhabis behaved in a frightening way in Chechnya and that Russians looked at that and went “Hell, you know, if the Israelis have the same thing in Gaza, we can understand them bombing it.” Now please, don’t come tell me that Gaza has nothing to do with that, and they are two different circumstances. I understand that. I’m not making that kind of conflation between the Palestinian Resistance and the Chechnyan Wahhabis. But for part of the population of Russia, that argument sells. Their argument of not putting up with Islamic terrorism, has traction with this part of the Russian population which does not have personal sympathies with Islam. So the issue of Russian Islam is a complicated one, that I already touched on. There is definitely part of the Russian population who just think that [all] Islamic terrorism happened to be curiously linked, and therefore the anti-Islamism of Israel gets some traction with these circles.

So its not all black and white. I would say that most people in Russia are certainly not anti-Jewish. Absolutely not. I wouldn’t call them pro-Jewish either. And I would say generally there is a unique relationship between Israel and Russia which I would describe as a mutual desire not to be ‘frontally confronted’. Or put it this way: I would say that its not a friendship. The Russian elites know very well the power of the Jewish lobby in America. They’re fully aware of how congress essentially belongs to Israel. They know that. But they say, “Well, congress says one thing, Israel says another thing.” You know they sort of, I would say almost have more respect for the Israelis for being the boss of the Americans, than they do for the Americans being the puppets of the Israelis. So that’s another thing. Russians like a strong enemy that’s respectable and powerful and articulate. They mostly despise idiots like Obama, who are both ignorant and weak.

So I know I haven’t answered your question fully, I’m just trying to give you pointers, and I can just say, “Stay tuned when the book comes out, there will be an entire chapter dedicated to that, where I’ll go into many more details including historical ones.”

Sahin Hassan is asking me about “the relationship between Russia and Hezbollah. And what kind of collaboration is taking place ?” Well, first of all, clearly that’s all kept very secret, because Hezbollah being, you know, called by the Americans, the ‘A-Team of International Terrorism’. The Russians, its the last thing they want, as Putin’s already vilified enough. The last thing he wants is to be accused of being a supporter of the ‘A-Team of International Terrorism’. But of course Russia understands exactly that Hezbollah is not at all a terrorist organization, but a ‘national liberation’ one. One that’s very close to Iran, but independent of it. And that Iran is a complex neighbor, but a potential ally, which certainly deserves Russia’s attention, support, and up until recently there was even questions on national TV in Russia, “Why the Russian Embassy in Iran does a poor job? Including more contracts and getting more and deeper relationship going between Iran and Russia.?” That’s how much Iran is respected and how intriguing [it is] for Russians.

So my guess, and its a guess, is that the contacts between Russia and Hezbollah are sustained, and multi-level and profound. I think they are mostly on the level of consultation. Hezbollah does not need Russia, and has Iran. And Russia does not need Hezbollah, it also has Iran. So Iran is really the go-between here. But I think Russia treats Hezbollah with respect, and certainly is open to discussion. I would not, I’m fairly confident that if and when the need arises, the two do work together directly, under the approving eye of Tehran.

Anonymous is asking me about, “ the future of US, Russia, China relations ? Kiss of death ?, Or less cynical ? What do I think of that ? And [what about ] the latest overtures in Cuba by the US ?” I generally think that its a big danger for Cuba, they are taking a very dangerous move and I hope they will do well with it. Clearly the Americans are trying to create some kind of raproachmentt [?] with Cuba, just in order to isolate Russia further. I’m not sure the Cubans are going to go for it. I think the biggest threat is not so much for Russia as it is for Venezuela, who had a close relationship with Cuba, and I have no doubt that the Americans are going to pressure the Cuban authorities to reduce, as much as possible, their support for Venezuela and the rest of Latin America. So I see there, the biggest threat.

I see the threat for Cuba itself, first of all … its dangerous to play with the devil, and right now I do consider the American regime to be Sheitani buzuk [?]– the Great Devil. And I think its dangerous, its more dangerous to be an ally sometimes, than it is to be a foe. And I see the danger for Venezuela really. So since it has just started, there isn’t much more that I can say beyond that. If you look at the actual steps taken by Cuba and the US, they’re very small. They’re mostly symbolic and we’ll see where it goes. I think its too early to call this one.

Pom Top Tiger is asking me, “Will we get a major war, Nazi-Ukraine versus Novorussiya-Russia already in the spring of 2015 ?”

Well, my short answer is, yes, there is a very real threat of that. I don’t want to give it a percentage of probability, but I would say, everybody needs to plan around that, hoping its not going to happen. But definitely, yes, there’s a real risk. Again, the scenario is very simple. The Ukrainians attacking, the Ukies attacking with such an overwhelming superiority that the Novorussian lines can’t hold. A pretty rapid moment of collapse, a ‘break-point moment’ for the Novorussian army, at that point there is no more solution other than a Russian intervention. Either it does happen, and in that case we’re talking about a direct, I’ve no doubt that Ukraine will declare war and that its territories have been invaded. Of course, Declaration will come under order from the US, which is really running the place, lets be honest. There’s no such thing as the Ukrainian regime. There is the CIA running, and the local [US] ambassador running the Ukraine. The American colony Banderastan will declare, at that moment, declare war. And that will trigger an escalation, which will result in a Ukrainian defeat, but a tension in Europe going off the roof. So that’s what I think is the most, unfortunately, very likely scenario. I’m not saying “Its gonna happen” , its still avert-able but there’s a definite risk for that.

I hope Putin will do whatever it takes to prevent this.

“The question I’ve been wondering for years now” is asking Beijing Brad, “why not just drink the kool-aid and go with the New World Order, is it really so bad ? Will the system of multipolarity be any better ?”

Well these are two different things. The first one is a philosophical issue, which is the one of the ‘Matrix’. If you perceive it as real, but its not, it isn’t as good as the real thing. Remember the scene of the traitor to Neo [?], saying its good enough for him, even though its just electrical and there’s no real meat there. To me its unacceptable. You know, “Ye shall know the Truth, and the Truth will make you free”.

Illusion is, by definition, slavery, serfdom, exploitation. I think its unworthy of the human being. So I would always take real misery over illusional happiness. But that’s me.

“Would a system of multipolarity be any better ?” I don’t think mankind changes. I don’t think empires are inherently different. They’re all evil. I’d rather have them not, you know. [But] one keeps the other in check. Its like the idea of balancing the powers. I prefer a multi-national, multi-polar system where at least if somebody has delusions of being the number one Messianic leader of the planet, the others will go “No you’re not”. That’s my personal preference, I think the one, the single hegemony is much worse, by definition. Regardless of who comes after that.

I mean, I’ll tell you honestly, I’ve no doubt that US/Israeli empire will crumble, but who’s coming next ? Well, its going to be multi-polar and the keepers are going to be Russia and China, probably with an overall advantage for China, at least economically. Are the Chinese inherently better than the Anglo-Saxons ? Not as people. [But]I would say there’s one difference. I really think that Europeans have unfortunately, imperialism in their political DNA. The arrogance, superiority, this racist idea that, you know, “We are the best and everybody else is brown and needs our help and we need to tell them what to do.” Whether its said or not, its always there.

I think it would be a welcome relief for the planet to have a non-European super power for a while. Now it doesn’t have to be, I see the answer immediately…”Oh but look at the Japanese, how they behaved, was that any good ?” No. But I’ll retort to that, “Yeah, but these Japanese were trying to imitate Europe !” From their clothing, to their policies, Japan turned imperialist after what ? After the major revolution.

So please, that is an example of traditional Japan of the Tukewawa [?], as far as I know, sat quietly on its island.

So I would say, I think the planet could benefit from having a non-European alliance of regions. I mean if it was Russia, China, and Latin America, you know, setting the tone and being the heavy weights on the planet, I think Africa would benefit from that. I think actually Europe would benefit from it definitely. And so would the US. The United States would immensely benefit from becoming a ‘normal’ country. The problem in the US is not the country, its the empire. Get rid of the empire and this country has fantastic resources, fantastic people, lots to offer, ranging from music to a fantastic, interesting constitution, to you know, philosophers, brilliant people. So Empire, that’s the enemy. Not a specific nation. And multi-polarity is I think the best recipe I can think of against Empire.

Ok, Jade from Singapore is asking me a question about Soros’ involvement in Brazilian politics. I don’t know anything about that, so I can’t answer that. But she’s asking me something important. She says that her English is not very good, and she would like to see a transcript of the podcast.

Well, you have them !! Look at the podcast download page and I have a wonderful lady who does the transcripts and the podcast number 1 and 2 are available for download, 3 will be available shortly, and I expect after that, 4, so you will get it, just please be patient. Remember that the person who is doing the transcript does that for free, on her free time, just out of sheer kindness. So we can’t expect her to transcribe a long text instantly overnight. That’s just not going to happen. But its on its way,
So please Jade, show some patience and you will get your transcript in English !!

“How does my label of Anglo-Zionists relate to David Relthkop’s [?] notion of ‘Superclass’ ?”

I don’t know, I never was exposed to his views, so this is another one that I plead ignorance.
Laura Rosland, “Do you have any reports on how Ukrainians West, or the part that is under Kiev, feel about the civil war ?”

No I don’t and the reason for that is kind of obvious, is that I don’t trust a word of what’s coming out of there, in official circles. And the ‘unofficial one’ is actually pretty dangerous to do those kind of things. Particularly since Putin admitted, on national TV, that before the Russians decided to intervene Crimea, they had polled the population, they had surveyed the opinion of the population, and there really was support for that. So I don’t know. Sorry, I really don’t know. I would imagine that most people, like in any other country, are decent, good people and they don’t want the war, they don’t need the crisis. All they want is to live, work, and be left alone. So I am convinced that most people in the Ukraine don’t want anything to do with it. With that regime and that war. Like in Russia. All you hear is “No war, no war, no war, no war.” I mean the musicians and the intellectuals, the authors, they all….not that they’re not going to approve of an intervention if its needed, but they all hope that there’s not going to be a war involving Russia. And the Ukrainians I’m sure, want their war to stop.

Stavros H is asking me about the Russian economy and the Ruble. You know what, Stavros, I apologize, there’s so much that I posted recently on the blog itself, in a written form, that I really don’t want to touch that here, because most people are going to find it too repetitive or even quite boring. So I’ll have to skip. Sorry about that.

“Do I know what happened to those who participated in the Maidan uprising ?” No, no I don’t. Sorry, can’t answer this one either.

There is a commentary by Sanctuary One, upon Harper and that Canada will not accept the legal occupation of Crimea, and blah blah blah blah blah (laughs). Well, you know what, Canada ??? Tough luck. (laughing). They can accept it or not, I don’t think anybody cares. So that’s the good fart…oops did I say fart ?? That’s the good PART about you know, Canadian statements. They really don’t matter one bit, either way.

But part of the question by Santuary One is “Do I think that the technology ban will affect Russia ?”

Yes, it will, it is, and I don’t think its going to last too long. There is a program called “Importo- Initiatia, Import Substitution” in Russia which I believe will be very successful, for a couple of reasons.
First of all they’re making money now. Because as soon as something is banned, you don’t have competition, so keep that in mind. That actually is a huge advantage in economical theory. If you know your competitor has ‘self-removed’ himself. Secondly, the Chinese are right next door, and more than willing to help. As another country. So I think its going to have, the technology ban will have a huge impact on Russia. And that impact will be to diversify the Russian economy and create an R&D sector in technology. Very dynamic, because it will be guaranteed protection from Western competitors. At least as effectively, or more effectively than any other kind of measures, such as, you know, the tarriffs, or trade barriers etc. So they’re actually helping Russia here.

Paul is asking me about “the lack of dramatic moves, especially of an economic nature, inside Russia.”

Well, we had an increase of interest rate to 17%, so that’s pretty dramatic. “Do you think Putin underestimates the risk Russia faces through non-military means ?” No, I don’t think he underestimates them. I’m not sure that he has his hands free, to react against them in the way I wish he did. Ii would put it this way.

“Do you think Russia would like to see the EU break up ?” Not necessarily, it really depends on what kind of EU we’re talking about. Right now the EU is just a sub-branch of NATO. And its basically, its controlled by the US. [ie] Germany, the US through Germany.

I think Russia would like to have a different kind of EU. To break up in its current form ? Yes. Would it want to really necessarily break up the European Union ? No. I don’t see why it would. Not at all. As a matter of fact, economically speaking its actually kind of advantageous to deal with one entity in terms of, you know, paper work and like getting a visa. The Shanga [?] visa is actually good, if you can get it. If you can’t get it, its bad, but if you can, its good. So that’s, I think it all depends on what kind of EU we’re talking about.

Shu is asking me “Will Syria ever retaliate against Israel ?” I don’t think so. “Why doesn’t Russia and Syria sign a security agreement, that an attack on Syria is an attack on Russia ?”

Well, because Russia couldn’t protect Syria. Its that simple. Syria is hopelessly out-gunned in front of Israel, so it can’t strike back. And Russia does not have the means to help militarily Syria, because Syria is way too far from the Russian borders. So unfortunately I don’t think anything is going to change here.

Jonathon Jarvis is asking me about the Baltic and the Balkan situation. About Belarus and Hungary, Slovakia and Greece etc. “Could these be supported against the bashing of the West ?”

Ok, I won’t read the entire question, its a long one, but I will answer this. No. Frankly they all have been very disappointing, and I don’t see any interesting allies for Russia in these countries. Even Belarussia ? Well, yes and no. Its not an easy person to make good business with, Mr Lukechenka [?]. So no, I don’t see any, I don’t see Russia allocating resources to that right now. Russia is busy elsewhere, and simply doesn’t have the means to start creating US-style ‘allies’. Playing the role of Colombia or Salvador against others. Its just not the way the Russians operate.

I think the far better option is to have China sign lots of economic deals with these countries. Thereby gradually pealing them off their dependence on the US controlled financial banking system. And economics. So this ‘integrating’ as in ‘taking out from integration’ these countries, by means of economic agreements with China, I think is much more interesting than Russia, somehow covertly supporting anti-European movements in the EU. The anti-European movements are doing great, thanks to the incompetence of the EU. So I think Russia will just, you know, cheer them on, but that’s as much as Russia can or will do.

Gideon Anthony is asking me “I’d be interested to hear more about how the conflict is perceived as across the wider world. For instance, sympathy with Russia because RT is balanced reporting on the referendum, mixed with the slag of NATO and the large uncritical acceptance of the dominant Russian destabilization in the western mass media.” And he says “How do you see the perception of Russia in the developing world, and what use is Russia making of these opportunities ?”

Again, rather than seeing that as Russia, putting money and resources into making something happen, I think Russia doing the ‘right thing’, by itself creates sympathy for Russia. That is to say, rather than your know, paying people to support you, [just]do the right thing. Show consistence, show predictability, show respect for international law. Maintain a principled stand. And alot of people will start paying attention, and will like you. I think that’s what Russia needs to do. I don’t think Russia should or needs to worry about ratings. As a matter of fact, I would answer your question this way:

Somebody asked Putin recently, during one of his press conferences, you know, “does he worry about his rating ?” And he said, “No, I worry about doing the right thing. The rest just doesn’t matter.”
And I think that is the motto under which Russia should also continue functioning. Just do the right thing. Don’t, you know, don’t do what Russia did when it allowed NATO to bomb Libya. I know, “its not pretty”, is what Luchenko [?] said, but it was pretty obvious what would happen. Or when Russia reneged on contracts to Iran. I mean Russia does things which weakens her credibility. She should stop doing that. And keep doing what’s right. And that by itself would be the best way of, I think, fostering pro-Russian sentiment, world-wide. Which can eventually, yes, it can bring tangible results and it can impact the long long conflict between Russia and the Empire.

Oh boy, boy, boy, here I’m getting a very dangerous question here. Anonymous is asking me, “I have noticed that you put the word ‘holocaust’ in quotation marks, which is an end-gamer for the information campaign, which killed an estimated 5.3 million Jews. What is your take on this historic event ?”

Well, I think you’re not asking me, when you’re asking me for “my take of it”, I don’t think you want me to tell you whether I approve or disapprove of that kind of massacre or horror. But you’re asking me why I am first, using quotation marks, and secondly, to what degree do I have reservations about the official narrative about that event. That’s what I think you’re asking. And I’ll answer both questions.

At the risk of probably alienating alot of people on both sides, because here’s the conclusion I have come to. First of all, I do really really really, I am convinced that Hitler did massacre a very large amount of Jews. I mean, so I will not, I do not support ‘holocaust denial’, as its called today. Which is a silly word really because what it should be called is “WW2 Revisionism” which I fully support. That makes a big difference. I think history is by definition, ‘historiography’, and is by definition controversial. Its putting a new thesis forward, putting a new explanation on the event. In other words, historiography has to be by definition, revisionist, to be worthy of anything. Because repeating the same thing over and over in twenty-five thousand different books is boring. So of course historians will try to find a new spin. And I think its legitimate to ask questions about the details of the events of WW2.

I have no problem with whatsoever with any form of revisionism. That includes the right to question the reality of gas chambers, the reality of ovens, in which the Germans allegedly burned victims. That of their policies, etc. I will tell you for a fact, I know that camps existed. That some of them had huge casualty rates. I know people who were in Buchenwald. I never knew somebody who had been in Auschwitz, but I had met people, I have relatives, whose entire families have disappeared in these camps. And I have non-Jewish friends who actually were in Buchenwald for other reasons. The Gestapo didn’t appreciate them too much.

So I can assure you that if there is somebody out there who truly believes that its all a big lie and that Hitler didn’t massacre a massive amount of Jews, and I’m going to get all the Nazis mad at me, I’m firmly convinced that its absolutely true. On the other hand, we know that there was [also]alot of nonsense. Such as the idea that the Nazis were making lampshades out of skin, soap out of bodies, this is all, not true. And we also, I think its indisputable that the figure of 6 million, notice this genocide always comes with a figure. You always hear 6 million. You Anon,give 5.3 million, which is interesting. Mostly, you always hear 6 million Jews, 6 million Jews, 6 million Jews. To me almost instinctively, if something is repeated like that, I’m going to question it. And when you question it, I think the numbers are vastly inflated. Not by an order of magnitude, but they are inflated for sure. And they actually have been reduced in number. Specifically at Auschwitz, they reduced a number that they initially claimed.

Now down to the specific issue of a gas chamber ? Were they used or not ? Or were the people murdered by the Nazis, incinerated in ovens ? I will honestly say that I personally doubt it. I think this was added to give a little bit of, you know, now I’m going to get all the Nazis’ angry at me for saying that, but I think these details were added to give even more horror to a naturally horrible story. I think the vast majority of people who were murdered by Nazis, were murdered as a result of hunger, malnutrition, infection, and regular firing squads. I think there were plenty. So I think the numbers are still very very big, I mean I can’t put a figure on it, but I would say, there’s little doubt in my mind that over a million, for sure. So we’re talking in the millions. Does it matter if its 2 or 3 or 6 ? To me it doesn’t. To some it does, and these are called historians, and I think they should be left to do their work in investigating, “Was it 1 million or was it 12, or was it 6 ?”

So I think my answer will make everybody angry, because I don’t buy into the word ‘holocaust’, which means “All whole burnt”. It comes from the songs of King David. And the idea to call it the holocaust, which is a kind of reasonably late term, by the way, the idea is to give it some specific unique significance. Almost as an offering to God. And I think this is utter nonsense. The Nazi genocidal policies, and I’m quite sure they were genocidal, I’ve no problem with that, were not very different from other genocides that happened in history. They weren’t particularly worse, particularly. There’s an entire debate within the Jewish community as to the uniqueness of the holocaust and I completely don’t believe there was anything unique about it at all. It was one among many instances of mass-murder of innocent people, by you know, a bunch of ruthless thugs. And I don’t like this religious connotation to the word holocaust at all.

So in the same breath, I’ll say, I think its ridiculous, I’ve read some supposed good books by some people who plainly deny it all, and say “No, no, no its not true. All Hitler wanted was for Jews to emigrate, etc, but he didn’t kill them in huge numbers.” Yes he did. And I don’t have to buy into the MSM or the official historiography in its narrative, in order to know its true, because I know it from my own people, from my best friend as a kid, [who]had his entire family butchered by the Nazis. They just left his grandmother. Everybody else, a big family of Polish Jews, every single one of them was massacred. They didn’t make that up, its absolutely true. Now, did they use a gas chamber and an incinerating oven ? Now that I’m dubious about, to be honest. But it doesn’t matter. I mean I don’t understand why there would be a dogmatic, an ‘untouchness’, you know you can’t touch the topic of “were ovens really used ?” or not. So what ? Lets say that, you know, those who defend and those that have sympathies for a Third Reich who say “Ovens were used to de-lice. And the showers were used to wash people”. and “The ovens were used the de-lice the dirty clothes for infectious reasons.” You know, if its true it doesn’t make Nazis any less abhorrent and Hitler less of a genocidal maniac.

So I don’t see what the big deal is, but I know that since this is a hot topic issue, everybody’s going to get really mad at me over that answer and I don’t apologize for it.

Ok, Teranam 13 says “Where can I find Putin’s press conference in its entirety in English translations, preferably sub-titled ?”

Well, if you’re willing to wait, the presidential site, the presidential administration has them. I don’t think they’re sub-titled, I think they’re ‘voice-over’, but I think you can get them. They just take tremendously long time to be produced.

Edward Quebain asks me about “Is there risk of the US reigniting the insurgency in Chechnya ?”

I think they probably will try, because they will do anything at this point right now. What we’re dealing with is a full scale war between Russia and the Anglo-Zionist Empire. And I think they will try anything that they possibly can get away with. I don’t think its going to be successful. So I wouldn’t worry about that too much. More than a few, you know, maybe they can succeed in a couple of terrorist attacks, and its going to be bloody and ugly and people will be killed. But will they actually get an insurgency that will seriously threaten Russian Caucasuses ? No. Not for a second do I believe that.

Luca Mikalovich is asking me, “The same way you believe the Euro-unity to effect independence is the best outcome for Novorussia, do you believe the Bosnian-Serb accomplished the best possible outcome in their struggle ?”

Ha!! Very interesting question, and actually, yes. Because, even though they lost alot of terrain to the final agreement, they still held onto a not-trivial part of Bosnia, and I think that was really a result of the fact that the Empire just didn’t have what it takes, to fully push the attack. The Croats got their part and Bosnian Muslims were basically told “You’ll have to put up with this and you’re not getting any more so be happy with what you have.” Its a temporary solution and I personally would like to see Serbian territories of Bosnia, reunited with Serbia, reunited with Montanagro and of course find some kind of civilized reasonable deal with Kosovo. That is for the local people to decide that. But I think the Bosnian Serbs got something fairly similar to what could happen to Novorussia.

The big difference of course is that Serbia itself is run by a bunch of the fifth columnists, whereas [Novo] Russia is not. So that is the big difference between the two countries. But I keep hoping for the inevitable Serbian Putin, who will gather the lands that were artificially, you know, shoved away from the Serbian nation.

Of course Larchmonter 445 is asking me “Lets say the worst happens and Ukraine starts the war again, large and vast enough that Russia must send in the troops to save the East. The ‘big works’. Russia is in. How fast will it be fought ? Will it be devastating ? And will they then leave the statu-quo entity and re-establish ? Or will they take Mariupol and Odessa and complete Novorussia ?”

Well, we have a precedent in which BARK BARK BARK[disturbance outside] sorry, my dog has gone crazy, let me stop that for a second. Yep, my apologies, I live with two Shepherds, two smaller dogs, and a cat. And the Shepherds take their ‘duty to protect’ very seriously, so any noise outside, and my German Shepherd goes crazy.

Look what happened in Georgia. Georgia was made to pay. And the price Georgia paid was for Russian forces to basically to secure, insure the protection of Arkazia [?] and South Ossetia. I think something similar like that, could happen there. I mean, if Russia is forced to intervene, I don’t think Russia will push to Kiev or to the Dnieper [?]. I think that Mariupol and Odessa ? Yeah, there is a good chance. Mariupol most definitely, because its right next door, and they almost took it the first time just by themselves, the Novorussians. And Odessa ? Yeah, probably yeah actually, that would certainly squeeze the rest of the Ukrainian further. So possibly. Although Odessa would be a tougher target to take. Remember that’s the city, we’re talking about ‘common operations offensive’, but they could get close, if not necessarily take it. I mean, Odessa I would put a question mark, Mariupol, its almost by definition, in. As would be a couple of cities, key cities. Slavansk being one of course.

I don’t think Russia is interested or is planning to take much Ukrainian territory, if the Ukrainians attack. I think the sanctions would be sort of, the end sanction would be to have [Novo?]Russia plus. But if really, the Ukraine FORCES a war upon Russia, Russia will know that she will face terrible political and economic consequences for that, and I think the price to pay for the Ukraine would be a loss of territory. Will the Russians then withdraw ? Yeah, eventually. But they’ll keep peace-keepers there. And they will solidify and give the means to the locals to protect themselves, as they did in Arkazia and South Ossetia.

So that is my tentative prediction of what would happen. Duration ? Well, depends how you start measuring it. I mean, if the Russians intervene, I think the, well it would really depend on the Ukrainian army, and how persistent they are. I mean in theory, they could continue to try and fight a fight, but I think that the [Russian] initial attack is going to be extremely powerful. I mean it will hit the Ukrainians at least in the ‘full tactical death’ of their deployment, across and inside Novorussia. So for humanitarian reasons, for political reasons, the Russians might try to limit it and sort of see what the reaction is, but I don’t expect long combat to be sustained. Simply because the Ukrainians stand no chance of it. In theory ?? Forty-eight hours to liberate all of Novorussia. Three days to get to Kiev. I mean that’s a conservative estimate, its really not the problem. I mean they could literally, if they wanted to, they could start landing airport divisions inside the Ukraine and [there’s] nothing the Ukraines could do about it. So it really depends on what the Russians, the Russians will make it last as long as they want it to last, really. This would be probably my answer. And I would expect to be short. And Russia will try to do her utmost, to not let the Americans present that as a massive continental war. The Americans will of course try to do exactly that. And to trigger the biggest possible war. So it all depends on what happens in Kiev at that point.

Ok, I need to go faster here. There’s a couple of questions about MH17. I’m sorry, I’ll have to skip them. This deserves a separate discussion. Too long, I’ve already been too slow with this podcast. I’m sorry about that.

Sanctuary One is asking about the “Neo-cons starting a war with Russia ?”. I will consider this one answered. What else ?

“What is your take on the downing of the Polish plane in Splyank [?] ?” I think this is the case of political pressure, the pilot was forced to take considered risks, even though he knew that it was a dangerous maneuver. And I think that it was basically a pilot mistake. But he was under pressure by the Polish authorities to make that landing happen. I don’t think there’s any Russian involvement in that at all.

Question about technology in Russian Air-Space. I’ll consider that answered. So I’m going to the next. One more about Smylensk [?]. Lets see, what else….

”What are my thoughts about ‘trial by jury’ in its potential, in Russia. Could Putin use it to fall the Fifth Column ?”

No, because the Fifth Column doesn’t do anything illegal. That’s the problem. (laugh) If they were criminals, it would be very easy, but they’re not. If they were criminals, and they were breaking the laws, they would be arrested by the FSB and they could easily be tried by jury or by judge. But the problem is they don’t break the law.

We’re really jumping from subject to subject here. I got a question about Cicilia Suschuk [?]at the press conference. “Is she the former mayor of St.Petersberg, who Putin worked for. ?” Yes she is. “If so, why is she so against Putin ?” Well because she is a profoundly dishonorable person. What can I say ? She’s despicable.

“I fail to understand the whole issue about the floor of 100 sq meters…”

Oh, you know I’m not going to go into that, lets just say that Putin was loyal to her dad, and tried to help him when he was accused and smeared, and she has no sense of loyalty back to Putin.

Ann is asking me about Starikov and his book “Nationalization of the Ruble” I actually read all the books of Starikov. He’s a very interesting guy. Can’t go into too much details, certain things he says I disagree with, and very much disagree with his views about Stalin. But he is a very interesting guy and I think he’s fundamentally correct. And what he says is that Russia should control her own currency, and I fully agree with him on that.

A is asking an interesting question. “What do you think about Russia Insider posting Sergei Glaznyev’s latest essay, prefaced by an openly hostile Russian’s, editorial, denouncing the essay ?”

Nothing. I don’t care what they think about Glaznyev. Part two: “What do you think of the overwhelmingly negative ‘reader comments’ posted under your articles on Russian Insider ?”

Nothing. I don’t care what people think about me. “Do you think they are representative of the Russia Insider readship ?” I don’t know.

“Are you comfortable sharing ‘column inches’, in the Russian Insider alongside neo-conservative Jewish journalist like Martin Scheef [?] and Mischa Lypman [?], and alongside articles praising Putin for neo-liberal economic policies ?”

Oh yes. First of all, I don’t know what Mr. Scheef and Madame Lypman write. But whatever they write, I don’t care. It certainly doesn’t bother me that they’re Jewish. Them being neo-conservative ? Ok, well, I’m disagreeing. I don’t expect Russia Insider to only reflect my point of view. And I think that pluralism is a really good and healthy thing. So I’m not disturbed by that at all. I in fact, encourage it, on my own blog. So if I encourage it on my blog, why would I have a problem with Russia Insider having its own diversity of views. I think its a wonderful resource. And as for the readers being critical, of much of what I write ? Well that’s kind of normal. Because you know, people tend to gravitate towards what they like, and so I get a mostly better comments on my blog, because people who truly don’t like what I do and write, are usually going to go away after a while. And there’s a bigger diversity of users I suppose on Russia Insider. I suspect that somebody probably asked Martin Scheef and Masha Lypman, “Does it bother them to share columns on Russia Insider with this notorious anonymous blogger, the Saker ?” And I hope they will say that they don’t mind. I think pluralism is that, is listening to every point of view, even those that you dislike and that you find offensive. And I think its wonderful that Russia Insider allows for that kind of pluralism.

Paul 11 is asking me, “Do you think Putin and the Kremlin made the mistake of thinking they could work out a compromise with the West, after incorporating the Crimea ?”

Oh, I don’t think they had any illusions at that point. I don’t at all think that they were looking for a compromise. I think they might have had illusions about the sanity of the Europeans. Yes. They thought that “surely Europeans can’t be that submissive and that dum, to commit economic suicide, and become, overtly endorse their status of ‘American Colony’. And Putin said it pretty openly, he said “We overestimated their sovereignty. Apparently sovereignty is not a concept that’s important any more, to Europeans.” And I think that’s true. As a matter of fact, I would say this; In the West there’s this joke, you know, “when do we know a politician lies?” “When his lips move”. There’s alot of truth to that, but please be aware that in Russia, particularly with Putin, that’s not true at all. I highly recommend reading all his speeches, articles, listening to his presentations. Listen to what he says, because my profound belief is that everything he says, he truly believes in. And he’s honest about it. And the Russian evolution of gradual build-up of disgust for European politicians was, I think clearly signaled by both FM Lavrov, and by Putin. They don’t make a secret about it. They think its pathetic.

But I don’t think there was an illusion that there would be a compromise possible. They knew that Crimea [annexation]would really really really anger the Empire. Because that was of course the Prize, that the US so badly wanted. And it was snatched right under their nose when they least expected it. And without a single person dying. So of course they feel stupid. As they should. And after that the Russians knew that they, you know, there was no compromise ofter that. And I still hear the Madame Mulgorini [?] say today, “Forever Crimea will be considered by Europe as part of the Ukraine”. And we heard Harper said the same thing. Let them. I mean its an empty statement. Its getting nowhere. So I think the Russians are basically disgusted, but I don’t think they have many illusions at all.

Stavros H is asking me, “If the US gives Ukraine Javelins and Stingers plus other similar weapons, would that significantly alter the balance of power between Novorussia and the Ukie army ? And would it also alter the balance of power between Russia and the Ukraine ? if it ever came to that ?”

Well, lets put it this way. Yes, it could. But then again, the Russians will reciprocate and decide to use the voetangort [store] to bring in their own weapons. So they can try to keep it even. And the balance of power between Russia and the Ukraine military is so big, that no amount of weapons and imports, will affect it in any substantial way. So what counter-measure could Russia take, if the above happens ? Well, provide the resistance Novorussia with THEIR own weapons. Which they have. And I think that answers it.

You also ask, “I’ve read from several sources that nowadays the Russian nuclear arsenal is even stronger, and more advanced than the American one. How valid is this claim ?”

Its 100% valid. The big advantage the US had, the Americans introduced a fantastic missile, the Trident D5 many years ago already. And that missile had what is called a “Hard Target Kill Capability” that was very accurate. You could use it on very well protected targets. The Russians did not have an equivalent missile, based in their submarines. They had Hard Target Kill Capable Silo [?] based missiles, road mobile. And on their bombers, their cruise missiles. But not naval ones. But now they have it. It took them a long while to catch up, but with the new class of submarines, I think they’re called The Vazooeminack [?] if I’m not mistaken, and the Volak-class missile has essentially matched the D5. Most Russian warheads are much newer. The American ones, if I’m not mistaken, (don’t take it to the max) but I think they’re 27 years old. I think on average. Ok ? So that’s why Obama, if I’m not mistaken, has embarked on a program of modernizing the American nuclear triad. The Russian one is much more, much newer.

The key elements in Russian Triad, is a road mobile, SS 25-27, which are an extremely advanced system, with no equivalent anywhere in the world. Extremely accurate, highly advanced. I mean this is really high tech. I would say they’re on par with nuclear launched, and submarine launched cruise missiles. In terms of intercontinental ballistic missiles, I would say Russia has the most modern force for sure. And in terms of submarine launched ballistic missiles, Russia has finally closed the gap. Because for years American submarines, there was nothing that the Russians had, that was similar to the Trident D5. So yes, right now the Russian systems are more advanced. This does not mean that they can, the one thing that’s important to stress, is they still cannot achieve a “Disarming First Strike” against the United States. Being more advanced is a pleasant thing, its safer, its better, but it does not guarantee you protection from retaliation.

The really important question is what is called “First Strike Stability”. This is: How likely is it ? Do the Russians today, have the means to disarm the United States from its nuclear weapons ? And the answer is an unequivocal NO. Likewise, neither can the United States disarm, unilaterally, Russia. So even if there is, you know, Russia has a, whatever, a stronger army, and certainly a more advanced nuclear triad that the US does nowadays, [but] it really does not affect the fundamental underlying balance of ‘Mutually Assured Destruction’ and ‘First Strike Stability’, and survivability of the Russian and American triads. From their point of view, nothing has changed there. Equal.

Ok, I think I’ll stop here. There were two more questions, one about oil and gold and silver, but I think we’re out of topic here, really, and its been already a very long podcast.

This will be the last podcast this year. I will take a little bit of something reminiscent of a break. Not much, but a little bit. At least I will not be recording podcasts until January. Its been a fantastic experience for me. Four podcasts and I’m really happy with the response I got. Thank you so much to all of you, for your questions and comments. And for those who celebrate it on the 31st and 1st, Happy New Year !! And all the best for a, personally I think, a pretty scary 2015. But lets keep hope, being hopeful. And thanks for listening. And talk to you soon.

The Essential Saker: from the trenches of the emerging multipolar world