[This analysis was written for the Unz Review]
In October of last year I wrote a column entitled “When Exactly Did The AngloZionist Empire Collapse” in which I presented my thesis that the Empire died on 8 January 2020 when the Iranians attacked US bases with missiles and the US did absolutely nothing. Yes, this was the correct decision, but also one which, at least to me, marked the death of the Empire as we knew it.
In that article I made reference to a brilliant book by J.M. Greer’s “Twilight’s Last Gleaming” which I later reviewed here. The main plot of the book is that the US will collapse following a completely unpredictable external military defeat (read the book, it is very well written!).
So my question today is whether the debacle in Afghanistan (not only Kabul!) is such an event or not. Afghanistan is often called the graveyard of empires, but might it even become the graveyard of the last empire?
I will try to answer it below.
First, we are now all bombarded by information from, and about, Afghanistan. Issues like the failure of “country building” are mixed in with bodies falling off US transporters, US Marines sharing one (!) bottle of water with severely dehydrated kids with street whippings. None of that is analytically helpful and it conflates completely different issues. I want to offer a different set of questions which, I hope, might be more helpful:
- Why has the US decided to leave Afghanistan?
- Was that the correct decision?
- Why did Kabul fall so fast?
- Why did such a truly colossal failure in intelligence happen?
- How was the evacuation of US forces actually executed?
These are just a few questions, there are many others, especially about what will happen to Afghanistan next, but that is one I think is too early to tackle and an entirely separate issue anyway.
Let’s take these questions one by one next.
Why has the US decided to leave Afghanistan?
I don’t know why or how this decision was taken. But my best guess is that it is due to combination of the following factors:
- “Biden” came to power while waving the Woke/BLM/CRT/Homo/etc. agenda which I would sum up as the “Wakanda worldview” and not liberalism. But at least officially, Biden is a true, peace loving liberal. Since his policies all prove the exact opposite, he tried to “play nice” and do something “liberal”, at least in appearence (and, no, a woke-freak is not really a liberal at all! And neither is a Neocon “conservative” – these are all lies for the dull).
- “Biden” also knew that a large part of the Trump base wanted to stop all the wars started by Obama and Co.
- “Biden” probably thought that if the operation was a stunning success, he would get all the credit, and if it was an abject failure, he would dump it all on Trump (which is exactly what “Biden” did).
- As for Biden himself, let’s just kindly assume that he has “the right political instincts” to maybe smell an opportunity here and bless what might have looked to him as a “good plan”.
Was the decision to leave correct?
Here, I will catch a lot of flak, but I believe that yes, it absolutely was. In his (actually very bad) speech about the withdrawal, Biden said one very true thing (quoting by memory, so don’t quote this) “those who say that 2 or 5 more years will bring us victory are lying to you” (or something pretty close). Here I agree with him 100% (as far as I can tell, only a real, hardcore Neocon ideologue would openly disagree with this; at least I hope so…).
Not only does the US (or any other country) not have any kind of mandate or responsibility to police the planet, the US is certainly the least competent imperial power ever, in spite of a lot of help from the Five Eyes and its EU lackeys. If you are bad at something, but very good at something else, why persist? The US is a true virtuoso in things like bribing, subverting, economically hurting, politically demonizing, killing undesirable leaders, etc… That is really how the Europeans eventually defeated the North American Native Indians.
[Sidebar: for those whom this thesis might throw into a patriotic rage, I highly recommend the book “The First Way of War: American War Making on the Frontier, 1607–1814” written by Dr. John Grenier. That book won him the Society for Military History’s Outstanding Book Award in American History in 2007; Grenier himself is a retired USAF Lieutenant-Colonel and a United States Air Force Academy, USAFA, CO, associate professor of history. His next book is announced as a “biography of Major Robert Rogers, the “Father of American Special Operations.” Hate me all you want, but read this book anyway!]
The US was founded by and for thugs. Calling them explorers, immigrants, robber-barons or founding fathers makes no difference to their true worldview, their ethos – the seizure of the North American continent was an act of international thuggery on every level. That is, of course, NOT to say good people did not exist then or did not live righteously or, even less so, that anybody in the modern USA has any kind of personal guilt over any of this. Only God can judge them! But unless we forget the true roots of the “American Dream”, we will end up with a “US Nightmare”.
Of course, some US immigrants at the same time did try to create a truly free society, protected from the kind of vicious abuses so prevalent in the Old World! The Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights (aka the “the Charters of Freedom“) are a monument to both the genius and the worldview of some of the founders of the United States. But good intentions and proclamations are only credible when everybody upholds them for everybody and in each case (not the kind “but this is different, we are democracies after all!” western politicians repeat every time they are accused of hypocrisy.)
In the USA, generation after generation of the thugs strengthened their grip power while pushing decent people out of the way (even more so after JFK and 9/11 and other recent events). But that was just a show, a mob “going legal” if you wish.
Thugs have guns, of course, and they can beat the crap out of any civilian. But they can’t fight a military. That is why thugs have gangs, not battalion tactical groups in the first place. Furthermore, as soon as they grow in size, the gangs of thugs try to look more respectable (by purchasing PR campaigns about their “philanthropy” is typical) and less violent. Pretty soon they outsource the violence to others, expandable, lower, gangs.
If it does – it’s because it is!
All the US “country-building exercises”, “humanitarian interventions” and other “freedom of something [fill the blank here] defense” truly are: the acts of an international conspiracy of thugs to seize the resources of our entire planet or, failing that, at the very least, destroying any country, nation, tribe or leader that would dare disobey the World Hegemon. (“We will destroy your country and bring it back to the stone age” is how Secretary Baker famously put it to Foreign Minister Aziz)
[Sidebar: as somebody who, for my sins, had a short stint in the field of “humanitarian operations” I can personally testify that the rank and file sincere humanitarians never know the true intentions, and even true affiliations(!) of their bosses. I know that for a fact. So I am not calling all US military personnel thugs. Only their bosses. Besides, I did not invent anything very new, I am just only paraphrasing (cached version) the most decorated Marine in U.S. history, Smedley Butler, wrote anyway.]
This entire invasion of Afghanistan has been one colossal drain on US resources, including human, intellectual, diplomatic and, definitely not least, financial ones (while the US taxpayers’ money flowed into Afghanistan. That money then always magically “disappeared”, for one reason or another, but some few locals got very rich. Go figure….). So, while I don’t have any pollyannaish illusions about how peace and freedom-loving the leaders of the USA really are, I think that they had enough streetsmarts (or cleverness? guile?) to figure out that getting out was necessary. Blaming any possible problems on Trump was, of course, the magic wand which, apparently, settled any discussions. (I am still assuming that at least some professional discussions took place; more accurately, I hope that they still do, and with at least some real specialists included; please don’t tell me all the real professionals have been “diversified-out” or otherwise “canceled”; that is a truly scary thought!).
Why did Kabul fall so fast?
First, what did the US actually do in Kabul? Paid some folks, trained others, gave them tons of weapons, etc. That is the usual stuff US Special Forces and a few others do a lot. While some politicians (in that category I include all officers above colonel rank) clearly saw Afghanistan as their next El Dorado, honest, if naive, servicemen probably believed that this kind of “assistance” will somehow give birth to a peaceful, happy, democratic (read “woke”), prosperous and grateful nation. Of course, it never does. As for the actual ratio of greedy “dogs of war”, assorted “intelligence operatives” or “sincere idealists” in Afghanistan, it has absolutely no military relevance to the outcome as these motives are all equally misguided, even if some are at least more naive/sincere/stupid than truly evil.
Remember the Georgian attack on Tskhinval in 08.08.08? Remember that kind of truly galactic nonsense “Analysis: Georgian Army May Be Tough Nut for Russia to Crack” posted by no less than Deutsche Welle (you know, “made for minds”!)? If not, please do read it; it will make you laugh to tears and wonder what “area specialist” wrote this “analysis” (a rebranded wet dream, really, yet somebody got paid, probably well, to do just that)! Truth is that this five-day war really lasted only three days. The Russians had plenty of problems, yet they obliterated the entire Georgian military in 3 days of actual combat. Three! This is all which the concept what “US/NATO-trained” means: a total, and always ineffective, scam.
That mentality, typical of the modern West, apparently believes that that kind of “assistance/training” can yield good results. The entire history of Latin America and all the US failures in Asia irrefutably prove the opposite, but nevermind that. An even worse mistake made by western decision-makers is that their opponents are basically and fundamentally “like all humans”, or “like everybody else”. The issue here is that these elites consider themselves as SO much superior to everybody else (narcissism is at the core of both British imperialism and Judaic exceptionalism; think Churchill or Epstein here and their real bosses!) that they only refer to those as corruptible, hypocritical, cowardly and terminally unprincipled like themselves. It’s a pure projection, of course.
In reality, US decision makers are utterly clueless about the supposed “others” who are “like everybody else” when they inadvertently tangle with any “true believers” of any kind, from saints to demons. Examples include:
- All nations with a strong martial culture (Russia, Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc.)
- Truly religious opponents (Iran, Hezbollah)
- Truly sincere/determined political leaders (Vietnam, Cuba, Russia, China)
- “Rabid dogs” – by that I mean the harcore, Interahamwe-like, nutcase terrorists which the US initially tries to use, only to eventually and inevitably “get bitten” back (neo-Deobandi and/or Takfiri groups, Ukie Nazis, Israeli Zionists).
In theory, of course, the US has always known that; hence, the British expression about “winning the hearts and minds”. But here is the difference: the Brits were always excellent (I did not say “ethical or kind”) diplomats, and superb intelligence officers (same caveat as before). Finally, you can call the Brits many things, but not “poor soldiers” either. In other words, the British Empire had the means of its foreign policies.
The US does not. No?
Then please tell me when was the last time that the US truly inspired somebody? West Europeans after WWII, and that was nothing but a more or less “friendly” takeover of the continent and the creation of a servile comprador ruling elite).
[Sidebar: those who would “cleverly” retort “Prague 68”, Tiananmen square, the Maidan, Poland or the Baltic pretend-states etc. should immediately stop reading at this point, dismiss all of the above as utter quackery (“Kremlin Propaganda” works too) and go watch some TV. Same advice for those saying “if the entire planet hates us, why do they all – including you – want to come here”? I apologize to the adults in the room]
NASA, Jazz, Rock, Hollywood, US writers, artists and simply kind and sincere US Americans did truly inspire millions worldwide. And the official values of the USA, the Charters of Freedom, truly did inspire millions worldwide. But I have to say that after decades of abominably incompetent Presidents (all after Bush Sr. imho) there is very little left from all this.
NASA? It turned into the current “private space” farce cum embezzlements of billions by smug billionaires getting billions from the state in a supposedly “private” venture.
Jazz and Rock have been effectively replaced by MTV and YT and their insipid woke-ideology (especially for the young – old guys like myself are mostly and happily “stuck” in the 70s and 80s or foreign, non-corporate music).
Hollywood? Peuh-leeeze! Anybody not blind (or brainwashed) already knows that this is just a crude propaganda machine which will put blacks (aka “minorities”) everywhere and anywhere. I think of it as the “Snow Black” mental disorder.
Writers? Okay, yes, there are still a lot of those around in the USA. This has probably something to do with the fact that the target audience of writers is composed of readers, not unblinking screen-gazers. But the problem here is most people read very little, and what they read is mostly worthless intellectual prolefeed anyway.
And in much of the rest of the planet, people are often too poor to read, in English or otherwise. So what I am saying is that while US writers may be very talented, they are either uncontroversial (authors like Stephen King or John Grisham) or they will only appeal to a rather small elite of, shall we say, “daring” people (authors like Stephen Cohen or Charles Murray). Thought-criminals, in Orwell’s brilliant lexicon.
Which leaves “sincere US Americans”. Do they exist? Absolutely, in the millions, all over the USA and all over the planet. The latter often go completely native and are loved by the locals. Also, millions of expats come home and see their own country in a totally different way
[Sidebar: during my college years in the USA – 1986-1991 – I observed something curious: US ex-expats preferred spending time with foreign students (officially called “legal” aliens) than from their non-travelling compatriots whom they often found quite “alien” to their own identity. That even included a few (admittedly not very many) US Americans whose only trip abroad was in uniform and to some US base! And while I initially defined my Zone A from Zone B geographically, I now think of it more as a difference in general awareness and worldview. In other words, something primarily mental.]
But the problem is very simple: the US elites are doing a rather effective job silencing people, including US nationals. So what most people in Zone B experience is often very kind, friendly and otherwise great personal relations and even friendships with US Americans, but a belief that these wonderful US Americans either can’t do anything about it, or don’t really know what their leaders are really doing.
It is extremely difficult for any “not in my name” type of voices to be heard when the trans-national US propaganda machine is investing billions into silencing these voices!
Did the voices of Smedley Butler or Stephen Cohen make *any* difference to the US ruling classes other than convincing them to spend even more on imperialistic and messianic (the former always implies the latter) propaganda? This is why I have always maintained that the anti-imperialist struggle is not “just” a national liberation struggle for oppressed nations, but it is also a national liberation struggle for all the peoples (plural) of the USA.
And we all know that most of the people of the USA never had much say into what their so-called “leaders” did, no more than any other Middle-Ages’ serf. Every time they get to vote they get the opposite. I will leave it at that.
Now, coming back to our topic, in 2021 the US truly inspires nobody. Absolutely nobody. That is a sad, but undeniable fact. And that is the main reason why Kabul fell so fast: the “defenses” of Kabul were like the fists of a man with advanced osteoporosis – they lacked a crucial element: faith. No matter how good, effective or otherwise powerful those “fists” really were, or thought/pretended to be, it made no difference: one crucial element was missing and that decided it all.
Any force not moved by true/sincere faith always will end up having a “Saigon embassy” or “Berezina” or “Stalingrad” or “Kursk” moment. The preferred term or historical reference doesn’t really matter here.
As for the US armed forces, most of the (reading) public already knows the truth about why people sign up for the military: some truly go waving the flag and holding their breast, especially after the 9/11 false flag, but most simply want to survive. Yes, and while PMCs are typically motivated by pure greed, the regular US soldier only wants to survive at home and get a job (the other options are becoming a cop (less now!) prison guard or a criminal) or in the frontline trenches. And, as we all know, survival instincts go a long way and make it possible for people to do that which they thought was impossible. But there is a much stronger instinct out there, also forged over time by about 1000 of existential warfare: the spirit of self-sacrifice will always defeat any survival instinct, be it inside a warrior’s heart or on the battlefield.
[Sidebar: those US Americans who today wonder why the US could not win a war since WWII can thank General Patton and his truly silly “The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his”. When he declared that, he basically made sure that the US military would never win a war again. BTW – if Zhukov, or any other Soviet marshal general had dared to publicly say such a thing, he would have been immediately accused of sabotage, subversion, collusion with the enemy, treason and summarily executed. In fact, that is exactly what Stalin did with Marshal Tukhachevskii (for other, nonetheless, equally valid reasons). Ditto for Nazi Germany. Or Imperial Japan. No need to approve of these regimes to admit that they knew more about warfare than cigar-smoking megalomaniacs].
So, short answer: Kabul fell because belief always defeats unbelief.
Next, my tiny bit longer answer: Kabul fell because the Empire’s “fists” have crumbled.
Finally, my longer answer will be in the form of a freely translated Russian joke I recently heard (can anybody guess the context? begins with “C”): “People who learn from the mistakes of others are called “smart”; people who only learn by their own mistakes are called “dumb”; and people who do not learn from their own mistakes are called “(US) Americans”.
We can now look at the last two, comparatively simpler questions, together:
Why did such a truly colossal failure in intelligence happen and how was the operation executed?
The failure in intelligence is due to the fact that political conformity is now vital for the bloated US “intelligence community”. I can see that dialog happening everywhere inside and around the beltway:
- Sir, I am so sorry, but we cannot do that, we simply can’t!!!!
- What, are you a hidden Trump supporter?!?!?!?!
What the actual order was matters little. Demonizing the opposition is much more important. Hiring unskilled people solely for their ideological purity is also a top priority. Who cares about abilities, which we all know are “equal”, whatever that means, even down to the individual level? Procrustes in his most insane dreams could not have dreamt-up the woke-freaks and their CRT!
That is the kind of paranoia-induced witch-hunts which all actively collapsing regimes undergo. The current collective US insanity is very reminiscent of what, first, Trotskiysts and, later, Stalinists did to the Soviet Union or the Red Guards to China.
It is also true that the US intelligence community was inevitably infected with “Patton’s logic”, and is run by politicians with zero true patriotism.
Take away a country’s intelligence community and you just shot its brains out.
Take away a country’s armed forces, and you just cut off its arms.
And there you have it: the “evacuation” of Kabul/Afghanistan is the only kind of “evacuation” you can expect from a former superpower which has lost both its brains and fists.
By the way, there are strong signs that the US has also lost its “legs”, hence the chaos and the need to suddenly resort to the use of civilian airlines. To clarify – there is nothing wrong with civil augmentation of military assets at all, quite to the contrary! The key word here is “suddenly”, not “civilian”. One of two options is true:
- The plan, whatever it was, failed
- There was no plan
In theory, there is a third option: “this is the plan”, but theoretical options are only relevant when they are backed with at least some empirical evidence which in this case it is not. Also, some vaguely stated intention, however sincere, also does not qualify as “plan”. For comparison’s sake, it took the Soviets about 18 months (!) to prepare their withdrawal from Afghanistan. The difference in outcomes is now self-evident.
That is not to say that the Empire will necessarily totally lose all influence in Afghanistan, or anywhere else for that matter. Wrecking a place requires very little skills. Actually, re-building anything typically requires a lot of skills.
As Che Guevara once pointed out, “the true revolutionary is guided by strong feelings of love”. Alas, the word “revolutionary” has been terminally stained with blood; as for “love” and “truth”, they have long lost their true meanings ago (at least in the West). But let me rephrase that this way: “true change requires true, loving, faith”. Better?
The ugly truth is that as long as the United States and Europe are ruled by the current international gang of thugs, the Empire will retain a very significant capability to threaten and attack almost everybody else. And if you count their nukes, they can murder us all.
So yes, the Empire did die on January 8th 2020, and the US died almost an exact year later, on January 6th 2021. But there is plenty of momentum left in both of these two cadavers to keep deep nails inserted into the flesh of most nations out there. However, Not Russia. Not China, and not Iran. Not anymore. The US is also losing control of Central Asia and the Middle-East. That possibility is now even discussed with great concern in Israel and the CENTCOM-occupied countries of the Persian Gulf and Arabian Peninsula.
Now is the time for the US military to get its act together and seriously and carefully prepare more evacuation plans for the entire Middle-East, if not these “evacuation plans” will quickly turn into “extraction plans”, followed by more rooftop/runway nonsense the US is famous for. Does anybody still remember how the US forces left from, say, Somalia, or, maybe, Lebanon? These “evacuations” turned into a panicked “run for your dear life operations”.
Will somebody replace the USA? Please?!
It appears that just like “Biden” farmed-out the Ukraine to the Germans, “he” is now farming-out Afghanistan to the Brits. If so, this is a rather clever intention (the devil will be in the details, in this case, in the planning and execution.) Keep in mind that the Taliban do not control large parts of Afghanistan and that the traditional opposition to the Taliban rule in northern Afghanistan (Panjshir Valley) very much exists and is combat-capable (at least by local standards). As for the son of Ahmad Shah Masoud, just like his father, seems to have strong ties to Britain. Ahmad Masoud Jr. looks very much like his father and has some of his charisma. Does that not all sound familiar too?
In the meantime, a motley pack of rabid EU politicians with imperial phantom pains are also making some noises but can do nothing at all. Putin once referred to these noises as “oinking backing vocals”!
As for the AngloZionist legacy press, it is mostly wailing in despair and horror just at the mention of the possibility that Russia and/or China might actually have some influence, however tiny, in Afghanistan. (Remember “these ragheads/russkies/goooks/niggers/sand-niggers/injuns/etc. live on OUR land and OUR resources!”). This is what “Manifest Destiny” really is. Or Germany’s “civilizational mission in the East” was. Or the “White Man’s burden”, or the French Mason’s “Universal Values” etc.. Ditto for the Papacy’s splitting of the planet in its now long forgotten (but not by its victims!) 1494 Treaty of Tordesillas) into separate control/exploitation/pillaging sectors, ad majorem Dei gloriam, of course. Modern ecologists, woke activists and militant homosexuals all very much share in that mindset.
The sad but undeniable truth is that the true roots of modern Europe are not in Rome, even less so Athens, but in the Latin Crusades and the subsequent Middle-Ages. The Reform and Renaissance changed nothing, or even made things worse. Neither did 1789 or WWII. The spiritual and philosophical roots of the West are neither Roman, nor Greek, but found amongst those who destroyed Rome and severed it off from the truly civilized world, not only in the Christian East, but worldwide: the Franks.
Imperialism originates in our heads, it is a worldview, a mindset, and that is where it must be eradicated for it to finally vanish.
The mind is where imperialism begins but also where it will end, just like any other human phenomenon. And while I do fear the inevitable chaos before some “future West” or “future Europe” can replace the current ones, I also do believe that, when shown the true cost of their mistakes, all nations will reject imperialism in all its forms.
By creating an instrument of total control (the Internet) the Empire also created the “first global resistance to an empire” community in world history! Not only that, but the US ruling classes turned US schools and admired US academia into both an imbecile/serfs-producing machine and the laughingstock of much of the planet (even in Zone A!). But what the US ruling elites failed to do is to prevent regular, mainstream, US Americans from wanting to know, to learn, to explore and, eventually, to fight for justice. True, as political indoctrination goes, Uncle Shmuel can run circles around the Nazis or the Soviets, but no Uncle Shmuel will ever “fix” our fallen nature or the universe, so our resistance runs deep, even in the US and Israel. Yes, it is mostly silenced, but in the depths, it is very much still there.
I don’t believe in any Grand Replacement plans, at least not one focused on “race”. But I do believe in a cultural/civilizational “grand replacement”, which I see as inevitable and already well under way, even in the USA and the EU!
Of course, I don’t know what the future collective West will be like, assuming there ever is one again. But I am confident that the type of imperialism which has its roots in the medieval Papacy (which even Hitler admitted with some admiration) is coming to an end.
Think of it: dreams about becoming the “next Mongol empire” must have been sexy. Or being the next East Roman (aka “Byzantine Empire”) too. And to my infinite regret, sadness and pain, (and location of my own place of birth) most of the rulers of imperial Russia fell for such temptations. And this is also the true, core, reason why the Russian monarchy fell in February of 1917.
As for what actually followed this supposed “wonderful” and even supposedly “bloodless” revolution was the worst centuries of mass murder and atrocities in human history. Bravo and thank you, Kerensky (and his western masonic “sponsors”!). The Ukies did not invent their ridiculous “Maidan”! Kerensky and his supporters did. (Gene Sharp – you can see his pietistic quasi-hagiography here (Wikipedia on politics, as usual) – only systematized the study of this field). Thinking Russians can add up and realize that imperialism in any and all its forms, even call it “Capitalism with a human face” if you prefer, is a mortal danger to humanity itself.
In the Soviet times, Russians were promised “Communism” (aka the end of history and heaven on earth, “just” without God); then they were promised “democracy”. Had Russia better elites, all these delusions would not have been replaced with total horror. (Think of the monologue about true horror by Colonel Walter E. Kurtz in the brilliant allegorical movie Apocalypse Now!). The immense costs of WWII for both China and Russia truly brought the reality of imperialism to the Russians and the Chinese people, and they want none of it again. No matter how “pious” the latest pretext may be.
In other words, an overwhelming majority of Russians reject not just the execution but the very principle of imperialism (or the optional use of military force), even if Russia wins! The fact that other nations, experts, pundits either fail to realize this, or try hard to ignore this, has no bearing on that reality (at least amongst Zone B types in Russia, about 95% or more of the total). The “real reality” in 2021 is that actual imperialist delusions in Russia are only held by a small, aging and quickly shrinking group of ignoramuses and/or nutcases. This is not because Russians are somehow “better” than US Americans, Brits, Spaniards or any other imperialists. The difference is that Russians now know, personally, the true costs of Empire.
Awareness of the true costs of empire is a formidable empire-killer (as seen recently in Afghanistan between the clueless GIs and the Afghan warlords). This is why the Empire will do everything it can to deny, obfuscate or otherwise conceal these costs!
Furthermore, once the costs of empire become known by a critical mass of sincerely patriotic people (whatever the country or their political system), the core ideology needed by the empire to justify itself and simply operate becomes gravely endangered.
How bad does it get?
I have an example:
The Soviet “defeat” in Afghanistan: the USSR was never militarily or even economically defeated. Not in Afghanistan. Not by Reagan and his “freedom fighters” (currently declared “evil terrorists”, as opposed to the “good ones” from the Axis of Kindness). Not by SDI. The famous “we won” of the US CIA really should have been “they lost”. Big, big difference.
The USSR was defeated by the CPSU Party Nomenklatura who basically destroyed an entire country to rule over its many leftover chunks, almost none of which actually managed to become a viable state. Put it simply: the Soviet regime died because of its own lies, hypocrisy, inhumanity and, frankly, frequent sheer stupidity. Initially, many soldiers sincerely believed in their alleged “internationalist duty” to “fight US imperialism in Afghanistan” which was quite real. Some were not even informed that they were being sent abroad (the abbreviation “TurkVO2” was used. It meant “the “second” Turkestan military district suggesting a domestic extension/creation of a second TMD. Not a foreign military operation.
Eventually, over time, the painful truth began seeping into the Russian mind. That is how and why the Soviet forces had to be withdrawn. Not because of any particularly intrepid and CIA-run “freedom fighters” or the Stingers (devastating initially, but effective countermeasures were quickly developed and successfully practiced). Again, the US won nothing, the Soviets are the one who lost – they did it to themselves, really!
Again, does it sound familiar? It’s because it is! It just happened with the “Afghan democratic government”, as it will eventually happen to the “Ukrainian democratic government”.
To be unambiguously clear: I think that the Soviet decision to enter Afghanistan was both deeply misguided and inherently immoral (my personal interactions with Soviet officers and participating in a very interesting discussion between a representative of the Northern Alliance and Russian exiles, convinced me of that). The figure of dead, wounded, oppressed or exiled “civilians” is terrible. But the following facts are also undeniable:
- The Soviets tried hard to stem the influence of those Takfiris which the USA had federated and the KSA paid for. In this battle, the Soviets were first.
- The Soviets did build a lot of critical civilian infrastructure facilities, they also tried to develop the country economically and educate its people (in the Soviet mold, of course, but better than nothing at all).
Compared to what the US brought to Afghanistan, the Soviets look like both true warriors and true humanitarians. And, remember, we are talking mostly about conscripts here, many poorly trained, poorly supported and even poorly commanded. Yet they did so much better than the supposed “pros” of the “greatest military in history”.
As for what the Russians can do now, they should remember that Afghans will remember both the bad and the good (there is a large Afghan community in Russia) and they can promise to themselves that in the future all Russians will treat all the people of Afghanistan with true, informed respect and extend a sincere hand of friendship. Whether, or which, Afghans will accept that extended hand is their decision to make, nobody else’s (not even Kamala Harris!)
So all that nonsense peddled by Zbigniew Brzezinski (“Russia needs the Ukraine to be a superpower!”) and Hillary Clinton (“Putin wants to rebuild the USSR”) is solely and only an expression of the true phobia which the Western elites, especially in northern Europe, feel towards Putin, Russia, Russians and anything Russian. Makes perfect sense that the European invaders never succeeded in controlling Russia, imperial, Soviet, even “democratic” and least of all, modern Russia
As for the putatively invincible and “superior” western militaries (Sandhurst! West Point! Saint-Cyr!), they completely lack the kind of experience Russians have learned for about 1000 years now: ten centuries of warfare, with no geographical boundaries, with expanses more reminiscent of the high seas than central Europe, and with no hope of mercy from their foes (most attackers of Russia were hell-bent on exterminating the Russian nation, or culture or religion, mostly all three at the same time). Western ruling classes are terrified of the fact that they cannot defeat Russia militarily, so they pretend the “real Russia” doesn’t even exist.
Instead, there is a “resurgent” Russian-Soviet “Mordor” filled with noble and “diversity” loving “dissidents” who are slowly dying in “Putin’s Gulag!”, the Russian economy is ‘“in shambles” and Russia is just “a gas station masquerading as a country”. These Russkies can’t build shit and they drink vodka all day. Russians might even be an inferior race, since they are so evil and stupid! Most importantly, unless they are “contained” and “deterred” by the West (what a joke!), these Russians are hell-bent on war and will invade us and the rest of the “civilized world”.
This type of delusional coping mechanism is well known to modern psychology and is really quite common. It is really just a stage of grief, not an analysis of anything real.
The truth is that even the popular Putin had to work hard to defend his personal decision to engage a small, relatively weak military task force into Syria. Even a loyal Putinist like myself initially feared that this might be a huge mistake. It was not, and Putin and his generals were even smarter than I thought at the time (the entire operation is a masterpiece for future military textbooks!)
Had that operation failed, and it was both daring and very risky (in the early phases especially), there would have been hell to pay for Putin, Shoigu and all those who put their moral weight behind it. If somebody in the Kremlin ever thinks again of invading another country, he/she would be reprimanded and demoted, possibly fired or, failing that, “retired up”.
Of course, there are plenty of Russians condemning Putin for not moving forces into the Donbass (besides a few special forces, artillery spotters, forward air controllers and one very effective artillery strike across the border), but these people would have unanimously considered such a Russian military intervention, had it happened, as self-evidently purely defensive strategically (but not operationally or tactically, of course).
Frankly, the Balts and Poles look ridiculous in their narcissistic paranoia. On Russian TV, the western propaganda is immediately translated and aired, to the greatest laughter of the audience! As for the Ukronazis, they only inspire disgust and a firm determination to never allow another attack on Russia coming from the West, or elsewhere for that matter.
But there is no desire for war with any of these guys, even for a war Russia would win in a week or two. In fact, in its current shape, the Ukraine is potentially a deadly toxin for Russia, especially if the Russians ever put their guard down. The very last thing modern Russia needs is to get poisoned/infected by the many Ukrainian toxins…
- The Empire has been dead for a while
- The USA as we have known it is dead too
- The AngloZionists still have more than enough power to threaten or actually attack any country on earth (with the exception of Russia, China and Iran or/and without committing nuclear suicide; yes, Iran has no nukes, they banned them long ago, but they have a formidable military nonetheless.
- For the very first time ever, the true costs of empire are slowly “seeping back” into the USA (Marx, Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr. would have been happy to see that) and that has already fundamentally changed the USA as a country.
- Dead, the old USA is currently rotting in the morgue for all to smell. The old Soviet joke about “capitalism rotting” but the smell of that “rot” smelling “oh so sweet!” is finally proven true. It took longer than expected, but like everything inevitable, it eventually happened in 2021. Now that this stench is impossible to conceal and, boy, does it stink!
- In spite of that, I fully expect the USA to survive and even prosper with time! Maybe the US will re-emerge as a de-facto confederacy, with a minimal central power and high degree of independence for the states? Pretty much what the Confederates wanted most, but adapted to modern times and their now universally accepted norms (well, except in Israel, of course).
- No other power (or coalition of powers) will “replace” the USA globally. Why would they? Remember, Russians and Chinese are not only theologians or philosophers culturally, but their national ethos has been deeply affected/infected with Marxism and dialectics which, for all other criticisms of them, were at least taught in Communist schools, however poorly, basically and even wrongly! So, unlike the clueless leaders of the Empire, the Russians and the Chinese fully realize that the Empire was never really defeated, but rather that it defeated itself. Most importantly, the Russians and Chinese understand that if they “replace” the USA, they will end up like the USA. They are far more ambitious, in reality!
- Regarding Afghanistan, there are numerous local powers already deeply embedded inside the Afghan society, including indigenous ones, which, while not “replacing” anybody will most likely act like they have always in the past (“the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior” and “the thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun” point to the same reality). That means violence, chaos, bigotry, cruelty, and other horrors will continue to take place, maybe not as much or as visibly as before.
- Currently I see no combination of local or even foreign powers which can bring true, lasting, peace to Afghanistan. But a combo of Iran+Russia+China would be the most effective in providing aid and some measure of control.
- Logically, this is both a major risk but also a huge opportunity for all the neighbors of Afghanistan which include at least four countries with deep ties with, and knowledge of, Afghanistan: Pakistan, Iran, Russia and China. Of course, unlike some “spokespersons” at DoS, I know that Russia has no border with Afghanistan. I even know that Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan do (even China does!). These countries even have some very good special units which are quite combat capable. But the “stans” all depend on Russia for their survival anyway, and they know it. I fully expect and hope that at least the Russians, Iranians and Chinese get as involved in Afghanistan as soon as possible, if only because of the formidable “cultural intelligence” of their sophisticated intelligence community including operatives and analysts (no, a few words of Pashto combined with a bundle of dollars does not qualify as “intelligence work” – that mindset is only good for bribing). As for the Turks, they have strong “cultural intel” too, enough money and guns to wave around, they are Muslims (albeit not of the Deobandi persuasion) and they will most definitely try hard. I predict that they will fail simply because they are too far geographically and culturally. Also, Turkey does not have the means for a serious, prolonged, operation in Afghanistan.
- It sure looks to me that the Brits have figured this one first, at least the main elements. No real surprise here (they remain the most skilled intelligence officials in the EU!), hence their Foreign Secretary Raab having to extend a very humiliating (and wholly ineffective) “olive branch” to Russia and China (all while clamoring that Russia wants to invade Europe and China all of Asia). Russia made some noises back, and maybe the Chinese too, but these are simply good diplomatic manners. Neither country will ever accept AngloZionists as a relevant force in Afghanistan. And neither will the Afghans.
- At this point in time, nobody can truly control, nevermind bring peace to Afghanistan. If the main actors at least stopped running the country on the ground and did absolutely nothing, this would be a great improvement: not doing harm would probably be the best anybody can do. Finally, just like the Ukrainians, let the Afghans choose if they even want a unified country and, if yes, of what type? How could the people of Afghanistan best express their opinion? Let them figure it out.
- The so-called “Afghan problem” cannot be solved under the current international system and international law. Just like the Ukraine, Afghanistan is widely recognized as a totally artificial country. But how do you fix this? You can’t as long as those who created that international system still control it. A set of new institutions will have to come first before peace comes to Afghanistan. Tragic, revolting, but true.
Will that ever happen? Will Zone B nations be strong, wise and determined enough to create new international institutions? I don’t know.
But if it does not, then our planet is indeed lost until the Second Coming.
This is a unique and transcendent essay. It’s hard to compare to anything being blogged on the ‘net or ‘tube today. The reference that comes to mind is Mark Twain’s “To a Person Sitting in Darkness”, wherein the author revealed so much about imperialism and his world, in the guise of (in Twain’s case) a letter to the editor about “Rev. Mr. Ament.” Here, the topic is ostensibly Afghanistan but there’s so much more, and like the audience for a Charlie Parker or Jimmy Page solo, the reader is invited to seek out his own personal revelations, rather than have them spoon fed.
This is the kind of writing that drew me to the author in the first place; the flavor and scope is what sets it apart from the millions of would-be opinion-makers on the net today. I congratulate him for a visionary, genre-busting culmination, doubtless the fruit of many years of hard work.
Thanks for putting into words what I was thinking, Internal Exile! It was an essay worth waiting for!
…and thank you, Saker!
Latest news from Afghanistan (Aljazeera): A couple bombs went off around the airport killing several people including twelve U.S. Servicemen. The U.S. is now teaming up with the Taliban to get the culprits. What a twist of fate….
I’m fairly sure I’m not the only one anticipating a false flag as a curtain call.
Snipers on the roof tops, bombs in the marketplace.
The script never changes
yup, the moment the BBC & Guardian started reporting imminent threat of terrorist attack I thought here it comes you dirty, dirty bastards.
From August 25 (nothing to see here or report?):
U.S. military forces German crisis reporter and ten other international journalists to board planes under threat of military police to depart from #Kabul airport to Doha (BILD)
Deputy Editor-in-Chief of BILD, Germany’s largest magazine, is at #Kabul airport and reports on blatant attacks on freedom of the press by the U.S. military.
Seth Jones, an Afghanistan specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, gave an interview sto NPR’s All Things Considered.
But Thursday’s attacks* also could reveal holes in the Taliban’s abilities. “What this does show, by the way, is that Taliban’s counterintelligence and counterterrorism capabilities actually are somewhat limited,” Jones said on All Things Considered. “They were not able to identify or stop the attack.”
*About 150 reported dead now. Inc 13 US military.
And there you have it folks.
The purpose of the Mi6 false flag was to puncture the Talibans balloon ….. they were achieving a bit of reluctant western MSM positive vibe.
And making the USA lose the optics war.
ZH reports “Biden Delivers Surreal Press Conference, Vows To Hunt Down Isis, Blames Trump”.
Well, we can imagine that he blames Trump for not doing the pullout fiasco act during his term before the “Biden-Harris Team” show hit the stage.
However, in terms of hunting down the ‘ISIS’ network … perhaps he could start here at the head of the snake…?
Central Intelligence Agency/Headquarters
Langley, McLean, Virginia, United States
If there is rift between Anglo faction, and say, “American” one in US military, then this is not surprising.
I wonder what will happen if culprits are caught and it turns out they are of western origin.
Here’s an interesting op-ed written about two days ago on RT:
“Schrödinger’s terrorists: Washington warmongers suddenly worried about Al-Qaeda and ISIS, amid Afghanistan agony”
It’s there and not there (official Washington); Yup, but now it’s gonna be more there than not there (CIA).
Turkey made a play to take control of the airport after the departure of the US.
To “ensure security”.
This was a rouse to fly in takfiri from Turkey Syria and Libya.
I was just thinking to your statement about the end of the US Empire, and the event finally revealing this worldwide. This Afghanistan fiasco can be the case. So, well done with your past analysis!
I agree that the retreat was a correct choice, but the messy execution has been the real defeat, exposing its weakness, its lies, its corruption to everybody in the world.
However, I see in this event the real continuation of the Obamian politics (not a surprise from Biden) of destroying every country that the US cannot fully control, dividing them along ethnic conflicts, choking them with economic sanctions, stealing their resources etc: Libia, Siria, Iraq, Ukraine.. same plot here, news of today that the ISIS (?) appearing from nowhere placings bombs at the airport. Talibans will need a huge effort and help to stabilize the country. So, the Empire may be over, but wars are not, and I’m worried while wondering which is the next country that will be ignited. And I’m asking if I will ever see my beloved Italy stopping to be a dumb colony.
But the real question that begs to be answered is what caused this sudden decision to pull out of Afghanistan in such a manner, somewhere some one-handed Biden some words or documents that contained some very ugly news.
That was why the hurry-up meeting with Putin was created, so they could test what Russia would or wouldn’t do, as I read that the Fed just dumped another trillion and a half into the system to dilute the value of the rest of those other trillions sloshing around in the system. In time, perhaps we will really find out just what spooked Biden into making that decision.
Hi Bluedogg – I don’t think it was a ‘sudden decision to pull out’ at all. Obama foreshadowed it in the ‘pivot’ to the east, after an ‘oh sh..t’ moment when they realised they had taken their eye off the ball in China.
agreed. agree also it’s a ff. the us never intended to leave afghanistan, most suspected as much, this ensures they can remain to fight their own creation one more time, bt more importantly to bring in both china & russia. chaos of course as well as blocking the bri & china’s ability to access the vast resources. giving russia yet again another version of ‘the big mud’. unfortunately for the deep state & the demented empire, china is very different now as is russia. i would’ve thought russia in syria would’ve showed the demented empire what her weapons were capable of. as well russia, china, iran & pakistan have all been anticipating this or some other similar ff. i expect the taliban have been as well, & have been instructed/tutored on what to do from here. pepe’s latest (which will undoubtedly be published here soon) is highly interesting. clearly the new chapter is just beginning. biden, as either smoothie or the saker, have said is the voice of the deep state, it seems he can still recite, he is not in charge, he didn’t think of this nor is he acting outside of what he is supposed to do.
Indeed, as Cecile says, already Obama started to talk about, but at that time there were other priorities and, maybe, technical issues. It is the answer to “why now” that makes me worry: as for the North-stream and the Ukraine apparently retreat, this indicates that something else is boiling.
It was not a “sudden decision”: Stopping paying, providing and arming the Kabûli army several months ago was surely pre.meditated. “Biden” had wowed to leave on Seven- Eleven (or is the franchise “Nine-Eleven”?), but that would have demeaned a valued brand name and left it as a butt of jokes.
The US started negotiations with the Taliban back in 2017, Trump’s first year in office.
To me, the real question is why it took so many years. That 4 year delay implies that Trump did not have control over the military and the Israel-first snakes who run Washington.
With due respect to Hadrian, is this a imperial pull back moment? Bad news for the Americas but the Aztecs and the Incas did not need Europe, Asia or Africa neither does the US..
A very, very good piece of writing!
Fue Soleimani el que tuvo que convencer a Putin para que interviniese en Siria. El mérito de Putin fue hacerle caso.
Yandex translation. Mod:
It was Soleimani who had to convince Putin to intervene in Syria. Putin’s merit was to listen to him.
Putin always listens to sincere and capable men. For us, Mr. Putin’s greater merit is his decision put the Russian state and people on the front line in harms way in the Middle East. You may have heard of the Russian soldier who ordered an airstrike on his own position during the filth ISIS days in Syria – the scene illustrates in brief what Putin did.
So the Iranians said. Only them.
Soleimani was a brilliant commander and Putin knew that.
Also, Russia did try to get some understanding with Iran before moving in.
In fact, both Iranian IRCG and Hezbollah helped rescue one Russian pilot!
So this might very well be true.
Russia and Iran are much closer than most people think.
I think the Afghanistan operation was simply thrown away and finally abandoned by some “HQ” decision back in the States and that events unfolded without (or even with) prior agreement and understanding. An understanding that it seems is now lost in the breeze. I daresay there is also a frightening possibility of the American operation in AFG. was stabbed in the back. it is all truly…UNCROYABLE.
It does seem to be an ‘incroyable’ incredible operation when the end result was already known –
It is clear from the above Assessment that the Afghan army would not stand up to the Taliban after the United States had abandoned it. The West Point CLC published the study in January to announce this predictable disaster. So the question was not whether the Taliban would win, but when President Biden would let them win.
Conclusion and Implications (as stated in the Assessment) :
“The author set out in this article to address the question: If the United States withdraws the remainder of its forces from Afghanistan, would the ANDSF or the Taliban be stronger militarily? Having conducted a net assessment of the Taliban and ANDSF in the projected absence of U.S. troops across five factors—size, material resources, external support, force employment, and cohesion—the author concludes that the answer is slightly in favor of the Taliban.”
“If the United States fully withdraws those advisors, as stipulated in the U.S.-Taliban agreement, the Taliban’s slight military advantage at that point would begin to grow, as a result of at least two factors: (1) the ANDSF’s technical advantage will erode as maintenance and support functions currently performed or overseen by advisors slow down or cease; and (2) the ANDSF’s major vulnerability—its dependence on foreign funding—will increasingly be at risk, since without U.S. troops in Afghanistan, the United States would have limited ability for oversight of security assistance and less “skin in the game.” Further, the resultant increase of the Taliban’s military advantage is likely to be non-linear.”
Outstanding piece of analysis / synthesis, even by the Saker’s high standards.
as a frequent reader I owe it to us to provide some criticism.
This is, in my humble opinion one of the least coherent and concise analysis I have read in a while. I cant point my finger directly on it, I dont know what it is, but it is there. As if it is more of an opinion and less of an analysis…Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed reding it…it is just different from the other articles you have.
I will second that. The article just didnt hit the spot for me – perhaps a little too much material for one article?
For a future article I would like to read the Sakers thoughts on the “sudden” appearance of a clearly combat ready “ISIS” branded “ISIS-K” in Kabul.
Thoughts also on what the British MI6 and SAS are up to supporting the “Government” in Panjisir.
The Turks (with Azerbaijan) have been conducting some special flights (and operations) inside Afghanistan recently too, and seem keen to stay in control of Kabul airport (at the very least), so thoughts on that would be interesting.
Perhaps the NATO gang are keen to destabilse Afghanistan to the point that no other nations (such as China and Iran) can gain a productive foothold, hence Turkey / CIA / MI6 importing thier pet-terrorists into Afghanistan?
Thank you very much for this brilliant article. So great as some pages of ”Masses et puissance” by Elia Canetti.
I think the issue is that the questions asked got answered at the end of long and somewhat complex explanations. Perhaps it would have been clearer and easier to comprehend if the answer was given first and then the reasons for that answer were explained. In a couple of cases I had to go back and see what the question was.
I occasionally perform machine failure analysis that generates reports and I find non technical people have a better response to complex technical material if the explanatory material follows the conclusion, rather than preceeding it. Think of it as providing a chassis to hang the bodywork on.
That said, there is some very interesting material hiding in the explanation, and Twilight’s Last Gleaming by JM Greer is a typically outstanding work by a master observer of the human condition. His “Retropia” is worth a read for a take on what a future north american continent would look like. As frightening and uncertain as current times are, we are observing in real time events that have been centuries in the making, and which I suspect will define the future of humanity on this planet for a very long time to come. Get a comfy chair and a big bowl of pop corn. It is one hell of a show.
Oh dears us, that was the same impression I had reading this article on the 1st day. Upon re view I conclude that it may be one of the best from SAKER. We invite you to a re-read.
The Western empire died a lot longer ago than 2020, its been dying since the post WW2 agenda of multiculturalism, it ripped the heart out of social cohesion.
Enoch Powell said it best when he quoted Virgil, “Those the gods wish to destroy they first make mad!”
“Calling them explorers, immigrants, robber-barons or founding fathers makes no difference to their true worldview, their ethos – the seizure of the North American continent was an act of international thuggery on every level.”
The Saker should take a more mature moral view of our history. The conquest and colonization of the US isn’t morally different from the way all other peoples have come into possession of their lands. How did the Rus take Russia, and who did they take if from? How did the ancient Greeks come down from the north and take Greece?
In 1620 at Jamestown a modern people encountered stone age people (no disrespect to the Indians implied). Of course the stone age people were going to lose their lands and sovereignty – the only question was whether it would be to the English, French, or Spanish.
If you like electricity and plumbing, if you like a Republican form of government, if you like Hawthorne and the Beach Boys, then you should thank the colonists, founding fathers, and pioneers who made this all possible. From Jamestown to the moon landing is an epic and heroic story. Take pride in this heritage.
Men seek power and great leaders are ruthless – so what? We can set different rules for ourselves today and try to restrain ourselves from what we now see as excesses, without making kindergarten-level moral judgements about our past.
How did the Rus take Russia, and who did they take if from?
What an amazingly ignorant statement! Wow!
First, Russia “came from” nowhere, Kievan Rus was a mix of ethnicities located in what today is the Ukraine. Now, Siberia was conquered by Russians. As was the Caucasus.
While there are plenty of atrocities and horrors in the history of the Russian Empire did not exterminate A SINGLE nation in its history, not outside, not inside! (no, not even the Circassian case, which was, nonetheless, a mass atrocity)
Russia still has 193 different indigenous ethnic groups inside Russia today (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_Russia)
Neither did the Soviets, by the way.
In fact, being Russian (or Soviet!) is not even a racial category, but a cultural one. We are ALL “mongrels” if you wish! Unlike westerners, we do not think in racial categories and we are not obsessed with our ethnicities AT ALL, get at least that!
West Europeans genocided ALL the ethnic groups of an ENTIRE CONTINENT.
It really should not be called genocide by polygenocide.
Even in Latin America they were not THAT cruel and genocidal: you can meet Indians by the millions over there.
I know, I have been there. Have you?
How did the ancient Greeks come down from the north and take Greece?
Bwahahahahaha!!! Dude, the ancient Hellenes were NOT “Greek” to begin with (that is just Papist ignorance and propaganda!). As for the Empire built by Alexander and the Roman Empire, they were both MULTIETHNIC and MULTIRELIGIOUS (multinational does not apply as nationalism did not even exit then).
Your ignorance is breathtaking, really.
Finally, the British are probably the worst genociders in history. A the Scots or Irish if you want.
These are facts which you can CHOSE to ignore, but not facts which you can whitewash from those who know history.
PS: your ignorance is probably not your fault. But combined with your categorical arrogance it is unbearable. Just saying…
PPS: Take pride in this heritage.
Dude! Why should I? It is not my heritage, I am a Russian born in Switzerland from a mixed couple (my father is Dutch). In the US, I am what is known as a “legal alien”. That’s it.
Are you out of your mind?! In our case the fact that this heritage is entirely imaginary (that is why it is called the American *dream*) is not even relevant to the stupidity of your suggestion….
At least try to understand this truism: the *real* purpose of 90% of historiography out there is to provide to the regimes currently in power. That’s it.
And this is true of ALL history, including the US one (the US, not “America” which is a continent the US is only a part of, albeit a exceptionally toxic one indeed).
Now start using your head a little more!
Norsemen likely from Sweden settled in the present Kiev area, mixing with the Slavic people there and becoming the rulers. I doubt these early years and the eventual creation of Russia were war-free.
Your doubts don’t amount to facts. Besides, the Norse did *not* viking (verb) in Russia for 3 reasons:
1) Russia was too poor
2) Russians were too dangerous
3) Russia was the road (rivers) to the (very rich!) East Roman Empire
The very fact that the Norse arrived and became rulers over those already there suggests a conquest.
wrong. You don’t even know the (probably false) offical version about this.
Okay, I am stopping my comments here and will let the rest of your ignorance go on full display.
And the mix of ethnicities there before the Norse arrived certainly did come from somewhere else – they didn’t spring from the earth. I doubt if their earlier history of migration and settlement is war-free either. My point is that no people on earth can make some war-free, conquest-free moral claim to their nation. Every people everywhere at some point fought others to stake their claim to their land. You just choose to ignore the conquest if it occurred in pre-history or if it is in the origins of your own people.
I know the ancient Hellenes were not Greek – that was my point. The people we know as ancient Greeks were themselves conquerors who came from the north, bringing their sky Gods with them. And I’m sure the “original” natives they conquered had themselves arrived and displaced someone else in an earlier time.
The history of migrations is not peaceful.
I also know you are not an American. I was suggesting that Americans should be proud of their history, not you, and that they have as much reason to be proud of their history as you do of being Russian.
You’re thinking of the US as a European empirical project. That ended in 1776, and ended for the majority of people here well before that . We’re our own people now as much as Russians or Japanese or anyone else. This land is ours as much as Russia belongs to Russians, and we don’t have to apologize for how we got it anymore than Russians do.
As for the US empire (not the US nation state), I detest it as much as you do, for most of the same reasons. It’s why I read your blog.
The British aren’t the worst genociders in history. Mongols, Huns, the Atecs, various Chinese empires, the Soviet Union, can all give them a run for the money. For that matter, all hunter gatherer tribes were more violent and killed more of their enemy’s population than the aforementioned empires. Homicide rates of hunter gatherers are the highest in history.
The British Empire abolished slavery world wide, and English protestant society initiated the modern humanitarian revolution and human rights revolution which enables you to object to genocide. Russia contributed relatively little to this modern moral progress (though I give full credit to Russian novelists), and Asia and Africa not at all.
In short, the West didn’t invent evil. If anything the West has done more to address it than anyone else.
//The British aren’t the worst genocides in history. Mongols, Huns, the Aztecs, various Chinese empires, the Soviet Union, can all give them a run for the money.//
What are your sources? Are you say all of this is based on intellectual western historians?
//d English protestant society initiated the modern humanitarian revolution and human rights revolution which enables you to object to genocide.//
The article refers to the policies of the British state which were genocidal
My sources are simply the history of these countries – they have a long history of internal wars for power, external wars in the course of expanding their borders, and repressions of populations under their control. The Mongols and Huns in their day marched across Central Asia to Europe, killing many. The Aztecs invaded and conquered the Mexico central valley and practiced human sacrifice and cannibalism on a large scale. Again, my point is that the West has not been exceptionally warlike in comparison to the rest of the world. They’ve only been more successful at it in our recent (500 year) history.
The British state murdered and subjugated people in its empire, but also abolished slavery in its empire, at great cost in blood and treasure to itself. In the wars to abolish slavery the British were the good guys, fighting Arabs and Asians to end the slave trade. I don’t recall an Arab or Chinese abolition movement. We can thank protestant England for the abolition of slavery.
One can recognize moral struggles in history without going overboard and demonizing a single actor such as the West or ignoring its positive accomplishments.
My sources are simply the history of these countries
No, your sources are the lies colonizers told about their colonies.
Ask the Boer, the Irish, Indian or Chinese (which the Brits fought in war for their opium trade).
Wake up, or go away.
Either one is preferably to this nonsense which is painful to read.
The Chinese abolished slavery about 200 BC
How can anyone be so ignorant of other cultures but so ready to judge them?
What comes to Aztecs – their religion was based on human sacrifices. I think that you can call that also a sort of a politics.
That said, I’m not defending brits or anybody else. But my point is that murdering and genocides has never been only brits privilege. Usually conquerers are cruel.
BTW, why Armenian genocide is so often forgotten?
Let me put this as succinctly and “delicately”, as I can. You have missed the Saker’s main point entirely: It’s obvious you’ve read quite a bit and have studied what passes for “history” in western education. unfortunately, you fail to grasp the fact that most of your knowledge is derived from farcical Austro- German (Frankish) and Anglo sources, soaked in Vatican hate, which read like absurd fairy tales, rather than real historical fact.
Luckily, It’s quite easy nowadays to completely debunk the German/Anglo myths, through genetic mapping, Archeological discoveries, linguistics and demographics. This ridiculous assertion that “Norseman” successfully infiltrated millennia old Slavic lands and formed the Rus civilization is not only bereft of any scientific, archeological, or anecdotal proof, it’s patently illogical and insulting.
Sadly, you don’t even know that the “Baltics” and eastern “Scandinavian lands” were settled and built by SLAVS. Ryurik was undeniably a Slav.
With all due respect, Please, feel free to espouse your interpretation of early American history.
But please do not come here and try to “educate” very historically knowledgeable Slavs about our own history. That may sound good to the dolts on Zero Hedge, but We’ve been able to study the Frankish and Anglo sources in great detail, and when applying original texts, genetics, linguistic analyses and population demographics, it’s quite easy to say most of western written history, especially about indigenous Europeans, I.e Slavs, is disgustingly false.
I readily admit I know little of Russian or Slavic history. Tell me – if I educate myself on that history will I find that Russians have always been peaceful and soft, or will I find that that they left a great deal of blood on the ground in the course of founding their country? I do seem to recall Russian history including wars with the Golden Horde, with Finns, between Russian kingdoms as power was consolidated at Moscow, etc, etc, etc.
//I do seem to recall Russian history including wars with the Golden Horde, with Finns, between Russian kingdoms as power was consolidated at Moscow, etc, etc, etc.//
That’s what every empire does. You’re trying to whitewash the crimes against humanity by the brits but there’s enough history written about them. Read Shashi Tharoor’s books and you’ll learn much about british crimes in India. E.g. your famed war hero Churchill murdered more than 4 million Indians in the 1940s. There were innumerable killings during colonial wars in Asia and Africa. You can’t sweep it under the rug.
Oh Chris Jordan, we’ve seen it so frequently that somebody wants to desperately find a ‘moral equivalent’ between everyone else, and the US actions in finding their wonderfully marketed history, and also today, NATO actions.
I don’t have much time, but there is a simple thing. Where that moral equivalency falls apart, is that the US and NATO actions are continuing today, whereby the history that you talk about is over. So, there is your moral equivalence – and it does not exist in real-politic today. Where others are working for peace the ANZ empire is still working for war.
In my view and without any aggro, the US people will have to accept their own nature and their own birth. And only when that is done, will we be able to see some hope for peace in our world. And if they do not do that, they will just be left on their little island and ignored. The changes in our world today are massive. Get this empire, that deliberately stops the development of others, out of the way and we will thrive is my view.
The Brits? They only remarketed slavery.
Você foi ao ponto.
Vá lá, aceitemos que todos os povos tenham uma mancha negra na formação da sua história. Mas chega a ser patético o esforço de chris Jordan ao tentar minimizar as atrocidades cometidas pelo império britânico. Na Índia, por exemplo, ao impor a monocultura do chá, os ingleses desestruturaram todo o sistema agrícola indu e condenaram a morte pela fome mais pessoas do que os nazistas. E isso numa época em que o aparato tecnológico mais avançado era a ferrovia. Foi um feito notável, sem dúvida.
Quanto aos eua, herdeiro daquela cultura imperialista, nesse exato momento ele está destruindo meu país e muito provavelmente provocará mais uma outra matança além da que está acontecendo agora como resultado da pandemica.
Sim, é certo o que vc diz ao afirmar que os eua não pararam de aumentar a mancha negra que todos os povos carregariam por conta dos conflitos decorrentes da conquista dos respectivos territórios até se estabelecerem como estados nacionais. Os eua mesmo depois de estabelecidos continuaram suas guerras de conquistas, rapinagem e disseminação do caos enquanto o mundo realmente civilizado tenta desesperadamente e pela primeira vez na história dar chance a um mínimo de estabilidade que leve a uma paz duradoura.
You got to the point.
Come on, let’s accept that all peoples have a black mark in the formation of their history. But chris Jordan’s effort to minimize the atrocities committed by the British Empire is pathetic. In India, for example, by imposing the monoculture of tea, the British disrupted the entire Indian agricultural system and condemned more people to starvation than the Nazis. And this at a time when the most advanced technological apparatus was the railroad. It was a remarkable achievement, no doubt.
As for the USA, heir to that imperialist culture, at this very moment it is destroying my country and will most likely cause yet another killing in addition to what is happening now as a result of the pandemic.
Yes, what you say is true when you say that the USA has not stopped increasing the black mark that all peoples would carry due to the conflicts arising from the conquest of their respective territories until they were established as national states. The USA even after being established continued its wars of conquest, rapine and the spread of chaos while the truly civilized world desperately tries and for the first time in history to give a chance to a modicum of stability that will lead to lasting peace.
“…will I find that Russians have always been peaceful and soft…?”
You will not. However, you will also find no mention of forced sterilizations performed by Russians on minority populations, such as those performed by IHS on American Indian women in the 1970’s, nor of “poverty reduction” programmes carried out by the same means. Nor will you find anything alike to the concept of eugenics that fueled them. That was a Western invention – and a very American one at that.
The issue is not of conquest as such, but of the conqueror’s mindset. Western European (especially Anglo-Saxon, but not only) mentality has always been – and still very much is – concerned with the issue of superiority vs. inferiority, with superiority translating into a self-evident right to own property (whatever it may be), and inferiority essentially resulting in becoming a property to be owned by one’s superiors. Whereas the Russians incorporated the conquered populations, the Europeans relegated them to a status of permanent inferiors, to be utilized as seems fit. Ever heard of “Human Zoos”? British ban on slavery somehow did not affect them in the least, and they were insanely popular right into the 20th century. But not in Russia.
This mindset is like a birth mark on any offspring of European civilization, and even America – founded on the premise of escaping the worst excesses of that very mindset – could not avoid it. All the human rights and equality movements notwithstanding, the mindset never changed – players flipped roles, but nothing besides. BLM is not an equality movement – it’s a superiority movement. LGBTQ rights movement is no longer about equality, it is now all about superiority. Both seek to relegate their opponents to the status of compliant, obedient property. Dress it as you want – it’s still “conquer and own”. White/black is not an issue and never really was – superiors vs. inferiors is.
The mentality hasn’t changed.
And that mentality is at the root of the very much extant moral difference that you attempted to minimize in your original post.
Discussion slides again into ‘Slavophile onanism’. It was established with the highest probability by the great Russian Byzantinologist A.A. Vasiliev that Rurik was Rorik of Dorestad from the Danish kingdom of Hedeby, a nephew of Harald ‘Klak’ Halfdansson (c. 785 – c. 852) a king in Jutland. BTW, the mother of the last Tsar was Danish.
Anyway the Russian state gained its definitive form by the adoption of Orthodoxy, which is not based on ethnic identities.
“We’re our own people now as much as Russians or Japanese or anyone else. This land is ours as much as Russia belongs to Russians, and we don’t have to apologize for how we got it anymore than Russians do.”
Well said, I agree. There’s a strong (North) American identity and culture – and I don’t mean McDonalds&other shit.
Here’s been some talk about the music recently – – well, when I was young I listened much British bands – but even more some great American bands and artists – which sounded in my ears somehow more original and authentic.
Cultures and nations mostly born as a result of wars and conquering – that’s reality. At some point they start to stand on their own.
What comes to Russias “coming from nowhere”, Saker, are you aware that some scholars think that so called Greater Russia was born from Finnish tribes – not from Norse tribes, since Finns were there before Varangians (Vikings).
I know that Russia has always been multinational – my grandparents were born in Imperial Russia – although in a totally different way than todays dystopian globalism sees multinationality. But you could argue has Russia always been multicultural? Two different things. What is the factor that defines national identity?
I want to add to this that I’m sure that you agree with me, when I say that there’s a strong Russian identity, Russian interpretation of a nation state differs from western interpretation – but that doesn’t change the fact that there’s a strong sense of Russian identity in Russia.
As there’s also a strong sense of American identity in US. And that’s the factor what makes both nations strong. Neither Russia or US is going to disappear from the map.
A slight difference between Russian’s strong sense of national identity and the ‘American’ one is that the first grew organically during one thousand years of defending the place where they were born and the faith that united the natives (Slavs, Finns, Varangians, whoever), against external aggression and eventually prevailing over them (expelling them or assimilating them into the ‘local’ culture – converting them to Orthodoxy, make no mistake), whereas the ‘strong identity’ of the Americans is that of the conquering band of aggressors imbued with a sense of WASP-ish ‘exceptionalism’ (they were conquering ‘Canaan’, weren’t they?) prevailing against the subdued ‘natives’ in a time frame of barely three hundred years.
“The British Empire abolished slavery world wide…”
…and improved it into wage-slavery where Master does not have to provide shelter, food, healthcare and education for his sl….workers.
“The British Empire abolished slavery world wide, and English protestant society initiated the modern humanitarian revolution and human rights revolution which enables you to object to genocide. Russia contributed relatively little to this modern moral progress (though I give full credit to Russian novelists), and Asia and Africa not at all.”
A very selective view here that will no doubt appeal to the religion being referred to. You obviously have NO knowledge of the contribution through the ages of Asians. Just to mention the greatest one of them all, the Buddha, for instance, and you will see that Asian nations were way ahead in their thinking, teachings and actions. Ashoka spread Buddhism far and wide and it is said that Jesus may have also been influenced by the Buddha’s teachings (in Alexandria?). There were many other Asian thinkers that you have never heard of, but please stop this “exceptionalism” of the west. Where those protestant priests went, the imperialists were not far behind. What moral progress are you talking about. Hold a mirror to your societies and see the horror that was and still is perpeterated by them.
The British empire abolished slavery in its colonies and replaced the African slaves with Irish penal convicts, the new slaves.
The Saker is correct and your knowledge of history is narrow and more than likely learned in the British education system.
The English committed two genocides in Ireland,time of Elizabeth 1,and Oliver Cromwell,
The British committed one,The Irish famine 1845 to 1850.
These genocides were sadly just the major excesses of 700 years of destruction of the Irish peoples, language and culture.
You should choose your words carefully.
In all the centuries of suffering imposed on the Island of Ireland and my ancestors, the Catholic Church stood by and did not assist the Irish.
This was most likely because the Christianity practiced in Ireland was closer to the version practiced to the Middle east and North Africa as shown by the manuscripts illuminations and binding used in their books found over the centuries.Papyrus was used in the lining of a leather cover to a 800 year old Psalter dug up from a peat bog some years ago.
This indicates materials and craft being exchanged with Middle eastern/North African Christians.
“The English committed two genocides in Ireland,time of Elizabeth 1,and Oliver Cromwell, The British committed one,The Irish famine 1845 to 1850. These genocides were sadly just the major excesses of 700 years of destruction of the Irish peoples, language and culture.”
Indeed, but one could raise it a level and say (to a lesser extent) the English/Norman/Roman line was aimed at the Celts — that included the Scots and the Welsh. Only the strategic resistance varied. Even with the living memory of some was the Welsh language banned in schools etc.
And as for the Australian colonies (x6) — the early ones on the east coast (New South Wales and Van Diemen’s Land/Tasmania) were indeed prison colonies for mostly recognised criminal types. However, free settlers soon arrived and developed — especially when gold was discovered. The western and southern colonies/states (c. 1823’s) were largely capitalist free enterprise although labour shortages did occur and invite prison populations to be imported. The push to end the slave trade across the British empire (commenced in c. 1783, a king’s proclomation 1807, and an act of parliament 1833) impacted development in all colonies. From these times onward most ‘prisoners’ were not criminal types but rather political dissidents — e.g., Weslh Chartists.
For comparison, the direct rule by the British Crown on the Indian subcontinent was from 1858 to 1947, although the East India Company had operated there since the 17th century and “rose to account for half of the world’s trade during the mid-1700s and early 1800s” (Wikipedia). One only needs to compare the flags (e.g., 13 alternating stripes) of the East India Company and the United States/colonies of north America to see a continuity of purpose. Even today, various public policy resemble a corporation with workers/employees more so than a country with citizens (e.g., health care).
And then, as a general misery indicator there are the many famines on the Indian subcontinent during British rule from 1765 to 1947 — although these also occured in areas not directly controlled by the British empire. Some Australian British rebel imports were also from ‘crimes’ on the Indian sub-continent.
Saker, explain your quote “the ancient Hellenes were NOT “Greek” to begin with (that is just Papist ignorance and propaganda!)”?
While it is true it was the Germans that brought Hellenism to and created modern Greece on Hellenist foundations but AFAIK the ancient Hellenes did speak the Greek language.
@Dave: I think there was an invasion of people of North-Eastern origin into South-West Eurasia, who gradually developed variants of the Indo-European Language family: Iranian, Sanskrit, Greek, Slavonic, Germanic etc. One of the great intellectual pleasures in store, for those who survive the 21st century, will be to see the gradual uncovering of this epic history by new discoveries in archeology and genetic mapping.
I think that Saker refers to Dorian invasions to Greece at the end of the Mycenaean culture. Some believe that they migrated from the Steppes.
Of course, there is no difference among the conquerors as there is no good conquerors or bad ones. It is like sorting good Nazis and bad Nazis. Actually, in a sense, Chris Jordan is correct because the western conquerors have brought much more to the conquered in the form of democracy, wealth, freedom of expression, even the reserves are better than nothing! But the real question is: why then the Russian rulers, aristocracy and even the people to a significant degree, always looked upon the West as something more progressive and desirable if the West and westerners are really so bad? I admit, the West may be bad to Saker but for all we know it is not so bad for the majority of Russians. Otherwise why would they keep emigrating to the West even as we speak?. You may well say it’s not true but look back just passed 2008. Don’t you see how far the Russian individuals of any consequence had been willing to go and still are to deny their own roots, culture and history and most importantly their true friends and allies in order to, for example, become a part of G8, EU, NATO etc. and to be able rub their shoulders with the “partners” and “friends” like Regan, Bush, Clinton, Blair while, as I said, rebuking everyone else including the best of the really true and close friends to the Russian culture and people? There are no accidents in the history!
Anyone acquainted with Russia’s historical sources and not youtube docudramas knows that the ‘Rus’ (aka Vikings) have been invited by the local populations.
The conquest of Siberia and Caucasus were in fact ‘replacements of sovereignty’. The Russian Tsar became Sovereign ruler of Kazan, Astrakhan, of Siberia, Crimea, Lord of Iberia, Kartli, and Kabardia lands and Armenian provinces; hereditary Sovereign and ruler of the Circassian and Mountainous Princes and of others; Lord of Turkestan… and so forth and so forth.
And the Russians did not exterminate any conquered population. They even integrated their ‘aristocracies’ into Russian nobility.
Podstawową rożnicą pomiędzy imperium anglosaskim, a rosyjskim, hiszpańskim, portugalskim, francuskim,był stosunek do tubylcow.
Nie integrowano ich na rownych prawach.
Małżeństwa międzyrasowe wykluczały z elity.
Ostracyzm obejmował dzieci z takich związkow.
Nawet po przegranych powstaniach, polska szlachta była włączona w system szlachty rosyjskiej, stanowiąc 60% jej populacji.
Polscy generałowie służacy Napoleonowi, otrzymywali stanowiska i pensje w armii Krolestwa Polskiego, czy czysto rosyjskich pułkach, zdobywając Kaukaz.
Polscy magnaci bywali ministrami, czy nawet premierami w Rosji, czy Austrii.
Segregację rasową czy towarzyską, stosowali jedynie Anglosasi.
Google-translate from mod:-
The basic recovery between the Anglo-Saxon Empire, and Russian, Spanish, Portuguese, French, was the attitude to the tubylcow.
They were not integrated on equal rights.
Interracial marriages excluded from the elite.
Ostracism embraced children from such unions.
Even after the lost emergence, the Polish nobility was incorporated into the Russian nobility system, constituting 60% of its population.
Polish generals serve Napoleon, received positions and salaries in the army of Polish Krolova, or purely Russian regimes, gaining the Caucasus.
Polish Magnaci were ministers or even premiere in Russia or Austria.
Racial or social segregation used only Anglosasi.
@Chris: “If you like the Beach Boys, then you should thank the colonists, founding fathers, and pioneers who made them possible” [by genociding you].
“I think the cost [paid by them] was worth it [to us]” — U$ Foreign Secretary Albright, re mass murder of Iraqi children by the Clinton regime.
When she said “us”, she was referring to her fellow jews in occupied Palestine.
“Of course the stone age people were going to lose their lands and sovereignty ”
You do understand that this is exactly mindset of the thugs?
Would man that you were named after ever spoke such sentence?
As the chiefs of the Six nations stated, they should have gone with the French rather than the British for the French only wanted the fur trade while the British wanted their land, and they were right. As an American, I take no pride in lying twisting the truth trying to make it appear that we were and still are the grand saviors of not only America but the world, the colonist came over here to conquer and steal what belonged to others and that has never stopped for after they stole it all then they turned on each other.
Great analysis Saker! You called the end of the empire correctly a while ago (and I didn’t believe it back then!)
Two tricky points you mention:
1. The “farming out” of Ukraine to Germany: Germany has already taken on board many of the ex-Yugoslav and ex-Soviet republics, AND is keeping the Euro afloat single-handedly. Can they also take on Ukraine at this stage ? They seem very over-extended…
As for Afghanistan being left to the UK, MI6 will probably get involved, but not sure what UK military could do? Apparently their performance in Afghanistan was underwhelming and required major assistance from the US.
They seem very over-extended…
Oh but they are, I agree 100%.
But they can’t disobey. Not yet.
MI6 will probably get involved
Agreed. Besides, the Brits never “left” Afghanistan. Ever.
not sure what UK military could do
Spin/lie. That is all they are halfway good at (and even that is crumbling in the age of the Internet and cellphones)
“… That is all they are halfway good at…” — and poisoned door knobs with lethal ‘Russian’ agents, … Lol.
Even if the MI6 puts its weight behind Massoud, his chances of prevailing over the Taliban appear to be slim.
Do you think that Russian and Chinese intelligence agencies would stay idly until the MI6 starts to wreak havoc in their neighborhood?
It will be interesting to see how Massoud will play this. The bargaining seems to have started already.
Apparently Massoud is asking for 50% of seats in the cabinet.
The Taliban just might agree. That would pull the rug from under their feet.
Another opportunity for them to be a thorn in the Chinese side, like their two carriers based in Japan?
Risos, risos, risos, sim é verdade.
Até para mentir os ingleses estão se revelando incompetentes.
Na violação deliberada das águas territoriais russas pelo contatorpedeiro inglês, colocaram no navio um jornalista para relatar em primeira mão o quanto os malvados russos estavam mentindo sobre a passagem inocente dos velhos piratas. Só que esqueceram de combinar com o tal jornalista que ele não deveria relatar para o mundo que todos a bordo estavam ocupando seus postos de combate. Pra quê, se a passagem era inocente?
Risos, risos, risos.
Laughter, laughter, laughter, yes it is true.
Even to lie the English are proving incompetent.
In the deliberate violation of Russian territorial waters by the contactenglish steamer, they put on the ship a journalist to report firsthand how much the evil Russians were lying about the innocent passage of the old Pirates. Only they forgot to agree with such a journalist that he should not report to the world that everyone on board was occupying their combat posts. What if the ticket was innocent?
Laughter, laughter, laughter.
Maram Susli, I love you.
Maram Susli is the wonderful and clever Syrian girl
//As for Afghanistan being left to the UK, MI6 will probably get involved,//
Where’d you get this piece of info?
As Saker says, they never left…
My sister, I’m Serbian boy. Just for your information:
1. Ex-soviet republics created by Russians, have been “taken” by Germany i.e. the West, against Russian interests,only because the Russians not only acquiesced to it, but they, the ruling minority, pushed for it.
2. Ex-Yugoslav republics created by Serbs, have been taken by Germany i.e. the West, despite Serbian objections and against Serbian interests. Unlike Russians we did not acquiesce to it, we fought against it. We fought and we lost mostly because Russia was on their side, NOT ON OURS.
So obviously, you are comparing apples and monkeys.
It’s correct that Yeltsin allowed the collapse to happen. It seems the Soviets collapsed from the center, ex-Yu collapsed from the periphery.
In any case, Germany is now saddled with these former republics.
Please tell me when Milosevic looked out for his own people who were on the wrong side of the “border”? Krajina, Bosnia, Kosovo…date of mobilisation from Belgrade??
Please can we stop taking the posts off-topic. Any further discussion should go to the MFC. Mod.
@EVERYBODY: thanks for your kind words of appreciation!
check out this: https://thesaker.is/a-very-telling-photo-of-russian-special-forces-at-the-kabul-airport/
what a contrast, no?
Hugs and cheers to all
The most broad ranging essay yet. Encyclopedic even. Empire dead? The gambit of imperialism has precipitated a condition of stasis. Neoliberalism/neoconservatism (imperialism) have, as you rightly point out, entered a condition of self destruction. The internal situation is one of multifaceted strife and hostilities. Street fighting is actually on the upswing, along with widespread demonstrations throughout the West testifying to a loss of legitimacy. America especially has lost it’s lustre. (The Ukrainians were maybe the last in line to get on board this sinking ship.)
Empire will not be replaced. Arguably, that’s been the idea since the peace of Westphalia when a system of states was instituted precisely to put an end to empire and its Papal partnership. It was a solution that had to be repeated on occasion, but we have reason to believe that since the the members of the Shanghai Organisation are committed to the principles of the UN, the empire will give way to an order envisioned by the framers of the UN. I think Astana or Nur Sultan would make a suitable location, particularly given it’s recent history as the site of diplomacy that might well be viewed in time as decisive.
America will fall as an empire but survive as perhaps a confederacy – at best. But I too envision a confederation of independent states as the best prognosis for the old and presently disintegrating republic. It’s worth mentioning that a confederation is what the founding fathers actually had in mind to begin with. But more, I’d argue that for those who value liberty above all things the confederation is a necessity because liberty can only thrive as a genuine political community. Community, not society. There’s a difference. Communities are of necessity small. A serious problem arises also out of necessity, the spectre of neighbouring large states threatening the small ones. Answer: confederate. The idea is as old as political philosophy.
The difficulty I see for Afghanistan is not a return to a supposed endless past of feuding. Rather, the emergent situation, such as I imagine it, might resemble the time of Soviet aid for a newly socialist country. Afghanistan will surely become increasingly urban, educated, socialised – because its Asian environment is becoming transformed into the new ensemble of world powers. Afghanistan has a place in this emergent order and this business of economic and social development brings problems of a familiar sort. This is actually where the saga started. In a sense, the American intervention turned back the clock. But once again, modern development will commence. Really, the problem faced by the Afghanis is not unlike our own. Can they achieve a confederation of some description that can keep the peace? Can we? Can Europe?
“I observed something curious: US ex-expats preferred spending time with foreign students (officially called “legal” aliens) than from their non-travelling compatriots whom they often found quite “alien” to their own identity.”
I must agree with this statement since I worked on research vessels for years traveling overseas extensively. I found returning to the US was like entering a dome isolating Americans from the world at large. Trying to have a conversation with 9 out of 10 Americans was an act of futility, since their only source of the world came from the MSM and the continuous government propaganda. Frankly, it was as if their minds were locked into a narrative and they were incapable of seeing with an open mind beyond the narrative worldview.
In 1990, I had the opportunity to move to Australia. Waiting for my flight, I was reading USA today. At that time, the front page had a information box in the lower left covering various points. That day it showed that 80% of Americans never had a passport. I found in Australia over 80% have passports and have a international worldview from travel to Asia, Europe and the Americas. I have never regretted the move and can never see myself returning to the US.
This is, without a doubt, one of the best essays I’ve read all year. Perhaps in several years. Excellent perspective from an “outsider”. I think most of my “fellow Americans” might take offense at the author’s perspective on the “Evil Empire”, but their gripes and complaints should be summarily dismissed. Those type of people are not quite ready to see things as they are. They ignored H. L. Mencken:
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And even if he is not romantic personally he is very apt to spread discontent among those who are.”
Why did the US leave in the dead of night? The marvellous article didn’t address this little issue, and the question has been bothering me.
My thinking is, the US military needed to sneak out at night in order to avoid opponents — not the Taliban, but the CENTCOM brass. If the higher echelons were aware of Biden’s order to withdraw, they would have found some way to disobey the Commander in Chief. Yes, outright insubordination. Wouldn’t have been the first time. So Biden needed to give his withdrawal order while the generals at CENTCOM were in bed.
And this would account for why the operation seemed so rushed and so unplanned. There couldn’t have been much planning, as it might have leaked. So the troops withdrew in a hurry, in the dead of night, presenting the generals with a fait accompli in the morning.
Forgot, an important point. Thanks to Serbian Girl for bringing it up. It really does look like a decision has been made to farm the Eurasian geopolitics out to the Euros, led by the Brits. Washington will still call the shots, but it’s up to the master race to get serious about our new ‘rules based’ international order. The Beltway people want to concentrate on the ‘Indo-Pacific’ sphere (whatever that means). But be that as it may, this seems to be worth writing home about. The Americans want Europe to ‘manage’ Russia and Iran. It’s noteworthy here that Israel is seemingly out of the new equation. The Democratic Party young and woke are not enamoured with the Shining Democracy of the Middle East, unlike their Boomer grandparents. As well, the new Blackrock managed governance has decided that oil will no longer be the lynchpin of foreign policy. Evidently the time of Rockefeller/Kissinger is past. This is big stuff but nobody seems to know what’s really happening in Washington. Pepe: help! We need to hear it from the insiders.
PS. I read this essay over at Unz’s and wrote up a response – before I read the comments there. I’m somewhat at a loss for words. The sheer rudeness of most of the comments – it’s a zoo. The vicious, malicious spleen is itself a factor not to be ignored; it has geopolitical weight. Particularly the comments regarding the native Americans called forth the kind of bile that invites wars. (Now I recall how Peter Lee, one of Ron Unz’s best writers, bailed out early on. He couldn’t take the arrogant lunacy so strongly in evidence in the comments. Lee would make a great interview)
”The Beltway people want to concentrate on the ‘Indo-Pacific’ sphere (whatever that means).”
Their dull euphemism for ’China’. And, yes, the Euro-trash is getting quite serious about Afghanistan with BHL strutting around there.
Despite all the ugliness, it’s cheering to hear about the quality of the commentariat over at Unz’s. The Empire is failing its mass base and it hurts — badly. At the rate things are going now, they will start cannibalizing themselves by this decade. Not a day too soon.
““Biden” also knew that a large part of the Trump base wanted to stop all the wars started by Obama and Co.”
Afghanistan and Iraq were started by bumb-ass-W not
Obama and Co.
Actually, it started with Carter in ’79.
Yeah, all Obama did was start wars in Syria, Yemen, Ukraine, Libya, and a renewed war in Iraq too if you count the Obama admin’s support for ISIS as playing a large role in that.
The US needs to pull out of all these countries immediately.
Will Afghanistan turn out to be US imperialism’s “Last Gleaming”?
More, and worse, debacles yet to come. Syria, Iraq, Libya, South China Sea (Taiwan), Korea, Japan.
My guess is that the “Last Gleaming” will happen in South China Sea over the Taiwan issue.
I’d like to address the notion that the US is “dead”, and that the empire has fallen. Nonsense. I agree it is falling apart, slowly in many ways (especially for the ones at the bottom of the system), and the humiliating defeat might give one the idea that this will cause some reassessment with those ruling us at the top, but I submit that this will only enrage them, and, as they have always done, double down with further acts of lunacy.
There are simply too many very powerful and rich people invested in this system for them to give it up. Does one expect them to simply retire with their ill-gotten gains? To relinquish their power? No, it will have to be taken from them. How? I shudder to think.
“Does one expect them to simply retire with their ill-gotten gains? ”
Well, since host country is bankrupt, the alternative is to reach into their own coffers and finance double-downing that you mentioned. And that is something that they never did.
To make things even worse, they ALL have to agree how much each of them have to contribute.
Look carefully nearly all those photos of Afghanistan at the airport on most western media sources are fake / photoshopped professionally. Or old photos from earlier this year.
Outside the airport it’s business as usual. Why do people come to the airport empty handed?
The United States’s “Last Gleaming” was Syria. With Russia’s presence there, they couldn’t take over Syria which made them look very weak and very incompetent. Everything started going downhill after that for them.
I totally agree! Actually I’d say this was when the empire fell on its knees, the death blow came in March 2018 when Russia unveiled its hypersonic arsenal. The point is we’ve been witnessing the death of the Empire for many years now, and Afghanistan is only one logical consequence of many more to come.
Where is Larchmonter when you need him?
great writing, i see starvation this winter and 22, quite extensive starvation. best to have access to ocean fish. american military will disband before getting clearly corrupt shot. they cannot unsee the last fraud election.
men in key positions trained will disobey.
The mockingbirds are in full song:
Who are ISIS-K? Here’s what we know about the Islamic State offshoot in Afghanistan accused of planning the Kabul airport bombing
What We Know About ISIS-K, The Group Behind The Kabul Attacks
ISIS-K, the group behind the Kabul airport attack, sees both Taliban and the U.S. as enemies
Terrorism experts say Islamic State offshoot will try to ramp up attacks with U.S. leaving Afghanistan.
Kabul airport attack: What do we know?
What do we know about the deadly attack near the Kabul airport?
WW: So what do we know from the appearance/placement of identical “reports” on the Khoisan-IS?
I’d say, it’s “highly likely” they are UKUS spawn.
This is a great and deep essay, written from the core of the author’s belief system. It deserves to be preserved in book form, to help future generations of readers to understand how their world came into being. Because, as the author says, even in the age of TV and the internet there are still some writers who write books and still some readers who read books; and he quotes a lot of such books.
Just one small comment from this reader, concerning the author’s self-deprecation re Putin’s decision to support the government of Syria against the “irresistible armed might” of NATZO and its ISIS headchoppers:
“The truth is that even the popular Putin had to work hard to defend his personal decision to engage a small, relatively weak military task force into Syria. Even a loyal Putinist like myself initially feared that this might be a huge mistake. It was not, and Putin and his generals were even smarter than I thought at the time (the entire operation is a masterpiece for future military textbooks!).”
I must say that my own memory of the Saker’s comments at the time is rather different: it seemed to me that the Saker was praising how much result Putin was getting out of a rather small and sustainable military force that, far from draining Russia’s military capacity was, if I remember correctly, “well within the normal budget for training a force of that size”.
Certainly I regarded Putin’s intervention in Syria as a masterpiece of “humanitarian intervention” in contrast to Uncle $cam’s abjectly poor judgment in Afghanistan; because Putin’s intervention was based on his accurate judgment that the elected government of Syria possessed legitimacy in the eyes of its people, and that the legitimate Syrian army would prove more than a match for NATSO’s ISIS mercenaries if only Russia’s advanced equipment could baffle NATZO’s “irresistible armed might” — which it did.
All empires have strong element of Karma which triggers self-destruction eventually: The believe in their racial/cultural/political superiority and the illusionary/psychotic believe they are ‘Godsend’.
Or in other words: Imperialism is a crucial sin and alienates from God completely.
“For every American who is killed, an Afghan city should be wiped off the face of the Earth”
August 26. 11:55am.
Twitter offered a lesson:
>Spencer Ackerman. @attackerman
As it happens, the US wiped 3 Afghan villages off the face of the earth in 2010. They were called Tarek Kolache, Khosrow Sofla and Lower Babur. These are the details of a 20-year war that don’t get remembered, let alone discussed.
This barbarism was not hypothetical. It was fact.
‘Why I Flattened Three Afghan Villages’
When the day began for Lt. Col. David Flynn on Oct. 6, Taliban insurgents were using three southern Afghanistan hamlets as bomb factories. By the time the next day ended, Tarok Kolache, Khosrow Sofla…
>Jay Kirell @JasonKirell
There was also a village called Macuwan in Kandahar.
It was leveled with miclic charges.
In 2016, Boz Village in Kunduz was hammered with rounds/rockets/missiles from AC-130s and Apaches (during a botched raid where a US-Afghan team was pinned down by Taliban fighters).
Approximately 40 villagers were killed, including children.
Replying to @shonan_naminori @JasonKirell
that was a direct attack on religious school and more than 70 chidren died in that attack hundred of people got injured.
WW: But yeah, Todd. Wipe out a few more villages just as you flee.
THE RIGHT TO SACRIFICE THE OTHER
Beheading was the best way for the Yankee settlers to count their victims among the Natives Indigenous; but then the whole activity of collecting indigenous heads became an industry on its own due to the material reward attached to it. Francis Jennings in his book “The Invasion of America” says that the white occupiers set a reward for whoever killed an indigenous and brought his head, and then the occupiers started scalping the heads except when there was need to identify the victim. The first compensation allotted for bringing back an indigenous scalp goes back to 1694, and in September of the same year, the tribunal of the state of Massachusetts decided to compensate materially each white hunter who brings an Indian scalp of whatever age or gender, and the rewards differed according to the position of the hunter from 50 pounds to the average settler and 10 pounds to the military, then this habit of compensation spread to all other states, then the prices went up and, in 1704, the price of each Indian scalp became 100 pounds. This was four times the earnings of a regular farmer in New England, so all what the settlers had to do, was to hunt two indigenous children and three indigenous women and live like king James himself. This is how scalping became for the settlers the most lucrative business, and the fastest way to become rich so much, that they even gave up the gold hunt to specialize in scalping, turning the indigenous blood into black oil.
From : “The American Genocides, the Right to Sacrifice the Other” by Munir Akash.
@Faisal. Thanks for the history lesson. Explains why Yanqi adventure stories used to repeat: “The only good Indian is a dead Indian”.
Scalping was a specialty of the Redskins, let’s not forget.
Did the Redskins also have a 50 pound government bounty policy to genocide another race and steal their continent?
Do you know this web https://www.voltairenet.org/en . I’m asking because the Guy seems to be very well informed about middle East and claims that USA has never intended win those wars. He has very interesting point of view.
Voltairenet and Thierry Meysann are respected sources among the Truther community, often quoted by supporters of the Axis of Resistance against Anglo Zionazi Capitalist aggression in the Middle East. I came across them ten years ago re NATZO’s wars against Syria, Iraq and Iran: the AZC certainly meant to win those wars — but they lost, and are now fighting a rearguard action.
As regards the article on Afghanistan (in your Link) Thierry is framing it in a wider context. Forget Afghanistan’s measly 3 Trillion U$D of rare earths, the U$ has already spent 2 Trillion. Afghanistan’s mineral resources are not worth the cost of holding down that fiercely independent country, “the graveyard of Empires”. Afghanistan’s real worth to Uncle $cam was it’s strategic position on “The Great Chessboard” namely, as the Crossroads of EurAsia. Uncle $cam tried to set up his own tollbooth on that crossroads, to charge Russia, China, Iran and India for the privilege of using it: but The Man from Uncle been kicked out of the crossroads; now he is trying to wreck the crossing so nobody else can use it.
John Galtung predicted the coming downfall of U.S Empire in early 2003. He gave around 20 years life time and in 2016 he defined it to 2021.
When it comes to America itself it’s useful to remember the quote of Oscar Wilde:
“America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.”
Mats, thank you, I had never heard of Johan Galtung. From Wikipedia:
“For Johan Galtung, the US is simultaneously a republic and an empire, a distinction he believes is highly relevant. The US is on one hand loved for its republican qualities, and on the other loathed by its enemies abroad for its perceived military aggressions. Its republican qualities include its work ethic and dynamism, productivity and creativity, the idea of freedom, or liberty, and a pioneering spirit. On the other hand, its military and political manipulation are censured for their aggressiveness, arrogance, violence, hypocrisy and self-righteousness, as well as the US public ignorance of other cultures and extreme materialism.
In 1973, Galtung criticised the “structural fascism” of the US and other Western countries that make war to secure materials and markets….causes “unbearable suffering and resentment” because the “exploiters/ killers/ dominators/ alienators…. are engaging in “unequal, non-sustainable, exchange patterns”.
In an article published in 2004, Galtung predicted that the US empire will “decline and fall” by 2020. He expanded on this hypothesis in his 2009 book titled The Fall of the US Empire – and Then What? “
It’s certainly true that the Empire is a rotting corpse, and that the Iranian response to the cowardly assassination of Soleimani very much illustrates it. In Europe, its last spasms were the botched attempI of colour revolution in Belarus and, failing that, Its plans for assassinating Lukashenko. Still, I have a somewhat different take on the subject of the Empire’s defeat and retreat at the hands of the Taliban.
Q: Why has the US decided to leave Afghanistan?
A: I think they did throw in the towel. They are facing an insurmountable obstacle, and that is the BRI led by a vastly superior Chinese economy. Sure, they are very proud and very ugly lowlives with a most determined anti-Life mindset, but they are only prepared to sacrifice the planet as long as their own worthless lives are 100% certain to be spared in the process. Their cowardice and cretinism, not their bloodlust, have the final say. Otherwise, human civilization wouldn’t be around by now.
Q: Was that the correct decision?
A: Of course you cannot convince die-hard Pindos of any Exceptional and Indispensable defeat at the hands of lesser peoples, but the decision to give up was absolutely correct. Good luck to Erdogan and the indestructible BHL; they are certainly something to be reckoned with, LOL.
Q: Why did Kabul fall so fast?
A: Unlike Nazi Germany and Berlin, Kabul was only hosting a colonial puppet regime. Given that the Empire had already been resoundingly defeated, there was nothing its quislings in Kabul could do — the ANA soldiery had no intention to sacrifice their lives for some pathetic stooges.
Q: Why did such a truly colossal failure in intelligence happen?
A: Dying empires and political dexterity are mutually exclusive. Especially true in the case of the US that doesn’t even know there is such a thing as diplomacy, relying entirely on ultimatums, coercion, violence, and lawlessness.
Q: How was the evacuation of US forces actually executed?
A: I think it was a masterful performance. Showed to the whole world that the Exceptional and Indispensable garbage remains exceptional and indispensable garbage even in the moment of monumental defeat.
“the fists of a man with advanced osteoporosis”
Whole analysis in one sentence.
“…prepare more evacuation plans for the entire Middle-East, if not these “evacuation plans” will quickly turn into “extraction plans”
When time comes to abandon ME, US oligarchy will be busy with extrating themselves from crumbling castle.
The power vacuum will result in leaving everybody and anything to it’s fate. Every man for himself routine. When public relations lying become pointless, we’ll see limits of care for their own peasants.
Why is the U.S. leaving Afghanistan now?
My hypothesis is that the U.S. left to sow as much chaos as it could for Russia, China, and Iran while stocking the American population into fighting a new war with either of those countries because Americans are winners and not losers. All of the U.S. press discusses the chaos at the airport that is American made. The press/CIA want Americans to believe the message that without the U.S. all is lost to chaos. This is all complete rubbish and no other country believes it, but since when did Americans care about world opinion?
This is not Saigon. This is not an abandonment after years of massive protest. This is, I believe, just stirring the pot for another war and a different way to make money. The U.S. government has no honor (broke every treaty they signed) and never believed in alliances (Washington’s farewell address). The U.S is just doing what is does best: cause chaos and then blame someone else.
I’m especially eager to delve into “the Franks not Rome nor Athens” part…
Thank you very much, Saker!
Hi Saker I was pleased to see you referring to John Michael Greer’s book Twilights Last Gleaming in your opening. It was ironic to read that you think the US produces few inspirational writers. Greer clearly inspired you and he has inspired me through his writings on the decline of industrial civilisation in his books and his former Archdruid blog. Anyone interested in getting a better understanding of how the American empire and union will collapse can learn a great deal from reading his work. Don’t be put off by the archdruid label, he is one of the most thoughtful and provocative writers out there.
I would be diffident of any ‘druidry’ as of any revivalist pseudo-tradition. If ‘druidry’ is a pseudo-tradition then arch-druidry is a ‘counter-tradition’. Its anti-Christian thrust (Christianity is a ‘murderously dogmatic religion’, as if ‘Druidism’ with gruesome human sacrifices and cannibalism were not) is too gleamingly obvious .
One more comment (actually questions) about your interesting discussion around empires:
– Why are you so sure that China will be out of imperial temptations, after that eventually it takes the economical and political leadership of Asia/Pacific/ maybe Africa? In a couple of decades a new generation of Chinese will be grown in a rich country, WII will be forgotten, there are already prosperous Chinese communities everywhere that could be used to exert political influence.. Infact China has been an empire for most of its history.
– About the Franks and the Empire supported by the medieval Papacy, this was a continental power that survived in Germany up to Napoleon wars, with some dynasties like Spanish Habsburg and Bourbons, namely Spain and France, surging to imperial powers too. However, the British Empire (and its heir in America) is different, it surged after the Reform, from a country whose origin are in the mix between Normans and the older AngloSaxon, with its own political trajectory after the Hundred Years war, so nothing to do with the Franks and Papacy. What do you think about?
There is no indication that China wants to wield political power. In all of their economic activities, in their regularly published formal documents, and in the testimony of those countries that they do business with, it is economic interests and basically joint economic interests. The zeitgeist of China is different and it will take some study to understand that.
Sorry, Saker and Cris, I must step into conversation with short comment :)
“…nothing to do with the Franks and Papacy.”
Maybe it has nothing to do then, surely it has a lot to do now, due to intermarriages between ruling class. (Papacy always follows).
Just have to “unforget” that the same hereditary oligarchies are still live and kicking, except in countries where people’s revolutions destroyed them and colonies.
That’s because the Chinese appetite for empire ran out about 1000 AD. Just like present day France and Germany have no more wish to add territories, so China’s borders stayed roughly the same since the end of the first millenium.
As for the territories like Xinjiang and Tibet, these were not Chinese conquests. They were all conquered by the Manchus, a non Chinese people. In 1644 China itself was incorporated into the Manchu Qing Dynasty. The present day PRC China is successor state to the Qing Dynasty.
The question:- why is the US withdrawing from Afghanistan? – is continuously asked & it is incredible how few people know the answer – but it was revealed by Joe Biden in one of his recent televised speeches: the US could not afford to face a Taliban spring offensive.
The day the scene of the helicopters evacuating diplomats from Kabul were broadcast, an acquaintance phoned me & asked: what the hell is going on in Kabul? I replied: the US is fleeing before their ceasefire with the Taliban ends & they are subject to a late summer military offensive. My acquaintance said: no way! I replied: you will see, it will become clear in time, the US client “Afghan National Army” can not hold up against the Taliban, & so the US military will be forced to step in when their clients defences break & they cut & run, or worse, join the Taliban, the US simply can not face this eventuality, their global dominance would collapse overnight if they were to face such a scenario in Kabul. Soon after, the same acquaintance phones me again & says: I just heard Biden say that they couldn’t stand up to a Taliban spring offensive – you were only wrong about the season, you said summer, but otherwise you were right, God damn! Yes yes. Also, I told my interlocutor, don’t buy the nonsense about intelligence failures, because the sudden evacuation is a consequence of the intel being taken seriously – the failure, was simply in underestimating the speed with which the Taliban would advance, but once the CIA, plus NSA SIGINT & ELINT data came through that that the US is going to face a battle for Kabul, which the US could possibly prevail, but at huge cost, with Kabul destroyed in the process – the only thing for it was to get the hell out of dodge. Which they did, without informing or notifying anyone. The US g’ment couldn’t notify anyone, not even their closest allies, because they simply could not admit the truth that they are not prepared to do battle – US credibility would simply end that same day if they were to acknowledge this.
Detractors protest: no, you are wrong, this is just seeing through Trump’s withdrawal agreement – but no, think again, it is not. Why? Because Trump’s agreement with the Taliban was widely condemned by the US political & military establishment, & the Dems, with Biden at the helm supposedly, were not intending to withdraw from Afghanistan at all. This has all happened under duress because the intelligence is correct – the Taliban are advancing & the US faces a series of battles that will totally drain it of blood & treasure, even if it wins those battles ultimately, the losses will be too great. And this is why the US just cut & run, in the middle of the night from Bagram, without even notifying the Afghan National Army command that was supposed to take over Bagram. This is the truth that no one is talking about, even those who oppose these so called “forever wars” & imperialism more generally.
Excelent summary of events.
Even if was quite obvious for some time what will happen, as you notice, a few was aware.
Since there are number of smart people around, I wonder why?
The Saker, thank you for a great article and raising pertinent questions.
What we’re now witnessing is an abject failure of both strategic and operational leadership in Afghanistan, Brussels, and in Washington. The Dollar Empire has ran out of luck, and its credibility and competency is zero.
It is really unfortunate that the U$A has lost its way, enslaving its own populace and being captured by the Global Ruling Clans. There are still too many unknowns of its real history and reality. Who were the financiers of the American revolution? Mainly merchants? “Haym Salomon… along with Robert Morris, was a prime financier of the American side during the American Revolutionary War against Great Britain.” Who were the leading financiers in the West during 1770s? One gets a completely different picture of reality when one starts to connect the dots.
It is still too early to come to any final conclusions about Afghanistan. What next for the Empire? In the last 2008 Beijing Olympics, a conflict occurred in Georgia, Europe (08-08-08). In 2014, during the Sochi Olympics a conflict happened in Ukraine. Will we see a conflict in Europe or Asia during or before 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics? There are elections in Germany and Russia in September.
Call me crazy, but I’m still quite sure we haven’t seen the last of the US in Afghanistan. Not in the least. This whole thing is just another in a long list of psyops.
My guess is that the Perfidious Albion is trying again to get an old and tired Uncle Sam to do the dirty work for him.
I refer to these “terrorist” attacks, that don’t make any sense from the terrorists point of the view – if there are in reality any other terrorists than usual suspects.
Does this surprise anyone: https://www.rt.com/usa/533225-panetta-predicts-return-afghanistan/ ?
While there can be no doubt that the empire is crumbling but lets not kid ourselves and say that empire is done or even decapitated. It still controls the monetary system. It still is the super power. Surely it can not harm Russia and China, neither can they harm the empire. Empire can still inflict pain on Iran while Iran can do just so little.
The chaotic withdrawal of empire from Afghanistan may seem very immature or even stupid but there can be other angle to it nonetheless.
Iran is involve in Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq and now in Afghanistan.
Russia is involve in Ukraine and Syria and now also in Afghanistan.
China is a cash cow for now and a counter balance to the empire in terms of capital.
Empire on the other hand still have more than enough leverage to cause chaos everywhere including in Russia and China. Empire still has tight grip on entire continent of Europe, specially Germany, the power house, the machine making kingpin. And in Europe what Germany say goes. Period.
What empire is doing is re-positioning itself. Das Ziel is China, while it will keep Russia bogged down in Ukraine and Syria and partly in Afghanistan.
Iran is bleeding money and resources, pouring it into Lebanon right now and has been pouring it in Syria for quite some time.
Now if we connect the dot the picture is very clear.
Fractured Lebanon poses no threat to Israel.
Fractured Iran poses no threat to all those so called Kingdoms.
Russia bogged down in Ukraine and Syria, where it will be kept for some time while Empire would unleash itself on China. There are signs all over the wall.
Empire is not gone and won’t be gone for some time, its weak sure but a corner dog often lashes out and bites.
“Iran is bleeding money and resources, pouring it into Lebanon right now and has been pouring it in Syria for quite some time.”
Iran holds the world’s largest energy reserves, and 7% of the Earth’s mineral reserves. And Iran’s resources aren’t limited to just these things.
Instead of these resources being plundered by American and Jewish thieves, it is being handed over to the US and Israel’s enemies.
How long can Iran keep this up? Most likely, long after the rest of the world’s resources are depleted. Thanks to US sanctions, most of Iran’s resources are just sitting around untouched.
Iran can and will continue supporting Israel’s enemies until kingdom come, quite literally.
But, I have a question for you. Why do Israelis always choose the name Samir when pretending to be Arab? I’ve seen this a few times, and it makes me wonder. (removed insult,MOD) Does it sound good to Hebrew speakers’ ears?
The Anglo Empire is toast. It’s being consciously and cunningly subverted from within by the very personification of the Zionist Cabal. The cabal is dispensing with the ”Anglo” part of the Anglo-Zionist Empire. Despite the hopes of some White Trash specimina found among US Rednecks, Stormfront, Pegida, etc. Russia certainly won’t step in to save their bloated lifestyles and retarded perceptions of the world along the lines of White solidarity or European values. Russia is working together with China and Iran and with completely different priorities to put it mildly.
The defeat in Afghanistan forms part of an ongoing collapse which the Zionist banking cabal only has limited control over. The resistance countries are clearly winning in all the crucial (political/military/financial/industrial) spheres. Neoliberalism, by contrast, puts greed, corruption, incompetence, and rejection of productive industry in full command. This cannot and will not survive despite the levers of power still at the disposal of the Zionist banksters. Their mass base is dwindling; the process only being slowed down by their corporate media which also are in decline.
For Anglo-Zionism, it’s game over. China and the BRI proved too much. Afghanistan was given up precisely for this reason. Resistance was futile (if not in the eyes of the 99% in the US).
For Zionism, the outlook appears very bleak. The ruling clique members are simply too few to run the world among themselves. Poles and Ukrainians would certainly be elated to help, but that might prove somewhat too little, too late.
You said about the Grand Replacement that it is not focused on “race”. Come and see Paris and its suburbs, and you will see if the Grand Replacement is not focused on race.
Great analysis – thank you.
Would value your take on this
Saudi Arabia announces military cooperation agreement with Russia
Saker’s sidebar about General Patton and Marshal Tukhachevskii is minor compared to the larger topics, but it’s the one that has me mystified.
1. What is the historical evidence that Tukhachevskii was conspiring with Nazi Germany ? Various authoritative history books have not show me any hard evidence, including the 1993 memoirs of one of the top spies, Sudoplatov. In 1937 he was too junior to know, but he rose in ranks until 1953, and was highly respected. He says the evidence is anodyne.
The truth about Tukhachevskii matters on many levels. Was Stalin simply jealous, was there a real conspiracy, or did German spooks trick the Soviets ? Certainly, the Red Army paid a high price for the loss of Tukhachevskii and so many other officers.
2. I don’t see how Patton’s statement about making the enemy soldiers die for their country is any indication of failure or any omen of failure. Looks to me like Patton’s advice would be correct for any war anytime, but what do I know ? Perhaps Saker can explain what he has in mind.
The 172-page transcript of the Tukhachevski trial was released by the Russian Government in 2018, after being held Top (Sovershennyi) Secret for 81 years. Here is a PDF copy of it’s typewriten transcript, in Russian:
including some handwritten annotations. It begins with a general statement of the charges against each defendant, then the defendants are interrogated by the court one by one, then each is allowed to give a summary statement at the end. There’s a certain amount of quarreling between the defendants and the judges, plus some between the defendants themselves. There’s an English translation in an appendix to “Trotsky and the Military Conspiracy” by Grover Furr, available from Amazon. Although Furr’s book is full of his usual academic quarreling, which is best ignored, he does present a fair amount of corroborating evidence from outside the Soviet Union. (For example, Joseph Davis, the American Ambassador to the Soviet Union, relates in his Memoirs that in January 1937 the head of the Russian Desk in the German Foreign told him that Stalin was not firmly entrenched, and a revolution was likely there shortly.) The transcript and corroborating evidence clarify what occurred. An unbiased observer would likely conclude they were guilty as charged.
Thank you for this valuable information. I thought the Soviet archives might have the truth. Since it was only declassified in 2018, that explains why the historians have not yet published on it. Now I need a way to get this pdf into an OCR file, and on to Yandex translate.
Even though Furr’s book is difficult to read because of the academic quarreling (he seems more interested in making points than presenting facts), the transcript in English is attached, and the collaborating evidence from outside the Soviet Union is buried in the text. (For another example, in May 1943 Goebbels entered the following in his diary:
“The Fuhrer recalled the case of Tukhachevsky and expressed the opinion that we were entirely wrong then in believing that Stalin would ruin the Red Army by the way he handled it. The opposite was true: Stalin got rid of all defeatism in the Red Army and thereby brought an end to defeatism.”
Furr himself says almost any book is available via inter-library loan, however that works. The book itself, “Trotsky and the Military Conspiracy,” is also available from Amazon for $25.00. Here are the particulars:
I just re-read Pavel Sudoplatov’s memoirs, “Special Tasks”, pages 87-94. His discussion of Tukhavesky’s trial is longer and his credentials are stronger than I remembered. The most relevant quote is on page 91:
“The criminal case against Tukhavesky is based entirely on his confession, and there is no reference to any incriminating evidence received from German intelligence, [referring to the idea that the Germans set up Tukhavesky for arrest and execution] If such documents existed I, as deputy director and the man responsible for the German desk in the intelligence directorate, would have seen them or found some reference to their existence.
Sudoplatov does not write that he saw the trial transcript (the Stenogram made public in 2018), but it seems he did. Sudoplatov had a close professional relationship with Marshal Shaposhnikov, one of the trial judges and a man who benefited from the downfall of Tukhavesky. It’s worth noting that by 1993, Sudoplatov had a balanced view of Stalin, and plenty of time to discuss old events with former NKVD officers. Sudoplatov wrote that he believed Tukhavesky was innocent.
I’m eager to read the trial transcript even though I now expect it includes a confession, just like Sudoplatov mentions. The real question is whether the confession was added after the dead man could not dispute it. For that, we need historians to do their work.
Another person commented that “all the trials were public.” That’s not the case and you need to review your sources. Some were, but not all. If things got so out of control that a Marshal had to be put on trial, that damaged the prestige of the Politburo, thus not something to highlight. How do you say, “Look, there’s a squirrel!” in Russian ? Likely there were also major state secrets to keep at that trial.
It’s worth adding that Sudoplatov dismissed the possibility that Germany tricked the Soviets, calling it “a fairy tale”.
Sudoplatov raised and supported what he called a a fourth possibility, which has two parts. 1. He names his superior officers who told him that Tukhachevsky and his subordinates impudently planned to insist that Stalin dismiss Marshal Voroshilov,, which went beyond their authority (p.89), and 2. As a judge, Shaposnikov railroaded Tukhachevesky because “at the end of the 1920’s, Tukhavesky had conspired to get Shaposnikov demoted and had taken his place as chief of the general staff.” (p.90)
I have two comments.
1. To use Shaposnikov as a judge in this “special military court” means Stalin would have already tipped the scales of justice because he obviously had reason for a grudge against the defendant. As I wrote in a previous comment, Sudoplatov had ample opportunity over a few years, to “take the measure” of Shaposnikov.
2. Sudoplatov says Tukhachevsky commonly had a military band play at his own dacha, but that’s entirely unconvincing as a reason to get rid of a top Marshal: First because it was always common practice, I believe, for Soviet officers to take advantage of such perks of office, and second, orchestras always need more reasons for practice.
I’m all out of comments on Tukhachevsky for now. I’m going to find an OCR to read the trial transcript.
The smoking gun for Tukhachevsky may have been the hand-written Arao telegram of April 12, 1936, from the Japanese Military attache in Poland to the Japanese General Staff, which the KGB photographed from a Japanese diplomatic pouch sent through the USSR [Furr, pp. 110-113]. The telegram (in Japanese) reads as follows:
“In the matter mentioned in the title, we have been successful in establishing contact with a secret emissary Marshal of the Red Army Tukhachevsky. The essence of the conversation concluded that there should be a discussion [2 characters and one sign indecipherable] concerning the secret emissary from the Red Army No. 304 who is known to you.”
The Japanese translator for the KGB attested that he recognized the handwriting of Arao, Assistant Japanese Military Attache in Poland, whose documents he had read before [Furr p. 113].
Tukachevsky stated in trial transcript (p. 65-66) that information was passed to the Japanese General Staff on his orders. Also that Gamarnik [who committed suicide just before the trial] was in charge of activities in the Far East. Also that Piatakov told him that Trotsky promised the Primorye Maritime Territory to Japan (plus the Ukraine to Germany).
[The document was published by the1964 Shvernik commission under Khrushchev (who claimed Tukhachevsky and his associates were framed), and dismissed as a provocation. [Furr, p. 115]
The problem with Marshal Tukhachevski is the problem with the ‘Stalinist Show Trials’ of the ‘Old Bolsheviks’. You may (with the die hard Bolsheviks and ‘non-Stalinist Left’ of the ‘Fourth International’) reject the evidences presented in court (the trials were public and widely publicized). But to get some clarity through the fog of anti-Russian ‘agitprop’ from all quarters (Trotskyite, anti-Putin, Green-Left, White Alt-Right…etc,etc.) I think worthwhile to quote the thoughts of perhaps the greatest specialist of the history of the Peace of Brest-Litovsk, emitted in 1938 in a book which did not lose any of its relevance today (on the contrary) J.W.Wheeler-Bennet (‘Brest-Litovsk, The Forgotten Peace, March 1918):
”Though it is almost impossible to extract any clear and undisputed facts from the mystery which surrounds the Moscow treason trials of 1936 and 1937, it does seem possible to to detect in the mental processes and in the activities of the accused, particularly Radek, Sokolnikov, and Pyatakov, a tendency to return to the tactics of what may be called ”primitive Leninism” and to the psychology of the Brest-Litovsk period. The Old Bolsheviks, believing that the principles of Lenin and the ideals of the November Revolution had been betrayed by Stalin, and convinced that the U.S.S.R. could not resist an attack by both Germany and Japan, appear to have reverted to the pre-revolutionary strategy of sabotage and subversion in order to overthrow the Stalinist regime and to the Leninist policy of defeatism and national immolation in order to placate for the moment
the aggressive policies of the two Imperialist-Fascist Powers. The crimes of which they were accused, and to which they pleaded guilty, were none other than those very principles of destruction and disintegration on which Lenin based his fight against the Liberal Government of Prince Lvov and the Socialist regime of Kerensky, while the policy of defeatism was exactly that followed by him in regard to Brest-Litovsk.
This latter doctrine had been established by Lenin again and again. “ It is impossible to attain this end [the Revolution] without wishing for the defeat of one’s own government and without working for such a defeat ”, he wrote in ‘Against the Current’, and, again, he warned American workers that “he is no Socialist who will not sacrifice his fatherland for the triumph of the Social Revolution. Nor was he content merely to preach the doctrine. Against the bitter opposition of the Left Communists, particularly Bukharin and Radek, within his own party, he pursued just this same policy in regard to Brest-Litovsk.
What then would be more natural than for the Old Bolsheviks to fall back on these original principles ? Both Radek and Bukharin had publicly declared that in following the doctrine of defeatism Lenin had been right and they wrong. Is it not possible that the psychology of Brest- Litovsk reasserted itself and that, in negotiating with Germany and Japan for the cession of the Ukraine and the Maritime Province, they were reverting to the principle of
the “ breathing-space ” in order to safeguard themselves from external aggression, while setting about the destruction of the Stalin regime which they regarded as having betrayed the Revolution? Moreover, had not Lenin himself accepted the facilities offered by Imperialist Germany on his return to Russia ? Was he not always prepared to spoil the
Egyptians if by so doing he could strengthen or advance the Revolution?
How these strange new allies were ultimately to be disposed of is not clear, but presumably it was hoped to regain all territory lost at some later date, either by the extension of the world revolution or by some revolutionary war. The wisdom of such a course is, of course, clearly questionable. If it is possible to find an explanation of the Moscow mystery in terms of guilt of the accused, this appears to be the only possible clue to a solution. But so complex is the problem that it has even been suggested that Stalin
revived the defeatist doctrine of Brest-Litovsk in order to fasten the responsibility for it upon his political rivals and opponents, and to father on these people, very crudely, his
own Leninist policy of 1918”.
Stalin was an insanely jealous and paranoid fellow sadly, and Mikhael Nikolayevich Tukhachevski was one victim of a great many. First hand accounts of his life by writers and his friends do however exist. “Read,”, he once said, dressed up in mufti at the Leningrad’s Hermitage gallery, “it is never too late to learn”. . . . . . . .
My basic feeling is this defeat is going to matter because today, after decades of mismanagement by an extremely corrupt leadership, America is hollowed out. It has survived on the inertia of its past arrangements from a time when it was a stronger country. Europe and to a lesser extent other countries have not shown much inclination to change the status quo despite America’s feeble state, at least so far. Now, however, I think this defeat is going to create more impetus for disengagement by other countries from the U.S. empire. For this reason it matters more then the Vietnam defeat.
Presentday US and its European vassals resemble Imperial Russia at the turn of the 20th century: very weak, incompetent, and corrupt government circles wasting money on the military and their own well-being accompanied by moral depravities of all sorts. The significant difference here is that Imperial Russia was undergoing rapid industrialization. The West is moving backwards.
The defeat in Afghanistan 2021 is something that is going to grow much bigger, like the fatal years 1904 – 1914 in Russia. Will the dumbed down Western populace prove itself up to the task?
Hollywood: maybe they don’t inspire but they sure clog up the movie and tv consumption system. This means that it still works in transmitting individual and neoliberal values as well as class warfare by aleays depicting poor as dangerous and dirty and aesthetically repugnant.
At cinemas 95% is hollywood.
Tenho um sonho:
Eu, com amigos, tomando umas cervejas num bar, chegam alguns maltrapilhos falando inglês (vindos do Uruguai, Argentina, Paraguai) e, perguntam como chegar em casa, nos EUA…
Deus queira que não morra antes de ver isso!
I have a dream:
Me, with friends, having a few beers in a bar, some ragamuffins come to speak English (from Uruguay, Argentina, Paraguay) and ask how to get home to the US…
God willing you not to die before you see this!
Você apresenta basicamente duas hipóteses sobre a aparentemente desastrada retirada dos estadunidenses:
– Se havia um plano ele indiscutivelmente falhou.
– Não havia plano algum.
Mas não seria o caso de considerar uma terceira hipótese? A retirada feita dessa maneira não seria mais uma amostra daquilo que melhor os EUA sabem fazer, ou seja, disseminar justamente esse caos que estamos vendo?
Acho muito difícil de acreditar que os EUA não sabia que o “exército” afegao entraria em colapso assim que a retirada iniciasse. E na impossibilidade de ganhar a guerra que melhor “presente” os EUA poderiam deixar para Rússia e china do que uma Ásia central conturbada?
Esses dois países fizeram exatamente o que tinham que fazer ou seja, reconhecer o Taleban como força política e ajudar na reconstrução do Afeganistão em troca do compromisso do novo governo com a manutenção da estabilidade regional. Não havia outra saída.
A questão agora é saber o quanto o Taleban se comprometeu, o quanto Rússia e china podem pressionar pelo cumprimento dos acordos e o quanto o império império decadente tem poder para levar adiante sua eterna agenda do caos que já se manifestou na forma dos últimos atentados terroristas perpetrada pelos seus proxies.
google translate … mod
You basically present two hypotheses about the apparently disastrous withdrawal of the Americans:
– If there was a plan it indisputably failed.
– There was no plan.
It might be.
But would it not be the case to consider a third hypothesis? Wouldn’t the withdrawal carried out in this way be another example of what the US knows best to do, that is, to disseminate precisely this chaos that we are seeing?
I find it very hard to believe that the US did not know that the Afghan “army” would collapse once the withdrawal began. And in the impossibility of winning the war, what better “gift” could the US leave to Russia and China than a troubled central Asia?
These two countries did exactly what they had to do, namely, recognizing the Taliban as a political force and helping rebuild Afghanistan in exchange for the new government’s commitment to maintaining regional stability. There was no other way out.
The question now is how much the Taliban has committed itself, how much Russia and China can push for the fulfillment of the agreements and how much power the decaying empire empire has to carry out its eternal agenda of chaos that has already manifested itself in the form of the latest terrorist attacks perpetrated by its proxies.
“The so-called “Afghan problem” cannot be solved under the current international system and international law.”
I disagree. Subdividing Czechia and Slovakia into parts was legitimate, as well as what happened with Crimea. So changing artificial borders is possible under international law. I agree that it is far too difficult.
But subdividing a state which consists of people from different nationalities, in a situation where there are no strong Afghan nationalist forces seems not impossible. Once there was no Czechslovakian nationalism, it was possible to split Czechia and Slovakia.
It would be, of course, more problematic to split Pakistan into some Pashtunistan and the rest. But impossible?
In the long run, the poles would like to prevent parts from splitting, because of the danger to loose their status as poles. If they are wise enough, they give their parts large autonomy to decide about everything which does not endanger the status of the union as a pole, similar to Chechnya in Russia. But in states which have nothing to loose in this regard, because their security is guaranteed by the poles, people may look at splitting the state much more favorable. A peaceful split may be combined with both parts remaining in some economic union.
When plastic straws were under threat (for environmental reasons, despite living a long way from the sea so how would they get there, even) I said nothing.
When Trump was banned from social media I did not speak up.
Now the deep state are coming for democracy itself. Freedom of speech and assembly are being curtailed by the slow boiling of a Frog and we must resist being the soup.
Technofeudalism is the goal.
What the Taliban have just achieved? To collapse the colonial control over their region, at a time of great weakness, even final collapse of the Western empire, other very brave and competent warriors have achieved it before them (exemplary list):
At a time of growing power of the empire the Vietnamese at Dien Bien Phu. The Paris Accords moved a million Catholics from the north to the south, providing a base for Van Thieu’s Catholic fighting regime and allowing the U.S. to continue the war for another 10 years, until the glorious moment of Saigon.
At a time of growing power of the empire, the Algerians of the FLN, but the French robbed them of victory by eliminating the fathers of the movement to replace them with corrupt ones. There is a film on the internet. Brilliant operation (although unscrupulous of course). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSMsAgQLwI4. The leak an operation of infiltration, disinformation incredible results.
At the height of the empire’s power, the Rwandans of the RPA who forced the French into the turquoise opex. The French failed to retain control of Rwanda. But by moving their interahamwe suppletives to Zaire they provided a pretext for the international community, guided by the famous Western values, to strategically freeze the entire center of the continent through MONUSCO. The French actually have a skill for militarizing civilians and moving them in numbers to continue colonial control through chaos and the destruction of state structures.
Perhaps Afghanistan’s future is not so bleak. Powerful neighbors want peace. Many personnel have proven their commitment to their country’s independence. The challenge is to enlist them for peace and development. Why should the leaders of Zone B hesitate to hit the brits hard if they try to stir up trouble?
Wonderful essay! For me, when mr. Putin made his announcement about the new stand off capabilities of the Russian forces, I literally fell on my knees and raised my hands thanking the most high. My neighbors probably thought I was mad. That was the end of empire for me.
The end of the u.s. to me was when uncle Satan’s trumpet murdered Soleimani. I thought it would take some doing to sink to the nadir of Obama, who to my mind, effected the selling of big a America’s soul to that covering cherub we know and love so well, uncle Satan, but I was wrong. The Donald truly sank to the occasion. It’s true he was the one through which our man achieved his heart’s desire and so perhaps he (the Donald) is on a slightly higher ring of hell due to our man’s intervention but I wouldn’t bet on it. The most high has a thing for justice for those who don’t beseech his mercy.
You tell : Will that ever happen? Will Zone B nations be strong, wise and determined enough to create new international institutions? I don’t know. But if it does not, then our planet is indeed lost until the Second Coming.
If our planet is lost, it means a existential threat for Russia, China, Iran and many other nations. No doubt the leaders of the first 3 understand the threat. They will not blink. And if the empire doesn’t blink it will be war, hot and direct against the declining military forces of the hegemon. The next 5 years or more are going to be very dangerous.
No doubt these three powers have plans to conclude the struggle politically. How?
A journalistic question floats about .. why did the present admin decide to get out of Afghanistan? It’s now late in 21 and next year the midterm elections are coming up. Somebody or some ‘persons’ (I use the term advisedly) in the Democratic Party figure they can steal Trump’s thunder by terminating the forever war and bringing the troops home. Trump probably won the presidency on the strength of voters who wanted exactly that. And we notice that the new admin wants to pour zillions into infrastructure to. Wherever did they get such an idea? I suppose the calculation is that they can get back former Democratic voters who opposed the wars and want money spent on jobs for Americans. It’s probably a good calculation. It will cost them the political class which is heavily invested in soft power NGOs and such. The admin will lose the Guardian reading ‘creative class’ but gain the swing states. It’s worth it. The ‘intelligentsia’ and the wokies have no where else to go.
Read Dr. Jeff Masters’ analysis of hurricane Ida at YaleClimateConnections.org/section/eye-on-the-storm/ and pay attention to the part about possible destruction of key shipping ports in New Orleans, Baton Rouge, and in between. This could be a trigger event that exacerbates the hit our economy is taking from Covid-19. President “Joe Biuden” responded inadequately to the Kabul airport inciden, but that is a mere flea compared to the tiger that would be a loss of New Orleans/Baton Rouge shipping.
This could end the “Joe Biden” presidency, but relax, Kamala Harris is posed to take over and giggle her way through the demise.
As I’ve said before…. The US is not done yet, a large US coalition will go into northern Syria, perhaps motivated by the shame of Afghanistan, the pretext of “ISIS” terrorism and the real threat posed by the axis of resistance to its Anglo Zionist throne. I believe they will loose this conflict, likely their last remaining act before spiralling into desolation will be to use tactical nukes, reminiscent of a Hollywood scene when Jedha is destroyed, another tragic case of life imitating art. And when all the dust has settled the work by Rothschild and Rockerfeller to bring about the digital, vaccine carrying card, transhumanist, technocracy world order will be upon us but I expect this ambition too will die as its foretold it will, Insha’Allah.
Excellent analysis (as always). Perhaps if the Taliban would favor the true nation-building of the Chinese, Afghanistan would experience real progress in a very short time. Also, given that the Afghan central bank has been completely looted, perhaps the yuan/digital yuan would be an excellent opening.
On a separate, but very related theme, is that the supply of Afghan drugs through Bondsteel into Europe, will likely have abruptly ended. The Albanian Mafia being the runners and beneficiaries at street level, are suddenly bereft a main source of income.
Bondsteel will likely remain in place, but an entire cabal business model based on drugs and involving many parties, has just collapsed, and is something we can celebrate. This in turn, may have further effects on bad actors, yet to be seen.
I go back even further than you, Saker, in my youtube and movie viewing. Mostly 60’s-70’s, Shows like the Beverly Hillbillies, Green Acres, Addams Family are some of my favorites from the 60’s and Colombo from the 70’s. Turner Classic movies from the 40’s onwards are great. I do like some contemporary shows from Netflix until gay, lesbian or trans plots take place. It really seems like Hollywood has to put in LGBT themes in all of their shows now. So at this point I just go back to a time when the US culture was different and good. I have plenty of comedy and great movies from the past to look at. More than I can handle. Let the modern culture go to hell. I can always go backwards in time.
I’ve read this twice now. Thanks a lot, dear Saker!
“Will that ever happen? Will Zone B nations be strong, wise and determined enough to create new international institutions? I don’t know.” — Well, you should know because they can.
I have to compliment you on this article because it seems to effectively talk about the situation as it is now. I looked at it briefly when it came out, but a thorough reading of it reveals it to be excellent.