SearchRecent comments
Democracy LinksMember's Off-site Blogs |
upper volta with nukes....An insult defining the USSR as “Upper Volta with missiles” has been widely used since the 1980s. It has now morphed into the idea that Moscow runs a “gas station with nuclear weapons,” which appears to have its origins in comments from the late US Senator John McCain, who rarely, if ever, saw a Western-backed war he didn’t like. In the 21st century, the origin of this type of phrase has been repeatedly debated. It will be shown below that it goes back to statements from the 19th century thinker Alexander Herzen and has more than a century and a half of history behind it. Here are four successive variations of the metaphor:
In all these formulas, the first part symbolises some force seen as uncivilised, and alien to Western values, and the second part symbolises the achievements of Western civilisation, primarily in the military field. Genghis Khan with the telegraph In early 1857, the librarian Baron Modest Korf’s book about Nicholas I’s accession to the throne was published in St. Petersburg. It was written at the behest of the monarch and published for the general public on an order from Alexander II. The purpose of the publication was to belittle the achievements of the Decembrists (unsuccessful revolutionaries in the 1820s) and discredit their motives. In October 1857, an open letter from Herzen to Alexander II about Korf's book appeared. In order to prove the historical justification of the Decembrist movement, Herzen essentially challenged the poet Alexander Pushkin’s (then unknown) formula: “The government is the only European in Russia.” He wrote: “If we had made all our progress only in government, we should have given the world an unprecedented example of autocracy, armed with all that freedom has developed; slavery and violence, supported by all that science has found. It would be like Genghis Khan with telegraphs, steamships, railways, with Carnot and Monge at headquarters, with Minier guns and Congreve rockets under Batu's command.” The “Congreve rocket” – a gunpowder projectile with a range of up to three kilometres – was invented by the British general William Congreve and laid the foundation for European rocketry. They were successfully used by the British army in the Napoleonic Wars: in the bombardment of Boulogne (1806), Copenhagen (1807) – the city was burned to the ground – and in the Battle of Leipzig (1813). However, from the second half of the 19th century, rockets lost their role as an important military weapon – for a century. The metaphor of “Genghis Khan with the telegraphs” entered the public consciousness much later, at the end of the 19th century, and the great writer Leo Tolstoy played a decisive role in this. On 31 July 1890, he wrote to the lawyer and philosopher Boris Chicherin: “It was not without reason that Herzen spoke of how terrible Genghis Khan would have been with telegraphs, with railways, with journalism. This is exactly what has happened in our country.” Tolstoy developed this idea in “The Kingdom of God Within You” (Paris, 1893; in Russian: Berlin, 1894): “Governments in our time – all governments, the most despotic as well as the most liberal – have become what Herzen so aptly called Genghis Khan with telegraphs, i.e. organisations of violence, having nothing as their basis but the most crude arbitrariness, and at the same time using all those means which science has developed for the aggregate social peaceful activity of free and equal people, and which they use for the enslavement and oppression of people.” “Genghis Khan with the telegraph” is one of the working titles of Tolstoy's article “It is Time to Understand” (published in 1910). “The Russian Government,” it says, “is now the very Genghis Khan with the telegraph, the possibility of which so terrified him [Herzen]. And Genghis Khan not only with the telegraph, but with a constitution, with two chambers, a press, political parties et tout le tremblement… The difference between Genghis Khan with the telegraph and the old one will be only that the new Genghis Khan will be even more powerful than the old one.” The article was translated into the main European languages and, together with the treatise “The Kingdom of God Within You,” introduced Herzen’s metaphor to Western readers. Thus, Tolstoy’s “Genghis Khan with the telegraph” is a definition not only of the Russian government, but of the modern state in general. In the revolutionary press, and then in the post-revolutionary Soviet press, this metaphor was usually applied to autocratic Russia. The extent to which it was associated with Tolstoy is illustrated by a remark by the eminent historian Mikhail Pokrovsky: “Leo Tolstoy called this [tsarist] state ‘Genghis Khan with the telegraph’.” In the post-revolutionary emigré press, Herzen's words were applied to Bolshevik Russia. However, the ideologist of National Bolshevism, Nikolay Ustryalov, makes an important qualification: “It cannot be said that the old culture collapsed at once and completely. Nor can it be said that the new element – this ‘chauffeur’ or ‘Genghis Khan with the telegraph’ – is something absolutely primitive and homogeneous.” In 1941, the same metaphor was applied in the Soviet press to the Nazi state: “Herzen once speculated with horror about the possible appearance of ‘Genghis Khan with the telegraph,’ about the coming barbarians equipped with advanced technology. But no one, not even the darkest imagination of the advanced people of the 19th century, could imagine what would happen in the 20th century, when fascist thugs began to realize their plans for the enslavement of mankind and the eradication of its culture”. Genghis Khan with an atomic bombAfter the Second World War, the émigré philosopher Semyon Frank modernised the metaphor in its technical part, including the atomic bomb: “One hundred years ago, the astute Russian thinker Alexander Herzen predicted the invasion of ‘Genghis Khan with the telegraph’. This paradoxical prediction has come true on a scale that Herzen could not have foreseen. The new Genghis Khan, born from the bowels of Europe itself, has descended upon it with aerial bombardments destroying entire cities, gas chambers for the mass extermination of people, and now threatens to sweep mankind off the face of the earth with atomic bombs.” Frank uses the metaphor in the spirit of Tolstoy – as a universal characteristic of the modern state, free from the norms of human morality. Five years later, the émigré Socialist Herald published an article by publicist Pavel Berlin entitled “Genghis Khan with a hydrogen bomb.” The author traced the historical lineage of Russian communism back to the era of Tatar-Mongol rule, without stopping to assert that “Genghis Khan introduced a communism that went further than the Soviet one… Both systems were built on the complete detachment of the successful mastery of the latest technology, including, first and foremost, the technology of extermination, from the cultural soil that gave birth to it and developed it.” “Leo Tolstoy,” writes Berlin, sharing a common misconception at the time, “put into circulation the expression ‘Genghis Khan with the telegraph’... reality brought us in the person of [Joseph] Stalin. Genghis Khan no longer with a peaceful and innocent telegraph, but with an all-destroying atomic bomb.” Now “we see… [Prime Minister Georgy] Malenkov with a hydrogen bomb.” That same year, the July issue of the conservative magazine The American Mercury published an article by J. Anthony Marcus entitled “Will Malenkov Succeed?” The author wrote: “I recall those years when the manufacturing industry was extremely poor. Russia did not have a single tractor, tank, submarine, bomber or fighter of its own manufacture, let alone modern means of producing and distributing food and clothing and other necessities.” “This is not the Russia that Malenkov inherited. Today he is Genghis Khan with atomic-hydrogen bombs, determined to use them to establish world domination – a course from which neither he nor his successor will ever be able to deviate for long.” The similarity of this passage with the corresponding fragment of Berlin's article is obvious. Marcus, a staunch anti-Communist, was born in Russia, knew Russian well, had visited the USSR many times before the war on Amtorg business, and had the closest ties with the Russian political emigrants in America. Later one of the emigrant authors attributed this formula to Leon Trotsky: “Trotsky overestimated Stalin, calling him Genghis Khan with an atomic bomb”. Of course, Trotsky, who was assassinated in 1940, could not have said any such thing. From the late 1960s, Herzen's metaphor was applied in the Soviet press to the USSR's Western adversaries: “Genghis Khan, armed with a hydrogen bomb and rockets, is no longer a fantasy, no longer a novelist's fiction, but a reality that must be reckoned with, lest one day we find ourselves in the position of humanity being forced to recognise the advantages of salamanders.” In a 1971 article on the arms race in space, Herzen's warnings were redirected in accordance with the needs of Soviet propaganda: “Herzen was tormented by the thought of the fate of humanity and the fate of science, which had fallen into the power of lovers of colonial robbery and military adventures. It would be, wrote Herzen, ‘something like Genghis Khan with telegraphs, steamships, railways, with Minier guns, with Congreve rockets under Batu's command’.” “Genghis Khan with telegraphs! Yes, then, in the middle of the XIX century, telegraph wire and Congreve rockets flying at two hundred fathoms were the ceiling of technical power, and the Russian Tsar and the French Emperor were the embodiment of tyranny and the trampling of human rights. Today it all seems like child's play. Rockets fly nowadays to Venus and Mars, and modern Genghis Khans own not only telegraphs, but also television installations, lasers, computers and many other things. The Genghis Khans of our days are also swinging into space.” Another Soviet author applies the metaphor to Maoist China: “Herzen saw this danger in the image of Genghis Khan with a telegraph. Leo Tolstoy wrote of Genghis Khan with a parliament. We now know that Genghis Khan with the atomic bomb and even Genghis Khan with a revolution, like Mao Zedong's 'cultural revolution', are also possible.” Such comparisons were also made in the Western press, facilitated by the fact that Genghis Khan had long been synonymous with the 'yellow peril'. In 1968, a book by an American author on Yugoslavia quoted (without source) a “remarkable prophecy” by US Supreme Court Justice William Douglas (1898-1980), which the author of the book dated to 1955[19]. He was referring to the threat from Communist China: “The Russia of the next generation may indeed soften to the level of today's Communist Yugoslavia. If Asia industrialises and produces a Genghis Khan with a hydrogen bomb, Russia and America may become indispensable to each other if both are to survive.” Congo with thermonuclear missilesAfter the creation of ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads, the mention of "Congreve rockets" gained unexpected relevance. As shown above, the theme of “Genghis Khan with missiles” emerges in the Soviet press as early as in the 1960s. The next transformation of the metaphor took place in France: instead of the name of Genghis Khan as a symbol of barbarism, the name of an African country appears. In 1973, the book ‘What I Know about Solzhenitsyn’ was published in Paris. Its author, the art historian Pierre De (1922-2014), a member of the French Communist Party (CPF) since 1939, had written laudatory books about the Soviet Union in the 1940s and 1950s. In 1968, however, he greeted the Prague Spring with enthusiasm. In his new book, De recalled conversations with the writer Elsa Triole in 1968 (Elsa was then writing an article about Academician Andrey Sakharov's manifesto Reflections on Progress, Peaceful Coexistence and Intellectual Freedom): “I had just published an article about the long time span of history, about profound movements on the scale of whole centuries, imperceptible to traditional analyses. She replied: There is a long Russian time, Pierre. And I would like to know where it leads... It was you who told me that Courtade, shortly before his death … told you that this country is the Congo with thermonuclear rockets (le Congo avec des fusées thermonucléaires).” The credibility of this report remains questionable: Pierre Courtade, a member of the CPF Central Committee since 1954, as far as is known, remained an orthodox communist and apologist for the USSR until the end of his life. The appearance of Congo in this formula is hardly accidental: in the 1970s, the Congo had a military dictatorship trying to build socialism on the Soviet model. In September 1973, the formula “Russia is the Congo with rockets” appeared in the headline of the German newspaper Die Zeit. The author of the article, François Bondy, cited the book by Pierre De. A year later, Bondy linked this formula to Herzen's metaphor. Bondy, a Swiss journalist, writer and translator (including from Polish), a close friend of Romain Gary, a French writer of Russian origin, was, it must be assumed, well acquainted with Russian literature. Speaking to US state-run CIA mouthpiece Radio Free Europe about the prospects for détente, he said: “You could say that by accelerating the process of complicating the system in Russia, you are accelerating its decline, because highly qualified Russians (allegedly) will not tolerate totalitarianism. I am not at all convinced. The simple and sobering fact is that our relations with Russia are different from those with any other country, and this is due to the historical, cultural and political ‘otherness’ of the Soviet Union. Pierre Courtade, former editor of the French Communist newspaper L'Humanité, described the Soviet Union after a recent trip there as ‘Congo with rockets’, echoing Alexander Herzen's fears of ‘Genghis Khan with the telegraph’. The truth is that we have no answer to this question. The best we can hope for is to encourage the keepers of the missiles to keep their missiles at a distance and to pay more attention to any move that this system might make to break out of its Congo.” In the printed English version of the radio broadcast, the French term “des fusées” is rendered by the word “rockets.” However, the French "fusée" and the Russian “rocket” correspond to two terms in English – “rocket” and “missile.” The first usually means a space rocket, the second a military guided missile, including one with a nuclear warhead. The fact that the form “...with rockets,” which is still common today, appeared first is probably due to the genealogy of the expression, which goes back to the Russian-language metaphor. Since the 1990s, the form “Upper Volta with missiles” has also been used. Upper Volta with missiles The replacement of Congo with Upper Volta, a small and impoverished African country almost invisible on the world map, emphasized the paradoxical nature of the metaphor. The first known reference to “Upper Volta with missiles” dates from the autumn of 1983. It is important to note that one of the central issues in the press at the time was the conflict over a South Korean civilian Boeing shot down by a Soviet air-to-air missile off Sakhalin Island on 1 September 1983. On 28 October 1983, the left-wing British weekly New Statesman reviewed two new books on the USSR, including Andrew Cockburn's The Threat: Inside the Soviet Military Machin. Cockburn, the Irish-raised son of the British communist Claude Cockburn, has lived in the United States since 1979. The main thesis of his book is that Western politicians exaggerate the power of the Soviet war machine to justify their own arms programs. Soviet technology is decades behind Western technology. At parades, the missile forces (to quote a reviewer of the book) “display carefully lathed wooden missiles; the units marching on Red Square never learn how to fight; the new jets can stay in the air for only a few minutes.” According to the reviewer, much of the book is true, but Cockburn is not free of the biases characteristic of the New Cold War, namely “anti-Russian racism, which tends to portray the Soviet Union as both weak and barbaric. Every counterrevolutionary, from Sidney Reilly to General John Hackett, has used this motive to incite hatred and aggression against the USSR. Those who accidentally shoot down Korean airliners are outside civilization. Those who bomb mental institutions in Grenada are simply ill-informed. The Russians are portrayed with a racist tinge: a bunch of dirty men pretending to be a great power – ‘Upper Volta with missiles’, as diplomats in Moscow joke.” Later evidence confirms that the expression originated in Moscow among foreign diplomats (and probably journalists). A little earlier, in the spring of 1983, Ronald Reagan had described the USSR as an “evil empire.”This definition contrasts stylistically with the definition of “Upper Volta with missiles.” If the “evil empire” image demonized the USSR, the “Upper Volta with missiles” image challenged the notion of the USSR as a superpower.
A year later (1984), the Republic of the Upper Volta was renamed the Republic of Burkina Faso, but this name did not replace “Upper Volta” in our metaphor. According to one popular version, the phrase “Upper Volta with rockets” was coined by the British journalist David Buchan. He was referring to his article “Moscow can do it too: Soviet technology exports,” published in the Financial Times in September 1984. It was widely circulated during the years of perestroika. The Irish journalist Patrick Cockburn recalled: “'Upper Volta with missiles', a journalist said to me in my first days in Moscow. A week later, at dinner, a diplomat repeated the remark. Over the next three years, I heard the same annoying joke repeated many times, with mockery and contempt.” Since the late 1980s, the phrase "Upper Volta with missiles" has been quoted in the German press, usually in reference to Helmut Schmidt (Federal Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany 1974-1982). The German version is "Obervolta mit Raketen" and also "Obervolta mit Atomwaffen" ("Upper Volta with atomic weapons"). In the Russian press of the 2000s, the same metaphor was often attributed to Margaret Thatcher. In 1999, British journalist Xan Smiley published a letter on the pages of the online resource POGO. Centre for Defence Information: “Henry Kissinger, Helmut Schmidt and even Mikhail Gorbachev have been cited as authors of this phrase. I'm sorry, but it was I who first put it into circulation. I think it was in the summer of 1987, when I was a correspondent for The Daily Telegraph (London) and The Sunday Telegraph in Moscow (1986-1989). At the time, the phrase was a source of amusing insults, and I was denounced in the Soviet press for being ‘rabidly anti-Soviet’ and the like.” “In fact, I had previously heard the idea expressed in a similar way by a woman (not a journalist) who happened to be Zimbabwean, and I probably twisted the expression. Unfortunately, the people of Upper Volta have long referred to their country as Burkina Faso. Poor Upper Volta, though... it sounded both more hopeless and more amusing. In any case, it is not clear to me why the credit should go to the aforementioned bigwigs (if it is any credit at all).” As shown above, Smiley was deluded in attributing credit to himself. The Washington Post on 8 February 1991 quoted Russian politician Viktor Alksnis as saying, “The West used to think of the Soviet Union as Upper Volta with missiles. Today, we are considered just an Upper Volta. Nobody is afraid of us.” On 25 January 1992, Boris Yeltsin said in an interview with ABC television that Russian nuclear missiles would no longer be aimed at American cities as of 27 January. Komsomolskaya Pravda columnist Maxim Chikin noted in an article on 30 January: “The task is simple. Upper Volta with missiles minus missiles. What is left? Exactly.” Let us also note an example of the use of Herzen's metaphor (in Leo Tolstoy's version) in the 2000s: “As the angry but not entirely witty revolutionary Herzen once put it, ‘Genghis Khan with a telegraph is even worse than Genghis Khan without a telegraph'. George Bush Jr. is precisely 'Genghis Khan with a telegraph’.” The endurance of this metaphor, created more than a century and a half ago, is proof of the existence of the “long time span" of Russian history, to use French historian Fernand Braudel's term.
This piece was originally published by Russia in Global Affairs, translated and edited by the RT team By Konstantin Dushenko, a Russian translator, culturologist and historian
FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW............
|
User login |
advantage russia.....
By Caitlin Johnstone
CaitlinJohnstone.com
Amid continuous news that the Ukrainian counteroffensive which began in June is not going as hoped, The New York Times has published an article titled “Troop Deaths and Injuries in Ukraine War Near 500,000, U.S. Officials Say.”
Reporting that Ukrainian efforts to retake Russia-occupied territory have been “bogged down in dense Russian minefields under constant fire from artillery and helicopter gunships,” The New York Times reports that Ukrainian forces have switched tactics to using “artillery and long-range missiles instead of plunging into minefields under fire.”
Then the article gets really freaky:
“American officials are worried that Ukraine’s adjustments will race through precious ammunition supplies, which could benefit President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and disadvantage Ukraine in a war of attrition. But Ukrainian commanders decided the pivot reduced casualties and preserved their frontline fighting force.
American officials say they fear that Ukraine has become casualty averse, one reason it has been cautious about pressing ahead with the counteroffensive. Almost any big push against dug-in Russian defenders protected by minefields would result in huge numbers of losses.”
I’m sorry, U.S. officials “fear” that Ukraine is becoming “casualty averse”? Because safer battlefield tactics that burn through a lot of ammunition don’t chew through lives like charging through a minefield under heavy artillery fire?
What are the Ukrainians supposed to be? Casualty amenable? If Ukraine was more casualty amenable, would it be more willing to throw young bodies into the gears of this proxy war that the U.S. empire actively provoked and killed peace deals to maintain?
Something tells me that the U.S. officials speaking to The New York Times about their “fear” of Ukrainian casualty aversiveness do not know what real fear is. Something tells me that if you marched these U.S. officials through Russian minefields under constant fire from artillery and helicopter gunships, then they would understand fear.
Western officials have been spending the last few weeks whining to the media that Ukraine’s inability to gain ground is due to an irrational aversion to being killed. They’ve been decrying Ukrainian cowardice to the press under cover of anonymity, from behind the safety of their office desks.
In an article published Thursday titled “U.S. intelligence says Ukraine will fail to meet offensive’s key goal,” The Washington Post cited anonymous “U.S. and Western officials” to report that the massive losses Ukraine has been suffering in this counteroffensive had been “anticipated” in war games ahead of time, but that they had “envisioned Kyiv accepting the casualties as the cost of piercing through Russia’s main defensive line.”
The same article quotes Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba telling critics of the counteroffensive to “go and join the foreign legion” if they don’t like the results so far, adding, “It’s easy to say that you want everything to be faster when you are not there.”
In an article published last month titled “U.S. Cluster Munitions Arrive in Ukraine, but Impact on Battlefield Remains Unclear,” The New York Times reported that unnamed senior U.S. officials had “privately expressed frustration” that Ukrainian commanders “fearing increased casualties among their ranks” were switching to artillery barrages, “rather than sticking with the Western tactics and pressing harder to breach the Russian defenses.”
“Why don’t they come and do it themselves?” a former Ukrainian defense minister told The New York Times in response to the American criticism.
In an article last month titled “Ukraine’s Lack of Weaponry and Training Risks Stalemate in Fight With Russia,” The Wall Street Journal reported that unnamed Western military officials “knew Kyiv didn’t have all the training or weapons” needed to dislodge Russia, but that they had “hoped Ukrainian courage and resourcefulness would carry the day” anyway.
“It didn’t,” The Wall Street Journal added.
In the same article, The Wall Street Journal cited a U.S. Army War College professor named John Nagle admitting that the U.S. itself would never attempt the kind of counteroffensive it’s been pushing Ukrainians into attempting.
“America would never attempt to defeat a prepared defense without air superiority, but they [Ukrainians] don’t have air superiority,” Nagl said, adding, “It’s impossible to overstate how important air superiority is for fighting a ground fight at a reasonable cost in casualties.”
And now we’re seeing reports in the mass media that U.S. officials ?— ?still under cover of anonymity of course ?— ?are beginning to wonder if perhaps it might have been better to try to negotiate peace instead of launching this counteroffensive that they knew was doomed from the beginning.
In an article titled “Milley had a point,” Politico cites multiple anonymous U.S. officials saying that as “the realities of the counteroffensive are sinking in around Washington,” empire managers are beginning to wonder if they should have heeded outgoing Joint Chiefs Chair Mark Milley’s suggestion back in November that it was a good time to consider peace talks.
“We may have missed a window to push for earlier talks,” one anonymous official says, adding, “Milley had a point.”
Oops. Oops they made a little oopsie poopsie. Oh well, it’s only Ukrainian lives.
Imagine reading through all this as a Ukrainian, especially a Ukrainian who’s lost a home or a loved one to this war. I imagine white hot tears pouring down my face. I imagine rage and I imagine overwhelming frustration.
This whole war could have been avoided with a little diplomacy and a few mild concessions to Moscow. It could have been stopped in the early weeks of the conflict back when a tentative peace agreement had been struck. It could have been stopped back in November before this catastrophic counteroffensive.
But it wasn’t. The U.S. had an agenda to lock Moscow into a costly military quagmire with the goal of weakening Russia, and to this day U.S. officials openly boast about all this war is doing to advance U.S. interests. So they’ve kept it going, using Ukrainian bodies as a giant sponge to soak up as many expensive military explosives as possible to drain Russian coffers while advancing U.S. energy interests in Europe and keeping Moscow preoccupied while the empire orchestrates its next move against China.
Last month The Washington Post’s David Ignatius wrote an article explaining why Westerners shouldn’t “feel gloomy” about how things are going in Ukraine, writing the following about how much this war is doing to benefit U.S. interests overseas:
“Meanwhile, for the United States and its NATO allies, these 18 months of war have been a strategic windfall, at relatively low cost (other than for the Ukrainians). The West’s most reckless antagonist has been rocked. NATO has grown much stronger with the additions of Sweden and Finland. Germany has weaned itself from dependence on Russian energy and, in many ways, rediscovered its sense of values. NATO squabbles make headlines, but overall, this has been a triumphal summer for the alliance.”
“Other than for the Ukrainians” he says, as a parenthetical aside.
Everyone who supported this horrifying proxy war should have that paragraph tattooed on their forehead.
Caitlin Johnstone’s work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following her on Facebook, Twitter, Soundcloud, YouTube, or throwing some money into her tip jar on Ko-fi, Patreon or Paypal. If you want to read more you can buy her books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff she publishes is to subscribe to the mailing list at her website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything she publishes. For more info on who she is, where she stands and what she’s trying to do with her platform, click here. All works are co-authored with her American husband Tim Foley.
This article is from CaitlinJohnstone.com.au
https://consortiumnews.com/2023/08/21/the-west-keeps-whining-that-ukrainians-are-cowards/
READ FROM TOP.
MAKE A DEAL PRONTO BEFORE THE SHIT HITS THE FAN:
NO NATO IN "UKRAINE" (WHAT'S LEFT OF IT)
THE DONBASS REPUBLICS ARE NOW BACK IN THE RUSSIAN FOLD — AS THEY USED TO BE PRIOR 1922. THE RUSSIANS WON'T ABANDON THESE AGAIN.
CRIMEA IS RUSSIAN — AS IT USED TO BE PRIOR 1954
A MEMORANDUM OF NON-AGGRESSION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE USA.
EASY.
THE WEST KNOWS IT.
FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....
gassy prices....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHy_WLNXRRg
Germans RISE AGAINST UkraineREAD FROM TOP.
MAKE A DEAL PRONTO BEFORE THE SHIT HITS THE FAN:
NO NATO IN "UKRAINE" (WHAT'S LEFT OF IT)
THE DONBASS REPUBLICS ARE NOW BACK IN THE RUSSIAN FOLD — AS THEY USED TO BE PRIOR 1922. THE RUSSIANS WON'T ABANDON THESE AGAIN.
CRIMEA IS RUSSIAN — AS IT USED TO BE PRIOR 1954
A MEMORANDUM OF NON-AGGRESSION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE USA.
EASY.
THE WEST KNOWS IT.
FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....
bothersome borrell.....
Timofey Bordachev: Funny old man Josep Borrell is a typical example of the arrogant mediocrities running the EU
The perception of reality embodied in the diplomat’s remarks is no aberration, but a reflection of the EU’s whole philosophy
By Valdai Club Programme Director Timofey Bordachev
Josep Borrell, the head of the European Union’s diplomacy, known and loved by us, in Moscow, for his paradoxical statements, has reported on the effectiveness of his bloc’s economic war against Russia.
In the first lines of his message, he claims that “sanctions are working” and that those who claim otherwise are simply telling untruths. But the main indicator of the effectiveness of sanctions for Borrell is not even the dynamics of the Russian economy. The emphasis in the report is on the reduction of Russia's bilateral trade with EU countries: This is what particularly pleases their chief diplomat.
However, for him, it doesn’t matter that Russia’s trade with the rest of the world, with the exception of the US, has grown at the same time (even Japan and South Korea do not show a significant decline in trade turnover).
The EU’s chief diplomat is known to live in his own ‘Garden of Eden’, and everything outside this hallowed ground has no meaning for him. One could simply mock the degradation of the Western European perception of the surrounding reality embodied in Borrell's remarks. But this approach is not an aberration; it reflects the whole philosophy of the EU’s relations with the rest of the world. It is only now that we have seen the inadequacy of such a strategy in a reality which there will never again be a center and a vast periphery to serve its interests.
We are now really opening our eyes to the – to put it politely – uniqueness of our partners in Western Europe. What the Russian foreign policy culture, in a delicate manner, has tried not to talk about for the past 30 years is becoming public knowledge. The question is what lessons can be learned for the future when the active military phase of relations with the West subsides somewhat? This will happen sooner or later, unless the world really splits into opposing closed camps. And then it will be extremely dangerous for us to harbor illusions about the fundamental intentions of our Western neighbors towards the rest of humanity.
Josep Borrell is a somewhat caricatured but still credible embodiment of the nature of EU foreign policy. This funny old man is certainly a product of his time – the ‘beautiful 80s and 90s’ in Spanish and European history. In those days, either the most backward or the least ambitious, went into politics. And they are a product of a Western European order which educates its elite in a spirit of exclusivity and contempt for others.
From the point of view of mass psychology, exceptionalism is a very good means of control. Those who consider themselves special, the best and unparalleled in their superiority, never compare their own position with others. This means that they are ready to accept not only aggression against “outsiders,” but also the restriction of their rights: they are still the best in the world. You are already in paradise, fellow Western Europeans, what more do you need?
But it is not just about politics. The strategy of protectionism and running a closed shop has always been pragmatic policy in the bloc. And all the talk about the EU’s commitment to a free-market economy is nothing more than a popular myth. Let us start with the fact that the union of the six countries of Western Europe was created in the mid-1950s with several objectives in mind. Let’s leave aside domestic politics; we’re not particularly interested in that at the moment. If we are talking about relations with the outside world, the main objective was to create barriers against potential competitors of Western European companies. The idea of the common market itself is great for its citizens – it allows them to buy goods produced in all EU countries. At the same time, however, it means imposing major restrictions on products from the rest of the world.
This has always been openly acknowledged in internal documents: but who outside the EU has ever read them? Only a small circle of specialists, and the general public has always paid little attention to their opinions. Let me say more: since the mid-1960s, the main objective of the external economic policy of united Europe has been the struggle against the USSR and the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA). It was a fight that involved sanctions, the non-recognition of partners and, finally, the attempt to split their ranks. From time to time, Borrell’s predecessors tried to talk to Romania or Bulgaria, for example, about opening the EU market to their textiles and fruit. But they consistently rejected any dialogue with the USSR or the CMEA – for them, Brussels only ignored and sanctioned.
The first systematic contacts between the European communities and the CMEA began in the second half of the 1980s. By then, it was already clear to everyone where the Soviet government was taking the USSR. Unlike old Josep, EU officials in the 1960s and 1980s had no need to tweet their thoughts and achievements. Or maybe they just didn't have the opportunity, and that's why we think the ‘old school’ Europeans were wiser and more professional than those of today.
You could argue that this was all just normal competition. Especially under the conditions of the Cold War between the West and the East. At that time, the world did not know anything about universal trade openness and the attitude towards it as a sign of progress. So let’s try to blame the protectionism of the Western European bloc, before 1991, on the fact that globalization as we know it did not exist.
But the Cold War ended, and the European Union began preparing for its most ambitious enlargement. It was about to absorb seven countries of the former socialist camp and three Baltic republics of the ex-USSR into the Common Market. All of them, especially the Balts, had historically developed extensive trade with Russia and other CIS countries. Economic relations in the East played an important role in maintaining their social stability, the availability of jobs and the ability to have relatively diversified economies. Maintaining these links could provide reliable economic bridges between Western Europe and vast Russia.
However, in the mid-1990s, Borrell’s predecessors decided otherwise: Brussels’ main condition for the candidate countries was to increase their trade with the Common Market countries. And, as part of the overall package, a reduction in trade with everyone else. It was this indicator that became one of the most important in the list of things that Brussels’ supervisors paid attention to in each of the Eastern European states. Let me repeat: the reduction of trade with Russia and the increase of trade with the EU states was the main indicator of the candidate countries’ progress towards accession.
The Baltic States, and Bulgaria, were explicitly told to reduce any links with Russia and other CIS countries.
Market logic and free trade were simply out of the question. So Borrell has not come up with a new indicator of success here either – for the EU it has always been about increasing its isolation from the outside world in favor of enclosing itself in its own ‘Garden of Eden’. The bloc is a collection of states whose main political goal is to cut off their own citizens from the outside world, to immerse them in sweet dreams of their own exceptionalism, and to rule despite all the mistakes of the elites’ economic policies.
For such purposes, politicians with Borrell's psychology are the most suitable performers. And since this approach is fully in line with Western European foreign policy culture, it will not go away in the future. No matter how relations between Russia and the EU develop in the coming years and decades, economic expediency will always be secondary for the other side, and political dominance will always come first. And it will not matter at all who speaks in the media on behalf of Brussels.
https://www.rt.com/news/582260-funny-old-man-josep-borrell/
READ FROM TOP.
MAKE A DEAL PRONTO BEFORE THE SHIT HITS THE FAN:
NO NATO IN "UKRAINE" (WHAT'S LEFT OF IT)
THE DONBASS REPUBLICS ARE NOW BACK IN THE RUSSIAN FOLD — AS THEY USED TO BE PRIOR 1922. THE RUSSIANS WON'T ABANDON THESE AGAIN.
CRIMEA IS RUSSIAN — AS IT USED TO BE PRIOR 1954
A MEMORANDUM OF NON-AGGRESSION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE USA.
EASY.
THE WEST KNOWS IT.
FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....
hara-kiri.....
Western sanctions have failed to destabilize Russia and are now backfiring on the countries that imposed them, including Germany, Sevim Dagdelen, an MP from the Left Party (Die Linke) has warned.
In an op-ed for the Berliner Zeitung published on Friday, the lawmaker claimed Russia’s economy has successfully weathered the restrictions and is steadily adjusting to the new economic realities.
“In order to ruin Russia, it was hoped that the punitive measures that violate international law will have a long-lasting effect. But the reality is different. Even the Russian auto industry is recovering. Chinese companies are stepping in for the German manufacturers who leave Russia,” Dagdelen wrote.
“Contrary to what was hoped, Russia has not been ruined. The consequences of the sanctions are evident, but on our side. While Germany’s economy collapsed by 0.3% in the last quarter and stagnation is also threatening the Eurozone, Russia is now forecast to grow by 2.5% this year. As is often the case, a merciless idealism characteristic of the German ruling party obscures the view of reality.”
According to the lawmaker, the sanctions are strengthening Russia while the German government “is ruining domestic economy with open eyes.”
“The federal government acts here like a kamikaze pilot, replacing politics with dubious morality and is happy about a friendly nod from Washington,” she stated, noting that double-digit inflation in Germany is the product of sanctions, as well as the “ever increasing military support for Ukraine.” Dagdelen also noted that the sanctions war has prompted the largest redistribution of capital in the country, with large corporations boosting profits while ordinary German consumers suffer from a drop in real wages and a cost-of-living crisis.
The lawmaker criticized the government that “wants nothing to do with diplomacy” and urged Berlin to distance itself from Washington and NATO. She suggested closer ties with BRICS, a G7 rival economic bloc of countries that includes Russia and that will represent nearly 40% of global GDP after it officially admits new members at the beginning of next year. According to Dagdelen, Germany should “react accordingly to the new multipolarity.”
“Germany and Europe need a sovereign foreign policy that is no longer subordinate to the US and NATO. Supporting the BRICS peace initiative would be a first step towards freeing ourselves from the socially and politically fatal paternalism of the US. It would represent a step towards democratic sovereignty. No war is our war, not even this one.”
https://www.rt.com/business/582262-sanctions-russia-germany-economy/
READ FROM TOP.
MAKE A DEAL PRONTO BEFORE THE SHIT HITS THE FAN:
NO NATO IN "UKRAINE" (WHAT'S LEFT OF IT)
THE DONBASS REPUBLICS ARE NOW BACK IN THE RUSSIAN FOLD — AS THEY USED TO BE PRIOR 1922. THE RUSSIANS WON'T ABANDON THESE AGAIN.
CRIMEA IS RUSSIAN — AS IT USED TO BE PRIOR 1954
A MEMORANDUM OF NON-AGGRESSION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE USA.
EASY.
THE WEST KNOWS IT.
FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....
still buying....
The European Union has warned member nations against imports of Russian LNG. The EU has asked members to stop purchasing Russian liquefied natural gas. The European Union has also asked not to enter into new contracts for the fuel. The warning seems like damage control by the EU after recent "embarrassment." Data showed the EU’s imports of the fuel hit a record high in the first half of this year. The bloc bought over half (52%) of the 41.6 million cubic metres of LNG that Russia exported this year.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5lfoviCROc
READ FROM TOP.
MAKE A DEAL PRONTO BEFORE THE SHIT HITS THE FAN:
NO NATO IN "UKRAINE" (WHAT'S LEFT OF IT)
THE DONBASS REPUBLICS ARE NOW BACK IN THE RUSSIAN FOLD — AS THEY USED TO BE PRIOR 1922. THE RUSSIANS WON'T ABANDON THESE AGAIN.
CRIMEA IS RUSSIAN — AS IT USED TO BE PRIOR 1954
A MEMORANDUM OF NON-AGGRESSION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE USA.
EASY.
THE WEST KNOWS IT.
FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....