Ukraine War Day #163: Putin And The Golden Billion [concluded]

Dear Readers:

Over the weekend I hope to be “reporting” some very exciting news about the Allied break-through on the Donbass Front. We may also meet some new friends, such as Snow White, Thumbelina, and other important fictional characters. Please stay tuned!

Petr Akopov

In the meantime, I just wanted to finish off my review of this piece by Petr Akopov. The latter can be considered a typical “Putinite” as Westies call them derogatorily; in other words anti-Communist, pro-government elite thinkers and analysts. Who, just a few months back, were self-identifying as “white” and mocking anti-racist movements as “too woke”, but now, all of a sudden, it’s cool to be anti-racist again; and especially anti-colonialist! [To be fair, Akopov was known more as a “Christian” thinker and analyst and not so blatant anti-woke as some of the others, but I am lumping them all together for the purpose of crafting a combination.]

Also in interests of fairness, I should mention that literally tens of thousands of elite Russian political class and entertainment world, have literally “fled” from Russia to the West/Israel in recent months. These people are Westernizers by emotional inclination and could not stomach the Ukraine war. Now when I say “fled”, I am not implying there is some huge Stalinist purge going on, their lives were not in danger, nor were they under danger of arrest. It’s just that they lost their influence over public opinion, nobody listens to them any more, they lost their important spots on TV, etc. So they left. The Russian elite that remains is tighter, more ideologically cohesive, and now jogging to catch up with Putin’s latest twists and turns, as he dishes out the anti-Colonialism rhetoric.

Sovietism vs Putinism

After reporting on Putin’s recent speeches about the “Golden Billion” and his turn away from the West and towards the Third World, Akopov shares some very interesting thoughts of his own, why this is happening, and why he believes that it differs from standard Soviet-Communist thinking on these issues. I think and muse a lot myself, about these topics, trying to make some sense of Russian history, and of my own ideological and ethnic identity/contradictions; thus I read with interest. What follows is pretty much straight translation without intruding my own thoughts:

Akopov: The “Golden Bilion” do not proceed merely from the idea of their own exceptionalism. Their ideology is one that is racist, neo-colonialist, and fast becoming totalitarian. Putin is not simply condemning globalist Liberalism, that is, the theory of the single correct teaching, the bright future of all mankind — in part he is also repeating those accusations which we used to hear come out of the mouths of our leaders in the Soviet years. In those days we didn’t use the word “globalism”, and we simply called the West “imperialistic”; but now it seems that Putin is walking along those same tracks of Communist ideology and propaganda? And are those people correct (especially in the USA) who see no difference between the former USSR and modern Russia? Between Stalin and Putin? After all, they are just Russians, Communists….

A woman holds a placard reading “Putin, hands off Ukraine” depicting a collage of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Soviet leader Josef Stalin during a demonstration against the attendances of Russian military in Crimea on March 8, 2014 at the Venceslas Square, in Prague. AFP PHOTO/MICHAL CIZEK (Photo credit should read MICHAL CIZEK/AFP via Getty Images)

Except it’s not true. For all the sympathy he has for the ideas of social justice and the Communist ideals (whose similarity to Christianity he has noted on more than one occasion), Putin cannot be considered a Communist. Neither in his internal policies, in other words his views on the internal construction of society and the state; nor his views on foreign policy. It’s just that, a lot of the things which were said about the West in Soviet times, turned out to be true! Because our Communist rulers were not stupid, they were well versed in world history and geopolitics. And their accusations against the West — completely accurate accusations — were useful not just to promote their own views of the correct internal construction of our country; but also for the struggle on the world arena.

For sure, the USSR, during its entire history, presented itself as an alternative to the West, as a new, different world; as a country in which everything was organized to serve the notion of justice. As a country which invited the rest of the world to travel alongside on the path to a bright future. I’m not talking about the real situation of affairs in our country, but about the ideas which it promulgated on the world arena. And promulgated quite successfully, in fact. Up until that moment when it stopped believing in them itself. (Not everybody stopped believing, of course, just a part of the elite, but just that much was enough to finish it off.)

We ourselves turned away from the Communist ideals and the Socialist state. And it isn’t important right now, what served as the main reason, whether it was the imperfection [of that state] or our own imperfections; its mistakes, or our own weakness. What is important is that our country retained, in the world, its image not just of a strong and independent, but also that of a bold nation, claiming international leadership and governed by the ideals of statehood.

Of course, the USSR almost always combined ideology with pragmatism. Combined the striving for world revolution (after the war, this transmuted to simply the [geographical] spread of the socialist sphere) with clever geopolitical gamesmanship. But in the non-Western world the image of our country remained, all the same, that of a revolutionary entity. [yalensis: In other words, people saw what they wanted to see!] China and India, Asia and Africa, Latin America — they all saw in us the image of he who sounds a challenge “to the powers that be” in the world and sounds the call for a more just world.

Even today, as the 500-year Reign of the Western World Order comes to a close, this memory of our role in the 20th century plays in our favor. Because we always used to criticize the West for racism and colonialism; and the peoples of the non-Western world, having experienced [racism and colonialism] on their own skins, know that we were doing this honestly and sincerely. The paradox consists in the fact that, in terms of the non-West, we are “white”, in other words, a part of the West, sort of. Nonetheless, the entire Soviet portion of our history showed the principal difference between ourselves and the rest of the Western people. That this difference goes much deeper than the ideological one (and that it always existed) was not known or understood by the non-Western world. Which is why, when the USSR collapsed and our country gave up all its positions in the world, the peoples of the South just assumed that the Russians will become just like all the other West people. [yalensis: this sort of contradicts what he said in the previous paragraph!]

Putin’s 2007 Munich speech was where it all started…

And yet now, once again, in this new century, Russia has tossed out the gauntlet to challenge the West. Initially it was just to express some unhappiness with the unipolar world order (Putin’s Munich speech in 2007); and then Russia began to build alternative mutipolar structures. To be sure, our strength and forces were much less than they were in USSR times. But at the same time, the non-Western world has also become much stronger since those times. And the people who live there don’t just remember us for the leaders that we were; they also see, with their own eyes, how [our current leader] Vladimir Putin speaks and acts.

To be sure, neither Putin, nor Russia as a whole, are in a position to offer the non-Western world an alternative to the dead-end Globalist project of the Anglo-Saxons. But what is important is that we are showing them what we stand against; what we consider to be unacceptable and ineffective. And we are suggsting that the others should agree with us about this; not because we are strong enough to replace the weakening Hegemon; and not because we are calling for people to rally around us and build “a new world of united humanity guided by a single idea” — no, we are simply suggesting that everybody do what is most useful to themselves: That everybody build his own house his own way, and then all together we can work out the rules for living together. In other words, the proper relationships between each home/nation with the others. This is not exactly a revolution of global proportions, but it is a very important suggestion. Especially in the situation where we are dealing with a poorly constructed Tower of Babel, built by the receding Hegemon, and it is about to crash down upon all of us.

Russia is calling upon all [nations] to take their own destinies into their own hands. In other words, to become accountable and independent states, or at least to strive to do this, as much as possible. Because [quoting Putin]:

“You don’t approve of posthumanism? I smash your face in! (In a sexy way.)

“Only authentically sovereign states are able to ensure a high dynamic of growth, and become a standard for others in terms of quality of life, the defense of traditional values; high humanistic ideals; models of growth in which a human being is not just the means [to an end], but the highest end in and of himself.

“Sovereignty means the freedom of national development, which implies the development of each human being: The technological, cultural, intellectual and educational wealth of a nation, that’s what it is. And, without a doubt, the most important component of sovereignty, is the accountable, active, and national thought, a nationally oriented civil society.”

These words of Putin relate not only to Russia, they are addressed to all the nations of the world, to all those who want to preserve their people, their civilization. To those who do not approve of the melting pot of globalism and the ideas of posthumanism as the bright future of mankind. And such people form, in principle, the absolute majority, including most of the residents of those countries which constitute “the Golden Billion”. The problem is not with [these ordinary people], it’s with their elites, those who consider themselves to be endowed with the right to be “shepherds of the peoples”, those who believe in their own exceptionalism. But these people don’t get it: Exclusivity can work in the other direction as well: When all the other people decide to exclude you.

[THE END] – of all civilization as we know it…

This entry was posted in Military and War, Russian History and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to Ukraine War Day #163: Putin And The Golden Billion [concluded]

  1. S Brennan says:

    I respect Putin as true nationalist who, through great personal effort has brought Russia back from the brink; that said, I think it would be fair to lump Russia, west of the Urals, [ie most of the people of Russia], as part of Europe’s golden horde…even if such inclusion leaves anglophiles aghast.

    But I think, when you “lump” people together you wind up prescribing bad solutions. The Nordic countries have done well without colonization, to the best of my knowledge, the Irish never conquered anyone. Likewise, the Swiss were largely noted, until recent times, for their mechanical skills. So too, Taiwan, unlike Ukraine, has made itself prosperous through the industry and education of it’s people.

    And I add, Ukraine was far more heavily endowed by the Soviet system than Taiwan was by Imperial Japan and later the US. Former-Ukrainia’s inability to achieve proper statehood, lies in the parasitical nature of it’s “leaders”. And for the record, China “invested” nothing into Taiwan through it’s extremely short history of 180 year dominion and now, China hopes to reap the benefits of others peoples labors, just as any colonizer known to history. Anybody who compares, rather than contrasts, Ukraine to Taiwan knows nothing of the history of the island.

    That aside, the problem is, the problem has been, the problem will be…the containment of the parasitical class, those “leaders” who are drawn to money/power for it’s own sake, those who abuse their privilege as human beings to subjugate those virtuous souls who put their should to the societal wheel. And here, while the “west” is no slouch, it does not have a monopoly, no, far from it.

    Virtue, like venality, does not respect borders or cultural boundaries. Virtue can not be promulgated by armies, nor venality destroyed by conventional weapons. That said, the use of nuclear weapons would probably put a pretty big dent into venality…yeah, I really do think. It’s pretty hard to be a societal parasite when you have killed the host. And so it goes.

    While I respect Sergey Lavrov, I differ with him on his December 2021 comparison of former-Ukrainia to Taiwan. Taiwan has proven itself in the self-governance department by earning straight A’s for 40 years. If Taiwan is not to be considered an independent country, then the borders of all countries can and should be called into question, no one should feel safe. China’s claim over Taiwan is as valid as it’s claim over Vietnam, over India, over Tibet, over the Philippines, over…China version of colonialism is older than the West’s, it’s resurgence is nothing to cheer.

    All of this international idiocy could/should have been avoided if the denizens of DC had shown a modicum of modesty and historical perspective at cold war’s end. Should China successfully invade Taiwan then we are all doomed, WW III may not ensue immediately but, it will come, with small steps and then inexorably, as a damn gives way to ever-rising floodwaters.


    • yalensis says:

      Very interesting comment, thanks!


    • buratino says:

      The parasites, the parasites, the parasites, how to spot them, how to name them, how to evict them…shame our language has been castrated to such an extent…

      ajajajajaj…that remains the question now doesn`t it? Or should I say oj vej?

      Denazification will not solve this issue, au contraire!

      A lecture comes to mind, given in Hamburg, NY 9 June 1968.


  2. Lex says:

    Thank you for this translation. I think it fleshes out a lot of concepts that are not fully formed but developing rapidly. I regularly return to Putin’s quote about the Soviet collapse and how anyone who doesn’t recognize it as a tragedy has no heart but anyone who wants to try to reconstruct has no brain. Perhaps his vision is of a middle path, because he consistently returns to the responsibility of the state towards its people while at the same time suggesting that the state should stay out of the way as much as possible. And simultaneously the state having a responsibility to defend and develop the nation; in fact, he extends that responsibility to individuals. I don’t get the impression he wants to destroy Russia’s rich, but does expect that their primary loyalty be to Russia rather than their wealth.

    Stepping back to the rich political thought of pre-revolutionary Russia, he’s almost implementing the original concepts behind “libertarian” which was essentially small state socialism. Not quite to anarchism but not quite fully socialist in the classical sense. The libertarian (original) philosophy runs into some trouble with the need for people to act in everyone’s best interest. It seems that Putin’s solution to that problem is patriotism. And it might just work in Russia because it’s a difficult country to morph patriotism into nationalism and suffer the worst symptoms of that nationalism. Surely there are and will be Russian chauvinists, but Russia was a truly multi-ethnic nation before the USSR. It’s really special in that way, actually unique (China is probably the next closest). I would suggest that multi-ethnic makeup makes it easier for Russia to interface with the rest of the world, which can see that Russia is capable of respecting the varieties of humanity. It is not a melting pot of forced assimilation.

    Aside to that, the character of the SMO is reinforcing that. There are so many ethnic volunteers in the Russian forces. There are Buddhists and Christians and Muslims all together under the same flag serving a common purpose. We’ve now seen ethnic Russian Ukrainians yelling Akhmat Sila and cheering to Alluh Ahkbar! And if any ethnic minority in russia has had a rough go of the last 30 years, it’s Chechens. 30 years ago Russian speakers would have associated hearing Chechen with terrorists, now it sounds like Russia is coming. Putin is very clearly proud of the multi-ethnic character of the country, which I have to assume is registered by foreign governments. In short, russia walks the walk in many ways the west doesn’t even try.


    • yalensis says:

      Great comment! There is a lot of intellectual ferment going on. For me, the main take-away was Akopov’s statement (which I agree with) that Putin is not so much promoting his own vision of a new world order, as just stating his disapproval of the Pax Americana. In other words, he is the boy pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes.

      I like the idea that nations need to work out their own problems, using tools from their own toolbox of history, traditions, culture, etc. However, there are a few things that grate my teeth, especially when Putin comes out as the defender of “traditional values”.

      Well, I mean, in some cultures “traditional values” include, say, female genital mutilation, child marriages, burning homosexuals at the stake, and the like. I’m not saying that the West (or anybody else) has the right to stand in judgement, or invade other countries under the guise of protecting women, or whatever (like the U.S. did when it invaded Afghanistan). But still, there should be some international standards which protect the individual, and especially vulnerable populations.

      Back in the days when the UN actually meant something, there were international organizations which dealt with those sort of tricky issues and tried to educate people, or at least discuss and reach some kind of consensus on these cultural practices.
      Now it’s all gone to hell. But realistically, “absolute sovereignty” of nations and cultures, means that anything goes in these mainly patriarchal systems, even if very non-enlightened behavior. Which is one of the reasons I am not quite as enamored of Putin as some people, since he is so very conservative at his core, and I am more libertarian (I won’t say liberal)!

      Also, I don’t want to tick off the pro-Russian crowd, especially since this is a Russophile blog. However, I personally disapprove of the lengthy sentence given to that American basketball girl. (If there wasn’t a war going on, I would have written a post about that.) I mean, all she did was smuggle some dope, and I don’t think dope should be illegal, that’s how libertarian I am. Also, from what I understand, she is not your typical American yahoo, she was known for refusing to sing the national anthem, which is why the Fox News crowd hates her. I think Russia should have celebrated her anti-Americanism, instead of locking her up. That’s not the right way to make friends and influence people.


      • buratino says:

        As to mizz Grainer(?)
        The sentence itself is clearly ridiculous in so many ways…I would have opted for a fine, expulsion along with the return of her property to her – sealed, and handed over to US customs – with oodles of publicity.
        Elon Musk had a recent quip though about it, that I found cutting – the US itself has multitudes of it`s own citizens behind bars for similar issues.

        Now if she was judged in Singapore…


  3. peter moritz says:

    The Nordic countries …
    Sweden was an overseas colonial power, although only for a short time, but was a major colonial power with possessions in Russia, the Baltics, Poland, and Germany, ruled over Finland, Norway…
    Denmark colonized Greenland, and then of course the Viking history of colonization in England, Russia, France, and again the Normannic (indirect Danish or Norse) colonization again of England….

    “If Taiwan is not to be considered an independent country”

    Even the Government of Taiwan itself, it does not consider Taiwan (Formosa) to be an independent country. That harks back to the Kuomintang party line being the sole legitimate representative of China, which of course excluded Taiwan from being declared a separate entity.
    The PRC of course maintains the line that it, as the successor state to the empire, has the right of possession. It however always refrained from a military solution playing the long game of an eventual agreed-upon reunification.

    Your: “China hopes to reap the benefits of others peoples labors” is in light of the policies of China and its own economic success rather bollocks.

    The situation is quite strange, as it is basically a political dispute, similar to Texas declaring itself independent from the US based on the claim that it politically is not represented by the democratic party.
    The only solution, in the end, is a negotiated one, and as long as the USA did not stir the pot, both mainland China and Taiwan were happy with the status quo, Taiwan officially refrained from any separation move and mainland China left Taiwan alone, with substantial trade between the two entities.
    The USA however by allowing a high-level representative to visit Taiwan, undermined this status quo and actually triggered repercussions by the PRC by limiting the trade between the two, threatening the economy of Taiwan, but likely inflicting some pain on itself.

    The situation in Ukraine is indeed different, as it did not separate or broke away from a Russian Empire, but dissolved a federation. This separation went however against the will of the population as expressed in a referendum.
    As an aside, Crimea was handed over by Khrushchev in 1954, when Ukraine was part of the federation, for political reasons. Ukraine had no right to keep it after it decided to abandon the union, the problem however was the drunkard Yeltsin did not insist on its return to the then RF. The situation is similar to Canada, where the Canadian federation made it clear to Quebec that it had no right to any lands ceded to it by the federation should it decide to become independent.

    The situation is also different as the coup in Kiev led to a situation where the will of the people of the Donbas and Lugansk region was simply trampled upon by the illegal outing of the president, which the inhabitants did not accept. Russia made the mistake to not immediately after the fighting started to intervene, and like in Crimea protecting the areas militarily and help to organize a new referendum that originally was rather hastily put together by the dissenters in those parts.


    • peter moritz says:

      ousting, no outing…don’ think Yanukovich was the gay….


      • yalensis says:

        In the Ukraine it is illegal to out a sitting President, unless he voluntarily came out of his closet to do a photoshoot with Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson, while wearing his “open in the back” orgy pants!


  4. peter moritz says:

    PS to the nonsense about China: “reap the benefits of others peoples labors”, as if in the case of reunification Taiwan would not reap the benefits of what China has built on the mainland, like a piddly 30 000 km just of high-speed rail, aside from regular lines, many new airports, about 400 total at present, harbor facilities, power plants, road construction by the tens of thousand of miles including almost a million road bridges, the factory floor of the world.

    The question rather is, how much did Taiwan contribute to the economic rise of China, and how much would it benefit after a reunion, being an integral part of China’s vast market? In light of the facts, the stark idiocy of the above-cited statement should come sharply into focus.


  5. mtnforge says:

    The definitive piece of our time.
    What a thoughtful sublime piece of work of genuineness.Superb.
    Have to add I can not express my appreciation for your words and thoughts Mr. AA.
    As no other you have explained things in a way which really defines everything.
    Just Wonderful!
    God bless you and your loved ones.


  6. S Brennan says:

    Peter Moritz, you state that “even Taiwan doesn’t consider itself a country”.

    Interesting, I didn’t know countries had singular first person opinions? Please do edify me, where’s the video clip of Taiwan stating that “I, Taiwan, do not consider myself a country”? I find your tautology most amusing. Truthfully, England has far more claim on Ireland, the USA’s claim on the Philippines more valid than China claim to Taiwan. I am all for serious foreign policy discussion but not the “cheerleader” type of argumentation be they foreign, or, domestic.

    Those that cheer on China’s colonization of it’s near abroad can’t recognize that Russia spent almost a decade asking the denizens of DC to stop their efforts to colonize former-Ukrainia. As so eloquently pointed out by our host, in recent posts, Russia is no friend to colonizers!

    Russia’s relationship with China was forced upon them by idiots inhabiting DC, should the US continue to be mismanaged and subsequently, throw itself into the dust bin of history, without destroying civilization, China will resume it’s efforts to take Russian lands…no doubt foisting nonsensical historical claims for today’s pseudo “intellectual”. Again, I point out that, Russia and the USA have, more often than not, been on friendly terms, we are not “natural enemies”. Indeed, some of the greatest achievements in human history have been performed by the USA & USSR and…long before others.

    The useless idiots inhabiting DC rule the USA without regard to the will of the majority of Americans, polls now show, after months of ceaseless state sponsored propaganda, less than 10% of American citizens support DCs efforts in Ukraine…Americans, are not the people that haters of the US conjure in their minds.


    • peter moritz says:

      Peter Moritz, you state that “even Taiwan doesn’t consider itself a country”.

      picky, picky. Of course, I am willing to help if someone has trouble understanding shorthand. But in your case, obviously trolling…no. Figure it out for yourself.


    • yalensis says:

      From what I understand, there was some kind of treaty signed (1970’s, I forget the year?) in which everybody in the world agreed that “there is only one China”. Which means that Taiwan and Hong Kong are also provinces of China. As to whether the leaders of each (in the first person) personally agreed that “I am China,” well, that’s another matter.
      In any case, it is my understanding that the Americans changed the established order by suddenly deciding that Taiwan is an independent country.


      • moon says:

        In any case, it is my understanding that the Americans changed the established order by suddenly deciding that Taiwan is an independent country.
        Yalensis, complex, I surely remember it was still called Formosa (Dutch, Portugese) over here. After that Chinese, Japanese, Chinese, Chiang Kai-shek Chinese, White vs Red Chinese with Martial Law and ‘white terror’ between 1949 and 1987 (not suggesting red terror was better). 😉 1987 shortly before Glasnost?

        Russia’s relationship with China was forced upon them by idiots inhabiting DC, should the US continue to be mismanaged and subsequently, throw itself into the dust bin of history, without destroying civilization, China will resume it’s efforts to take Russian lands…no doubt foisting nonsensical historical claims for today’s pseudo “intellectual”.

        I am a bit hesitant concerning a US – Russia alliance. In whose national interest? If it is meant to be against China, or against anyone else for that matter. How about against Europe? Or some in Europe with some others as vasal allies? A variation of late 19th century power block geopolitics? No expert on history of war and peace and/or politics.

        We’ll see to what extend the real and/or mythical yellow threat East can be awoken in Russia too again. 😉 But that was of course a frequent theme. Divide and conquer Russia and China. Use Russia against China, in one’s own interest?


        • yalensis says:

          I am sure China has a very clearly outlined security policy detailing what it considers to be its vital interests, as concerns hegemony over X territory. Russia also has suchlike, and we know for a fact that it considers the Ukraine to be on the list of “vital interests”.
          As far as I know, Russia’s vitals don’t intersect with China’s vitals (i.e., I don’t believe that China has designs on Siberia, or considers it crucial to its security). For this reason, the two “hegemons” are able to avoid conflict with one another, except in trivial issues, maybe, from time to time.
          And that, my friends, is the foundation for a solid friendship!


          • S Brennan says:

            Yalensis, this doesn’t cover all of it but, it’s a post-it reminder of the past:


            What the snippet leaves out is that Nixon backed China and threatened nuclear retaliation when Brezhnev threatened to use nukes on China. Why did China/USA side with each other against the USSR?

            Likewise, it’s important to remember that support of China’s drive to have Taiwan declared “not a country” was driven by Carter’s national security adviser. What was his name…oh that’s right…Brzezinski !

            Brzezinski…his hatred…of all things Russian, is the hatred that brought the war in former-Ukrainia to fruition. And so, it’s galling to hear people, who are knowledgeable on matters pertaining to Russia, mouth a well known Russiaphobe’s self-serving arguments in regards to Taiwan. Apparently, not understanding that the destruction of Taiwan as a country was conceived by a man who was obsessed with the destruction of Russia.

            The purpose of Brezinski’s self-serving arguments vis-à-vis Taiwan wasn’t “friendship with China as it was sold but rather, to smash Russia into pieces [a plot that is still around in some form today]. And some of those pieces lie quite close to China. To think those pieces are not ripe for the taking, [see Tibet], ignores the history of great powers, presupposing upon the present day Chinese a false beautification…that they’re somehow different from all other humans..past & present, including their very own recently departed ancestors. I think not, long term world stability requires a more realistic view of this world and the people who inhabit it. Taiwan’s peoples have been forged through history, if China seeks Taiwan to remain neutral, that is reasonable, if they would stop the continuous threats of the last seven decades.


            • yalensis says:

              Thanks, S. You have argued your points very well in regards to China, Taiwan, etc. You are very knowledgeable about the history and make a lot of good points.
              It’s just that, in the current configuration, from what I understand, China regards Taiwan as its property, not to mention a component of its “vital military interests”. Whether or not that is historically accurate or ethically justified, they feel very strongly about that, and they will not allow the Americans to establish a bridgehead there. Given the current configuration, Russia has no choice except to back China’s claim.

              Having said that, the Chinese seemed to have “blinked” in the confrontation with Pelosi. In the pro-Ukrainian blogosphere, the bots are having a field day with that, and mocking China’s cowardice and “loss of face”. Maybe the Chinese just decided to keep their powder dry, for the time being. I still think that it’s a very dangerous game that Biden and Nancy are playing!


              • S Brennan says:

                I too, do not support Pelosi’s foolish grandstanding, nor do I support Biden’s lifelong desire to profit off of war…particularly since he is a draft dodger of the 1st degree !


      • S Brennan says:

        Taiwan’s loss of “Nationhood” was an autocratic decision made in DC, Frmr. President Carter was the hit man chosen, but the orders came from the, then nascent, neoliberal DLC types who needed an “invisible hand” to bludgeon labor with. Sound familiar? Some of us have paid attention as we pass through history.
        Carter defends Taiwan move 20 years ago
        The former US president, Mr Jimmy Carter, who made the shock decision 20 years ago to transfer US diplomatic recognition from…By CONOR O’CLERY Thu Apr 1 1999

        The former US president, Mr Jimmy Carter, who made the shock decision 20 years ago to transfer US diplomatic recognition from Taiwan to Communist China, got a predictably rough ride when he made his first visit to Taiwan this week. Mr Carter (75) made matters worse for himself by claiming that he did it for the good of democracy on the island of 20 million…
        Taiwan was not even consulted on the matter…


  7. lou strong says:

    About the basket player sentence, i agree with Yalensis’s feeling, but in the real world you need to do like that , with a “political sentence” , as you probably need to raise the price of a future deal . in Russian hands there are US fighters and maybe , as it was rumored in the past, high rank officers .
    AFAIK they started talking about it at the Russian conditions, which means not publicly but under the rule of undercover diplomacy contacts,and which is the normal way in these cases.
    As for Taiwan, Chinese ruling class watched very sharply at it and at the other neighbours ( for instance South Korea ) while trying to implement the economical reforms that gave birth to its quick economical rise and to the shift to the so-called “socialism with chinese characteristics”.
    They correctly focused on the need of Foreign Direct Investments but even more correctly they were very careful with it because FDI are an external debt, which is a boundary for everyone except if run the dollar by the way.
    In practice I mean that some of the first corporations to make massive investment in the then Chinese Special Econ Areas at the beginning of the reforms were Taiwanese, and since then I have no reason to think that both economies are less intertwined.
    Reality is very often paradoxical , at least in my view.
    So maybe because they were Marxists, maybe because you can look better to neighbours than to faraway folks, the Chinese knew well that for a quick rise they had to push up the workforce/ reserve army of labour exploitation rate.
    They duly did it lending back lands to peasants and implementing the hukou system, so peasants in excess in the countryside illegally migrated to the industrial towns shaping a cheap and docile manpower.


    • yalensis says:

      Excellent comment. From what I understand (which is very little, when it comes to China), the current Chinese government implemented a project to end poverty on the mainland; and were mostly successful in doing so. Using trade and economic/financial levers as well as their huge industrial and agricultural base. From what I know, those are some very smart people running the mainland. And also very smart people running Taiwan and Hong Kong as well. Well, Chinese people are very smart and know how to pick smart leaders, what can I say… One only hopes they don’t let themselves get pitted against each other, like dogs in a pit, by the morons who run Washington DC.


  8. buratino says:

    Now, how does this differ from national socialism in principle I wonder…as do others.

    Already a recognition within Russian circles if I read the leaves correctly, that the call for a meritocratic(?) turn and since so many cadres have abandoned their position, and nailed the door behind themselves – it this evolutionary pressure actually has a chance of brewing up a competent batch of managers.

    Winning the ongoing war DEMANDS this change – both on the battlefields and the heartalnd.

    If You consider the soldiers returning from the conflict and their status – the prospect is even rosier.
    Painless? Noooooo…

    But let us not jump ahead of ourselves…


    • yalensis says:

      The main way it differs from national socialism, is that there not a racial/ethnic component, as in “We are racially superior to X.”
      Also, it’s not really “socialism” if the capitalist class are still running the government.


      • buratino says:

        National socialism IS not racial/ethnic – in principle – AFAIK: consider all the ethnic/racial battalions of waffen SS for instance…


      • buratino says:

        oops sorry, wrong button…well,

        …And the “capitalists” and their possessions ARE being reorganized as we speak – mostly by the sanctions by themselves. VVP has plausible deniability.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s