by M. Khazin
original text here: http://worldcrisis.ru/crisis/1611264
translated by “A”
About lessons of the last weeks
The correct technique of work for any politician in any situation consists in defining the main task at the moment and to solve it at any cost. Including, at cost of situation deteriorating on other less important directions. The USA can be an example here – when they define for themselves the main goal, they don’t stop before anything to achieve it. Another thing is that this task can be chosen incorrectly, but this is another problem.
Russian reality has few more nuances. In particular, it isn’t enough to understand, what result is for today the main thing and than it can be sacrificed for its achievement. It is necessary also to force those who controls what needs to be sacrificed, as a personal resource, to sacrifice. Actually, such problem exist around the world, but in many countries decisions are made by consensus and those persons who go against consensus, obviously assume excess risk. And in Russia the decision is made by one person – and level of discontent with it can reach critical level if its environment which, in accordance with the circumstances, has to make concessions, doesn’t understand or doesn’t accept those circumstances within which this or that decision was made.
Actually, it just an element of notorious “civil society”, but this time applied to elite. If an elite group has no mechanisms to achieve a local consensus, even faultlessly correct policy of the first person can become the reason of serious split. By the way, Stalin who constantly discussed with the colleagues various political moments (during notorious evening “sit-round gathering” at his “Nearest” dacha) perfectly understood it. Thus there is a known history how during conversation with one scientist, on his offer to make something, Stalin answered that he agrees with the interlocutor, but can do nothing about it, as: “My deputies won’t pass such decision”.
Today our situation is much worse, than it was in the USSR. I do understand, a little bit, how decisions in the Kremlin are made, and I understand, who those persons who define, in particular, a situation in economy. I don’t know what Putin discussing with them, but I perfectly understand that this discussion is senseless – these characters, first of all, doesn’t have in their head an integral picture of economic situation, and, secondly, they are strongly engaged long ago with preservation of Russia in Bretton Woods financial and economic model. In the 90th (years) it was possible to argue with such position, but it was, at least, rather reasonable. Today, when everything is completely different, it is simply impossible to keep this system afloat, but people who have no personal opinion, simply can’t change it.
And Putin, as though, as he can be criticized, most likely, understands the scale of those changes which happens in the world. He can make decisions correct or not correct (for example, I don’t know yet, how to estimate his yesterday’s peaceful speech in Crimea), but he can’t agree about them with his colleagues. Because they with a high probability will divulge his plans to the West and because they are ready to agree on words with any decisions of the leadership, in reality often being strongly dissatisfied (an example – notorious “May decrees”), and therefore its nonsense to discuss something with them senselessly due to the lack of their own position.
I will note here, of course, it is possible to scold Putin for his HR policy ( saying like “he, himself appointed those freaks”), however there are also nuances. First of all, these people, in many respects, appeared in the power long before Putin (Shuvalov, Nabiullina, Voloshin). Secondly, Putin’s position coincided until recently with their position. Thirdly, even the most brisk person, in intellectual sense, having got into a rigid administrative system either has to leave his personal opinion or or to leave the system. That is not a question how to behave correctly within an existing governing system, rather need to change system. This is, of course, a task, but higher up level.
I would like to note one more aspect. Even if the purpose is chosen and victims are defined (in case of our counter-sanctions, everything is visible by the naked eye), it is possible not to make some mistakes. For example, in a case with food purchases in EU and the USA it wasn’t necessary to include in number of the sanctioned products what was already paid for and which already carried on to Russia. Because, its already our products (which we can’t give back and nobody will return money for), and therefore not necessary to irritate and offend those who isn’t going to oppose the Authorities at all.
It would be possible to resolve this issue in three minutes – but for the first person its too small issue ( he shouldn’t bring up this question), and his subordinates, someone of stupidity, some for fear of a contradiction, and some of frank harm didn’t make it correctly. This is bad. Theoretically, this question (as well, as some other), had to be discussed in the course of adoption of the decree about counter-sanctions, but, apparently, it wasn’t made.
And just such situation shows that quality of administrative personnel that is rather low. I spoke about it long ago, but, eventually, it is my personal position, a position of an expert.
In our country a situation is much more difficult, than in the USA – we not always can define the main task, and realize it at the expense of all available resources. And it isn’t really clear who defines it – our expert institutes, unlike the USA, are arranged on purely administrative level: higher up the position of an “expert”, means he possess “more expertise”. It is clear that such approach can’t lead to any regular success – and everything starts depending on a position of the highest person in the administrative hierarchy. If he, for some reason, understood a question, the necessary experts found and the solution accepted – than it may lead to a success, perhaps. If not – there are practically no chances for a success .
But here, so to be spoken,is the naked fact. Thus, its possible to tell a full set of such stories. And a consequence from them very simple: in a present situation carrying out the independent political line is dangerous to Russia – as even if it will be chosen absolutely correctly, there is a big danger that mistakes of executors can nullify all success of the political authorities. We categorically need essential change of personnel. This is the main conclusion from events of the last weeks.
frankly this is a bad translation!
@anonymous : please feel free to contact me to offer your translation support.
Thanks and cheers,
The Saker
This problem is endemic to all centralized states with large supporting bureaucracies. It isn’t unique to Russia.
I don’t think the translation is such a problem. He is saying that Putin’s coalition partners and immediate subordinates are, through incompetence or mis-aligned interests or differing worldview, not the right people to carry out his (Putin’s) policies. That these policies, in the carrying-out, will be different than they are in the planning and intent. Because the people carrying them out either do not genuinely understand them (due to incompetence or differing worldview) or understand them but do not wish to carry them out (due to mis-aligned interests or differing worldview). He suggests that incentives might be better aligned via institutional reform, but that the other problems require either a change in personnel (i.e. firing people) or pursuing different policies which these personnel are capable of carrying out.
My problem with it is that I am too ignorant of Russian politics to know whether what he is saying is brilliantly right, foolishly wrong, a boring truism understood by everyone, or something else. Or even what policies, exactly, are difficult to carry out with current personnel and why, exactly.
“The USA can be an example here – when they define for themselves the main goal,
they don’t stop before anything to achieve it. “
This statement, if correctly translated, is open to question. Recent events and policies in
places and areas too numerous to mention under the heading of ‘regime change’, democratization,
financial stability, containment of CN and RU, health care reform have failed
miserably and are continuing to fail miserably.
“Another thing is that this task can be chosen incorrectly, but this is another
problem.”
No it is not another problem because if it is considered ‘another problem’ it
invalidates “The correct technique of work for any politician in any situation
consists in defining the main task at the moment and to solve it at any cost.”
In other words the “defining the main task at the moment” has not been defined.
And nothing in this world is solved “at any cost” – nothing.
“And in Russia the decision is made by one person – and level of discontent with
it can reach critical level if its environment which, in accordance with the
circumstances, has to make concessions, doesn’t understand or doesn’t accept those
circumstances within which this or that decision was made.”
And in the United States (only using the U.S. because the author seems to favor
this comparison.) this is called an “Executive Order”. POTUS Obama signed 923
Executive Orders in 40 Months. (Read more at
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/executiveorders.asp#itAAqzalQ4iMAgeJ.99)
I don’t quite know what this guy is trying to say but IMO he is not saying very
well. Maybe its the translation, maybe not. :)
“The correct technique of work for any politician in any situation consists in defining the main task at the moment and to solve it at any cost.”
If you extrapolate from a false premiss the output is likely to be compromised.
As a datastream however the output is of interest to those with purpose.
Yes, this is hard to read, especially with the nuances being addressed. He seems to be saying that group-think and going along with the consensus is a problem in the Russian decision-making process. On the one hand, Putin can’t simply decide in isolation from his advisers. On the other, that the advisers are afraid to speak up.
For some reason he concludes at the end that the USA is free of this syndrome. An astonishing conclusion. I don’t know – and I wish this article could tell me more clearly – exactly how many factions and differences have to be reconciled in Russia to take an action in the world, but there certainly must be an equal amount in the USA. The US has the zionist force to keep it on its evil course – maybe Russia is lucky not to have such clear direction?
So far I’ve been very impressed by Russia’s decisions this year.
(I hope I’m understanding this article correctly, because it touches a fascinating subject)
Maybe, the lines from “The Planning and the intent group” to “the carrying-out group” should be as short as possible, by dividing a project in many smaller units, that are case-by-case coordinated by one of the “Intent group”. The main task of the “Head Director” is to point the noses of the “Intent group” in the same direction.
Khazin is master of subversion. He predicted that USA will split. Since then I take him with reserve
I found this article a little confusing, but Michael Khazin seems to be saying the political quagmire in the Kremlin is such that good decisions cannot be carried out. When he speaks of a change of personnel, I hope he doesn’t mean Putin.
About mistakes, the Ukraine conflict baffles me. I’ve been following it daily since May 6,
and no one seems to be seeking civilized solutions appropriate for a peaceful twenty-first century Europe. What we see instead are mistakes on every side. The US made a mistake in backing the coup, the junta in using violence rather than diplomacy on the people, Putin in attempting diplomacy rather than showing a firm hand, the DPR and LPR in holding the referendum before Putin’s suggested date, the junta in shooting down a passenger plane, the EU in covering this up, the oil companies in destroying Slavyansk, and so on.
One outstanding exception was Borodai and the Malaysian Prime Minister arranging the transfer of the black boxes. But inevitably, Malaysia made a mistake in handing them over the Dutch, the Dutch in giving them to British, and so forth.
Let’s hope Strelkov’s resignation is not amistake. It may in fact be a positive step. As was said in today’s military briefing:
http://slavyangrad.org/2014/08/15/novorossiya-military-briefing-august-15-2014/
“Whatever one’s attitude may be with respect to the latest resignations (Strelkov, Bolotov), … it was after these resignations that the general staff of the Militia’s Armed Forces was created, such that it can now properly be called an army.”
This may be one of the first good moves in the match.
Actually, the problem in Russia is different than in some other centralized states, because of the issue Saker points out about the Atlanticist faction. In a way it is the classic problem in Russia, the strong central state vs the Boyars. Today’s Boyars are the oligarchs. They have huge personal ambitions, cosmopolitan intrigues and interests representing foreign powers. This fragments power and interferes with central state power/authority, and is contrary to unification of effort. Other centralized states have unification of effort, coordinated by the respective security state apparatuses. That is, in other countries, oligarchs are not working against central state power as much. In Russia, they are, or were.
This was a direct aim of the 90’s, to institute the weak state/failed state structure of the ‘Boyar state’ or oligarch state. This is what is now in Ukraine. Maximum dysfunction, compliant to foreign interests. Russia began to pass out of that stage with rise of Putin. That is why he is hated so much. He broke the ‘Harvard yoke’, the policy and structural framework that was imposed on Russia by efforts of foreign interests in conjunction with the top of the nomenclatura. Or he began the breaking of it. ‘The Harvard yoke’ was a policy framework of tribute extraction, punishment, and subjugation of Russia to foreign powers. I call it this because it was essentially the creation of advisers, ‘the Harvard boys’, and was same as a war going in in Russia. So has relation to the Tatar yoke of subjugation by Tatars.
The Soviet union did not fail because of economics, it broke up because the upper nomenclatura wanted to steal everything they could. And Russia is still in recovery from the disaster.
The problem, as Khazin himself has repeatedly pointed out, is that the liberals have so dominated economic policy, and in such a totalitarian fashion, that there simply is no one available to replace them.
I found this piece to be a very simplicity look at the world.
The assumption is that if Putin was surrounded by better people who either had:
a) more skills to do their job
b) supported the policies as laid out by Putin
That somehow everything would be fixed and work accordingly. What planet has he been living in?
Even in the best of times, in the best of circumstances, where things are laid out and completely spelled out, things go to shit. Things do not get done.
The world is not a control experiment, with subjects that do exactly as they are told.
Putin cannot save the world, not because he lacks skills or people, but because the complexities that exist are too vast, and people’s interest too many.
We in the West do not have a perfect society. We do not have a perfect structure. Errors occur, irregardless of ones ability or buy-in.
basho,
Snopes sez a big red false to that 923. I don’t like defending Obama but Snopes also says the real number is 147, which is well in line with other presidents, and their content apparently isn’t quite as quoted either. He’s awful enough as is, exaggerating it only stokes the paranoia of the easily-terrified, and we all need all our wits about us at this point.
I have a feeling that the translation is very week in another hand if the writer is giving example of the US as a country of the best / even US is in the brink of bankruptcy / then God please help us to wake up these disillusioned people. Putin is NOT making decisions by himself, decisions are made by the group of people who are working on the imminent problem. It was confirmed many times by the Russian politicians.
Lost me, I’m afraid.
The Beeb is reporting that Putin has offered to withdraw support for the separatists if Ukraine undertakes not to join NATO.
Sounds barmy. Any similar reports elsewhere?
Frankly, I’m lost.
Whether it’s the translation or the contents, I don’t get it. First thing I noticed is the tie and that’s always suspicious to me. What’s the purpose or intention of this blathering? Who is this guy? To me it sounds like someone trying to analyse an antheap.
Let’s move on.
Two issues which really do me puzzle: Putins cooperation with al Sisi and the timid reaction to all the false flags and lies on MSM.
Any explanations, please?
So, Putins subordinates are either lacking the brains or the will and loyalty to implement Putins decisions properly.
Which consequently means that Putin himself is either incompetent or ignorant. But then, what if not the quality to make good decisions – and – and to make them happen does make a good leader?
The author tells us, and I dare to say he does so between the lines but by no means innocently, that Putin after all is incompetent or ignorant or even just a good showman.
But there is another possibility, and again I dare to say that the author doesn’t forget that innocently.
The possibility I talk of is that Putin must have priorities, strategic and tactic intelligence and a feeling for the right timing. In other words, understanding that an underling is incompetent or worse, illoyal, does not equate to firing him.
This is particularly true in a country that was completely invaded and almost destroyed by zio-usa not that long ago and that, worse, has been infested and plagued by traitors for and servants of zio-usa which unlike Russia did have – and use – the means to deepen and widen their traitor network through the years.
Last but not least, once recognized, those traitors can even be put to use, e.g. by false information or an experience of success.
The day has not yet come to clean Russia. Not yet but soon. And virtually everything and everyone needed is in place.
Of course, there will be massive noises from the wezt about Putin and Russia being brutal, about blood, and about oppression but that will be a very cheap price to pay for getting rid of thousands and thousands of traitor rats and cockroaches.
After all, a plagued and weakened Russia losing blood herself every day had the strength to recover and to stand firm and make the most necessary changes happen. So, we need not be worried about corrupt wezterners crying wolf when Russia rips the last and most evil out of herself to finally stand healthy and in proud stature and way above the weztern pestilence ridden servants, whores and vassals.
And the author forgot something else. Authors who play the worried intellectual while, in fact, they try to inject their own venom.
The neocons running US foreign policy are psychopaths.
This isn’t hyperbole they really are.
What this means is they don’t think like normal people. This gives the *impression* of disciplined focus because they’re not fazed or distracted by things that would slow normal people down or make them hesitate but it’s not focus it’s psychopathy.
The critical point therefore is not to make plans based on how normal people would react. Base your plans on how psychopaths would react and use that to manipulate them.
Judo.
With due respect to the author he does not understand the US decision-making process nor does he understand Putin who is most definitely not a dictator although the author characterizes him as one. For me the article is rubbish.
Voss, I think active democracies where parties change demand more attention to detail from their decision makers than entrenched political leaders need to offer. But you’re right; much of history can be explained by the mechanism described.
I’ll answer this soul searching Russian in a roundabout way.
What is the ‘Western’ pattern of thought and why does it seem to consistently favour, for example, the effectiveness of Anglo-Zionist actions or propaganda, over those of Russia?
It’s not as complicated as it seems. Or maybe it is.
If we could go back 40000 years and meet our hunter-gatherer ancestors, we would encounter people who are cognitively very different from ourselves. By today’s scientific standards, pre-modern man would be judged schizophrenic.
Fast forward tens of thousands of years, our slowly developing technologies, especially abstract technologies like alphabetized writing, forced us to change the way we live and helped us reorganize our brains in such a way as to reduce the influence of our expansive consciousness, previously vital for our survival as animals merged into the natural world.
Modern Western civilization is the direct inheritor of this tradition of cognitive change which favours conscious decision making (i.e. city livin’). In our day to day lives we have effectively shut out most of our greater intelligence and learned to focus very hard on details and specifics. The whole history of Western thought follows this pattern as we abstracted, reduced and systematized our understanding of the world. Obviously this helped us develop technologies, especially for war, much more quickly than other historic civilizations which were arguably far more knowledable and ‘wise.’
Begining with the Enlightenmment, the very strong Jewish tradition of abstract thought including literacy and numeracy began to be transmitted into the West (via the printing press) on a much wider scale. It is no coincidence that in evey instance of the sudden spread of mass literacy throughout history, terrible ideological wars have immediately ensued. When many people suddenly learn to read the whole of society is consumed by a form of mass book madness. It’s the same process that occurrs when you can’t put something you’re reading down but it’s happening to everyone at the same time (think of the religious war in Europe). In some sense we become possessed by the ideas to which we are exposed (like ayn rand or karl marx). The change has now accelerated to light speed as the whole world suddenly goes digital.
Part II
Still following? I don’t want to write an unreadably long explanation but what I’m trying to say is that Western man has been turned into the perfect cog for a ferocious world-eating machine. If you don’t fit into the machine at some level you will be cast aside (bad cog). As Western civilization suddenly consumes the whole world with its culture, everyone is experiencing a form of ‘book madness’ in which they force themselves into the shape of some archetypical Western ‘cog’ that can earn a big paycheque and buys lotsa stuff.
Russians are much better at taking an expansive view of reality because this style of thinking more closely mirrors their own. Westerners are much better at turning themselves into robots that become extremely good at doing several limited tasks. This is great if you’re running google but no so much for everyone else.
So Western civilization is more ‘efficient’ while Russia seems slow and ‘inefficient’ by comparison. This may seem problematic to many Russians but this is also the reason why Russian scientists are so brilliant as compared to most of their bean counting Western counterparts. I’m quite sure that Tesla invented the modern world because he was an Orthodox Christian Serb born in Western and Catholic Croatia. People born along historic and cultural faultlines always have agift for seeing across cultures which unilingual or unicultural people can’t easily comprehend. They learn to see the world from multiple angles. A reduced Western mind could not have done what Tesla without an Eastern view of reality. Einstein, as an example of the premier Western mind of his day, was a patent clerk who got to see countless works of creative genius and so was in a position to put them together and create abstract representations (maths) that encompassed modern technologies of the day. In other words, Einstein was socially and politically smart but he was certainly no ‘genius.’
So why do Putin’s plans always seem to get lost in the vastness of the Russian Bureaucracy? Very simply, it is because of the expansiveness of Russian consciouness.
Russian have been tricked (like everyone else) into thinking Westerners are technologically superior because of some inate quality inherent to historic Western Christian civilization. The truth is that it’s a giant ‘magic’ trick on the grandest possible scale.
The Western education system has so badly destroyed Western minds that most of our engineers come from places like India where the tradition of expansive thought continues to fluorish despite recent incursions by globalist thinking.
The problem for Russians is not a problem at all. If Russian leaders sincerely believe they need to turn their people into better robots who download the daily propaganda like an iphone downloads data then they are sorely mistaken. This is also why Jews are so valuable to Russia. They are cognitively better matched to the world of money, materialism and bureaucracy. The Soviet collapse resulted in a massive loss of this talent from which Russia, Ukraine and others have arguably never recovered.
I believe Putin’s dilemna is that he needs Russians to learn to be better cogs while also preserving what is essential to the fullness of human existence. If Russia succeeds then so does the whole world. If it fails and becomes just like the West we are all doomed.
Clearly the path of Western civilization, including our collective cognitive nature, leads us into a culture of nihilism and death when taken to the extreme. So it is the West that needs Russia, not the other way around.
Now, ya’all remember when you’re reading this in 20 years that Where-Wolf said it first — although very poorly.
Hold on where-wolf. You said, “The Western education system has so badly destroyed Western minds that most of our engineers come from places like India.” As a retired engineer myself, I can assure you most of our engineers come from places like India because these foreigners are willing to accept half the salary we are. Other than that, your dissertation could have fooled me.;~}
Voss,
The problem is also endemic in any large organization, public or private (you don’t really believe all corporations are well-run, do you?) and sometimes smaller groups, too. It’s very hard, at any level, to assemble a truly good team, at least in the non-military world. And omigosh, yes! to basho: holding us up as an example is laughable, subversive and/or naive to the max!
Anonymous 17:12,
You may be assuming benevolent intentions where none exist: Putin’s attempts at diplomacy rather than showing a firm hand and the DPR and LPR in holding the referendum before Putin’s suggested date may be the only mistakes (if indeed they were) in your list bc given all we know now, everything else sure looks to have been quite deliberate. Evil as hell, and quite deliberate.
Anonymous 17:20
What you’re saying is very interesting, but Western history also really is the saga of a strong central state vs. the Boyars, isn’t it? And how different is the situation today — where aren’t there oligarchs, and where do they put the needs of the state (or the people) first? I’m sure there must be somewhere but right now I can’t think of it, I really can’t.
@ basho said…
“The USA can be an example here – when they define for themselves the main goal, they don’t stop before anything to achieve it.”
“This statement, if correctly translated, is open to question. Recent events and policies in
places and areas too numerous to mention under the heading of ‘regime change’, democratization,
financial stability, containment of CN and RU, health care reform have failed miserably and are continuing to fail miserably.”
Basho hit the nail on the head. Failure, chaos creation, and chaos management have become hallmarks of US government policy foreign and domestic over the last decade and a half — the militarization of both the police and society may have become more noticeable after 9/11 but was well underway in the 1990s with Ruby Ridge, Waco and then in foreign policy the bombings of Serbia conducted by Bill Clinton’s Administrations with no (in the case of Kosovo in 1999) Congressional authorization whatsoever.
Thus when Pepe Escobar writing as a Brazilian lefty for the Asia Times calls the USA/NATO/5Eyes ‘the Empire of Chaos’ he is spot on. US foreign policy has long given up on stabilizing ‘the Arc of Instability’ or what Thomas P.M. Barnett called ‘the Gap’ in the early 2000s and has simply opted for the nominally cheaper strategy of massive destabilization, starting with the deliberate stoking of Sunni/Shi’a warfare and Kurdish separation from Baghdad with the toppling of Saddam in 2003 and extending to the so-called Arab Spring, the groundwork of which began to be laid after the ‘Anbar Awakening’ made Washington and the ‘old hands’ there believe arming and co-opting Sunni radicals to fight Iran and her ally Syria (and in the long run, to re-open the Caucases front against Russia and in Xinjiang against China) was cheaper than fighting them!
Now we have ISIS running amuck in Iraq with our elites of both parties saying ‘Oh my gosh we must do something! We must save the Iraqi Yazidis and Christians [who’ve been murdered and driven out of Iraq for years with no concern on the Empire’s part whatsoever].’ Everyone pretends they have no idea where ISIS came from or how it became so potent so fast, except for a few neocon hacks like Michael D. Weiss and the usual ‘Free Syrian Army’ keyboard warriors who insist they were actually Assad’s creation and point to some isolated non-aggression pacts in Syria as ‘proof’.
All that the Empire has to offer places like Iraq, Ukraine or Nigeria as it sinks is chaos, more chaos, and the threat of chaos against vassals who would defy it (like Germany fearing Uncle Sam can destroy the ECB and the euro in a heartbeat by cutting it off from the Fed discount window, though that would amount to a suicide bombing on the Fed’s part).
I cannot agree more with the explanation of Where-Wolf. In the USSR the government played paradoxically with the many geniueses that appeared before and following the Revolution. On the one hand they integrated them to the project not without repression whenever felt that they too notably surpassed the accepted mindset of the West, which the Soviets were all too bent to mimmic. But the tradition of Altay and Siberia, difussed silently into the work of these most exceptional scientists and artists.
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Patagonian
“About mistakes, the Ukraine conflict baffles me. I’ve been following it daily since May 6,
and no one seems to be seeking civilized solutions appropriate for a peaceful twenty-first century Europe. What we see instead are mistakes on every side. The US made a mistake in backing the coup, the junta in using violence rather than diplomacy on the people, Putin in attempting diplomacy rather than showing a firm hand”
They’re only mistakes if you’re a normal person.
1) The neocons who run US foreign policy have their own agenda which most people in America don’t support.
This means the neocons have to create crises to try and force the US government into doing what the neocons want.
(9/11, the gas attack in Syria, Ukraine coup, Isis, MH17 etc)
Then when they have created a crisis point their friends in the media try and force US policy.
Among other things the neocons want to destroy Syria and Iran. Russia is stopping them doing that so now they are going after Russia.
The aim is to create a big enough crisis inside Russia to bring about regime change.
So their support for the coup wasn’t a mistake it was a calculation. It seems odd to a normal person because a normal person wouldn’t risk WW3 over this but the neocons aren’t normal people they are psychopaths.
They want escalation. They want as big a crisis as possible to try and get regime change in Russia. They probably don’t want an actual war but they are prepared to risk one to get what they want.
No mistake. Quite deliberate.
2) Before the coup the neocons had already decided who was going to be in the new Ukraine govt.
As the neocons want to manufacture as big a crisis as possible they picked the people who would give them that crisis.
So that’s why the junta have been so provocative and refused any kind of negotiation. That isn’t a mistake either. They were chosen precisely because they are that way.
3) When you understand that the neocons are front running their own foreign policy and it’s not “America” as a whole then you understand what Putin is doing.
The neocons can only get their way by creating crises and pushing the US population into war. They need columns of Russian tanks on the TV to get the US population to react – so Putin isn’t giving it to them. He has to do it a more subtle way.
(It’s the same with Iraq and Syria. The neocons funded Isis through Saudi Arabia to create a crisis in the hope that would bounce Obama into going back to Iraq. If you watch over the coming weeks they’ll try and link Syria to Isis and then try and use that as an excuse to attack Assad.)
#
So yes all the things you mention are mistakes to a normal person but the neocons aren’t normal. They’re psychopaths.
I am puzzled by this article. Anyone can see that Putin’s power centralization easily can result in problems when he leaves. But the article doesn’t seem to offer any new perspective on that issue.
Kharzin is right in theory about his top-down decision making complaint in Russia.
But the case of Russia in 1999 was exceptional and Putin was the right man, in the right place at the right time.
It was essential to install infrastructure that would dis-enable hostile powers like the Oligarchs (along with the US) from grabbing power away from the group standing behind Putin, until Russia could get back on her feet.
In the West this kind of top down power structure does not work…but in the East it has always been that way. The “Tzar” which means “Caesar” was hated by the Anglo-American Establishment for the very reason that he was so “unAmerican” The Kaiser of Germany was a cousin of the Tzar and Kaiser also means Caesar. Further to the East you have always a top-down government and this is/was ok for the East…
Its important for Central and Eastern Europe not to copy the West but to find the Central and Eastern Way in a modern sense. The top-down government was the stated reason for toppling the two governments by England who financed both countries demise.
I find Kharzin to be a theoritician. He sounds good and what he says works in a textbook situation…he even makes sure he lets us know “he’s an expert”
But timing is everything and Putin’s timing is exemplary…always. He’s a master of it, and I think Judo is something he’s drawn to because he is a master of timing…not that Judo has made him an expert…he’s just one of those people that are born sometimes to “a mission”. He’s married to Russia.
And Putin has his people ..obviously.
Not all people are untrustworthy and Putin’s got his friends. A strong group of which Glaznev is a young member.
As if Putin can’t talk to anyone and he goes to bed at night time all alone with his thoughts and is some kind of weirdo…because no one can be trusted…what rubbish…
Putin’s got amazing people around him …Lazrov and Mednevev and also I liked his wife very much, although it would have been nice if she could have stayed by his side.But even so, I think she’s a real quality person…
Putin came at the right time because the world needed him and it worked out…sometimes great things get foiled but this one didn’t..
Russia doesn’t need a Western system…she needs her own system and for the time being that’s Putin’s job…and he’ll figure out what to do about the next step when the next step comes…
Where-Wolf (22:07)
In our day to day lives we have effectively shut out most of our greater intelligence and learned to focus very hard on details and specifics.
Great thoughts.
The following is written—among 84 small verses—25000 years ago by a not Western man:
Be still
Stillness reveals the secret of eternity
Eternity embraces the all-possible
The all-possible leads to a vision of oneness
A vision of oneness brings about universal love
Universal love supports the great truth of Nature
Being still means (aot) not feeding the “efficiency” of the manifestations that appear in the mind. Don’t make ideas out of them, don’t materialize them. In fact don’t frame them into your own routinely structured perceptions. In this way one becomes aware of the infinite “other” possibilities.
@05:48
The following is written—among 84 small verses—25000 years
Oeps, moet natuurlijk 2500 years ago zijn.
“I am puzzled by this article.”
I think it’s based on a misreading of the nature of US foreign policy.
For example the neocons (probably through the Saudis) staged the gas attack in Syria to try and force America to attack Assad and when it didn’t work they didn’t stop or even hesitate for a second, they *immediately* started working on a new plan to attack Syria (using Isis) and staged a coup in Ukraine to attack Russia (because Russia helped stop them attacking Syria).
I think the author sees this laser-like focus and relentless aggression in getting what they want as a product of some clever organisational difference between America and Russia but it’s not.
All it is is the neocons totally dominate the US state department and they are psychopaths. That’s why they behave so differently.
What this means is there will be no end to all this unnecessary slaughter around the world until there is regime change in America – not the politicians because they don’t matter – but a regime change inside the state dept.
That must be the war aim – creating a wedge between the neocons and the American people that leads to regime change inside the state department. Everything else is just buying time.
What I meant in the Boyar state thing was that Putin is hated by the Empire of Chaos. He ended the 90’s, and Russians don’t want to see anything like that again. Russians predominantly like Putin.