Does the Kremlin Know What it’s Doing ?

Earlier today I posted my take on the economic and military developments on the Russian front. Based on news reports, I envisioned a gold ruble dethroning the US dollar and collapsing the Bretton Woods system which has enabled the US and its financial sector to exploit the world. I wrote at the time that the Western news blackout on reporting from Russia in order for Washington to control the narrative left actual facts hard to ascertain.

During today a little more information has reached me. The information has caused me to develop concerns that the Russians are not sophisticated enough to see that they can bring down the Bretton Woods system and dethrone the US dollar by creating a gold ruble, and in conjunction with China’s gold Yuan, create a bloc that rules financially. I think all the Russians are doing is fixing the price of gold inside Russia so Russians fearing the sanctions don’t desert the ruble and flee into gold. Possibly the internal gold/ruble price fix can develop into a broad system, but why give the enemy warning and time to prepare roadblocks? Is the conclusion that the Russians don’t have a clue?

Russian economists were brainwashed during the Yeltsin years by American economists who trained them to be servants of Washington’s empire, and now they hold senior positions. Consequently, Russian national assets were looted, and Russia was left exposed to Western sanctions and other punitive measures. Here we have a case of a superior military power disarmed by its own intellectuals.

It is absolutely incredible that the Kremlin has relied on anti-Russian de facto Western-agents like Alexei Kudrin, Elvira Nabiulina, and Anatoly Chubais. These three serve not Russia but the oligarchs and the pro-western Atlanticist Integrationists. They can’t help it and are not really traitors, just American brainwashed poor souls. Their obvious replacement is Sergei Glazyev, who at least partially understands what Russia must do. But he is demonized by the West and although the Kremlin keeps him around is wary of him. Until recently, the Kremlin has favored those of whom the West approves. These people are seen as Russia’s entry into the West.

Russia will never be able to successfully protected itself from the West as long as the Kremlin is constrained by the desire of elites to be part of the West. This constraint, in my view, will result in nuclear war. Washington will push and push against a government that has elements who desire to be part of the West until that final red line is crossed. Then the world blows up. Washington’s idea is that pressure will collapse the leadership that values Russian sovereignty, and Washington will install a puppet as in Ukraine.

As for the reporting on the peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine, it is extremely strange that the Victor of the conflict is making concessions to the Loser. This is an indication that the Kremlin itself has been affected by the West’s psyops operation against Russia. The Kremlin is on the verge of making peace partially on Ukraine’s terms in order to shut down the West’s psyops campaign against Russia.

To repeat myself. As I have said many times, my goal is to prevent nuclear war. But nuclear war is what Washington and its European puppet states are driving us toward. To avoid kicking the can down the street, Russia should sign no agreement unless it contains Ukraine’s acceptance that Crimea and Donbass are not part of Ukraine. It is unclear that Washington will allow its puppet Zelensky to sign the agreement, or keep it if it is signed. Washington will continue to cause problems for Russia. Russia should consider if Ukraine can be trusted to keep any agreement when Ukraine refused to keep the Minsk agreement. Western Ukraine is likely to remain a US puppet, so how can Ukraine be neutral in fact? Russia should keep in mind that she is the victor, not Ukraine, and not accept an agreement for the sake of peace, or the trouble will reappear. Ukraine is losing the conflict and perhaps just wants to save as much of itself as it can. There were guarantors of the Minsk agreement, and they did nothing.

Putin and Lavrov have said many times that it was a mistake to trust the West. So why repeat the mistake again?

I think the only successful agreement would be one in which Ukraine allies with Russia and looks to Russia for protection. Unclear how Ukraine can be in the EU and be neutral. Austria is a neutral country and a EU member. Did Austria participate in the sanctions against Russia? After the treaty, would Ukraine participate in future sanctions against Russia?

Ukraine has been part of Russia for centuries. It has never been part of the West. Russia must reclaim Ukraine, if not by conquest then by diplomacy. Whether conquest or diplomacy, Russia must deal decisively with Ukraine NOW, and leave no room for the reappearance of the issue.

The Kremlin made its fundamental strategic error in 2014 when the Kremlin refused the request of the Donbass Russians to be reunited with Russia. The Kremlin was afraid of offending the West beyond its reunification with Crimea and afraid of confirming Western propaganda that Putin was rebuilding the Soviet Empire. From this amazing stupid blunder by the Kremlin came 8 years of Ukrainian shelling of the Donbass Russians, massive loads of Western weapons delivered to Ukraine, massive propaganda against Putin and Russia, protests by Russian patriots within Russia at the Kremlin’s acceptance of the Ukrainian Nazis killing Russian people in Donbass, thus setting the stage for the present Western psyops against Russia. And, as I predicted, required more decisive action from Russia than was needed in 2014 by honoring the Donbass request.

The question before the world is: Will Washington’s exploitative empire over the world prevail because Russia and China and India haven’t a clue?

Because Russia has elites who had rather be part of the West than sovereign?

Will the naivete of Russia and China result in the encouraged West crossing red lines that end in nuclear war?

What the Kremlin’s go-slow war, so-anxious-to-negotiate persona has done is to defeat the image of Russia as a military power. Here is Bloomberg News: Russia’s cease fire and pullback from Kiev came because “Putin is simply looking to cut his losses after a month-long invasion that failed to take a major city and reportedly cost him thousands of dead soldiers.”

In other words, Putin is begging Ukraine for mercy and will make concessions for an end of the conflict.

A top US general says Russia’s military failure in Ukraine indicates “an intelligence gap in US that caused US to overestimate Russia’s capabilities.”

Whatever the actual facts are, the impression created by the presstitutes among Western peoples is that what Putin has accomplished is a demonstration of Russian military weakness. This belief will result in more provocations against Russia and end in nuclear war.

The Insanity of the West Accelerates

The New York Times reports that Biden is going to forestall Russian aggression against Ukraine by deploying between 1,000 and 5,000 US troops on Russia’s border and is prepared to increase the number of troops tenfold to 10,000 to 50,000 soldiers. A Russian army would eat this small number for a snack in 5 minutes. Clearly the purpose of the deployment is not military. The purpose is to heighten the “Russian threat” in the minds of the people in advance of a false flag event that will be blamed on the Kremlin.

If Biden wants to deter Russia all he needs to do is to give Russia the security guarantee she says she needs. Why does Biden want Russia to be insecure?

The cause of the problem is obvious. In 2014 the US in an attempt to deprive Russia of her Black Sea naval base overthrew a Russian-friendly and democratically elected Ukrainian government and installed a neo-Nazi regime that began war against the Russian inhabitants of the Donbass region of Eastern Ukraine, formerly parts of Russia that had been transferred during the Soviet era into the the Soviet Union’s Ukrainian province.

To stabilize the situation, Russia hammered out the Minsk Agreement but neither Ukraine nor the Western signatories kept the agreement.

Russia does not want the broke and troublesome Ukraine. Russia just wants Ukraine not to become a place for US missile bases.

It is a simple demand easy to accept in the interest of peace.

But peace is unprofitable and is the last thing the US military/security complex wants. Therefore Washington is responding to the Russian/US/NATO security talks by deploying troops on Russia’s borders. The stupid British are stirring the pot of “Russian aggression” by withdrawing the embassy staff from Kiev.

We have been hearing from US/NATO about the “growing Russian threat” for a long time. What happens to credibility that is already damaged if there is no Russian invasion? It seems that Washington and its NATO puppets are so far out on the limb that they simply must provoke a Russian invasion.

The Russians are waiting in vain for Washington’s written response to their proposal for mutual security. Washington has answered with more accusations, more provocations.

Is the Kremlin having difficulty understanding: (1) that Trump was removed from office because he said he wanted to normalize relations with Russia, (2) that Russia is the necessary enemy for the power and profit of the US military/security complex, and (3) Russia is regarded as the obstacle to US hegemony? How can it be that in the face of all evidence to the contrary the Kremlin has the delusion that Washington is interested in Russians feeling secure.

While the Kremlin wastes time, weapons pour into Ukraine and the Western media prepare their people for “Russian aggression.” Russian protests of intentions attributed to her are pointless. The Western media knows the required narrative and is not interested in any facts.

The question really is whether Russia can accept that she has an enemy.

(Republished from by permission of author or representative

Russia Speaks: Are the Dumbshits in Washington Listening ?

A Russian foot has come down. The euphemistic language “our Western partners” is discarded for the realistic “our opponents.” Russian patience with Washington has come to an end.

“If our opponents go against us, they will see that their security is not strengthened. The consequences for them will be dire. . . . Lack of progress towards a political and diplomatic solution to this problem [Ukraine] will lead to our response being military and technological.” –Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov


As a pretext, the West is using the situation in Ukraine, where it embarked on encouraging Russophobia and justifying the actions of the Kiev regime to undermine the Minsk agreements and prepare for a military scenario in Donbass.

The course has been chosen of drawing Ukraine into NATO, which is fraught with the deployment of strike missile systems there with a minimal flight time to Central Russia, and other destabilising weapons. Such irresponsible behaviour creates grave military risks for all parties involved, up to and including a large-scale conflict in Europe.

We insist that serious long-term legal guarantees are provided, which would exclude NATO’s further advancement to the east and deployment of weapons on Russia’s western borders which are a threat to Russia. This must be done within a specific timeframe and on the basis of the principle of comprehensive and indivisible security.

To ensure the vital interests of European security, it is necessary to officially disavow the decision taken at the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest about “Ukraine and Georgia becoming NATO members” as contrary to the commitment undertaken by all the OSCE participating States “not to strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other States.”

We insist on the adoption of a legally binding agreement regarding the US and other NATO member countries’ non-deployment of strike weapons systems which threaten the territory of the Russian Federation on the territories of adjacent countries, both members and non-members of NATO.

We also insist on receiving a concrete response from NATO to our previous proposals on decreasing tension in Europe.

Paul Craig Roberts

Putin to Biden: Either Finlandize Ukraine or We Will

Either the U.S. and NATO provide us with “legal guarantees” that Ukraine will never join NATO or become a base for weapons that can threaten Russia — or we will go in and guarantee it ourselves.

This is the message Russian President Vladimir Putin is sending, backed by the 100,000 troops Russia has amassed on Ukraine’s borders.

At the Kremlin last week, Putin drew his red line:

“The threat on our western borders is … rising, as we have said multiple times. … In our dialogue with the United States and its allies, we will insist on developing concrete agreements prohibiting any further eastward expansion of NATO and the placement there of weapons systems in the immediate vicinity of Russian territory.”

That comes close to an ultimatum. And NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg backhanded the President of Russia for issuing it:

“It’s only Ukraine and 30 NATO allies that decide when Ukraine is ready to join NATO. … Russia has no veto, Russia has no say, and Russia has no right to establish a sphere of influence trying to control their neighbors.”

Yet, great powers have always established spheres of influence. Chinese President Xi Jinping claims virtually the entire South China Sea that is bordered by half a dozen nations. For 200 years, the United States has declared a Monroe Doctrine that puts our hemisphere off-limits to new colonizations.

Moreover, Putin wants to speak to the real decider of the question as to whether Ukraine joins NATO or receives weapons that can threaten Russia. And the decider is not Jens Stoltenberg but President Joe Biden.

In the missile crisis of 60 years ago, the U.S., with its “quarantine” of Cuba and strategic and tactical superiority in the Caribbean, forced Nikita Khrushchev to pull his intermediate-range ballistic missiles, which could reach Washington, off of Fidel Castro’s island.

If it did not do so, Moscow was led to understand, we would use our air and naval supremacy to destroy his missiles and send in the Marines to finish the job.

Accepting a counteroffer for the U.S. withdrawal of Jupiter missiles from Turkey, Khrushchev complied with President John F. Kennedy’s demand. Russia’s missiles came out. And Kennedy was seen as having won a Cold War victory.

Now it is we who are being told to comply with Russia’s demands in Ukraine, or Russia will go in to Ukraine and neutralize the threat itself.

The history?

When the Warsaw Pact collapsed and the USSR came apart three decades ago, Russia withdrew all of its military forces from Central and Eastern Europe. Moscow believed it had an agreed-upon understanding with the Americans.

Under the deal, the two Germanys would be reunited. Russian troops would be removed from East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania. And there would be no NATO expansion into Eastern Europe.

If America made that commitment, it was a promise broken. For, within 20 years, NATO had brought every Warsaw Pact nation into the alliance along with the former Soviet republics of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.

Neocons and Republican hawks such as the late John McCain sought to bring Ukraine and two other ex-Soviet republics, Georgia and Moldova, into NATO.

Putin, who served in the KGB in the late Soviet era and calls the breakup of the USSR the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe” of the 20th century, is now saying: Enough is enough.

Translation: “Thus far and no further! Ukraine is not going to be a member of NATO or a military ally and partner of the United States, nor a base for weapons that can strike Russia in minutes. For us, that crosses a red line. And if NATO proceeds with arming Ukraine for conflict with Russia, we reserve the right to act first. Finlandize Ukraine, or we will!”

The problem for Biden?

In Ukraine and in Georgia, as we saw in the 2008 war, Russia has the tactical and strategic superiority we had in 1962 in Cuba. Moreover, while Ukraine is vital to Russia, it has never been vital to us.

When President Franklin D. Roosevelt recognized Joseph Stalin’s USSR in 1933, Moscow was engaged in the forced collectivization of the farms of Ukraine, which had caused a famine and the deaths of millions. We Americans did nothing to stop it.

During the Cold War, America never insisted on the independence of Ukraine. Though we celebrated when the Baltic states and Ukraine broke free of Moscow, we never regarded their independence as vital interests for which America should be willing to go to war.

A U.S. war with Russia over Ukraine would be a disaster for all three nations. Nor could the U.S. indefinitely guarantee the independence of a country 5,000 miles away that shares not only a lengthy border with Mother Russia but also a history, language, religion, ethnicity and culture.

Forced to choose between accepting Russia’s demand that NATO stay out of Ukraine and Russia going in, the U.S. is not going to war.

Biden should tell Putin: The U.S. will not be issuing any NATO war guarantees to fight for Ukraine.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

The Kremlin Made a Strategic Mistake by Refusing the Breakaway Republics Request to be Reincorporated Into Russia Where They Historically Resided

The Kremlin demonstrated indecision and weakness, and left a festering wound that Washington is exploiting. As I have long warned, the Kremlin’s passivity will result in war.

The situation has developed precisely as I forecast. The Kremlin’s failure in 2014 to reincorporate the Donbass Russians back into Russia has played into Washington’s hands. The Kremlin gave Washington years to arm and train the Ukrainians, to continue the hostilities toward the Donetsk and Luhansk Republics, and to conduct a propaganda campaign that paints Russia as the aggressor. Mistakes of this magnitude usually result in war.

If Russia had accepted the vote of the breakaway republics to be reincorporated into Russia, the hostilities would have ended as not even the Ukrainians are stupid enough to attack Russia herself. If the hostilities had been ended, Washington would have had no opening, and the current dangerous situation would not have been able to emerge.

Live and learn, but is the Kremlin learning?

Kremlin Says Half Of Entire Ukrainian Army Is In Donbass As Blinken Warns Putin: US “Prepared To Act”

WEDNESDAY, DEC 01, 2021 – 05:30 PM
A Wednesday statement out of the Russian Foreign Ministry has charged Kiev with stoking tensions along the Ukrainian border. The statement alleged that over 100,000 Ukrainian troops and military hardware have been moved into the restive Donbass region, where the national forces have been in a stalemate with pro-Russian separatists for half a decade going back to 2014.

While rejecting prior accusations out of Kiev and Washington – and especially Western media – that it’s Russia that’s stoking tensions by sending 90,000 regular forces near the border, Kremlin spokeswoman Maria Zakharova had this to say: “According to some reports, the number of troops… in the conflict zone already reaches 125,000 people, and this, if anyone does not know, is half of the entire composition of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.”

Further she accused Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky of breaking the peace, particularly the Donbass ceasefire terms of the Minsk agreement, after he submitted a bill to Ukrainian parliament which would allow foreign troops into the country to participate in joint military drills next year.

The rival sides are now in a full-blown media and information war, trading tit-for-tat accusations of military build-up, in a dangerous situation that could be barreling toward renewal of actual armed conflict:

“In recent weeks, we have seen a stream of consciousness from the Ukrainian leadership – especially when it comes to the military – that is excessively inflamed and dangerous,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in follow-up to Zakharova’s words.

Just last week the foreign ministry used similar language which denounced the “hot heads” in Kiev which have a “feeling of complete impunity” and “are in favor of a military solution to this internal Ukrainian crisis.”

But Secretary of State Antony Blinken also weighed in on Wednesday, escalating the rhetoric further. He charged Putin with “laying the groundwork for an invasion” of neighboring Ukraine. He demanded the Kremlin pull back it’s forces from near the border (an implicit admission that we are still merely talking about the “movements” of Russian troops within Russia’s own territory). This despite the Pentagon this week appearing to downplay the ‘invasion threat’.

Meanwhile The Washington Post is reporting that top Biden admin officials are wildly speculating over ‘false flag’ scenarios… and they are already blaming Russia.

“We don’t know whether President Putin has made the decision to invade. We do know that he is putting in place the capacity to do so in short order should he so decide,” Blinken told reporters in Latvia after meeting with NATO foreign ministers, where the crisis was discussed.

“Should Russia follow the path of confrontation, when it comes to Ukraine, we’ve made clear that we will respond resolutely, including with a range of high-impact economic measures that we have refrained from pursuing in the past,” Blinken added. While stopping short of any direct threat of American military intervention, he said that Western allies have expressed “tremendous solidarity” to take action in the event of a Russian offensive in Ukraine.

Paul Craig Roberts

Washington is Misreading Russia at the World’s Peril

On August 31, 2018, I wrote:

“So, the questions for Andrei Martyanov, The Saker, and for Putin and the Russian government is: How long does turning your other cheek work? Do you turn your other cheek so long as to allow your opponent to neutralize your advantage in a confrontation? Do you turn your other cheek so long that you lose the support of the patriotic population for your failure to defend the country’s honor? Do you turn your other cheek so long that you are eventually forced into war or submission? Do you turn your other cheek so long that the result is nuclear war?

“I think that Martyanov and The Saker agree that my question is a valid one. Both emphazise in their highly informative writings that the court historians misrepresent wars in the interest of victors. Let’s give this a moment’s thought. Both Napoleon and Hitler stood at their apogee, their success unmitigated by any military defeat. Then they marched into Russia and were utterly destroyed. Why did they do this? They did it because their success had given them massive arrogance and belief in their “exceptionalism,” the dangerous word that encapsulates Washington’s belief in its hegemony.

“The zionist neoconsevatives who rule in Washington are capable of the same mistake that Napoleon and Hitler made. They believe in “the end of history,” that the Soviet collapse means history has chosen America as the model for the future. Their hubris actually exceeds that of Napoleon and Hitler.

“When confronted with such deluded and ideological force, does turning the other cheek work or does it encourage more provocation?

“This is the question before the Russian government.”

Andrei Martyanov answered on September 4, 2018: He argued that Washington is aware that its military power is limited and will not risk nuclear annihilation.

On April 5, 2021, the Saker has reached agreement with my point: “Russia cannot and will not retreat further, she won’t meekly declare that the Donbass or Crimea belong to the Nazi regime in Kiev. Russia is ready, capable and willing to fight US/NATO forces if needed, including by using tactical and even strategic nukes.”

Like myself the Saker concludes that Washington’s hubris means that “The biggest danger right now is that western politicians are completely misreading not only Putin, but all of Russia.”

Martyanov believes that Washington’s guarantee to Ukraine is a tempest in a teacup as Washington will not really risk confronting Russia militarily.

I wonder if Martyanov is giving Washington too much credit for awareness. If Washington were reading the situation correctly, would the US Secretary of Defense have given Ukraine a guarantee against Russian intervention if Ukraine, now better armed by Washington, renews its assault on Donbass? Washington wants conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and the purpose of giving the guarantee is to produce conflict.

Martyanov might be correct that Ukraine is too wary to trust the guarantee, and that Washington would not stand behind it. But escalation can have momentum of its own. The publicized guarantee could result in extreme elements pushing the Ukrainian president into foolhardy action. Neocons and liberal interventionists could insist Washington’s word and reputation are at stake and demand that Biden go to Ukraine’s aid. I agree with Martyanov that it would be a war based on stupid nonsense, but these things do happen.

I only raise questions. Saker and Martyanov are better informed on these matters than I. Nevertheless, I think the risk is high that the American people are going to be very regretful that they permitted the military/security complex to use the dumbshit Democrats to prevent President Trump from normalizing relations with Russia.