Putin – the Man Behind the Former Iron Curtain

by Mustang

Tucker Carlson began his interesting interview with President Putin with several questions, among them — Why is Russia fighting a war with Ukraine, and why is no one interested in finding a peaceful solution to this conflict?  On the surface, these questions might be asked by any college sophomore, but they weren’t sophomoric.  Wisely, Carlson asked the questions and allowed Mr. Putin to answer them his way.

Vladimir Putin is a well-educated man who became a leading reform politician during Russia’s Perestroika period.  He was a former intelligence officer within the Committee for State Security (KGB), from which he retired in 1990 and took up work at Leningrad State University.

He later served as an advisor to the mayor of St. Petersburg, Russia, with subsequent advancement to the position of first deputy mayor.  He has served variously as President and Prime Minister of Russia since 1999.  In effect, Putin had a front-row seat to the events that led up to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the creation of the Russian Federation.

Within the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic (RSFSR) was but one of fifteen socialist republics.  Russians did not always control the USSR.  Khrushchev was Ukrainian; Stalin was from Georgia.  During the Second World War, the United States and USSR were allies.

The United States’ decision to use the atomic bomb to end the war with Japan shocked the world.  Never before had anyone witnessed such power in a single bomb.  It also prompted the beginning of the Cold War (a term invented by English writer George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair) in his 1945 essay titled “You and the Atomic Bomb.”  After the Moscow Conference in December 1945, the USSR transitioned from ally to enemy.

The first phase of the Cold War began when the United States and its Western European allies sought to strengthen their relationships and used the policy of containment against emerging Soviet influence.

For his part, Soviet leader Joseph Stalin was determined never to allow the invasion of a foreign power again.  After the United States and its allies established NATO, directed against Soviet expansion, Stalin began to assemble a collection of buffer states around the Soviet Union.  Stalin referred to these states as Warsaw Pact Member States.  Winston Churchill called it the Iron Curtain.

For forty-four years, the U.S. and NATO alliance members confronted the USSR and Warsaw Block at every turn.  Both the US and USSR engaged in proxy wars, notably throughout Eastern Europe and the Far East.  Ultimately, however, the communist state proved economically inadequate.

The USSR could not keep pace with the United States industrially or technologically.  Note: I recall speaking with a tourist from Russia, a man claiming to be a retired Russian Army colonel (c. 2008), who told me that after observing the United States in action against Iraq in 2003/2004, he and his contemporaries realized that the USSR could never have won in an all-out war with the United States.  It was an interesting acknowledgment, but one I took with a grain of salt.

The point is that the USSR was moving toward collapse long before 1992.

Two developments dominated the politics in the USSR between 1979 – 1989: the crumbling of economic and political structures and patchwork attempts at reforms to reverse that process.  After the rapid succession of Yuri Andropov and Konstantin Chernenko, Chairman Mikhail Gorbachev implemented perestroika to modernize Soviet communism and make substantial changes in the party’s leadership.  Mr. Gorbachev’s reforms led to unintended consequences.  His policy of glasnost facilitated public access to information that undermined the authority of the communist party.

Glasnost allowed ethnic and nationalist disaffection to reach the public stage, and many constituent republics (particularly the Baltic Republics, Georgian SSR, and Moldavia) sought greater autonomy, which Moscow initially rejected.

This led to the revolution of 1989, and the USSR began losing allies in Eastern Europe.  Suffering from low prices of petroleum and natural gas, the ongoing war in Afghanistan, outdated industry, and pervasive corruption, the USSR’s planned economy became an epic disaster.  Shortages in commodities were prevalent and noted on Western television — although my exchange student from Moscow (1994) told me that neither she nor her family ever experienced such televised shortages.

Meanwhile, tensions between the USSR and RSFSR were personified as a power struggle between USSR Chairman Gorbachev and RSFSR Chairman Boris Yeltsin.  Yeltsin presented a formidable opposition to Gorbachev and ultimately replaced Gorbachev as USSR Chairman and, in 1990, became chairman of the Supreme Soviet.  A month later, Yeltsin produced legislation prioritizing Russian laws over Soviet laws — and withholding two-thirds of the USSR’s budget.  In its first-ever free election, Boris Yeltsin became the President of the Russian SFSR in 1991.

On August 19, 1991, Russian dissidents launched a coup d’état against Gorbachev, but the effort faced overwhelming popular opposition and collapsed in three days.  At this point, the disintegration of the USSR was imminent, and the icing on that cake was Russia’s assumption of authority over all USSR institutions.

At this point, the United States government, faced with the opportunity to end the quest for global communism, showed the world its true colors.  All the language used by U.S. Presidents, from Harry Truman through George H. W. Bush (and beyond), about seeking global peace was pure political rhetoric.

At this stage, the United States had the opportunity to welcome a new country into the world of free nations.  The disintegration of the old USSR was a complex matter, made more so by oligarchs who were intensely trying to obtain control of the entire Soviet military infrastructure — from nuclear delivery systems to the weapons themselves.

Stated hopes and ambitions aside, it wasn’t enough to watch the disintegration of the Soviet Union; the United States then embarked upon a program to stamp as much of it out as possible.  They did this by manipulating weak sisters in Ukraine, a breakaway republic, and offering former soviet republics access to membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.  The incentives were both military and economic.

During his interview with Mr. Carlson, President Putin (as did Gorbachev during his address to the American people on January 2, 1986) provided a (somewhat) lengthy overview of Russian history.  He believed that doing so was necessary as an explanation of the importance of Russian sovereignty.  His lecture began around A.D. 900 — about the same time King Alfred the Great tried solidifying his hold over southern and central England.

After that, Mr. Putin began to ask a series of questions about the motives of the United States.  For example, if the United States understood how the Russians felt about sovereign territory, particularly in light of the Mongol invasion (1223 – 1440), struggles involving the Polish-Lithuanian Empire (1547 – 1764), invasion of the German Army (1914 – 1917) (1942 – 1944), a bloody civil war (1917 – 1922), and the Cold War.

Until around twenty years ago, I always viewed the U.S. government as the guys in white hats, the good guys, the people you could trust to do the right thing.  Much of that attitude concerned me not knowing all the facts.

This attitude changed when I observed what the U.S. government was doing to people who value their Bibles and Constitutional Rights to live free from invasive government policies.  If the federal government can treat its citizens like “an enemy,” then let’s look at how it treats competitive nations.  My conclusion is that we never wore white hats.

There are many examples to discuss, and I think President Putin did a fair job bringing them to Mr. Carlson’s attention.  I would be interested to hear Tucker Carlson’s “takeaways.”  Putin did ask how it is possible, of all the countries in the world, for the United States to provide financial support to Ukraine’s neo-Nazis — the valuable idiots under the direct control of Ukraine’s President Zelensky.

It is also a fact, as stated by President Putin that following the 2022 Ukrainian Eastern counteroffensive, Russia renewed calls for peace for the fifth or sixth time, and Ukrainian leaders refused to reopen discussions, claiming that the Russian government was not fully committed to peace.  And why should Zelensky be interested in peace talks with Russia?  The United States has become a cash cow for the Ukrainian comedian … and he must be thinking that life can’t get any better than this.

It should not be lost on anyone that the entire progressive apparatus views with deep disdain anyone associated with Mr. Carlson’s meeting with President Putin.  American media put Hillary Clinton on camera, who announced on at least two occasions that Carlson was no more than a useful idiot.  From a former Secretary of State whose ambition was always imagined to be world peace, Clinton’s performance was dismal.

Moreover, the American media, which has become little more than the propaganda arm of the Progressive (Neo-Marxist) Movement, dismissed Tucker Carlson as a “Gonzo Journalist” and Mr. Putin as a “petty dictator.”  Putin may be a dictator, but there’s nothing petty about the man.  Facts tell us otherwise.

I have to add here that the American left’s efforts to keep this nation in a perpetual state of war leave me nearly speechless.  Do the American people realize that this country has been at war more-or-less constantly since 1940?  Why is that?  It isn’t something we can blame on only one party if anyone thinks of George H. W. Bush and his not-so-bright son as conservative.

Since 1940, this country has given up hundreds of thousands of our precious young people to war — men and women who might have found a cure to cancer, and in the process, the government has squandered trillions of working America’s tax dollars.  To what end?  How is the world in better shape today than it was in 1933?

The interview was a good one; I hope something worthwhile comes from it.  I’m not holding my breath.  Too many people in this country are heavily invested in global war and discontent.
 
 
Korean War (1950 – 53)

Vietnam War (1953 – 64, 1965 – 77, 1974 – 75)

Laotian Civil War (1959 – 75)

Permesta Rebellion (1958 – 61) (Indonesia)

Lebanon Crisis (1958)

Bay of Pigs (1961)

Dominican Civil War (1965 – 1966)

Korean DMZ Conflict (1966 – 69)

Cambodian Civil War (1967 – 75)

Lebanon Intervention (1982 – 84)

Invasion of Grenada (1983)

Bombing of Libya (1986)

Tanker War (1987 – 88) (Iran-Iraq War)

Invasion of Panama (1989 – 1990)

Gulf War (1990 – 1991)

Iraqi No-Fly Enforcement (1991 – 2003)

Somali Intervention (1992 – 95)

Bosnia-Croatian War (1992 – 95)

Haitian Intervention (1994 – 95)

Kosovo War (1998 – 99)

Afghan War (2001 – 21)

Yemen Intervention (2002 – Present)

Iraqi War (2003 – 11)

Pakistan Intervention (2004 – 18)

Second Somali Intervention (2007 – Present)

Indian Ocean Intervention (2009 – 16)

Libyan Intervention (2011)

Ugandan Intervention (2011 – 17)

Niger Intervention (2013 – Present)

Iraq Intervention (2014 – 21)

Syrian Intervention (2014 – Present)

Libyan Intervention (2015 – 19)

Houthi Intervention (2023 – Present)

Total estimated costs: $10 Trillion (1950 – Present)
 
Putin was right … U.S. diplomats are stupid.
 

 

French Conservative Le Pen is mightier than the Sword!

 

Think this can’t happen here? The trial balloons have already been set loose regarding Trump’s mental fitness and the use of 25th amendment. Let’s take a look at how the Conservatives are doing over in France regarding this issue.

They must be afraid Le Pen will run for President again, and win this time.

By Mustang

I’m not sure that many people in the USA care all that much about European politics —and perhaps even less about politics in France, and yet what is happening in France today is uncannily similar to the antics of the American left.  Activities, by the way, that seem to demonstrate that the leftist movement is indeed one of global proportions.  I would not be surprised to learn that the founder and financier of the so-called Open Society Foundation has a hand in the anti-Democratic/anti-Republican shenanigans unfolding in France today.

Marine Le Pen is a French politician and lawyer who serves as President of the National Rally Party (formerly known as the National Front).  She is a member of the French National Assembly and the youngest daughter of the founder of the National Front, Jean-Marie Le Pen.  She additionally serves as a regional councilor and a member of the European Parliament.  In 2012, she placed third in France’s contest for the presidency, and in 2017 she placed second in the first round of elections.  In certain American publications, Le Pen is regarded as among the world’s most influential people (2011, 2015, 2016) and ranked in Politico as the second-most influential member of the European Parliament.

Marine Le Pen may be described in several ways, but she is unmistakably pro-French.  She received extensive media attention during her run for the presidency in 2010 when, during a speech at Lyon, she compared the blocking of public streets and squares within French cities, in order to accommodate Moslem prayer, with the Nazi occupation of France during World War II.  She said, “For those who want to talk a lot about World War II, if it’s about occupation, then we could also talk about Muslim prayers in the streets, because that is occupation of territory.  It is an occupation of sections of the territory, of districts in which religious laws apply.  There are, of course, no tanks, there are no soldiers, but it is nevertheless an occupation and it weighs heavily on local residents.”

Naturally, the media did flip-flops and the Moslem’s who have come to believe that they are allowed to do anything they wish —because they are Moslems — rioted.  Apparently, Le Pen is made of sand; she doesn’t care what Moslems think —or the press either, for that matter.  She speaks directly to the French people.  It is my belief that Le Pen wants to regain large swathes of French territory lost to the Moslem horde and it will be interesting to see whether she will eventually make it to the presidency.

It will be a rough road.  In 2015, the French government instituted an investigation for “distributing violent images.”  The images she publicized were pictures of the murder of American journalist James Foley —which came only a few weeks after jihadists murdered 130 people in Paris attacks (November 2015).  Ah, but as a member of parliament, Le Pen has immunity from prosecution.  No matter … her immunity was lifted in order for her to face trial for posting images that her political enemies claim will “incite terrorism, pornography, or harm human dignity.”  Were she ever convicted for this crime, she could end up in jail for 3-years and face a hefty fine.  Le Pen isn’t giving up, though …

“I thought I had been through it all: well, no.  For having condemned Daesh [ISIS] horrors in tweets, the justice system is putting me through psychiatric tests.  Just how far will they go?”  Later on, Le Pen appeared on BFM-TV, a French 24-hour news broadcast stating, “Totalitarian regimes use such methods against opponents to make them look like their crazy.”  She told reporters that she would not submit to such tests.  “I’d like to see how the judge would try and force me to do it,” she said.  Apparently, magistrates in France do have the power to order psychiatric tests —but Le Pen is having none of it.

Why did she share “horror pictures” of Moslem atrocities?  She did it in response to a French journalist who drew a comparison between ISIS and her own political party.  She later deleted the picture of James Foley after a request from his family to do so.  She said that she had been unaware of the identity of the individual in the murder picture.

So, what is going on in France?  I think it’s politics as usual.  Le Pen represents the conservative right; her enemies are on the communist left.  Her claim that she is being politically persecuted has been picked up by other European conservatives, as well … and they have rushed to her defense.  While Le Pen is attempting to regain popular support after her defeat to President Macron in 2017, her party is facing separate legal inquiries into allegations over the misuse of EU funds.

There you have it, folks.  The leftist assault on conservative (traditional) values is not just happening in the United States.  I can only conclude that George Soros (and his minions) is a very busy little bee.

 

Ted Kennedy secretly asked the Soviets to be involved in the 1984 election

We have been mixed up with the Russians and elections before this latest kerfuffle. It would be great if the media would be an honest broker and discuss past actions. A couple of weeks ago I posted Bill Clinton meddled in Russian Election.

In 1996 US govt interfered in Russia’s election so blatantly it was boasted of on the cover of Time magazine. .

putin2

And let’s look at what Senator Ted Kennedy had in mind.

If these progressives want to know what actual treason looks like, they should consult liberal lion Ted Kennedy, who not only allegedly sent secret messages to the Soviets in the midst of the cold war, he also begged them to intervene in a U.S. presidential election in order to unseat President Ronald Reagan.

kennedy-brezhnev That’s no exaggeration.According to Soviet documents unearthed in the early 1990’s, Kennedy literally asked the Soviets, avowed enemies of the U.S., to intervene on behalf of the Democratic party in the 1984 elections. Kennedy’s communist communique was so secret that it was not discovered until 1991, eight years after Kennedy had initiated his Soviet gambit:

Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an arresting memorandum. Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR. The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.

Kennedy would make certain the networks gave Andropov air time–and that they rigged the arrangement to look like honest journalism.

You can read the full KGB memo detailing Kennedy’s secret letter and request for electoral intervention here.

More The Federalist

New Arms Program to Change Russia by 2020 –

While we have the smallest navy since 1914,  and China even doing better, what could go wrong? Little attention is being given to the military buildup here, there and everywhere. By the way, apparently Russia has low information voters as well:

The death toll from the Great Terror of 1937-1938 – Stalin’s purges of Soviet elites – was 700,000, and historians estimate the total number of victims of his political repressions at anywhere between 3 million and 39 million.

Nevertheless, a sizeable part of the Russian population retains a fondness for Stalin, according to recent polls

One paradox reflected by the Levada poll, conducted in October with 1,600 respondents, was a simultaneous perception of Stalin as both good and cruel. Forty-seven percent said Stalin was a “wise leader who brought the Soviet Union to might and prosperity,” RIAN.RU

Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said the implementation of Russia’s ambitious arms procurement program will bring drastic changes to the country by 2020.

MOSCOW, March 11 (RIA Novosti) – The Russian Navy will receive 24 submarines and 54 warships of various classes by 2020, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said on Monday.

“As a result of the implementation of the state rearmament program to 2020, the navy should receive eight nuclear-powered strategic submarines, 16 multirole submarines and 54 warships of various classes,” Shoigu said at a Defense Ministry meeting .

The eight strategic missile boats include three Borey and five Borey-A class vessels (SSBN) armed with Bulava ballistic missiles.

The 16 multi-purpose submarines include eight Graney class nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSN) and improved Kilo and Lada class diesel-electric (SSK) boats.

In addition to submarines, the navy will receive Admiral Gorshkov class frigates and Steregushchy class corvettes, Buyan class corvettes and Ivan Gren Class large landing ships. RIAN.RU

Related News

Admiral Gorshkov aircraft carrier

Russia uses Microsoft to suppress dissent

So much for freedom from Freedom Loving Bill Gates. So much for dealing with totalitarian governments. Why is it that these fine folks saddle up with these regimes, while selling us out? It’s easy to forget that so few have the freedoms we do. Let us not forget.

IRKUTSK, Russia — It was late one afternoon in January when a squad of plainclothes police officers arrived at the headquarters of a prominent environmental group here. They brushed past the staff with barely a word and instead set upon the computers before carting them away. Taken were files that chronicled a generation’s worth of efforts to protect the Siberian wilderness.

Microsoft, like many American technology giants doing business in authoritarian countries, is often faced with ethical choices over government directives to help suppress dissent. In China, Microsoft has complied with censorship rules in operating its Web search service, preventing Chinese users from easily accessing banned information. Its archrival Google stopped following censorship regulations there, and scaled back its operations inside China’s Internet firewall.

The group, Baikal Environmental Wave, was organizing protests against Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin’s decision to reopen a paper factory that had polluted nearby Lake Baikal, a natural wonder that by some estimates holds 20 percent of the world’s fresh water.

Instead, the group fell victim to one of the authorities’ newest tactics for quelling dissent: confiscating computers under the pretext of searching for pirated Microsoft software.

Across Russia, the security services have carried out dozens of similar raids against outspoken advocacy groups or opposition newspapers in recent years. Security officials say the inquiries reflect their concern about software piracy, which is rampant in Russia. Yet they rarely if ever carry out raids against advocacy groups .More at the New York Times