Thursday, September 25, 2014

Czech ex-PM Nečas: stop hostility towards Russia




On a conference in Prague, Nečas would say
The sooner the escalation of hatred and hostility toward Russia ends, the better. I am confident that Russia is a strategic partner of the West in the short and long term.
And Nečas, who is now a teacher of a sort (of trans-Atlantic political science), would add that it's much harder to deal with some problems in the world, e.g. in Africa and the Middle East, without Russia. He would also mention the very same argument that I often do – that Winston Churchill had to befriend Joseph Stalin (who was surely worse than Putin) to achieve certain things.

In August, Nečas would criticize the sanctions and the "stupid, myopic, and ahistorical diabolization" of Mr Putin when he's painted as another Hitler.

I was comparing some of the recent videos – e.g. the genuinely bitter, hateful, misleading, and often downright dishonest monologues by Barack Obama – with the situation just 8 years ago. For example, have a look at this 2006 video:

Bush was really a friend with Putin. He would say that they had a pretty good time when they discussed some leadership questions. Bush would say something about the export of his type of democracy abroad, e.g. to Iraq, and Russia was mentioned in the adjacent sentences. Maybe Bush has even explicitly said that he would like to clone the Iraqi organization of the society into Russia. This is, of course, comical because such an U.S.-organized "export of democracy" has always been a complete failure and we see where Iraq stands today.

Putin has of course used this bizarre combination of Bush's comments about the other countries and he would say that "Russia surely doesn't want to have the same democracy as Iraq". The journalists in the room laughed because in the context, the remark was precious. I think that in 2006, they must have understood that Russia had a superior organization of the society relatively to what the U.S. is trying to "export", and they were able to deduce some consequences out of this simple observation. There is a more general point in the remark: the double standards when it comes to the evaluation of democracy, human rights, and even abilities and the economic success in the U.S.

If someone licks the Americans' rectums, he immediately starts to get a good press even though he or his country is almost completely and entirely f*cked-up, to put it politely. So the members of the Congress applaud Mr Poroshenko as he praises himself and Ukraine as the cradle of progress. The fact that his country is in a much worse shape when it comes to democracy, corruption, economic output, and lots of other things than Russia doesn't seem to prevent anyone from criticizing and attacking Russia.

It's not just Ukraine. Saudi Arabia's human rights record is terrible, and also vastly worse than anything we can see in Russia, but we can't read any criticism of Saudi Arabia in the "mainstream" U.S. news outlets simply because Saudi Arabia seems to be more eager than Russia to lick the rectums of the powerful Americans.

More dramatically, anti-Assad pro-Islamic groups – and the ISIS was just one of about four groups that just managed to get more important than others – were supported by the U.S. as the "best guys" in Syria (much like Al Qaeda was supported by the U.S. in Afghanistan) just before the ISIS (as Al Qaeda 15 years earlier) became one of the greatest threats.

Yesterday, I originally didn't want to watch the particular episode of CrossTalk above because I couldn't imagine what new about the messy situation over there could be said. But the program was very good, thanks to the host, Ivan Eland, and especially Rachel Shabi who is an Iraqi Jewish expert in the Middle East affairs.

The U.S. don't have any plan what will happen "after the bombing of the ISIS". The main defect of the U.S. thinking is their implicit belief that one can "eliminate the ISIS by bombs". But the ISIS is primarily a vision, an ideology. You just can't eliminate an ideology by bombs. On the contrary, such an external attack may only strengthen the ideology.

Another way to generalize the observation is that the U.S. is often unable to see that the thinking that "we have to do something" often makes things worse, not better.

If we assume that the permanent wars and chaos (in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt etc. etc.) aren't really the very purpose of the U.S. policies, the American leaders seem utterly unable to invent plans for a sustainable arrangement in these countries. An aspect of this inability is that they're completely incapable of recognizing the actual "conditions on the ground" and the existing balance of the military and political power. It always looks like they are fighting wars in the vacuum – attempting to install a happy end from a Hollywood movie in a country whose history, traditions, dreams, and reality looks nothing like the beginning of the movie. The underlying defect of the American thinking is the same defect that makes it possible for feminism, black victimism, and similar cr*ppy ideologies to thrive in the U.S. – it's a complete divorce from the reality.

For example, it is very obvious from observations (as well as from theoretical derivations based on simpler, older observations) that the amount of good theoretical physics produced by females should be expected to be at least by one order of magnitude smaller than the output of men. It is a fact and there is absolutely nothing wrong about the fact. But the American interventionist/PC attitude is to identify facts – and laws of physics – as enemies and fight them. They want to replace facts with a vision that is prohibited by the laws of physics.

However, you just can't change the fact that in average, women are much weaker in theoretical physics than men (please, don't annoy me with Ms Laura's "black holes don't exist" claims that are all over the "mainstream" media – she should have been failed in her first course of GR if she were saying similar self-evidently flawed things) and despite Assad's flaws, all other powerful enough groups in Syria are worse than him and his fans. That's just how the Syrian reality works and denying the reality can't lead to anything good.

One may ask whether the motives why America is intervening in this increasingly failing way are ethical or unethical. Well, I guess that Americans usually don't do it to get some profit. After all, they are rich enough. They are arguably not doing these things to enslave others, either. But they are doing it for the (largely undeserved) feeling of moral superiority – and they seem to measure their moral superiority by the frequency with which someone licks their rectums. Sorry to inform you but:
A political group in country XY that is best at licking your rectum isn't necessarily the best group for the country XY or for the world.
I am sure that many Americans will consider this negative statement to be a heresy. But it's a fact. The most decent guy in a country – or the guy who may bring the greatest improvements to his or her country – isn't necessarily the guy who worships you unconditionally. Face it: it may be someone who doesn't like you or at least someone who is ambiguous (and that's Putin's case) when it comes to his feelings about you.

For example, and there are tons of other examples, there is no political group worth mentioning in Syria (and many other countries) that would consider America as its role model. If you continue to be unable to notice and absorb this elementary fact, your interventions will continue to be inevitably counterproductive.


  1. If you had studied American history very thoroughly with a critical eye, US actions have always been to control everything they can get their fingers on. Thus your correct assertion of rectum licking to get US support. It all started with the Monroe Doctrine where the US used it's rectum lickers, who profited handsomely, to enslave their countries and keep them poor and illiterate to benefit US corporations. The current circus with Russia is nothing more than trying to destroy a competitor for influence in the world. Same with China, thus the often heard "pivot to Asia" in US policy. The US is refusing to share the top spot and is destroying itself from within as the leaders, not the people, thirst for more power and control. The "one indispensable nation" has a god complex. It is also hungry for the profits it brings, contrary to your assertion the US is rich enough. Rare is the rich person or country that doesn't want more. Plus the US is broke.
    With Obama's fixation on climate change it is entirely possible that he wants to destroy the ME and Russia to keep fossil fuels in the ground and the price sky high to discourage consumption and cripple it's competitors for top dog. The economic destruction of the US by this policy would then be blamed on external sources not US machinations. Experts say the US wants to rid Syria of Assad for Qatar to build a pipeline for natgas to Europe and undercut Russia. Problem is if Assad goes there will be a power struggle for years if not decades with it being unsafe to construct or operate that pipeline. The US is now the worlds top energy producer only because it's people and local politicians made it possible as Obama did everything in his power to cripple it on the federal level.

  2. The criticism should be limited to the US Ruling Class. I should expect that a significant number (a third?) of Americans have never heard of ISIS and don't know about the recent and ongoing bombing. Although they would likely approve if they found out.

    The US was born in war beginning at Roanoke, or even St. Augustine, the whole of the Indian wars which only ended in the late 19th Century. And don't forget a couple of excursions into Canada, the Mexican War and the Civil War.

    Since the sinking of the Maine 116 years ago, the US has been almost continuously at war, most of which occurred without public approval or even awareness and mostly without Congressional involvement, never mind Declarations of War:

    Hawaii, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Philippines, Guam, Samoa, all of the Caribbean and Central America (and still ongoing), China (actual boots on the ground), Mexico (again, Pancho Villa), Columbia (the canal), WWI, Russia (boots on the ground), more C. A. and Caribbean, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, the Caribbean and C. A. again and again and again, Iran (set up the Shah), Chile (Allende), Congo (Lumumba), Angola, Iraq (now three times), Afghanistan, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Ukraine (boots on the ground). Now we will fight Ebola in western Africa.

    I guess we're due for another try at Canada. Or maybe a rerun of the Civil War. A recent poll showed that in every State one-fourth of the population wanted the State to secede from the Union.

    Turchin's and Nefedov's book "Secular Cycles" describes how Ruling Classes gradually confiscate ever larger shares of the national income, reducing the real incomes of the ruled, andeventually inducing economic decline and intra-Ruling Class conflict. The end result is state collapse. The American and EU working classes have suffered ongoing declines in real income for around 30 years, and middle class incomes have stagnated for as long. But the Ruling Class, which includes the credentialed professionals, has prospered.

    Something Wicked this Way Comes.

  3. "...please, don't annoy me with Ms Laura's "black holes don't exist" claims that are all over the "mainstream" media –..."

    When Stephen Hawking said in a recent paper that "there are no black holes", he was simply inventing a new word for event horizon and calling it apparent horizon (because they arent totally black) , he was not saying that they don't exist. In short, he was being his usual mischievous self and f&%king with us.
    Perhaps Laura misunderstood :)

  4. Too many "boomers" were brainwashed after WW2 with the school drills with air raid sirens, with teachers telling them to get under their desks to protect against nuclear bombs. Russia was demonized for many years during the Cold War. I think that some Western politicians are finding it convenient to resurrect those childhood fears to divert attention from severe domestic problems and to further strategic interests.
    Obviously it is preferable to have a cooperative stance with Russia rather than an antagonistic one. This is reminding me of the Oceania, Eastasia, Eurasia superstate fake perpetual conflict in Orwell's 1984.

  5. Compare Putin to US President Teddy Roosevelt. Teddy secured the Western hemisphere for America, though incessantly vilified for succeeding at it. The British East India Company secured Britain's empire despite a parliament of dunces and congenitally retarded royalty. Putin will make Russia secure by subsuming the competition. Vlad the Hammer!

    America is wrung-out after a decade of $trillion/year sterile conflict. The British Empire collapsed when its colonials were willing to die to be shut of it - and Britain lacked the cojones and money to reverse that. The American colonies before that. The Roman Empire before that. Putin is biding his time. The world will be his to divvy up with China: strong minds, strong arms, patience, and no mercy for any enemy.

  6. The Ruling Class :)

  7. "I am confident that Russia is a strategic partner of the West in the short and long term."

    There is certainly a need for such partnership, but it appears that in return Russia wants to be able to treat all former Soviet republics as its sphere of influence. There are commentators who see that as the natural order of things anyway, and that trying to interfere with this natural order of things in the past only enraged Russia and made it less willing to be any kind of partner to the West.

    On the other hand, I can see how Russia's idea of a "sphere of influence" on European soil doesn't mesh very well with the current Western practices - smaller European countries, Canada, etc, are far less fearful of their larger neighbors than the former Soviet republics are of Russia.

    Overall, I am not sure it is fair to regard the West as the only responsible party for the deterioration of its relations with Russia.

  8. Successor states of the USSR - which is 12 of 15 USSR Republics (three Baltic States are the removed, non-successor ones) - have never ceased to be a part of the Russian sphere of influence, and if someone has ever suggested something different to you, you have been had.

  9. @ Bob Sykes - "Since the sinking of the Maine 116 years ago, the US has been almost continuously at war,"

    That's quite a list, Bob Sykes! Does make you think.

  10. In some sense, Canada is in the American sphere of influence, but the flavor of this influence is quite different.

    It's also unclear how free the Baltic states really are. They certainly live in greater fear than the Canadians.

  11. I am sorry to have called you Lubomir (although I have another friend of that name who subs with Lubos).

    Else, about Bush, it is worth noting that when he was hospitalized in critical more than a year ago, Putin sent him a card (US media itself reported on the fact). There was no card from Obama.

    Slightly OT, a little after that, the pianist van Cliburn before died (he was living near Fort Worth, TX at the time), he received a Russian state visit, in honor of his 195's win at the Tchaikovsky Competition in the Soviet Union. These Russians have long memories, for good, or (in the case of the Obama admin.) ill.

  12. Hard to say, nobody has had the opportunity or means to 'sway' Canada, this comparison has its limits.

  13. The comparison is indeed imperfect, and yet, it's not really hard to say whether the Canadians live in greater or lesser fear than many of Russia's neighbors.

  14. Could you please explain me why and in what sense Canada's belonging to the U.S. sphere of influence is different from the USSR successors states' belonging to the Russian sphere of influence? I really can't imagine what the difference could possibly be.

  15. Luboš - and Míra - is sometimes used as a simplified version of Lubomír but we, the pure form of Luboš, have gained independent many years ago and have had a specific "saints" name day on July 16th. ;-)

  16. Being uneasy with a neighbour is different from being bombed.
    US wisely picks on countries safely away from their borders (7 countries bombed in 6 years).

  17. We are discussing a more narrow subject than general foreing policy.

  18. Oh, no, Please, do not invoke racism. Doing so for polemical purposes is no better than calling someone "Hitler" to avoid having a real discussion. I would leave pointless accusations of racism to left-wingers, who think such accusations actually constitute an "argument".

  19. Just to be sure, you didn't provide us with any alternative answer, did you?

    Racism of this kind is really a left-wing ideology although it is a matter of terminology.

  20. I thought the differences were self-evident, but fair enough, I haven't articulated why that is the case. If I think of a clean argument, I will post it here.

  21. Does it mean that you admit that you actually weren't aware of the explanation when you were writing the comment, and you are only going to retroactively fabricate an excuse?

  22. I first made a statement, "smaller European countries, Canada, etc, are far less fearful of their
    larger neighbors than the former Soviet republics are of Russia."

    I thought that was self-evident, but you seem to disagree.

  23. I think the relationships between Canada-and-USA and Belarus-and-Russia are self-evidently the same, structurally, and your claim about the other successor states' being fearful of Russia is self-evidently bullšit. Some, like Belarus, are as friendly as Canada, Ukraine is hostile.

    Have you seen how kids in Ukraine are being educated to view Putin?

    When I watched this thing - that is almost on par with the brainwashing of the Palestinian Arab children by their terrorist adults – I was ashamed of being a Slav. Are they also fearful of Russia if they organize these events? Are you joking?