Anglo-Zionists Running Amok (2)

In my breaks today from R&R and personal business I listened to several outstanding videos. I’ll start with Ray McGovern with Judge Nap. During te course of that video McGovern mentioned an article by Gordon Hahn, an historian of Russia (whom I mentioned previously, two and a half years ago):

The Second Great Ukrainian Ruin Revisited

The subtitle for the article is: The Four Horseman of the Ukraine’s Ruin 2.0. That tells us that there was a Ukraine Ruin 1.0. I’ve dealt with that history a number of times, but a reminder is always worthwhile. What’s worth pointing out in this conceptual framework is that Ukraine Ruin 1.0 arose from the chaotic period of Cossack domination and the wars of Russia, Poland, and the Ottomans—with the Cossacks switching sides repeatedly. Hahn doesn’t exactly say this, but anyone familiar with Ukrainian nationalism will be aware that the Cossacks have been romanticized and idealized by Ukrainian nationalists—to the present day. Perhaps not coincidentally for the role they played in killing large numbers of Jews and Poles—a history that was repeated during WW2 when Ukrainian nationalists aligned with Nazi Germany.

Hahn begins by positing:

There are four Western deceptions and lost opportunities for ending Ukraine‘s violence that have led Ukraine to slaughter.

The four deceptions or betrayals culminated in Istanbul in April, 2024, and they were the cause of Russia’s decision to launch the Special Military Operation.

After describing these deceptions and betrayals, which

were used to buy time for building up Ukraine’s army for an assault on Crimea and Donbass …

These “four horsemen” and that which they have been intended to facilitate – NATO expansion – are the causes of “Putin’s unprovoked war on Ukraine“ and hence Ukraine’s apocalyptic Second Great Ruin — Turn 2.0.

Hahn turns to the First Great Ruin and its usefulness in understanding the tragedy being visited upon Ukraine—a tragedy in great part of Ukraine’s own making, by seduction by the Anglo-Zionists. I’ve added links:

The great Cossack ‘Ruin’, which like Cossack legacies themselves have been appropriated by modern day Ukrainians by dint of its occurrence on Cossack lands, was a period of civil war, anarchy, chaos, and devastation nurtured by foreign powers’ interventions. In many ways, it resembles Russia’s ‘Smuta’ or Time of Troubles of seven-eight decades earlier, which combined chaos, internal conflict, and foreign, mostly Polish intervention. The 17th century great ‘Ukrainian’ or Cossack ‘Ruin’, which lasted from the death of Cossack Hetman Bodgan Khmelnitskiy in 1657 until the rise of the next great hetman, Ivan Mazepa, in 1687. Khmelnitskiy led the dominant Zaporozhian Cossacks to sign the 1654 Pereslavl Treaty, which brought many Cossack lands under Russian sovereignty. But chaos and destruction were sewn through political machinations, violent raiding, and full-scale attacks by Poland-Lithuania, the Ottoman Empire, and the Crimean Tatar Khanate, occasionally backed by Sweden in order to contest Russian and Cossack sovereignty. In particular, the Polish-Russian War (1654-1667) sparked by the Pereslavl treaty generated much of the conflict and dislocation of the Ruin. Other wars raged across what is today Ukraine: the Ukrainian-Polish war (1666-1671), the Ukrainian-Moscow war (1665-1676), and the Polish-Turkish war (1672-1676), with various Cossack groups joining and changing sides often enough.

At the same time, Russia’s protection and presence, combined with the pressure from other ‘Others’, especially the hated Poles, formed a contrast against which a Cossack identity began to be consolidated across a broader swathe of the population on both sides of the Dniepr. The Russian attempt to subdue and organize the Cossacks, who had declared their loyalty to the tsar, violated Cossack traditions of decentralization, anarchic freedom, lack of rule of law, and a resulting internecine conflict and violence. Discontent with and internal disagreements over Russian rule fueled further conflict between those who supported and opposed it. Additional internal tensions were driven by conflict between non-Catholic nobles and the Cossack officer class or ‘starshina’ over new, ownerless lands seized from Poland and comprising some 50 percent of Cossack territory. The fighting over these lands divided the poor peasantry from rich, landed Cossacks.

But most unsettling was the fighting between Russia and Poland over Cossack territories, with Poland struggling to control the ‘right’ or western bank Ukraine and Russia usually the ‘left’ or eastern bank. This forced Cossack hetmen, starshina, and ‘society’ to split between these and other outside forces, leading to internal power struggles, constantly shifting allegiances that pitted Cossack against Cossack as well as Cossacks against outsiders. The Ruin’s consequences included: the division of Cossack (Ukrainian) lands by Russia, Poland-Lithuania, and Ottoman Turkey, Polish-controlled right bank Ukraine’s loss of more than half of its inhabitants many of them to the Russian controlled left bank, and the mass devastation of Cossack settlements. It was not until the end of Catherine the Great’s reign, when the left bank Cossacks lost the limited autonomy they had enjoyed under the Pereslavl Treaty, that Cossackdom’s entire left bank and much of the right bank lands were stabilized and integrated into the Russian Imperial system.

The Ukrainian Ruin 2.0

Now, the Second Ukrainian Ruin is here. In addition to the human, social, political, and economic destruction reminiscent of The Ruin I, the country possibly is facing a similar partition, perhaps by several states, and incorporation of large areas into Russia. The Western media is only just beginning to report what I have been predicting and demonstrating for more than a year: that Ukraine’s army will dissolve and that any attempts to keep the losing proposition that is Kiev’s continued participation in the NATO-Russia Ukrainian War is driving the deep schism in Maidan Ukraine that risks regime, state and social collapse.

The human factor is the most disturbing.

John Mearsheimer doesn’t need me to recommend his video interviews, but I will anyway. Specifically, his one hour long discussion with Danny Davis is very worthwhile:

John Mearsheimer: PUTIN "The West Pushing Us to Our Red Lines"

It’s far too long to summarize and, as is typical, the title doesn’t do justice to the wide range of topics that were covered. However, highlights include Mearsheimer’s astute discussion of the difficulties Trump is facing in foreign policy areas. Mearsheimer doesn’t share Trump’s expressed optimism regarding the Middle East. He also sees no reason why Putin would fall in with Trump’s notion of a “ceasefire.” All of this, of course, could undermine Trump’s domestic agenda.

In discussing the absurdity of Anglo-Zionist propaganda claims that Russia has designs on territory in Western Europe, Mearsheimer makes an interesting comparison:

I like to say, when the Germans conquered the Western one half of Poland and incorporated it into the Third Reich, they were conquering a piece of territory that is much—and I underline the word ‘much’—smaller than Ukraine is, and the Wermacht went into Western Poland with 1.5 million men. Putin went into Ukraine with—at the very most—190,000 troops. He wasn't going to conquer all of Ukraine with an army that small and, furthermore, immediately after the Russian army entered Ukraine Putin put out peace feelers to the Ukrainians, which is what led to the Istanbul negotiations. Nobody puts out peace feelers that lead to negotiations in Istanbul if he is interested in conquering all of Ukraine. This is a fairy tale that we hear over and over and over and it's all designed to make it look like Putin is principally responsible for this disaster in Ukraine.

Mearsheimer’s view is that negotiations will go nowhere as things now stand—the Anglo-Zionists will not accept Putin’s terms, even though they’ve lost the war, and Putin will not accept a “frozen conflict.” Ukraine will be the loser because the Russian military is far stronger now than at the start of the war, and is continuing to gain strength, while the US dissipates its munitions stocks by giving it away to Israel to bomb civilians.

As for Trump:

I think [Trump'] recognizes that this is a really thorny issue, and I think he realizes that he's going to have to make huge concessions if he wants to get a deal with the Russians, a meaningful deal with the Russians. He's gonna have to make huge concessions and he surely understands that selling that inside the United States will be almost impossible so he probably understands that uh he's inheriting a bed of nails here.

Regarding Iran and Israel, Mearsheimer maintains that, for all Netanyahu’s bravado, Israel simply lacks the ability to take out Iran’s nuclear facilities, and Iran will soon have nuclear weapons. Mearsheimer doubts that Trump will agree to attack Iran but will, instead, attempt more sanctions.

The two continue with a lengthy discussion of the senseless Israeli bombing orgy in Syria and related issues—for example, nobody seems to have any interest in rebuilding Syria. Mearsheimer emphasizes that Israel is doing what it’s doing simply because Zionists control US foreign policy. If the US said, Stop! Israel would have to stop. This is simply the US bombing the hell out of the Middle East again by allowing the Israelis to indulge their urge to kill and destroy. They conclude that this monstrously evil behavior leads to the point at which we started:

Many people inside the West—and certainly almost everybody outside of the West—think the United States is wrecking the rules-based order that it created. There is a great deal of Truth in that.

When he says “the United States” he means the Anglo-Zionists.

And there’s much more.