An infuriating aspect of the European neocon fiasco is how awful 'success' would be. Infuriating not just as to methods, nor the degree to which the corpratist/corrupters words (peace, democracy) elide the desire for resource control, but also the gobsmacking mis-read on the ability to keep the result from blowing up on its own. Yugoslavia was composed of regions that energetically worked historical hatreds on one another; Tito was a harsh dictator in part because that is what it took to hold Yugoslavia together. Those hatreds still are active today. How on earth do the neo-cons expect to hold similar hatreds together should they succeed with their Ukrainian/Russian plans? It reflects a hubris and selfishness that hopefully will earn a righteous first testament judgment on the plotters.
Yes, Spain goes to the polls today, and if the AP is to be believed, the turnout should be around 70%, a whopper of a figure, especially during summer. Puts France’s rate to shame. A point for the Socialist Sanchez: he at least had the probity to call for early elections after his party and other Lefties took a drubbing in late May. Of course any party “right” of center or daring to criticize EU dogma and diktats gets labeled “fascist” or “far-right.” and somehow connected to Generalissimo Franco (that must be inscribed in the AP style book).
The article also mentions that Germany and France are “worried” about Spain moving right! Ha! They would do well to look to their own collapsing, cratering governments’ popularity and think about calling early elections too! Macron still has 3 1/2 years, and the AfD is growing ever-stronger.
Yeah, I remember reading a report at the time that did the Franco reference, too. I think they all did. But it all could have been the same report - haha. Maybe AI is generating them all now. But the leftist rag reporters' intelligence was always "artificial" anyway.
Great write up Mark. The neocons are really stirring the pot. Apparently they know enough history about grievances to make a mess. Hopefully the people in Poland and elsewhere are tired or war.
Thanks Mark - very educational and gave me a different prospective on the territories Poland Lost.
What an amazing speech by Putin.
The speech had various audiences, and different messages. Americancardigan mentions Africa. An entire post could be written analyzing the parties being targeted, and their reception. China is one, and the level of detail and history would appeal to them. It positions Putin as reasonable, giving a warning, and highly informed on the history.
"Regarding the policy of the Ukrainian regime, it is none of our business. If they want to relinquish or sell off something in order to pay their bosses, as traitors usually do, that’s their business. We will not interfere."
That statement, read as Putin speaking to leaders of the Ukraine, makes no sense whatsoever to someone such as myself who is not familiar with Polish and Ukrainian history. How could Putin ever put up with Western Ukraine being occupied by / sold to a NATO member, given the Russian desire for Ukraine to be at the very least militarily neutered buffer state?
So thank you for identifying the true audience for Putin's remark and its true intent. How would people who are not familiar with the history of Eastern Europe interpret Putin's remarks? I guess we will have to look to the responses of the U.S. State Department and the U.S. intelligence agencies to find out. Suffice it to say, there is great value in the perspective you are providing here, and not only in this respect.
Dear dissonant1 - in previous posts Mark references an evolved map that describes yesterday's Ukraine as new pieces. A western segment left to Ukraine (or Poland), and to the east (that buffer state) as a russian-aligned 'Novorussia'. This achieves the separation between Russia and a NATO state even if Poland grabs the western Ukraine region. As to the use of sell, I think the sense is 'sell-out'
Hi Bruce, yeah I saw Schryver's maps - which I think are very good. I think the most likely result is what you and he are calling "Novorussia" is actually annexed to Russia; so those oblasts would not in effect be a buffer area. I see the buffer area as everything between Novorussia and Lviv. The poles/lithuanians could take Lviv and the oblast to the north of it (I forget the name). But that would leave the rest of the rump Ukraine as the buffer area. That is the area I think in which Russia WILL NOT allow a foreign military. I hope that clarifies my view.
Hi dissonant1 - yes, I agree with you that the question of what constitutes an acceptable buffer state from Russia's point-of-view will be *the* key question to settle. Best regards!
At this point in time, I don't see how Putin can afford to leave ANY part of Ukraine outside Russian control. We all know what will happen if he does: the neocons will get up to the same tricks again. The whole of Ukraine needs to be the buffer state.
That's a good point and one aspect I forgot to include is this. Putin leaves himself an opening to intervene. The remarks make it clear that any sellout by Ukraine to Poland would need to be with the consent of the people--not by "traitors" alone, who would presumably be in league with Russia's enemies. A sellout by "traitors" against the will of the people would give Russia a basis to intervene in any such settlement.
IMO, another opportunity for Putin to show and share his reasonableness above all else. He's using solid historical references, education, and rationale to make his message fact-based.
I don't anticipate it will do much for the Polish people themselves, and I feel his message is meant more for the broader global leaders (Africa for example) to hear and help educate them to some degree. It may provide some empathy in other countries that could be to Russia's benefit.
Regarding: "Note a couple of things. Putin says Ukrainians can sell their land to pay their bosses, if they wish. And he calls people who would do that “traitors”. For “bosses” I think, in context, we can read “Poles”." Mark, I read this differently. I felt (again) like Putin is saying this for the benefit of others. For example, I think he's really speaking to NATO as "bosses" versus the Poles.
Further, you think focusing solely on the 20th century aspects and nothing previous is a "misstep"? Like leaving past grievances on the side of the road? Curious to read/hear/see how other's respond to this gap.
Yes, overall an impressive statement from Putin, he speaks at turns to all the parties on the ground directly (I think the mis-step you identify is Putin speaking to political leaders). The grasp of history and treachery he covers brings sharp contrasts to the narrative. As with his December 2022 speeches on bright lines in Ukraine, he is being very clear as to what will and will not get a Russian response. The cleverness of making clear to the Polish gov't what they can take if they wish - masterstroke, sure to drive up tension around NATO cohesion. The map you and Schryver posit as most likely end-state is coming closer to focus. Superb write-up, thank you
See below--I replied at greater length to your original comment and describe his more prescient views in more detail. I had to run to church and just got back. Re the Slavic swastika, I was repeating what his Wiki page says--I couldn't see it clearly myself. For readers, the words on the front of his shirt reads: Death to the enemies of the Fatherland. He basically has taken seriously what the Neocons have largely said openly, but which most Americans (including myself) never believed could seriously happen.
True. What he's describing has never been a secret. It's the program openly espoused by the Neocons and, really, their ideological ancestors going back to the 19th century. He specifically cites Brzezinski. I don't
For readers, Darek made a typo. The name is Aleksander Jabłonowski (A. Jabłoński was a well known physicist). That's a pseudonym for Wojciech Olszański--aka Jaszczur, "Reptile" or "Lizard".
He's a very controversial figure. I don't know much about him, but he wears a uniform styled after the pre-WW2 Polish uniform--but with a "Slavic" swastika on the arm.
What I believe that Darek is pointing to in the Jabłonowski interview is this. AJ's view is that America is Poland's greatest enemy. That's because America is only interested in Poland as supplying the cannon fodder for its war against Russia--to be fought on Polish (and nearby) soil. America's goal is not to destroy Russia. The goal is to gain Russia's resources and cooperation in the ultimate war for control of the world--the war on China. AJ was speaking 7 years ago about how events in Ukraine were the prelude to this larger war. While this isn't news now, at the time few of us believed it could come to this. Trump stood in the way, and that's a major reason why Trump had to go.
An infuriating aspect of the European neocon fiasco is how awful 'success' would be. Infuriating not just as to methods, nor the degree to which the corpratist/corrupters words (peace, democracy) elide the desire for resource control, but also the gobsmacking mis-read on the ability to keep the result from blowing up on its own. Yugoslavia was composed of regions that energetically worked historical hatreds on one another; Tito was a harsh dictator in part because that is what it took to hold Yugoslavia together. Those hatreds still are active today. How on earth do the neo-cons expect to hold similar hatreds together should they succeed with their Ukrainian/Russian plans? It reflects a hubris and selfishness that hopefully will earn a righteous first testament judgment on the plotters.
The Polish leaders are as crazy as the neocons in DC. This situation won't be solved until all the current US and European leaders are replaced.
Does Spain make a start today?
Let's hope so, Mark. I hope the Spanish conservatives keep their promises better than Meloni did.
Yes, Spain goes to the polls today, and if the AP is to be believed, the turnout should be around 70%, a whopper of a figure, especially during summer. Puts France’s rate to shame. A point for the Socialist Sanchez: he at least had the probity to call for early elections after his party and other Lefties took a drubbing in late May. Of course any party “right” of center or daring to criticize EU dogma and diktats gets labeled “fascist” or “far-right.” and somehow connected to Generalissimo Franco (that must be inscribed in the AP style book).
https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2023-07-22/spanish-
general-election-tipped-to-put-the-far-right-back-in-office-for-the-first-time-since-franco
The article also mentions that Germany and France are “worried” about Spain moving right! Ha! They would do well to look to their own collapsing, cratering governments’ popularity and think about calling early elections too! Macron still has 3 1/2 years, and the AfD is growing ever-stronger.
Yeah, I remember reading a report at the time that did the Franco reference, too. I think they all did. But it all could have been the same report - haha. Maybe AI is generating them all now. But the leftist rag reporters' intelligence was always "artificial" anyway.
Unherd gets into the nitty-gritty of Spanish politics, for those interested:
https://unherd.com/2023/07/why-fascism-wont-take-over-spain/
"Far right" today means anything to the right of Pol Pot.
Great write up Mark. The neocons are really stirring the pot. Apparently they know enough history about grievances to make a mess. Hopefully the people in Poland and elsewhere are tired or war.
Thanks Mark - very educational and gave me a different prospective on the territories Poland Lost.
What an amazing speech by Putin.
The speech had various audiences, and different messages. Americancardigan mentions Africa. An entire post could be written analyzing the parties being targeted, and their reception. China is one, and the level of detail and history would appeal to them. It positions Putin as reasonable, giving a warning, and highly informed on the history.
"Regarding the policy of the Ukrainian regime, it is none of our business. If they want to relinquish or sell off something in order to pay their bosses, as traitors usually do, that’s their business. We will not interfere."
That statement, read as Putin speaking to leaders of the Ukraine, makes no sense whatsoever to someone such as myself who is not familiar with Polish and Ukrainian history. How could Putin ever put up with Western Ukraine being occupied by / sold to a NATO member, given the Russian desire for Ukraine to be at the very least militarily neutered buffer state?
So thank you for identifying the true audience for Putin's remark and its true intent. How would people who are not familiar with the history of Eastern Europe interpret Putin's remarks? I guess we will have to look to the responses of the U.S. State Department and the U.S. intelligence agencies to find out. Suffice it to say, there is great value in the perspective you are providing here, and not only in this respect.
Dear dissonant1 - in previous posts Mark references an evolved map that describes yesterday's Ukraine as new pieces. A western segment left to Ukraine (or Poland), and to the east (that buffer state) as a russian-aligned 'Novorussia'. This achieves the separation between Russia and a NATO state even if Poland grabs the western Ukraine region. As to the use of sell, I think the sense is 'sell-out'
Hi Bruce, yeah I saw Schryver's maps - which I think are very good. I think the most likely result is what you and he are calling "Novorussia" is actually annexed to Russia; so those oblasts would not in effect be a buffer area. I see the buffer area as everything between Novorussia and Lviv. The poles/lithuanians could take Lviv and the oblast to the north of it (I forget the name). But that would leave the rest of the rump Ukraine as the buffer area. That is the area I think in which Russia WILL NOT allow a foreign military. I hope that clarifies my view.
Hi dissonant1 - yes, I agree with you that the question of what constitutes an acceptable buffer state from Russia's point-of-view will be *the* key question to settle. Best regards!
At this point in time, I don't see how Putin can afford to leave ANY part of Ukraine outside Russian control. We all know what will happen if he does: the neocons will get up to the same tricks again. The whole of Ukraine needs to be the buffer state.
That's a good point and one aspect I forgot to include is this. Putin leaves himself an opening to intervene. The remarks make it clear that any sellout by Ukraine to Poland would need to be with the consent of the people--not by "traitors" alone, who would presumably be in league with Russia's enemies. A sellout by "traitors" against the will of the people would give Russia a basis to intervene in any such settlement.
IMO, another opportunity for Putin to show and share his reasonableness above all else. He's using solid historical references, education, and rationale to make his message fact-based.
I don't anticipate it will do much for the Polish people themselves, and I feel his message is meant more for the broader global leaders (Africa for example) to hear and help educate them to some degree. It may provide some empathy in other countries that could be to Russia's benefit.
Regarding: "Note a couple of things. Putin says Ukrainians can sell their land to pay their bosses, if they wish. And he calls people who would do that “traitors”. For “bosses” I think, in context, we can read “Poles”." Mark, I read this differently. I felt (again) like Putin is saying this for the benefit of others. For example, I think he's really speaking to NATO as "bosses" versus the Poles.
Further, you think focusing solely on the 20th century aspects and nothing previous is a "misstep"? Like leaving past grievances on the side of the road? Curious to read/hear/see how other's respond to this gap.
Yes, overall an impressive statement from Putin, he speaks at turns to all the parties on the ground directly (I think the mis-step you identify is Putin speaking to political leaders). The grasp of history and treachery he covers brings sharp contrasts to the narrative. As with his December 2022 speeches on bright lines in Ukraine, he is being very clear as to what will and will not get a Russian response. The cleverness of making clear to the Polish gov't what they can take if they wish - masterstroke, sure to drive up tension around NATO cohesion. The map you and Schryver posit as most likely end-state is coming closer to focus. Superb write-up, thank you
See below--I replied at greater length to your original comment and describe his more prescient views in more detail. I had to run to church and just got back. Re the Slavic swastika, I was repeating what his Wiki page says--I couldn't see it clearly myself. For readers, the words on the front of his shirt reads: Death to the enemies of the Fatherland. He basically has taken seriously what the Neocons have largely said openly, but which most Americans (including myself) never believed could seriously happen.
True. What he's describing has never been a secret. It's the program openly espoused by the Neocons and, really, their ideological ancestors going back to the 19th century. He specifically cites Brzezinski. I don't
For readers, Darek made a typo. The name is Aleksander Jabłonowski (A. Jabłoński was a well known physicist). That's a pseudonym for Wojciech Olszański--aka Jaszczur, "Reptile" or "Lizard".
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wojciech_Olsza%C5%84ski#
He's a very controversial figure. I don't know much about him, but he wears a uniform styled after the pre-WW2 Polish uniform--but with a "Slavic" swastika on the arm.
What I believe that Darek is pointing to in the Jabłonowski interview is this. AJ's view is that America is Poland's greatest enemy. That's because America is only interested in Poland as supplying the cannon fodder for its war against Russia--to be fought on Polish (and nearby) soil. America's goal is not to destroy Russia. The goal is to gain Russia's resources and cooperation in the ultimate war for control of the world--the war on China. AJ was speaking 7 years ago about how events in Ukraine were the prelude to this larger war. While this isn't news now, at the time few of us believed it could come to this. Trump stood in the way, and that's a major reason why Trump had to go.