Will Schryver Critiques John Helmer

The topic of John Helmer—a Western journalist who is a long time resident in Russia, and commentator on international affairs—has been on my mind this past week. This was a result of at least two recent articles by Helmer that advance themes that are typical of Helmer’s journalism. Some readers may be familiar with Helmer as highly recommended by Alexander Mercouris, on whose show Helmer recently appeared. I don’t share Mercouris’ opinion of Helmer and didn’t waste time watching that. Briefly, Helmer’s Russian sources appear to me to reflect the tradition of Russian “Doomerism”, a term readers may have noticed in recent posts about the Kursk incursion. By “Doomerism” I simply refer to the tendency among Russian nationalists to fear betrayal from within and to see any seeming setback on the battlefield as evidence of betrayal. And, of course, Putin himself is typically seen by these commentators as the key source of betrayal of Russia. Prigozhin appealed directly to that tendency in the Russian psyche, and Simplicius—as an example—sometimes indulges in that direction, although Simplicius generally exercises his critical faculties to avoid extremes.

In general, my criticism of this tendency is, as expressed in a recent post, that it blinds itself to the global character of this war and instead focuses solely on winning the war in Ukraine as rapidly as possible. To my mind, Putin shows a very sound grasp of the bigger picture in all its complexity, which these people have blinded themselves to.

I had been wondering for several days whether it would be worthwhile to critique Helmer’s recent articles. The downside is that it would distract from more serious matters. Fortunately, Will Schryver picked up the ball and launched, to my mind, a devastating attack on Helmer generally. Like Schryver I have, at times, made use of Helmer, particularly in areas such as international finance. For readers who may have been wondering about Helmer—who he is, who his sources are, etc.—here is Schryver’s most recent of several posts directed at Helmer.

Will Schryver @imetatronink

John Helmer Interview

I just finished watching John Helmer @bears_with interviewed on The Duran (linked below).

As some may be aware, John and I engaged in a somewhat acrimonious exchange the other day.

I confess I do not follow Helmer closely, although I have read several of his Dances with Bears articles over the years.

In my view, Helmer is an interesting source when it comes to things he actually knows about. But, as was confirmed yet again to me by this most recent interview, I think Helmer often veers off into subject matter where his actual knowledge is limited, and where his prejudices lead him to false interpretations.

I also believe, as I wrote a few days ago, that he often embellishes rumors, and fallaciously appeals to the imagined authority of unreliable sources within Russia.

Helmer is like a great many Russians and Russophiles who tend to have a very narrow perspective on the hard realities of the geopolitical complexities of our day. This typically manifests itself in what I regard as misconceived and unwarranted criticism of Vladimir Putin.

I have written on this topic several times over the past few years.

As it pertains to the most recent controversy over the Ukrainian incursion into Kursk region, Helmer believes the Russian military was largely cognizant of the AFU buildup in Sumy, and desired to act preemptively, but that their hands were tied by Putin's shortsightedness and reluctance to act boldly and decisively against both Ukraine and its NATO allies.

Helmer consistently paints a picture of Putin's alleged ineptitude, indecisiveness, and vacillations hamstringing the Russian high command. He appears to believe Putin is a weak character who will always be inclined to yield to western pressure and intimidation, and that he will ultimately lead Russia into a resolution of this war that leaves Russia's proclaimed objectives unfulfilled.

In my view, this is utter nonsense.

I address this topic at some length in my late December 2022 article entitled In for A Pound .

I also expand upon these concepts in Part 2 of my analysis of Tucker Carlson's interview of Vladimir Putin in February 2024.

Indeed, it is this latter article that most directly addresses what I consider to be Helmer's misconceptions and misinterpretations in relation to Vladimir Putin. I am confident Helmer will refuse to read either of my articles linked above, but I recommend them to the rest of you.

I remain convinced this war will be decided on the battlefield, and that Russia will dictate hard terms to the west and the remnant of the hapless Ukrainians who chose to destroy their own people in service to the rapidly crumbling Anglo-American empire.

1:58 PM · Aug 30, 2024

My only quibble with Schryver’s critique here is the reference to the “Anglo-American empire”, where I would prefer to refer to the “Anglo-Zionist empire.”