American politics

On the irrelevance of the peaceful majority who protest against war and who wish to uphold the rule of law:

trevanian wrote:

I'm more concerned about him being a 'bad loser' and wanting to sweep all the chess pieces off the board... That was my biggest fear with Trump as well. And Reagan too, if you want to really go back a ways.

The guy who didn't start any new wars and the one who negotiated an end to the Cold War?

Maybe the media was lying to you, dunno...

Somerset wrote:

Yes, we totally defeated Nazism in the 40s and have spent the last eighty years seeing its (Hitler's) shadow everywhere.

The Anglo-American casting of every geopolitical nuisance as "the next Hitler" is a mirror image of what the Kremlin has done with its own WWII narrative in may ways.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

The US, with Europe as its catspaw, has been poking the Russian bear relentlessly. The Ukrainian invasion was the response.

As terrible as said invasion is, literally every Realist scholar of international relations had been warning about it for 30 years.

The breakup of an empire is rarely peaceable and the current conflict, like just about every other bad thing of the last century, can trace its roots to the civilisational disaster which was the First World War.

I'm not under any illusions about this or expect it to change much of anything really. It's just nice to hear from men like Ron Paul and PK here. Go home America, stop being the world's police and take care of their own internal problems. The absurdity of waging wars in other countries even now still in Iraq and Syria while their own country is being invaded through open borders. That's a plot suited to a Marx Bros film.

And Putin wants Europe about as much as Texas want's California or Portland so I see no concern there.

CJB wrote:

The Anglo-American casting of every geopolitical nuisance as "the next Hitler" is a mirror image of what the Kremlin has done with its own WWII narrative in may ways.

Yes, with this war the Russian Orthodox Church and Putin are both saying that American invaders and "Nazis" have taken the Holy Kievan Rus and that Russia must now reclaim it. By "Nazis" I presume they are meaning here Greek Catholics, as they are concentrated in the west of Ukraine, which the Red Army during WWII considered Nazis (Lviv, holy city of the Greek Catholics, was struck particularly hard last year).

In fact the role and fervor of the religious component in this whole matter is one thing I noticed missing in the posts here speaking the Russians' view. Without autocephaly of Ukraine's Orthodox Church in 2019 I doubt this conflict would have occurred quite yet. Orthodox mindset would see autocephaly of church meaning a true nation. Thus Ukraine truly existed starting 2019.

Putin and Patriarch Kirill of the Russian Orthodox Church preach to reclaim holy land Kyiv in much the same manner which the Serbian Orthodox Church (Pavle) teamed up with Milošević in the 90s to "free" from Croats and Muslim invaders the lands they said Christ had given the Serbs. Same idea, same theology, two holy wars within thirty years using Eastern Orthodoxy. Biggest difference: one guy has nukes (and chemical weapons) and is doing nuclear blackmail. The other did genocide and ethnic cleansing (until stopped by U.S.A. since nobody else cared back then, as nobody else cares now about Ukraine.)

The term genocide, much like the word genius, is wildly overused. And it hardly applies to the war in the Ukraine. That said, if we choose to use genocide so promiscuously, I think America's incessant bombing campaigns throughout the Cold War and its War on Terror fall more readily under that rubric than what's happening in the Ukraine.

And there's no need to dull Occam's razor on this issue. It's not about religion; it's about America's idealogical zealotry on behalf of liberal democracy, which is aimed right at the heart of Russia. The US will impose liberal democracy on the entire planet--because it cannot tolerate dissent--or it will blow it up in the attempt.

Correct, Putin is not doing genocide. As I said.

We are not seeing the same thing on religion. It is official doctrine. "Spiritual security." The official position of his own church is that separation of church and state is monstrous and will kill the West. Kirill was KGB. When Putin was KGB he spent some time working in the Fifth Directorate which oversaw religious bodies. He has relationships going back aways with many ROC bishops. There is a church at the FSB hq. ROC spokesmen including Putin are always framing the West as Satan. There is a healthy laundry list.

We are just not seeing the same thing.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

The US will impose liberal democracy on the entire planet

The world of finance is exempt, of course.

What do people here think about the prospect of Joe Biden running for the presidency again in 2024? I've heard he's planning to announce his intention to run again soon. I really didn't see that coming as I've always seen him as a one term stop-gap president given his advanced age and his increasing and undeniable senility.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

...it's about America's idealogical zealotry on behalf of liberal democracy, which is aimed right at the heart of Russia. The US will impose liberal democracy on the entire planet--because it cannot tolerate dissent--or it will blow it up in the attempt.

Indeed. As we speak, the US is gearing up for another "color revolution" in Europe, this time in Hungary.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/samantha-power-color-revolution-in-hungary/

There's a reason why this is the one war in living memory where the liberal peaceniks aren't calling for a ceasefire or settlement, they're calling for more weapons. Any pale n' stale country that doesn't subscribe to the ideology of civilisational self-loathing is a threat.

If Ukrainians think their "European" future is just about getting visa-free travel and bailouts from German taxpayers, they're in for a shock (see Hungarian example above for what happens when you're in the Western orbit but want to retain your traditions and demography).

Point is, if China were to invade Taiwan, would the West pump arms in? Sure. You think we'd see the same sort of Sinophobic kulturkampf? Of course not.

A show I often watch.

CJB wrote:

trevanian wrote:

I'm more concerned about him being a 'bad loser' and wanting to sweep all the chess pieces off the board... That was my biggest fear with Trump as well. And Reagan too, if you want to really go back a ways.

The guy who didn't start any new wars and the one who negotiated an end to the Cold War?

From firing the air traffic controllers to his 'state's enemies' lists ... well, just about everything he did as CaliGov and as Prez, I found him utterly reprehensible as well as terrifying. I thought grownup people couldn't be conned and act so stupid and selfishly than I saw while playing Little League as a pre-teen, but boy, that changed forever with Reagan ascending to throne.

Somerset wrote:

Correct, Putin is not doing genocide. As I said.

We are not seeing the same thing on religion. It is official doctrine. "Spiritual security." The official position of his own church is that separation of church and state is monstrous and will kill the West. Kirill was KGB. When Putin was KGB he spent some time working in the Fifth Directorate which oversaw religious bodies. He has relationships going back aways with many ROC bishops. There is a church at the FSB hq. ROC spokesmen including Putin are always framing the West as Satan. There is a healthy laundry list.

We are just not seeing the same thing.

Certainly true that Orthodoxy is Russia's state religion, and that's as it should be. And, what's more, it is one reason America has targeted Russia for destruction. For all this country's inessant blether about diversity, it tolerates absolutely none on the geopolitical scene. Now having said this, Russia's prime motivation in the Ukraine is nationalistic in the sense that the Russian government correctly understands that America is waging an existential war against Russia by proxy, and that the rodina is either defended now or Russia is "regime changed" and culturally subverted into oblivion.

Phantom Commander wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

The US will impose liberal democracy on the entire planet

The world of finance is exempt, of course.

Alas, capitalism ain't what it used to be...

Maeve Horton wrote:

What do people here think about the prospect of Joe Biden running for the presidency again in 2024? I've heard he's planning to announce his intention to run again soon. I really didn't see that coming as I've always seen him as a one term stop-gap president given his advanced age and his increasing and undeniable senility.

Biden is a compliant figurehead for the Power Structure. He won't make any waves. For this reason, the Power Structure will tolerate him for another four years. And you can be absolutely certain he will "win" the next election.

CJB wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

...it's about America's idealogical zealotry on behalf of liberal democracy, which is aimed right at the heart of Russia. The US will impose liberal democracy on the entire planet--because it cannot tolerate dissent--or it will blow it up in the attempt.

Indeed. As we speak, the US is gearing up for another "color revolution" in Europe, this time in Hungary.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/samantha-power-color-revolution-in-hungary/

There's a reason why this is the one war in living memory where the liberal peaceniks aren't calling for a ceasefire or settlement, they're calling for more weapons. Any pale n' stale country that doesn't subscribe to the ideology of civilisational self-loathing is a threat.

If Ukrainians think their "European" future is just about getting visa-free travel and bailouts from German taxpayers, they're in for a shock (see Hungarian example above for what happens when you're in the Western orbit but want to retain your traditions and demography).

Point is, if China were to invade Taiwan, would the West pump arms in? Sure. You think we'd see the same sort of Sinophobic kulturkampf? Of course not.

Spot on, CJB. You have an excellent understanding of the situation.

trevanian wrote:

CJB wrote:

trevanian wrote:

I'm more concerned about him being a 'bad loser' and wanting to sweep all the chess pieces off the board... That was my biggest fear with Trump as well. And Reagan too, if you want to really go back a ways.

The guy who didn't start any new wars and the one who negotiated an end to the Cold War?

From firing the air traffic controllers to his 'state's enemies' lists ... well, just about everything he did as CaliGov and as Prez, I found him utterly reprehensible as well as terrifying. I thought grownup people couldn't be conned and act so stupid and selfishly than I saw while playing Little League as a pre-teen, but boy, that changed forever with Reagan ascending to throne.  

Hmmm. And I well remember when folks claimed George W. Bush was literally Hitler, and that he would never willingly vacate the White House. They claimed Romney was Hitler, too. If Fred Rogers had ever run on the Republican ticket, he too, would have been bedizened with a funny little mustache.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Maeve Horton wrote:

What do people here think about the prospect of Joe Biden running for the presidency again in 2024? I've heard he's planning to announce his intention to run again soon. I really didn't see that coming as I've always seen him as a one term stop-gap president given his advanced age and his increasing and undeniable senility.

Biden is a compliant figurehead for the Power Structure. He won't make any waves. For this reason, the Power Structure will tolerate him for another four years. And you can be absolutely certain he will "win" the next election.

It's sad that we've come to the stage in American politics where someone like Joe Biden is seen as a safe pair of hands. If he does run again and win again in 2024 it would be legitimate to wonder whether he'll still be around come 2028 or, supposing he is, whether he'll still have the mental faculties to do the job properly.

Maeve Horton wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Maeve Horton wrote:

What do people here think about the prospect of Joe Biden running for the presidency again in 2024? I've heard he's planning to announce his intention to run again soon. I really didn't see that coming as I've always seen him as a one term stop-gap president given his advanced age and his increasing and undeniable senility.

Biden is a compliant figurehead for the Power Structure. He won't make any waves. For this reason, the Power Structure will tolerate him for another four years. And you can be absolutely certain he will "win" the next election.

It's sad that we've come to the stage in American politics where someone like Joe Biden is seen as a safe pair of hands. If he does run again and win again in 2024 it would be legitimate to wonder whether he'll still be around come 2028 or, supposing he is, whether he'll still have the mental faculties to do the job properly.  

His primary job is to read a teleprompter reasonably well. And he's still capable of that, Maeve. I'm convinced Biden has little real power. There are men and women behind the curtain who are actually pulling the strings that matter.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Maeve Horton wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Maeve Horton wrote:

What do people here think about the prospect of Joe Biden running for the presidency again in 2024? I've heard he's planning to announce his intention to run again soon. I really didn't see that coming as I've always seen him as a one term stop-gap president given his advanced age and his increasing and undeniable senility.

Biden is a compliant figurehead for the Power Structure. He won't make any waves. For this reason, the Power Structure will tolerate him for another four years. And you can be absolutely certain he will "win" the next election.

It's sad that we've come to the stage in American politics where someone like Joe Biden is seen as a safe pair of hands. If he does run again and win again in 2024 it would be legitimate to wonder whether he'll still be around come 2028 or, supposing he is, whether he'll still have the mental faculties to do the job properly.  

His primary job is to read a teleprompter reasonably well. And he's still capable of that, Maeve. I'm convinced Biden has little real power. There are men and women behind the curtain who are actually pulling the strings that matter.

Well, that's true but when he doesn't have a teleprompter and goes off-script we see the real Biden who thinks his son died in Iraq or that a dead person is in the audience or how children used to like to smooth out the hairs on his leg and so on and so forth. It's a sight to behold how compared with the Trump presidency the Biden presidency is met with crickets zinging as media coverage. It just shows how only the "right" and acceptable president can get an easy ride from the Washington establishment and the mainstream media. The contrast is stark and it hasn't gone unnoticed by me and no doubt many others of like mind. Perhaps it's time that those pulling the strings came out into the open and ran for the presidency themselves - only presumably that way they'd have much less power?

Well, those in the Power Structure (including the media) have things exactly as they like them. And, short of the masses rising up and evicting them, they're not going to change a thing. If that means having a feather-pated turnip in the Oval Orifice, so be it.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Certainly true that Orthodoxy is Russia's state religion, and that's as it should be. And, what's more, it is one reason America has targeted Russia for destruction. For all this country's inessant blether about diversity, it tolerates absolutely none on the geopolitical scene. Now having said this, Russia's prime motivation in the Ukraine is nationalistic in the sense that the Russian government correctly understands that America is waging an existential war against Russia by proxy, and that the rodina is either defended now or Russia is "regime changed" and culturally subverted into oblivion.

We cannot disentengle the "nationalistic" from the Orthodoxy, not to the point of speaking casually of a "Russian government" with the intent of conceiving of and discussing it in the same sense we would in the West. Same for speaking of a "state religion." If we see secularism formed in the track of the Latin Christendom, then the Eastern and Orthodox has rather symphonia - not separation of church and state but cooperation. Kirill made it an especial point to talk about the importance of that when Medvedev introduced him as Patriarch in 2009 and, again, one of their little media clergy gadflys went about several years back saying separation of church and state will be a fatal mistake for the West.

This all may seem a trivial point but it is not. It is an exploitation of the Western mind's inclindation towards believing cultural assumptions are somehow universal. For the "realist," say John Mearsheimer, Putin's doing is only about NATO on the ground, state interests rather than individual interests. But Mearsheimer is living in the wrong century. Luckily we don't need him as I can now get the same geopolitical commentary from ChatGPT.

Thus when Kirill preaches this war will be about "which side of God humanity will be on," that the war had "not only physical but also metaphysical significance," wishes Putin a happy birthday with "God put you in power," says Russia is holding back the anti-Christ, or that going into Ukraine is about "human salvation, something much more important than politics" you can take that as coming not only from the head of a church talking to the 70% or so of Russians who call themselves Orthodox but as a de facto governmental spokesperson. Such stuff cannot be brushed off as the mad ravings of a former KGB agent. It is his own doctrine of Russkiy Mir.

Moreover this has been going on for years and years, and not just with Kirill but all manner of spokespeople, administrative and church affiliated. Putin himself not excluded: "We will go to heaven as martyrs, and they will just drop dead. They will not even have time to repent for this" (speaking about nuclear attacks on Russia).

In the aftermath of the Minsk II deal, when Putin thought he'd finally figured out how to get Ukraine back (and he has been obsessed a very long time) before the agreement never came to anything, Moscow unveiled an enormous statue of Vladimir the Great, or St. Vladimir, who ruled Kyiv and converted the Rus to Orthodoxy. In doing that he reveals the vision he hopes for himself.

So I maintain it cannot be mere nationalism in the way we want to think of it but must be something more like "Christian nationalism," i.e. "My Christ is helping my country's people kill the other people." That is not in the realist book.

The Western mind looks at NATO and sees the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and sees it either "moving aggressively towards Russia's doorstep" or providing a security system, and debates the consequences thereof. The Putinist mind looks at NATO and literally sees "The Great Satan" bringing to bear upon Russia its religion of American Liberalist decadence, sin, unbelief, anti-family values, excess of political correctness.

Years after he erected a statue to the greatness of his namesake St. Vladimir, Putin launched this war (his initial list of demands were so deliberately absurd such that even Mearsheimer would have to admit he wanted them to be rejected) because, at the core, he cannot be the "tsar" (Third Rome) who lost holy Kyiv to USA. And for the sake of not being the tsar who allowed that he is ready to be a nuclear martyr.

That is what I see. And as I said, I know we are not seeing it the same way. I get that there is a class who admire Moscow for offering a counterpoint to American liberalism and see Putin as a defender of European values. I don't.

An Orthodox Patriarch's religious motivations are unquestionably genuine. He, and the Russian Orthodox Church--unlike Western Latinity--are genuine Christians rather than Leftist ideologues using Christ as a vehicle for their anti-Christian beliefs. As such, they doubtless conceive of the Ukraine war as a holy war of sorts. And frankly, given that I believe America is now the Evil Empire and even the Great Satan, I don't disagree with them. But none of this tells us what actually is in Putin's mind. We are left to conjecture. And while I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of his Christianity, he very much strikes me as a pragmatic nationalistic leader who--unlike western leaders--actually has the best interests of his people at heart. His deployment of religious rhetoric and symbolism are designed to resonate with the Russian people and engender support for the invasion of the Ukraine. They are poetic atmospherics, not geopolitical strategy. Putin lives and operates in the 21st century, not the 11th, and his foreign policy reflects this fact. If Putin gallops onto the field of battle on a white charger flying the banner of Sankt Iurii whilst supplicating the intercession of the Bogomater, I'll be convinced otherwise.

As an aside, Kiev has nothing do with with the Third Rome theory. Moscow, not Kiev, is the Third Rome. If becoming the Tsar had to do with recouping Christianity (something else that is not part of the Third Rome theory), Putin would have invaded Turkey rather than the Ukraine.

PK wrote:

And frankly, given that I believe America is now the Evil Empire and even the Great Satan, I don't disagree with them. But none of this tells us what actually is in Putin's mind. We are left to conjecture.

Correct, evidentially.

PK wrote:

And while I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of his Christianity, he very much strikes me as a pragmatic nationalistic leader who--unlike western leaders--actually has the best interests of his people at heart. His deployment of religious rhetoric and symbolism are designed to resonate with the Russian people and engender support for the invasion of the Ukraine.

I used to be concerned on the question of his genuine faith, and I used to think he was atheist. I have changed my mind for various reasons...but I'm not sure it ends up mattering.

PK wrote:

They are poetic atmospherics, not geopolitical strategy. Putin lives and operates in the 21st century, not the 11th, and his foreign policy reflects this fact. If Putin gallops onto the field of battle on a white charger flying the banner of Sankt Iurii whilst supplicating the intercession of the Bogomater, I'll be convinced otherwise.

Disagree. I think the imagery and its ridiculousness only serves to underline the gap I see between the "modern" geopolitical thinking and what's going on.

PK wrote:

As an aside, Kiev has nothing do with with the Third Rome theory. Moscow, not Kiev, is the Third Rome. If becoming the Tsar had to do with recouping Christianity (something else that is not part of the Third Rome theory), Putin would have invaded Turkey rather than the Ukraine.

"Third Rome" because I called him "tsar" (not because Kyiv is Third Rome), but it's not nothing. The implication of Third Rome would be replacement of Ecumenical Patriarchate, meaning Moscow is Ecumenical Patriarchate.

On Kyiv over Turkey or something, they "had" it in the fashion considered most important, as I mentioned, because it was Moscow Patriarchate, then Ecumenical Patriarchate gave it autocephaly. They lost it. Not a quest to recoup Christianity per se but Kyiv. At this point I don't know about any ambitions beyond Kyiv. Right now I'm sure they have none greater.

Interesting discussion.

“Satanism” as an epithet is now being used more and more by Kremlin media. I suspect it’s not so much a theological angle, but a shorthand to describe the differing worldviews of “traditionalist” Russia vs the increasingly weird and deranged antics in our neck of the woods.

What will the UN do?