"we will not tolerate the existence of an openly anti-Russian state on our borders, whatever its borders."
Pretty explicit confirmation that Russia will go to the Polish border and that no NATO-controlled "rump Ukraine" will be allowed to exist. She also reiterates the "demilitarization and de-Nazification" line without, as is usual for the Russians who love to NOT state their actual goals, pointing out that the goal requires going to the Polish border and removing the existing Ukraine regime. She also doesn't mention the Aegis Ashore installations in Poland and Romania, although she pointedly brings up the 2021 security treaty proposals. That is the clue to the real goal of the Russian as I am on record as arguing since April, 2022.
I've been of the opinion since the December 2021 Security Proposals that Russia would tolerate zero NATO nations on its borders, although that position was modified when Finland became a member. And then there're the Baltic shrews. There were the three OSCE Treaties that were all broken by EU/NATO, so it's possible something could be negotiated once the EU has people capable of negotiating. Overcoming historical animosities isn't an easy task and will take my estimation of at least four generations at minimum to accomplish, which takes us into the next century.
My opinion is similar to yours except that I think Russia will settle for a "Cold War" military "countering" of anything NATO does in its countries rather than actively trying to remove NATO from those countries - except diplomatically, of course.
In other words, instead of trying directly to remove those Aegis Ashore installations from Poland and Romania by military means, Russia will merely "counter" them by placing its strategic assets and defensive assets as close to those threats as it can - which means western Ukraine.
Which is why Russia is placing new Military Districts opposite Finland as well as enhancing the Belarus' military and stashing nuke-capable weapons in Belarus. Those two moves in my view establish the approach Russia wants to take.
It's a compromise position for Russia, assuming that Putin doesn't want to start a war with NATO if he doesn't have to. Should he get replaced by a hardliner at some future date, that could change. of course.
I agree that the overall hostility between the West and Russia will take a generation or more to fix, although world events could change that. I tend not to make predictions that far out. Technology changes over even one generation could seriously alter the state of the world.
she could or should have responded to Lavrov not meeting francis ’ emissary with the observation that francis duty is to preach against the unjust war nato vassals are perpetrating
thanks karl.. i just read your post on moa... she is a no nonsense lady and a real straight talker.. i am so used to our political leaders in the west - canada anyway - that talk b.s. 24-7 with a straight face.. this is what i mean about us lacking leadership.. we don't have it..
Interesting blog you have. The question, where and by what means can the USA find both salvation and rejuvenation is indeed a poser. It was much easier to answer when I didn't know as much as I do now. The big difference between contemporary USA and USSR of 1989 is the USSR's elite structure collapsed, a catastrophe Xi has analyzed and deemed caused by nihilism--the elite no longer believed in their own efficacy and thus felt they lacked agency, so they essentially did nothing to forestall the collapse. Plus, the USSR wasn't deindustrialized nor were many of its social institutions debilitated and it still honored its culture--all of which is present within the USA today. Another key difference is those running the federal government from Wall Street don't really care about the public as long as they can continue to milk/bilk them for billions annually, for that's what Neoliberal Parasites do for a living. Also, the contradiction can of worms within the USSR was allowed to run amok, while today in the USA it's merely kicked further down the road when at some future point it will merely explode from being overloaded.
The more I think about properly answering your query, the more complicated and complex it becomes, for the problems that beset the USA are all internally generated and it faces no genuine external, existential challenge, although the Establishment Narrative says there's one coming from Russia, China, and now BRICS+. Thus, there's no way to acquire "self-confidence" in the manner of the Primakov Doctrine since Russia was genuinely threatened and still is, while the USA isn't.
Ultimately, the question is how does the public gain control of the federal government--control it never really had to begin with?--so the polices that are alienating the RoW from it can be reversed and the USA be allowed to rejoin the new world order and become part of humanity again. In other words, what would the USA need to do to become a member in good standing of the Global Security Initiative? And that answer is very simple: Obey the UN Charter and the US Constitution instead of violating both on a continual basis while seeking the domination of the whole planet. Yes, it sounds simple, but when you deeply examine US history you'll find it sought expansion since the first European arrived and crafted an oligarchic government to perpetuate that expansion. And the success of that expansion is what built the great hubris and arrogance of US elites, and to a degree the nation's public as well.
The question remains unanswered, but is perfect for a Sunday Sermon.
Thank you very much. At the risk of sounding trite or boring, I am putting your Sunday Sermon on my desktop where I can re-read it at will. Concur, the question remains unanswered but is important. I see it as an engineering project.
As the Primakov Doctine is essentially, conceptually simple, graspable, implementable, so must be whatever can restore self-confidence to The USA. "Obey the UN Charter and the US Constitution" is at the heart of it. Congress writes the checks, so Congress in this case holds the upper hand, as I estimate the landscape.
An aspect of the question, therefore, is what concepts to write the checks for more than who to back for a seat in Congress or how to keep crony capitalist and national security state types from extorting votes from Members of Congress. I think . . . .
The subtle is always more powerful than the gross. Takes a while, but always makes the grade, like a road hauler which has to wait for a full consist to be assembled behind it, otherwise the huge power of the road hauler is wasted on less than it is capable of working.
Again, thank you. I am cheered by your assessment that, while the question remains unanswered, it is important.
Congress can be the answer--BUT--to gain control of Congress as has occurred twice before in US history that came very close to altering its path (1890s & 1930s) there must be solidarity of purpose within the US citizenry to overcome the lock on the ballot box by the Duopoly/Uniparty. And similar action must occur within the states where Citizen-based parties gain control of both statehouses and governor mansions. But that's a very tall order currently.
Indeed it is. Thus the need for a simple doctrinal base specific to The USA, such as non-interference in other countries' internal affairs, indivisible security, something along the lines of the old non-aligned nations' points. No blocs. I don't know what that wording is, yet, but I am sure it exists and can be articulated clearly and simply. Orban's most recent interview with Tucker contains some elements of it, IMO. The "live-together for mutual benefit" wording specificity has to be worked out for Americans to grasp. Our Constitution and UN Charter encourage the same. I've been thinking of late of a language of "orders of authority," because it's authority we are really talking about. What authority does Vicki Nuland have to decide to degrade . . . whatever?
Armenia can build itself up and can do so faster if it can coax back the many who left for elsewhere after 1991. But it must solve the animosity with its neighbors. Russia can help with that, but Armenians must do the heavy lifting.
Every country must do the heavy lifting, and decide on one direction instead of two. But that doesn't excuse the almost absence of Russia during some crazy moments. I get that it's tricky with Turkey, and the transport route via Azerbaijan, but I'm speaking from the heart.
Honestly, I haven't done much digging into the Azerbaijan-Armenia clash since the early 2000s. The peoples of the Caucasus have been a combative bunch for centuries. The Armenians certainly didn't merit what the Turks dd and have suffered from being surrounded by Turkic peoples ever since. There're several regions on the planet where the peoples there need to grow up. And there certainly seems to be plenty of fog making it hard to see the whole situation.
I read reports of its content. Orban said what I expected him to say and he hopefully informed the vast portion of the US audience that's ignorant of the entire situation.
Americans would be surprised that Eastern European leaders are intelligent, something refreshing after the stupidity of their politics. Until they watch and read, they will buy into their government's and movie studios depiction of foreigners as dumb dictators.
"we will not tolerate the existence of an openly anti-Russian state on our borders, whatever its borders."
Pretty explicit confirmation that Russia will go to the Polish border and that no NATO-controlled "rump Ukraine" will be allowed to exist. She also reiterates the "demilitarization and de-Nazification" line without, as is usual for the Russians who love to NOT state their actual goals, pointing out that the goal requires going to the Polish border and removing the existing Ukraine regime. She also doesn't mention the Aegis Ashore installations in Poland and Romania, although she pointedly brings up the 2021 security treaty proposals. That is the clue to the real goal of the Russian as I am on record as arguing since April, 2022.
I've been of the opinion since the December 2021 Security Proposals that Russia would tolerate zero NATO nations on its borders, although that position was modified when Finland became a member. And then there're the Baltic shrews. There were the three OSCE Treaties that were all broken by EU/NATO, so it's possible something could be negotiated once the EU has people capable of negotiating. Overcoming historical animosities isn't an easy task and will take my estimation of at least four generations at minimum to accomplish, which takes us into the next century.
My opinion is similar to yours except that I think Russia will settle for a "Cold War" military "countering" of anything NATO does in its countries rather than actively trying to remove NATO from those countries - except diplomatically, of course.
In other words, instead of trying directly to remove those Aegis Ashore installations from Poland and Romania by military means, Russia will merely "counter" them by placing its strategic assets and defensive assets as close to those threats as it can - which means western Ukraine.
Which is why Russia is placing new Military Districts opposite Finland as well as enhancing the Belarus' military and stashing nuke-capable weapons in Belarus. Those two moves in my view establish the approach Russia wants to take.
It's a compromise position for Russia, assuming that Putin doesn't want to start a war with NATO if he doesn't have to. Should he get replaced by a hardliner at some future date, that could change. of course.
I agree that the overall hostility between the West and Russia will take a generation or more to fix, although world events could change that. I tend not to make predictions that far out. Technology changes over even one generation could seriously alter the state of the world.
thanks for the long form.
she could or should have responded to Lavrov not meeting francis ’ emissary with the observation that francis duty is to preach against the unjust war nato vassals are perpetrating
thanks karl.. i just read your post on moa... she is a no nonsense lady and a real straight talker.. i am so used to our political leaders in the west - canada anyway - that talk b.s. 24-7 with a straight face.. this is what i mean about us lacking leadership.. we don't have it..
agree...also in the US talk b.s. 24-7. Refreshing
The MID version translates the word as carom, which is a pool shot.
Thanks. Given the context, there're several possible explanations, none of them flattering for Italy.
Karl, any thoughts on the question I posed to day at MoA and also Martyanov and my own blog?:
Counterpart of Primakov Doctrine returning self-confidence to The United States, as it does Russia?
Interesting blog you have. The question, where and by what means can the USA find both salvation and rejuvenation is indeed a poser. It was much easier to answer when I didn't know as much as I do now. The big difference between contemporary USA and USSR of 1989 is the USSR's elite structure collapsed, a catastrophe Xi has analyzed and deemed caused by nihilism--the elite no longer believed in their own efficacy and thus felt they lacked agency, so they essentially did nothing to forestall the collapse. Plus, the USSR wasn't deindustrialized nor were many of its social institutions debilitated and it still honored its culture--all of which is present within the USA today. Another key difference is those running the federal government from Wall Street don't really care about the public as long as they can continue to milk/bilk them for billions annually, for that's what Neoliberal Parasites do for a living. Also, the contradiction can of worms within the USSR was allowed to run amok, while today in the USA it's merely kicked further down the road when at some future point it will merely explode from being overloaded.
The more I think about properly answering your query, the more complicated and complex it becomes, for the problems that beset the USA are all internally generated and it faces no genuine external, existential challenge, although the Establishment Narrative says there's one coming from Russia, China, and now BRICS+. Thus, there's no way to acquire "self-confidence" in the manner of the Primakov Doctrine since Russia was genuinely threatened and still is, while the USA isn't.
Ultimately, the question is how does the public gain control of the federal government--control it never really had to begin with?--so the polices that are alienating the RoW from it can be reversed and the USA be allowed to rejoin the new world order and become part of humanity again. In other words, what would the USA need to do to become a member in good standing of the Global Security Initiative? And that answer is very simple: Obey the UN Charter and the US Constitution instead of violating both on a continual basis while seeking the domination of the whole planet. Yes, it sounds simple, but when you deeply examine US history you'll find it sought expansion since the first European arrived and crafted an oligarchic government to perpetuate that expansion. And the success of that expansion is what built the great hubris and arrogance of US elites, and to a degree the nation's public as well.
The question remains unanswered, but is perfect for a Sunday Sermon.
Thank you very much. At the risk of sounding trite or boring, I am putting your Sunday Sermon on my desktop where I can re-read it at will. Concur, the question remains unanswered but is important. I see it as an engineering project.
As the Primakov Doctine is essentially, conceptually simple, graspable, implementable, so must be whatever can restore self-confidence to The USA. "Obey the UN Charter and the US Constitution" is at the heart of it. Congress writes the checks, so Congress in this case holds the upper hand, as I estimate the landscape.
An aspect of the question, therefore, is what concepts to write the checks for more than who to back for a seat in Congress or how to keep crony capitalist and national security state types from extorting votes from Members of Congress. I think . . . .
The subtle is always more powerful than the gross. Takes a while, but always makes the grade, like a road hauler which has to wait for a full consist to be assembled behind it, otherwise the huge power of the road hauler is wasted on less than it is capable of working.
Again, thank you. I am cheered by your assessment that, while the question remains unanswered, it is important.
Congress can be the answer--BUT--to gain control of Congress as has occurred twice before in US history that came very close to altering its path (1890s & 1930s) there must be solidarity of purpose within the US citizenry to overcome the lock on the ballot box by the Duopoly/Uniparty. And similar action must occur within the states where Citizen-based parties gain control of both statehouses and governor mansions. But that's a very tall order currently.
Indeed it is. Thus the need for a simple doctrinal base specific to The USA, such as non-interference in other countries' internal affairs, indivisible security, something along the lines of the old non-aligned nations' points. No blocs. I don't know what that wording is, yet, but I am sure it exists and can be articulated clearly and simply. Orban's most recent interview with Tucker contains some elements of it, IMO. The "live-together for mutual benefit" wording specificity has to be worked out for Americans to grasp. Our Constitution and UN Charter encourage the same. I've been thinking of late of a language of "orders of authority," because it's authority we are really talking about. What authority does Vicki Nuland have to decide to degrade . . . whatever?
brother-in-law: one of two players who hustle a third player in a 3-player game.
Thanks Mike. I got a few good replies at MoA to that Q as well. Internet was no help.
Was my first search result :)
Oh boy, if AI likes me.... ha ha.
I want Russia to do something that reassures me that Armenia will be safe. I fear for them.
Armenia can build itself up and can do so faster if it can coax back the many who left for elsewhere after 1991. But it must solve the animosity with its neighbors. Russia can help with that, but Armenians must do the heavy lifting.
Every country must do the heavy lifting, and decide on one direction instead of two. But that doesn't excuse the almost absence of Russia during some crazy moments. I get that it's tricky with Turkey, and the transport route via Azerbaijan, but I'm speaking from the heart.
Honestly, I haven't done much digging into the Azerbaijan-Armenia clash since the early 2000s. The peoples of the Caucasus have been a combative bunch for centuries. The Armenians certainly didn't merit what the Turks dd and have suffered from being surrounded by Turkic peoples ever since. There're several regions on the planet where the peoples there need to grow up. And there certainly seems to be plenty of fog making it hard to see the whole situation.
Like all transition points, life is complicated there. I check into this page for news there - https://news.am/eng/news/
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/8/23/russias-medvedev-warns-georgian-breakaway-regions-could-be-annexed
I assume you watched the Orban/Tucker interview. I couldn't find a transcription anywhere so half-killed myself typing it out for several hours. Feels like a kindred spirit to your Maria Zakharova dialogue, so here it is in case it can be useful - https://mikehampton.substack.com/p/transcript-tucker-carlson-viktor-orban-interview
I read reports of its content. Orban said what I expected him to say and he hopefully informed the vast portion of the US audience that's ignorant of the entire situation.
Americans would be surprised that Eastern European leaders are intelligent, something refreshing after the stupidity of their politics. Until they watch and read, they will buy into their government's and movie studios depiction of foreigners as dumb dictators.