I had some of the draft documents posted but on close inspection realized they had been doctored. Awaiting the final verdict. Update, I posted the documents again but am not sure these particular ones are legit. Different Russian states and regions have different looking documents which is why when you see these on the web they are all different but all have the same or similar seal.
I am offering a very offbeat blog here but this “guy” is a computer geek, dark-web capable of ferreting out what is really going on behind the curtain, and this is his report on the general subject. The Duran as well as independent reporters verify the high possibility that this is fact.
Sorry. for the Language
Here is another website that can keep you fully informed about what is ACTUALLY going on in the Ukraine. The Dreizin Report
Again, throwing this out about the “war” but introducing an attorney (not my favorite form of human) HOWEVER this one is brilliant and I am finding few subjects he can not argue well. I watched this live and it is long- it is worth it to hear at least part if you don’t have the time to follow it through. The Duran was barely part of this!
I listened through the conversation with Robert Barnes and the hosts of the Duran over a couple of days. It’s quite a dense conversation. One part in particular stood out to me, and that was when Robert Barnes stated words to the effect that “In the Russian mind, “Nazi” means anti-Russian”.
That really got me thinking, particularly in light of the many comments of Dr Farrell and the East mindset vs. the West mindset vis-a-vis the interpretation of religious thinking, and therefore cultural thinking. What if the cultural thinking extends further than I suspected, and even seeps into deep cultural assumptions that I had assuredly thought were settled for one and all.
After all, the west is caught up in a dilemma now. The west cannot simultaneously be fighting with and on behalf of Nazis, because we went to the trouble of defeating them in WWII (notwithstanding the Russian contribution, of course) and the cultural paradigm that arose from the defeat of Nazis almost by definition means that the west can never be accused of being on the “side” of the Nazis, and simultaneously also be genuinely guilty of supporting allies in this conflict who are the self-same Nazis upon whose opposition the foundational myth of the west is set. It doesn’t compute. Yet, the Azov proudly bear the symbols of those Nazis, and other suspicious symbols besides. Yet, all Nazis are bad, but how come these Nazis are the good guys? It’s a bit of a conundrum, and all the post-modern theory and purple hair in downtown Brownstone isn’t going to allow you wriggle out of this fine knot.
However, if you substitute your cultural assumptions of what is a Nazi with the assertion presented by Robert Barnes, a different context arises. I don’t want to get into a muddle with all of this, because talking about Nazis can get the unwary into suspicious territory, but it’s certainly worth thinking about the issues raised by the definitional twist raised here. The cultural experience of the Russian mind as opposed to the western mind, when considered in context of the purported common enemy, the Nazi, shines a light, for me, onto the complexity of these issues. Substituting my cultural framework of what is a Nazi with the definition given by Robert Barnes as to the Russian mind of what is a Nazi highlights certain particulars of the cultural dilemmas at stake in this conflict.
I just cant get the Prussians out of my head now that I have gone through this re-arrangement of concepts, and the likes of Ursula von der Haircut and her posse of inbred aristos take on a whole new wisage.
@dogsbreth
It’s not that difficult to understand. The US is an entire ocean apart from Europe & what transpired there, thus, the “lack of Nazi mentality”. The Europeans know it (Nazis) very well; they just don’t speak of it.
The Russians will fight until they can’t fight anymore (I agree with Zeihan on this); meaning, pretty much all troops are dead or completely incapacitated; and that end to The Russians will be horrific.
Well, I’m not in the prediction business, but it appears to me that if you are fighting on the border of a super-power stocked to the gills with nuclear weapons and probably other stuff to boot, you’re probably not going to win handily, even if you have all the moral support of the rest of the world in your pocket. But that is not my point really.
I’m trying to point out, clumsily I guess, that the reasons for the fight might not be what you assume they are, and therefore any assumptions as to the motive of the conflict, and therefore assumptions as to the objective, and therefore the strategic aims, necessarily need to be assessed within the best context of the cultural paradigm of the adversary you can contrive as possible. We may get to the point where both sides legitimately claim victory, one for having achieved its inscrutable aims, the other for having prevented the adversary’s assumed putative goals.
Edit: In support of this conversation, there is this short clip of a Sky News presenter speaking with a representative of the Russian Federation
As a result of that interchange, I joined his vivabarneslaw.locals and the guy definitely makes you wake up and think. You need to practice with him, too, to defend an alternate position. Just when you think you get it, like with Dr. Farrell, he throws in this wrench and you are off to the think tank.
@dogsbreth
I understand what your trying to say. I’ve been to Russia numerous times; was assigned there for work for a while. I DO understand the culture & beliefs. They still can’t win against Nato, regardless, as Nato has the weaponry too, which is why they want to stop Russia inside Ukraine; Nato cannot & will not let them go any further & they do want to go further. They NEED to go further, else, it’s no use on their part.
Playing devil’s advocate is definetely good exercise, and one that, for example, the Jesuits are exceeding good at.
Another opinion on the conflict: Scott Ritter’s latest viewpoint.
Both fighters a bloodied mess, one wins on points —— always assuming there are only two sides…
The Binary always wins, in a two-sided conflict!
Heads you win; tails you lose.
