 |
| - Ahem, comrade Ramzan, Moscow is *my* turf, only I can order hits here! |
Not sure if this is yuge or just another Tuesday as far as Russia is concerned. You know, oligarchs and mobsters moonshining as politicians or biznizmen trying to murder each other, that kind of stuff.
And Chechens, Chechens, Chechens...
The multi-cultural paradise of Russia really is working, wouldn´t you say?
Vladimir Putin faces inter-ethnic bloodbath after assassin targets ex-Chechen politician
 |
| - I will *not* fight for the Chechens, my sweet lord, seriously now! |
This British tabloid doesn´t seem *that* objective in its Russian coverage, so don´t expect a "civil war" any time soon. Still, there does seem to be a simmering conflict between Chechnya and Dagestan, two "republics" within the Russian Federation.
Apparently, Chechnya demands a piece of Dagestani territory only inhabited by Chechens before Stalin´s forced deportations during World War II. Russia has sent federal troops to the North Caucasus to show both sides who´s really boss. Chechen leader Kadyrov is an important Putin asset, which may explain his cocky attitude. If he goes too far, though, I expect a little explosion on his private chopper (rather than a full scale civil war).
Fun fact: Kadyrov looks like the YouTube content-creator The Amazing Atheist!
Russia on brink of civil war after Chechen leader declares "blood feud"
Concerning the brutal terrorist attack in Moscow: sometimes the provocation is more transparent than usual. I think it´s obvious that the Putin administration had foreknowledge of the attack.
If they ordered it, infiltrated the Islamic State to carry it out, or just waited and did nothing to stop a "real" IS operation, remains to be seen. Perhaps we´ll never know.
But seriously: do we even need to?
Gerard O’Connell: Holy Father, about Ukraine: Many in the United States have been confused by your seeming unwillingness to directly criticize Russia for its aggression against Ukraine, preferring instead to speak more generally of the need for an end to war, an end to mercenary activity rather than Russian attacks, and to the traffic in arms. How would you explain your position on this war to Ukrainians, or Americans and others who support Ukraine?
When I speak about Ukraine, I speak of a people who are martyred. If you have a martyred people, you have someone who martyrs them. When I speak about Ukraine, I speak about the cruelty because I have much information about the cruelty of the troops that come in. Generally, the cruelest are perhaps those who are of Russia but are not of the Russian tradition, such as the Chechens, the Buryati and so on. Certainly, the one who invades is the Russian state. This is very clear. Sometimes I try not to specify so as not to offend and rather condemn in general, although it is well known whom I am condemning. It is not necessary that I put a name and surname.
On the second day of the war, I went to the Russian embassy [to the Holy See], an unusual gesture because the pope never goes to an embassy. And there I said to the ambassador to tell [Vladimir] Putin that I was willing to travel on condition that he allowed me a tiny window to negotiate. [Sergey] Lavrov, the foreign minister at a high level, replied with a very nice letter from which I understood that for the time being it was not necessary.
I spoke to President Zelensky three times by phone. And I work in general with receiving lists of prisoners, both civilian prisoners and military prisoners, and I have these sent to the Russian government, and the response has always been very positive.
I also thought of traveling, but I made the decision: If I travel, I go to Moscow and to Kyiv, to both, not to one place only. And I never gave the impression that I was covering up the aggression. I received here in this hall, three or four times, a delegation from the Ukrainian government. And we work together.
Why do I not name Putin? Because it is not necessary; it is already known. However, sometimes people latch onto a detail. Everyone knows my stance, with Putin or without Putin, without naming him.
Some cardinals went to Ukraine: Cardinal Czerny went twice; [Archbishop] Gallagher, who is responsible for [relations with] states, spent four days in Ukraine, and I received a report of what he saw; and Cardinal Krajewski went four times. He goes with his van loaded with things and spent last Holy Week in Ukraine. I mean the presence of the Holy See with the cardinals is very strong, and I am in continual contact with people in positions of responsibility.
And I should like to mention that there is in these days the anniversary of the Holodomor, the genocide that Stalin committed against the Ukrainians [in 1932-33]. I believe it is appropriate to mention it as a historical antecedent of the [present] conflict.
The position of the Holy See is to seek peace and to seek an understanding. The diplomacy of the Holy See is moving in this direction and, of course, is always willing to mediate.
The entire interview (which mostly deals with other issues) can be read here:
Russia has retreated from Kherson. That means the war is over, right? I mean, the Russians are *retreating*, right? Retreat. That means we´ve won, rightie?
Consult the guy above for further information. Or ask a Chechen about what happened when Russia retreated from *their* country...
Allahu akbar! Coming soon to a Nazi stronghold near you.
Putin´s Chechen quislings celebrate their "victory" at Mariupol (or what´s left of it), where 2,000 Ukrainian fighters are still holding out inside a huge steel plant.
Not sure why the Alt Right supports a Chechen jihad against White nationalists, but there you go...
"We have a problem, Ramzan, the shitlibs have succesfully managed to portray the Azov Battalion as some kind of multi-ethnic rescue mission! Like a bunch of Bronies or something!"
"Don´t worry, Vlad, we just tell the SJWs that Chechnya is a Muslim state with sharia laws and advanced Sufi spirituality, a bit like Palestine in fact. We also point out that Azov´s supreme commander is a Jew! Then, the Wokesters will all come over to our side..."
"You know, Ramzan, you are creating trouble for me. I have to make the Alt Right think I´m the savior of the West and all that"
"Don´t worry, Vlad, if I could trick the Western liberals to support me when the Chechens were still fighting Russia, I can sure as hell trick the Nazis into supporting me now!"
Told you so...
This is how Putin is "saving the West". Warned about this years ago. Alt Right branch in Grozny!
Islamist Kadyrov ready to unleash thousands of Chechen fighters on Ukraine for Putin
 |
| Credit: FEMEN |
Ukrainas moderna gränser är faktiskt en kommunistisk skapelse. Det gäller alla gamla sovjetrepubliker utom Estland, Lettland och Litauen. När Sovjetunionen upplöstes 1991 behöll de nya staterna de gamla sovjetrepublikernas gränser. Det kanske var den mest pragmatiska lösningen just då, men det orsakade även en hel del problem och konflikter. Områden med rysk befolkning hamnade plötsligt på "fel" sida nygamla gränser. Exempelvis de mångomtalade regionerna Krim, Donetsk och Luhansk. Något svenska liberaler såklart skiter i. Men ryssarna skiter inte i det.
Och inte armenierna heller...
Rötterna till konflikten om Nagorno-Karabach går också tillbaka till Sovjets upplösning. Under den sovjetiska tiden lydde Nagorno-Karabach under den azeriska sovjetrepubliken. Den nya staten Azerbaijan fick alltså behålla Nagorno-Karabach. Problemet är att en stor del av området har armenisk befolkning. De ville tillhöra Armenien. Det tyckte Armenien också. Och då blev det krig.
Naturligtvis gäller även det motsatta: områden där det knappt bor några ryssar hamnade i Ryssland. Ett välkänt exempel är Tjetjenien. Området ville bli självständigt, men eftersom Tjetjenien inte varit en "riktig" sovjetrepublik utan sorterat under den ryska sovjetrepubliken (RSFSR) var detta omöjligt. Tjetjenien fortsatte att vara under rysk kontroll även efter kommunismens fall. När Tjetjenien trots detta utropade sin självständighet, svarade Ryssland med att bomba området tillbaka till stenåldern.
Ovanstående är inte i sig självt ett argument för att ändra de nuvarande "sovjetiska" gränserna (även om det givetvis *kan* vara det). Det är likväl viktigt att känna till bakgrunden. Annars framstår man som ett korkat mähä som i stort sett inte fattar just någonting alls. Svenska reportrar verkar genuint förbryllade över att befolkningen i Donbass hälsade Putins erkännande av "folkrepublikerna" med att hissa ryska flaggor och smälla av fyrverkerier. De är fortfarande förvirrade över att i stort sett alla på Krim röstade för Rysslands annektering av halvön 2014. Men varför är det konstigt att ryssar vill tillhöra Ryssland? Det är väl inte konstigare än att ukrainare i allmänhet *inte* vill göra det. Eller balter. Eller tjetjener. Eller judar...
Jag tror att många förståsigpåare i Sverige fortfarande inte har förlikat sig med att de flesta i det forna östblocket faktiskt inte var goda västerländska liberaler (och absolut inte vänsterliberaler). De bara låtsades vara det så länge detta renderade dem stöd från västvärlden. I själva verket var de alltid i grunden auktoritära nationalister, religiösa konservativa, eller rena skurkar. De gillade inte judar heller. Jag är fortfarande uppriktigt förvånad över att Zelenskyj kunde bli vald till Ukrainas president. De anti-semitiska traditionerna i Ukraina har länge varit ungefär lika militanta som i Ryssland. (Zelenskyj är alltså jude.)
Jag undrar vad som händer när den svenska medieeliten inser att ukrainarna faktiskt inte är homosexliberala Femen-aktivister med drömmar om att bli konsulter i Wärdegrund på TikTok, utan i allmänhet är grekisk-katoliker med en märklig fixering vid "språket" (ja, detta märkliga "språk" som underligt nog har något med nationell identitet att göra, tänka sig). Förmodligen händer just ingenting alls, eftersom de fortfarande inte kommer att gilla Putte. Vilket jag inte tenderar att göra heller. Fast bakom kulisserna kan moralpaniken ju bli riktigt, riktigt intressant...
Welcome to the real world, Neo!
Some Swedish commentators actually believe that the Russians would overthrow Putin if too many Russian soldiers came home in body bags in the event of a Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Come again?
No, Messr. Commentators, that was how *American liberals* reacted to the Vietnam War. Much, much later, right-of-center Americans started to react like that, too. Despite that, they didn´t vote for the Peace & Freedom Party. They were more likely to vote for Donald Trump...
Back in 2002, some nice liberal commentator on Swedish TV (was it Stig Fredriksson?) commented on the Moscow theater hostage crisis that perhaps ordinary Russians would now wake up and start to wonder why Chechens act in this way, and realize that it´s the terrible Russian war on Chechnya that breeds terrorism, and if only Russia could become more peaceful and withdraw its troops, Chechen terrorism would surely stop.
Why did the liberal commentator reason like this? Because that´s how a *nice liberal* would look at the situation, of course! When nice liberals get attacked by terrorists, they immidiately ask themselves what caused the nice young men with machine guns to turn terrorist, forgive them, and work for a better world.
But of course, that´s not how most people in the world react. That´s certainly not how *Russians* react. Nor did they, back in 2002.
Most people just want revenge.
So what would happen if Russian soldiers would be killed in the Ukraine? Most Russians would demand revenge against the "khokhols", "Nazis" or whatever they call the Ukrainians at the moment. Besides, Russians are convinced that Ukraine is really Novorossiya and that Kiev is the cradle of Russia.
Now, it´s probably true that Putin´s popularity is waning. But in favor of whom? Alexei Navalny? That´s not likely. While Navalny probably isn´t a liberal (he only masquerades as one to fool nice liberal commentators), he is certainly pro-Western. In other words, like Boris Yeltsin. And Yeltsin was...let´s just say, not very popular.
Most opposition to Putin will come from *even harder nationalists*, perhaps from the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. Uncouth guys who don´t understand the finer points of war game diplomacy. More into massive drone strikes against Lviv, and so forth.
You see, Russians are just as everyone else. Except, of course, nice Swedish liberals.
So be careful what you wish for!
.jpg)
