Skip to main content

A Pro-Putin Diatribe

Putin is a very good leader. He is admired by most Russians. He is a nationalist and wants to use the countries resources, especially its oil, for the benefit of Russia and its people. When the Soviet Union fell apart the corporates were licking their collective lips. Russia was going to be carved up like a great big delicious "pirog" (pie) and Yeltsin was their very own running dog. It looked like it was going to work.

The mafias made friends with Yeltsin and his gang and they got their way before the US corporates got stuck in. But they, and the little jackals from Britain and Japan could wait. They could bide their time. Later on Russia was going to be in for buy outs and one sided joint ventures. You name it, it was all on the cards and the western corporates were clever and patient.

But along comes Putin. A public servant, with a public servant's salary, but a history in the service and defence of his country. He says, with support from the former political class, who are not so stupid as not to see what's going on and who were a lot smarter and more ethical in their foreign policy than the US and Britain ever were: "Ni odin shag nazad" ("Not one step backwards." That was the phrase at the battle of Stalingrad, wasn't it? Since then Putin has made it clear. Russia will be a great country again. Russia will control its own natural resources. Russia will continue to have its own foreign policy and Russia will not be subject to the machinations of proxy international organizations serving US interests.

Now who is going to take umbrage at this assertion of Russian independence and national power. Well an almighty array of forces. The ones that Yeltsin unleashed, (I've met them and sat in their living rooms), and the same forces, the big companies that were ready with their sharpened knives and pointed forks to feast on the Soviet carcass. What happens when you come between Hyenas and their carcass? Well you are watching what happens in the media. In all the megaphones of capitalism.

There's a baying and howling of hungry eternally famished wolves and there is the menacing laugh of hyenas. Just in who's employ was this "former Russian agent" who was murdered? I guess he was in the pay of Berezhovsky, who promised to coup Putin. In the employ of the flush half-legitimate half-mafiosi (Oh best beloved). This spy was recruiting double agents using mountains of money.

Now the message has been broadcast loud and clear from Russia and Putin. It's no mystery. This action of Putin parallels the way Mexican presidents have had to deal with the drug lords. The problem is, you are only a civil servant, your enemy has vast resources and can buy up all your people and have you assassinated and put the press against you. The difference is, you have a relatively professional and patriotic organisation backing you up, the Russian secret service. So, (Oh best beloved), you have to send VERY clear message to Berezhovski and his western covert allies.

Message received.

Putin is brave and Putin is risking his life by attacking these people. Many in the west think Russia is on a cusp and they hope that if they can just get rid of Putin things will open up for them again. I hope not. I for one support him Putin for the moment. I support the defence of Russian institutions. For the ones who say Putin is attacking freedom and liberty I say you are either disingenuous, working for an organisation or government that would like to see a weaker and more amenable Russia or you are in the pay of Russia's enemies and working in the Western media. Take your pick. But don't make a mystery out of the bleeding obvious.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Aerogramme from Lisa and Richard

To: Mr & Mrs J. Hall, Box 49 Eikenhof (TVL) Johannesburg Afrique du Sud. 28.3.76 Dear John and Nola, Today a week ago we were still in New Delhi with Eve and Tony and the boys and the whole thing looks like a dream. We arrived on the 28.2 in New Delhi and were happy to see the whole family fit and in good health. The boys have grown very much, Phil is just about the size of Tony and the twins are above average. We stayed untill the 22nd March, as our visa ran out and we did not want to go through all the ceremony of asking for an extension. It also got hotter and I don't know how I would have supported the heat. The extra week would also have passed, so we decided not to go to all the trouble with the authorities and leave on the 22nd. I cannot tell you how happy we have been to see such a lovely family, so happy and united. It is rare to experience sucha thing and we have both all the reasons to be proud of them (when I say goth I mean you and us ). There is su

Guardian: Kate Harding's reactionary censorious blog on CiF

It should go without saying... ....that we condemn the scummy prat who called Liskula Cohen : "a psychotic, lying, whoring ... skank" But I disagree with Kate Harding , (in my view a pseudo blogger), posting her blog in the Guardian attacking bloggers. It's a case of set a thief to catch a thief. The mainstream media is irritated by bloggers because they steal its thunder and so they comission people like Kate Harding , people with nothing to say for themselves, apparently, other than that they are feminists, to attack bloggers. I'm black. So I can legitimately attack "angry white old men". I'm a feminist, so I have carte blanche to call all anonymous bloggers "prats." Because yes, that is her erudite response to bloggers. No I don't say that the blogging medium can't be used to attack progressives in whatever context. Of course it can. But to applaud the censorship of a blogger by a billion dollar corporate like Google, and moreov

Guardian books blog fringe: Norman Mailer

FLASHING THE GUARDIAN -- A BOOKS BLOGGERS' REBELLION :  The unheroic censor with a death wish Part 1: In which Norman Mailer stars in an experiment in search engine optimisation By ACCIACCATURE 3 February 2009 When Norman Mailer died in 2007, informed opinion – in the blogosphere, people who had read at least two of his books – was split. The army of readers who saw him as one of the most despicable misogynists writing fiction in the 20th century was perfectly matched by warriors on the other side, who raged that the label wasn’t just unwarranted but tantamount to heinous calumny. Before commenters returned to bitching-as-usual, tempers were lost on literary sites all over the net in debating temperatures high enough to bring to mind tiles burning off space shuttles re-entering Earth’s atmosphere. After I'd agreed to a spontaneous suggestion by our good friend Sean Murray -- a pioneer and stalwart of the comments section of The Guardian’s books blog – that we re-