The Kremlin is burning?

[Stefan Kotsch]

13 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

It is certain that Putin himself does not believe this.

Although, I'm not entirely sure about this idea. This madness has to come from somewhere.

[ink]

22 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

However, this reasoning appears unmistakably in Putin's speech. This is  clearly addressed to the West. It is certain that Putin himself does not believe this. But it is a very nice opportunity to build up the enemy image of the WEST. Part of the overture to what we are experiencing today

Full text of Vladimir Putin's televised address in connection with the events in Beslan
04.09.2004

... Одни - хотят оторвать от нас кусок "пожирнее", другие - им помогают. Помогают, полагая, что Россия - как одна из крупнейших ядерных держав - еще представляет для них угрозу. Поэтому эту угрозу надо устранить.
... И терроризм - это, конечно, только инструмент для достижения таких целей
...

Уважаемые соотечественники,
Те, кто послал бандитов на это ужасное преступление - ставили своей целью стравить наши народы, запугать граждан России, развязать кровавую междоусобицу на Северном Кавказе.

https://ria.ru/20040904/672440.html

.. Some want to tear off a “fattier” piece from us, others help them. They help, believing that Russia, as one of the largest nuclear powers, still poses a threat to them. Therefore, this threat must be eliminated.
... And terrorism is, of course, only a tool to achieve such goals
...
Dear compatriots,
Those who sent the bandits to this terrible crime set as their goal to set our peoples against each other, intimidate the citizens of Russia, and unleash a bloody civil strife in the North Caucasus.

Ok, fair enough. Thanks 👍🏼

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, ink said:

They hire them because Nepalese society is incredibly unequal and lots of young men are desperate for any kind of income. I don't think Gurkhas come into it.

I don't remember that. Perhaps you have a link you can share.

We've had this discussion and you were unable to show Putin accepting anything of the sort.

Here you go.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/03/09/putin-bush-chechnya-ukraine-war/

 

So, here are some little-known facts: The Russian-American counterterrorism alliance ruptured after a Sept. 1, 2004, attack by Chechen separatists on a school in Beslan, in the Russian region of North Ossetia. When the Russian authorities regained control on Sept. 3, 333 people were dead, including 186 children, plus 31 attackers. In the aftermath, Putin blamed the United States for encouraging the separatists by offering asylum to “moderate” Chechens and urging Russia to negotiate with them. A headline in Pravda argued: “How would Americans feel if Russia offered sanctuary to Osama bin Laden?”

.....

Three days after the September 2004 terrorist attack at Beslan, Putin delivered a blistering speech from the Kremlin voicing his indignation at the West in language he hadn’t used before: “We showed ourselves to be weak. And the weak get beaten.” And then, in an unmistakable reference to the United States, Putin added: “Some would like to tear from us a ‘juicy piece of pie.’ Others help them … reasoning that Russia still remains one of the world’s major nuclear powers, and as such still represents a threat to them.”

 

“We never got back on track” after the Beslan incident, argues Thomas Graham, who was Bush’s National Security Council senior director for Russia at the time. “Putin concluded — wrongly in the U.S. view — that the U.S. counterterrorism campaign was just a smokescreen to cover American geopolitical advance in Eurasia at Russia’s expense,” Graham wrote in an afterword to the Russia section of the new book “Hand-Off: The Foreign Policy George W. Bush Passed to Barack Obama,” a collection of declassified transition memos prepared for the incoming Obama administration.

This view that Beslan marked a turning point is shared by many other senior officials from the Bush years. “Our relations with Russia were calm, even warm,” wrote Condoleezza Rice in her 2011 memoir, “No Higher Honor.” Rice, a Russian speaker, was Bush’s national security adviser in his first term and then secretary of state. She noted that Bush and Putin developed a “strategic dialogue group” and a “presidential checklist” to address common problems.

....

Then came Beslan. Did Putin have any grounds for his claim afterward that America was aiding the Chechen separatists? According to a careful review of the evidence by the Belfer Center at the Harvard Kennedy School, Putin was “partially correct.” The Belfer report noted that the United States in 2004 granted asylum to Ilyas Akhmadov, who was foreign minister of a Chechen separatist government in exile. The Bush administration initially opposed Akhmadov’s asylum request but then changed position.

Chechen separatism was a popular cause among some conservatives. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) met with Akhmadov at least three times. The National Endowment for Democracy awarded him a federally funded fellowship. Chechen separatists also raised money in the United States to support their cause, Graham recalled.

 

 

Putin later made the extravagant claim that U.S. intelligence agencies had aided the Chechen separatists. The Belfer Center report, again after careful review, found “no evidence of the U.S. government’s direct support for armed groups operating in Chechnya and/or other parts of the North Caucasus.”

In late 2004, Putin’s anger at what he saw as the West’s machinations would increase when Ukrainian opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko won the presidency over the Kremlin-backed candidate, Viktor Yanukovych. Russia’s power was slipping around its borders, and Putin was unable to reverse the disintegration.

 

 

So yes, Putin had some cause to be pissed. I woudl be myself after American politicians acting that cluelessly. is that evidence that the US was actually actively supporting Chechens? No. And yet, that was the turning point of his entire administration, that chose to portray anything going wrong from that point as western meddling.

 

Im surprised its not better known, it informs everything that came afterward really. Though as I said before, he was disposed to support his admirals cover story over the Kursk from the start.

Edited March 27 by Stuart Galbraith

[Stuart Galbraith]

36 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

However, this reasoning appears unmistakably in Putin's speech. This is  clearly addressed to the West. It is certain that Putin himself does not believe this. But it is a very nice opportunity to build up the enemy image of the WEST. Part of the overture to what we are experiencing today

Full text of Vladimir Putin's televised address in connection with the events in Beslan
04.09.2004

... Одни - хотят оторвать от нас кусок "пожирнее", другие - им помогают. Помогают, полагая, что Россия - как одна из крупнейших ядерных держав - еще представляет для них угрозу. Поэтому эту угрозу надо устранить.
... И терроризм - это, конечно, только инструмент для достижения таких целей
...

Уважаемые соотечественники,
Те, кто послал бандитов на это ужасное преступление - ставили своей целью стравить наши народы, запугать граждан России, развязать кровавую междоусобицу на Северном Кавказе.

https://ria.ru/20040904/672440.html

.. Some want to tear off a “fattier” piece from us, others help them. They help, believing that Russia, as one of the largest nuclear powers, still poses a threat to them. Therefore, this threat must be eliminated.
... And terrorism is, of course, only a tool to achieve such goals
...
Dear compatriots,
Those who sent the bandits to this terrible crime set as their goal to set our peoples against each other, intimidate the citizens of Russia, and unleash a bloody civil strife in the North Caucasus.

Im not so sure. I suspect he DID believe it, and probably was pushed in that effort by the FSB that saw its entire existence based upon having the west as an imminent threat. So ive no doubt they over emphasised Western links with the chechens. 

People bang on about the American military industrial complex looking for enemies. Its fairly clear to me the Russian one does exactly the same thing.

[ink]

10 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Here you go.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/03/09/putin-bush-chechnya-ukraine-war/

 

So, here are some little-known facts: The Russian-American counterterrorism alliance ruptured after a Sept. 1, 2004, attack by Chechen separatists on a school in Beslan, in the Russian region of North Ossetia. When the Russian authorities regained control on Sept. 3, 333 people were dead, including 186 children, plus 31 attackers. In the aftermath, Putin blamed the United States for encouraging the separatists by offering asylum to “moderate” Chechens and urging Russia to negotiate with them. A headline in Pravda argued: “How would Americans feel if Russia offered sanctuary to Osama bin Laden?”

.....

Three days after the September 2004 terrorist attack at Beslan, Putin delivered a blistering speech from the Kremlin voicing his indignation at the West in language he hadn’t used before: “We showed ourselves to be weak. And the weak get beaten.” And then, in an unmistakable reference to the United States, Putin added: “Some would like to tear from us a ‘juicy piece of pie.’ Others help them … reasoning that Russia still remains one of the world’s major nuclear powers, and as such still represents a threat to them.”

 

“We never got back on track” after the Beslan incident, argues Thomas Graham, who was Bush’s National Security Council senior director for Russia at the time. “Putin concluded — wrongly in the U.S. view — that the U.S. counterterrorism campaign was just a smokescreen to cover American geopolitical advance in Eurasia at Russia’s expense,” Graham wrote in an afterword to the Russia section of the new book “Hand-Off: The Foreign Policy George W. Bush Passed to Barack Obama,” a collection of declassified transition memos prepared for the incoming Obama administration.

This view that Beslan marked a turning point is shared by many other senior officials from the Bush years. “Our relations with Russia were calm, even warm,” wrote Condoleezza Rice in her 2011 memoir, “No Higher Honor.” Rice, a Russian speaker, was Bush’s national security adviser in his first term and then secretary of state. She noted that Bush and Putin developed a “strategic dialogue group” and a “presidential checklist” to address common problems.

....

Then came Beslan. Did Putin have any grounds for his claim afterward that America was aiding the Chechen separatists? According to a careful review of the evidence by the Belfer Center at the Harvard Kennedy School, Putin was “partially correct.” The Belfer report noted that the United States in 2004 granted asylum to Ilyas Akhmadov, who was foreign minister of a Chechen separatist government in exile. The Bush administration initially opposed Akhmadov’s asylum request but then changed position.

Chechen separatism was a popular cause among some conservatives. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) met with Akhmadov at least three times. The National Endowment for Democracy awarded him a federally funded fellowship. Chechen separatists also raised money in the United States to support their cause, Graham recalled.

 

 

Putin later made the extravagant claim that U.S. intelligence agencies had aided the Chechen separatists. The Belfer Center report, again after careful review, found “no evidence of the U.S. government’s direct support for armed groups operating in Chechnya and/or other parts of the North Caucasus.”

In late 2004, Putin’s anger at what he saw as the West’s machinations would increase when Ukrainian opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko won the presidency over the Kremlin-backed candidate, Viktor Yanukovych. Russia’s power was slipping around its borders, and Putin was unable to reverse the disintegration.

 

 

So yes, Putin had some cause to be pissed. I woudl be myself after American politicians acting that cluelessly. is that evidence that the US was actually actively supporting Chechens? No. And yet, that was the turning point of his entire administration, that chose to portray anything going wrong from that point as western meddling.

 

Im surprised its not better known, it informs everything that came afterward really. Though as I said before, he was disposed to support his admirals cover story over the Kursk from the start.

Ok, thanks 🙂

[Stuart Galbraith]

NP. 👍

[Roman Alymov]

4 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Im not so sure. I suspect he DID believe it, and probably was pushed in that effort by the FSB that saw its entire existence based upon having the west as an imminent threat.

You must be kidding. FSB is just part of "collective Putin" and was primarily interested in maintaining status quo of Russian Federation operating as de-facto colony of West. FSB top officials were in no way different from top officials of other branches of Rus Gov (see Strelkov's memoirs og how FSB was becoming less and less pro-Russians as old cadre of people brought up by USSR were leaving while new generation of opportunists was making their way up through career ladder, while people busy actual work on the ground, for example anti-terror, were roting in Caucasus mountains and other places with lots of oppotunities to loose own life but few opportunities for promotion). The best dream of all this top generals was to be integrated into "West" - travel to all this international security conferences (on Russian taxpayers expence of course), make nice money inside Russia, educate own children in Western schools and univercities to then promote them to top seats in Russian business etc.

[Roman Alymov]

4 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

People bang on about the American military industrial complex looking for enemies. Its fairly clear to me the Russian one does exactly the same thing.

Another strange idea. "Russian military industrial complex" got no political leverage and was not in position to communicate any political message that was against the interests of "good relations  and trade with West" untill West, with God's blessing must be, cut this trade from other side and significantly reduced the power of own puppets in Russian elite by doing so.

[Roman Alymov]

4 hours ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

However, this reasoning appears unmistakably in Putin's speech. This is  clearly addressed to the West. It is certain that Putin himself does not believe this. But it is a very nice opportunity to build up the enemy image of the WEST.

You mean West-provided missiles falling on civilians in Russian cities, West-sponsored terror attacks in Russia next to daily, hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers (including mobilized ones who were just civilians not so long ago - 45000 mobilized from Moscow alone) etc. is not enough create "enemy image of the WEST" and some more proofs are needed to do it? 

    Reality is, "enemy image of the West" is now deeply rooted in Russian grass roots (and it is surprising taking into account this image was completely nonexistant when USSR collapsed) and this image is result of West's own actions - while "official propaganda" was trying to communicate pro-Western message for decades, all this "Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok" etc. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

9 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

Another strange idea. "Russian military industrial complex" got no political leverage and was not in position to communicate any political message that was against the interests of "good relations  and trade with West" untill West, with God's blessing must be, cut this trade from other side and significantly reduced the power of own puppets in Russian elite by doing so.

Oh, it certainly does. For one thing, you need to explain why your Government is buying scores of different nuclear delivery systems, but only trace amounts of them, rather than buying a couple of them in decent numbers. It looks distinctly like kickbacks, at the very least keeping decaying industries alive for political reasons.

Besides, there is more than the industrial side. I would distinctly count the CIA and the NSA as part of the American military industrial complex, and you have those too. Just because they dont build tanks, doesnt mean your FSB doesnt stand to benefit from this conflict, and it most decidedly has. The only problem comes when they have another conflict they werent prepared for, such as this one with ISIS.

[Roman Alymov]

5 hours ago, ink said:

No, but then Zelensky, who is Jewish, does hire muslims to fight for "him" against the Russians. So that proves... What? Well, nothing in my opinion. Except that his Jewishness apparently has zero effect on his policies or opinions.

That is simplification that obscure understanding of the process. Pro-Ukrainians are connected with islamists of all kinds for decades (while were suppressing even modest Islam in Crimea among Crimea Tatars out of fear of separatism). Initially that were Chechens (both for political reasons and because it was just easy for Chechens to buy corrupt officials in Ukraine with money they were getting from Gulf and West), then other Islamists from Syria, Turkey etc.

   Now former head if Ukraine Intelligence service Evdokimov is Ukraine Ambassador in Tajikistan, busy recruiting locals to "International Legion"..... And i doubt most of people recruited by him are aware who is President of Ukraine, or care about it.

[Roman Alymov]

9 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Oh, it certainly does. For one thing, you need to explain why your Government is buying scores of different nuclear delivery systems, but only trace amounts of them, rather than buying a couple of them in decent numbers. It looks distinctly like kickbacks, at the very least keeping decaying industries alive for political reasons.

Seems like you have missed my explanations on what is "Appeasement of the West" and in what way they are different from "<Unconditional> Surrender to the West". "Collective Putin" desperately needs sime sort of barganing chips to exchange at negotiation table for what they really need: West allowing them to stay in control of Russia, taking part of profits.So this "new weapons" are this items for trade. And this is why they are not produced in mass quantity: mass production will anavoidably require (and create) massive plants with masses of highly skilled, well paid, well organised and proud workforce  - exactly the same political force "democrats" were so scared of in early years of Russia.    Yes kickbaks are also an issue, but there is no need to have military industry to have kickbaks as it is way more simple and safe to export oil and put profits directly to Western banks and assets, without need of sharing them with millions of workers who might one day start asking political questions.....

[Ssnake]

7 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

And how here, when he has been fighting the wrong war for 10 years, and his disastrous policies are coming home to roost, what does he do? He blames the west again!

All part of his appeasement strategy.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Quite.

 

[JWB]

 

[Roman Alymov]

And back to the roots of some problems in Russian migration policy

"Historian A. Dyukov has unearthed a manual (https://t.me/historiographe/12015 ), which teaches the history of Tajikistan in Russian-Tajik schools in Tajikistan.

I didn't believe it, looked at the pdf itself... and was STUNNED.

The period of the current Tajikistan's presence in the common space with Russia is repeatedly called "OCCUPATION", "INVASION", "COLONIALISM" (underlined in red); the reference points are all kinds of uprisings (it's as if in our textbooks about modern history, the main event of the XXI century was, uh, Kondopoga), sprinkled with blunt copy paste from the 1920/30 manuals ("Measures taken by the tsarist government to turn the masses away from the revolutionary movement"... "The February Revolution in Russia and the elimination of tsarist orders in general- the governorship of Turkestan") — for a hundred years, historical science has gone a little ahead, hasn't it?

But there are references to Russia's local ally, the Emir of Bukhara, Seyid Alim Khan (https://t.me/chesnokmedia/7319 ) I did not find it — although he enjoyed the widest autonomy as part of the RI and had his own army with a shahada on the banner (this is such an "occupation").

Oh, you haven't figured out what the point is yet? All this "struggle against the RUSSIAN invaders" IS TAKING PLACE WITH RUSSIAN MONEY.

This particular manual is from the Lomonosov School in Bokhara. This is one of the schools built with Russian money; in 2021, the Russian Government allocated $150 million for this project; in 2022 — ₽5.74 billion 

At the same time, for 5 billion rubles, the Methodists could not even compile a competent document — the events of the XIX century take place "in 1930" (take a closer look).

Really: how is it that after taking lessons about the "ryuski occupanti", the guys come to Russia, after which excesses periodically occur?

I have no idea who is behind this, probably the AMERICANS!

P.S. Well, this is a whole section devoted to the ethnogenesis of the Aryans. Someone here has already dabbled in the "Aryan theme" — apparently they want to repeat it.

P.S. I decided to double-check anyway — and found this document not only from Dyukov, but also on the school's website. It was soon deleted from there, but the video I recorded downloading the dock from the site remained." ( https://t.me/chesnokmedia/13548 )

"

Indeed, as a colleague correctly notes, in the educational manuals of Tajik (even partially Russian-Tajik) schools, there is nothing that would not have been written in Soviet history textbooks since the 30s.

All the narratives remained the same, as if copied from Lenin's works, like "On the National Pride of the Great Russians." Russian Russian textbooks described the Russian people as the bearer of imperial chauvinism, the Russian Empire as a subject that robbed and humiliated all peoples (except the Russian, because the Russians themselves were colonizers), siphoned off resources, and destroyed ancient local culture. Warlords and thugs like Masanchi or Alibi Dzhangildin were declared fighters against the cursed tsarism. At the same time, however, it was forgotten that the struggle was all traditionally reduced to the massacre of Russians in Turkestan.

Russian Russian revolt in Kokand in 1875, which was essentially a form of religious war against Russians and local authorities (as they wrote in the Russian documents "jehad"), and was reduced to the massacre of Russian post stations and settlements, was also called the national liberation struggle in the Soviet years. And who is the fight with? So it is with the occupying empire.

Today, in textbooks in the expanses of the former USSR, another occupier, the Soviet Union, has been added to the Russian Empire. Through history textbooks and national historical policy in almost all neighboring countries, the following is systematically broadcast: the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union – the colonial periods of national history. Ethnocide, "siphoning off resources", targeted and exceptional repression (compared to genocide in a number of countries).

In fact, it is enough to go to Afghanistan, which has never been conquered by anyone, and compare the current life there and in neighboring, say, Tajikistan, which was allegedly colonized and oppressed. And it will immediately become clear what all these arguments are worth. And the Pamirs and its indigenous population, the Pamir Tajiks (Rushans, Vakhans, Shugnans), were completely saved by the Russian army from destruction by the same Afghans at the end of the 19th century.

However, we have what we have. Russophobic textbooks, including with Russian money. The manual, which was found by colleagues from the Lomonosov school in Bokhara. This is one of the schools built with Russian money; in 2021, the Russian Government allocated $150 million for this project; in 2022 — ₽5.74 billion. It's wonderful.

The fact is that a number of officials in Russia still have a feeling that certain common values work in some form on the territory of the former Soviet Union: the Great Patriotic War, the Soviet friendship of peoples. This is all a deep illusion. The Great Patriotic War, according to the youth in the national republics, is a foreign war, where the Russians FORCED their grandfathers and great-grandfathers to go.

Those who are under 30 years old do not think of themselves as "post-Soviet", they are not, and besides, they live in a situation of serious social stratification, where the most vulnerable social strata find answers to the main questions in radical Islam.

And the most important thing. All the republics of the post-Soviet space, including Central Asian ones, have been building nation-states since '91. Even if it was covered by some beautiful formulas. De facto, they built nation-states, where it was allowed for someone else to live.

That's exactly what officials responsible for shaping both migration policy and those who promote our soft power need to understand. Even though the quality of this work varies. The sooner we understand, the better it will be for everyone.
Because the following is happening so far. We believe that people are coming to us who are at least minimally grateful to Russia/the USSR for creating industrial and other infrastructure, and who have at least some cultural and semantic field in common with us.

But in reality, people are coming who have known since childhood that their country would have lived better, more beautiful and more satisfying if these Russian imperials and scoops hadn't stolen everything." ( https://t.me/MedvedevVesti/17142 )

 

[JWB]

Putin Is 'Losing Control' in Russia: Dictator Expert (msn.com)

[Stuart Galbraith]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/putin-issues-f-16-warning/ar-BB1kGvKh?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=a30cd4bf2ca74006aacaeaa736291287&ei=12

Vladimir Putin has said that Russian forces will destroy any F-16s delivered to Ukraine from its NATO allies "wherever they are," while at the same time insisting that Moscow had no intention of attacking any country in the alliance.

Last August, Washington finally authorized allies to give Kyiv the U.S.-made planes, whose more modern avionics and radars hand extra capabilities to Ukraine's Air Force which relies on Soviet-era MiG and Sukhoi jets.

A group of 14 countries has pledged to deliver the aircraft and help with training. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said Wednesday the aircraft should arrive in Ukraine in the coming months.

During a visit to the 344th Army Aviation Centre where combat pilots are trained, in Torzhok, 160 miles northwest of Moscow, Putin was asked if Russian pilots would be "allowed to hit these targets at NATO airfields."

Putin replied: "Of course, if they are used from airfields of third countries, they become a legitimate target for us, no matter where they are.

"We will destroy their planes in the same way that we destroy their tanks, armored vehicles, and other equipment, including multiple launch rocket systems," he said, according to a transcript on the Kremlin website.

"The F-16s are also carriers of nuclear weapons, and we will also have to take this into account when organizing combat work," but he insisted that the aircraft delivery "will not change anything on the battlefield."

During the same question-and-answer session, Putin appeared to contradict this by rejecting the prospect of Russia attacking a NATO country.

President Joe Biden warned in December that Putin would strike at NATO, a sentiment shared by other Western leaders and chairman of the alliance's military committee, Admiral Rob Bauer, who spoke in January about the inevitability of war with Russia.

[glenn239]

The Russians always declare their options ahead of time in order to keep them open.  But when push comes to shove, Putin usually defers on exercising the more escalatory options, even while being careful to state that they remain in play.

[Stuart Galbraith]

That's right, he said he had no need to invade Ukraine, and he didn't...

Oh snap.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

[Roman Alymov]

4 hours ago, JWB said:

Putin Is 'Losing Control' in Russia: Dictator Expert (msn.com)

Correct title is "West is "Loosing Control" in Russia after three decades of excercising it via  "Collective Putin"."

[R011]

It seems to me Putin is saying that if UkrAF actually operates from Nato airfields, those airfields would be fair game - and in that case, he'd be right.  I don't think he necessarily means Ukrainian jets in transit woud make an airfield a target.

[JWB]

5 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

Correct title is "West is "Loosing Control" in Russia after three decades of excercising it via  "Collective Putin"."

The "west" never had control of Russia.

[Josh]

7 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

Correct title is "West is "Loosing Control" in Russia after three decades of excercising it via  "Collective Putin"."

We’ll have things improved since “control” was “regained”?