Is the conflict between the United States and Russia worsening?

US European Command (USEUCOM) flew one of its best planes, the so-called
“doomsday plane”, over Europe and Iceland on Tuesday!

Boeing E-6B Code Name: “Mirror Mirror”, also E-6B Mercury, is based on the
Boeing 707 and used as a command center for US Navy nuclear submarines.

This means that the United States wants to be ready for everything in
Europe.

Mercury traveled to Iceland with, among others, US Ambassador Karen
Bateman and other senior officials and military officials.

The latest version of the aircraft entered service in 1998 and can
communicate directly with ballistic missile submarines of the US fleet. In
addition, Mercury can control the Minuteman mini ICBM.

In the event of a nuclear war the US President may use the post-plane
flight command. But this is not yet done: it turns out that George W. Bush
also said that he preferred to travel on Air Force One after the attacks
on September 11, 2001.

After Russia Participated in the New Beginnings alliance the suspended
transfer of the E-6B Mercury to Iceland can be seen as a move to
reposition itself clearly against the Kremlin.

Meanwhile, Russia sustained heavy damage to one of them on Monday. Take
your plane to explore the best. A Beriev A-50, used by Putin’s army as an
early warning and reconnaissance aircraft, was badly damaged by a rebel
drone strike and was no longer operational.

Each E-6B costs the Americans about $140 million. The device is equipped
with a series of antennas that can communicate at various frequencies. The
crew consists of 22 people, 4 in the cabin.

At least one of America’s 16 E-6Bs is constantly in the air, ready for
action in the event of an attack.

https://worldnationnews.com/putins-message-the-us-has-landed-a-plane-from-the-end-of-the-world-in-europe-policy/

### - so we're not exactly seeing much preparation for 'peace' then huh....

not when they start bringing-up the 'doomsday' planes while blowing-up
russia's version of same??

fat chance...

>
> ### - so we're not exactly seeing much preparation for 'peace' then huh....
>
> not when they start bringing-up the 'doomsday' planes while blowing-up
> russia's version of same??
>
> fat chance...

"Nature abhors a vacuum" is an old folks cliche-saying. that speaks to the "Unintended Consequences"
and all the unpredictable factors that are impossible to reckon-calculate. All the little wars were a preparation
for this war. The West doesn't have the savvy or will, to finish an unfinishable task.
This article is spaced widely to distinguish questions and responses, it ends on a mysterious note.

[]

Alexander Solzhenitsyn On The New Russia
Aug 5, 2008,02:00pm EDT
This article is more than 10 years old.

The world has been paying its last respects to Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the Russian who exposed the horror of the Soviet prison labor camps and gave new meaning to the word "gulag."

Solzhenitsyn, who died Aug. 3 of heart failure at age 89 in Moscow, spent eight years in those camps. That experience was the basis of his novel One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, which was published in 1962 during the brief post-Stalin thaw.

Solzhenitsyn won the Nobel Prize for literature in 1970 and three years later published his historical masterpiece, The Gulag Archipelago, which led to his expulsion and 20 years in exile. He returned to his beloved Russia only in 1994, after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Origin
https://www.forbes.com/2008/08/05/solzhenitsyn-forbes-interview-oped-cx_pm_0804russia.html?sh=55f5ac7a5f53

Forbes magazine spoke to the reclusive Solzhenitsyn in his Vermont home shortly before returning. We republish the interview, conducted by the late Paul Klebnikov, and Klebnikov's assessment of Solzhenitsyn's work in memory of one of the 20th century's towering literary figures, whom many Russians regard as the conscience of their country.

The home of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in Cavendish, Vt., is strewn with packing trunks. After 20 years, the reclusive Russian sage is preparing to go home, thus ending the involuntary exile imposed upon him by a now vanished communist government. But before returning to his homeland, the author of One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich agreed to give this magazine one of his rare interviews.

For Americans, many of whom still tend to regard Russia through a Cold War-distorting lens, Solzhenitsyn's passionate defense of Russia makes moving reading.

He ends the interview on a somewhat cryptic note, saying that one day the U..S. will have serious need of Russia as an ally against a threat he refused to name. What threat? On other occasions, Solzhenitsyn has warned of an expansionist China, about resurgent Islam and other dangers from the so-called Third World.

[]

Forbes: Tension is mounting between Russia and the now independent Ukraine, with the West strongly backing Ukrainian territorial integrity. Henry Kissinger argues that Russia will always threaten the interests of the West, no matter what kind of government it has.

Solzhenitsyn: Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, [historian] Richard Pipes and many other American politicians and publicists are frozen in a mode of thought they developed a long time ago. With unchanging blindness and stubbornness they keep repeating and repeating this theory about the supposed age-old aggressiveness of Russia, without taking into consideration today's reality.

Well, what about Ukraine? Hasn't Russia made threats toward several of the former U.S.S.R. member states?

Imagine that one not very fine day two or three of your states in the Southwest, in the space of 24 hours, declare themselves independent of the U.S. They declare themselves a fully sovereign nation, decreeing that Spanish will be the only language. All English-speaking residents, even if their ancestors have lived there for 200 years, have to take a test in the Spanish language within one or two years and swear allegiance to the new nation. Otherwise they will not receive citizenship and be deprived of civic, property and employment rights.

What would be the reaction of the United States? I have no doubt that it would be immediate military intervention.

But today Russia faces precisely this scenario. In 24 hours she lost eight to 10 purely Russian provinces, 25 million ethnic Russians who have ended up in this very way--as "undesirable aliens." In places where their fathers, grandfathers, great-grandfathers have lived since way back--even from the 17th century--they face persecution in their jobs and the suppression of their culture, education and language.

Meanwhile, in Central Asia, those wishing to leave are not permitted to take even their personal property. The authorities tell them, "There is no such concept as 'personal property'!"

And in this situation "imperialist Russia" has not made a single forceful move to rectify this monstrous mess. Without a murmur she has given away 25 million of her compatriots--the largest diaspora in the world!

You see Russia as the victim of aggression, not as the aggressor.

Who can find in world history another such example of peaceful conduct? And if Russia keeps the peace in the single most vital question that concerns her, why should one expect her to be aggressive in secondary issues?

With Russia in chaos, it does sound a bit far-fetched to see her as an aggressor.

Russia today is terribly sick. Her people are sick to the point of total exhaustion. But even so, have a conscience and don't demand that--just to please America--Russia throw away the last vestiges of her concern for her security and her unprecedented collapse. After all, this concern in no way threatens the United States.

Former U.S. National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski disagrees. He argues that the U.S. must defend the independence of Ukraine.

In 1919, when he imposed his regime on Ukraine, Lenin gave her several Russian provinces to assuage her feelings. These provinces have never historically belonged to Ukraine. I am talking about the eastern and southern territories of today's Ukraine.

Then, in 1954, Khrushchev, with the arbitrary capriciousness of a satrap, made a "gift" of the Crimea to Ukraine. But even he did not manage to make Ukraine a "gift" of Sevastopol, which remained a separate city under the jurisdiction of the U.S.S.R. central government. This was accomplished by the American State Department, first verbally through Ambassador Popadiuk in Kiev and later in a more official manner.

Why does the State Department decide who should get Sevastopol? If one recalls the tactless declaration of President Bush about supporting Ukrainian sovereignty even before the referendum on that matter, one must conclude that all this stems from a common aim: to use all means possible, no matter what the consequences, to weaken Russia.

Why does independence for Ukraine weaken Russia?

As a result of the sudden and crude fragmentation of the intermingled Slavic peoples, the borders have torn apart millions of ties of family and friendship. Is this acceptable? The recent elections in Ukraine, for instance, clearly show the [Russian] sympathies of the Crimean and Donets populations. And a democracy must respect this.

I myself am nearly half Ukrainian. I grew up with the sounds of Ukrainian speech. I love her culture and genuinely wish all kinds of success for Ukraine--but only within her real ethnic boundaries, without grabbing Russian provinces. And not in the form of a "great power," the concept on which Ukrainian nationalists have placed their bets. They are acting out and trumpeting a cult of force, persistently inflating Russia into the image of an "enemy." Militant slogans are proclaimed. And the Ukrainian army is being indoctrinated with the propaganda that war with Russia is inevitable.

For every country, great power status deforms and harms the national character. I have never wished great power status for Russia, and do not wish it for the United States. I don't wish it for Ukraine. She would not be able to perform even the cultural task required to achieve great power status: In her current borders, 63% of the population consider Russian to be their native language, a number three times larger than the number of ethnic Russians. And all these people will have to be re-educated in the Ukrainian language, while the language itself will have to be raised to international standards and usage. This is a task that would require over 100 years.

At the heart of all this is a central question: What about Russia and the U..S.? Are we historic rivals?

Before the [Russian] revolution, they were natural allies. You know that during the American Civil War, Russia supported Lincoln and the North [in contrast to Britain and France, which supported the Confederacy]. Then, we were effectively allies in the First World War. But beginning with communism, Russia ceased to exist. What is there to talk about? The confrontation was not at all with Russia but with the communist U.S.S.R.

A lot of people in the West think it wasn't communism but traditional Russian imperialism that drove Stalin to grab Eastern Europe.

Absolutely not! This was not Russian imperialism, which in the past only expanded its borders somewhat. This was communist imperialism, which aimed to take over the whole world.

Yet an official U.S. document from 1959, the Law 86-90, does not include Russia in the list of nations oppressed by communism. On the contrary, "Russian imperialism," not communism, is held responsible for the conquest of some 20 countries--even China, Tibet and some made-up place called "Kazakia." One is amazed that this silly law is still on the books, even today.

LowRider wrote...

>> - so we're not exactly seeing much preparation for 'peace' then huh...
>>
>> not when they start bringing-up the 'doomsday' planes while blowing-up
>> russia's version of same??
>>
>> fat chance...
>
> "Nature abhors a vacuum" is an old folks cliche-saying. that speaks to
> the "Unintended Consequences"
> and all the unpredictable factors that are impossible to
> reckon-calculate. All the little wars were a preparation
> for this war. The West doesn't have the savvy or will, to finish an
> unfinishable task.

### - oh am fairly sure 'all' this has/has been very carefully planned
long-time: ALL the little wars leading up to this one being part of the
exact same movement/plan all along, one that commenced during/just-after
the end of ww2 as a shattered world was being carved-up by the then big-4,
an anti-russian sentiment being quite deliberately fed & fostered from
that point on to the point of hysteria: reds under the bed, 'dirty
communists' getting into everything that matters (cue hollywood/public
stalin-style purges etc) cue 70+ years of: hate! hate! hate! - each
successive administration (left or right) merely furthering the exact same
plan, it finally all coming to fruition in our time (lucky us huh)

> This article is spaced widely to distinguish questions and responses, it
> ends on a mysterious note.

### - gave your above article a while for thang to (again heh) maybe jump
right outta his skin denouncing it all haha (he does that lol: just press
his button and off he goes) only he hasn't shown up??

smile, had images of him desperately scratchin' his head in the meantime
tryin' to figure out if he's actually a 'warmonger' or not? (mistakenly:
he is!) but then hey maybe he's just dead huh; summat he kept wishing on
everyone else has finally boomeranged? poetic justice perhaps + ya have to
be careful whatcha wish for coz sometimes it happens (slider wags a
warning finger at anyone else maybe listening hehe)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3p_xAToFzck (still a good track)

'funeral for a friend' haha ;)

>
> []
>
> Alexander Solzhenitsyn On The New Russia
> Aug 5, 2008,02:00pm EDT
> This article is more than 10 years old.
>
> The world has been paying its last respects to Alexander Solzhenitsyn,
> the Russian who exposed the horror of the Soviet prison labor camps and
> gave new meaning to the word "gulag."
>
> Solzhenitsyn, who died Aug. 3 of heart failure at age 89 in Moscow,
> spent eight years in those camps. That experience was the basis of his
> novel One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, which was published in
> 1962 during the brief post-Stalin thaw.
>
> Solzhenitsyn won the Nobel Prize for literature in 1970 and three years
> later published his historical masterpiece, The Gulag Archipelago, which
> led to his expulsion and 20 years in exile. He returned to his beloved
> Russia only in 1994, after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
>
> Origin
> https://www.forbes.com/2008/08/05/solzhenitsyn-forbes-interview-oped-cx_pm_0804russia.html?sh=55f5ac7a5f53
>
>
> Forbes magazine spoke to the reclusive Solzhenitsyn in his Vermont home
> shortly before returning. We republish the interview, conducted by the
> late Paul Klebnikov, and Klebnikov's assessment of Solzhenitsyn's work
> in memory of one of the 20th century's towering literary figures, whom
> many Russians regard as the conscience of their country.
>
> The home of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in Cavendish, Vt., is strewn with
> packing trunks. After 20 years, the reclusive Russian sage is preparing
> to go home, thus ending the involuntary exile imposed upon him by a now
> vanished communist government. But before returning to his homeland, the
> author of One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich agreed to give this
> magazine one of his rare interviews.
>
> For Americans, many of whom still tend to regard Russia through a Cold
> War-distorting lens, Solzhenitsyn's passionate defense of Russia makes
> moving reading.
>
> He ends the interview on a somewhat cryptic note, saying that one day
> the U.S. will have serious need of Russia as an ally against a threat he
> refused to name. What threat? On other occasions, Solzhenitsyn has
> warned of an expansionist China, about resurgent Islam and other dangers
> from the so-called Third World.
>
> []
>
>
> Forbes: Tension is mounting between Russia and the now independent
> Ukraine, with the West strongly backing Ukrainian territorial integrity.
> Henry Kissinger argues that Russia will always threaten the interests of
> the West, no matter what kind of government it has.
>
>
>
> Solzhenitsyn: Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, [historian] Richard
> Pipes and many other American politicians and publicists are frozen in a
> mode of thought they developed a long time ago. With unchanging
> blindness and stubbornness they keep repeating and repeating this theory
> about the supposed age-old aggressiveness of Russia, without taking into
> consideration today's reality.
>
>
>
> Well, what about Ukraine? Hasn't Russia made threats toward several of
> the former U.S.S.R. member states?
>
>
>
> Imagine that one not very fine day two or three of your states in the
> Southwest, in the space of 24 hours, declare themselves independent of
> the U.S. They declare themselves a fully sovereign nation, decreeing
> that Spanish will be the only language. All English-speaking residents,
> even if their ancestors have lived there for 200 years, have to take a
> test in the Spanish language within one or two years and swear
> allegiance to the new nation. Otherwise they will not receive
> citizenship and be deprived of civic, property and employment rights.
>
>
>
> What would be the reaction of the United States? I have no doubt that it
> would be immediate military intervention.
>
>
>
> But today Russia faces precisely this scenario. In 24 hours she lost
> eight to 10 purely Russian provinces, 25 million ethnic Russians who
> have ended up in this very way--as "undesirable aliens." In places where
> their fathers, grandfathers, great-grandfathers have lived since way
> back--even from the 17th century--they face persecution in their jobs
> and the suppression of their culture, education and language.
>
> Meanwhile, in Central Asia, those wishing to leave are not permitted to
> take even their personal property. The authorities tell them, "There is
> no such concept as 'personal property'!"
>
>
>
> And in this situation "imperialist Russia" has not made a single
> forceful move to rectify this monstrous mess. Without a murmur she has
> given away 25 million of her compatriots--the largest diaspora in the
> world!
>
>
>
> You see Russia as the victim of aggression, not as the aggressor.
>
>
>
> Who can find in world history another such example of peaceful conduct?
> And if Russia keeps the peace in the single most vital question that
> concerns her, why should one expect her to be aggressive in secondary
> issues?
>
>
>
> With Russia in chaos, it does sound a bit far-fetched to see her as an
> aggressor.
>
>
>
> Russia today is terribly sick. Her people are sick to the point of total
> exhaustion. But even so, have a conscience and don't demand that--just
> to please America--Russia throw away the last vestiges of her concern
> for her security and her unprecedented collapse. After all, this concern
> in no way threatens the United States.
>
>
>
> Former U.S. National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski disagrees. He
> argues that the U.S. must defend the independence of Ukraine.
>
>
>
> In 1919, when he imposed his regime on Ukraine, Lenin gave her several
> Russian provinces to assuage her feelings. These provinces have never
> historically belonged to Ukraine. I am talking about the eastern and
> southern territories of today's Ukraine.
>
>
>
> Then, in 1954, Khrushchev, with the arbitrary capriciousness of a
> satrap, made a "gift" of the Crimea to Ukraine. But even he did not
> manage to make Ukraine a "gift" of Sevastopol, which remained a separate
> city under the jurisdiction of the U.S.S.R. central government. This was
> accomplished by the American State Department, first verbally through
> Ambassador Popadiuk in Kiev and later in a more official manner.
>
>
>
> Why does the State Department decide who should get Sevastopol? If one
> recalls the tactless declaration of President Bush about supporting
> Ukrainian sovereignty even before the referendum on that matter, one
> must conclude that all this stems from a common aim: to use all means
> possible, no matter what the consequences, to weaken Russia.
>
>
>
> Why does independence for Ukraine weaken Russia?
>
>
>
> As a result of the sudden and crude fragmentation of the intermingled
> Slavic peoples, the borders have torn apart millions of ties of family
> and friendship. Is this acceptable? The recent elections in Ukraine, for
> instance, clearly show the [Russian] sympathies of the Crimean and
> Donets populations. And a democracy must respect this.
>
>
>
> I myself am nearly half Ukrainian. I grew up with the sounds of
> Ukrainian speech. I love her culture and genuinely wish all kinds of
> success for Ukraine--but only within her real ethnic boundaries, without
> grabbing Russian provinces. And not in the form of a "great power," the
> concept on which Ukrainian nationalists have placed their bets. They are
> acting out and trumpeting a cult of force, persistently inflating Russia
> into the image of an "enemy." Militant slogans are proclaimed. And the
> Ukrainian army is being indoctrinated with the propaganda that war with
> Russia is inevitable.
>
>
>
> For every country, great power status deforms and harms the national
> character. I have never wished great power status for Russia, and do not
> wish it for the United States. I don't wish it for Ukraine. She would
> not be able to perform even the cultural task required to achieve great
> power status: In her current borders, 63% of the population consider
> Russian to be their native language, a number three times larger than
> the number of ethnic Russians. And all these people will have to be
> re-educated in the Ukrainian language, while the language itself will
> have to be raised to international standards and usage. This is a task
> that would require over 100 years.
>
>
>
> At the heart of all this is a central question: What about Russia and
> the U.S.? Are we historic rivals?
>
>
>
> Before the [Russian] revolution, they were natural allies. You know that
> during the American Civil War, Russia supported Lincoln and the North
> [in contrast to Britain and France, which supported the Confederacy].
> Then, we were effectively allies in the First World War. But beginning
> with communism, Russia ceased to exist. What is there to talk about? The
> confrontation was not at all with Russia but with the communist U.S.S.R.
>
>
>
> A lot of people in the West think it wasn't communism but traditional
> Russian imperialism that drove Stalin to grab Eastern Europe.
>
>
>
> Absolutely not! This was not Russian imperialism, which in the past only
> expanded its borders somewhat. This was communist imperialism, which
> aimed to take over the whole world.
>
>
>
> Yet an official U.S. document from 1959, the Law 86-90, does not include
> Russia in the list of nations oppressed by communism. On the contrary,
> "Russian imperialism," not communism, is held responsible for the
> conquest of some 20 countries--even China, Tibet and some made-up place
> called "Kazakia." One is amazed that this silly law is still on the
> books, even today.
>
>
>
> This is complete delirium! When was Russia ever in Africa? When did
> Russia ever want to snatch Angola or Cuba? When was she ever in Latin
> America? The historical Russia has never tried to take over the world,
> whereas the communists had precisely this aim.
>
>
>
> Yet even today Russia under Yeltsin tries to play a role in the former
> Yugoslavia, many miles from Russia's borders.
>
>
>
> In general, I am an opponent of Pan-Slavism. I do not think that we
> should be doing anything either in the Balkans or with the Slavs. But
> the West has now tipped the balance very heavily against Serbia, as if
> she is to blame for everything. But it's not the Serbs or Croats or
> Bosnians who are guilty.
>
>
>
> In Yugoslavia the problems began for the same reason as in the U.S.S.R.
> The communists--they had Tito, we had Lenin and Stalin--charted out
> arbitrary, ethnically nonsensical and historically unjustifiable
> internal administrative boundaries, and for years moved inhabitants from
> one region to another. And when--also in the period of a few
> days--Yugoslavia began to fall apart, the leading powers of the West,
> with inexplicable haste and irresponsibility, rushed to recognize these
> states within their artificial borders. Therefore, for the exhausting,
> bloody war which is today convulsing the unfortunate peoples of the
> former Yugoslavia, the leaders of the Western powers must share the
> blame with Tito.
>
>
>
> Now, attempting to somehow correct the very problem they helped to
> create, they essentially repeat the well-known maxim of Metternich [the
> backward-looking Hapsburg diplomat who dominated the post-Napoleonic
> Congress of Vienna in the early 19th century] for the Holy Alliance:
> "Intervention for the sake of making others healthy." Today the slogan
> is "Intervention for the sake of humanism." It is an ironic similarity!
>
>
>
> But intervention is a very dangerous thing. It is not so easy for the
> great powers to control the world.
>
>
>
> Back to Russia, then. Are there other parts of the former Soviet Union
> that are as Russian as eastern and southern Ukraine?
>
>
>
> Yes. All of northern and northeastern Kazakhstan is actually part of
> southern Siberia. It is settled mostly by Russians, who, just like the
> other non-Kazakhs--together making up 60% of Kazakhstan's
> population--are being repressed in their national, cultural, business
> and daily life. How can a minority govern a majority? Only through
> duplicity and force. That's exactly what happened in the recent
> "elections" in Kazakhstan. Kazakh President Narsultan Nazarbayev today
> is regarded in the West as a great democrat. But he has already become
> an effective dictator.
>
>
> It hasn't hurt Nazarbayev that he's granted Chevron development rights
> in the rich oilfields there. But let's talk about the rest of Central
> Asia. Outside the northern areas that have heavy Russian populations,
> why does Russia have an interest in the Islamic areas of Central Asia?
>
>
>
> In the century that they have lived together, Central Asia and Russia
> have united through many economic bonds. But in spirit, these countries
> are alien to us. You can see this in their rising nationalistic impulses
> today. There has even been an international conference held on the need
> to form a single great Islamic state stretching from Alma-Ata to the
> Turkish shores of the Mediterranean. And this plan is by no means just a
> fantasy!
>
>
>
> I regard Russia's conquest of Central Asia in the 19th century as a
> mistake. Today I don't see any future for Russians living there and
> consider the government's top priority to be helping the refugees to
> resettle in Russia.
>
>
>
> Russia made a similar mistake, going back to the time of Boris Godunov,
> when she took on the responsibility of helping out Georgia and Armenia
> in the Trans-Caucasus, and thus got entangled in the interminable
> Caucasian war of the 19th century. We have no business being in the
> Trans-Caucasus, and we should be bringing Russian refugees out of there.
>
>
> Where, then, do you see Russia's borders? Which areas should unite with
> her?
>
>
>
> Already in 1990 I wrote that Russia could desire the union of only the
> three Slavic republics [Russia, Ukraine, Belarus] and Kazakhstan, while
> all the other republics should be let go. It would be desirable if [a
> resulting Russian Union] could be formed into a unitary state, not into
> a fragile, artificial confederation with a huge supra-national
> bureaucracy, as Nazarbayev recently proposed. That's just smoke and
> mirrors.
>
>
>
> Are you in favor of private ownership of land in Russia?
>
>
>
> In my brochure "Rebuilding Russia," written in 1990, when the Soviet
> Union was still standing, I wrote that private ownership of land is
> essential. It is obvious why. Self-interest. A person takes an interest
> in his work when he has his own stake.
>
>
>
> The situation now with private ownership of land is so complex that my
> answer would take up several pages. You cannot imagine what is going on
> over there right now! What is being prepared is simply a fire sale.
> Nothing of Russia will remain. Not even land. Nothing! There will be no
> farmers--only wage laborers. And crooks, who will own the land.
>
>
> That's a pretty grim picture.
>
>
>
> Already for quite a few years we have been trying to crawl out from
> under the rubble of communism. But through the mistakes of our
> governments and of the people itself, we are crawling out by way of the
> most burdensome, crooked and inefficient path and with the most possible
> victims. Such are also our chosen methods of economic reform.
>
>
>
> And such is the filth of our spiritual atmosphere! For not a single one
> of the former oppressors and even the executioners has been brought to
> justice. They haven't even repented. The whole communist elite has had
> time to simply change masks--some became "democrats," some became
> businessmen--but they have successfully held on to all the commanding
> positions, both in Moscow and in the provinces.
>
>
>
> The government structure that we have today is pseudo-democracy, since
> the people do not control the actions of the authorities, do not decide
> their own fate and have already lost hope in deciding it. The main
> problem in Russia today is the lack of initiative and stubborn
> self-reliance at the grass roots. Only from here, and not from above,
> can real power of the people be established.
>
>
>
> Many Russians today are under the influence of Western culture. Is that
> good?
>
>
>
> Russia is currently adopting many things from the West. Unfortunately,
> it is also adopting many of the worst things. All the filth!
> Pornography, drug addiction, organized crime, new types of swindles.
>
>
>
> Do you believe that the Russian character is hostile to a true market
> system?
>
>
>
> It is a misconception that Russia has never been market-oriented. Before
> the revolution, Russia was completely a market economy. In general, with
> respect to adopting foreign models, each country has its own traditions
> which cannot be ignored.
>
>
>
> Yet you are highly critical of the free-market reform begun under former
> Premier Yegor Gaidar and President Yeltsin.
>
>
>
> In February [U.S. Secretary of Defense] William Perry let slip that if
> this reform falls through in Russia, then the West should be ready to
> strengthen its collective security. What's the connection? Since when
> can the defense secretary of the U.S. determine the type of economic
> reform Russia needs? And why are we being threatened with external
> pressure if Russia changes the direction and tempo of reform?
>
>
>
> Perhaps because a lot of people think Russia awaits a man on horseback.
> Vladimir Zhirinovsky scares people in the West. Will Russia not lurch
> from one despotism, communism, to another, fascism?
>
>
>
> Today people commonly use the word "fascism" instead of "national
> socialism." Presumably this is what you are asking. No. Hitlerism had
> racism as its essential dogmatic foundation. But in a multiethnic
> country, such an ideology has no chance of success. And Russia has never
> had such a movement.
>
>
>
> But if we speak about the rampage of militant chauvinism, then it
> exists--and in bloody form--in several republics of the former U.S.S.R.,
> but certainly not in Russia. And if one were to count all the instances
> of violence perpetrated on nationalist grounds and in local wars, all of
> them took place outside of Russia and were not perpetrated by Russians.
>
>
>
> Vladimir Zhirinovsky?
>
>
>
> Zhirinovsky is an evil caricature of a Russian patriot. It's as if
> someone wanted to use this figure to show Russian patriotism to the
> world as a repulsive monster. Apart from the financial support he
> received, the reason Zhirinovsky had so much success in the elections is
> that by that time all the democratic parties, groups and leaders had
> completely abandoned Russia's national interests. They remained
> indifferent to the cruel poverty and hopelessness which has afflicted
> the majority of the population as a result of Yegor Gaidar's
> technocratic reform--after so many years of communism, yet another
> heartless experiment performed on the unfortunate people of Russia.
>
>
>
> The delirious, provocative and crazy declarations of Zhirinovsky do not
> have a foundation in the psychology of our wretched people, exhausted by
> 70 years of communism.
>
>
> By the way, what is Russia? An ethnic, religious, linguistic or cultural
> concept?
>
>
>
> Russia is a combination of many nations--large, medium size and
> small--sharing the Russian language and a tradition of religious
> tolerance. The educated strata of these nations also share the Russian
> culture, which has reached a high level of sophistication and is of
> great international importance. Already before 1917, the governing
> apparatus of Russia was composed of many nationalities and social
> classes.
>
>
>
> None of them a threat to the U.S.?
>
>
>
> If one looks far into the future, one can foresee in the 21st century
> such a time when the U.S. together with Europe will be in dire need of
> Russia as an ally.
>
>
>
> That is a puzzling assertion.
>
>
>
> It is puzzling only for those who don't look into the future and do not
> see what kind of new powers are arising in the world.
>
>
> []
>
> "Nature abhors a vacuum" Truth, Justice, and Mercy are building many
> new cosmos equations. Nobody even remembers this corpse.
> Uncle Sam 's suicide was inevitable, "Nature abhors a vacuum"" Sam's
> ghost's sex change was inevitable, and her final true destruction.
> Nuclear genocide creates data shock waves, a clarion call to pests and
> rodents of all variety. The mound collapsed, the feasting opened.
>
> The Feast.

On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 5:28:08 AM UTC-8, slider wrote:
> LowRider wrote...
> >> - so we're not exactly seeing much preparation for 'peace' then huh...
> >>
> >> not when they start bringing-up the 'doomsday' planes while blowing-up
> >> russia's version of same??
> >>
> >> fat chance...
> >
> > "Nature abhors a vacuum" is an old folks cliche-saying. that speaks to
> > the "Unintended Consequences"
> > and all the unpredictable factors that are impossible to
> > reckon-calculate. All the little wars were a preparation
> > for this war. The West doesn't have the savvy or will, to finish an
> > unfinishable task.
> ### - oh am fairly sure 'all' this has/has been very carefully planned
> long-time: ALL the little wars leading up to this one being part of the
> exact same movement/plan all along, one that commenced during/just-after
> the end of ww2 as a shattered world was being carved-up by the then big-4,
> an anti-russian sentiment being quite deliberately fed & fostered from
> that point on to the point of hysteria: reds under the bed, 'dirty
> communists' getting into everything that matters (cue hollywood/public
> stalin-style purges etc) cue 70+ years of: hate! hate! hate! - each
> successive administration (left or right) merely furthering the exact same
> plan, it finally all coming to fruition in our time (lucky us huh)
> > This article is spaced widely to distinguish questions and responses, it
> > ends on a mysterious note.
> ### - gave your above article a while for thang to (again heh) maybe jump
> right outta his skin denouncing it all haha (he does that lol: just press
> his button and off he goes) only he hasn't shown up??
>
> smile, had images of him desperately scratchin' his head in the meantime
> tryin' to figure out if he's actually a 'warmonger' or not? (mistakenly:
> he is!) but then hey maybe he's just dead huh; summat he kept wishing on
> everyone else has finally boomeranged? poetic justice perhaps + ya have to
> be careful whatcha wish for coz sometimes it happens (slider wags a
> warning finger at anyone else maybe listening hehe)
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3p_xAToFzck (still a good track)
>
> 'funeral for a friend' haha ;)
> >
> > []
> >
> > Alexander Solzhenitsyn On The New Russia
> > Aug 5, 2008,02:00pm EDT
> > This article is more than 10 years old.
> >
> > The world has been paying its last respects to Alexander Solzhenitsyn,
> > the Russian who exposed the horror of the Soviet prison labor camps and
> > gave new meaning to the word "gulag."
> >
> > Solzhenitsyn, who died Aug. 3 of heart failure at age 89 in Moscow,
> > spent eight years in those camps. That experience was the basis of his
> > novel One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, which was published in
> > 1962 during the brief post-Stalin thaw.
> >
> > Solzhenitsyn won the Nobel Prize for literature in 1970 and three years
> > later published his historical masterpiece, The Gulag Archipelago, which
> > led to his expulsion and 20 years in exile. He returned to his beloved
> > Russia only in 1994, after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
> >
> > Origin
> > https://www.forbes.com/2008/08/05/solzhenitsyn-forbes-interview-oped-cx_pm_0804russia.html?sh=55f5ac7a5f53
> >
> >
> > Forbes magazine spoke to the reclusive Solzhenitsyn in his Vermont home
> > shortly before returning. We republish the interview, conducted by the
> > late Paul Klebnikov, and Klebnikov's assessment of Solzhenitsyn's work
> > in memory of one of the 20th century's towering literary figures, whom
> > many Russians regard as the conscience of their country.
> >
> > The home of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in Cavendish, Vt., is strewn with
> > packing trunks. After 20 years, the reclusive Russian sage is preparing
> > to go home, thus ending the involuntary exile imposed upon him by a now
> > vanished communist government. But before returning to his homeland, the
> > author of One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich agreed to give this
> > magazine one of his rare interviews.
> >
> > For Americans, many of whom still tend to regard Russia through a Cold
> > War-distorting lens, Solzhenitsyn's passionate defense of Russia makes
> > moving reading.
> >
> > He ends the interview on a somewhat cryptic note, saying that one day
> > the U.S. will have serious need of Russia as an ally against a threat he
> > refused to name. What threat? On other occasions, Solzhenitsyn has
> > warned of an expansionist China, about resurgent Islam and other dangers
> > from the so-called Third World.
> >
> > []
> >
> >
> > Forbes: Tension is mounting between Russia and the now independent
> > Ukraine, with the West strongly backing Ukrainian territorial integrity..
> > Henry Kissinger argues that Russia will always threaten the interests of
> > the West, no matter what kind of government it has.
> >
> >
> >
> > Solzhenitsyn: Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, [historian] Richard
> > Pipes and many other American politicians and publicists are frozen in a
> > mode of thought they developed a long time ago. With unchanging
> > blindness and stubbornness they keep repeating and repeating this theory
> > about the supposed age-old aggressiveness of Russia, without taking into
> > consideration today's reality.
> >
> >
> >
> > Well, what about Ukraine? Hasn't Russia made threats toward several of
> > the former U.S.S.R. member states?
> >
> >
> >
> > Imagine that one not very fine day two or three of your states in the
> > Southwest, in the space of 24 hours, declare themselves independent of
> > the U.S. They declare themselves a fully sovereign nation, decreeing
> > that Spanish will be the only language. All English-speaking residents,
> > even if their ancestors have lived there for 200 years, have to take a
> > test in the Spanish language within one or two years and swear
> > allegiance to the new nation. Otherwise they will not receive
> > citizenship and be deprived of civic, property and employment rights.
> >
> >
> >
> > What would be the reaction of the United States? I have no doubt that it
> > would be immediate military intervention.
> >
> >
> >
> > But today Russia faces precisely this scenario. In 24 hours she lost
> > eight to 10 purely Russian provinces, 25 million ethnic Russians who
> > have ended up in this very way--as "undesirable aliens." In places where
> > their fathers, grandfathers, great-grandfathers have lived since way
> > back--even from the 17th century--they face persecution in their jobs
> > and the suppression of their culture, education and language.
> >
> > Meanwhile, in Central Asia, those wishing to leave are not permitted to
> > take even their personal property. The authorities tell them, "There is
> > no such concept as 'personal property'!"
> >
> >
> >
> > And in this situation "imperialist Russia" has not made a single
> > forceful move to rectify this monstrous mess. Without a murmur she has
> > given away 25 million of her compatriots--the largest diaspora in the
> > world!
> >
> >
> >
> > You see Russia as the victim of aggression, not as the aggressor.
> >
> >
> >
> > Who can find in world history another such example of peaceful conduct?
> > And if Russia keeps the peace in the single most vital question that
> > concerns her, why should one expect her to be aggressive in secondary
> > issues?
> >
> >
> >
> > With Russia in chaos, it does sound a bit far-fetched to see her as an
> > aggressor.
> >
> >
> >
> > Russia today is terribly sick. Her people are sick to the point of total
> > exhaustion. But even so, have a conscience and don't demand that--just
> > to please America--Russia throw away the last vestiges of her concern
> > for her security and her unprecedented collapse. After all, this concern
> > in no way threatens the United States.
> >
> >
> >
> > Former U.S. National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski disagrees. He
> > argues that the U.S. must defend the independence of Ukraine.
> >
> >
> >
> > In 1919, when he imposed his regime on Ukraine, Lenin gave her several
> > Russian provinces to assuage her feelings. These provinces have never
> > historically belonged to Ukraine. I am talking about the eastern and
> > southern territories of today's Ukraine.
> >
> >
> >
> > Then, in 1954, Khrushchev, with the arbitrary capriciousness of a
> > satrap, made a "gift" of the Crimea to Ukraine. But even he did not
> > manage to make Ukraine a "gift" of Sevastopol, which remained a separate
> > city under the jurisdiction of the U.S.S.R. central government. This was
> > accomplished by the American State Department, first verbally through
> > Ambassador Popadiuk in Kiev and later in a more official manner.
> >
> >
> >
> > Why does the State Department decide who should get Sevastopol? If one
> > recalls the tactless declaration of President Bush about supporting
> > Ukrainian sovereignty even before the referendum on that matter, one
> > must conclude that all this stems from a common aim: to use all means
> > possible, no matter what the consequences, to weaken Russia.
> >
> >
> >
> > Why does independence for Ukraine weaken Russia?
> >
> >
> >
> > As a result of the sudden and crude fragmentation of the intermingled
> > Slavic peoples, the borders have torn apart millions of ties of family
> > and friendship. Is this acceptable? The recent elections in Ukraine, for
> > instance, clearly show the [Russian] sympathies of the Crimean and
> > Donets populations. And a democracy must respect this.
> >
> >
> >
> > I myself am nearly half Ukrainian. I grew up with the sounds of
> > Ukrainian speech. I love her culture and genuinely wish all kinds of
> > success for Ukraine--but only within her real ethnic boundaries, without
> > grabbing Russian provinces. And not in the form of a "great power," the
> > concept on which Ukrainian nationalists have placed their bets. They are
> > acting out and trumpeting a cult of force, persistently inflating Russia
> > into the image of an "enemy." Militant slogans are proclaimed. And the
> > Ukrainian army is being indoctrinated with the propaganda that war with
> > Russia is inevitable.
> >
> >
> >
> > For every country, great power status deforms and harms the national
> > character. I have never wished great power status for Russia, and do not
> > wish it for the United States. I don't wish it for Ukraine. She would
> > not be able to perform even the cultural task required to achieve great
> > power status: In her current borders, 63% of the population consider
> > Russian to be their native language, a number three times larger than
> > the number of ethnic Russians. And all these people will have to be
> > re-educated in the Ukrainian language, while the language itself will
> > have to be raised to international standards and usage. This is a task
> > that would require over 100 years.
> >
> >
> >
> > At the heart of all this is a central question: What about Russia and
> > the U.S.? Are we historic rivals?
> >
> >
> >
> > Before the [Russian] revolution, they were natural allies. You know that
> > during the American Civil War, Russia supported Lincoln and the North
> > [in contrast to Britain and France, which supported the Confederacy].
> > Then, we were effectively allies in the First World War. But beginning
> > with communism, Russia ceased to exist. What is there to talk about? The
> > confrontation was not at all with Russia but with the communist U.S.S.R..
> >
> >
> >
> > A lot of people in the West think it wasn't communism but traditional
> > Russian imperialism that drove Stalin to grab Eastern Europe.
> >
> >
> >
> > Absolutely not! This was not Russian imperialism, which in the past only
> > expanded its borders somewhat. This was communist imperialism, which
> > aimed to take over the whole world.
> >
> >
> >
> > Yet an official U.S. document from 1959, the Law 86-90, does not include
> > Russia in the list of nations oppressed by communism. On the contrary,
> > "Russian imperialism," not communism, is held responsible for the
> > conquest of some 20 countries--even China, Tibet and some made-up place
> > called "Kazakia." One is amazed that this silly law is still on the
> > books, even today.
> >
> >
> >
> > This is complete delirium! When was Russia ever in Africa? When did
> > Russia ever want to snatch Angola or Cuba? When was she ever in Latin
> > America? The historical Russia has never tried to take over the world,
> > whereas the communists had precisely this aim.
> >
> >
> >
> > Yet even today Russia under Yeltsin tries to play a role in the former
> > Yugoslavia, many miles from Russia's borders.
> >
> >
> >
> > In general, I am an opponent of Pan-Slavism. I do not think that we
> > should be doing anything either in the Balkans or with the Slavs. But
> > the West has now tipped the balance very heavily against Serbia, as if
> > she is to blame for everything. But it's not the Serbs or Croats or
> > Bosnians who are guilty.
> >
> >
> >
> > In Yugoslavia the problems began for the same reason as in the U.S.S.R.
> > The communists--they had Tito, we had Lenin and Stalin--charted out
> > arbitrary, ethnically nonsensical and historically unjustifiable
> > internal administrative boundaries, and for years moved inhabitants from
> > one region to another. And when--also in the period of a few
> > days--Yugoslavia began to fall apart, the leading powers of the West,
> > with inexplicable haste and irresponsibility, rushed to recognize these
> > states within their artificial borders. Therefore, for the exhausting,
> > bloody war which is today convulsing the unfortunate peoples of the
> > former Yugoslavia, the leaders of the Western powers must share the
> > blame with Tito.
> >
> >
> >
> > Now, attempting to somehow correct the very problem they helped to
> > create, they essentially repeat the well-known maxim of Metternich [the
> > backward-looking Hapsburg diplomat who dominated the post-Napoleonic
> > Congress of Vienna in the early 19th century] for the Holy Alliance:
> > "Intervention for the sake of making others healthy." Today the slogan
> > is "Intervention for the sake of humanism." It is an ironic similarity!
> >
> >
> >
> > But intervention is a very dangerous thing. It is not so easy for the
> > great powers to control the world.
> >
> >
> >
> > Back to Russia, then. Are there other parts of the former Soviet Union
> > that are as Russian as eastern and southern Ukraine?
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes. All of northern and northeastern Kazakhstan is actually part of
> > southern Siberia. It is settled mostly by Russians, who, just like the
> > other non-Kazakhs--together making up 60% of Kazakhstan's
> > population--are being repressed in their national, cultural, business
> > and daily life. How can a minority govern a majority? Only through
> > duplicity and force. That's exactly what happened in the recent
> > "elections" in Kazakhstan. Kazakh President Narsultan Nazarbayev today
> > is regarded in the West as a great democrat. But he has already become
> > an effective dictator.
> >
> >
> > It hasn't hurt Nazarbayev that he's granted Chevron development rights
> > in the rich oilfields there. But let's talk about the rest of Central
> > Asia. Outside the northern areas that have heavy Russian populations,
> > why does Russia have an interest in the Islamic areas of Central Asia?
> >
> >
> >
> > In the century that they have lived together, Central Asia and Russia
> > have united through many economic bonds. But in spirit, these countries
> > are alien to us. You can see this in their rising nationalistic impulses
> > today. There has even been an international conference held on the need
> > to form a single great Islamic state stretching from Alma-Ata to the
> > Turkish shores of the Mediterranean. And this plan is by no means just a
> > fantasy!
> >
> >
> >
> > I regard Russia's conquest of Central Asia in the 19th century as a
> > mistake. Today I don't see any future for Russians living there and
> > consider the government's top priority to be helping the refugees to
> > resettle in Russia.
> >
> >
> >
> > Russia made a similar mistake, going back to the time of Boris Godunov,
> > when she took on the responsibility of helping out Georgia and Armenia
> > in the Trans-Caucasus, and thus got entangled in the interminable
> > Caucasian war of the 19th century. We have no business being in the
> > Trans-Caucasus, and we should be bringing Russian refugees out of there..
> >
> >
> > Where, then, do you see Russia's borders? Which areas should unite with
> > her?
> >
> >
> >
> > Already in 1990 I wrote that Russia could desire the union of only the
> > three Slavic republics [Russia, Ukraine, Belarus] and Kazakhstan, while
> > all the other republics should be let go. It would be desirable if [a
> > resulting Russian Union] could be formed into a unitary state, not into
> > a fragile, artificial confederation with a huge supra-national
> > bureaucracy, as Nazarbayev recently proposed. That's just smoke and
> > mirrors.
> >
> >
> >
> > Are you in favor of private ownership of land in Russia?
> >
> >
> >
> > In my brochure "Rebuilding Russia," written in 1990, when the Soviet
> > Union was still standing, I wrote that private ownership of land is
> > essential. It is obvious why. Self-interest. A person takes an interest
> > in his work when he has his own stake.
> >
> >
> >
> > The situation now with private ownership of land is so complex that my
> > answer would take up several pages. You cannot imagine what is going on
> > over there right now! What is being prepared is simply a fire sale.
> > Nothing of Russia will remain. Not even land. Nothing! There will be no
> > farmers--only wage laborers. And crooks, who will own the land.
> >
> >
> > That's a pretty grim picture.
> >
> >
> >
> > Already for quite a few years we have been trying to crawl out from
> > under the rubble of communism. But through the mistakes of our
> > governments and of the people itself, we are crawling out by way of the
> > most burdensome, crooked and inefficient path and with the most possible
> > victims. Such are also our chosen methods of economic reform.
> >
> >
> >
> > And such is the filth of our spiritual atmosphere! For not a single one
> > of the former oppressors and even the executioners has been brought to
> > justice. They haven't even repented. The whole communist elite has had
> > time to simply change masks--some became "democrats," some became
> > businessmen--but they have successfully held on to all the commanding
> > positions, both in Moscow and in the provinces.
> >
> >
> >
> > The government structure that we have today is pseudo-democracy, since
> > the people do not control the actions of the authorities, do not decide
> > their own fate and have already lost hope in deciding it. The main
> > problem in Russia today is the lack of initiative and stubborn
> > self-reliance at the grass roots. Only from here, and not from above,
> > can real power of the people be established.
> >
> >
> >
> > Many Russians today are under the influence of Western culture. Is that
> > good?
> >
> >
> >
> > Russia is currently adopting many things from the West. Unfortunately,
> > it is also adopting many of the worst things. All the filth!
> > Pornography, drug addiction, organized crime, new types of swindles.
> >
> >
> >
> > Do you believe that the Russian character is hostile to a true market
> > system?
> >
> >
> >
> > It is a misconception that Russia has never been market-oriented. Before
> > the revolution, Russia was completely a market economy. In general, with
> > respect to adopting foreign models, each country has its own traditions
> > which cannot be ignored.
> >
> >
> >
> > Yet you are highly critical of the free-market reform begun under former
> > Premier Yegor Gaidar and President Yeltsin.
> >
> >
> >
> > In February [U.S. Secretary of Defense] William Perry let slip that if
> > this reform falls through in Russia, then the West should be ready to
> > strengthen its collective security. What's the connection? Since when
> > can the defense secretary of the U.S. determine the type of economic
> > reform Russia needs? And why are we being threatened with external
> > pressure if Russia changes the direction and tempo of reform?
> >
> >
> >
> > Perhaps because a lot of people think Russia awaits a man on horseback.
> > Vladimir Zhirinovsky scares people in the West. Will Russia not lurch
> > from one despotism, communism, to another, fascism?
> >
> >
> >
> > Today people commonly use the word "fascism" instead of "national
> > socialism." Presumably this is what you are asking. No. Hitlerism had
> > racism as its essential dogmatic foundation. But in a multiethnic
> > country, such an ideology has no chance of success. And Russia has never
> > had such a movement.
> >
> >
> >
> > But if we speak about the rampage of militant chauvinism, then it
> > exists--and in bloody form--in several republics of the former U.S.S.R.,
> > but certainly not in Russia. And if one were to count all the instances
> > of violence perpetrated on nationalist grounds and in local wars, all of
> > them took place outside of Russia and were not perpetrated by Russians.
> >
> >
> >
> > Vladimir Zhirinovsky?
> >
> >
> >
> > Zhirinovsky is an evil caricature of a Russian patriot. It's as if
> > someone wanted to use this figure to show Russian patriotism to the
> > world as a repulsive monster. Apart from the financial support he
> > received, the reason Zhirinovsky had so much success in the elections is
> > that by that time all the democratic parties, groups and leaders had
> > completely abandoned Russia's national interests. They remained
> > indifferent to the cruel poverty and hopelessness which has afflicted
> > the majority of the population as a result of Yegor Gaidar's
> > technocratic reform--after so many years of communism, yet another
> > heartless experiment performed on the unfortunate people of Russia.
> >
> >
> >
> > The delirious, provocative and crazy declarations of Zhirinovsky do not
> > have a foundation in the psychology of our wretched people, exhausted by
> > 70 years of communism.
> >
> >
> > By the way, what is Russia? An ethnic, religious, linguistic or cultural
> > concept?
> >
> >
> >
> > Russia is a combination of many nations--large, medium size and
> > small--sharing the Russian language and a tradition of religious
> > tolerance. The educated strata of these nations also share the Russian
> > culture, which has reached a high level of sophistication and is of
> > great international importance. Already before 1917, the governing
> > apparatus of Russia was composed of many nationalities and social
> > classes.
> >
> >
> >
> > None of them a threat to the U.S.?
> >
> >
> >
> > If one looks far into the future, one can foresee in the 21st century
> > such a time when the U.S. together with Europe will be in dire need of
> > Russia as an ally.
> >
> >
> >
> > That is a puzzling assertion.
> >
> >
> >
> > It is puzzling only for those who don't look into the future and do not
> > see what kind of new powers are arising in the world.
> >
> >
> > []
> >
> > "Nature abhors a vacuum" Truth, Justice, and Mercy are building many
> > new cosmos equations. Nobody even remembers this corpse.
> > Uncle Sam 's suicide was inevitable, "Nature abhors a vacuum"" Sam's
> > ghost's sex change was inevitable, and her final true destruction.
> > Nuclear genocide creates data shock waves, a clarion call to pests and
> > rodents of all variety. The mound collapsed, the feasting opened.
> >
> > The Feast.
> ### - they've been quite openly speculating if 'russia' would go down
> quietly old ussr-style: without a fuss AND more importantly: without
> nukes!? - only now the tide is perhaps turning and peeps is beginning to
> instead wonder if in fact the shoe is not now on the other foot
> altogether: that IF it came to sharing, would america cede their global
> power/domination aims to that of say a multipolar government without
> 'america' resorting to nukes??
>
> damn good question!
>
> i.e., one can trace the world domination/empire stakes-race right back to
> rome and beyond, the 'seat' of power (after rome) shifting around europe
> until it settled in britain before then shifting to america where it
> remains today...
>
> the question being: will it 'remain' there (as they'd obviously prefer) or
> again eventually shift to some 'other' global center/seat of power as yet
> unidentified: china & russia BOTH saying they DON'T want it in-favour of a
> perhaps much fairer multipolar shared-administration (islam 'would've
> liked it only they's out)
>
> whereas... carving the world into THREE core areas on the basis of equally
> 'sharing' everything COULD just work to 'restore' world peace &
> prosperity, provided all 3 abandon any more selfish aims & ideals? (lol,
> for such a cynical old bastard am still an idealist hah!)
>
> such an organisation could, for example, set a rule that says no one
> sector of the 3 can become more wealthy than any other, any clear surplus
> (above a certain agreed amount) being automatically channeled into
> developing the less fortunate nations within their own sphere, something
> all 3 can perhaps more healthily compete + boast about; 'kudos' being the
> only criteria for such competition, as in: who can achieve it in 'their'
> sector first, kinda thing... and this to wide global acclaim & praise!
>
> some NEW (+ more crucially: totally independent) body can temporarily be
> the world policeman until things settle down in say around 100 years time
> (not the UN though coz that's all the screwed-up past) an 'equal' number
> of nations in 'each' sector having only 'one' vote per nation for total
> equality/democracy...
>
> why fuckin' not?? have we really gots THAT much to lose??
>
> especially when the alternative appears to be: everyone loses everything!!!
>
> fuck that... let's all step up & ADVANCE for once!
>
> we might even get to survive dammit ;)
i feel fine ha ha
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0GFRcFm-aY

> i feel fine ha ha
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0GFRcFm-aY

### - show-off haha ;)