I
keep hearing from people about Putin's KGB past. They think I am blind
not to 'see' that this makes him a dangerous commie, just like the
Russian boxer in the movie Rocky. I think you deserve an answer to this
conundrum and here is a first attempt.
When I was in Russia in the early 70s, our tour guides were said to be all KGB. No
one ever admitted being KGB, of course, but that was sort of common knowledge among American Russian
students.
These guides liked to drop hints that they were sick and tired of the Soviet system.
These guides liked to drop hints that they were sick and tired of the Soviet system.
The reason the Soviet Union failed was in large part
because everyone,
including those in the power structure, started to resent being told
what to do and no one could own anything of their own. Later on, even Soviet
cinema became very bold and encouraged people to rage against the machine. The
first such movies were discouraged and even banned, but the movie makers
persisted and some got past the censors. It would be good for you to see a film
called "Repentance" which severely criticizes the ban on religion. It
is well made and moving, with a decidedly Christian viewpoint. It was made in
Soviet Georgia in the Georgian language and rented through the Soviet
franchise. The versions available in the US are usually subtitled. I had never seen a commentary on this so I wrote one here: http://www.
By contrast, in OUR system, if you are part of the machine, eg, working in media, politics, 'education,' academe, high ranking Democrat or Republican or a professional, you are not very likely to rage against the machine. You are more likely to rage against conservatives. This is because you are making good money and you do not come into contact with people in grinding poverty. You also know what happens to people expressing truly conservative views in most professions today. What we are now experiencing in the West is just the opposite of what was happening starting at least 30 years before the Soviet Union collapsed.
Our power structure is tightening, theirs was coming apart. It was not something you could easily understand unless you were there and saw it. I don't know how much has been written about the social aspect of that breakdown, possibly not much, and there are 3 reasons I can think of for this:
1--historians and political analysts are still in thrall to the old notion that powerful people make history, not the little guy.
2--objective analysis is drowned out by the still-popular Rocky-Sylvester Stallone view of Russians, made and sold in Hollywood
3--there is a niche industry that can best be called Russia bashing (and its subcategory Putin bashing). The participants are authors and public speakers and its target audience is the political class and a class of unsuspecting American who is easily manipulated by a fear of being nuked by Russia but invariably ignores the Chinese threat, which happens to be very real. Savvy Americans know that it is hard to succeed in politics without ties to the CFR, but it is even harder to succeed in US politics without Russia bashing credentials (in fact, the CFR is essentially anti-Russian and pro-China). This is why Mitt Romney saw fit to say Russia is our most formidable enemy. Yet, when asked about China, which is now throwing its weight all around the eastern Pacific and has brazenly erected an oil platform in Vietnamese territorial waters over the protests of the Vietnamese, he soft pedaled and suggested the only threat from China was an economic one related to their spying on US corporations. Details on why the Chinese military threat is the greatest one we face are here:
http://www.
http://www.
My point is that the power structure that I got to see first hand in Russia then was itself disillusioned. It was not just the people. It was also officaldom itself. I firmly believe Putin was part of that disillusioned generation of Russian officialdom. His attitude toward the old totalitarian structure would have to be in line with that of the average Russian or he would not have been able to hold onto power this long. The moment he steps out of line, he will be out.
He is in a bit of trouble already with the grassroots because he has refused to openly enter eastern Ukraine and go to the aid of the pro-Russians.
I have never read a word about this crucial issue in the Western press, which has us duped into believing he is a totalitarian ruling with an iron fist. It is very hard for me to read Western journalists offering this fictional view of Putin.
Of course he is not kowtowing to the West. That is what got him in trouble in our part of the world.
But he runs his country with very little debt and is one of the few world leaders to do so. Nor does he pay anyone not to work the way Western socialist governments do.
By contrast, in OUR system, if you are part of the machine, eg, working in media, politics, 'education,' academe, high ranking Democrat or Republican or a professional, you are not very likely to rage against the machine. You are more likely to rage against conservatives. This is because you are making good money and you do not come into contact with people in grinding poverty. You also know what happens to people expressing truly conservative views in most professions today. What we are now experiencing in the West is just the opposite of what was happening starting at least 30 years before the Soviet Union collapsed.
Our power structure is tightening, theirs was coming apart. It was not something you could easily understand unless you were there and saw it. I don't know how much has been written about the social aspect of that breakdown, possibly not much, and there are 3 reasons I can think of for this:
1--historians and political analysts are still in thrall to the old notion that powerful people make history, not the little guy.
2--objective analysis is drowned out by the still-popular Rocky-Sylvester Stallone view of Russians, made and sold in Hollywood
3--there is a niche industry that can best be called Russia bashing (and its subcategory Putin bashing). The participants are authors and public speakers and its target audience is the political class and a class of unsuspecting American who is easily manipulated by a fear of being nuked by Russia but invariably ignores the Chinese threat, which happens to be very real. Savvy Americans know that it is hard to succeed in politics without ties to the CFR, but it is even harder to succeed in US politics without Russia bashing credentials (in fact, the CFR is essentially anti-Russian and pro-China). This is why Mitt Romney saw fit to say Russia is our most formidable enemy. Yet, when asked about China, which is now throwing its weight all around the eastern Pacific and has brazenly erected an oil platform in Vietnamese territorial waters over the protests of the Vietnamese, he soft pedaled and suggested the only threat from China was an economic one related to their spying on US corporations. Details on why the Chinese military threat is the greatest one we face are here:
http://www.
http://www.
My point is that the power structure that I got to see first hand in Russia then was itself disillusioned. It was not just the people. It was also officaldom itself. I firmly believe Putin was part of that disillusioned generation of Russian officialdom. His attitude toward the old totalitarian structure would have to be in line with that of the average Russian or he would not have been able to hold onto power this long. The moment he steps out of line, he will be out.
He is in a bit of trouble already with the grassroots because he has refused to openly enter eastern Ukraine and go to the aid of the pro-Russians.
I have never read a word about this crucial issue in the Western press, which has us duped into believing he is a totalitarian ruling with an iron fist. It is very hard for me to read Western journalists offering this fictional view of Putin.
Of course he is not kowtowing to the West. That is what got him in trouble in our part of the world.
But he runs his country with very little debt and is one of the few world leaders to do so. Nor does he pay anyone not to work the way Western socialist governments do.
From
the above, you should be able to infer that the Western press shies away
from discussing some absolutely vital points about Russia, particularly
the irony that Western elites want you to think the Russians are the
big military threat but China is only an economic threat because they
hack computers. And much much more.
I will be glad to carry this discussion further if there is interest.Don Hank
ADDITIONAL:
I
have been asked to comment further on my experience with the Inturist guides in
Russia, ie, why Russian students say they are KGB and why it was obvious to me
that the elites in Russia were genuinely fed up with totalitarianism. My
response:
Our
Russian profs and other students told us beforehand that all Inturist guides
were either KGB or working with the KGB. That was sort of a no brainer because
ordinary Russians, like a student friend I made in Leningrad would be detained
by the KGB for consorting with foreigners like me. This friend always met me in
a park, never in a building (which could be bugged). This guy had hung around
Americans before and the KGB had detained him for about a day, interrogating him
with a bright light shining in his face, like in the
movies.
So
with this kind of paranoia on the top echelons, it would be inconceivable to
hire tour guides who had not in some way demonstrated loyalty to the party
and were willing to work with the KGB.
This
is why I can state with a high degree of certainty that the guides had to be
closely connected to the KGB or actually be KGB agents.
As
for the last part, the fact that the guides made it clear that they were not in
agreement with the higher ups, it was not just the guides but also a VIP that 2
of our guides introduced me to. They told me he was a party member and expected
me to be impressed, because not many were chosen as party members, only the most
trusted.
During
our conversation (2 guides, a party member and myself), the party member spoke
at length about how the government must change and pointed to his watch
indicating that the time had come. This was no fake because the public was
restless and unhappy. I met people who were desperate to get out. This kind of
authoritarianism is an untenable situation for any government in the long
run and the Soviets clearly knew this.
I
later saw a photo of Gorbachev similarly pointing to his watch, indicating
again, that the time was ripe for change, so this was obviously a gesture that
was popular then among the elites, the majority of whom were obviously sick and
tired of the regimantation and the stiffness. The entire party was imbued with
the idea of a genuine reform (not the phony kind that, for example, Mao
had slyly pretended to promote in his 100 flowers speech, which was
only intended to trap dissidents).
(BTW,
I am fairly certain that the reason I was selected to meet the party member was
that I was the oldest student in the group and my Russian was the best and most
fluent in the group and 1--that was fascinating for them, and more importantly,
I am fairly certain they therefore suspected I was a spy. They dropped a few
hints).
For
those who still think that glasnost was just a trick to deceive the West, and
that the New World Order and the US elites are in league with Russia, please
disabuse yourself of this unrealistic and, I daresay childish, notion. If
Russia were not the target of the US elites, you would not hear Marco Rubio
saying that Putin is a murderer or Mitt Romney saying, against all common sense,
that Russia (and amazingly, not China!) is the no. one enemy of the US and you
would not have Obama officials openly insulting Russia, saying at a top level
meeting that it "lost" as if it had been at war, and fighting for sanctions
against Russia.
IF
there were a conspiracy with Russia, you would see the same sort of pandering to
them that you see the US exhibiting toward China, completely ignoring the
very real military threat that China represents. You absolutely would NOT see
Putin's Russia banning adoptions to US parents to avoid gay adoption, and you
would not see legal measures against gay propaganda aimed at
children.
This
notion based on the open mike glitch with Obama and a Russian dignitary is a
total misinterpretation of reality. The TRUTH is that Putin despises Obama but
Obama stupidly thought that, since Putin was once a communist, he MUST be a
natural ally. I think Obama is catching on by now and that is why we are seeing
sanctions.
Likewise,
the notion that Russia represents a military threat for the US is a badly
disguised head game and the Washington elites think we are stupid enough to
swallow it. Sadly, many are, maybe stupid enough to elect a neoconservative who
will play JFK and try to play chicken with them, leading us into a life
threatening face off. During the Cuban missile crisis, we were better armed and
much stronger economically and militarily than Russia. No longer! This is no
time for games).
IF
the dollar is brought down (most likely by the de-dollarization program
currently underway in the BRICS countries), our military will be brought
down too because our dollar backs up our military and vice-versa. It would be
game over, and we would be lucky if Russia kept China from using its military
might against us. Russia would be the only intermediary left. This is why we are
absolute and utter fools not to take better care of our relations with
Putin.
He
is the created enemy of the elites but his thinking is right in line with the
most truly conservative, non-racist Americans. And that is precisely
because he thinks like a conservative American. At any rate, Russophobia is
racism, pure and simple.
On
the other hand, blind Sinophilia is suicidal.
I
have studied in Asia (3 years) and have a Masters in Russian, and have no
preference between the 2 peoples. I love both peoples and cultures. But
nota bene: the Chinese political
system is the more dangerous by far of the two.
Any
more questions?
Don
No comments:
Post a Comment