"Russia is the enemy" | 100 comments (100 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: "Russia is the enemy" (4.00 / 7)

Russia is the enemy

First, I agree with, understand and respect all points about Russia and Putin said here.
Second, why I feel need to add my comment here - because this forum seems to me a place where people don't waste their and others time on stupidities and stereotypes, they try to compose approximate view of the world, of EU and surroundings. I hope my (probably wrong) opinion will help you in this in spite of some words may seem to be acknowledgment of harsh realities.

Characterization of Putin by proximity1 seems to me good, though many Russians would disagree with rather flattering idealization of Putin (he is smart, cunning, determined, unscrupulous, violent and dangerous). Some think of him as grey, ordinary and weak ruler. Weak ruler - because he could not enjail other oligarchs - looters of Yeltsyn era and stopped on Khodorkovsky. Greyness comes from his supposedly Prussian predisposition to militarism and parades.

Putin has survived numerous critical situations, two of them were most important. These are crisis about NTV takeover (news channel owned to one of the oligarchs, Mr Gussinsky) and Nord Ost theatre siege when relatives of almost 1000 trapped by Chechens spectators demanded from Putin to come to terms with Chechen terrorists and withdraw Russian troops from Chechnya.
Both crises happened in Moscow and got big publicity to talk about them now but very important for us to make assessment of Putin.

proximity1's characterization rather points to ideals that Putin pursue, he wants to be cunning, determined etc. This says a lot about his instincts, undemocratic in nature. I wouldn't agree that he is a weak ruler because he is legalist and he wants to achieve all goals in legal way. The same way was used by French king Philip IV to justify his doubtful acquisitions. There was no need to enjail other oligarchs if they agree to part with loot. Abramovich was stripped off Sibneft, Lukoil owners shall be persuaded. Khodorkovsky did not want to be convinced that way and foolishly believed his looted holdings are protected by law. Laws may change and he ended in Siberian colony. There were dark stories about Khodorkovsky empire in Siberia, allegedly he used to order murders of business and government enemies of Yukos. So it seems Khodorkovsky was caught in his own trap - he just faced in Putin bigger shark.

What else about Putin? Some think he charmed Western business executives with efficiency he proved in restoring control over Russia Inc. Love of Western businessmen may be partially justified that he patiently waited for the moment when Western money poured in Russia.

Putin is not polished and refined like French politicians. His rough manners and dark humour reveal his "Prussian" background. Everybody remembers his "mochit v sortire" (to beat terrorists in toilets). In march he launched campaign against corruption in State Customs Service by such words "Customs and private companies copulate in commercial orgasmos". Since all over Russia from Moscow to Vladivostok many custom officers were arrested by prosecutors on corruption charges.

It's too early to judge of his supposed greyness or greatness because he did not make choice of his life yet. All great leaders give their nations sense of mission for decades. Russia today does not know who is its enemy - The West, only US, China, Iran or other. What steps Russia should take, what countries may be natural allies in fulfilling this strategy nobody knows. Very probably this strategy already exists in Putin's mind, but it was not made public for obvious reason - it's not appropriate time yet.

Recently I found one poll about what Russians think of their enemies and allies. On enemies list besides US and China small countries like Latvia and Georgia were prominent. On allies front Belarus, Germany and China found some supporters. The most interesting thing - the overwhelming majority of Russians did not answer at all. Greyness or greatness of Putin will depend on whether Russia under him will find its mission for XXI century or won't.

To be continued.

by FarEasterner on Sat May 6th, 2006 at 08:30:12 PM EST

Re: "Russia is the enemy" (4.00 / 2)

All great leaders give their nations sense of mission for decades. Russia today does not know who is its enemy

Why do you think a sense of mission needs an enemy? I view most Russians' not answering who is the enemy as a positive thing.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Sun May 7th, 2006 at 08:25:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Russia is the enemy" (none / 1)

BTW, welcome to EuroTrib! I look forward to the continuation you promised.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Sun May 7th, 2006 at 08:25:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Russia is the enemy" (4.00 / 2)

Do Russians think that Putin handled the Kursk catastrophe, Moscow Apartment bombings, theatre hostage crisis and Beslan School crisis properly?

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun May 7th, 2006 at 09:49:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Russia is the enemy" (none / 1)

Kursk - no, the sense was that he should have been involved more actively and early;

Moscow Apartment bombings - start of second war with Chechnya deemed a proper response;

Nord-Ost - proper handling, breakdown in communication between security and emergency/medical forces; Putin was not blamed for this.

Beslan - proper handling at his level, massive problems with local militia and leadership/coordination in anti-terror center that was setup in Beslan. Once again, Putin was not blamed.

by blackhawk on Wed May 10th, 2006 at 07:07:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Russia is the enemy" (none / 0)

I have heard that the people of Beslan are mightily unhappy with Putin.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 10th, 2006 at 07:10:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Russia is the enemy" (none / 0)

Mightly unhappy is an understatement.

They are blaming everyone: Putin, federal and local authorities, "Alpha" and "Vympel" (who lost 11 man), hostages that survived, school principal (surviving hostage herself, but she is being suspected in the town of hiring terrorists for renovations which enabled them to hide weapons in the school in advance). Lots of anger and conspirology.

Many of "Mothers of Beslan" activists gave substantial amounts of money to the scam artist, Grabovoy, who was promising to resurect the kids.

by blackhawk on Wed May 10th, 2006 at 07:52:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Russia is the enemy" (none / 0)

I just found out that he now claims to be the 2nd coming of Christ.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 10th, 2006 at 09:15:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Russia is the enemy" (none / 1)

Авдавыдов (Avdavydov),

"спацебо (spacebo/thanks)"

I would like to second DoDo's words of welcome and hope that you'll be a regular contributor here.

[ the "спацебо", above, completely exhausts my vocabulary of Russian. One day, I'm going to visit Russia, though! ]

"In such an environment it is not surprising that the ills of technology should seem curable only through the application of more technology..." John W Aldridge

by proximity1 on Sun May 7th, 2006 at 12:57:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Russia is the enemy Part II" (4.00 / 4)

Russia is the enemy Part II

In order to continue let me add some adjustments and definitions. Also I would like to explain my personal feeling towards object of analysis.

Putin's instincts are not democratic as I said. It does not mean that I attached negative meaning to it and presume definite consequences. Democratic values is Western invention on basis of liberal ideology. It means Putin intentions are not Western naturally, that's all, nothing more. Another question is whether the ruler with undemocratic tendencies may actually contribute to transition of his country from communism to democracy. Historians were interested in Chilean and Spanish experience in XX century.

I also found in Part I one unsubstantiated statement about Lukoil, I just add it as a fictional example. In fact I don't know what exactly will happen with Lukoil owners, very probably nothing scary. Lukoil management was clever enough to survive in chaotic Yeltsyn era and under Putin regime. Lukoil was one of quasi state companies, the same as Gazprom, but its managers could privatize it fully. They showed deep loyalty to Kremlin and readiness to finanse various social projects and perhaps reelection campaigns. This feature of quasi state companies a la "blue chips" any investor in Russian stocks should bear in mind. The last and final owner of such companies is Kremlin, who can put on them unexpected burden any time. Though recently some investors convinced themselves that Kremlin (read Putin) ownership of blue chips is good for stock market.

Then I would like to explain my interest in covering Putin and Russian theme. My interests (and work) lie far from them, first letter was improvisation and caused a sort of embarrassment for continuation. From what angle I should write on this topic? I have not been collecting any relevant information and I have got only my memory and few academic articles like Putin and The Middle East by Robert O. Freedman. Run of the mill publications in press do not help much because of ideologically conditioned noises. So I would warn readers about my possible mistakes and misjudgments.

To start with let's return to his handling of crises. In NTV saga Putin wanted to reassert control over information channels (everybody knows that in modern world any ruler has to control information flows and in Europe and America ruling elites tightly control mass media). NTV had talented staff unfortunately misused by Mr Gusinsky for personal gains (the same applies to Mr Berezovsky who controlled ORT). Mr Putin tried to win journalists over but to no avail. He tried to convince them that his strategy is good for Russia, they did not listen, accused him in authoritarianism and even found protector in Mr Gorbachev.

After 6 years his strategy proved to be good for Russia (on the whole with some mixed results, more about them later), journalists in part emigrated, in part found new jobs and quarrel basically with each other.

Numerous crises like Kursk highlighted problems of Russian state but Putin can acquit himself they were not his misdeeds, most were accumulated from Soviet and Yeltsyn time.

Putin came to power on nationalist feelings and he suffers if he could not protect ordinary citizens. However strong pressure would be he did not bend as Nord Ost tragedy showed.

If Putin won't change Constitution his rule will last till spring 2008.
Next comes perhaps questionable description of results of his rule from usual Russian point of view. Who are Putin's friends and rivals?

Oligarchs like Berezovsky, Gusinsky, Khodorkovsky were discredited, went into exile or jail. Kasyanov, Khakamada, Yavlinsky, other democrats copy party materials from each other trying to steal few left supporters. Communists in disarray, their leader Mr Zyuganov is simply unelectable like Mr Heyg (probably I mispelled his name) from Conservative party in UK.

Two critical voices today belong to Mr Illarionov and Mr Kasparov. About political acumen of former chess champion Russians don't know much, I've heard he was columnist in Wall Street Journal, American version of Financial Times. I have read some of WSJ staff and was surprised by highly ideological and propaganda content, useless for business executives.
Mr Illarionov credibility has suffered from his manipulation with statistics and doubtful comparisons (like correspondence between level of political freedom and economical growth).

Putin's friends and supporters we can range on three categories. Firstly come faceless siloviks from St Petersburg with KGB background. Secondly there are some liberals with imperialist mind. Thirdly there are armies of bureaucracy, eternal participants of fair-weather parties. There are rumours, speculations of turf wars between these groups but nothing came public. They know very well to what extent they can air disagreements and grievances.

Cultivated by Putin spirit of deep loyalty to ruling regime was complemented by mixed efficiency in use of supporters.

Take Yeltsyn era prime ministers. Mr Chernomyrdin was sent as envoy to Ukraine and successfully ruined Russian-Ukraine relations. Former vicepremier Mr Nemtsov famous for stupid outbursts like giving his mobile number to Japanese businessmen who would want to invest in Russia also found passion for Ukrainian politics supporting anti Russian forces.

Mr Chubais is sitting pretty in United Energy Systems. Mr Kirienko (who as 29 years old prime minister declared default in 1998) was given job as representative in Volga region then was appointed as Minatom head and now talk up Iranians. Mr Primakov retired flexing his muscles only for his old Muslim contacts. Yeltsyn and his family, Gorbachev and other failures turned into Hello celebrities. They were treated by Putin with respect. Even Lenin's embalmed body still lies in Mausoleum on Red Square perhaps left in the same place on unconscious spiritual reasons.

There were some speculations that Putin's aides Mr Ivanov (defense minister) and Mr Medvedev (head of Gazprom) are contenders for 2008 elections with the former having upper hand despite mishandling of Sychev case and mixed results in reshaping Russian army. These were political up-to-date results of Putin's presidency.

To be continued

by FarEasterner on Mon May 8th, 2006 at 12:01:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Russia is the enemy Part II" (none / 1)

(everybody knows that in modern world any ruler has to control information flows and in Europe and America ruling elites tightly control mass media)

No, in most cases (e.g. except for Berlusconi) it's not tight control, the beauty of it (for the elites) is that the mainstream media can be made to write what suits the elite by making media representatives part of the elite and make them dependent on government sources. What's more, different elites still influence different segments of the mass media this way, which can argue against each other. What's more, there are still voices even in the mass media not too beholden even to the elites on their side. So even if it's not a pretty picture, Putin supporters shouldn't deceive themselves with such an equivocation - most Western governments do not have a near-complete control of information flows.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Mon May 8th, 2006 at 05:51:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Russia is the enemy Part II" (none / 0)

DoDo's points are important ones in understanding the less-than-monopolistic control over mass media in, for lack of a better term, "the West".

I especially agree with his insight that the mass media powers really are now a part of the élite political structure rather than determined outsiders who remain critical of the government in power, regardless of its party. And, moreover, this place, this rôle of theirs in the political power structure, while not new, is now something that is more taken for granted even among the professional journalist class. Many in private--and even some in public would admit: of course we're part of the power structure." The term "the Fourth Estate" was coined to designate the press in general as a main player in the tripartite power structure: executive, legislative, and judicial.

In another sense, though, I believe your assertion is basically correct: (everybody knows that in modern world any ruler has to control information flows and in Europe and America ruling elites tightly control mass media).

This requires some explanation as it goes very much against the beloved assumptions of the vast majority of people in western democracies.

We can quibble about what exactly "tight control" means but, at a fundamental level, the point which we are not comfortable addressing is this: what would any of our western democratic governments do about the supposedly sacrosanct freedom of speech and of the press if the day should ever come when genuine and strong democratic impulses arose and challenged directly and seriously the basic operational control which a relatively small minority of exceptionally wealthy people are able to consistently exercise while leaving in place sufficient outward trappings of democratic governance to obtain the vast majority's passive and tacit acceptance of the political system's manner of working?

My view is that, except in a very few isolated incidents, this situation has never actually come about, and so the only honest answer is that we really don't know. We do know that when, over our history, there have been various isolated instances in which popular sentiment has coalesced into movements which appeared to pose a real potential for challenging the existing power structure, the reaction of official government has typically been as swift and as decisive and forceful as those in office deemed necessary-- [note: I have not verified these examples, they're off the top of my head] cf: Haymarket riots; Ludlow (? n) mine massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_massacre ; Bonus Army movement, under, I believe, Hoover http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_army; ]

Thus, in its most basic sense, I have to agree generally with your view expressed as

" everybody knows that in modern world any ruler has to control information flows and in Europe and America ruling elites tightly control mass media"

with the only debatable matter being where that very variable factor, "tight control" happens to lie at any given moment.

These days, there is little need for tight controls to be exercised since so much of the major and so-called "quality press" (of whatever medium) are so pathetically obsequious toward their counterparts in the political power structure.

It's important to keep in mind, however, that this swinging pendulum of the press's contrariness or obedience can return toward the contrarian pole; the absurdly compliant press of today could conceivably recover some of its self-respect and start making life much more difficult for elected and appointed officials--as looks a bit more likely now to happen in the short term.

"In such an environment it is not surprising that the ills of technology should seem curable only through the application of more technology..." John W Aldridge

by proximity1 on Mon May 8th, 2006 at 09:04:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Russia is the enemy Part II" (none / 1)

I believe you focused too much on Anglo-Saxon examples above. A spectacular case was the SPIEGEL affair in (West) Germany, when the powers-that-be lost the marathon struggle against leakers and journalists; while in Italy, the leftist press could cover the fall of the First Republic and its elite in the Clean Hands operation (well, at least halfway fall, but surely a serious challenge).

BTW, I haven't said so in the original comment but say it now, the distinctio between tight and indirect media cotrol is important for me because the latter is much more insidious, with too many people not suspecting propaganda, whereas with thight control, many people will assume it.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Mon May 8th, 2006 at 09:41:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Russia is the enemy Part II" (none / 1)

"...you focused too much on Anglo-Saxon examples above."

By necessity, hélas. ;^)

That's why I'm attentive to your corrective counsel!

"In such an environment it is not surprising that the ills of technology should seem curable only through the application of more technology..." John W Aldridge

by proximity1 on Mon May 8th, 2006 at 09:52:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Russia is the enemy Part II" (none / 0)

Tight or indirect control, the result is one and you know it. Let's search all articles on Gazprom or Putin in google or alltheweb you find that 99% - repetition of few ideologically spoiled articles of few authors (mostly AP, AFP or Reuters authors). However repetition of lie does not make it truth and then too often we see mistakes made by rulers on false data.
Russian media is also inderectly controlled by Kremlin, jounalists simply know what they are expected to do. 100% control was not achieved though and for example racial attacks in Russia became prime news on all proPutin channels.

by FarEasterner on Mon May 8th, 2006 at 11:31:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Russia is the enemy Part II" (none / 0)

There were some speculations that Putin's aides Mr Ivanov (defense minister) and Mr Medvedev (head of Gazprom) are contenders for 2008 elections

How is their view by the public?

Which politicians are popular in Russia presently beyond Putin?

By the way, what is now the relationship between the Kreml and the capital Moscow's leaders?

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Mon May 8th, 2006 at 05:56:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Russia is the enemy Part II" (4.00 / 2)

Top 6 most trusted:

Putin 40%
Shoygu (Minister of Emergency Situations) 18%
Zhirinovsky (Duma vice-speaker) 12%
Ivanov (Minister of Defence) 10%
Luzhkov (regional governor) 9%
Tuleev (regional governor) 7%

Top 6 least trusted:

Chubais (head of state energy company) 22%
Zhirinovsky (Duma vice-speaker) 16%
Zuganov (communist leader) 13%
Yeltsin (ex-president) 12%
Berezovsky (ex-National Security Advisor, oligarch) 12%
Abramovich (regional governor, oligarch) 9%

Will vote for the president:

Zhirinovsky 18%
Medvedev 18%
Ivanov 17%
Zuganov 16%
Glaz'ev 7%
Ryzhkov 5%
Rogozin 5%
Kas'janov 4%
Javlinsky 4%

according to Levada Center, in Russian.

I think of those US call Ryzhkov, Kas'janov and Javlinsky "democrats".

As for Luzhkov, speculation is that he'll step down before 2008 and will retire with his wife's billions.

by blackhawk on Wed May 10th, 2006 at 04:17:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Russia is the enemy Part II" (none / 0)

So there is silent toleration between Luzhkov and Putin at present, I take?

Shoygu (Minister of Emergency Situations) 18%

The one I didn't knew is second most trusted... But I take he is a lightweight, no chance of nomination for President?

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Wed May 10th, 2006 at 07:00:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Russia is the enemy Part II" (none / 1)

Yes, Luzhkov was planning on being president, but Putin got ahead of him.

For Shoygu, his dislikes from the same poll are at zero. Only Tuleev also has zero negative rating.

He is not involved in politics, and for the last 15 years, under Yeltsin and Putin, was running Ministry of Emergency Situations (includes Civil Defense). When something happens, he comes to the rescue and generally gets lots of good PR.

At the same time his ministry has lots of resources and money: reconstruction contracts, land and bomb shelters from the Soviet times across all the Russia, lots of even heavy weaponry, etc.

I don't think anyone knows for sure what his ministry's budget is, but it is rumoured to be bigger and more secretive than Ministry's of Defence.

I just don't know what his plans are for 2008 and if he is content with his little empire.

by blackhawk on Wed May 10th, 2006 at 08:11:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Russia is the enemy Part II" (none / 0)

I saw Zhirinovski as the #3 most popular and thought "holy crap!", then I was him as the #1 least trusted (50% more untrusted than trusted) and calmed down a bit.

Are the low percentages of trust for everyone other than Putin down to name recognition?

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 10th, 2006 at 07:05:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Russia is the enemy Part II" (none / 0)

The way I read it, the question was about whom people trust most and least - e.g. different people were the alternatives in the question, not trust/distrust.

Regarding Zhirinovski, also consider the Le Pen effect: he may be third due to the votes of the wide majority going many ways, but that doesn't mean he stands a chance in hell in a runoff.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Wed May 10th, 2006 at 07:35:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Russia is the enemy Part II" (none / 1)

The majority have a pretty good name recognition, just not a positive one. I think the general sense is that politicians from Yeltsin's time should go; at the same time at the moment neither Duma (parliament) nor the Government enjoy high approval ratings, and that reflects on number of politicians.

Some of the ratings are managed to keep them lower. Say, when Rogozin (Rodina) became too popular, his party was denied elections in few regions and was quickly labeled as a "fascist" in the press.

by blackhawk on Wed May 10th, 2006 at 08:58:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Russia is the enemy Part II" (none / 0)

I'd be interested in your responses to these questions:

What do you think Poutine would like his political legacy to be? In other words, what would he really most like to accomplish (and remembered for) assuming that he had the powers necessary to do so?

as a corollary--

what constitute Poutine's major rivals to his exercise of political power? Is he still opposed by a powerful group of corporate interests inside Russia? Other political actors, groups? Some actual or potential resistance from within the military? A public opinion which constrains his actions?

"In such an environment it is not surprising that the ills of technology should seem curable only through the application of more technology..." John W Aldridge

by proximity1 on Mon May 8th, 2006 at 09:21:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Russia is the enemy Part II" (none / 0)

I think his first post was just an answer to the questions in the first paragraph of yours.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Mon May 8th, 2006 at 09:43:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Russia is the enemy Part II" (none / 0)

Are you referring to his remark cited here:

"It's too early to judge of his supposed greyness or greatness because he did not make choice of his life yet. All great leaders give their nations sense of mission for decades. Russia today does not know who is its enemy - The West, only US, China, Iran or other. What steps Russia should take, what countries may be natural allies in fulfilling this strategy nobody knows. Very probably this strategy already exists in Putin's mind, but it was not made public for obvious reason - it's not appropriate time yet.

I took that to refer to the matter referred to as "greyness". Perhaps it also means that it's too soon to say what Poutine would aspire to as a legacy for the nation. I don't know.

"In such an environment it is not surprising that the ills of technology should seem curable only through the application of more technology..." John W Aldridge

by proximity1 on Mon May 8th, 2006 at 11:41:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Russia is the enemy Part II" (none / 0)

I'm thinking on it and will post as soon as possible. Despite Putin did not make some crucial choices we can suspect what they will be. I mentioned earlier Putin and The Middle East article, you can try to find it on one of internet magazines (I found it through search engine) devoted to Middle East. This article was very good and I suspect all world leaders prefer to use such deep stuff, not AP or Reuters analytics.

by FarEasterner on Mon May 8th, 2006 at 11:55:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"Russia is the enemy" | 100 comments (100 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Top Diaries

Southern Irish disinterest in Northern Ireland affairs

The end is Nigh?

Leinster's demise and Munster's hope

Joe Biden. America's Interventionist Hero

The law of conservation of transness

Recent Diaries

Southern Irish disinterest in Northern Ireland affairs

Incident Ukrainian War Display Gets Int'l Attention

German Climate Activists Group Outlawed

Leinster's demise and Munster's hope

Joe Biden. America's Interventionist Hero

Targeted Assassinations: a Bankrupt Strategy

The end is Nigh?

Hijacking Peace by Zelensky for War Escalation

UA Drone Attack On Moscow

Rightwing Operation New EU 'Enlightenment’

Energy (and Other) Events Monthly - May 2023

May 2023

The law of conservation of transness

Neocon Years and NATO Expansion of 2008

US Provoked Conflict In Europe

U.S. Will Be Ousted From Middle-East

Settler Extremism Blessed by Jerusalem Leaders

Occasional Series