- - http://wydawnictwopodziemne.com/en -

Common Usage in Strategy and Tactics

Posted By admin On 16 December 09 @ 9:58 In Jeff Nyquist | 23 Comments

To give a more complete answer to Mr. Bąkowski, I should like to address the apparent inconsistency of my “apology,” where I admit the use of the word “Russia” in place of the word “Soviet,” and end by admitting that this usage is integral to the enemy’s semantic liquidation of anti-communism. Mr. Bąkowski supposes that I have wrongly conceded the enemy’s terminology. He suggests that we must resist this terminology with every weapon at our disposal. In explaining my position, it is best to use a military analogy. The communists turned our flank when they won the semantic battles of 1989-1991. We were pushed from familiar rhetorical ground into a swamp. This was unavoidable, and there was nothing we could do about it. The enemy shifted the ground from beneath our feet. We could not shift it back, because common usage changed, and common usage dictates all discourse. Currently we are undergoing a process in which concepts are realigning with words so that people are attaching old understandings to new labels. When people say “Russian Federation,” they more and more realize it is a dictatorship where dissidents are murdered, where freedom of the press has been suspended, and military preparations are ongoing; and the word “Russia” is shorthand for “Russian Federation.” In common parlance, Russia has moved backward, ever close to the USSR. If the communists are hiding behind “Russia,” their cover is being blown. The deception is losing momentum. It is ebbing away, little by little. When the strategy is fully exhausted, they will be compelled to engage in open warfare. They cannot renew their deception under another set of labels. This is because the deception was carefully prepared decades in advance, and this preparation cannot be replicated. The strategy therefore has a shelf-life. In the last analysis it must be superseded, as Golitsyn said, by the strategy of “one clenched fist.”

The communist achievement of 1989-91 was remarkable on more than one level. Here was a grand maneuver with far-reaching social, economic and political effects. Do you remember the mid-1990s? Economic optimism was on the march. The use of words like “communist” and “Soviet” lost all currency. The events of 1989-91 changed nearly everyone’s thinking. Those of us who grasped what was happening fell silent for a time. It was futile to discuss the threat of communism, or the long range Soviet policy, because nobody was willing to entertain the idea that the changes in Russia were deceptive. Again and again, Golitsyn’s predictions came true. His analytical approach was confirmed. To say so, however, was entirely useless. I remember talking to presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan in 1992 about Andrei Navrozov’s essay, “The Coming Order,” and how Arnold Beichman had attacked Navrozov in the pages of Chronicles magazine. Navrozov was the only writer of that time courageous enough to risk his reputation writing about Moscow’s New Economic Policy (NEP) in the context of Lenin’s NEP. I knew Chronicles was Buchanan’s favorite magazine, and he knew about Navrozov. When I told Buchanan that Navrozov was onto something, he looked at me with skepticism. He said that Beichman did a good job putting Navrozov in his place. Buchanan had already made up his mind, caught up in the illusion of the moment, like nearly everyone. There was no way to communicate Golitsyn’s message or Navrozov’s subtlety. Buchanan even expressed the view that the Pope had brought about the fall of communism. This shows the extent to which intelligent opinion-makers fell into their own idiosyncratic interpretations; and there was no arguing with him. He had the weight of a deluded majority, and a deluded establishment, on his side.

The success of the Soviet long range policy was absolute, and it took many years for people to realize a similarity, once more, between the policies of the Kremlin with those of the former Soviet Union. By 1997 there was evidence of continued “Russian” cheating or fudging on conventional, biological and nuclear arms agreements. The elevation of KGB officer Putin to the Russian presidency further facilitated a comparison of Russian and Soviet policies. In addition, there were human rights abuses in Russia. Liberal figures in the media and politics were being assassinated. At this time the intelligence analyst Bill Lee published his book on the ABM treaty charade, where he wrote about Russia’s hidden strategic reserves. Later, the works of Alexander Litvinenko and Anna Politkovskaya broke through, and the physical elimination of these authors made an opening for further discussion. At the same time, organized resistance to the Kremlin appeared in Georgia and Poland and Ukraine. Here is where our interpretations become problematic.

Mr. Bąkowski objects to my observations, I suspect, because he credits himself with knowing where the false opposition to communism ends and the genuine opposition begins. He thinks I am mistaken about positive developments in Poland, Georgia and Ukraine. Perhaps he is right, and I need to be educated on these subjects. If he is knowledgeable, by all means, let him share what he knows. It is easy to be confused when so many deceptive personalities are at work (e.g., Vaclav Klaus in the Czech Republic, or Yulia Tymoshenko in Ukraine, Lech Wałęsa in Poland, etc.). Quite naturally, my attitude toward all politicians is distrustful; all the more when they are in former Soviet bloc countries. But when facts suggest that a politician is authentic in his patriotism, I am cautiously positive; and always willing to revise my judgments. In respect of this, the events of 2008 indicate that Victor Yushchenko in Ukraine and Mikheil Saakashvili in Georgia appear to be authentic anti-communists. In the case of Poland’s President Kaczyński, I am told that he is working to purge the communists from Polish national life. There are indications that Kaczyński’s associates have won a few minor victories. As the lead “liquidator” of the Polish Military Information Services, Antoni Macierewicz was involved in the SKW’s publication of Anatoliy Golitsyn’s New Lies for Old. This suggests that something vital has grown up in Poland, and I’d like to congratulate these achievements; but Mr. Bąkowski seems dismissive of Macierewicz and Kaczyński. Perhaps he would care to explain.

It is important to realize that the deception initiated by Moscow in the late 1980s cannot be sustained indefinitely. Structures need to be renewed, rebuilt and adapted. In certain respects, the Soviet strategy suffered setbacks. After unification, Germany did not leave NATO to ally with Russia. American troops did not pull out of Europe. The communists are not supermen, and the day is coming when the rhetorical and linguistic advantages will belong to us. The communists achieve their results through persistence, organization, and time-tested methods. Since it is possible to see the overall pattern of what they are doing around the world, we can intelligently analyze and discuss their moves today. Tomorrow, this same discourse may become a guidebook for political action.

I feel obligated to one further clarification, since my last missive made such a poor impression. What I offered in response to Mr. Bąkowski was not a mock apology, as apology has two meanings: (1) a written or spoken statement expressing remorse; (2) a formal defense or justification. Please note, my “apology” was of the second type.

It is, as well, unfortunate if Mr. Bąkowski thinks I am patronizing him. I beg to differ, since my object is to bring us together in a common cause. We should not manufacture divisions on the basis of obscure or idiosyncratic usage, or from a misplaced methodological individualism. People are not philosophical machines, readily programmed to spit back “correct” or “incorrect” political grammar. We must fight on with the words that common usage gives us. We have no choice, if we are to be understood. And I think, despite the criticism leveled against me, that my message is far from unclear.

Bąkowski is right to say that Truth is unattainable to human perception. My concern is not with Truth, however, but with small truths that are discoverable to individuals whose receptivity or lack thereof is conditioned by national character or individual aptitude; namely, the truth that the Russian Federation (formerly the Soviet Union) is a dangerous power which uses deception, subversion and agents of influence to deprive us of the advantages granted by liberty. In this respect, almost everything Anatoliy Golitsyn warned us about has come to pass.

In reply to Mr. Bąkowski’s misapplication of my point: To say that there is “no final political form” does not mean that the future can “develop in a bewildering number of ways.” I am afraid that the future is developing in one direction: toward an unprecedented calamity in which hundreds of millions will die. For what else could the success of the Soviet long range policy mean? When I write these words, therefore, the aim is not pedantry or a battle of wits. We are fighting for our lives, and we are running out of time.

Once again, it bears repetition: Almost everything Golitsyn warned us about has come to pass. The West has swallowed the Russian lies, and the United States is disarming. The infiltration of the West has advanced to a point of “no return,” and those who wish to survive and struggle for a way out must work together as allies in the largest possible sense. In my view, it is quite beneath us to quibble over terms.

Though he agrees with my sense of things to come, Mr. Bąkowski seems to chastise me for attempting what no mortal should attempt. But we do not need a crystal ball to see what is coming. Golitsyn’s methodology allowed him to predict the future with stunning accuracy. Today’s economic crisis, and the mobilization of the bloc’s economic weapons, further demonstrates the former KGB officer’s prescience. This is hardly strange. There is much about the future that we may reasonably guess.

I know when the sun is going to rise in the morning, and I know with a fair degree of confidence what the weather will be like, and what I will be doing. In fact, I know what time I am coming home from work tomorrow. And I also know, from the fixed determination of President Obama to eliminate U.S. nuclear weapons, and from studying Golitsyn’s methodology, that my country is about to lose to the communist bloc. I know that communists are criminals, that mass killing is what they do, that they will not give us heaven on earth. They deceive in order to destroy. Nothing could be more obvious.

Of course, Mr. Bąkowski alleges that my terminology is imprecise and my starting point contradicts my conclusion. But this says more about the peculiar demands of Bąkowski’s rationalism, and nothing about the precision of my terminology. What he asserts, at bottom, is that Russia as a nation is somehow unrelated to secret police methods or communist power. This is like asserting that Germany was unrelated to Hitlerism. Many of the methods of the KGB and the Bolshevik regime go far back in Russian history. Russian political culture has become fused with communism.

Perhaps Bąkowski thinks that referring to “Russia” as our enemy is counter-productive because the Russian people are natural allies to the cause of freedom. Well, don’t hold your breath, Mr. Bąkowski. We may celebrate the courage of Anna Politkovskaya and Alexander Litvinenko without fooling ourselves that the evil is not, in part, a Russian evil. The legacy of Russian imperialism is thoroughly Russian, and we should not pretend otherwise. Communism, as most ideologies, is an excuse for a certain kind of nature to take its course. I suppose that Mr. Bąkowski would scold me for referring to Germany instead of Hitlerism in 1944. We must, after all, cultivate the good will of the German people. But I would ask him: Did Sophie Scholl and her compatriots refuse to oppose Hitler because the entire world cursed Germany for being his instrument? Let the Russians feel as ashamed of their crimes as the Germans, for these crimes were not committed by communists alone, but with the collusion of millions upon millions of Russians – to the shame of that great nation.

It is easy to anticipate what Mr. Bąkowski will say in reply to all this. He will denounce the concept of collective guilt. There is only individual guilt, he will say. But this is not true, and I know it from personal experience. When my country’s armed forces commit an atrocity, I am ashamed of it. And I want the persons responsible to be punished. Why should a German or Russian feel otherwise? Is it reasonable to say that we feel nothing when our tribe or clan or close family member does something wrong? I am an individualist, but not a doctrinaire individualist who denies in the face of daily experience that man is tribal. I belong to others, and cannot survive or reproduce in myself. I also have a tribal identity, which I share with other Americans. Curiously, Mr. Bąkowski supposes that I will not admit that American communists are Americans. Why should I deny what is so important to admit? At the same time, however, I am well aware that an American communist is very different from a Russian communist, as a suicidal maniac differs from a homicidal maniac.

Is Russian culture great? Yes, and so is German culture. Do we love Beethoven? Of course! Does that mean we cannot refer to Hitler as German, or refer to Hitler’s army as the German Army? It would be ridiculous if we could not refer to the German Army as German when even the Germans called it thus. And so today, it would be ridiculous to call the Russian Army something else, when the Russians themselves call it the Russian Army, as it is made up of Russian fighting men and is based on Russian territory.

For Mr. Bąkowski the distinction between that which is Russian and that which is Soviet is clear. Well, with time and usage the two things have grown together. Therefore, in some areas the distinction is not clear at all, and here is where Mr. Bąkowski’s alleged precision mocks itself. The Soviet Union no longer exists. There is no Soviet state, government or leaders. The whole world now refers to the Russian Federation. In terms of language, we are obliged to respect changes of name, while maintaining that there are hidden communist structures. This makes our position intelligible to those unfamiliar with our views.

I am afraid, in this respect, we are no longer living in the time of Mackiewicz, when the Soviet Union openly acknowledged communism and disparaged Russian nationalism (except during the war). Proper names are nominal tags, and may be changed. Let us not confuse the thing with the name. Let us not fall into a semantic trap; for we will make ourselves ridiculous by refusing to accept common usage, and our views will then appear out-of-date. In terms of language, it doesn’t matter why the Soviet Union was eliminated. The USSR doesn’t exist. Something else has come in its place and it is our job to define what that new formation is, and how it works. We do not refer to Abraham Lincoln as a Whig politician after he became a Republican. We do not refer to the Bolsheviks as social democrats, even though that is what they originally were. We have to respect name changes, because language is about common usage. This doesn’t mean we forget the underlying reality. This is what we must hold onto!

Perhaps not intentionally, Mr. Bąkowski quotes me as saying that our enemies “all speak Russian….” This is an unfortunate use of a quotation mark, because I clearly identify communism and the communist bloc as the enemy. This bloc includes China, North Korea, Vietnam, Venezuela, Cuba, etc. In the case of Poland, however, there won’t be an invasion from Cuba or China. You will be trampled by Russian boots. If you get a communist government, Russia will be its main support. All this being admitted, all the communist countries outside of Russia have but a fraction of Russia’s nuclear firepower. None of these countries can defeat the United States without Russia. The sophistication in strategy, is largely Russian. In nearly every area, the Russians are the leaders of this bloc, though the Chinese are regarded as equal partners.

So I hope, Mr. Bąkowski, that you are not determined to alienate those who published Golitsyn in Polish because they refer to Russia instead of the Soviet Union. To be a political grammarian of this type is to misread the game. The Russians no longer fly the Soviet flag over their capital. (They have retained it for their armed forces, however.) None of us knows what the ideological thinking of the current Russian leadership is. Have they abandoned Marxism-Leninism? Has there been a coup inside the coup? Well, it is Russia – as Churchill said, a riddle wrapped inside an enigma. Whatever is going on inside, we can see that they follow the old plan. We see them coordinating with communists around the world. At the same time, there are intelligent people who do not agree with my assertion that Russia is still run by communists. To discuss my analysis with them, I fall back upon common usage. This works best, in my experience, and would serve you as well. I think I am right in supposing that communism is yet in charge of the Kremlin, but I am far from doctrinaire.


23 Comments (Open | Close)

23 Comments To "Common Usage in Strategy and Tactics"

#1 Comment By Serge Kabud On 16 December 09 @ 11:55

communist, russian, kgb-stik or-ish, kremlin(-ish or not -ish :) )
socialistic-

are terms that mean the same evil

It is proven historically , those are synonyms,

terms are perceived as having the very similar meaning

and it is shameful for Russians that it came to this.

Russia still has a chance of revival or

if Russian people will not find strength and spirit to overthrow their bolshevism (another common term)

it will most likely get to the thermonuclear war: kremlin has the most powerful nuclear arsenal in the world and the absolutelly incomparable to any other

stockpile of biological and chemical weapons.

#2 Comment By michał On 17 December 09 @ 12:27

I lost my way of life. Too much apple pie.

I also lost all will to live.

Could someone, please, deal with this nonsense? (I mean the comment. I will gladly reply to the main article.) Any language will do, even Mandarin…

#3 Comment By Sonia Belle On 17 December 09 @ 7:18

Jeff,

Mr. Bąkowski seems dismissive of Macierewicz and Kaczyński.

I always admired Michal’s consistency in argumentation, even if it often leads him into pure absurdity. If I understand his point, it’s that since everything that happened in Eastern Europe since 1989 was a carefully planned Communist charade, then people like Macierewicz and Kaczynski (as well as Yuschenko and Saakashvili) must be part of that charade (playing the “good cops” whom Westerners are supposed to trust).

Incidentally, I don’t agree with Michal’s main thesis, but at least his entire argumentation is perfectly logical and consistent with that thesis.

In other words, if Golitsyn is right, then Kaczynski MUST BE working for the Communists. Otherwise, he would never be allowed to become President of Poland. As you write yourself, “in the case of Poland’s President Kaczyński, I am told that he is working to purge the communists from Polish national life” – but if that would be the criteria, Stalin would be the greatest anti-communist who ever lived. After all, he killed 100 times more Communists than Hitler, Pinochet and Franco combined…

Buchanan even expressed the view that the Pope had brought about the fall of communism.

If the communists are hiding behind “Russia,” their cover is being blown.

Well, definitely not with Pat Buchanan, who is anti-Communist, but very pro-Russian… And his hatred of Poles (wheather Communist or not) is beyond pathological…

But the main point about the “Russia-or-the-Soviet Union” debate is as follows: Communists wouldn’t be pretending to be Russians to be popular in the West. Except for Pat Buchanan, most Westerners think that Lenin was more progressive and nicer than Nicolas II. The “We are true Russians” cover would be purely for domestic consumption, because inside Russia, many more people like Nicholas II than Lenin.

Personally, I would prefer the name Third Reichssian Federation to describe Putin’s own private plantation, although this comparison is quite unfair to Hitler, who never killed anybody using radiation poisoning…

#4 Comment By Jeff Nyquist On 17 December 09 @ 6:30

Yes, Mr. Bakowski is consistent and logical, if you make the inferences and assumptions he takes for granted. The communists planned the charade, as you say. However, they do not control everyone and everything; and as they never planned for the “Final Phase” of their long range policy to last twenty years, envisioning instead a period of ten years, their secret structures have worn thin in places; Poland, Ukraine and Georgia being foremost in that category. Golitsyn himself explained in the mid-1990s that the strategy was behind schedule. Furthermore, in determining where we stand today, it is foolish to rely on logic alone. We must rely on empirical observation as well, venturing from the womb of deductive validity. Of course, there is no established scheme for inductive validity. We must must be detectives, which is not easy. This requires keen judgment, and will lead us into more serious discussions.

#5 Comment By Jeff Nyquist On 17 December 09 @ 8:32

I cannot resist another response to Sonia’s intriguing comments. A defector from the GRU that I know, gave the following analysis a few years ago. He said that there definitely was a Soviet plan to collapse communism. It was absolutely clear to him, especially in terms of its future military exploitation. This plan encountered a major problem, however, in that Marxism-Leninism was more feeble than the planners anticipated. This spelled vulnerability throughout. Stuck with the false democratic facade created in 1989-91, the Soviet strategists would have to combat decay and drift by reverting to a red-brown political alliance; by the addition of national socialism, and anti-Americanism. “This doesn’t make them less dangerous,” he said. “They still have the same objectives as before.”

The deception policy has been socially destructive for Russia, while preserving certain totalitarian options. The policy has also encouraged a confused pattern of debate, discussion and interpretation inside and outside the country. This is gradually untangled by what I would call “points of focus” which may be found imbedded in the otherwise bland statements of Medvedev and Putin. A short list of these might include (1) a new security “structure” for Europe, (2) Russian remilitarization, (3) elimination of Georgian independence, (4) the breakup or integration of Ukraine into Russia, (5) the coercion of Poland through economic pressures and the use of Germany; (6) the demise of the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency. The communists are forced to use nationalism because socialism isn’t yet workable. The deception is not as important as preventing the demoralization of essential Russian cadres. What may save the strategy, as it increeasingly becomes stuck with the above themes, is Barack Obama.

As for Pat Buchanan, his version of nationalism mixed with historical revisionism has led him to a position of anti-U.S. imperialism. Logically following is premises, he tends to be soft on Putin’s Russia. This is what we find, by the way, among U.S. libertarians like Ron Paul. Their ideology prevents them from seeing the real objects which menace their country and the world.

#6 Comment By michał On 17 December 09 @ 8:55

Dear Sonia,

Can I retire now? Now that I know that you admire me? What else is there for me to achive? I have arrived.

As so many times before, you encapsulate the thought in few words: if Golitsyn’s right than honest people, like Antoni Macierewicz, are inadvertently workling for the commies, by enhancing the image of that thing created 20 years ago at round table talks between commies and their friends parading as opposition – as “free Poland”. Look, even Jeff Nyquist himself says, “hey, it can’t be that bad if they publish Golitsyn there”.

By the way, I am not “dismissive of Macierewicz”, as Nyquist suggests (where did he get it from?), I actually have a lot of respect for him but I happen to disagree with the political choice he has made because it seems to me to be self-contradictory. If Golitsyn is right… than how can anyone work in political institutions of prl 2 (“polish people’s republic no 2″)? It is only because we both, Darek and I, believe that he is misguided rather than “part of the charade”, that we wrote an open letter to him some time ago. We wouldn’t be writing to a commie.

So no, I don’t believe that people like Kaczyński brothers are working for commies but I do believe that their policies perpetuate a fundamental lie: communism has collapsed, soviet union is no more, this is Free Poland. There is also one important difference between Macierewicz and the twins: Macierewicz denounced the sham of round table talks, whilst one of the Kaczyńskis took part.

#7 Comment By michał On 17 December 09 @ 9:24

Dear Mr Nyquist,

As for teh subject matter, I will have the honour of responding to your article separately. Let me just make a formal point here. I happen not to take things for granted, quite the opposite actually, I question rather more than is good for me. When I make inferences and assumptions I try to state that it is so. But what astonished me in your statement was the suggestion that one needs to make assumptions (or to take them for granted) to appear consistent and logical. As everyone knows, one can start with wrong assumptions, proceed logically and arrive at false conclusions.

In other words, I cannot possibly appear consistent and logical IF one “makes the inferences and assumptions I (allegedly) take for granted” because one has nothing to do with other.

You are undoubtedly right, though, that it would be foolish to rely on logic alone. And we surely do not. But as a philosopher once said: outside logic there is only gibberish. Once logic is sacrificed we are left with pseudo-thoughts of the kind presented in one of the comments above: “communist, russian, are terms that mean the same evil; it is proven historically, those are synonyms”. To equate communist with Russian is shameful and, frankly, stupid.

#8 Comment By Serge Kabud On 18 December 09 @ 12:36

Sonia,

it is such a shame that you dont blog any more(((((

and so sad that i found your blog so late)))))

Jeff you seem to have an ability to surprise every time you write something new))

Mihael: grow up. Be a man. Learn to fight, buy yourself a gun (legally) for Christ sake and learn to use it

#9 Comment By Dariusz Rohnka On 18 December 09 @ 12:44

Jeff,

The U.S. is disarming, the U.S. is defeated (these are your words), so there is an urgent need to find another reason for hope. But, Jeff, when you are disseminating that painful truth about the American inability, try to avoid the trap of easy solution. As a resident of Eastern Europe, I can say with some certainty: this part of the world is not the place where the new dawn can break out.
Among others new brilliant anti-communist figures, you mentioned one Mikheil Saakashvili, so called president of the Georgia Republic. Knowing your views for the last 12 years (or so) I could not believe when I first saw your new stance. Can you really imagine young, solid, idealistic anti-communist to enter the ministry office in the company of communist thugs under Eduard Shevardnadze umbrella, one of the perestroika fathers, long-standing soviet apparatchik, Georgia’s Interior Minister, the oppressor of Georgian opposition during 70-ties and 80-ties and so on? Can you really think about Saakashvili (with such company around) as the trustworthy politician, a man who in some degree could turn the fate of the free world? I do not believe it!
In last article you wrote that Mr. Bąkowski, who would seem dismissive of Macierewicz and Kaczyński, should explain his stance. I have no idea what he is planning to do, but I think his stance does not require as much explanation as yours because, to my mind, you seem to have changed your viewpoint quite radically.

#10 Comment By Serge Kabud On 18 December 09 @ 12:46

One of the most respectful contemporary Russian essayist and activists
just wrote this.

The level of attention he drew is at the same level as Sarah Palin does in USA
as you can see here
[1]

in polish
[2]

in english

[3]

Shiropaev says EXACTLY the things about Russia we say here.

Same as Father Krotov says and it is TRUE bloody stinking and degraded reality of the real state of russian life.

Again i must repeat:

russians will attempt to genocide every single Ukrainian, Polish, Georgian, Estonian, Lathvian, Lithvianian and American person

with their 40 thousands of nuclear weapons and 100s of thousands tonns of biological and chemical poisons.

If you read the Shiropaev piece : you see for yourself.

Pleas, warn EVERYONE whoes life is dear to you: they are plkanned to be butchered by russians and very soon.

#11 Comment By Jeff Nyquist On 18 December 09 @ 1:07

I am not saying that Poland or Ukraine or Georgia is going to save civilization. I merely said there are positive developments, and there is a struggle in which things are happening that could not happen in the U.S.A.

As for the defeat of the U.S., I am talking about the defeat of U.S. power in the near term. This does not mean that America is permanently eliminated from the equation. And I never never said victory will be easy.

Finally, your indictment of Saakashvili is not adequate. Given what has happened, you need more. Your argument is not decisive, and you do not show how Saakashvili’s actions fit with the long range policy. Your method is to assume that associates of a communist leader cannot turn against him. Perhaps you are right, but Saakashvili’s moves do not fit the pattern. The same thing with Yushchenko’s poisoning, or the publication of Golitsyn in Poland. There is a break here. The Soviet fabric is weakening, isn’t it?

Perhaps it is the case that either I do not understand Soviet strategy, and you understand it much better than I. We need a more detailed study of all these questions.

#12 Comment By Serge Kabud On 18 December 09 @ 1:16

Jeff, in my opinion
what you say here can be understood if a person has some real life experience in political struggle or God forbid was persecuted in some way

You had a chance in your life to meet people like George Bush senior, Pat Buchannan, so on

Saakashvilli was a student in Columbia university that is like in a walking distance from where i live

I met people who were in a game in the 80s, who served years in jail

My distant relative was a doctor who treated family of one of the top soviet leaders in the 30s of last century

All those `players` are real people to us.

I know exactly what and who Saakashvili is. I dont need a proof if you know what iu mean

And for the proof : any one can make a simple effort and learn what is going on in Georgia: i have many Georgian friends, it is no secret what is happening there.

A friend once told me: “i know why you get it, it is because your grand father attended Highest party school in Moscow, MINE-TOO!!!”

by the way his grand father was poisoned by KGB because he did not go along as a head of Party Control with some peculiar methods of KGB promoting pedofiles and homosexuals as very easy targets for blackmail.

The game is complex but any one can learn facts.

#13 Comment By Serge Kabud On 18 December 09 @ 2:00

by the way,
Macierewicz as it says here
[4]

was arrested several times, served in jail and even escaped once from prison

Compared to say Radosław Sikorski who mainly mingled(and more :) ) with compromised and false figures of conservative right or just plain KGB agents in US government

#14 Comment By Dariusz Rohnka On 19 December 09 @ 9:30

Jeff,

I decidedly agree with you – we need more detailed study of all these questions. But we must remember that our potential knowledge is limited because we have no real information what has happened behind the establishments’ doors. Therefore the only tools in our possession are: the understanding of soviet strategy, the main political actors biographies and actions (not declarations) and knowledge how (or if) all these elements lead to the bolshevik ultimate goal. You wrote that I did not show how Saakashvili’s actions fit the long range policy. I wonder why I need to show it to someone as well educated in soviet strategy as you – Saakashvili’s case fits the pattern of “false splits” perfectly well. Yushschenko is a full time member of a political elite and his conflict with Yanukovich and possibly even his more recent conflict with Tymoshenko, can be seen as repeating the old pattern of “divide and rule”.

Following the Golitsyn’s Methodology we should always ask about the goal of Soviet Union collapse. The answer seems to be: “weakness and evolution” pattern. In this context what would be the role of all the soviet’s satelites if not entering the enemy’s camp, infiltrate European structures, playing the role of the American ally and – last but not least – to feign that they are normal, democratic states.

Sometimes, like in the case of the Kaczynski’s “government”, they determined to reach for anti-communist rhetoric and gestures engaging people of (probably) real anti-communist views like Macierewicz. But this is only pure propaganda, nothing else. In reality Kaczynski is one of the “round table” agreements architect (he participated in all 12, or so, secret meetings in Magdalenka, where the deceitful business was done). He was also the right hand man of Wałęsa for very long time etc. Macierewicz’s presence in this government is like spoonful of anti-communist honey in a barrel of tar.

#15 Comment By Serge Kabud On 20 December 09 @ 2:18

Hy Dariusz,

on this >our potential knowledge is limited

we have a lot of sources, lets put it this way. We can trace many events and many players day by day and some times more.

It helps a lot to integrate our knowledge and exchange opinions which we do and it yielded significant results.

Yushenko was never in a conflict with Yanukovich: the whole thing was arranged in order not to let kgb operator Tymoshenko to grab power. Unfortunately it was not achieved.

And `the conflict` is not recent at all. Tymoshenko is their person since early 80s, she comes from the same kind of servants as putin’s grand dad was a cook for lenin and stalin: tymoshenko mother or grandmother served in the similar position on the lower level and went through kgb training. Most likely Tymoshenko went through kgb school herself in the late 80s

We know much more then newspaper’s clips tell us, this knowledge must be integrated, tested and validated. Thas why the discussion like this is so important.

We know people who studied with Saakashvili in Kyiv.

Perhaps you should check out this

[5]

On Kaczynski’s case: we were told by Tomasz Pompowsky here
[6] Interview.mp3

that K. brothers are genuine

We did not take it for granted but researched ourselfs. It all proved.

It seems that a known kgb operator Radek Sikorski has a double support from moscow and their influential friends in Washington, people like Clintons, Rice, Brzezinski and the rest of their gang: so to us it looks like the enemy so far has an upper hand in Poland.

>they are normal, democratic states.

no they are not. There are some good people that work against kgb with limited success. And most of the work is done underground.

meetings in Magdalenka – that is interesting.

In Ukraine as far as we know a number of politicians who are pro russian on the surface actually are proven to be anticommunist in their important policies but it is not very much understood by general public.

For instance president Kuchma in 2000 was getting very close to cut an oil deal with Azerbaijan. As soon as it was acknowledged by kremlin as a threat a provocation was developed and Kuchma was later accused of murder.

We should judge by the value of political achievement indeed.

You said Yushchenko is their man. We KNOW he is our guy. This is a proof:

it was only his personal effort that in the last several years Ukrainian nation acknowledged the largest genocide that happened in 1932-33:

Yushchenko created a massive campaign on it. It is absolutely unprecedented and has a profound long lasting effect on national conscience

And this is the best possible protection he could deliver to his nation in terms of preventing russian aggression

#16 Comment By Serge Kabud On 20 December 09 @ 2:32

One more thing:

if like you said Macierewicz is like spoonful of anti-communist honey in a barrel of tar.

Why do you demand from him not to use word russian for what is russian and always was and will be for a long time an enemy to Poland and Ukraine and USA

So far good russians only support this view and kgb russians reject.

The open letter to Macierewicz require explanations. I lok into it right now and can not make any sense at all.

Would you like Macierewicz to leave politics and do nothing?

Would you like other to lose hope that Poland will become a free country?

In politics there is a big factor of mass conscience at play. If we want the good ideas to succeed some times they must take root.

Last question: why do you think Macierewicz never ran for president?

Isnt it because in other elections he learned that his platform can never win in democratic elections in THIS Poland?

And is there any OTHER Poland?

#17 Comment By Serge Kabud On 20 December 09 @ 6:29

Just read in the news about Valdemar Pavlyak position on GASPROM

Is it a fact that Poland did not get 25% of natural gas import that was supposed to be delivered by RosUkrEnergo?

The gas that this company owes is blocked by Tymoshenko since the end of 2008 in storages in Ukraine as a part of the predatory deal she made with GASPROM in January 2009 , details of the deal were neer published and RosUkrEnergo gas was stolen on Tymoshenko orders.

Would be interesting to see Pavlyak’ next move

#18 Comment By HL Shancken On 20 December 09 @ 11:44

My thoughts which have been provoked by the previous discussion:

1. Yushchenko was poisoned with dioxin. He got the second-largest dose ever recorded, and he, like the woman who got the highest dose, lived. Dioxin is known as a non-lethal poison.

2. The dioxin poisoning was the second attempt on the life of Yushchenko. The first attempt involved the use of an automobile.

3. The KGB, given its demonstrable historical expertise in the area of assassinations, should have been able to easily and successfully assassinaiton of Yushchenko. The fact that both attempts were unsuccessful indicates to me that all was staged, including the Orange Revolution.

4. Yushchenko’s face, made hideous for a time by the dioxin, no longer shows any effects of the poisoning. He has made a full recovery.

5. Saakashvili was educated in the United States in the 1980’s. What type of police state allows average, unconnected citizens to travel to the country that is their Main Enemy and be educated as they please? We all know the answer to that is that the idea is absurd on the face of it.

6. Saakashvili could easily have been assassinated by now. Recall the incident where he had Russian machine guns trained on him at a checkpoint he visited after the Russian invasion.

7. Yushchenko and Saakashvili are KGB. I do not believe that either man has defected from the KGB, because if they had, they would be dead.

8. The publication of New Lies for Old by anyone connected to the Polish government must, I think, be viewed as an excellent vehicle by which to identify and draw in true opposition to the Kremlin communist mafiya for the obvious purpose of dialectical control a la the Trust. Whether the publication of Golitsyn in Poland has been done by communists or anti-communists is immaterial, as the result will be communist infiltration and subversion of any legitimate counter-revolutionary organizations spawned by it.

9. I believe the power structure of Russia was succinctly and correctly explained by Suvorov in Inside the GRU. He described a triumvirate of the Communist Party, the KGB, and the military and explained how unlikely it would be that one of these entities would gain supremacy over the other two, and I believe that status quo remains in place.

10. As Jeff has written in the past, power is weaponry, and for no other reason than this we should acknowledge that the Kremlin is the supreme seat of power in the communist world. Moscow does not answer to Chavez, Lula, Zelaya, Castro, Morales, Khaddafi, Mugabe, Achmedinijad, Zawahiri, Abbas, Merkel, Aznar, Brown, Obama, etc.. They are instructed, directly or otherwise, by Moscow.

11. I think that Jeff’s analysis is, as always, the best there is, and I agree with his overall thesis and the overwhelming majority of not just what he’s written here, but with all he’s written, period.

12. The only other expert that I have such confidence in is Honza Malina. He intimated in August that something was wrong regarding his personal security and he hasn’t updated his site since. Does anyone have any information?

#19 Comment By michał On 21 December 09 @ 12:08

That is very well said. I am 100% with you on the interpretation of the main three “events”. But you managed to confuse me in the end. You say you agree with all Nyquist has written but if I understand him correctly, he sees some “reason for hope” in the three events – Yushchenko, Saakashvilli and the publication of Golitsyn in Poland – which you have rather skillfully debunked.

So either I don’t understand Nyquist (which is most probable) or you don’t; or alternatively, you don’t “agree with ALL he’s ever written, period”.

#20 Comment By HL Shancken On 21 December 09 @ 1:09

I used the qualifier, “overwhelming majority.” By “period” I meant not just what I’ve found that he’s written here, but all I’ve ever read by him, which is, as far as I know, everything he’s ever published in print or online. His scholarship speaks for itself and his judgment is nearly impeccable. This issue of the authenticity of the anti-communism of this or that individual is perhaps an aspect of Jeff’s analysis I don’t fully understand, but I have known him to be cautious when it comes to accusations which can’t be proven. He’s using a detective’s approach and I think that’s the right way to go about it. I don’t think he’s giving anyone a pass or declaring them bona fide, but rather is relying on his own superb understanding of human nature, knowing that not all defectors are false, not all who serve the communists do so willingly, that in certain situations it is wise to give the benefit of the doubt.

Then again, White officers were compelled to serve the Red Army during the civil war when the Bolsheviks took their families hostage. If Yushchenko and Saakashvili were genuinely on our side, they would be dead. I guess the upshot is that I disagree with Jeff on this, but I don’t think either one of us are wedded to opinions we can’t verify and stand to be corrected. In any event, it’s good to have these types of discussions because knowing who to trust is going to increasingly be a matter of life and death.

#21 Comment By michał On 21 December 09 @ 3:24

Your phrase was “I agree with his overall thesis and the overwhelming majority of not just what he’s written here, but with all he’s written, period.” But it really doesn’t matter, what does matter is that, once again, I find myself in agreement, as the above is again succinctly put.

Whenever we’re dealing with anything as bizarre and counterintuitive as soviet deception plans, we must demand high standards of ourselves; we must constantly question our own assumptions and our conclusions, otherwise we would be just like the “thoughtless multitude” whom we criticise for their riddiculous failure of critical thinking. So we should never be “wedded to” any interpretation of fact. As Keynes said, “When facts change, I change my mind – what do you do, sir?” That’s why we should be wedded to the most stringent standards of rational analysis and sticking to logic would help too.

#22 Comment By Publius On 5 January 10 @ 8:18

What I find interesting is that there is little discussion of what lies behind the Soviet agenda, as if the Soviet was somehow not connected with anything but Russian history. Start with Lenin in a sealed train going to the Finland Station or Trotsky raising money in New York and then imprisoned on Halifax by the British as a GERMAN agent and only allowed to go to Russia after Woodrow Wilson insisted on his release. There is more to the Soviet than meets the eye. Totalitarianism is ascendant globally and it is not a monolithic operation run by Moscow alone. I think the communists are useful idiots also.

#23 Comment By michał On 5 January 10 @ 10:27

Yes, that is exactly why identifying soviets with “Russia” is so wrong. It is not a monolithic operation run from Moscow, although I’d say it is a complex and multifaceted strategy orchestrated from Moscow. Even so, it is still not Russian in its nature.

I’m not sure I understand what you mean by your last statement. The notion of “useful idtiots” presupposes that they are useful for someone else. Who would commies be useful for?


Article printed from : http://wydawnictwopodziemne.com/en

URL to article: http://wydawnictwopodziemne.com/en/2009/12/16/english-common-usage-in-strategy-and-tactics/

URLs in this post:

[1] : http://shiropaev.livejournal.com/38054.html

[2] : http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http://shiropaev.livejournal.com/38054.html&sl=ru&tl=pl

[3] : http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http://shiropaev.livejournal.com/38054.html

[4] : http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoni_Macierewicz

[5] : http://www.scribd.com/doc/21260765/Libertarian-legislature-in-Georgian-Constitution-by-Saakashvili-Speech-October-2009

[6] : http://www.jrnyquist.com/media/Buchar

Copyright © 2007 . All rights reserved.