Apologies Empowering Our Enemies, You Tube, December 16, 2014
Archive for December 16, 2014
Apologies Empowering Our Enemies
December 16, 2014Happy Hanukkah from the IDF !
December 16, 2014Happy Hanukkah from the IDF! – YouTube.
Today we begin the eight day celebration of the festival of lights. Here is a special blessing from the IDF’s Golan Regional Brigade. We wish you a bright and happy Hanukkah!
–
Formally Recognizing Israel’s Jewishness Will Not Set Back Peace
December 16, 2014By: Morton A. Klein
Published: December 11th, 2014
via The Jewish Press » » Formally Recognizing Israel’s Jewishness Will Not Set Back Peace.
Legislation is under consideration in Jerusalem that formalizes Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people. We at the Zionist Organization of America support it.
Why? Because it is historically, legally, politically, and religiously the case that Israel is the Jewish nation state. The Balfour Declaration, later incorporated into the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, recognized the historical fact that what later became Israel was indeed the “Jewish homeland.”
The 1947 United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 encompassed the creation of a “Jewish state” and most of the world has called it that ever since its emergence in 1948.
In short, this legislation correctly recognizes that Israel was and is the Jewish state. The founder of political Zionism, Theodor Herzl, and every other major Zionist leader from that time forward were dedicated to establishing a Jewish state.
The Jewish homeland in which Israel today thrives and flourishes has been recognized for centuries by Bible-believing Jews and Christians as holy land given to the Jewish people by God.
The land of Israel has been called for centuries the “Promised Land.” Who promised the land and to whom was it promised? In Genesis, it is promised by God to the Jewish people.
It was precisely because this is the Jewish homeland that the Zionist movement turned down proposals of Jewish statehood elsewhere – Uganda, for example.
Zionism is not just about Jewish statehood, it is also about the reconnection of the Jewish people with its biblical and religious homeland. That is why David Ben-Gurion, the Zionist leader and Israel’s first prime minister, told the 1936 Peel Commission that “Our Mandate is the Bible.”
Israel is scarcely alone in describing itself as the state of a particular group, religion, or ethnicity.
In the same region can be found the Arab Republic of Egypt, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the Syrian Arab Republic, and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Despite the vicious discrimination against, and persecution of, minorities in these states, no one has said that these states cannot affirm their national identity and purpose. Why then should Israel, the only Middle Eastern country that actually respects and protects minorities, not do so?
No one expects Britain to remove the Union Jack (which features two crosses) from its flag just because its citizenry includes Muslims, Hindus, and Jews.
No one tells Scandinavian countries to remove the crosses that adorn their flags.
And no one has told Muslim majority states to remove the Islamic crescent from their flags.
The flags of over 40 countries possess either the cross or the crescent. Only in the case of Israel’s star do we hear it is unacceptable.
The U.S. pledge of allegiance speaks of “One Nation under God.” Must this be changed in deference to the views of atheists? Should we discard national heritages simply because not every citizen sees his or her own views reflected in them? Of course not.
Importantly, this legislation does not discriminate against Israel’s rich tapestry of minorities. The rights and liberties of Israelis of different religions and ethnicities would remain unaffected by this bill. They will continue to play, as they have been doing, an important role at all levels of Israeli life.
Non-Jewish citizens reside and are welcome in Israel, but the Israeli state – its institutions, laws, flag, and anthem – reflects the history and aspirations of the people who founded it with their labor, resources, and blood.
It is said that this legislation will set back the prospects for peace. This is untrue. Tragically, Palestinian terrorists will continue to try and murder Jews whether or not Israel passes this legislation.
The prospects of peace are set back by continued Palestinian Arab and wider rejection of Israel as a Jewish state within any borders – and by the Palestinian Authority’s refusal to fulfill its obligations under the Oslo agreements to disarm, outlaw and arrest terrorists and to end incitement to hatred, and murder – not because Israel is duly affirming itself as the Jewish nation state.
Peace is also set back by countries, including some of Israel’s friends, that are silent on PA incitement and pro-terror, anti-peace actions; that fail to demand of the Palestinians that they amend or rescind the Fatah and Hamas charters, which deny Jewish peoplehood and call for Israel’s destruction; that choose not to insist that the Palestinians live up to their Oslo commitments; and that refuse to penalize Mahmoud Abbas’s PA by terminating aid and diplomatic support for it as a result of these failures.
There is no reason to object to this legislation’s purpose – the formal recognition of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people, as virtually the entire world recognizes it to be.
A UN Timetable for Israel’s Destruction
December 16, 2014A UN Timetable for Israel’s Destruction
December 16, 2014
by Joseph Klein
via A UN Timetable for Israel’s Destruction | FrontPage Magazine.

The Obama administration is shamelessly outsourcing the United States’ historic leadership in facilitating negotiations between the Palestinians and Israel of a workable, secure two-state solution to the United Nations and European governments. In putting its trust in these two centers of anti-Israel sentiment, the Obama administration refuses to say categorically that it would veto a UN Security Council resolution setting some sort of deadline for the creation of a Palestinian state and Israeli withdrawal to the pre-June 1967 lines.
In the words of an unnamed senior U.S. State Department official quoted by Reuters, “These things are all very much in flux, it’s not as if we’re being asked to take a position on any particular Security Council resolution right now. It would be premature for us to discuss documents that are of uncertain status right now.”
Any Security Council resolution the Obama administration would agree to, which imposes pressure only on Israel to make more unilateral concessions for an illusionary “peace,” will serve to legitimize a United Nations timetable for Israel’s surrender to forces that wish to destroy it. The Gaza debacle following Israel’s decision to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza in 2005 and give the Palestinians a chance to build a prototype Palestinian state illustrates the danger Israel would face from being pressured into more withdrawals at this time.
The Palestinian Authority leadership is pressing for action on just such a Security Council resolution as early as this Wednesday, according to a Palestine Liberation Organization official and Palestinian U.N. Ambassador Riyad Mansour. The Palestinian resolution, to be sponsored by Jordan (a non-permanent member of the Security Council), would reportedly set a two year deadline for complete Israeli withdrawal from all “occupied” territories, although Jordan’s UN ambassador told reporters it was news to her that any action to vote on the resolution would be taken as soon as the Palestinians are demanding. There is some speculation amongst UN insiders that a vote on a Palestinian resolution could be put off until early in the new year. The Security Council makeup will then be even more inclined towards the Palestinian position, because Malaysia will be replacing South Korea as a non-permanent member of the Security Council.
The Palestinians are finding a very receptive audience in Europe for their use of the United Nations to sidestep direct negotiations with Israel. As the tide of anti-Semitism is rising to the surface and spreading once again throughout Europe, a number of European countries’ parliaments have adopted non-binding resolutions calling upon their respective governments to recognize a Palestinian state. Sweden went further with official recognition of a state of Palestine. France, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, is taking the lead in crafting a European version of a Palestinian state resolution. The idea reportedly would be to set out an expectation for a final peace agreement to achieve a two-state solution within two years. During the two year interval, the United Nations might accord full UN membership rights to an officially recognized Palestinian state. The text is still a subject of consultations in European capitals, according to the United Kingdom’s UN Ambassador Lyall Grant.
The Obama administration, which would like nothing better than to see its nemesis Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu defeated in the upcoming March 2015 Israeli elections, is calibrating a position that appears intended to send a pointed message to the Israeli electorate. This message is not to count on the administration standing steadfastly with Israel on sensitive security concerns if Prime Minister Netanyahu is re-elected. The Obama administration is willing to consider a “compromise” Security Council resolution to pressure Israel into resuming negotiations against a backdrop of a framework withdrawal timetable, so that the administration can say it did all it can to avoid an immediate two year deadline and thereby not have to use its veto power to “protect” Israel.
Thus, Secretary of State John Kerry is meeting early this week with European foreign ministers, Arab League officials, and Israeli and Palestinian officials to “hear from and engage with other stakeholders…and to the best of our ability work toward a common path forward,” according to a senior State Department official.
Israeli civilians under relentless attack by Palestinian jihadists are the main “stakeholders” whom the United States should be worried about. If there is to be a “common path forward” to peace, it requires Palestinian negotiating partners who are willing to publicly give up their claim to a right of return of millions of so-called Palestinian refugees to pre-June 1967 Israeli cities and towns, and who recognize Israel’s right to self-determination as a Jewish state that can co-exist securely side by side with a peaceful Palestinian state. There has been no such partner to engage in genuine negotiations for more than six decades. There remains no such partner today, nor is there likely to be one in the foreseeable future.
Hamas has made clear its intention time again, by word and deed, to destroy the state of Israel and kill as many Jews as possible. Following, for example, are excerpts from an interview with Hamas MP and cleric Yunis Al-Astal, which aired on Al-Aqsa TV on May 11, 2011 (courtesy of MEMRI):
The [Jews] are brought in droves to Palestine so that the Palestinians – and the Islamic nation behind them – will have the honor of annihilating the evil of this gang…All the predators, all the birds of prey, all the dangerous reptiles and insects, and all the lethal bacteria are far less dangerous than the Jews…When Palestine is liberated and its people return to it, and the entire region, with the grace of Allah, will have turned into the United States of Islam, the land of Palestine will become the capital of the Islamic Caliphate, and all these countries will turn into states within the Caliphate.
Hamas’s barrage of rocket attacks launched from Gaza against Israeli civilians since Hamas took control of Gaza in 2007 attests to its deadly intentions. Just last Sunday, Hamas marked its 27th anniversary by parading 2,000 of its armed fighters and truck-mounted rockets. A senior Hamas leader Khalil al-Hayya said: ‘This illusion called Israel will be removed.”
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has thrown in his lot with Hamas in forming a so-called “unity reconciliation” government and has himself incited sectarian violence in and around Jerusalem with incendiary rhetoric. But even Abbas has expressed frustration with what he called Hamas’s continued “shadow government… running the territory” in Gaza on its own.
In the real world, which is alien to the United Nations, the Arab world, European governments and the Obama administration, simply saying something is so doesn’t make it so. Diplomatic recognition of a Palestinian state does not change the reality on the ground. Nor does a pie-in-the-sky declaration of a “unity” or “reconciliation” Palestinian government that exists only on paper. For example, in delivering his regular briefing to the Security Council on the situation in the Middle East, Robert Serry, the UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, admitted to Security Council members on December 15th the lack of a functioning Palestinian reconciliation unity government to replace Hamas’s governance in Gaza. He said that delivery of thousands of tons of construction materials into Gaza is being permitted by Israel under the temporary Gaza Reconstruction Mechanism agreed upon by Israel, the so-called Palestinian Government of National Consensus and the UN, even though the “Government of National Consensus in Gaza has still not taken up its rightful governance and security function” that is a critical part of the arrangement.
The Palestinians’ own internal power struggle between Hamas, which governs Gaza, and the Palestinian Authority, which currently dominates the West Bank, means that there is no real unified state government apparatus. Hamas won’t give up its military control in Gaza and is seeking to expand its influence in the West Bank at the Palestinian Authority’s expense. There can be no real foundation for a workable Palestinian state under international law when there is no single governing authority in a position to effectively exert sovereign control over all of a putative Palestinian state’s territory and people. Nor can there be a real state under international law that does not have the capacity to ensure compliance with any bilateral or international agreements such a state may enter into in the future.
No matter what kind of “common path” Secretary of State Kerry thinks he can achieve with the Palestinians and their Arab and European supporters on a Security Council timetable resolution, Israel must reject the path of forced withdrawal that could lead to its own destruction. As Prime Minister Netanyahu said during the regular Israeli cabinet meeting on Sunday, a UN Security Council-imposed deadline for Israeli withdrawal to the pre-June 1967 lines would bring “Islamic extremists to the suburbs of Tel Aviv and to the heart of Jerusalem. We will not allow this. We will rebuff this forcefully and responsibly. Let there be no doubt, this will be rejected.”
In Nuke Talks, Obama Still Iran’s Best Asset
December 16, 2014In Nuke Talks, Obama Still Iran’s Best Asset, Commentary Magazine, Jonathan S. Tobin, December 14, 2014
President Obama’s goal is not so much to fulfill his campaign promise about the nuclear threat as it is to launch a new détente with the Iran. This is a crucial point since it not only makes him more reluctant to stick to Western demands about nuclear issues but makes it impossible for him to contemplate abandoning the negotiations.
**************
For the first time since the Iran nuclear talks were extended for the second time last month, the United States and its allies will meet again with Tehran’s negotiators in Vienna on Wednesday. To listen to public statements from the Obama administration, the allied team will be there to insist on a deal that will prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. But the same factors that have tilted these negotiations in Iran’s direction throughout the process still seem to be pushing the outcome toward an agreement that will be touted as a desperately needed foreign-policy triumph for the administration. With both the French becoming more vocal about their dissatisfaction with America’s leadership in the talks and the Islamist regime making no secret of their unwillingness to make more concessions, the question facing the negotiators is not so much whether a deal is possible, but whether the U.S. is able to resist the temptation to continue giving ground to the Iranians in order to get a deal at virtually any price.
As the next round of talks begins, observers need to think back to the allies’ position prior to the signing of the interim deal to understand just how far the U.S. has retreated from its current perilous position. In 2012 when he was running for reelection, President Obama vowed during his foreign-policy debate with Mitt Romney that any deal must end Iran’s nuclear program. The allies were similarly united behind a position that Iran had no right to enrich uranium for nuclear fuel under any circumstances and that its plutonium plant at Arak must be dismantled.
Since then, the U.S. has accepted the notion that Iran has the right to a nuclear program and that its infrastructure will remain largely in place no matter what the terms of an agreement might say. It has also tacitly recognized Iran’s right to enrichment while claiming that the low levels permitted freeze its progress toward a bomb even though everyone knows these restrictions can easily be reversed. The U.S. has also given every indication it will allow Iran to keep its centrifuges as well as showing no sign that it will press Tehran to give up its plutonium option or stop producing ballistic missiles whose only purpose would be to deliver nuclear warheads. Even worse, the administration seems to be giving up any effort to find out just how much progress the Iranians have made toward weaponizing their nuclear project or to force them to admit International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors to get the answers to this vital question.
Based on the experience of the last year and a half of talking with Obama’s envoys, Iran’s negotiators know they only have to stand their ground and it’s only a matter of time until the Americans give in to their demands one by one until they get terms that will let them become a nuclear threshold power as well as lifting the economic sanctions that continue to cripple Iran’s economy.
That the Iranian people are clamoring for an end to the sanctions is clear. As the New York Times reported on Friday, anticipation of the collapse of the restrictions is the talk of Tehran. The eagerness of their would-be European trading partners is just as vocal. In theory, this desire to reconnect Iran to the global economy ought to give the U.S. the leverage to make the Iranians give up their nuclear ambitions. On top of that, the collapse of the price of oil should have Iran even more desperate and the position of the allies even stronger.
But the Iranians know whom they are dealing with. As has become increasingly clear in the last year in which the talks went into two overtime periods despite administration promises that the talks would be finite in length, President Obama’s goal is not so much to fulfill his campaign promise about the nuclear threat as it is to launch a new détente with the Iran. This is a crucial point since it not only makes him more reluctant to stick to Western demands about nuclear issues but makes it impossible for him to contemplate abandoning the negotiations. That means that the Iranians know the president isn’t even thinking, as he should be, of ratcheting up the economic pressure with tougher sanctions, or of making the Islamists fear the possibility that the U.S. would ever use force to ensure the threat is eliminated.
Under these conditions the chances of the U.S. negotiating a deal that could actually stop Iran from ever getting a bomb are slim and none. Instead, the only question remains how far the Iranians are willing to press the president to bend to their will in order to let him declare a victory and welcome this terrorist-sponsoring regime moving closer to regional hegemony as well as a nuclear weapon.
Rather than the renewed diplomacy being a signal for congressional critics from both parties of the president’s policy to pipe down, the new talks should encourage them to work harder to pass the sanctions the president claims he doesn’t need. Unless they act, the path to appeasement of Iran seems to be clear.
The Land of Magical Thinking: Inside Putin’s Russia
December 16, 2014The Land of Magical Thinking: Inside Putin’s Russia
BY: P. J. O’Rourke via World Affairs

(Not a pretty picture. Seems like life in Russia a just another hell on earth. A ‘must read’ for us all and a stark reminder of what we’re dealing with.-LS)
Nothing Is True and Everything Is Possible: The Surreal Heart of the New Russia
Peter Pomerantsev (New York: Public Affairs, 2014)
Peter Pomerantsev has written the most bitter indictment of a nation’s politics and society going wrong since William Shirer’s 1941 Berlin Diary. Pomerantsev has also written a calm and incisive report on the current state of affairs in Russia. Yet it reads like a comedy of manners, a dark and grotesque comedy of manners, a State Department white paper co-authored by Evelyn Waugh and Franz Kafka. And not only that, but Nothing Is True is a bildungsroman, too.
Peter Pomerantsev | essay
Pomerantsev was born in the Soviet Union, though barely. His parents emigrated to England in 1978, when he was ten months old. He speaks Russian. He thought he was Russian. After college he went to Russia. And he spent nine years there discovering that, on points of honor and decency, he’s an English gentleman after all.
Pomerantsev becomes a reality TV producer in a place where, as his title and subtitle indicate, there isn’t any reality. Or, at least, everyone wishes there weren’t.
Soviet stagnation led to perestroika, which led to the collapse of the Soviet Union, liberal euphoria, economic disaster, oligarchy, and the mafia state. How can you believe in anything when everything around you is changing so fast?
Pomerantsev, however, is all too believable in the bad news he brings us from Russia. His reporter’s straightforward and unlimited curiosity, his willingness to plow and harrow the widest fields for facts, and his exacting descriptive details give him credibility. Plus, what he tells us is so incredible. As reporters say, “You just can’t make these things up.”
In Russia, “corrupt” is not an adjective. Corrupt is a noun, a proper noun, the word for the name and nature of the place.
Corrupt crony capitalism is familiar everywhere. But in Russia the corruption is so pervasive that even the cronies have to pay bribes, not just to the higher-ups but to the lower-downs.
Pomerantsev visits a TV studio owned by Kremlin-connected moguls. It’s in a shabby warehouse on the wrong side of town. There’s no sign or address on the metal door. Inside is a dirty little room with a drunk guard.
Pomerantsev goes down a dark corridor and up two flights of dingy stairs to another unmarked metal door. Behind that is a modern, well-lit, busy Western-style production facility. But there’s an inconspicuous door here as well, with a secret code pad. And behind thatis a more modern, better-lit, even busier production facility with an even less conspicuous door with an even more secret code leading to the real offices of the moguls, where the real business accounts are kept.
All this is to foil the tax police. Who come anyway. One of the moguls tells Pomerantsev that “the tax police were much happier taking bribes than going to the trouble of stealing money that had been paid in the orthodox fashion.”
Pomerantsev tells the story of Yana Yakovleva, a businesswoman who imported chemicals to make cleaning supplies. She spent seven months in prison because chemicals to make cleaning supplies were suddenly declared “an illegal narcotic substance.”
Usually this kind of abrupt, arbitrary arrest has to do with competitors bribing legislators in order to abscond with someone’s business. Usually the solution is to bribe judges.
But Yana had gotten tangled in the Kremlin machinations of political figures so crooked that they can’t get a bribe straight.
Viktor Cherkesov, head of the FDCS, the Federal Drug Control Service, was attempting to take over Russia’s chemical industry as part of his power struggle with Nikolai Patrushev, head of the FSB, the Federal Security Service, successor agency to the KGB. Vladimir Putin encouraged Cherkesov. Vladimir Putin encouraged Patrushev.
The FDSC uncovered FSB corruption in Chinese customs duty rake-offs. The FSB uncovered FDSC corruption in chemical company seizures. The FDCS arrested FSB generals on the Chinese border. The FSB arrested FDCS generals at Moscow’s Domodedovo airport.
And Yana doesn’t get out of jail until Cherkesov and Patrushev have destroyed each other and Putin is rid of both potential rivals.
It’s an interesting moral atmosphere in Russia.
In Russia, small town girls go to the big city and get ruined, but that’s what they’re trying to do. Really trying. They go to school for it.
The students take notes in neat writing. They have paid a thousand dollars for each week of the course. There are dozens of such “academies” in Moscow and St. Petersburg, with names such as “Geisha School” or “How To Be a Real Woman.”
If a girl with potential studies hard, “she earns the basic Moscow mistress rate: the apartment, $4,000 a month, a car, and a weeklong holiday in Turkey or Egypt twice a year.”
In return, she’s available to her “sponsor,” as he’s called, any time, any day.
Nice girls, of course, don’t do this. They go to the big city and become supermodels. Like Ruslana did. She was an ethnic Russian from Almaty, Kazakhstan. Ruslana was “discovered” at sixteen, world-famous at nineteen, and two days before her twenty-first birthday she jumped off a roof in New York. Pomerantsev gives us (although, in a way, he almost doesn’t need to) the heart-breaking particulars in between.
Pomerantsev himself is not immune to the corruption.
I phoned TNT, excited. [TNT is the Russian television network for which Pomerantsev is working.] It was the story that had everything. There would be supermodels, suicide, and parties . . . Glamour and tragedy. It was the easiest commission I ever had. I was even given a larger advance than usual . . .
“But don’t make it too dark,” TNT said, “Remember we need positive stories.”
Pomerantsev gets a Russian drivers license. “I would never pass . . . if I didn’t pay the bribe (this month $500, but about to jump to $1,000 if I didn’t hurry).” He scores eighteen out of twenty on his written test, enough to pass. Then realizes all the other license applicants had also scored eighteen out of twenty. “Everyone in the room had paid for the right result.”
He takes his road test in an instructor’s car with two sets of controls. Pomerantsev does not, in fact, know how to drive. “I couldn’t get the pedals right and kept on stalling. The traffic cop smiled . . . ‘Put your hands on the wheel and pretend to drive.’”
The corruption doesn’t poison the state, it feeds it. Pomerantsev recounts the ordeals of dodging the draft in Russia. And it must be dodged.
Where he will be sent depends on the bribe the soldier pays. Some will go to Chechnya, to Ossetia, to the death zones . . . But if you pay in time, you’ll avoid those. What no one will be safe from is hazing . . . dozens of conscripts are killed every year, hundreds commit suicide, and thousands are abused. (Those are just the official statistics.)
There’s the “most desperate and most expensive remedy: the bribe to the military command.” Or a week every year pretending to be sick or injured. “Annually the hospitals fill up with pimply youths simulating illness.” But you have to pick the right disease or disability “because the ailments that can get you off change all the time.” Alternatively, you can stay in college until you’re too old for the draft. “Russian males take on endless master’s degree programs until their late twenties.” Not a good student? There are schools for that as well as for mistresses. “Dozens of new universities that have opened . . . to service the need to avoid the draft.” You can even spend a month in a psychiatric clinic. “But you will also have a certificate of mental illness hanging over you for the rest of your career.”
But all these options are only available for those with money and connections. For the others, for the poorer ones, it’s hide and seek . . . And every time you go into a the subway, every time you cross a main road, any time you leave your little yard, life becomes full of trepidation.
This is the genius of the system: even if you manage to avoid the draft, you . . . become part of the network of bribes and fears and simulations; you learn to become an actor playing out his different roles in his relationship to the state . . . and that’s fine for the system: as long as you’re a simulator you will never do anything real, you will always look for your compromise with the state, which in turn makes you feel just the right amount of discomfort.
Thus a state that is calculated to make its citizens crazy. And Pomerantsev is clear about the calculation.
He presents the case of Vladislav Surkov. He has been deputy head of the presidential administration, deputy prime minister, and assistant to the president on foreign affairs. He is known as the “Kremlin demiurge” and the “political technologist of all of Rus.”
Surkov dresses in jeans and a leather jacket. “He is an aesthete who pens essays on modern art, an aficionado of gangsta rap who keeps a photo of Tupac on his desk next to that of the president.”
One moment Surkov would fund civic forums and human rights NGOs, the next he would quietly support nationalist movements that accuse the NGOs of being tools of the West. With a flourish he sponsored lavish arts festivals for the most provocative modern artists in Moscow, then supported Orthodox fundamentalists . . . who in turn attacked the modern art exhibitions.
Surkov also seems to be the author of an anonymous novel Almost Zero. He as much as admits he is in a preface he wrote for the book, calling the work “a satire of contemporary Russia whose hero, Egor, is a corrupt PR man.”
Pomerantsev says, “‘Everything is PR’ has become the favorite phrase of the new Russia.”
Among that everything is PR used to promote cults. “As the Soviet Union sank,” says Pomerantsev, “so sects had bubbled to the surface. Indeed it was the Kremlin that had given them an impetus.”
This was in 1989, when a hypnotherapist named Anatoly Kashpirovsky, “with 1970s porn star looks,” appeared on a Kremlin-controlled TV network and intoned to viewers, “Close your eyes. You can cure cancer or alcoholism or any ailment with the power of thought.” Millions attempted to do so.
A former postman named Vissarion is convinced he’s Christ and has a colony called “The Abode of Dawn City” on the Mongolian border inhabited by “minor bohemians, actors, rock musicians, painters.”
“The Golden Way” guru Boris Zolotov conducts “experiments in which his followers would penetrate to the new level of conscious: sweating orgies where the old, ugly, young, and beautiful rub and kiss and caress each other in a communal bliss.”
The Night Wolves are a motorcycle gang with five thousand members devoted to religious patriotism who ride “through Moscow on Harleys with icons of Mary the Mother of God and Stalin.”
Poor Ruslana the supermodel was involved in something called “The Rose of the World” run by “life trainers” who lock crowds of people who don’t have a life in a room and train them to pronounce “inner monologues.”
“Who remembers that girl Ruslana?” says the life trainer. “The model who killed herself? Jumped from a skyscraper. I knew her well. Her ‘inner monologue’ was ‘suicide.’”
Insanity pervades the culture.
There is a spate of prime-time documentaries [featuring] secret service men who inform the audience about the psychic weapons they have developed. The Russian military has “sleepers,” psychics who can go into a trance and . . . penetrate the minds of foreign statesmen . . . One has entered the mind of the US president . . .
Well, now that I think about it . . .
Anyway, this brings us to the frightening question posed by Pomerantsev’s book, a question he only implicitly asks.
What do we do about a gigantic, depraved, immoral, lunatic country armed with nuclear warheads?
We may not have to do much is the fortunate answer.
The Russians are crazy but they aren’t stupid. This is a country where chess is a spectator sport. The Russians aren’t going to make a Queen Pawn opening with their nukes that traps the queen’s bishop behind the knight. Or, to put it in American terms, they aren’t going to throw a Hail Mary on fourth-and-impossible from their own five-yard line.
Russia is a demographic disaster. Nicholas Eberstadt, who holds the Henry Wendt Chair in Political Economy at the American Enterprise Institute, has been studying Russia for decades. His research indicates that that the birth rate per Russian woman is twenty percent below replacement level.
In the first ten years after the collapse of the USSR, Russian population fell by about six and a half million. It is rebounding slightly now but only because of high birth rates in Muslim ethnic regions like Chechnya and Dagestan and immigration from former Soviet republics in Central Asia. These are not places Russia wants its Russians to come from.
Russia’s mortality rate is horrific. According 2012 World Health Organization statistics, a fifteen-year-old Russian male has a life expectancy that’s three years less than a fifteen-year-old Haitian boy’s.
The life expectancy of a fifteen-year old Russian female is sixty-one, three years less than in Cambodia.
Russians die from cardiovascular disease and from accidents, murder, and suicide. They smoke, they drink, they despair.
Russia’s great wealth is based on extraction of oil and gas. Even so, the value of Russia’s exports in 2013 barely exceeded Belgium’s. And energy prices are falling.
The likelihood of the economy being transformed from extractive to knowledge-based is slim in a country rife with slogans like “How can you believe in anything?” and “Everything is PR.”
“Long-term economic progress,” says Eberstadt, “depends on improving productivity through new knowledge . . . Patent awards and application provide a crude but telling picture . . . Consider applications under the Patent Cooperation Treaty . . . Russia comes in No. 21—after Austria—racking up less that 0.6 percent of the world’s total. The population of Russia is more than fifteen times that of Austria. Russia’s ‘yield’ of patents per university graduate is vastly lower than Austria’s—thirty-five times lower. By this particular metric Russia is only fractionally better placed than Gabon.”
So what we need to do is this. Start with a little bit of George Kennan’s Containment Policy. Leaven that with a large dose of Reagan Doctrine, arming the dickens out of Ukraine, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and any other sane polity feeling pressure from the Evil Post-Empire. Mix these with the black humor of Peter Pomerantsev’s Nothing Is True and Everything Is Possible. And sit back and watch the Putin regime rot.
P. J. O’Rourke is the author of fifteen books including, most recently, The Baby Boom: How It Got That Way . . . And It Wasn’t My Fault . . . And I’ll Never Do It Again.




Recent Comments