Russia will never ‘submit’ to U.S.


The Globalist

Will Americans ever feel the pain — of other nations? We Americans tend to see ourselves as above such sentimentality. Yet, perhaps we might make an exception for Russia. To see why, let us reflect on our responsibility for its desert wandering since 1991.

History shows how banishing a celebrated power to the wilderness can be like stripping people of their identity. Russians do not wish to return there. We Americans should not wish Russians to see us as the main agent of their exile.

National identity does not exist in isolation. Identity is all about belonging. And a nation’s standing within the larger community of nations is what belonging is all about.

For 500 years, Russia has been in an in-between space, struggling to form cultural communities of kinship and identity with others. It has longed to join such cultural communities (Western Europe) or to recreate them (Byzantine Commonwealth).

Irrespective of one’s politics and historical viewpoint, what stands out is how happily tone-deaf the West has been to the needs of Russian identity.

At the drop of a hat, circa 1948, the Soviets — so elemental in the defeat of Hitler — were at once reduced again to the Russian Bear: Vicious, clawing, unreasoning — and yet also slothful, dolorous and dirty.

The West embraced its own stage-managed Cold War with real zest, making of Russians exactly what Russia had always feared: a cartoon of evil. That served the West’s purposes well — a Russia that was conveniently distant, always appropriately threatening, yet never truly out-of-line.

We Westerners never even asked ourselves why the Soviets played by the traditional rules of diplomacy and war? The Soviets were no Islamic State group or North Korean assassins. Americans always assured themselves that this was because the Soviets were cowed by U.S. strength. But were they really?

Today’s parasite killers have no respect even for overwhelming power — so why then would the Soviet Union?

Perhaps we should consider why the Soviets wanted, even needed, to play by our rules. Might they have been trying to tell us something?

Maybe the Cold War shows our own deeper prejudice. In iconographic terms, it was an almost perfect rerun of Britain’s Crimean War fantasies, spun out frame for frame, but on America’s time, from 1950 to 1990.

Tony Richardson’s 1968 film “Charge of the Light Brigade” lays bare all the Western — and mainly, Anglo-American — prejudice against Russia.

It is almost as if the seduction of mid-Victorian cartoons, in which Russia is bear-baited for the entertainment of the 19th-century superpower Great Britain, reaches from a century past to seize American consciousness.

Objectifying Russia is a truly longstanding U.S.-U.K. joint enterprise. Our animus against Russia as the other, the alien, the stranger became a self-defeating cultural filter. Is the Russia we see today, to an appreciable extent, not the product of our prejudicial wish fulfillment and our bullying over these post-1991 decades?

Truth is, we Americans treated Russia (nee Soviet Union) like a defeated power in 1991 — as if it had been some kind of junior Third Reich righteously vanquished. It was never seen as the ally we had known so long, finally come to its senses and having seen the light.

There is a big difference between the defeated power and an ally. Americans have never fought Russians. Russia was the ally of the U.S. in its civil war with the Confederacy (unlike faithless Britain and France). American foreign policy in the 1930s leaned pro-Soviet — premier ship designers Gibbs and Cox designed super-battleships for Stalin. We were allies in the Good War against Nazism.

Can we not see now how NATO enlargement (pushed too far) was — in Russian eyes — no different from the grand sweep of historical contempt the West has shown Russian identity?

If Germany and Italy, after deep defeat, could be allowed to rediscover themselves and make their identities whole again, why not Russia? We have never let Russia — always banished to in-between realms of identity — find its own place of honor in our own halls.

If Russia seeks acknowledgment, why should we always, reflexively, deny them? Is Russia not, after all, a great civilization and a great nation? Can we not embrace them as such? It seems not.

We forget that President Vladimir Putin represents the Russian people, and our cartoonish renditions of him inevitably become the most inflammatory caricatures of them.

Four misconceptions underlie our enduring prejudice:

• Putin as “Hitler returned” — so alien and evil that there is nothing we can do but get ready for the fight to come.

Putin as a brat and bully spoiler — Russians are all criminals, natural-born racketeers everywhere they go — and Putin is just the worst.

Putin as the Pied Piper — Svengali or even more darkly, Rasputin, weaving a web to ensnare a benighted Rus, who cannot resist him.

Russians make Putin happen — they thus show themselves to all be stupid fools just as primitive and savage as we always thought.

All this is from a very old playbook:

First, we treat Russia as a defeated power — forever.

Second, we slather on triumphalism from the Crimean War to the Cold War.

Third, we harp on their “creepy” ways (meaning, Orthodox ways).

Fourth, we withhold respect until they reform their evil ways.

Yet our judgment should remind us that the U.S. and Russia have an old, co-dependent relationship. How we regard Russian identity is in many ways more important than what we do to Russia.

We have become the judges of their identity, which is all any of us have. Moreover, their identity today is fragile, desperate and aggressive. Our active prejudice is a negatively charged force multiplier. Proud nations like Russia act badly when slighted.

How do we disentangle deliberate bad behavior (their responsibility) from centuries’ accumulation of Western contempt (our responsibility)? Is Russia wholly without democratic expression?

We might remember that Soviet communism lasted a lifetime in Russia itself, while it held sway for only a couple of generations in Central Europe.

Very few Russians alive when communism ended could recall the pre-communist days (which themselves were not democratic).

By contrast, in a country such as Czechoslovakia, where communism’s duration was shorter and wedged between democratic periods, a new generation of democrats could still reach out to an older generation of democrats for guidance and inspiration. For example, Havel could call on Dubcek and claim the stainless memory of Edvard Benes.

Russia cannot rebuild such institutions; it will have to create a world wholly alien to their top-down traditions.

The U.S. government makes “rule of law” central to its promotion of ” American democratic values.” But it does so explicitly as part of a media-showcased program of political conversion (much ballyhooed in the “Orange Revolution” of 2004-2005).

The U.S. wields its color revolutions like acts of public submission. “Do the ritual” we demand, or the U.S. will simply withhold its respect — or worse.

As we can see from the color revolutions early this century, the real purpose is to generate good feeling in the American electorate and to put in pliant regimes. The democracy rhetoric is all window-dressing for political self-interest. Pushing this on the Russian Commonwealth is a high-risk proposition.

What are our actual choices?

Let’s start with this insight: Russians — Russia, Putin, it is all the same — will never submit. Americans are setting them up for failure by insisting that the only path to a better society lies through public submission to the U.S.

Americans trumpet how well this worked in Germany and Japan. But Germany managed to reanimate deep, native democratic traditions. And Japan never truly submitted, but found ways to keep the old weave of institutional identities alive.

With Russia, demanding submission to “the American way” goes too far — and is just plain wrong. It is wrong to withhold respect if disrespect means risking a war — hot or cold.

American treatment of Russia since the Cold War has been an historical mistake — and though doubtless too late now, such a course is still ours to unmake before it is too late.

Michael Vlahos is a professor at The Johns Hopkins University Advanced Academic Programs.

  • Timo Okello

    Beautiful, enlightening article i have read this year. The Americans just don’t know how to humble themselves. They’ll though when the Russians send them home….in whatever way that may be.

    • Spartain

      It wasn’t the Americans who shot people trying to cross to the Soviet side of the Berlin wall. It wasn’t Americans who killed 20 million of their own people just for challenging ideals. It wasn’t Americans who forcefully annexed the majority of Southern Europe. But it was the Americans who caused the collapse of the Soviet Union.

      • Timo Okello

        Well said. I hope they trying collapsing the Russian economy while the dedollarization continues.
        Listen, America has killed so many people since the collapse of the Berlin wall more than any country in the world. The aggressive nature of their foreign policy is maddening to say the least. Whether America is doing that from a position of strength or weakness, it is hard to tell. However, we can see how they have been fumbling and tripping all over themselves since they haven’t a clue how to deal with a relatively strong Russia….since Russia isn’t the Taliban or Saddam or Qaddafi.
        The Americans know that Russia is one country that can put them out of their misery. But they don’t want to die because there is money to make on the backs of Americans and the rest of the America’s puppet governments around the world.
        So Spartain, go figure that out and stop thinking that America is that great nation that has always been sold to us….it is a pit.

  • Stefan Bach

    About “Might they have been trying to tell us something?”:

    “Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.”
    — Jesus of Nazareth, Lord’s prayer

    “The history of early Christianity has notable points of resemblance with the modern working-class movement.
    Like the latter, Christianity was originally a movement of oppressed people: it first appeared as the religion of slaves and emancipated slaves, of poor people deprived of all rights, of peoples subjugated or dispersed by Rome.
    Both Christianity and the workers’ socialism preach forthcoming salvation from bondage and misery;
    Christianity places this salvation in a life beyond, after death, in heaven; socialism places it in THIS world, in a transformation of society.
    Both are persecuted and baited, their adherents are despised and made the objects of exclusive laws, the former as enemies of the human race, the latter as enemies of the state, enemies of religion, the family, social order. And in spite of all persecution, nay, even spurred on by it, they forge victoriously, irresistibly ahead.”
    — Friedrich Engels, On the History of Early Christianity, 1894

    “Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world.

    Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.”
    — Karl Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, 1844

    “We have used the Bible as if it were a mere special constable’s hand book, an opium dose for keeping beasts of burden patient while they were being overloaded, a mere book to keep the poor in order.”
    — Charles Kingsley, Letters to the Chartists, 1848

    “We have failed to take up the cause of the poor and unprivileged as a Christian cause, in accordance with the message of God’s Kingdom.

    We have betrayed the Christian freedom which enables us and commands us to change the forms of life, when such change is necassary for men to live together.
    We have denied the right of revolution; but we have condoned and approved the development of absolute dictatorship.

    We went astray when we failed to see, that the economic materialism of Marxist teaching ought to have reminded the Church of its task and its promise for the life and fellowship of men.”
    — Statement by the Council of Brethren of the Evangelical Church of Germany Concerning the Political Course of our People, 1947

    • Pravda01

      Spare us with this Christian insanity! Christianity, Islam are all founded in Judaism – which is a sick violent insane ideology.

    • Stefan Bach

      @ Pravda01

      Even if your comment is already gone, i want to respond.
      In general, i can understand your criticism, but if you really don’t like the topic then simply don’t read it.
      I only wanted to point out that socialism has much more with Jesus of Nazareth in common than it is expected by many.

      Of course, socialism actually is not a religion, but a socio-economic theory of correcting social ills of the socio-economic system of capitalism.
      However, the major argument against socialism was of religious nature. Since ages the political institution in form of the Roman Catholic Church uses religion for the achievement of political power. It is also a basic principle of this institution to prevent any progress of others and therefore also socialism.
      (For example: the (Nazi-)Crusade against the “godless” Soviet Union in the 2nd WW or the anti-communism campaign of the 50s in the US called McCarthyism (J.R. McCarthy, Jesuit University Marquette) to spread fears and made false allegations about communists, regardless of the true facts –> “Cold War”)

      The history of the Roman Catholic Church shows the cause of their behaviour:
      The ROMAN EMPIRE was REIGNED BY AN IMPERIAL CULT (Roman State Religion) which was REGULATED BY A POLITICAL INSTITUTION (Roman State Church) which in turn was RULED BY AN AUTOKRATOR / DICTATOR (Roman emperor).

      Within the Roman empire the Roman State Church was the administrative institution which (command-and-control)
      regulated the Roman State Religion (Imperial cult). The purpose of the Imperial cult was to legitimize the claims of the sovereignty of the Roman emperor by a divine justification.
      The previous non-Christian Imperial cults were all insufficient and not able to ensure the rule and the unity of their Empire. So the Roman emperors took elements of a Jewish sect known as Christians and transfered them into their Imperial cult -> Result: Roman (Church-) Christianity -> instead of the claim of to be a “personification of God” was now the claim to be a ruler by “the Grace of God” – a religious political doctrine of political legitimacy.

      In the 5th century AC, the Roman Empire broke down, but not the administrative structure in the form of the Roman
      State Church –> Roman Catholic Church
      So also their strategies remained the same:
      1. Using religion to achieve political goals
      2. Systematically undermining the character and mindset of the people and to poison them

      This aggressive behaviour has nothing to do with Judaism at all. Judaism belongs only to the children of Israel and do not have any missionary outreaches toward non-Jews.
      The Jew named Jesus of Nazareth himself said that he was sent only to the children of Israel (“I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”) and he also did not directed his message towards non-Jews. Only after he was gone it was started to involve non-jews and to direct the message also to them.
      Anyway, the message of Jesus of Nazareth became so much distorted by the political institution that a lot of the true meaning is unrecognizable and everything full of confusions. Also the Reformation was not able to sufficiently resolve the distortions. This was also the reason why it was deceided to try to solve the existing and fundamental problems beyond the (Roman State) Church frame, because a reformation to correct the errors of the Roman State Church is not possible, because the Roman State Church is the error.

      Very helpful is the Quran which gives a general clarification and thus also a better understanding of Jesus of Nazareth.

      “There shall be NO COMPULSION in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error. Whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah has held the most trustworthy hand-hold that never breaks. And Allah is All Hearing, All Knowing.”
      — al-Quran al-Kareem, Surah al-Baqara Aya 256

      This is a prohibition on using violence in matters of faith, as well as the finding that such compulsion would be an inadequate attempt.

      “Allah misguides whoever He wills and guides whoever He wills. So do not let yourself waste away out of regret for them. Allah knows what they do.”
      — al-Quran al-Kareem, Surah Fatir Aya 8 (35:8)

      Faith is a matter of personal conviction, and does not depend on worldly motives. There is no need to persecute or abuse anyone for his faith or belief.

      “Say: O you people who reject Faith!
      I do not worship what you worship and you do not worship what I worship.
      Nor will I worship what you worship nor will you worship what I worship.
      To you be your Way, and to me mine.”
      — al-Quran al-Kareem, Surah al-Kafirun

      Generally, blessed is the one who is righteous and
      doing good deeds.

      “Allah commands justice and doing good and giving to relatives. And He forbids immorality, wickedness and oppression. He warns you so that hopefully you will take heed.”
      — al-Quran al-Kareem, Surah an-Nahl Aya 90

  • iowahoya

    While certainly the United States bears a share of responsibility for East-West, US-Russia tensions, the author actively underplays both Russian belligerence and Western diplomatic optimism (e.g. Restart policy). It may be arrogant to expect Russia to strictly follow the US line, but its entirely reasonable to expect Russia not to unilaterally invade Georgia and Ukraine.

    • Lion 3

      Russian belligerance? did you understand the article? and I fail to see where your georgia and ukraine examples fit in here.are you then going to say the USA fighting unprovoked wars in southern and north africa, the middle east and south america was all because of russia?If you think the US is such a darling nation of rule of law and respect for national sovereignty may be you need to find out more from Africa, south america etc. I am sure you know what the US has been doing in the middle east for the past 50 years. and their diabolical targeting of sovereign Cuba.

      are you aware that as the US condemns russian annexation of crimea over a “flawed referendum”, it is refusing to let the islanders of diego garcia (indian ocean) return to their stolen homeland and they have now lived as refugees in mauritius for 50 years and counting?

      • iowahoya

        Woah slow down there speed racer. If you reread my statement, you’ll notice that despite several attempts by you to put words into my mouth I said nothing to suggest the infallibility of the United States. I only said that the author ignores attempts at engagement by the US and white washes the belligerence of Russia.

      • Lion 3

        above all else, the US bears the largest responsibility for the chaos in Ukraine.they forment trouble abroad in order to take the controlling seat. i why is it they took60 years to recognise Cuba’s right to choose friends but cant undestand why Russia feels the same way about Ukraine (as a bordering country)?
        The fact that they cant even contemplate a third way shows their own intransigence. Ukraine could have been persuaded to stay neutral with UN guarantees from both sides and allowed free trade with europe/the EU. but no, the US wants to poke the Russians. so anything short of nATO membership is inadequate for them!
        and BTW, what happened to the air and sea games in the south china sea meant to deter China from contested lands with japan, the phillipines and taiwan? they have suddenly disappeared. methinks they were appearing because under uncle SAM the three countries were taking orders to provoke china hence bring Uncle Sam into the picture to show who is boss. now there is a problem with an old fore who could easily fall into a deadly alliance with china, the disputes have suddenly disappeared!

      • Spartain

        Can you prove your accusations that the United States is responsible for the “chaos in Ukraine”? Do you think Russia’s arming of Ukrainian rebels has done nothing to worsen the situation? What about Russia flying Nuclear capable aircraft into and around N.A.T.O airspace?

      • iowahoya

        Again… The arguments you are making are not in response to the position I took. As such, I see no point in condoning such directionless pseudo-intellectual masturbation, especially with a person who goes into argumentative heat at the drop of a hat.

  • Pravda01

    Japan is soooo grateful for the US war crimes committed in Hiroshima/Nagasaki!

    …or may be not?

    • Spartain

      “War Crimes” (Please specify and cite Sources)

      If you are referring to the use of Nuclear Weapons, they did not violate any conventions or agreements prior to that point.
      If you are referring to the civilian casualties as a result of the Nuclear Weapons, civilian casualties are an unavoidable consequence of war. (not to mention what the Japanese did at Nanking or Pearl Harbor).

      • Stefan Bach

        Sir, you need to get the facts straight.

        Hiroshima just played a minor supply and logistic role for the Japanese military. At the time of the attack, the population was approximately 340,000–350,000. The blast directly killed estimated 80,000 people. By the end of the year, injury and radiation brought total casualties about 150,000 people (of which were just 12,000 soldiers).

        A survivor described the damage to people:
        “The appearance of people was… well, they all had skin blackened by burns… They had no hair because their hair was burned, and at a glance you couldn’t tell whether you were looking at them from in front or in back…
        They held their arms bent [forward] like this… and their skin – not only on their hands, but on their faces and bodies too – hung down… If there had been only one or two such people… perhaps I would not have had such a strong impression. But wherever I walked I met these people… Many of them died along the road – I can still picture them in my mind — like walking ghosts…”

        On the day of the bombing, an estimated 263,000 people were in Nagasaki (of which only 9,000 Japanese soldiers). The blast killed 80,000 people (just 150 of them were soldiers).

        Nijū hibakusha Tsutomu Yamaguchi (March 16, 1916 – January 4, 2010) survived the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombings.
        He was confirmed to be 3 km (1.9 mi) from ground zero in Hiroshima on a business trip when Little Boy was detonated. He was seriously burnt on his left side and
        spent the night in Hiroshima. He arrived at his home city of Nagasaki on August 8, the day before Fat Man was dropped, and he was exposed to residual radiation while searching for his relatives. He was the first officially recognized survivor of both bombings.

        USA planned to drop more nuclear bombs on Japan. US-Army General L.R. Groves
        expected to have another nuclear bomb ready for use on August 19, with three more in September and a further three in

        Americans regarded the Japanese as “a nameless mass of vermin”. 13% of U.S. public were in favor of “killing off” all Japanese: men, women, and children. 23% of Americans were wishing that more nuclear bombs could have been dropped on Japan.

        “The aerial bombardment with atomic bombs of the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an illegal act of hostilities according to the rules of international law.” The Tokyo District Court

        General Dwight Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in
        Europe said about the use of nuclear bombs: “… it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”

        “It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan.”
        — Fleet Admiral William Daniel Leahy, U.S. Navy

        Strong critics of the U.S. American nuclear bomb madness were Albert Einstein, Eugene Wigner and Leo Szilard.
        “Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had
        developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had
        dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?”
        — Leo Szilard, nuclear physicist and inventor


        The nuclear weapons of mass destruction were used on CIVILIAN targets without a military relevance and there was absolutely no necessity of this inhuman action. Yes, THE NUCLEAR BOMBINGS OF HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI WERE A WAR CRIME AND A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY.
        (Constitution of the International Military Tribunal, II. Jurisdiction and general principles, Article 6:
        (b) War crimes: … wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;
        (c) Crimes against humanity: … inhumane acts committed against any civilian population;)

        If someone want to argument with the „Attack on Pearl Harbor“, he should consider that these Japanese military strike was against a MILITARY naval base at Pearl Harbor and not a civilian facility.

        While Hiroshima did have a military base in the city, it was not the base that was targeted, but the center of the city. The vast majority of the victims in Hiroshima were civilians, including large numbers of women and children.
        Nagasaki had no military units at all and in total, over 95 per cent of the combined casualties of the two cities were civilian.

        There is no justification of such a war crime against humanity.

        ”As American Christians, we are deeply penitent for the irresponsible use already made of the atomic bomb. We are agreed that, whatever be one’s judgment of the war in principle, the surprise bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are morally indefensible.”
        — The American Federal Council of Churches‘ Report on Atomic Warfare and the Christian Faith, 1946

        In being the first country to use nuclear weapons against civilian populations, the United States was then in direct violation of internationally accepted principles of war.

      • Spartain

        The justification lies in the extreme numbers of casualties that would directly result from an invasion of Japan. Some numbers quote over half a million U.S. Marines would die with countless Japanese civilians and military personnel to follow.

        Not to mention the Japanese violations of international law during the Nanking Massacre, withdrew any protection international law could offer them.That’s the way war crime laws work, if you violate them they cannot offer you any protection when you are under attack.

        But wait, The United States warned the Japanese Emperor about the bombs BEFORE they were used, allowing him to surrender and save the lives of his people. He was even offered another chance after the first bomb fell, but still he refused.

        Ironically, the Nuclear weapons saved countless lives in Japan and then the rest of the world during the cold war. (if it wasn’t for mutually assured destruction things would have gotten bloody).

      • Stefan Bach

        Get a heart, man. There is absolutely no justification for killing innocents. If you can’t understand this simple moral truth, then you are a potential threat to humankind.

        “You shall not kill any person – for Allah has made life sacred – except with the right to do so (in defence or retaliation).

        If one is killed unjustly, then we give his heir authority to enforce
        justice. Thus, he shall not exceed the limits in avenging the murder; he
        will be helped.”
        — al-Quran al-Kareem, Surah al-Isra Aya 33

        “On that account, We decreed to the Children of Israel the Eternal Moral Ordinance that if someone kills another person – unless it is in the course of justice for murder or for causing corruption
        in the earth – it is as if he had murdered all mankind. And if anyone
        gives life to another person, it is as if he had given life to all
        — al-Quran al-Kareem, Surah al-Ma’ida Aya 32

      • Spartain

        Firstly, no one is innocent in a war. Every “civilian” living in a nation at war will attribute something to it’s war effort. It may not be lethal aid, but it will all it’s nation’s soldiers to keep killing.
        Secondly, Everyone is a threat to humanity, it’s what makes us human.
        Lastly, I do not accept the Koran as a source of moral or spiritual authority. Please use empirical evidence, or I will resort to arguing Jihad.

      • Stefan Bach

        “… Administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and al-Qa’ida as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11.
        Sadly, the Bush Administration led the nation into war under false pretenses.”
        — Intelligence Committee (SSCI)

        Former US President G W. Bush and seven of his administration’s top officials, made at least 935 false statements about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

        As you can see, there was no real reason to wage war against Iraq and its people. The people were not supporting any killings at this time and there was also no killing planned by Iraq.
        Conclusion: The killed Iraqi people were innocents murdered by US forces.

        Another point:
        The strategy of al-Qaida
        1. Provoke the United States and the West into invading a Muslim country by staging a massive attack or string of attacks on US soil that results in massive civilian casualties.
        2. Incite local resistance to occupying forces.
        3. Expand the conflict to neighboring countries, and engage the US and its allies in a long war of attrition.

        Within the Islamic world the intolerant and violent extremists become massive strengthened by the attacks of the Werstern world. The traditional and moderate majority of Muslims is increasingly beset by wars and extremists, and this leads to a general militarization of Muslims. It seems as if the strategy of al-Qaida would be successful.

        A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

        Only a fool pays no heed to wise words.

        “Permission to fight is given to those who are attacked, because they have suffered injustice, Allah indeed has the power to help them.”
        — al-Quran al-Kareem, Surah al-Hajj Ayah 39

        “Fight in the Way of Allah against those who attack you, but commit no aggression. Surely, Allah does not love the aggressors.”
        — al-Quran al-Kareem, Surah al-Baqara Ayah 190

        — The United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Senate Intelligence Committee Unveils Final Phase II Reports on Prewar Iraq Intelligence. June 5, 2008.
        — The Center for Public Integrity. Iraq: The War Card – False pretenses. January 23, 2008.

      • yulia okost

        in spite even american historians concluded that atomic weapons were not needed to end the war or save lives, US revisionists refuse to writing in textbook. so you dont know the truth. american war crimes in vietnam, korea, afghan, iraq, yemen etc everything have something to do with Nanking? how can you justify all the crimes US committed? if americans could regret HiroshimaNagasaki, possibly they didn’t repeat the same mistakes. and now she is repeating against Russia. sanctions are an act of war.

  • Spartain

    Let’s not forget the first law God made was to make a plant illegal to consume….

    • Stefan Bach

      Rabbi Meir Baal HaNes says that the Tree of Knowledge was a grapevine —”for nothing causes more heartbreak than wine …”

      BTW: If you want to quote something of the scriptures of the Israelites, then please ask a Jew about the meaning of it, because so many non-Jews used these scriptures and have interpreted them so terribly wrong. Cheeses Chrisis.

  • The West is doing the same thing with China. It is disgusting. Thanks for this deeply moving article about Russia’s cross, Michael Vlahos.

  • Ignatz deFyre

    The author, as well as some commenters, should read history, as far back as The Grand Duchy of Moscow. As adjacent peoples will attest, Russia has never been a trustworthy neighbor. Russia’s history is rife with brutality. In times of absence of external threat Russians fought among themselves, and united only during existential threats. If Russia has no “traditions” to fall back on, it’s entirely their own fault as successive regimes murdered their own people. As Stalin predicted, few remember the genocide of the Boyars by Ivan Grozny. How about the Circassian genocide? Decossackization? Holodomor? Chechnyan (1907), Lithuanian, Latvian, Estonian deportations? It’s a long and brutal list. Read Gulag Archipelago.

    Had Hitler not invaded Russia, Stalin was second in line to divvy up the spoils. As an “ally” in WW2, the Russians marched dishonorably over Poland with no less of an “entitlement complex” than Hitler, as if it was theirs, and guess what, that’s exactly what was allowed to happen.