Showing posts with label United States. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United States. Show all posts

Hybrid Warfare & Conflict - Engineering Geo-Political Power, And Spheres Of Influence.


    The lack of centralized decision-making in Europe has been shown in a harsh light. 

    Putin, like Machiavelli, may believe that it is preferable to be feared than than liked. Putin can undoubtedly brag about his rise in power. 

    • He has put Americans and Europeans on the defensive, sparked a flurry of high-level talks, and even gotten a written response to his ideas from the US and NATO (proposals which he must have known to be totally unrealistic if not impossible). 
    • Nobody doubts, if anybody ever did, that Russia is still a major force. That much has been shown by its current set of actions in Ukraine. 
    • Respect for Russia, which seems to be a strategic goal in and of itself, is another matter. It's simple to instill fear, but respect must be earned. 

    Differences in ideas between EU Member States create a hole in the absence of EU integration in diplomacy and defense, rather than forging a nuanced but forceful unified perspective. 

    • However, a history of internecine fighting should have taught Europeans one thing: exaggerating the significance of status does not alter the circumstances on the ground. As a result, there's no reason to bemoan his triumph. 

    The United States must fill that power vaccum, with which everyone rallies in the face of Russian sabre-rattling. 

    We have to be concerned about the demise of the European security architecture as we know it.


    One may threaten Ukraine with a hundred thousand soldiers, but one cannot conquer a Unified Europe. 

    On a GDP the size of Belgium and the Netherlands combined ($1.483 trillion against $1.434 trillion in 2020), one does not begin a great power war against the EU and the US. 

    • Putin may be able to put the future of Europe's security architecture on the table, but he does not have the authority to reverse it. 
    • That can only be done by European leaders who are foolish enough to pull their own nation out of the EU or cynical enough to destroy democracy and the rule of law. 
    • They endanger Europe by fracturing the Union and playing straight into the hands of other forces (sometimes even voluntarily). 

    Natural resource dependency has both positive and negative consequences. 

    Both Moscow and Brussels may threaten each other with economic penalties as a deterrent. 

    • However, sanctions can only be employed once, after which nothing will happen save that both parties would suffer economic consequences, since neither party is likely to submit to penalties and modify its policy. 
    • Economic penalties may signify displeasure and serve as punishment if that is the goal, but they will not alter the reality on the ground, just as a gain of face will not change the circumstances on the ground. 

    Russia will have to negotiate if it wants to create an acceptable and sustainable change to the security arrangements on the European continent. 

    • Negotiations take longer than Russian forces can stay focused on their current action in Ukraine without losing their advantage. 
    • Further unilateral escalation by Putin's Russia will result in a prolonged destabilization of global security and peace that must be dealt with to avert a potential Humanitarian disaster.
    • And, in order to have a chance of meaningful progress, both parties must be ready to make compromises, failing which a military resolution will result in a test of Russia's present invasive  posturing and actions in Europe.

    If Putin was sincere and capable of honoring his public statements, Europeans and Americans would have had to negotiate, as they have said they are prepared to. 

    Because restoring the weapons control and confidence-building framework that has lapsed in recent years would be very beneficial overall to Europe's security. 

    Given Ukraine borders with EU/NATO member states, Any negotiations on the European Security Architecture must, without a doubt, involve all Europeans. 

    Present Russian military mobilization, offenses,  and actions against Ukraine, its invasive occupation, and entry into eastern regions is thus tantamount to an act of war against Europe.

    Only the supranational EU can be Europe's political center of gravity. 

    • Back in 2014, the EU made the strategic choice to give Ukraine a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (DCFTA), to which Russia retaliated by invading the country. 
    • All of the rest, such as NATO deterrence, Normandy negotiations, and EU sanctions, stemmed from the initial decision taken by Europeans via the EU. 
    • Rather than introducing multiple forms, the EU must insist on a core trilateral arrangement if any peace is plausible, with the US and Russia, as a prerequisite for substantive discussions to begin. 
    • Refusing to do so would be siding with Putin, who has made a habit of minimizing the EU in order to undermine European unity. 

    However, it is improbable that sufficient mutual confidence can be developed to reach an agreement on the wider concerns given the unilateral violation of Ukraine's territorial integrity and its political borders. 

    Russia continues to engage in near-constant hybrid measures against Europe and the United States. 



    Can Putin back out now that the least of the risk events has occurred, and the stakes have been increased dangerously high, with no sustainable success in Ukraine to enhance his power other than a minor pro-Russian separatist victory? 

    All of  Ukraine, in its entirety, in its resilience, in truth, is a continuing defeat for Putin. 

    • He drove a divided nation into Western orbit by invading in 2014. 
    • He conquered Crimea but failed to achieve Russia's second goal of forming a sphere of influence throughout the former Soviet Union, despite its great power status (minus the Baltic states). 
    • He will not be able to reclaim Ukraine without launching a full-scale assault. 
    • But it seems to be the least probable scenario: the Ukrainian armed forces will fight with a Western backbone this time, and Putin will not want to lose some of his finest men in a stalemate. 

    It is thus very important for the EU and the US to ensure that Ukraine has the necessary weapons, equipment, and ammunition to fight. 

    • Furthermore, assuming that Russia does not want to blow Ukraine to the ground, it cannot wield its military superiority indefinitely. 
    • An invasion would, in any case, result in military occupation, similar to the annexation of the Baltic nations in 1940. The desire to sovereignty reasserts itself when the occupation is gone, as history has shown. 

    As a result, Russia's insistence that Ukraine not join NATO is damage control. 

    • It also falls within a centuries-old policy of capturing land or establishing buffer zones along Russia's western frontiers to reduce the country's susceptibility to invasion in the absence of natural barriers. 
    • If imposing neutrality on Ukraine is all it takes for Putin to finally acknowledge that it will not be part of any Russian sphere of influence, the West perhaps could have afforded to make the compromise prior to Russia's military actions. 
    • The decision by NATO in 2008 to allow Ukraine and Georgia to join but without a deadline was a poor compromise between an aggressive Bush administration and hesitant Europeans, and the latter are still largely opposed. 

    Neutrality may be seen as another face-saving move by Putin, but such 19th-century sensibilities should not guide European policymakers today. 

    Furthermore, NATO expansion is not a goal in and of itself: new members should be welcomed only when our security requires it; nations that would bring more expenses than advantages and for which we are unwilling to go to war in any case should not be requested. 

    Neutrality cannot be a unilateral compromise. Such an unrealistic expectation is a trigger and provocation for a larger widespread conflict that will be without bounds.

    • Other than dispersing its forces, Russia has failed to make a genuine surrender, since they may be concentrated again on a whim. 
    • Moscow has failed to stop supporting armed separatists in the Donbass and allow Ukraine's government in Kiev to reclaim control of the country's whole continental territory. 
    • That is true, but it says nothing about the Crimea along with the Donbass, which is the price Ukraine is having to pay. 

    That would not be fair, because, in the words of Bismarck, 

    "we are not operating a judiciary, we are establishing policy." 

    Putin, on the other hand, may be unwilling to make this compromise. 

    Furthermore, if he is unable to reclaim Ukraine, he may decide that he does not want it to function. 

    He will not want to see a well-functioning democratic Ukraine begin to exert any kind of appeal on his own populace, therefore this is a serious danger. 

    (And neutrality would have no bearing on the DCFTA.) 

    Russia may thus conclude that, despite its limited resources, it can get more out of a stable but (in its eyes) unsatisfactory deal by triggering another escalation when it sees fit, rather than a stable but (in its eyes) unsatisfactory deal, even if instability comes at the cost of additional sanctions. 

    Sanctions along with Hybrid War Operations must be activated and  implemented, notwithstanding the fact that sanctions are unlikely to compel Russia to recede beyond its dictates and  unpredictable volatile leadership. 

    • Putin may yet choose to restrict to a military effort, such as seizing the land bridge between Donbass and Crimea. 
    • Russia would suffer fatalities, but it would establish a permanent Russian military presence in the Donbass as a fait accompli. 
    • Another possibility is a repeat of the cyber-attack on 14 January. Both of these situations might result in extra severe retaliations. 
    • The standoff would persist in all three scenarios, and perpetual instability would rule, leaving little hope for effective discussions on the larger security architecture. 

    The Desperate and Blind Pursuit Of Obsolete Spheres Of Influence In an Increasingly Connected Globe. 


    •  In mid-January 2022, when the West was focused on Ukraine, In Kazakhstan, Russia interfered immediately and effectively. 
    • Some 2000 Russian forces, operating under the auspices of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) and at the request of President Tokayev, assisted him in maintaining his grasp on power. 
    • In November 2020, Russia dispatched 2000 soldiers as peacekeepers at the request of another CSTO member, Armenia, after brokering a cease-fire between its ally and Azerbaijan, ending another conflict over the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh. 
    • In November 2021, Russian involvement was required once again to stop fighting that had broken the cease-fire. 
    • Georgia's predicament, on the other hand, is very comparable to that of Ukraine. 
    • Russia secured the separatist areas of South Ossetia and Abkhazia during the 2008 Russo-Georgian conflict, eventually recognizing them as republics. 
    • Approximately 10,000 Russian soldiers are now stationed there.  However, short of a full-scale invasion, the most Russia can hope for is a prolonged stalemate and the capacity to increase tensions anytime it wants. 

    The conclusion is that Russia continues to operate as a security guarantee in former Soviet countries when the government and military forces, with or against the populace, embrace a largely Russian orientation. 

    Belarus, for example, falls within this category. 

    However, once a nation has shifted its orientation to the West, Russia may make things difficult for it, such as stopping it from joining the EU or NATO (though membership is not on the table anyway), but it cannot force it back into the fold. 

    Meanwhile, China is competing with Russia, and in many cases has already surpassed it, as a trade and investment partner in practically all former Soviet countries. 

    In 2013, Kazakhstan hosted the launch of the Belt and Road Initiative. 

    There has formed a de facto division of labor that fits Beijing well, but one would wonder whether it really satisfies Moscow: when Russia acts as a security guarantor, it maintains the stability that enables it to no longer transform its military might into commensurate political and economic dominance. 

    As a result, an exclusive Russian sphere of influence in the former Soviet Union is a pipe dream in reality. 

    Russia doesn't have an option but to share power with China in a more or less Master-Junior Partner Bond. 

    Outside of the former Soviet Union, Russia has established a military presence, either directly or via the Wagner Group's mercenaries, in the Central African Republic, Libya, and now Mali. 

    The key success here, too, is continuing instability, which serves our goals. 

    For Russia, the eastern and southern edge of Europe is one theater in where it may exercise its nuisance power at a cheap cost. 

    Even in a nation like Mali, which is so reliant on European economic and military aid, Brussels should be considerably more concerned about its incapacity to prevent it from doing so. 

    But, although Russia may strive to entrench itself, it lacks a genuine alternative project to offer these nations, other than ensuring the regime's or claimant's security, which it opportunistically supports. 

    As internal politics change, such ties are prone to unravel. 

    The exception is Syria, where Russian assistance insured the survival of a long-time partner, but that relationship, too, is unlikely to outlast regime transition if it ever occurs. 

    Russia is also expected to fall farther behind the United States, China, and the European Union in terms of political clout and economic success. 

    It will continue to be quite simple to use its annoyance capability. 

    For the time being, Russia's military might has allowed it to punch above its political and economic weight. 

    However, keeping its limited friends, much alone acquiring new ones, will grow more difficult as other nations make more appealing political and economic proposals. 

    Will this encourage Moscow to consider a more cooperative grand strategy rather than a hostile one? Or will it continue to associate tremendous power with arrogance and aggression? 

    For its part, the EU must remain laser-focused on its most important goals: defending its own way of life while preventing instability from spilling over from either its eastern or southern flanks. 

    Stable neighboring nations that make their own sovereign decisions are a useful tool in achieving that critical goal. 

    The EU's use of nuisance power can never be an aim in itself; although it must consider how to respond against Russian neighbors, good neighborly relations must remain the ultimate goal. 

    Whatever course Putin and his successor choose, the EU must be open to conversation at all times, following the motto: cooperate when possible, but push back when necessary. 

    However, this will need the development of a much stronger European reflex in all EU member states. 

    If Europe's strategic center is a vacuum, neither collaboration nor pushback will occur, and the EU will be constantly unsettled by the next bold action from another state.

    ~ Jai Krishna Ponnappan

    You may also want to read and learn more about Global Geo Politics, Conflicts, And Conflict Resolution here.

    Sources & References:

    • Arild, S., NATIONAL RESILIENCE AS A TOOL TO COUNTER HYBRID THREATS Sunde Arild. У збірнику представлено матеріали ІІ Міжнародної науково-практичної конференції «Управління та адміністрування в умовах протидії гібридним загрозам національній безпеці». Матеріали подано у авторській редакції. Редакційна колегія може не поділяти думок авторів. За достовірність даних та унікальність поданого до друку матеріалу, p.217.
    • Coldea, F., 2022. Intelligence challenges in countering hybrid threats. National security and the future23(1), pp.49-66.
    • Панфілов, О. and Савченко, О., 2022. THE SOCIOLOGICAL ASPECT IN THE CONTENT OF THE MODERN HYBRID WARFARE. " Вісник НЮУ імені Ярослава Мудрого". Серія: Філософія, філософія права, політологія, соціологія1(52).
    • Solmaz, T., 2022. ‘Hybrid warfare’: A dramatic example of conceptual stretching. National security and the future23(1), pp.89-102.
    • Bhattacharya, I., 2022. Hybrid Warfare Teasing Security Concerns in Asia. In The Palgrave Handbook of Global Social Problems (pp. 1-15). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
    • Davies, L., 2022. A “hybrid offensive” in the Balkans? Russia and the EU-led Kosovo-Serb negotiations. European Security31(1), pp.1-20.
    • Hook, K. and Marcantonio, R., 2022. Environmental dimensions of conflict and paralyzed responses: the ongoing case of Ukraine and future implications for urban warfare. Small Wars & Insurgencies, pp.1-29.

    • Kurban, O. and Stadnichenko, O., 2022. Hybrid Conflicts in Modern Geopolitics: Based on Russian-Ukrainian Relations From 1991-2021. In Handbook of Research on Ethnic, Racial, and Religious Conflicts and Their Impact on State and Social Security (pp. 70-89). IGI Global.

    • Eberle, J. and Daniel, J., 2022. Anxiety geopolitics: Hybrid warfare, civilisational geopolitics, and the Janus-faced politics of anxiety. Political Geography92, p.102502.
    • Muradov, I., 2022. The Russian hybrid warfare: the cases of Ukraine and Georgia. Defence Studies, pp.1-24.
    • Magnuson, S., Keay, M. and Metcalf, K., 2022. Countering Hybrid Warfare: Mapping Social Contracts to Reinforce Societal Resiliency in Estonia and Beyond (Spring 2022). Texas National Security Review.
    • Gaiser, L., 2022. Chinese hybrid warfare approach and the logic of strategy. National security and the future23(1), pp.67-77.
    • Andersson, M., 2022. Russia's use of Hybrid Warfare against the European Union 2014-2020: A qualitative content analysis.
    • Kennedy, D., 2022. The Gun, the Ship, and the Pen: Warfare, Constitutions, and the Making of the Modern World by Linda Colley. Journal of Interdisciplinary History52(3), pp.430-431.

    Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Corruption ~ Changing Scenarios that Define the Corrupt

              The Harvard Business Review is running a very interesting and insightful story on how money in politics is having a deleterious and increasingly eroding effect on U.S. innovation and the economic environment that fosters the same.

    How Corruption Is Strangling U.S. Innovation

    An excerpt from the original entry:

    " If there's been one topic that has entirely dominated the post-election landscape, it's the fiscal cliff. Will taxes be raised? Which programs will be cut? Who will blink first in negotiations? For all the talk of the fiscal cliff, however, I believe the US is facing a much more serious problem, one that has simply not been talked about at all: corruption. But this isn't the overt, "bartering of government favors in return for private kickbacks" corruption. Instead, this type of corruption has actually been legalized. And it is strangling both US competitiveness, and the ability for US firms to innovate.

    The corruption to which I am referring is the phenomenon of money in politics.

    ..Somehow, it seems that every time that [Mickey Mouse] is about to enter the public domain, Congress has passed a bill to extend the length of copyright. Congress has paid no heed to research or calls for reform; the only thing that matters to determining the appropriate length of copyright is how old Mickey is. Rather than create an incentive to innovate and develop new characters, the present system has created the perverse situation where it makes more sense for Big Content to make campaign contributions to extend protection for their old work.if you were in any doubt how deep inside the political system the system of contributions have allowed incumbents to insert their hands, take a look at what happened when the Republican Study Committee released a paper pointing out some of the problems with current copyright regime. The debate was stifled within 24 hours. And just for good measure, Rep Marsha Blackburn, whose district abuts Nashville and who received more money from the music industry than any other Republican congressional candidate, apparently had the author of the study, Derek Khanna, fired. Sure, debate around policy is important, but it's clearly not as important as raising campaign funds.

           ..Ars Technica reports that Derek Khanna is getting axed over his memo detailing the conflict between laissez-faire-oriented free market ideals and the regulatory monopoly that is copyright. 'The Republican Study Committee, a caucus of Republicans in the House of Representatives, has told staffer Derek Khanna that he will be out of a job when Congress re-convenes in January. The incoming chairman of the RSC, Steve Scalise (R-LA) was approached by several Republican members of Congress who were upset about a memo Khanna wrote advocating reform of copyright law. They asked that Khanna not be retained, and Scalise agreed to their request. "

    “Greed & Power-lust is a weed that grows only in the vacant lots of an abandoned mind. ” ~Ayn Rand

               The multifaceted Intent and the efforts to control and curb corruption increases levels of trust in the ability of institutions to effectively enforce laws/rules of trade in a fair manner. With varied periods of time pervasive bureaucracy and increasing red tape also tends to create a stagnant climate where corruption can and will flourish, with officials often demanding bribes for the myriad permits needed to carry on business among several other things. Entities and groups with a political and financial upper hand often tend to dominate and predate in a market such as this. High handed corruption as a result continues to remain a major deterrent to distributed and diverse economic activity. Often a better control of corruption has been historically associated with rising levels of innovation and entrepreneurship. Absence of such a critical and defining trust, would invariably restrict the scale and scope of trade and inversely effect productivity and investment in innovation and entrepreneurship.

            Yes, the puzzling relationship between entrepreneurship, innovation, and corruption suggests corruption is inversely correlated to economic growth, entrepreneurship and innovation. That is, beyond all debates and arguments several studies across the globe conclude that as corruption goes up, economic indicators go down. The scope/effects of corruption on business is mediated and outlined by several factors, all of which are related to the ability to reliably enforce rules that promote fair trade and transparency.

    “Political corruption, social greed, and Americanized quasi-socialism can ruin even the most wonderful places. California proved that.” 
    ~Tiffany Madison

             Entrepreneurs and innovators are motivated by the portion of the value created by the venture that they are able to capture for themselves. As corruption increases, entrepreneurs face the risk of losing some of those profits to opportunists taking advantage of the corruption on the value chain. As a result, some potential entrepreneurs become discouraged and abstain from pursuing new business opportunities. The dampening effect of corruption has often been compared with that of taxes. Under this school of thought, corruption would differ from taxation only in the lack of public revenue generated. No matter the depth or potential of their innovations, all of their efforts to solve challenging industrial/social/economic problems could be stymied and nullified by corruption and unscrupulousness that favor the connections and short-term gain of a few over the long-term benefit of the industries they serve, the economy and the populace. Corruption is one of the most restrictive and intractable issues around the world, It is comparable to a wider and deplorable socio-economic disease that pervades and plagues entire cultures and economies  It inhibits the development of a stable and prosperous economy and the flourishing of an active democracy and citizen sector. Demanding transparency and fostering a culture in the public and private sector of accountability and  rule of law is perhaps the only real feasible approach to tackling this issue in the United States.


    Jai Krishna Ponnappan


    Blessed is The Fruitful Hand

    “Among a people generally corrupt, liberty cannot long exist.” 
    ~Edmund Burke

    “Evil is not just a theory of paradox, but an actual entity that exists only for itself. From its ether of manifestation that is garlanded in perpetual darkness, it not only influences and seeks the ruination and destruction of everything that resides in our universe, but rushes to embrace its own oblivion as well.

    To accomplish this, however, it must hide within the shroud of lies and deceit it spins to manipulate the weak-minded as well as those who choose to ally themselves with it for their own personal gain. For evil must rely on the self-serving interests of the arrogant, the lustful, the power-hungry, the hateful, and the greedy to feed and proliferate. This then becomes the condition of evil’s existence: the baneful ideologies of those who wantonly chose to ignore the needs and rights of others, inducing oppression, fear, pain, and even death throughout the cosmos. And by these means, evil seeks to supplant the balance of the universe with its perverse nature. 

    And once all that was good has been extinguished by corruption or annihilation, evil will then turn upon and consume what remains: particularly its immoral servants who have assisted its purpose so well … along with itself. And within that terrible instant of unimaginable exploding quantum fury, it will burn brighter than a trillion galaxies to herald its moment of ultimate triumph. But a moment is all that it shall be. And a micro-second later when the last amber burns and flickers out to the demise of dissolving ash, evil will leave its legacy of a totally devoid universe as its everlasting monument to eternal death.”
    ~ by Adam Turquine. The excerpt is taken from the sequel to 'Beyond Mars Crimson Fleet'

    “When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads.” ~ Ron Paul


                Looking at the Corruption Perceptions Index 2012, it's clear that corruption is a major threat facing humanity.

               Corruption destroys lives and communities, and undermines countries and institutions. It generates popular anger that threatens to further destabilize societies and exacerbate violent conflicts.

                The Corruption Perceptions Index scores countries on a scale from 0 (highly corrupt) to 100 (very clean). While no country has a perfect score, two-thirds of countries score below 50, indicating a serious corruption problem.

               Corruption translates into human suffering, with poor families being extorted for bribes to see doctors or to get access to clean drinking water. It leads to failure in the delivery of basic services like education or healthcare. It derails the building of essential infrastructure, as corrupt leaders skim funds.

              Corruption amounts to a dirty tax, and the poor and most vulnerable are its primary victims.

    So, How do we Counter the Effects of Public Sector Corruption?

                  *Governments need to integrate anti-corruption actions into all aspects of decision-making. 
                  *They must prioritize better rules on lobbying and political financing. 
                   *They must make public spending and contracting more transparent, and make public bodies more accountable.

                  After a year with a global focus on corruption, we expected more governments to take a tougher stance against the abuse of power. The Corruption Perceptions Index results demonstrate that there are still many societies and governments that need to give a much higher priority to this issue.

    ~ Jai Krishna Ponnappan

    Toward Soviet America ? | An Appeal to Learn from the Mistakes of the Past


                    This is a comment in response to a very interesting take on America by Xavier Lerma of Pravda posted on Liberty Newswire. It is easy to forget the past and to keep on persisting forward illogically, but there is quiet plainly a lot that needs to be learnt from history, not just our own but theirs as well. I apologize to many of my liberal friends reading this and especially those who work in the media industry. I believe that one can really learn a lot no matter where they are from, in that you have grown and done really well as directed and instructed to successfully propagate and promote all the many strong sentiments to the contrary and to give shape and power to this blinding and overpowering fanaticism over the last few years. It is indeed really hurtful and baffling to be labelled illiterate. I'd like to think and imagine that perhaps being gullible, irrational and willing is what has portrayed us with an otherwise undeserving, uncharacteristic and shameful identity such as this.

    My response to the article,


                       "Whatever concept one may hold, from a metaphysical point of view, concerning the freedom of the will, certainly its appearances, which are human actions, like every other natural event, are determined by universal laws. However obscure their causes, history, which is concerned with narrating these appearances, permits us to hope that if we attend to the play of freedom of the human will in the large, we may be able to discern a regular movement in it, and that what seems complex and chaotic in the single individual may be seen from the standpoint of the human race as a whole to be a steady and progressive though slow evolution of its original endowment." 
    ~ Immanuel Kant.
    Taken from, "Idea for a Universal History from a Cosmopolitan Point of View" (1784)

                 Perhaps it ought to be considered more of a concise summary and a gist, outlining the World's perspective of this country and the tough times and challenging position it finds itself in. Strong Words of Advice and more importantly a very well defined Warning to all the powers that usurp Freedom and dare to prevail against Free men. The only thing a lot of Americans would do well to read over and over again is what Putin said regarding the military, "...instead of solving the problem, militarization pushes it to a deeper level. It draws away from the economy immense financial and material resources, which could have been used much more efficiently elsewhere." , he has all the backing this country and the NWO can never even imagine or dream of at this stage. They hate what happened to them in their painful history and they rarely ever try to conceal the facts, their pain or their shame..... It's only beneficial and apt that such voices of solidarity and concern be heard.

    "Mankind is so much the same, in all times and places, that history informs us of nothing new or strange in this particular. Its chief use is only to discover the constant and universal principles of human nature." 
    ~ David Hume

    Here's the original post as seen on Pravda,

                "Putin in 2009 outlined his strategy for economic success. Alas, poor Obama did the opposite but nevertheless was re-elected. Bye, bye Miss American Pie. The Communists have won in America with Obama but failed miserably in Russia with Zyuganov who only received 17% of the vote. Vladimir Putin was re-elected as President keeping the NWO order out of Russia while America continues to repeat the Soviet mistake.

    After Obama was elected in his first term as president the then Prime Minister of Russia, Vladimir Putin gave a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in January of 2009. Ignored by the West as usual, Putin gave insightful and helpful advice to help the world economy and saying the world should avoid the Soviet mistake.

    Recently, Obama has been re-elected for a 2nd term by an illiterate society and he is ready to continue his lies of less taxes while he raises them. He gives speeches of peace and love in the world while he promotes wars as he did in Egypt, Libya and Syria. He plans his next war is with Iran as he fires or demotes his generals who get in the way.

    "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." 
    ~ George Santayana 

    Putin said regarding the military,

    "...instead of solving the problem, militarization pushes it to a deeper level. It draws away from the economy immense financial and material resources, which could have been used much more efficiently elsewhere."

    Well, any normal individual understands that as true but liberalism is a psychosis . O'bomber even keeps the war going along the Mexican border with projects like "fast and furious" and there is still no sign of ending it.  He is a Communist without question promoting the Communist Manifesto without calling it so. How shrewd he is in America. His cult of personality mesmerizes those who cannot go beyond their ignorance. They will continue to follow him like those fools who still praise Lenin and Stalin in Russia.  Obama's fools and Stalin's fools share the same drink of illusion.

    Reading Putin's speech without knowing the author, one would think it was written by Reagan or another conservative in America. The speech promotes smaller government and less taxes. It comes as no surprise to those who know Putin as a conservative. Vladimir Putin went on to say:

    "...we are reducing taxes on production, investing money in the economy. We are optimizing state expenses.

     The second possible mistake would be excessive interference into the economic life of the country and the absolute faith into the all-mightiness of the state.

    There are no grounds to suggest that by putting the responsibility over to the state, one can achieve better results.

    Unreasonable expansion of the budget deficit, accumulation of the national debt - are as destructive as an adventurous stock market game.

    During the time of the Soviet Union the role of the state in economy was made absolute, which eventually lead to the total non-competitiveness of the economy. That lesson cost us very dearly. I am sure no one would want history to repeat itself."

    President Vladimir Putin could never have imagined anyone so ignorant or so willing to destroy their people like Obama much less seeing millions vote for someone like Obama. They read history in America don't they? Alas, the schools in the U.S. were conquered by the Communists long ago and history was revised thus paving the way for their Communist presidents. Obama has bailed out those businesses that voted for him and increased the debt to over 16 trillion with an ever increasing unemployment rate especially among blacks and other minorities. All the while promoting his agenda.

    "We must seek support in the moral values that have ensured the progress of our civilization. Honesty and hard work, responsibility and faith in our strength are bound to bring us success."- Vladimir Putin

    The red, white and blue still flies happily but only in Russia. Russia still has St George defeating the Dragon with the symbol of the cross on its' flag. The ACLU and other atheist groups in America would never allow the US flag with such religious symbols. Lawsuits a plenty against religious freedom and expression in the land of the free. Christianity in the U.S. is under attack as it was during the early period of the Soviet Union when religious symbols were against the law.   

    Let's give American voters the benefit of the doubt and say it was all voter fraud and not ignorance or stupidity in electing a man who does not even know what to do and refuses help from Russia when there was an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Instead we'll say it's true that the Communists usage of electronic voting was just a plan to manipulate the vote. Soros and his ownership of the company that counts the US votes in Spain helped put their puppet in power in the White House. According to the Huffington Post, residents in all 50 states have filed petitions to secede from the Unites States. We'll say that these Americans are hostages to the Communists in power. How long will their government reign tyranny upon them?

    Russia lost its' civil war with the Reds and millions suffered torture and death for almost 75 years under the tyranny of the United Soviet Socialist Republic. Russians survived with a new and stronger faith in God and ever growing Christian Church. The question is how long will the once "Land of the Free" remain the United Socialist States of America?  Their suffering has only begun. Bye bye Miss American Pie!  You know the song you hippies. Sing it! Don't you remember? 

    The 1971 hit song by American song writer Don McLean :)

    "And, as I watched him on the stage my hands were clenched in fists of rage.

    No angel born in Hell could break that Satan's spell

    And, as the flames climbed high into the night to light the sacrificial rite, I saw...

    Satan laughing with delight the day the music died

    He was singing, bye bye Miss American Pie

    Drove my Chevy to the levee, but the levee was dry

    Them good ol' boys were drinking whiskey and rye, singing...

    This'll be the day that I die

    This'll be the day that I die

    So, the question remains:

    How long will America suffer and to what depths?"

    "History is for human self-knowledge ... the only clue to what man can do is what man has done. The value of history, then, is that it teaches us what man has done and thus what man is." 
    ~ R. G. Collingwood 

    Thoughts, Prayers.....

    & Best Regards,