T. Belman. I asked Markovsky if he could write an article on Putin the “tyrant” or on how Putin made Russia Great Again. He sent me this.
By Alexander G. Markovsky, AM THINKER Oct 31, 2022
Speaking in Poland in March 2022, President Biden declared, “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power.”
Despite the White House’s denial, it is widely understood that the US policy is a regime change in Moscow and, by extension, the promotion of Western democracy in Russia. However, those who wish that Vladimir Putin would go away and work to that end must be aware that the gods often punish men by fulfilling their wishes too completely.
The Western folly is that Westerners measure Putin per their values. But Russia is different; one cannot understand Putin without understanding the Russian national character, which derives from more than a thousand years of history and embraces different values and ideals than those of Western Europeans and Americans.
So, while we can concede that Vladimir Putin is not Thomas Jefferson and Russia does not pass muster with the National Endowment for Democracy, we should also acknowledge that from Peter the Great to Vladimir Putin, with the notable exceptions of Czar Nikolas II and President Boris Yeltsin, Russia has been ruled by ruthless autocrats. Considering this background, Putin may be the most moderate leader Russia has ever had.
Regrettably, if history is any guide, the moderates and democracy do not do well in Russia. Russian Czar Nikolas II, a moderate autocrat, was forced to abdicate after a series of defeats Russia suffered in the First World War ignited a Marxist revolutionary movement.
A few months later, in October of 1917, the democratically elected Provisional Government was overthrown by the grisly gang of Bolshevik terrorists who took power in Petrograd (now St. Petersburg) and proclaimed a revolutionary doctrine rejecting all established concepts of order. After a descent into a series of upheavals, civil war, famine, and Stalin’s “Great Terror” that took around forty million lives, the country defeated Nazi Germany and emerged as the powerful Soviet Union and the leader of the Warsaw Pact, threatening the world with nuclear annihilation.
In 1991 the communist colossal crumbled and democratically elected president Boris Yeltsin replaced the Marxist-Leninist government. The event was viewed as a triumph of democracy. But the jubilation proved to be premature. Russian democracy demonstrated pathetic frailty by allowing mobsters and heads of organized crime syndicates to get elected to the Duma – the Russian parliament, and shield themselves from law enforcement with parliamentary immunity. Oligarchs and organized crime de facto run the country. They looted the Soviet economy and plunged Russia into chaos and bankruptcy. Saint Valentine’s Day Massacres became a routine method of resolving business disputes. Order needed to be restored if the country was not to disintegrate.
So, in 2000 Yeltsin was forced to pass on the reins to the unremarkable former KGB officer Vladimir Putin. Yeltsin handed over a country in a state of despair. Calamitous economic depression, hyperinflation, lawlessness, and disintegrated arm forces — this was the period that many Russians now associate with “democracy.”
Someone called him the capo di capi, the boss of bosses, the Lucky Luciano of Russia. However, unlike Lucky Luciano, Putin jailed the bosses, deposed the oligarchy, restored order, and cleansed the country from all possibilities of opposition, political or otherwise.
In January 2001, Time Magazine wrote, “As Vladimir Putin becomes an increasingly authoritarian president, his popularity is growing.” “This suggests that we have a president who will radically change Russia and go down in history along with other great rulers of Russia.”
By 2020, the Russian economy had rebounded, and the armed forces regained strategic capabilities. Putin felt strong enough to confront what Moscow considered a severe threat to her security: NATO’s eastward expansion. As the rearmament and training of the Ukrainian army prefigured the potential acceptance of Ukraine into the NATO alliance, the level of anxiety in Moscow skyrocketed. The stage had been set for a conflict.
But then, Putin revealed his moderate side in the poor prosecution of the war, primarily because of the insufficient number of troops committed to the operation, his restraint on attacking Ukrainian infrastructure, his unwillingness to prevent an unmolested supply of Western materiel to the Ukrainian army, and his so-far unfulfilled threats to attack Western centers of decision-making. This perceived weakness has caused anger and dissatisfaction among some decision-making centers in Moscow. Putin ignored the KGB motto, “threats are the weapon of the weak against weaklings,” which tanked his credibility. Biden and the NATO allies are no longer afraid of him.
Moreover, after the failure to score a knockout blow and take Kiev, the war has entered a protracted phase, which is a bad development for Russia. Not least because the perception is that Ukraine wins if it doesn’t lose, while Russia loses if it does not win.
The perception, in this case, reflects reality because it is not the size, abundance of natural resources, or economic strength that made Russia a world power; it is foremost its military prowess. And to maintain this status, Moscow must be victorious in this war, whether with Putin or without him.
Hence, if the situation in Ukraine does not improve dramatically in Russia’s favor, Time’s 2020 prediction may not fully materialize – Putin may go down. Against this backdrop, we should not deceive ourselves about the mysterious Russian soul hoping that all the demons in the Russian political DNA have evaporated over the last hundred years.
Indeed, the history of Nikolas II can repeat itself. If the failure to prosecute the war successfully leads to regime change in Russia, it may not be in a direction to our liking.
Alexander G. Markovsky is a senior fellow at the London Center for Policy Research, a conservative think tank that examines national security, energy, risk analysis, and other public policy issues. He is the author of Anatomy of a Bolshevik and Liberal Bolshevism: America Did Not Defeat Communism, She Adopted It. Mr. Markovsky is the owner and CEO of Litwin Management Services, LLC. He can be reached at alex.g.markovsky@gmail.com
@Peloni @cc Vivarto Thank you for your detailed and informative explanation and I just realized that I had misread Dombas for Donetsk. Good catch.
@Vivarto I stand corrected.
@Felix
@Edgar
Nyah, Nyah, Nyah, Nyah, Nyah. Sorry, I couldn’t resist. You know us fascist infants always wanting to play. 😀
Vivarto
Very well explained. I would add further that nearly everyone in Ukraine spoke Russian, while the same could not be said of Ukrainian. The Monist vision of the Nazis/Nationalists was an intolerant religion of sorts, which could not tolerate any competition from the ethnic Russian minority. Also the language laws led to other corrosive edicts such as the printing law, which required any publication in Ukraine to be published in Ukrainian – so the minority papers, which all the minority elements read, went out of business, because they could not afford to print the latest relevant news meant for the ethnic Russians, for example, in Ukrainian because no Ukrainian would purchase such publications. So all the minority publications went out of business, and these issues affected not just the ethnic Russians, but all of the minorities in Ukraine, including the ethnic Hungarians, on whose behalf the Hungarian govt is still at outspokenly at odds with the Ukrainian govt.
Of course, all of this was plainly recognized by the Russian speakers on the eve of the American supported coup in Ukraine. Despite this, however, it was expected that the Russians would likely/probably vote against the May 2014 referendum over autonomy, until the slaughter which took place in Odessa on May 2. The consequence of this tragic event was that ethnic Russian opinions moved drastically, even as Putin insisted the referendum be delayed. A further consequence of the slaughter was that Odessa was occupied by the Nazi/Nationalists, and a new governor, Ihor Palytsia, was appointed to bring the city under control of the Monist govt in Kiev. Odessa was turned into something of an occupied city, with road blocks and identity checks at nearly every cross street in the following weeks/months. Notably, Palytsia was at the time a close, very close, associate, some might say crony, of Ihor Kolomoiskiy who was named governor of the neighboring Dniper Oblast, where he wielded his Azov storm troopers as his own bully brute squad. Notoriously, Palytsia was replaced the following year by Saakashvili, the lunatic Russian Hawk and former Georgian leader who was run out of his own country on charges of corruption and murder and found himself at home in governing over one of the largest Russian speaking centers of the country. The wealth which came from the oppression exercised on the local Odessan public by Saakashvili came to be resented by the other Ukrainian power brokers, which led to increasing friction between the Georgian overlord and Poroshenko who later fired him, though Saakashvilli claims he resigned.
There is more to all of this, but I think this makes the case very clear as to the consequence of placing an all powerful anti-Russian clique in power over a city which was largely comprised Russian speakers. Also of note, however is that during all of this time, the political will to to crush the Russian speakers had its effect, as the number of Ukrainian speakers just in Odessa, increased 5-fold over a period of 5yrs, as had been predicted by the Russian speakers and was completely intended by the Galician mob which took over the country.
@Sebastien
I often wondered why this question is not raised more often. The Dombas is a region, and Donetz and Lughanz are provinces (think of them like states, while Dombas is like New England). Additionally, the Dombas references the Donetz Basin and, more specifically, the territory along the Russian border which has one of the greatest coal deposits in the world and is named after the Donetz River. In the 1700’s it was known as the Wild Fields and for at one point in its history this territory was left somewhat unpopulated due to the routine slaughters which took place here, the irony of which should not be wasted on us today. In any event, the Dombas Basin was shortened to be referred to as the Dombas, but it contains both Donetz and Lughanz, two provinces which had never been associated with the territory of the former nation of Rus from which Ukraine draws its claim of previous nationhood. Indeed, the old Rus was a landlock nation, with no access to the sea, which is why the current claim by Russia to Novo Russia, while disputable, remains arguably supportable.
The memory wars of this region, on either side, have holes which they like to ignore while making their case to the world as if it is uniquely supportable.
@Vivarto Then why were there two separate republics by those names, respectively?
@Bear Klein
You said
If you believe in people’s right to national self-determination. Then citizens of Donbass and Crimea should be allowed to choose to be a part of Russia. I am not as certain about Zaporozhie and Kherson.
A more interesting case is Odessa and Kharkov.
Russian cities just 35 years ago, but have gone through forcible Ukrainization and indoctrination of young people. Actually untill recently almost nobody spoke Ukrainian in Kiev either…
Why do you prefer Ukrainian nationalism to Russian?
The lady does not know much history.
The Ukrainian language was mandatory subject under Soviet Union.
Ukraine as a republic for the first time came to the world under Soviet Rule. Before never in the history there has been an Ukrainian state (well, with the exception of short periods during wars where some parts of the region declared themselves as “Ukraine” or Western Ukraine, etc. None of them lasted a year.
Also, the Ukrainian language never really existed until the very end of 19th century. Before, there were various dialects spoken throughout the region, and Russian was the language of all cities including Kiev, Kharkov, Odessa…
Odessa is a good example of “Ukrainian” city.
In 1939 there were 40% Jews, 39% Russians and <10% Ukrainians in Odessa.
What is the rightful about the "Ukrainian" claim to Odessa?
And as for forcing people to speak Russian, the opposite was the case, the whole trouble started when after the CIA arranged coup in 2014 the undemocratically installed junta passed the law making Ukrainian the ONLY national language of the country. That did not go well down in Crimea in Donbass where everyone spoke Russian.
In any case, Ukraine has lost the war. They'll never get Crimea and Donbass back, and they are rather usrikely to get Kherson and Zaporozhie back. theyey'd They should consider themlves lucky if they can keep Odessa and Kharkiv, though I don't see anything particularly fair about these cities being Ukrainian.
Luhansk is a part of Donbass.
And if you guys have to choose at the ballot box between Ukraine and Israel, what choice will you make?
Article doesn’t mention Luhansk but I’m guessing that’s just sloppy journalism.
@Bear “not interested in drama about this subject!”
Well, I looked on your behalf but I haven’t found any dramas on this subject so far. But, good news, i did find some recipes! Case in point.
Yum! Sounds like grande haute cuisine right up there with “Francs and Beans” by Russell Baker. (Nov. 18, 1975)
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/354970-francs
But, in the words of the great Alfred E. Neuman, “What, me worry?” We’ll make a poutine lover out of you, yet! 😀
@Peloni as is standard and normal we do not agree. Then how could we agree we have such different views of the world that we understand the same of facts to have altogether different meanings.
The world view of those agree with Russian Nationalism necessitates a different set of human and moral values in my view. I believe in the liberty of individuals, countries safe from conquest and free speech.
Anyway we do agree that we want Trump to win and Israel to destroy Hamas and the Hezis, Iranian, etc. So maybe on these super important things we do concur.
I have a soft spot for the very nice Ukrainians I know and on Ukraine, plus those Russians who fled Russia because of the Russian rulers. I see that conflict through their eyes and not those that support Russian Nationalism.
Anyway I wish you and Ted well even if this will be deemed as unprintable by you moderators (censors). Ironically there is no free speech in Russia either and people can be thrown out of buildings for publishing or writing something not viewed favorable by Putin. Then I believe in Jeffersonian democracy and not Russian Nationalism!!
@Bear
It has everything to do with your use of ad hominem. Post what you want without the use of such derogatory remarks as you have been cited using and your post will be published. Israpundit is not an echo chamber, but the use of ad hominem attacks is very counterproductive and disruptive to the conversation. Free speech has its limits, and the limit here is when you abuse others involved in conducting themselves appropriately in the discussion, again as you have been cited doing.
@Laura, free Ukraine or (your or mine) strongly voicing objection to Russian actions is clearly not appreciated by Ted. It really has nothing to do with name calling in an objective fashion. Free Speech takes a brave person to allow when they have the control and one persists on making it obvious that one strongly (and morally) objects to their oft stated views.
Will see if the moderator (censor) allows this comment. Anyway Laura it is not a good use of mine to post here. You will be on your own here.
I hope you continue to comment on here, Bear.
I don’t know what brought this on, I did not call you any names, Ted.
@Peloni no longer matters, not interested in drama about this subject! I am going to focus on my book during my back recovery.
I am interested in Israel, Jews and international events that impact them.
Ukrainians are among my circle of friends. They tell me of the horrors they or their families have endured at the hands of the Russians. They have very choice words for Russian Nationalists and Putin and nowhere is the word lover in any of the dialog. They have actually parted friendships with some of their prior Russian friends who could not agree to condemn the actions of Russians.
They tell of not being able to visit or see elderly parents in the Ukraine because of the Russians. This is not a geopolitical issue for them but very personal. Very analogous to what I talk about with my Israeli friends who the current Gaza War all personally impacted in one way or another.
So I wish you well and all the other commentators. I had my back surgery in the USA. I am hoping to be able to travel back to Israel next year. I contemplating moving to Jerusalem.
@Bear
With all due respect, you did so two days ago, as an addendum to citing comment by Clare Lopez. Likely you took little note of it and do not recall this, but it is not an isolated event as you again used that phrase the day before that on April 5. But I am glad that you agree that such distracting ad hominems should not be employed as I think this is something which we should all agree upon.
@Ted I have not called anyone a Putin Lover (maybe long time ago). You did write in an email though you understand why the Russians love Putin so much.
You certainly are taking the Russian Nationalist viewpoint on this subject which is your right but I find very disappointing. I have Ukrainian friends and they identify with Ukraine and not Russia.
My one lady friend from Ukraine said, +what is wrong with the Russians? Their country is so big and they want to take our too. We do not want to be forced to speak Russian like in the past and do not want to be second class citizens in our own country. Why do they attack us we just want to be free and not under their thumb.”
You asked Laura why does she care about what happens in Russia. In my case I know several people from both countries and ONLY ONE Russian in 2014 took Putin’s side.
@ Laura @Bear
I changed my mind.
All your comments will go directly into moderation so that I can delete those with ad homiem attacks before approving the rest.
@Laura, yes non-Russian pundits would define “Russian Peacekeepers” as Russian Soldiers who are infiltrators, saboteurs and provocateurs!
@Bear @Laura
From now on I will not permit ad homenim attacks like calling Peloni or me “putin lovers”
I will remove them as soon as I see them.
Any attack on us personally will be remove.
@Alex who is Klain? You keep addressing someone like that?
@Peloni thanks obviously you do not get it! I read that and interpreted as condescending to say the least. Not a gently put “tone it down please”.
I will not change your writing style either. Sorry I am not the first to say this or something similar it is too long winded and seems like gobbledygook many times.
Not trying to offend but communicate that for me personally at least it is hard to easily and quickly understand what you are trying to say.
@Klain Here is an exact quote from the Treaty: “Each High Contracting Party shall refrain from participating in, or supporting, any actions directed against the other High Contracting Party, and shall not conclude any treaties with third countries against the other Party. Neither Party shall allow its territory to be used to the detriment of the security of the other Party.”
In 2002, Ukraine announced its intention to join NATO in violation of the Treaty.
@Laura
It is also the same claim I make about “Palestine” and I am quite correct in doing so. Some such claims have merit and others do not. Those claims voiced against Israel have no merit as based in history, law, heritage and the persistant Jewish presence in the ancestral lands of the Jews. The lack of substance of this claim as addressed to Israel can not be a defense for other nations nor other nation-wannabees, but must be addressed individually based on the circumstances upon which those nations or nation-wannabees are associated.
@Bear
That is because you obviously never read the second paragraph in a post which was no longer than that which you wrote in response to it. Here was the pertinent passage:
Being an “artificial” country is the same claim the antisemites make about Israel.
I’m amused at the term “Russian peacekeepers”.
Some commentators or editors on Israpundit do not seem aware of the following:
@Peloni if you want me to understand what you write keep it simpler and shorter kindly. Like tone it down please. Never in a million years would I have understood that you where remotely trying to say that!
Peloni, we both know we disagree on Georgia and our views are not reconcilable. I demonstrated Georgia was setup by Putin and company but you and maybe some others do not agree. That was previously established.
My way of toning it down on this subject is simply to not enter into direct debate with those who I clearly have strong irreconcilable views with.
By the way I addressed Laura and not you previously on the thread. There is a person who knows they are I was indirectly referencing and they know who they are, as we have privately discussed the matter. So your interjection was not meaningful nor productive.
@Bear
Interestingly, this was the point I just made to you. Have a good day.
Additionally you did not demonstrate that Putin coerced the Georgians to fire on the Russian peacekeepers, and that was also not the findings of the European fact finding mission, just FYI.
@Peloni on this subject debate between is useless.
I have addressed your Georgia issue in the past in depth and do not wish to revisit it, except to say Putin instigated the Georgians to fire first. Israelis also fired first in 1967 but the Egyptians had not shot at Israel first but setup circumstances where Israel had no choice. Analogous situation happen in Georgia. So I was not doubling down on wrong and to stubborn to admit. You do not agree great!
We look at this topic from irreconcilable viewpoints and debate between us on this subject is not meaningful and a time waster. Also stop trying to tell me what I should write or not. I do not recognize you as my Rabbi, Professor nor anyone except another commentator on Israpundit. In other words tone it down please!
@Klain Some of us seem to lack an understanding of history. Ukraine has never possessed its own land, and Ukrainians have never had their own country. It may be surprising to know that Ukraine is an artificial state established by the Bolsheviks in the 1920s as a part of the Soviet Union on the former territory of the Russian Empire.
@Bear
Ironically this statement calls to mind the time when I demonstrated that you were quite wrong in stating unequivocally that Russia attacked Georgia in 2008 when the truth is that the reverse of that claim was verified by no less significant than the European Fact Finding Mission tasked with finding fault with Russia. Amusingly, your response to me doing so was to charge me with “trickery” rather than to address your misstatement.
In any event, rather than presume an air of condescension, and share ad hominem abuses, neither of which never provides any clarity due to their being rhetorical substitutes for a good argument, perhaps you can actually address the issue being raised, beyond your rather unimpressive personal acrimonies.
@Laura what you are witnessing is the intellectual deterioration and doubling of down of someone who had is too stubborn to admit when they are completely wrong. Some people have this pattern. They never can admit when they are wrong no matter what!
Unfortunately some people do not realize they have bought into Russian Nationalist Propaganda. This actually has impacted many GOP members in the USA also.
@Laura
Why the obsession with what’s happening in Russia? What’s it to you?
If the Russians are happy, isn’t that ‘s what matters? Why are you meddling?
Why are you not obsessed with what’s happening in the US? That really affects you.
Putin:
What I know of the man tells me that he is intelligent, savy, experienced, confident, prudent, cautious, a team player, a good delegator, principled, and a deeply patriotic man who loves his country and its people. He may even be religious. Did I mention that he is anti-woke? I see very little to dislike in the man, aside from the fact that he may decide to incinerate the west.
To the question posed above: What if he is gone? If Putin is gone, he will likely be replaced by someone who is truly hardline, like Medvedev. We better hope that Putin stays healthy and stays in office a long time. As for us, we better quit being stupid.
@Peloni
Excellent
Nice analysis from Markovsky. As noted by Markovsky, I have many times raised the fact that Putin is the most liberal leader which Russia has ever had in its long history, and in fact as the West makes calls for him to be regime changed due to faux claims of his expansionist motives, they might in fact, having done so, cause a Russian to replace Putin who really does have expansionist tendencies. In fact, ironically enough, as Russia is being led by its most liberal leader in history, the US is being transformed into a totalitarian state, while still claiming it opposes Russia for claimed breaches of liberal society which are actually being openly practiced today in the US, such as election theft and political show trials.
In fact, the US wants to return to the pre-Putin period when the Oligarchs ran amuck without restraint and without consequence, much as is being done today in the US by American oligarchs. Yet, the real goal of the West is to render Russia into the weak nation which it was in the 1990’s, when the Oligarchs had no meaningful opposition, that is until Putin took power and brought the Oligarchs to bear.
The use of lawfare and show trials to achieve this task was seen at the time to be disturbing and offensive to the Western public, but what was really objectionable to the Western leadership was that it actually resulted in Russia restoring itself to a position of economic independence from the West, and that was something which the Western leaderships could not endure. And so the plot to regime change Russia began, and twenty some years later we stand with Russia on the brink of taking control of Chasiv Yar.
The true irony is that twenty years ago during the political trial of Khodorkovsky, it was noted that such lawfare trials could not be tolerated by the West, and yet twenty years later, we are looking at the political show trials of Donald Trump. What is more remarkably of note is that the Yukos trials were manipulated to prevent the wholesale transfer of Russia’s oil assets to the West, which would have economically crippled Russia’s future, while the persecution of Trump is intended to keep the corrupt establishment in power so that they can continue crippling America’s economic future.
As a mentor of mine once stated, you don’t have to look hard to find humor in comparative histories.
More Pro Putin Excrement! Yes Tyrants and mass murderers are accepted by Russian Nationalists who have a long history of the capture of other people’s countries. Just like with Ukraine.
Why Russian separatists called an exorcist when they discovered a Ukrainian POW was an evangelical Christian
https://www.businessinsider.com/russians-called-exorcist-ukrainian-pow-evangelical-christian-2024-3