alternative news


January 15, 2012 By Joseph P. Farrell

There is an interesting post over at Boiling Frog written by F. William Engdahl, a researcher that this blogger highly regards, concerning the recent Russian elections signaling a return of Vladimir Putin to the Russian executive:

The Shady National Endowment for Democracy &The Prime Agenda of ‘Whoever’ is Next US President

Engdahl echoes analysis we have given here on this site, namely, that the alliance of Russia, China, and Iran constitutes a primary obstacle to the plans of the Anglo-American and European elites to dominate the Eurasian heartland. The essence of Engdahl's analysis is here:

"The salient question is why Putin at this point? We need not look far for the answer. Washington and especially Barack Obama’s Administration don’t give a hoot about whether Russia is democratic or not. Their concern is the obstacle to Washington’s plans for Full Spectrum Dominance of the planet that a Putin Presidency will represent. According to the Russian Constitution, the President of the Russian Federation head of state, supreme commander-in-chief and holder of the highest office in the Russian Federation. He will take direct control of defense and foreign policy.

"We must ask what policy? Clearly strong countermeasures against the blatant NATO encirclement of Russia with Washington’s dangerous ballistic missile installations around Russia will be high on Putin’s agenda. Hillary Clinton’s “reset” will be in the dustbin if it is not already. We can also expect a more aggressive use of Russia’s energy card with pipeline diplomacy to deepen economic ties between European NATO members such as Germany, France and Italy, ultimately weakening the EU support for aggressive NATO measures against Russia. We can expect a deepening of Russia’s turn towards Eurasia, especially with China, Iran and perhaps India to firm up the shaky spine of resistance to Washington’s New World Order plans."

Well, this is true enough, as far as it goes. But there are two other geopolitical and political realities that one needs to consider. The first is Russia itself. The geopolitical analysis that Dr de Hart and I offered in Yahweh the Two-Faced God basically indicates that regardless of who is in power in Russia, the Russian national geopolitical interest must always oppose a unipolar domination of the Eurasian heartland by any power or combination of powers. If, for example, it was China and not the United States that was seeking to dominate the region and its resources, the result would be an attempt by Russia to cement alliances elsewhere, Europe, the Middle East, etc. So it is not, in my opinion, Putin as much as it is the course that any sane and self-respecting or even moderately patriotic Russian national leader would pursue.

The second political reality is what Putin represents, and again, what he represents is something that is a holdover from, believe it or not, Josif Stalin. In 1936, Stalin struck a most extraordinary deal, one almost unknown in the West, and even when known, little appreciated by Western analysts, for in 1936 he reached an argreement with the locum tenens of the Russian Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Sergei. The agreement is known, within Orthodox Church circles, as the "Sergian compromise," for by its terms, the Church was allowed to retain and in some cases even to open seminaries to train clergy, in return for those clergy be being recruited as agents for the internal state security, the NKVD, forerunner to the KGB.  The long-term effect of this was, in my opinion, two-fold, for while it might be argued that this hollowed out the Church, by the same token, the NKVD/MGB/KGB eventually found itself being staffed by Orthodox clergy. In short, the Orthodox Church, creator of Russian culture and a repository of Russian national culture and aspirations, entered the intelligence business. The long term result is Vladimir Putin, with an intelligence background and a practicing Russian Orthodox believer. My point is, he is not the only one. If the West succeeds in blocking him, he will be replaced by another. It is no accident that the West, largely America, is sending "evangelical" missionaries to Russia to spread America's homegrown (per)version of the Gospel, for America is faced with a Christian culture that is far older than that informing America's.

So factor it in: the bottom line is we are looking at yet another fissure along the fault lines of Yahwism in all its manifold peregrinations down through history. Mr Putin, and the West's opposition to him, are but one feature of it. But it contains a lesson the analysts in Washington had better learn, and learn well, and quickly: Putin is not an isolated instance, and Russian nationalism will find another political expression if the West succeeds in derailing him.