Posts
Poroshenko's
speech in front of the Imperial Senate (MUST WATCH!)
I
know, it is nauseating, but still, please do watch it. What
Poroshenko is saying is that which the US deep state is thinking and,
as such, it deserves our utmost attention (even if that means
grabbing a psychological barf bag).
And
for those of you who might get seriously distressed by this sickening
and hate-filled ceremony, I have included a short video showing that
this nothing new: senates have always been brothels for oligarchs and
spineless hypocrites.
And
remember - the fact that they say so does not make it so :-)
Kind
regards,
The
Saker
Ukraine SITREP September 18, 17:30 UTC/Zulu: infighting everywhere
The
situation in the Ukraine today is one of chaotic infighting in
Novorussia and Banderastan.
18
September, 2014
Novorussia:
Aleksandr
Zakharchenko
The
first sign of trouble became visible with Strelkov had to urgently
come back to Donetsk to prevent the behind-the-scenes negotiations
apparently taking place between some officials of the DNR and Ukie
oligarchs including Akhmetov. Then came the news of the sudden
removal of Strelkov followed by an almost simultaneous removal of
most of the Novorussian leadership. In spite of that, the
Novorussian leadership (Zakharchenko & Co.) appeared to be more
than worthy successors to Strelkov and they did a stellar job
implementing the counter-offensive plans apparently developed by
Strelkov. Then came the Minsk negotiations with little-covered
reports of an attempted coup by Vladimir Antiufeev who, before that,
had been in charge of state security under Strelkov.
Apparently, this coup was directed at Zakharchenko and it failed.
What then happened to Antiufeev is still unclear, at least to me.
Last I read he was being interrogated.
Aleksandr
Khodakovskii
Then,
this week, something really bizarre happened: first, a very
controversial figure - Bezler - was appointed by somebody (it is
still unclear by whom exactly) as the Head of the Intelligence
Service of Novorussia. Soon after, it was also announced that
four top military commanders - Bezler, Khodakovskii and two *unknown
figures* (?) - had agreed that all the Novorussian Armed Forces
would be placed under the command of General Korsun. Problem:
nobody had ever heard of any "General Korsun" and even the
Speaker of the Novorussian Parliament, Oleg Tsarev, declared that
the political leadership of Novorussia had not been consulted about
these plans. As for Strelkov, he expressed his total lack of
info about Korsun. Weird, to say the least. And most
definitely not good.
It appears that a number of distinct but
linked processes are simultaneously taking place:
1) a
militia force composed of volunteers is being transformed into a
regular army under a single military command subordinated to
political authorities. At least, that is the theory, but so
far this has not been achieved.
2) various military
Novorussian commanders have different views on key issues (such as
the Minsk Agreement) and personal ambitions (Khodakovski?).
3)
Moscow is exerting pressure on the Novorussian leaders to get them
to comply with the Kremlin's policies.
4) Russian and
Ukrainian oligarchs are also exerting their own influence to get an
outcome favorable to their financial interests.
These are
four distinct processes and not one single factor and those who
present a simplistic "single explanation" model are simply
missing the complexity of the situation. That does not,
however, make the situation any better.
Vladimir
Antiufeev
The
direct consequence of that is that Novorussia still does not have a
single and uncontested leader. My personal feeling is that
there is a Strelkov-Zakharchenko alliance which is both the most
legitimate and the most capable, but other big actors (Bezler,
Khodakovski) are still trying hard to promote their own agenda.
Rumor now has it that Antiufeev and Bezler are under arrest.
Whatever may be the case, the political infighting and chaos in
Novorussia are a most serious problem which somebody (Strelkov?
Putin?) will have to urgently fix.
Russia:
Vladislav
Surkov
I
have seen a lot of speculations that the "éminence grise"
behind a lot of that malfeasance is Vladislav
Surkov,
a weasely character of the entourage of Putin but whose views seem
to often run directly in opposition to Putin's. I have seen no
direct proof of that, but I have no reason to doubt much better
informed individuals (including Strelkov). Surkov or no
Surkov, there is definitely an interest group out there referred to
as "5th column", the "party of peace", the
"party of betrayal" or, my own favorite, the Atlantic
Integrationists whose agenda is simple: stop the war in the Ukraine
and restore the putatively "good" relationship between
Russia and the West. Their motives are a mix of ideology
(pro-western russophobia, capitalist liberalism) financial (they
stand to lose most from not only the western sanctions, but from a
deterioration of relationship between Russia and the West) and
personal (struggle for power to re-take the Kremlin from the
Eurasian Sovereignists).
Vladimir
Evtushenkov
In
this context I have seen a lot of speculation that the recent move
against multi-billionaire Vladimir
Evtushenkov (often
described as the new Khodorkovski) is Putin's counter-attack to
smack down the oligarchs. Could be, and Peskov's denial of
anything political behind his arrest are as predictable as they are
not credible. It would be worth seeing if there is a
Evtushenkov-Surkov connection, but I don't have the means to do that
myself. Still, judging by the reaction of the head of the
Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (RSPP), Alexander
Shokhin, it is clear that the Russian oligarchy is upset and even
frightened by this arrest.
So much for the stupid theory that
Putin represents the interests of the Russian oligarchy or, even
better, is the "puppet" of these
oligarchs.
Banderastan:
The
junta controlled part of the Ukraine (I call Banderastan) is in full
turmoil. The Minsk Agreement as absolutely infuriated most of
the Ukie political leaders. Predictably, Iarosh and Tiagnibok
are up in arms, the former even threatening to overthrow
Poroshenko. Worse, Timoshenko has made something of a comeback
denouncing the Agreement as a vile surrender to the Moskals and a
sellout of Ukie national interests.
Rada
Deputy tossed in trashbin
Right
Sector activists have attempted to storm the Parliament and the
Presidency, they have literally tossed deputies into trashbins which
is both funny and amply deserved, but does not change the scary fact
that Poroshenko is not the worst of what Banderastan can produce.
Poroshenko is evil, of course, but at least he is not a lunatic like
Timoshenko or Liashko.
There is now a very real risk that the
Right Sector could literally overthrow the Poroshenko regime (Libya
anybody?). And even if the Right Sector does no such thing, of
fails doing it, the upcoming elections are nothing short of really
scary. With the massive brainwashing going on throughout the
Ukie media there is a real risk of a wall-to-wall "loony"
Rada with Liashko in charge of the biggest party and assorted
neo-Nazis filling the rest of the seats.
Nazis
vs oligarchs
There
is a clash taking place between oligarch and sincere/zombified Nazis
on one hand, and even between oligarchs (Poroshenko vs Kolomoiski vs
Akmetov) on the other. Thus, in a paradoxical way, both
Novorussia and Banderastan don't currently have a real, functioning,
central power and neither side can "deliver"
anything.
And if that does not scare you enough, keep in mind
that the Ukie economy, propped up by the AngloZionists, has not
truly collapsed yet. But it will. Soon. Then
things will get really, really ugly. The examples of Iraq and
Libya immediately come to mind. In fact, Putin recently
declared the following at the Seliger 2014 annual youth forum:
Do
you remember the joke: "Whatever Russians make, they always end
up with a Kalashnikov?" I get an impression that whatever
Americans touch they always end up with Libya or Iraq.
Apparently,
he is absolutely right and Banderastan is now headed down the exact
same road. Truth be told, there
is only that long that the AngloZionists can keep Poroshenko in
power and the remnants of economy of Banderastan afloat.
Sooner or later - probably sooner - both will come tumbling down and
then all hell will truly break lose
In the meantime,
"Iats" has announced the "lustration" (purge) of
the estimated 1'000'000
civil servants connected
with the previous regime. Apparently, this does not including
Poroshenko, Timoshenko, Turchinov or "Iats" himself
(all of
whom have served under previous Presidents in one capacity or
another).
Crazy, crazy shit...Military
situation:
Military
situation September 15-17
To
my great surprise, a Ukie counter-offensive did not materialize or,
if it did, it was so lame that it was hard to notice. The
Ukies did concentrate very large forces in several locations, and
the JRF did execute attacks in several locations, but they were lame
and rather rapidly repelled. As for those few locations which
were taken under the control of the JRF, they were mostly locations
which the NAF had abandoned. My source for this analysis is
"Basketok" (whose excellent and detailed daily reports
Russian speakers can get here and here).
Amazingly,
the NAF have still not taken full control of the Donetsk Airport.
They have surrounded it and they control most, but not all of it.
As for the Ukies there, they are categorically refusing to surrender
and they are still shelling Donetsk on a daily basis. I can
only explain this aberration as a consequence of the political
infighting taking place in the Novorussian leadership.
One of
the most likely explanation of the current is one given by the
(excellent) Colonel Cassad:
With
respect to concentration, the main forces of the junta are already
deployed into Donbass. The junta cannot grow the group substantially
yet. Taking the planned rotation of the detachments and the combat
capable units that were pulled into the front into account, the
junta can reinforce its group only by throwing restored
battalion-tactical groups of previously routed detachments into
action. However, their combat qualities appear quite dubious due to
large losses in personnel and materiel. In essence, absent
the 4-th wave of mobilization, the junta cannot substantially
increase the headcount of its group, which remains approximately
on the level of early July of 2014. Considering the failure of the
previous 3 waves of mobilization, the possible results of the 4-th
also trigger certain skepticism. The junta, of course, isn't close
to the limiting values of its mobilization potential, but it is
already experiencing serious difficulties. All of this is aggravated
by materiel issues: by various estimates, the junta lost
about 60-70% of materiel present in Donbass (and the worst thing for
the junta is that more than 220 armored vehicles of varying degree
of combat readiness ended up being captured by the NAF, which
already put between a quarter and a third of captured trophies into
action). Of course, there are still many tanks, IFVs, SPH,
and MLRS in warehouses and repair facilities, but reinforcements in
August and September couldn't compensate for huge losses. The
attempts of getting materiel from NATO countries and the attempts to
buy back the vehicles that were shipped on international defense
contracts are supposed to close the gap in materiel that was formed.
Ukraine continues to reap the fruits of its horrible looting of
Soviet military legacy.
This
makes sense. The JRF did through its best men and equipment in
its attempt to crush Novorussia in just a "few weeks" and
it lost them. There are still numerically significant
resources available to them, as shown by the large concentrations of
forces they have massed but failed to effectively use so far.
As
for the NAF, they have made some small progress in various
locations, and they have made small retreats from others, but
nothing crucial has taken place on their side either. Does
that mean that the NAF and JRF have fought each other to a
standstill? Maybe, I don't know and have no way to check.
Still, my first explanation for this apparent stagnation on the
military front is that both sides are too deeply involved in the the
political infighting and the chaos resulting from it.
Those
whom I jokingly refer to "prophets and mind readers" will
probably make confident predictions based, as always, on simplistic
models, but I won't. I know what Putin wants and Russia
needs: regime change in Kiev. I also know what Putin does not
want or Russia cannot afford: a Novorussian collapse. The two,
of course, are linked. But how the situation will evolve now
is too early to call.
I often think that the (liberal,
Masonic, pro-western, democratic and oligarchic) Kerensky regime
came to power in February. Just like the Ukie Junta.
Kerensky was overthrown in October of the same year. Just
saying...
Kind regards,
The Saker
The
situation in the Ukraine today is one of chaotic infighting in
Novorussia and Banderastan.
18
September, 2014
Novorussia:
 |
Aleksandr
Zakharchenko
|
The
first sign of trouble became visible with Strelkov had to urgently
come back to Donetsk to prevent the behind-the-scenes negotiations
apparently taking place between some officials of the DNR and Ukie
oligarchs including Akhmetov. Then came the news of the sudden
removal of Strelkov followed by an almost simultaneous removal of
most of the Novorussian leadership. In spite of that, the
Novorussian leadership (Zakharchenko & Co.) appeared to be more
than worthy successors to Strelkov and they did a stellar job
implementing the counter-offensive plans apparently developed by
Strelkov. Then came the Minsk negotiations with little-covered
reports of an attempted coup by Vladimir Antiufeev who, before that,
had been in charge of state security under Strelkov.
Apparently, this coup was directed at Zakharchenko and it failed.
What then happened to Antiufeev is still unclear, at least to me.
Last I read he was being interrogated.
 |
Aleksandr
Khodakovskii
|
Then,
this week, something really bizarre happened: first, a very
controversial figure - Bezler - was appointed by somebody (it is
still unclear by whom exactly) as the Head of the Intelligence
Service of Novorussia. Soon after, it was also announced that
four top military commanders - Bezler, Khodakovskii and two *unknown
figures* (?) - had agreed that all the Novorussian Armed Forces
would be placed under the command of General Korsun. Problem:
nobody had ever heard of any "General Korsun" and even the
Speaker of the Novorussian Parliament, Oleg Tsarev, declared that
the political leadership of Novorussia had not been consulted about
these plans. As for Strelkov, he expressed his total lack of
info about Korsun. Weird, to say the least. And most
definitely not good.
It appears that a number of distinct but linked processes are simultaneously taking place:
1) a militia force composed of volunteers is being transformed into a regular army under a single military command subordinated to political authorities. At least, that is the theory, but so far this has not been achieved.
2) various military Novorussian commanders have different views on key issues (such as the Minsk Agreement) and personal ambitions (Khodakovski?).
3) Moscow is exerting pressure on the Novorussian leaders to get them to comply with the Kremlin's policies.
4) Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs are also exerting their own influence to get an outcome favorable to their financial interests.
These are four distinct processes and not one single factor and those who present a simplistic "single explanation" model are simply missing the complexity of the situation. That does not, however, make the situation any better.
It appears that a number of distinct but linked processes are simultaneously taking place:
1) a militia force composed of volunteers is being transformed into a regular army under a single military command subordinated to political authorities. At least, that is the theory, but so far this has not been achieved.
2) various military Novorussian commanders have different views on key issues (such as the Minsk Agreement) and personal ambitions (Khodakovski?).
3) Moscow is exerting pressure on the Novorussian leaders to get them to comply with the Kremlin's policies.
4) Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs are also exerting their own influence to get an outcome favorable to their financial interests.
These are four distinct processes and not one single factor and those who present a simplistic "single explanation" model are simply missing the complexity of the situation. That does not, however, make the situation any better.
 |
Vladimir
Antiufeev
|
The
direct consequence of that is that Novorussia still does not have a
single and uncontested leader. My personal feeling is that
there is a Strelkov-Zakharchenko alliance which is both the most
legitimate and the most capable, but other big actors (Bezler,
Khodakovski) are still trying hard to promote their own agenda.
Rumor now has it that Antiufeev and Bezler are under arrest.
Whatever may be the case, the political infighting and chaos in
Novorussia are a most serious problem which somebody (Strelkov?
Putin?) will have to urgently fix.
Russia:
Russia:
 |
Vladislav
Surkov
|
I
have seen a lot of speculations that the "éminence grise"
behind a lot of that malfeasance is Vladislav
Surkov,
a weasely character of the entourage of Putin but whose views seem
to often run directly in opposition to Putin's. I have seen no
direct proof of that, but I have no reason to doubt much better
informed individuals (including Strelkov). Surkov or no
Surkov, there is definitely an interest group out there referred to
as "5th column", the "party of peace", the
"party of betrayal" or, my own favorite, the Atlantic
Integrationists whose agenda is simple: stop the war in the Ukraine
and restore the putatively "good" relationship between
Russia and the West. Their motives are a mix of ideology
(pro-western russophobia, capitalist liberalism) financial (they
stand to lose most from not only the western sanctions, but from a
deterioration of relationship between Russia and the West) and
personal (struggle for power to re-take the Kremlin from the
Eurasian Sovereignists).
 |
Vladimir
Evtushenkov
|
In
this context I have seen a lot of speculation that the recent move
against multi-billionaire Vladimir
Evtushenkov (often
described as the new Khodorkovski) is Putin's counter-attack to
smack down the oligarchs. Could be, and Peskov's denial of
anything political behind his arrest are as predictable as they are
not credible. It would be worth seeing if there is a
Evtushenkov-Surkov connection, but I don't have the means to do that
myself. Still, judging by the reaction of the head of the
Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (RSPP), Alexander
Shokhin, it is clear that the Russian oligarchy is upset and even
frightened by this arrest.
So much for the stupid theory that Putin represents the interests of the Russian oligarchy or, even better, is the "puppet" of these oligarchs.
Banderastan:
The junta controlled part of the Ukraine (I call Banderastan) is in full turmoil. The Minsk Agreement as absolutely infuriated most of the Ukie political leaders. Predictably, Iarosh and Tiagnibok are up in arms, the former even threatening to overthrow Poroshenko. Worse, Timoshenko has made something of a comeback denouncing the Agreement as a vile surrender to the Moskals and a sellout of Ukie national interests.
So much for the stupid theory that Putin represents the interests of the Russian oligarchy or, even better, is the "puppet" of these oligarchs.
Banderastan:
The junta controlled part of the Ukraine (I call Banderastan) is in full turmoil. The Minsk Agreement as absolutely infuriated most of the Ukie political leaders. Predictably, Iarosh and Tiagnibok are up in arms, the former even threatening to overthrow Poroshenko. Worse, Timoshenko has made something of a comeback denouncing the Agreement as a vile surrender to the Moskals and a sellout of Ukie national interests.
 |
Rada
Deputy tossed in trashbin
|
Right
Sector activists have attempted to storm the Parliament and the
Presidency, they have literally tossed deputies into trashbins which
is both funny and amply deserved, but does not change the scary fact
that Poroshenko is not the worst of what Banderastan can produce.
Poroshenko is evil, of course, but at least he is not a lunatic like
Timoshenko or Liashko.
There is now a very real risk that the Right Sector could literally overthrow the Poroshenko regime (Libya anybody?). And even if the Right Sector does no such thing, of fails doing it, the upcoming elections are nothing short of really scary. With the massive brainwashing going on throughout the Ukie media there is a real risk of a wall-to-wall "loony" Rada with Liashko in charge of the biggest party and assorted neo-Nazis filling the rest of the seats.
There is now a very real risk that the Right Sector could literally overthrow the Poroshenko regime (Libya anybody?). And even if the Right Sector does no such thing, of fails doing it, the upcoming elections are nothing short of really scary. With the massive brainwashing going on throughout the Ukie media there is a real risk of a wall-to-wall "loony" Rada with Liashko in charge of the biggest party and assorted neo-Nazis filling the rest of the seats.
 |
Nazis
vs oligarchs
|
There
is a clash taking place between oligarch and sincere/zombified Nazis
on one hand, and even between oligarchs (Poroshenko vs Kolomoiski vs
Akmetov) on the other. Thus, in a paradoxical way, both
Novorussia and Banderastan don't currently have a real, functioning,
central power and neither side can "deliver"
anything.
And if that does not scare you enough, keep in mind that the Ukie economy, propped up by the AngloZionists, has not truly collapsed yet. But it will. Soon. Then things will get really, really ugly. The examples of Iraq and Libya immediately come to mind. In fact, Putin recently declared the following at the Seliger 2014 annual youth forum:
And if that does not scare you enough, keep in mind that the Ukie economy, propped up by the AngloZionists, has not truly collapsed yet. But it will. Soon. Then things will get really, really ugly. The examples of Iraq and Libya immediately come to mind. In fact, Putin recently declared the following at the Seliger 2014 annual youth forum:
Do you remember the joke: "Whatever Russians make, they always end up with a Kalashnikov?" I get an impression that whatever Americans touch they always end up with Libya or Iraq.
Apparently,
he is absolutely right and Banderastan is now headed down the exact
same road. Truth be told, there
is only that long that the AngloZionists can keep Poroshenko in
power and the remnants of economy of Banderastan afloat.
Sooner or later - probably sooner - both will come tumbling down and
then all hell will truly break lose
In the meantime, "Iats" has announced the "lustration" (purge) of the estimated 1'000'000 civil servants connected with the previous regime. Apparently, this does not including Poroshenko, Timoshenko, Turchinov or "Iats" himself (all of whom have served under previous Presidents in one capacity or another).
Crazy, crazy shit...Military situation:
In the meantime, "Iats" has announced the "lustration" (purge) of the estimated 1'000'000 civil servants connected with the previous regime. Apparently, this does not including Poroshenko, Timoshenko, Turchinov or "Iats" himself (all of whom have served under previous Presidents in one capacity or another).
Crazy, crazy shit...Military situation:
 |
Military
situation September 15-17
|
To
my great surprise, a Ukie counter-offensive did not materialize or,
if it did, it was so lame that it was hard to notice. The
Ukies did concentrate very large forces in several locations, and
the JRF did execute attacks in several locations, but they were lame
and rather rapidly repelled. As for those few locations which
were taken under the control of the JRF, they were mostly locations
which the NAF had abandoned. My source for this analysis is
"Basketok" (whose excellent and detailed daily reports
Russian speakers can get here and here).
Amazingly, the NAF have still not taken full control of the Donetsk Airport. They have surrounded it and they control most, but not all of it. As for the Ukies there, they are categorically refusing to surrender and they are still shelling Donetsk on a daily basis. I can only explain this aberration as a consequence of the political infighting taking place in the Novorussian leadership.
One of the most likely explanation of the current is one given by the (excellent) Colonel Cassad:
Amazingly, the NAF have still not taken full control of the Donetsk Airport. They have surrounded it and they control most, but not all of it. As for the Ukies there, they are categorically refusing to surrender and they are still shelling Donetsk on a daily basis. I can only explain this aberration as a consequence of the political infighting taking place in the Novorussian leadership.
One of the most likely explanation of the current is one given by the (excellent) Colonel Cassad:
With respect to concentration, the main forces of the junta are already deployed into Donbass. The junta cannot grow the group substantially yet. Taking the planned rotation of the detachments and the combat capable units that were pulled into the front into account, the junta can reinforce its group only by throwing restored battalion-tactical groups of previously routed detachments into action. However, their combat qualities appear quite dubious due to large losses in personnel and materiel. In essence, absent the 4-th wave of mobilization, the junta cannot substantially increase the headcount of its group, which remains approximately on the level of early July of 2014. Considering the failure of the previous 3 waves of mobilization, the possible results of the 4-th also trigger certain skepticism. The junta, of course, isn't close to the limiting values of its mobilization potential, but it is already experiencing serious difficulties. All of this is aggravated by materiel issues: by various estimates, the junta lost about 60-70% of materiel present in Donbass (and the worst thing for the junta is that more than 220 armored vehicles of varying degree of combat readiness ended up being captured by the NAF, which already put between a quarter and a third of captured trophies into action). Of course, there are still many tanks, IFVs, SPH, and MLRS in warehouses and repair facilities, but reinforcements in August and September couldn't compensate for huge losses. The attempts of getting materiel from NATO countries and the attempts to buy back the vehicles that were shipped on international defense contracts are supposed to close the gap in materiel that was formed. Ukraine continues to reap the fruits of its horrible looting of Soviet military legacy.
This
makes sense. The JRF did through its best men and equipment in
its attempt to crush Novorussia in just a "few weeks" and
it lost them. There are still numerically significant
resources available to them, as shown by the large concentrations of
forces they have massed but failed to effectively use so far.
As for the NAF, they have made some small progress in various locations, and they have made small retreats from others, but nothing crucial has taken place on their side either. Does that mean that the NAF and JRF have fought each other to a standstill? Maybe, I don't know and have no way to check. Still, my first explanation for this apparent stagnation on the military front is that both sides are too deeply involved in the the political infighting and the chaos resulting from it.
Those whom I jokingly refer to "prophets and mind readers" will probably make confident predictions based, as always, on simplistic models, but I won't. I know what Putin wants and Russia needs: regime change in Kiev. I also know what Putin does not want or Russia cannot afford: a Novorussian collapse. The two, of course, are linked. But how the situation will evolve now is too early to call.
I often think that the (liberal, Masonic, pro-western, democratic and oligarchic) Kerensky regime came to power in February. Just like the Ukie Junta. Kerensky was overthrown in October of the same year. Just saying...
Kind regards,
The Saker
As for the NAF, they have made some small progress in various locations, and they have made small retreats from others, but nothing crucial has taken place on their side either. Does that mean that the NAF and JRF have fought each other to a standstill? Maybe, I don't know and have no way to check. Still, my first explanation for this apparent stagnation on the military front is that both sides are too deeply involved in the the political infighting and the chaos resulting from it.
Those whom I jokingly refer to "prophets and mind readers" will probably make confident predictions based, as always, on simplistic models, but I won't. I know what Putin wants and Russia needs: regime change in Kiev. I also know what Putin does not want or Russia cannot afford: a Novorussian collapse. The two, of course, are linked. But how the situation will evolve now is too early to call.
I often think that the (liberal, Masonic, pro-western, democratic and oligarchic) Kerensky regime came to power in February. Just like the Ukie Junta. Kerensky was overthrown in October of the same year. Just saying...
Kind regards,
The Saker
Uniat priests calls for depriving Orthodox from basic civil rights
17
September, 2014
I
just saw this one on YouTube and it is very good. Here what it
says about this video in
the "About" section of the YouTube page:
(with original spelling).
"UA
priest calls to deprive parishioners of Moscow Patriarchate churhces
of rights to be elected and work in official organizations. A
bit ironic, as in fact he talks not about churches in Russia, but
canonical local Ukrainian Orthodox Christian Church which formally
subordinates to Moscow Patriarchate and is opposed by not-recognized
"Church of Kyiv Patriarchate" which splitted from Ukrainian
Orthodox Christian Church after Philaret (patriarch of Kyiv
Patriarchate) failed to be elected as new Patriarch in the beginning
of 90's".
Now,
longtime readers already know that I do not recognized the Moscow
Patriarchate as a legitimate part of the Russian Orthodox Church (for
details, read
this: http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2013/02/russia-and-islam-part-two-russian.html where
I explain this little known but crucial issue) and I also oppose the
use of the term "canonical" in the sense of "recognized
by the powers that be" which is, apparently, how the author (and
most modernist and ecumenist Orthodox people understand it to be).
In the Ukraine one side recognizes one Orthodox Church as "canonical"
because the secular power in Kiev happens to recognize it as such
(for purely political reasons) and calls the other "schismatic"
while the other side also recognizes one Orthodox Church as
"canonical" because the secular power in Moscow happens to
recognize it it as such (also for purely political reasons) as calls
the other "schismatic. In the authentic Christian
tradition "canonical" does not mean "recognized by the
secular regime" but rather "in accordance with Church
canons". That is a topic where neither the Ukie Church nor
the Moscow Patriarchate wants to go, or even mention [those
interested in the topic, please see the note at the bottom of this
page]. With all these caveats in mind, I have to say the
following:
What this Uniat priest proposes is quite amazing.
Not only do they want to seize the church buildings which belong to
the "autonomous" Ukrainian Orthodox Chruch to which the
Moscow Patriarchate granted autonomy (for purely political reasons,
what else?) but he wants to deprive of political rights (hold an
official position) those Ukrainians who attend these "autonomous"
UOC parishes. The Ukies call that "lustration".
See for yourself:
"UA priest calls to deprive parishioners of Moscow Patriarchate churhces of rights to be elected and work in official organizations. A bit ironic, as in fact he talks not about churches in Russia, but canonical local Ukrainian Orthodox Christian Church which formally subordinates to Moscow Patriarchate and is opposed by not-recognized "Church of Kyiv Patriarchate" which splitted from Ukrainian Orthodox Christian Church after Philaret (patriarch of Kyiv Patriarchate) failed to be elected as new Patriarch in the beginning of 90's".
Now, longtime readers already know that I do not recognized the Moscow Patriarchate as a legitimate part of the Russian Orthodox Church (for details, read this: http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2013/02/russia-and-islam-part-two-russian.html where I explain this little known but crucial issue) and I also oppose the use of the term "canonical" in the sense of "recognized by the powers that be" which is, apparently, how the author (and most modernist and ecumenist Orthodox people understand it to be). In the Ukraine one side recognizes one Orthodox Church as "canonical" because the secular power in Kiev happens to recognize it as such (for purely political reasons) and calls the other "schismatic" while the other side also recognizes one Orthodox Church as "canonical" because the secular power in Moscow happens to recognize it it as such (also for purely political reasons) as calls the other "schismatic. In the authentic Christian tradition "canonical" does not mean "recognized by the secular regime" but rather "in accordance with Church canons". That is a topic where neither the Ukie Church nor the Moscow Patriarchate wants to go, or even mention [those interested in the topic, please see the note at the bottom of this page]. With all these caveats in mind, I have to say the following:
What this Uniat priest proposes is quite amazing. Not only do they want to seize the church buildings which belong to the "autonomous" Ukrainian Orthodox Chruch to which the Moscow Patriarchate granted autonomy (for purely political reasons, what else?) but he wants to deprive of political rights (hold an official position) those Ukrainians who attend these "autonomous" UOC parishes. The Ukies call that "lustration". See for yourself:
I
have been getting a lot of flak from offended Latin Christians about
my posts in which I claim that the Vatican is the "creator"
of the Ukraine and that it still plays a central role in feeding the
anti-Russian and anti-Orthodox hatred in the Ukraine. I already
posted one
such example recently,
and today I am posting this second one. Not because I want to
bash Latin Christians, but because I believe, strongly, that
the truth about the Ukraine cannot be understood unless the
behind-the-scenes "feeder mechanisms" are brought to
light. And since my blog has never been a popularity contest, I
fully plan to continue "covering" this topic (-: it will
never get me as much flak as my unrepentant use of the "AngloZionist"
anyway :-)
To me, this is quite simple, really: intellectually honest Latin Christians will be distressed by this, but they will not bother denying it or "explaining it away", and they will do whatever they can in their personal lives to oppose and denounce this. Those less encumbered by honesty will try hard to deny it, blame "a few bad apples", try to find "Orthodox equivalents" in the past or say they personally never saw any manifestation of anti-Orthodox hatred (those interested in the techniques used by these Latins can see here and here).
Still, I hope that most readers will find this topic relevant, important and not discussed elsewhere (which is one of the key goals of this blog).
Some of you might point out that the Moscow Patriarchate has a long record of using state power to persecute non-MP Orthodox Christians. This is quite true, even today. But I would point out a crucial difference: in the past, such actions were the result of the policies of the top MP clergy - bishops, not priests - and in more recent times, I would even argue that only a small minority of MP bishops. This is a small consolation of those on the receiving end of such actions (they typically get their parishes taken away by OMON forces), but I think that it is important to be honest here and say that nowadays the vast majority of MP laity and a strong majority of MP clergy does not support that kind of thuggery. That does not make the MP more legitimate in a (correctly used) canonical sense, but it most definitely makes it much more "Christian" in an ethical sense, certainly more than it was even 15-20 years ago. Uniat hatred for Orthodoxy is a normal and widespread phenomenon, it is a core feature of the Uniat identity and it has no equivalent inside the Moscow Patriarchate.
Finally, just to preempt another attempts at equating the unequatable, you may notice that this Uniat is disguising himself - with cross and all - as an Orthodox priest. You will never see an Orthodox priest disguising himself as a Latin. This is a purely Latin thing to do to con the ignorant. Likewise, the Units are obliged to accept the Frankish version of the Symbol of Faith (aka "Creed") in which the words "and the Son" (or filioque) are added to the original text, but they are not obliged to say that when they recite the Symbol. This "believing one thing, but not saying so" is also a unique Latin feature which serves the same purpose at the disguise: to con the ignorant and erase visible differences (not matter how crucial - there is no higher dogma in Christianity then the Symbol). This is also why the Latins always speak of geography (eastern Churches) or appearances (eastern Rite) but almost never about fundamental dogmatic disagreements (of which there are plenty!) or about the undeniable fact that the West has been Orthodox for the first 1000 years of its history.
Cheers,
The Saker
Note for those interested in the topic:
In the true Christian tradition a Church *never* derives its authenticity (or, to misuse the modern term again, its "canonicity") from the secular state nor from the number of churches (in the sense of church, parish, *buildings*) you have acquired courtesy of state patronage. As I have mentioned it here in the past, the "criterion of truth" or the "authentic Christian character" from a Church is derived according to the following ancient principles:
The full unadulterated preservation faith "which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian" (St. Athanasius)
and
The full unadulterated preservation of that "which has been believed everywhere, always and by all" (Saint Vicent of Lerins). So no innovations, especially no dogmatic ones.
The short-term combining the two above is often referred to as "consensus of the Fathers" (consensus patrum): that upon which the saints and councils of the early Church agreed upon.
One could say that the innovating "got-their-canonicity-from-the-secular-state" Churches are all in communion with each other, but not in communion with the original, early Church.
To me, this is quite simple, really: intellectually honest Latin Christians will be distressed by this, but they will not bother denying it or "explaining it away", and they will do whatever they can in their personal lives to oppose and denounce this. Those less encumbered by honesty will try hard to deny it, blame "a few bad apples", try to find "Orthodox equivalents" in the past or say they personally never saw any manifestation of anti-Orthodox hatred (those interested in the techniques used by these Latins can see here and here).
Still, I hope that most readers will find this topic relevant, important and not discussed elsewhere (which is one of the key goals of this blog).
Some of you might point out that the Moscow Patriarchate has a long record of using state power to persecute non-MP Orthodox Christians. This is quite true, even today. But I would point out a crucial difference: in the past, such actions were the result of the policies of the top MP clergy - bishops, not priests - and in more recent times, I would even argue that only a small minority of MP bishops. This is a small consolation of those on the receiving end of such actions (they typically get their parishes taken away by OMON forces), but I think that it is important to be honest here and say that nowadays the vast majority of MP laity and a strong majority of MP clergy does not support that kind of thuggery. That does not make the MP more legitimate in a (correctly used) canonical sense, but it most definitely makes it much more "Christian" in an ethical sense, certainly more than it was even 15-20 years ago. Uniat hatred for Orthodoxy is a normal and widespread phenomenon, it is a core feature of the Uniat identity and it has no equivalent inside the Moscow Patriarchate.
Finally, just to preempt another attempts at equating the unequatable, you may notice that this Uniat is disguising himself - with cross and all - as an Orthodox priest. You will never see an Orthodox priest disguising himself as a Latin. This is a purely Latin thing to do to con the ignorant. Likewise, the Units are obliged to accept the Frankish version of the Symbol of Faith (aka "Creed") in which the words "and the Son" (or filioque) are added to the original text, but they are not obliged to say that when they recite the Symbol. This "believing one thing, but not saying so" is also a unique Latin feature which serves the same purpose at the disguise: to con the ignorant and erase visible differences (not matter how crucial - there is no higher dogma in Christianity then the Symbol). This is also why the Latins always speak of geography (eastern Churches) or appearances (eastern Rite) but almost never about fundamental dogmatic disagreements (of which there are plenty!) or about the undeniable fact that the West has been Orthodox for the first 1000 years of its history.
Cheers,
The Saker
Note for those interested in the topic:
In the true Christian tradition a Church *never* derives its authenticity (or, to misuse the modern term again, its "canonicity") from the secular state nor from the number of churches (in the sense of church, parish, *buildings*) you have acquired courtesy of state patronage. As I have mentioned it here in the past, the "criterion of truth" or the "authentic Christian character" from a Church is derived according to the following ancient principles:
The full unadulterated preservation faith "which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian" (St. Athanasius)
and
The full unadulterated preservation of that "which has been believed everywhere, always and by all" (Saint Vicent of Lerins). So no innovations, especially no dogmatic ones.
The short-term combining the two above is often referred to as "consensus of the Fathers" (consensus patrum): that upon which the saints and councils of the early Church agreed upon.
One could say that the innovating "got-their-canonicity-from-the-secular-state" Churches are all in communion with each other, but not in communion with the original, early Church.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.