Is Sergei Glazyev right?

For the sake of discussion, here is some discussion between Michael Green and Pepe Escobar.

Discussing Sergei Glazyev

Michael Green: Yes, well, I can see why the Saker and Pepe Escobar are asking this embarrassing question. After all, Glazyev presented 180 degrees out of phase from Putin in this piece. He even mentioned Nazis, which Putin, with his usual nod to the principle of gentlemanly comity, almost never does. A more honest way of framing the question, therefore, is not whether Glazyev was right. But, rather, why they were so wrong.

Let's look at that, shall we? In trying to install its missile batteries in the Ukraine, America and NATO showed us their overall strategic plan. The missiles, when launched, would take mere minutes (seconds?) to get to Moscow, which is 400-500 miles away. That would mean the Russians would have to make the fateful decision to retaliate in just three minutes, maybe even less. Why would anyone take that risk?

For one reason only, which would be to launch a first strike. There is no other reason possible, unless they were insane. This was not a random or insane strategy, however. It was bold and calculated. It relied on Putin to be Putin. We don't have to like our enemies to respect their daring or strategic skill on the grand chessboard. How reckless a move was it? It wasn't all that reckless, as long as Putin dithered and remained in character.

Unlike Pepe and the Saker, my confidence in Putin remains at an all time low. We saw where that led just recently, when he turned his back on the Ukraine. Things recently changed, yes, but America is now trying to insert a wedge between the separatists in the SE and Russia itself. Part of it, we know, will involve treachery and false flags.

Back to reality, however. When this presentation by Glazyev was first published several weeks ago, I thought it was right on the money. For what it's worth, I still do.

Pepe Escobar: Michael Green - exceptional good points. I'll be deconstructing Glazyev before I write my next piece. And yes, I was underestimating how spot on he is - especially after I had some DC feedback.

Off Pepe Escobar's timeline:

PE: Michael Green - exceptional good points. I'll be deconstructing Glazyev before I write my next piece. And yes, I was underestimating how spot on he is - especially after I had some DC feedback.

MG: Thank you, Pepe. I didn't mean to "paint it black" with an infinitely wide brush, however. Mostly, I love your articles and your wit/analytics. You're my go-to person on any number of things. You have, however, likened Putin to the "Lao Tzu of Chess".

The Russian energy deals notwithstanding, however, I still see the game in the Ukraine as having been more a game of Chicken.

Putin was damned if he did and damned if he didn't, so he mostly just dithered and lost precious time and opportunity. Now, no one suggested that he invade Kiev with tanks. The suggestion - and Glazyev's too - was that Russia step-up and provide the Resistance with appropriate weapons.

The few weapons the SE had until recently were assuredly not from Russia, even if the Saker suggested that they were. Here, I'm relying on what Streklov himself said. (As the leader of the SE forces, I'd deem him to be much more reliable than the Saker.)

Now, I get that you are waiting for Russia to do something after all these false flags, but as long as Putin does it tacitly and covertly - skulking around even in mentioning the word "Nazis" - he will have lost the real game that's being played.

What's particularly worrisome, since a lot of people have justified Putin's actions based on their fear of WW III, is that no one in the West takes Putin seriously any more. Consider the fact that the doctrine of MAD (mutually assured destruction) worked as a deterrent force only if one knew about the military capability of the other side and ALSO believed in its willingness to use it.

No one much believes in Putin's willingness to act along those lines any more, and people are walking all over him. He recently sent Syria a batch of ground to ship missiles. Then Israel LEAKED that it bombed that shipment, ostensibly in a test to see what Putin would do. He did nothing, of course, and predictably, the sarin false flag was raised within weeks. The same thing has happened in the Ukraine again and again and again.

Putin is very smart, to be sure, but he is no Glazyev. Putin, perhaps, is much more like Neville Chamberlain. Has he finally had some kind of epiphany? I dunno. This covert bullshit has to stop up and down the line, however, come what may.

PE: Michael, spot on on may layers. Putin's strategy, as I understood it in May in St. Petersburg, was that he didn't want to burn any bridges with Europe, business-wise. From now on this is about to change, because he's seen how Washington is succeeding in manipulating the poodles. Glazyev went Sex Pistols while Putin was trying a Barry Manilow. No more.

MG: Great metaphors as always, Pepe. I get the Barry Manilow part but the Sex Pistols may be overstated. What I mostly want to know is how Glazyev can be an "adviser" to Putin, when he appears to be so much at odds with Putin. IF Glazyev overstated the danger, do you suppose it might not be because Putin was radically underestimating it? Again, why would the Americans be wanting to place missiles in the Ukraine, just minutes from Moscow - giving it virtually no time for a measured response - if not because of wanting a first strike capability? Here, I think Glazyev is being a pragmatist, not a testosterone-junkie. And, absolutely, Putin is Barry Manilow. There is no changing one's character. As such, Putin is the Frog in that famous parable. Definitely not the Scorpion.