Just re-read this piece that I wrote on 13 April 2016. Seems appropriate today, doncha think?
Our triumphant “values” have morphed into hybris, the genitor of koros and today ate rules us. Then comes nemesis to execute vengeance and restore balance.
EUROPE GETS AN ANATOMY LESSON
Well, “Fuck the EU” she said, and here we are.
Vance’s speech was a bombshell. Left them weeping, it did. Gotta say though, if Zelensky is where you find your “values and principals” these days, I think you should look somewhere else. We can only hope that Vance’s lecture has killed this sanctimonious and hypocritical values talk. Or reduced it a bit, anyway.
Many see it as complementary to Putin’s speech in the same forum in 2007, Here it is for comparison. For example: “Incidentally, Russia – we – are constantly being taught about democracy. But for some reason those who teach us do not want to learn themselves” certainly strikes a chord with Vance’s speech. But Putin’s principal theme (quoting FDR) was that security is indivisible. And surely that is the truth that we see in 2025: if one major player feels insecure then, at the end – say, in 18 years — everybody will. And here we are. The light-hearted attempt to destroy the country that “makes nothing” now has the IISS bemoaning the fact that Russia makes more weapons than all of Europe. Europeans, so confident so recently, now give themselves the fantods about Russia invading.
Two days before, the new US Defense Secretary had put in the first punch: Ukraine is now Europe’s problem. Lots of people are commenting on these announcements and the forthcoming negotiations between Moscow and Washington. This is my little addition to the discussion.
But first read my essay from 2018 on how to fix Ukraine because I think we are starting down that road. It will be a long road and there is still more fighting to come. One can hope, though, with the revelation of how short a time “as long as it takes” is, that the wretched Ukrainians pressed into the slaughterhouse will abandon the Galician cause and vote with their feet. (I am trying to train myself to always remember the distinction between Ukrainians and Galicians).
Everyone should recognise that it would have been more honest had Hegseth admitted Washington’s responsibilities starting from coddling Bandera, building up Stetsko, the five billion dollars, the cookies and “Yats is our guy”. OK, I appreciate that a new team is there, that the new team plans to make big and real changes across the board, is very much the opposite of the last Administration, but still Washington has been the principal author of the Ukrainian cataclysm. After all, in its original declaration of independence Kiev wanted to be neutral and, as Nuland said, it took a lot of money to change things. So some admission of Washington’s very (VERY) large role in the catastrophe would have been more sincere than leaving the impression that the Europeans did it themselves. As to de-industrialisation, don’t pretend Washington had nothing to do with blowing up the gas line that powered it; Nordstream wasn’t eaten by a passing shark. At least Vance said “we” when he talked about uncontrolled “refugee” admission. So, altogether, some admission that Europe was following Washington’s lead in many of these errors would have been better.
But the speeches were certainly truth bombs.
What have we learned? Well, something that Moscow learned a long time ago: Washington is not reliable (the complicated Russia word is недоговороспособны which essentially means that you can’t make an agreement with it and even if you do, it won’t keep it). In a word, Washington caused the Ukraine disaster and, now that it’s gone irredeemably bad, is walking away from it and leaving it to Europe. The simple geopolitical truth is that the United States of America lives on an invulnerable island, with weak and friendly neighbours. No outside force can do anything to it except by the mutual suicide of nuclear weapons. It took Moscow a while to learn it but, eventually, all the broken promises taught it that Washington’s word was worthless. So, in the negotiations that start tomorrow, Moscow is not going to take anything for granted and will accept no verbal assertions.
Now Europe has learned this. In the simplest, bluntest and most brutal terms the fact that has just hit it in the face is that USA is over there and Russia is here. The USA can make a mess anywhere and walk away at any time; remember Vietnam? Afghanistan? Well now it’s you.
So Europe, there’re four things you’d better do immediately: 1) figure out what your real interests are; 2) get yourself into a position to defend them; 3) make your peace with Moscow. (A European master of realpolitik told you years ago “The secret of politics? Make a good treaty with Russia“.) And fourth, read and meditate on the joint Russia-Chinese statement of three years ago. Why? Because that’s the future. What to do? – the European Dilemma. But to start on this program you’ll certainly need a different bunch at the top, won’t you? The German elections next week will give us a clue.
What is the Trump team’s idea of a new world? My guess at the moment is that it envisions a future world of three Great Powers each with its own sphere of interest (I would further guess that it sees Europe in the US sphere and not on its own). This is very far from what the Chinese Foreign Minister spoke of at Munich which would be a world of many countries, big and small, rich and poor, all with a voice deserving of a listen and that is the future Moscow envisions also. See the joint statement and bear in mind that both Russia and China were exceptionalist powers before they learned that that’s a dead end. So, if I’m reading these tea leaves aright, there is still much to be worked out between Washington and Moscow-Beijing. The talks that start tomorrow are the first step in a long and painful road. They will require many adjustments by the American side because Washington doesn’t fully understand how much the correlation of forces has changed and I’m not confident that it can. In a week or so we’ll have a better idea.
Interesting times, indeed.
PS Someone the other day referred to me as a Cassandra: a prophet, usually pessimistic, often right but doomed never to be believed. I guess that’s a sort of compliment. Depressing though to have several friends close me out as a “Putin apologist”.
BOUGHT JOURNALISM
(The title is a homage to the late Udo Ulfkotte whose book Gekaufte-Journalisten described how reporters in Europe were bribed and controlled by the CIA. A conspiracy theory Wikipedia assures us. Bet they’ll be editing that out pretty soon!)
We are told (by Politico, of all things) that DOGE’s attention was drawn to USAID by the suspicion that it was trying to end-run Trump’s freeze on foreign aid spending. DOGE entered the building on 27 January and two weeks later, the name came off and most of its employees were dismissed. A fortuitous choice as it turned out because it uncovered a long, expensive and remarkably varied list of highly suspect expenditures.
What I am concerned with here is this part of USAID’s activities: USAID’s funding of over 6,000 journalists, 1,000 platforms worldwide raises concerns over independence and transparency; USAID: $270 Million for ‘Independent’ Journalists; USAID Funded Massive ‘News’ Platform, Extending ‘Censorship Industrial Complex’ To Billions Worldwide. Reporters Without Borders sums it up (disapprovingly)
President Donald Trump has frozen billions of dollars around the world in aid projects, including over $268 million allocated by Congress to support independent media and the free flow of information. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) denounces this decision, which has plunged NGOs, media outlets, and journalists doing vital work into chaotic uncertainty. […] According to a USAID fact sheet which has since been taken offline, in 2023, the agency funded training and support for 6,200 journalists, assisted 707 non-state news outlets, and supported 279 media-sector civil society organizations dedicated to strengthening independent media. The 2025 foreign aid budget included $268,376,000 allocated by Congress to support “independent media and the free flow of information”.
“Independent” indeed. A quarter of a billion for the year 2025 and similar sums for decades! If any other country were doing this it would be called propaganda, disinformation or shoving their POV down your throat.
Can’t call Ulfkotte a conspiracy theorist after that, can you? USAID was a major producer of what you could call the news that fits. One can wonder how often these planted stories were picked up by truly independent sources, reinforcing the disinformation creators’ convictions, and then fed back into the decision loop in Washington. Could that explain the endless series of catastrophes and failures? Drinking your own bathwater is never a good diet.
A particularly significant consequence of DOGE’s strangling of that fake news factory is felt in Ukraine. The Kyiv Post informs us that USAID Funding Halt Leaves Ukrainian Media Seeking Support and another Ukrainian source tells us 59,2% of journalists predict US international grant suspension to have catastrophic impact – IMI survey. Meanwhile none other than the WaPo (not a recipient as far as we know) tells us Independent media in Russia, Ukraine lose their funding with USAID freeze.” “Independent media”! Bet there was a powerful feedback loop there!
************************************
This is Day 21 of DOGE; imagine what we’ll know on Day 63.
************************************
At least the Soviets were straight-up about their propaganda. Pravda (Truth) said on its masthead that it was the Organ of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Izvestiya (News) was the “news” of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. This is what the Party wants you to believe and this what the government wants you to know. In case there’s any doubt who’s in charge, the Constitution tells you that the CPSU is the leading and guiding force in the USSR. No hiding behind sanctimonious mottoes like “Democracy dies in darkness” or “The Most Trusted Name in News”.
ANOTHER ANNIVERSARY DOWN THE MEMORY HOLE.
On 26 January 1934, 91 years ago, Hitler was four days away from his first year as Chancellor. The Enabling Act of 23 March 1933 had given him and his National Socialist party virtual dictatorial powers but he wouldn’t become Supreme Leader for another eight months. But you’d have to be pretty dull not to realise in January 1934 what was happening in Germany and who and what Hitler was. (It’s one of the most tedious books ever written but it had been out there for nearly a decade and the author, then an imprisoned nobody, has actually made it to the top of the power pyramid. So anybody within range of Germany should read it and take what it says seriously.)
That’s what we’re told today but, actually, the facts aren’t there. In my last few entries on this site I’ve mentioned Michael Jabara Carley’s research on Soviet efforts to form an anti-Hitler coalition, mentioned the ludicrously late and low-level British-French military mission to Moscow well past the eleventh hour on the countdown to war, the Anglo-German Naval Treaty of Hitler Year 2 and other things that have gone down the Memory Hole.
No, the truth is that Stalin was not the first guy to do a deal with Hitler. He was the last guy.
This is the first guy.
And, according to the standard Western narrative, the last one whom you’d expect.
Check it out on Wikipedia.
**************************
My point is this. A lot of the foundation for explaining what’s going on today that we’re presented with is very selective. Those who don’t know the history are easily gulled into swallowing this syllogism: Hitler was a monster; no one would have anything to do with him except that other monster Stalin; Putin is Stalin’s successor; therefore he is a monster; we must resist Putin otherwise it’s 1939 all over again.
“Far from being a ‘liberator,’ the Soviet Union was a facilitator of Nazi Germany and a perpetrator of crimes of its own“; this five years ago to justify not inviting Russia to the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. “Aggression of 17 September 1939 ‒ the historical lie of the current policy of the Kremlin”. These are, of course, attempts by Warsaw to cover up what you have just learned because mentioning the Hitler-Poland Pact would spoil the story.
But not only Poles want to replace reality with a constructed narrative; here’s the BBC six years ago:
President Putin argued that Stalin had tried to forge an anti-Hitler alliance with Britain, France and Poland, but that the Munich Agreement in 1938 – dooming Czechoslovakia – had scuppered that plan. Stalin then had to reach a deal with Hitler, feeling betrayed by the West, he argued. However, Western historians point out that the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact meant Hitler did not have to fear a clash with the USSR if he invaded Poland, so giving him the assurance he needed.
While each statement is true, the second is not the answer to the first, as the writer is trying to pretend. Another (British) masterpiece of elision is this so-called “deep dive”:
The Rapallo Era ended nine months after Hitler assumed power in 1933 and, at his orders, the secret facilities closed one by one. While mistrust pervaded Soviet-German relations over the next six years, ties were never completely severed, Johnson writes. In spring 1939, both Stalin and Hitler proved open to renewing cooperation and in August, the country’s two foreign ministers signed a treaty of nonaggression, known as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
Selective indeed: yes Germany and the USSR cooperated in the 1920s, yes that cooperation was a big help to the German military. But leave out the Soviet attempt to stop Hitler because it will spoil the story; just jump over six years as if they didn’t exist. And so we have the WSJ in 2020 accusing Putin of having “rewritten history for political ends” when it’s actually the other way round.
But Memory Holes are not as all-efficient as in Orwell’s novel and the Internet remembers a lot: “Stalin ‘planned to send a million troops to stop Hitler if Britain and France agreed pact‘”; “But the British and French side – briefed by their governments to talk, but not authorised to commit to binding deals – did not respond to the Soviet offer, made on August 15, 1939”. Very rare that, but it dates from 2008 well before MiniTrue took the present line on Russia. (There’s even a preserved video of the Anglo-French mission setting off. By ship!)
It’s history written backwards so that today these partial and selective narratives can be used to reinforce contemporary positions. Disinformation they call it.
Today is the anniversary of one of the things left out.
Did it make you doubt the received version, Dear Reader? What else is Memory Holed?
**************************
How about this? Maybe Poland wasn’t the first foreign entity to think it could do a deal with Hitler. You’ll find this one, from 25 August 1933, even more surprising. Check it out on Wikipedia.
Real history, in contrast with carefully pruned afterwards “history”, shows that almost everybody tried to do a deal with Hitler.
REVIEW OF STALIN’S GAMBLE
Stalin’s Gamble: The Search for Allies against Hitler, 1930–1936 by Michael Jabara Carley
Submitted to Canadian Kindle 27 Jun 2024
Essential reading about the lead-up to World War Two. But beware! Your illusions will be hurt.
The book is a long read but that is because it is the fruit of a long time: Carley has spent thirty years in the archives of the countries involved. Stalin’s Gamble is the first of a trilogy that covers the period from Hitler’s seizure of power in 1933 to his invasion of the USSR in 1941, This volume takes us to 1936 and the signing of a France-USSR pact (much weakened by the French apparat and, in the end, ineffective) and Hitler’s occupation of the Rhineland. Because of his labours in the archives, Carley has command of all sides of the issue.
The central theme and, no doubt, a complete surprise to most of its readers, will be that the the conventional story has got it exactly backwards: Stalin was not Hitler’s co-conspirator. He understood four things: 1) the previous good Moscow-Berlin relations were gone forever, 2) Hitler was a threat to all around him, 3) Hitler would break any agreement as soon as he could, 4) the only response was an agreement of Germany’s neighbours to block him. “Collective security” they called it: only together could Hitler be stopped; individual agreements just encouraged him to push somewhere else. This volume retails, meeting by meeting, the efforts of Soviet diplomats to get their interlocutors to grasp this and to construct an anti-Hitler resistance arrangement. They were not unsuccessful: important people in France, Britain (even the anti-Bolshevik Winston Churchill who met the Soviet Ambassador often), Romania and Czechoslovakia agreed with Stalin’s appreciation of the situation but they could never quite push their governments over the finish line.
The last flicker of Moscow’s attempts would be extinguished with an absurdly lethargic and powerless French-British military mission to Leningrad in August 1939; Stalin now understood that his Plan A was dead and the USSR was on its own. So, to buy time, he accepted Hitler’s offer of a non-aggression pact, grabbed territory to the west and buckled up for the inevitable war. But his timing was wrong and Hitler attacked, as David Glantz has observed, at exactly the worst time for the Soviets.
Hard as it may be for many in the West to admit, Stalin’s appreciation of the situation was completely correct and the alliance that could have deterred Hitler never happened.
This interview with Carley describes the trilogy. https://www.thepostil.com/of-collective-security-an-interview-with-michael-jabara-carley/
ADDENDUM 1 July 2024. Received this from Kindle. The only true thing in this list was “links to other sites”. So I removed the last para and resubmitted. I must say that I have no great expectations.
| Please edit and resubmit your review Hello G Patrick Armstrong,We couldn’t post your review because it doesn’t meet our guidelines for one or more of these reasons: Spam Promotions Reviews given in exchange for cash, discounts Links to other sites Attempts to manipulate helpful votes Plagiarism Infringement Impersonation Please edit and resubmit your review. Before you do, make sure it meets all of our Community guidelines. |
ADDENDUM 4 Jul 2024. They published it.
ANOTHER ANNIVERSARY NOBODY REMEMBERS
On this day, 18 June, in 1935, the Anglo-German Naval Agreement was signed. The two sides agreed that the German Navy’s total tonnage would be fixed at 35% of the Royal Navy’s tonnage. Not, when you think about it, a very intelligent agreement from London’s perspective. One of the causes of the First World War had been British concerns about the size of the German Navy and yet where did they think this one-third-as-big navy would be based? Obviously in the North Sea; the British, with their world-wide empire, would have most of their ships elsewhere, In short, London was agreeing that the Germans could have near-parity in the waters closest to it.
But worse. The agreement was the first violation by a great power of the Versailles conditions and had been done without consultation with any of Britain’s allies. It was the first, and therefore legitimating, agreement made by a great power with Hitler’s Germany.
(Unless you count Poland as a “great power” as the Polish government certainly did. It had signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler’s Germany eighteen months before. A French diplomat remarked that he saw a repetition of a pattern of Polish history: overestimate your power, step too far, be divided up by your neighbours.)
Soon after Hitler’s takeover in Germany, Moscow (which is to say Stalin) understood four things: 1) there was no possibility of returning to the previous good relations (Rapallo) 2) Hitler was a threat to all around him 3) Hitler would break any agreement as soon as he felt strong enough to 4) the only possible response was an alliance/coalition/agreement of Germany’s neighbours to block him. This became the Soviet Union’s principal foreign policy; as a Soviet diplomat put it to a French colleague, Soviet policy was very simple: “It is dictated by the fact that all that reinforces Germany we are against, and all that reinforces France, we are for”. Soviet diplomats were dismayed when they told their interlocutors that Hitler had plainly stated his intentions in Mein Kampf and received flippant answers like that’s just a ten-year old book and nobody ever does what he said he would when he gets in power. A ten-year old book given to every newlywed couple and soldier; definitely not something to ignore.
Many agreed with Stalin – President Roosevelt for example, in conversations with Litvinov, even proposed a US-Soviet non-aggression pact. In the UK in particular, the affable Soviet Ambassador, Ivan Mayskiy had found agreement on these four points with Robert Vansittart, the senior civil servant in the Foreign office, with Lord Beaverbrook, the powerful press baron, and even with the arch anti-Bolshevik Winston Churchill. Mayskiy discussed the world situation with the three many times, agreeing that the biggest threats to peace were Germany in Europe and Japan in Asia and that the coalition proposed by Moscow was the only hope of avoiding another great war. But Vansittart did not make policy, Beaverbrook could only push the line in his newspapers and Churchill was very far from power. Similar attempts in France failed, despite the support of General Weygand and other important officials, because of the instability of French politics and the effective opposition of Pierre Laval. And Poland was a constant worry: how close to Hitler was it getting? The smaller countries weren’t going to move without France or Britain. But many people in many countries agreed with Stalin and were working towards an anti-Hitler coalition.
The Anglo-German agreement was a shock to these hopes. London had given recognition to Hitler’s coup d’etat, made a bad agreement with him, ignored its allies and tossed Versailles overboard. Encouraging to Hitler and dismaying to his opponents.
Following his policy of pushing another step while professing eternal peace, Hitler re-occupied the Rhineland, demilitarised by Versailles, in March 1936. London and Paris did nothing and, once again, Hitler’s assessment proved out. How much did the naval agreement make him think he had the measure of London’s firmness of purpose? Do you think he would have done it had there been a USSR-France-UK plus Romania and Czechoslovakia alliance?
And, just as Stalin predicted, Hitler repudiated the naval agreement in spring 1939 along with the 1938 Munich agreement on Czechoslovakia and the 1934 pact with Poland. Moscow continued with its efforts to create an anti-Hitler force but with less and less hope. The final flicker was the abortive Anglo-French-Soviet military talks in late 1939. Giving up, Stalin accepted Hitler’s offer, signed a pact with him and the overconfident Poland was again eaten by its neighbours. (“‘We do not fear, [Józef Beck, Polish Foreign Minister] was reported to have said, [in 1934] ‘attacks on the part of Germany’.”)
The stock Western story remembers to forget this. Instead the story is 1) Munich (and for the neocons the time is always September 1938 and the place is always Munich) and 2) Hitler and his soulmate Stalin allying. Even so, every now and again the corporate media forgets to forget it: “Stalin ‘planned to send a million troops to stop Hitler if Britain and France agreed pact'”. And here we have a perfect example of the customary “forgetfulness”: for this historian the Soviet-German clock stopped in early 1933 and started up again in late 1939 :
The Rapallo Era ended nine months after Hitler assumed power in 1933 and, at his orders, the secret facilities closed one by one. While mistrust pervaded Soviet-German relations over the next six years, ties were never completely severed, Johnson writes. In spring 1939, both Stalin and Hitler proved open to renewing cooperation and in August, the country’s two foreign ministers signed a treaty of nonaggression, known as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
Evidently we’re supposed to believe that absolutely nothing (well, a teensy-tiny bit of “mistrust” if you insist) happened in Soviet-German relations over nearly seven years. (But to fill in the gap would spoil the simple story of Hitler, Munich, Stalin-Hitler wouldn’t it?)
“History is indeed little more than the register of the crimes, follies, and misfortunes of mankind.” Hitler could have been stopped.
Once again I am indebted to Michael Jabara Carley’s work. I have just read his Stalin’s Gamble. This, the first in a trilogy, details the dismal story from Hitler’s coup until early 1936. Because of his three decades of labours in the archives of the principal countries, he has seen the notes taken by everyone of every meeting and diplomatic event; he can therefore tell us all sides of the issue It’s a dismal story because, hard as it may be for many in the West to accept, Stalin’s take was completely accurate. All his four points, which he had formulated by the end of 1933, came true. And the tragedy is that the foreign officials who agreed with him could never quite push their countries over the finish line. And so the alliance that could have deterred him never happened and only in the disaster of a great war did it eventually form.
TODAY’S THOUGHT
From Antony Beevor’s history of the Second World War, quoting a captured German airman as Manstein’s attempt to relieve the German Sixth Army at Stalingrad is failing:
We have got to believe that Germany will win the war or what is the use of going on with it?
“LISTEN TO WHAT HE’S SAYING”
I’m fond of quoting the Duke of Wellington on intelligence:
All the business of war, and indeed all the business of life, is to endeavour to find out what you don’t know by what you do; that’s what I called ‘guessing what was at the other side of the hill.’
“Find out what you don’t know by what you do“. It’s not easy, it’s not necessarily pleasant but it’s what you have to do in order to minimise your surprise when whatever it is actually comes over the hill at you.
Here’s former British Ambassador to Russia Laurie Bristow saying the same thing:
My advice to all young diplomats and analysts [is that] if you want to understand Mr Putin’s foreign policy, listen to what he’s saying. You won’t like it, but you need to understand it, you need to listen to it. The place to start is the Munich speech in 2007.
“Listen to what he says”. It’s quite easy to. Putin has said a lot and most of it appears on the Presidential website in English as well as the original Russian. Never read what the Western reporters say he says – they almost always distort it – read the original. I’m sure that both Wellington and Bristow would agree.
And that’s what intelligence is all about. Try and understand how the other guy sees things. I have spent the last four decades trying to figure out what’s going on in Russia. I do that by reading what they say and watching what they do and trying to connect the two. Of course you should listen carefully to Putin and other officials, but there’s lot’s more you have to do. A country with a space program like Russia’s probably doesn’t need to steal washing machines for their chips. The West outsourced its manufacturing, Russia didn’t; so Russia can probably make lots of weapons if it has to. Putin has very high levels of support; outsiders probably can’t weaken it. The Russian economy is very self sufficient; sanctions might not have much effect. Russia’s making lots of new infrastructure; it’s not some poor country struggling along. Check these videos out: they’re Google street views of Russian towns ten years apart; the Western media certainly gives you a different impression about life in the Russian boondocks, doesn’t it? Look, listen, think. I’m sure that both Wellington and Bristow would agree.
If you don’t bother, if you blither on about “your values”, the “Rules-Based International Order” and your power and excellence, all you’re doing is looking in the mirror and seeing a slim muscled figure in place of your flabby overweight body. And, sooner or later, you’ll be very sorry because reality will bite you.
I have written many times on this site about bad Western intelligence and the unending stream of nonsense spewed in the West about Putin. Indeed, if there is one big theme of my website it’s that the Western view of Russia and Putin is almost completely false. In a word, Russia is much much stronger, in every way, than the Western establishments thought it was.
This is all being revealed in Ukraine right now: the Western “experts” were all wrong. March’s A total Russian collapse is surprisingly close puffs itself up to May’s Putin is terrified of Ukraine’s counteroffensive; then the bubble bursts and the very same “expert” declares Ukraine is losing, but the UK must stand by it. Their false expertise has cost thousands and thousands of lives. More and more witnesses have appeared to say that Kiev and Moscow had almost reached an agreement that would have stopped the fighting when the West encouraged Kiev to keep fighting. The reflection in their mirror told them that Western “game changer” weapons would terrify Putin’s unmotivated, poorly trained conscripts and their junk weapons. Here’s RAND, a year ago, solemnly pronouncing Russia’s failure:
Also, over the longer term, Russia does not have the capacity for a long war in the face of economic sanctions. Although Russia can continue to generate revenue from oil and gas exports, it does not have the ability to manufacture advanced weapons or even sufficient materiel to keep the Russian army fielded.
Then reality bit. The Western spinmeisters now redefine success, decide that victory doesn’t involve keeping territory and strengthen resiliance.
The bargaining stage of Kubler-Ross’ five stages.
THE END
So, when Western civilisation has finally ended,
what will be left for future generations?
We had values once. They meant something once. But then we shit on them. And nobody believes any more. (Vide Canadian Parliament)
Here’s my list
Newton https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/592171-to-myself-i-am-only-a-child-playing-on-the
and this
Turkey, Iran, Hungary, Vietnam. That’s something.
MEMORY LANE MAUNDERINGS
You don’t hear much from me these days for reasons attentive readers know. But I do pay to keep my site alive and I re-read things from time to time.
Usually pretty gloomily: if only my former masters had listened to me (and plenty of others – I can name three at least in Ottawa right now) we wouldn’t be as far up Shit’s Creek without a paddle as we are now. (But, in a year, we’ll be farther up yet.)
Ah well, old guys do burble on. Sometimes I feel like this guy.
But here’s one from ten years ago. Any of you remember when Georgia was the exemplar of how nasty Russia was? But who’s heard of Georgia these days? And where is that shining knight of democracy Saakashvili now?
Russia Observer 
