Ahh, This Crooked Russian Genetics Again.

I always knew that I, as a Russian, was genetically inferior to inhabitants of gated communities of NYC or D.C. After all, such an authority on genetics as Mr.Clapper stated that Russians are genetically not exactly the first rate material. Now the New York Times continues a glorious American tradition of guarding own bodily fluids with yet another specialist in genetics offering his views on Russian untermensch. 

Corruption is in Russia’s DNA, as it is in Mr. Putin’s.

I think, US media are moving in the right direction by ejaculating their hatred of Russia and Russians into well-known territory (symptomatically the piece is written by German dude) of racial, genetic and other relevant inferiority issues which usually end...well we all know where and how. But never mind, I, honestly, long ago resigned myself to the idea that I am inferior in every single respect to any psychopath (many with serious mental and sexual deviations) who populate mostly US main stream media and other elites, so I don't mind. But this latest from NYT is a good opportunity to address by far more important issue than Russian genetic inferiority and this is what Gilbert Doctorow unloaded on unsuspecting us in his piece which Paul Craig Roberts utilized in his article on Vladimir Putin's...class. Doctorow starts with a wowser:

From his first days in power, Putin hoped to integrate Russia in NATO and, more generally, in the Western world. Putin was the first head of state to phone George W. Bush after the attack on the World Trade Center and generously offered substantial help, opening up Russia’s back yard in Central Asia to American forces to provide logistical support of the operation the USA would launch against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

I have huge reservations about this line of reasoning, its main weakness (well, let's leave it like this--weakness) is in the fact that it is simply not true. I would have accepted this reasoning 10-12 years ago with reservations. It doesn't work like this and, probably, in fact, most likely, wasn't working like this from the inception. After all, it is not 1999, 2001 or 2003....wait a minute, it is 2019 and Putin is on record about his paradigm shifting experience after NATO aggression against Yugoslavia. In fact, Putin's appearance in Kremlin is a direct result of that--this was in 1999. We had 20 years to adjust our views but it seems that many simply refuse to face the facts. In the end, it was Putin's Munich Speech in 2007 which started what we can observe all today and everything else after that (in reality much earlier--with anemic Russian Armed Forces starting to receive much needed cash flow in 2003-04 already, does  Doctorow know this?) is contrary to this statement that Putin "wanted to integrate into NATO". 

Counter-positioning Putin, an extremely educated man and much higher in intelligence services food chain professional than it was known previously, to a peasant crude simpleton Khrushchev is altogether mind-boggling. Yes, unlike Khrushchev, Putin is too cultured, too intelligent and too situationally aware to lower himself, and Russia who he represents, to a level of a boastful hollow political and media mediocrities from the West just because Doctorow wants, get this:

That, my friends, is the reason I say Vladimir Putin has done his and our people a disservice by not engaging in public diplomacy with the American and European peoples, by not scaring us properly so that we can come to our wits and compel our politicians and media to do likewise. 

It is mind-boggling that Putin owes it to Western peoples, according to Doctorow, a debt of scaring the shit out of them for them to mobilize. Really? How about own responsibility to do the right thing? Putin engages people of the West constantly by being an incredibly open public persona and projecting exactly what Doctorow views as a disservice: universally admired intelligence, integrity and projection of Russia's true power. Just to conclude with Doctorow recent strange string of articles, he now, in his latest, concludes:

Throughout the past 25 years a more agile and determined Russia has bested the United States and had its way in each and every energy corridor which the United States tried with might and main and dirty tricks to block.   It remains to be seen whether the same agility and skills will bring Russia victory in the coming new arms race, or whether the bludgeon of American economic strength win out.

I have news for Doctorow and I am damn sure I am correct on that: America doesn't have a bludgeon of "economic strength", especially in a military field, where even vast sums of printed money do not produce adequate capability anymore. But what do I really know about military, and Russia.