Monday, July 25, 2022

Some Explanations Re: The Saker.

I need to offer some elaborations on the issue which many who also post on my discussion boards do not understand. A few people like to constantly negatively react to Andrei Raevsky's writing. This is those people's right, and I completely am fine with constructive (I underscore it--not some propaganda BS spewing) criticism of my writing as well, as with correcting my mistakes, which I make sometimes. We all do. As any people we have our biases and even delusions. I, certainly, have mine, but so does The Saker. E.g. I and him we will never settle on the account of Solzhenitsyn who for majority of Russians is a traitor, falsifier of history, and open Vlasovite--a euphemism for Nazi collaborator--not to mention the fact that he is a mediocre writer. But this does not prevent me from recognizing Andrei Raevsky as one of the best analytical voices in Anglosphere when it comes to geopolitical analysis and you can often see in his writing the use of professional methods of developing a hypothesis. It is a rare skill. 

This is not to mention the fact of his whole site being an extraordinary resource for people who seek truth and Andrei's yesterday's long (justifiably) and well written piece is a good indication of his excellent and very rare craft. Do I always agree with him? Absolutely not, there are some issues which I have disagreement with, but that is absolutely normal and is merely a small detail in a much larger and much more important work he does. So, for The Saker's critics, when criticizing, concentrate on his points in substance, meaning providing a constructive criticism, which addresses the problem, not his, or, for that matter, my biases. Present the case, not the just Boolean opinions of "right-wrong", "yes-no", but at least some argumentation to the contrary. That is a healthy and judicial approach to any discussions and upholding a generally good intellectual level which exists in my blog. I am sure Andrei Raevsky and his team will deal with Saker's blog discussions on their own. This is the issue I needed to address after seeing some reactions on Saker's excellent write-up yesterday. I hope this my advice will be heeded. In the end, recall that many of you found me and my little blog to a large degree thanks to Andrei Raevsky, for which I am very grateful to him.  

Now, to this 20%. 

I repeat, I do feel for Germans, but let me disclose one secret--one of my acquaintances, a man of extraordinary background and a very notable figure, who is German, had to bitterly admit, during one of our many conversations, that until Germany collapse economically and population as a whole will feel the brunt of this collapse, no political changes are possible. But Germany does need this change desperately because at issue is, actually, a survival of Germans as people. Yes, this is how serious this all is. 

But Russia DOES NOT anymore bear responsibility for Germany because in the last decade Germany did everything to not only alienate Russia, but support a regime and powers which wish Russia and Russians disappearance as people and culture. Germany "refashioned" itself back to the times of Drang nach Osten, and even worse iteration of it--genocidal views of Nazis. Russians, arguably, are the best people in the world when it comes down to recognizing an existential threat to themselves. Germany now is a part of this threat:

Gepards are obsolete weapon systems which will have no impact on the outcome, but the fact that Germany supports genocidal anti-Russian Kiev regime says it all. For Russians Germany is THE ENEMY now and will be treated as such. This, however, in no way reflects on many Germans who immigrate to Russia and are met with open arms.

No comments:

Post a Comment