Whitley's Journal

Vladimir Putin's Dark Dreams

If Vladimir Putin had personally ordered the shoot-down of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 last week, events could not have played into his hands more perfectly. In fact, the result has been so valuable to Putin, that it seems possible that he did take a calculated risk here and order the missile to be fired at the plane.

It wasn't just any plane that was shot down. It was the only plane to cross the combat zone that day that was packed with Dutch nationals. On the surface, it would seem that the last thing Putin would want to do would be to create such friction between him and his biggest western trading partner.

However, what he did immediately after the disaster suggests that, if he did not create this provocation, he has certainly used it in exactly the same way that Hitler used his unopposed invasion of the Rhineland in 1936. At that time, the west was tired of war, as it is now, and indeed, the extensive British and French units that were stationed in the Rhineland didn't fire a shot, but instead quietly withdrew after the German occupation was complete.

The result of this was that Hitler became overconfident, and kept on expanding until he finally started World War II, which ended with the deaths of hundreds of millions of human beings and the almost total destruction of Germany itself.

Whether Putin was responsible or not, the wanton murder of 193 Dutch citizens was a fearsome provocation. And what happened? Nothing. The Dutch government proved to be more interested in its trade with Russia than in its own citizens. The European Union continued to dither, worried that Putin might turn off their gas. Only the United States reacted with any degree of force, promising additional sanctions.

The result was predictable: within days, Putin widened the conflict. The Ukrainian cabinet, realizing that the situation was now hopeless, resigned. Will this lead to a Russianization of the whole Ukraine? It certainly could, as Putin now understands that he won't be opposed. He would dearly like to re-establish the old Russian Empire, which would mean that his next move would be to threaten the Baltic states and, the greatest prize, Poland.

When Hitler invaded Poland in 1939, Britain and France finally declared war, and it is likely that NATO would resist in some way, but there is a black swan that might entirely change the game before such an invasion even takes place.

This is the possibility of a nuclear attack on the United States. As I have said in this journal before on many occasions, the danger of nuclear terrorism is very real, and if there is state sponsorship behind it, such an attack is going to happen.

In my book Critical Mass, Vladimir Putin is portrayed as the hidden force behind the nuclear terrorists that the book portrays. The reason for this is simple: he cannot achieve his aims in Europe without reducing American power.

It will be a challenge to get a nuclear weapon into this country, but it is by no means impossible. A weapon capable of destroying a major city could certainly be smuggled in.

It is my belief that the target will be Washington. I have already discussed here just how devastating that will be to American power. Our government is far too concentrated in that city. In Critical Mass, I pointed out that there is no publicly available document of reconstitution. Our enemies know that, too, and therefore know that they can devastate us with a single bomb.

What if Washington disappeared overnight, and along with it the Congress, the President, the Supreme Court and the Pentagon?

Markets would collapse immediately. The dollar would become worthless overnight. Bank runs would bankrupt the nation in a matter of days. The military would struggle to pay its bills, and, in fact, soon cease to be able to buy food and fuel for our far-flung worldwide military establishment. NATO forces would remain intact, but without American leadership, what would that mean? Certainly, it would NOT mean that Western Europe would be willing to oppose a Russian march into the Baltic states and Poland.

This is a very, very dangerous period in world affairs, with structural similarities both to the period between July and August of 1914 and the period between 1936 and 1939.

In fact, history is repeating itself, and unfortunately there is only one player on the field who understands that and knows how to make use of the situation: that is Vladimir Putin.

He is fighting an effective asymmetric war in Ukraine, but the west, which could do the same, is contenting itself with economic sanctions which cannot be sufficiently damaging to really make Putin want to turn around. On the contrary, they are annoying enough to make him want to step up his timetable in order to hasten their end, but not strong enough to make him quit.

The United States has been compromising its own geopolitical power since the Vietnam war. It has been doing this by attempting to use symmetrical forces against enemies who fight asymmetrically, such as the Vietcong. Since Vietnam, we have lost every asymmetrical conflict in which we have been engaged.

What sort of strategy should the west use in Ukraine. Exactly the same one that Putin is using: Arm the Ukrainians but deny it.

We won't of course. Eastern Ukraine will fall to the 'separatists,' that is to say, to Russian armed force. Western Ukraine will survive intact unless Putin decides to take the ultimate gamble, and attack Washington using the asymmetric method of a terrorist go-between.

Does he have the courage to make such an audacious gamble?

We are quite likely to find out, and not so long from now.


If history is repeating itself, then Putin will follow Hitler's fate. Into oblivion.

Hi Whitley! What you portray is chilling indeed. If a nuclear attack was made upon Washington, I am sure that the events you have described would probably come about. But the collapse of the dollar would affect the whole world economy, including Russia. I'm wondering if the elite, who really hold power in the world, would allow this scenario to happen. On another note, you mentioned that the United States was the only country that would impose additional sactions against Russia. You obviously haven't been listening to the rhetoric coming from Canada's prime minister. He is in lock step with Obama and has been very critical of Putin since the unrest occurred in the Ukraine. R.M.

Putin will indeed fail, because Russia doesn't have the economic or political support to capture and permanently sustain an empire. The reason is that it is an incompetent state--not failed, but with crucial institutions that have failed and an economic system compromised and deflated by vast corruption.

As an example of the problem that he faces, Poland's economy, oriented toward the west, has grown four times faster than Ukraine's Russia-oriented economy, which is why the Ukrainians rebelled.

While it's true that Putin will, in the end, fail, that doesn't mean that he isn't extremely dangerous. Hitler ruined his own country and many others, and was responsible for the needless deaths of hundreds of millions of people before he was defeated.

Putin, unless he is stopped now, will be responsible for the deaths of many millions and possibly a nuclear strike on the US before he is defeated.

We are not making a mistake just yet not providing weapons to Ukraine. We don't want to give Putin an excuse to escalate. But if he doesn't back down, those weapons should be provided with alacrity.

I defer to your wealth of research in this matter, but wonder if there are not larger concerns at play that may be forcing a conflict, if even on a limited scope.

The Malaysian shoot-down appears very similar to the "concrete" use of chemical weapons by Assad, yet the 'rebels' had access to the warheads and possibly a delivery system. I recall the war-drums beating very loudly last year for invasion of Syria to benefit many high level bankers. This obfuscatory three party conflict has all sides pointing at each other.

If the U.S. government has the proof it states, why not bring such proof to the U.N. General Assembly and present it like Stevenson did in 1962?

On another note, I would love to read the sequel to Warday (Warday:Russia?). Perhaps it would be a good time to investigate a (re)release? I recall the reading Warday on a C.G. cutter in late 1984 to a chilling revelation. Many at the time had become complacent to nuclear conflict; I hope the same complacency is has not made camp in our psyche once again.

The willingness to kill brothers and sisters will forever baffle me.
It's a simple choice really.

And what of the Muslim militancy? The shortages from climate change. Pressures in the Middle East. Russia is not affected by these. It owns the heartland of the world, and yet it is a failed state, to diverse to 'get it together.'

Arab spring was due to Russian grain shortages. Where is the blue turban that Nostradamus spoke of if this is indeed the ramp up to WWIII?

I've never seen a bigger collection of nonsense dressed up as geopolitical insight.

This is Strieber at his Cold War-paranoid best. Anyone who has been studying the situation in Ukraine is minimally aware that there have been proposals on the books now for years -- the Wolfowitz Doctrine as well as the lunatic writings of Brzezinski and other think-tank productions -- calling for Russia's rise to power to be blocked. Russia's opposition to the U.S. in Syria recently was the final straw, and when popular discontent with Yanukovich in Ukraine over his rejection of an EU association agreement created an opportunity, the U.S. State Department and CIA funded and guided forces in the west (including extremists) to depose Yanukovich (an eastern Ukrainian aligned with ethnic Russians). Whether they succeeded or not, the U.S. would win: if they succeeded, the U.S. would get to pick Yanukovich's successor (which it did, as reflected by the released phone calls with Victoria Nuland); and if it didn't, it would still win as a civil war on Putin's doorstep would be punishment enough.

The goal here for the West -- the same parties who directly provoked the conflict by unconstitutionally removing an unpopular Yanukovich -- is to gain Ukraine for U.S. and E.U. business interests, and to bring NATO right up to Putin's border.

This article would have you believe that the situation is Ukraine is all the result of Russian imperialism. It starts by cartoonishly comparing Putin to Hitler -- you really need look no farther than this for proof that it has little to offer -- before throwing in a plug for a book and bringing in a faulty appeal to the concept of asymmetric warfare.

The warfare in Ukraine right now is, in fact, surprisingly symmetrical. The U.S. is fighting a proxy war using a weakened central government (along with extremists) against a ragtag group of Eastern separatists and imported mercenaries. Civilians are caught in the middle. Putin's goal, however, has never been to capture Ukraine -- it was already in Russia's orbit economically. It was rather to protect his Crimean bases which were nearly stolen by the U.S./NATO, and then, if possible, to construct a bridge of territory to Crimea through east Ukrainian provinces in order to secure water, etc., for Crimea.

If the country devolves into total chaos, it can't be put down to Putin. The U.S. in its arrogance sought to deal Russia a blow, and Russia is simply dancing with them.

How do you give the Sun the black eye it deserves?

All this talk of subterfuge and intrigue is just that.
Talk.
The only ones who know the intent of Putin are him and a small group that he's comfortable sharing with. Obama/Bush, what have you, would be no different. Our attention, that is directed to this sore and worn out topic, is a symptom of our addiction to destruction. Life sucks and is scary and we want relief from the situation. I, at the very least, know this from my own long suffering. I'm horrible, and my life is horrible.
I'm not alone in this I know. And if you're reading this, you likely know it, in very personal terms.

What does matter is the horrid and shameful suffering of the people who are dealing with this and all other conflict at the ground zero. They have no card in the deck mind you.
Loved ones violently ended.
Dismembered.
Daddys and mommas without their children. Children who now have to grow into their lives with the risky proposition of someone who didn't plan their arrival, in a potentially very violent environment.
...and children witness it all directly.

Is this our vision for ourselves!? This is what we want!?

All of this stuff is nothing but the monkey in us slinging shit! ...and the more in the face, the better!

Frack!

I appreciate the heads up Whitley, and all the other well reasoned responses, but if We don't figure out,
that

We

are Our only help,

We fail.

Simple.

Particularly, Whitley, I love the journals that give teaching and resource to access the " Long Home" . Those words deserve to be capitalized. It is the goal of existence for us to participate and be creative in, and become the Co-creators of and with, the Source of

All.

I drink deeply from those journals,Whitely. I have found direction in my life from them, in what would otherwise would have been lost to the 'frenzy', and my children/grandchildren with it.

frenzy in this sense, does not deserve to be capitalized. "frenzy' only deserves to be diminished.

We are hungover from a long, and panicked, drinking, and we avoid the fallout by drinking more.

We punch the night sky in desperation.

...and we get only the same results.

Whitley, your fine narrative skills almost had me believing the scenario you outline, but Heinrich Moltke's severe comment broke the spell. I remembered a thought I had yesterday, and shared here in Berkeley with my fellow monks: Let's be grateful for the oligarchs! If the sanctions (now supported unambiguously by the EU) start to hurt, the hyper-rich will be on the phone, saying, "Vladimir Vladimirovich, why are you doing this to us!" In the memorable words of Karl Marx: "It's the economy, stupid!" Putin's popularity in Russia was due to his claim of reining in unemployment and increasing wages. The fantastic scenario of a destroyed USA would have a Krakatoa fallout everywhere: nuclear winter in the world's economy. Reconstitution? The Pentagon has long been prepared for it -- not to worry!

imo, this is not about money. It is about power. It is about governments and wealthy individuals jockeying for position in a world they believe is on the brink of collapse.

It is dangerous and foolish to dismiss my comments as paranoid. Putin wants to re-establish the Russian empire. He cannot do this as long as the United States remains an intact power, and he knows this. He is also an expert at asymmetric warfare. There is no question in my mind that I am right about the danger.

There isn't a nation on earth, especially among the former Great Powers, that wouldn't exert domination over the globe if it had the chance. But it's a question of relative danger. The preponderance of the evidence - from policy statements to recent interventions in Iraq, Libya, Egypt, and so on - suggest that the United States was likely instrumental in the overthrow of the elected Ukrainian government. This idea has been explored at length in the alternative media: that the U.S. brought chaos to Russia's door as part of another move on the global chessboard. Without more evidence than that Putin is a bogeyman and that he would no doubt *want* to control Ukraine (and the world), it is simply too much to suppose that the chaos in Ukrainian should be put down to Russian imperialism. It might even be dangerous and foolish to buy so completely and to spread this central line of pro-Washington propaganda.

Of course, it's important to add that Putin is no humanitarian. The murder of journalists and false flag attacks against Russian apartment blocks show that he's every bit as ruthless as the Western leaders. But as satisfyingly lurid as the scenario is in this Journal piece, there's better analysis out there of the Ukraine situation on a dozen other websites.

Subscribe to Unknowncountry sign up now