When one speaks or writes of ‘the Russians’ or ‘the Americans’ or whomever, which ones are you referring to? If you were to write ‘the Russians say’, well that is fraught, for the reason the Saker gives:
- Russians from what would be considered Russia today, in other words, “Great-Russians” (here “great” does not indicate a superiority, but only a peripheral place of residence, meaning Russians who don’t live in central Russia). For our purposes I will from now on simply call them “Russians”.
- Russians from what would be considered the Ukraine today in other words, “Small-Russians” (meaning Russians living near the cradle of the Russian civilization, Kiev). For our purposes, I will from now on refer to them as “Ukrainians”, but only in a geographical sense, not a cultural one.
- Russian Jews (as opposed to Ukrainian Jews)
- Ukrainian Jews (as opposed to Russian Jews)
I don’t want to post his whole article but this is highly relevant:
Besides, and as I have also mentioned it in the past, the Ukrainian nationalist propaganda does, in fact, have some truth to it. Yes, it is a grossly distorted truth, and it is mixed in with an avalanche of lies, but still, not all of it can simply be dismissed. For example, while there never was any “Ukraine” in history, and while what is called today the “Ukrainian language” is not really Ukrainian at all (the “surzhik” would be the real thing), it still remains an undeniable fact that the Polish occupation of southern and eastern Russia (which is what “the Ukraine” is – Russia’s southeastern “borderland” which is what the word “Ukraine” originally meant) left an extremely profound mark on those Russians who lived under the Polish-Latin occupation. I won’t go into historical details today as I already did that here and here, but I will just say that this tragic history eventually inspired one of the favorite slogans of Ukrainian nationalists: “to drown all the Polaks and the Moskals in Kike blood” (or any variation of these three nationalities).
To buy into that from outside is to buy into some ancient bad blood and you have to know what you’re talking about, you have to have spoken with these people and understood what they said. I was pointed very quickly to the Ukrainian Holocaust, and that’s before we even start looking at Croatia. The whole vast area is one of intermittent atrocities.
One reason this was so vicious, with overtones of the bestial:
… was of course, the catalyst of NATO/CIA which truly can be said to be diabolical, it’s the same catalyst as in Rwanda and Darfur, where the reprisals were born of seething hatred, whipped up again by Kissinger and others. The Envoy.
Remembering that the Saker also has a detestation – namely Zionist Jews – then read his piece with open eyes.
Last point is that interpretation is fraught. Any translation is selective and fraught, even down to the intonation – the safest you can get is to take a source, then a contrary source, to try to put one’s own prejudices at bay for the moment and look at why each said what they did.
And then you realise you’ve not a clue what the rights and wrongs are. The only thing you know is that you are undecided after much reading, whereas an AO Cortez would be undecided on zero or cursory reading. Or worse, pontificates on handed down ‘facts’.