The Russian Non-Invasion Invasion of Ukraine: Expedition?

Now, let us test the definition of "invasion", both practically and historically. First, historically.

During the end of World War I and after the main events of the October Revolution, from 1918 to 1920, the

American Expeditionary Force, Siberia went to the Far East of the Northern Asian continent in order to do two fairly odd things: to secure a railway that was transporting American materiel for the purpose of Russia's self defense during WWI and keep it from falling into the wrong hands, and to rescue a large contingent of Czechoslovakian troops who had undertaken a journey from western Russia to Vladivostok in order to be evacuated all the way around the world via the USA back home in Europe. Very surreal.

 You can read about it on the link but I will summarize briefly below as well.

At that time, Russia did not have control of the area militarily. It was arguably a set of large pieces of territory that may or may not have been actually part of the country of Russia in terms of political, ethnic and linguistic presence. There were armed representatives of various extra-Russian armies, including the British, French and even Japanese. In addition, there was a presence of pro-Bolshevik armed groups as well as a presence of anti-Bolshevik armed groups in the area, plus the stranded Czechoslovakian soldiers who had an entirely different agenda. On top of that, there was a conflict in the objectives and missions between all these groups, even those recently allied in the Great War.

The Czechoslovakian Legions, promised safe passage by the new revolutionary government, were a major force, at least 40-50,000 men. They were pressed at various stops along the way across Russia and they essentially took things into their own hands, somehow putting together an armored train with which they, briefly, conquered large swaths of Siberia, all because of the Bolshevik duplicity in promising to facilitate their safe passage. Ultimately, although basically ruling Vladivostok and most of Kamchatka, the Legions finally cut a deal with the Bolsheviks that included turning over both the leader of the White Russian (anti-Bolshevik) army, Admiral Kolchak and what was just over half a ton of gold bullion that he had amassed as part of a plan to evacuate it further East during WWI. Which is a story in itself.

At any rate, it was mostly a miserable time for the Americans, many fell ill (one was my grandpa) and 189 died from various causes (but not my grandpa) including clashes with various bandit and Bolshevik factions, whom they were not to engage in battle.

BUT, this was called the "American Expeditionary Force". It was an Expedition, not an invasion, even though it involved several large units of armed forces. Because the idea was to reclaim materiel and transport some extra-national troops and leave, it was an "expedition" even though it involved many thousands of troops.

Now, practically: does the Russian Non-Invasion Invasion pass the test of an "Expedition"? Not yet, because they haven't left. They still have time to make it an "Expedition", because they can leave. If they have an Expedition going on, and not an Invasion, then it is still an egregious aggression with real damages done, but something that can be worked out. If it is a matter of holding some territory as hostage, "Ukraine's feet to the fire",  for monies and/or services Russia believes it is due, then this can also be settled in an international court.

But, if they don't state the reason for their Expedition and leave, it can be nothing other than an Invasion.

Open Letter to the World

Hello World,

This was going to be an open letter to Ukraine, but as I thought about it, it applies to everybody, but it is particularly apparent in Ukraine.

Why is Putin doing what he's doing? Because of oil and gas. Oil and gas is what lines his pockets, and the pockets of his powerful friends.

We saw what a 100 million dollars of private funds were able to do in the hands of Osama bin Laden. Now, imagine what a few hundred billion will do in the hands of Putin and his cadre.

That is right, I equated the two. But I'm also going to throw Exxon in there as well, and BP and whatever other oil company you want to name.

It is not about guns, it is not about violence. Go ahead, have a gun. They will have a bigger one, or a faster one, or both.

It is about control, about control and greed.

It should be clear, they don't care who or what they kill, or who or what dies. Be it polar bears in the arctic, moose and elk in the marshes, rural dwellers on the plains, city dwellers in downtown Odessa.

We have put the world's money in the hands of the oily elite, and they will do what ever they please in order to expand their empire.

If they kill a couple of dozen Texans of Norwegians, utterly negligible.

If they kill a million Ukrainians, there are still many millions left, and many more millions to sell oil to in Europe.

If they kill 50 million Americans and/or 50 million Russians, there are still billions left in the world to sell oil to in the world.

Really, the notion of anti-trust, anti-monopoly is a free market notion, an American notion. It is a real pain for would be monopolists, and if it all just went away, so much the better. Really, the population of a totalitarian country is a pain in the butt. If they could be effectively culled, so much the better.

So, if they lose a third of their customer base to a giant war, not a problem. The price goes up. It has been proven on a dozen different levels that they really just don't care.

Understand that the aftermath of Chernobyl has been used as a lab experiment. Yes, it was an accident, yes there was a nuclear wasteland declared, but studies have been ongoing there, studies that do endanger the scientists working on the studies who themselves are likely studied. Why? To determine what happens when something like this happens. What they found: in general the natural habitat survived, and even thrived.

This demonstrates that the majority of the cities in a country-- America's cities, or Russia's, or China's, or Argentina's, or whoever's-- could be destroyed by remote control and the land, the majority of it, the primary asset, would recover after a few decades.

Because they are not Americans. They are not Russians. They are whatever they think they are, because we've given them that power, and they don't think they are us.

They have a dream, and here it is. Go ahead, take a look\

In the meantime, there will be a world full of people starving, begging for oil and gas.

So what should we do about this, what can we do about this?

Well, you can put on a mask and fight in the streets against other masked people who are being paid by the oily elite, or fight against soldiers paid by your tax dollars, but protecting the interests of the oily elite.

It doesn't not matter if your country is having a "spring", summer, fall or winter.

"But we have new technology, all the time! There will be new energy sources, cheap, or even free! And clean!"

Well, those who "care not who makes the laws" control the money, and therefore the technological effort. So I'm not convinced.

"But they are making fuel from sea water!" No they are not, they are making fuel from electricity and sea water. How are they making the electricity? Please stop being so dumb.

And you're like "Oh, come on lad. Buck up! Play the game! You've only got a few decades! Sit back, relax. Have a beer."

But I am just not in the mood.

What do we do? I don't know. I guess we pray, and we die.

"Well, as long as it's you, and not me!"

And that, I believe, sums up the situation.

Love,
MICHAEL

Twelve Steps to European Sanity

First, understand the following:

0) Grand cultural and civilized ideals based on universal truths are beautiful and worthwhile, and the heavens sing that you have turned your minds and efforts to these in the concept of the EU, but you need to ensure they are nurtured in a secure environment. You need to be vigilant, and you are up to the task. For crying out loud, you're fucking Europe. Also, stop calling Russia "Russia". It's Muscovia.

1) Putin's regime is militaro-totalitarian imperial, the sheep's clothing is off. What the Putin regime needs most: customers for gas and oil. Without this, the notion of a Eurasian Union fails. The only existing economic assets that the Central Asian countries in this theoretical union would have is oil and gas. Russia has succeeded in isolating these poor folk, and more and more wants to completely control them, in the manner of Belarus.

2) Belarus is important, because it is regarded as a legitimate separate country by the world at large. When two countries agree that a neighbor is a security threat, that lends legitimacy to one of them using force to neutralize the threat.

3) Everything Russia says about history is skewed, and largely incorrect, but it is woven to support a narrative. Europe has not done this with its own history and that's a shame. So, the narrative is this: what has Europe done is to squash imperial totalitarianism in favor of a multi-lateral strong association. The biggest threat to Europe's peace and prosperity, PROVEN in the "crucible of history" is when this militaro-imperial concept takes hold. When Ukraine joins Europe, Russia and Belarus are now the last militaro-imperial totalitarian states with any territory in Europe. Europe cares naught about that, because in history 9 times out of 10 Europe beats Russia. REVIEW your history, that is a fact. 

4) Europe made a decision to force Ukraine to choose, Russia or Europe. The current state of affairs in Ukraine are the consequences of that decision.

5) SO, you need to resurrect, "virtually", a modified version of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania/Commonwealth of Poland that stretches from the Baltic to the Black Sea. Understand this state was extant from the 12th century to 1795. Hugely successful, as European super states are concerned. This "virtual version" would contain Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Slovakia, Poland and the new Ukraine at it's core. But it's virtual, a series of agreements for those places who are "the recovering Soviet abused".

6) The territory of the "new Ukraine" will consist of all of Ukraine as it currently exists, minus the parts of Donbass that have been taken over by "land raiders".  The land raiders hope to set themselves up as mini-moguls within Putin's militaro-totalitarian Muscovia and as such they have sealed their fate.

7) Putin won't last forever. The regime controls the records that, if they even still exist, would show the shady deals whereby all these "oligarchs" were conjured out of thin air through the undervalued transference of privatized state assets. Everyone knows how this was accomplished, it has made the true Russian people, the people of Russia, very angry.

8) The USA is there to ensure that WWIII works out to Europe's benefit. Europe should embrace the concept of being prepared for WWIII *with existing military strength* and *without Russian gas and oil* because if so prepared it will never happen. This is very important. Russia can afford an arms race with Europe funded with European oil and gas revenues. So, no rush to beef up assets should occur, because that will spark an arms race. First, a retreat from Russian oil and gas is needed. Russia will attempt to undermine unity by cutting deals. Do not be lured into this. (Note: This author does not say this as an American because "it keeps the US boss". We truly don't give a fuck about "being boss", we want to live life, buy stuff at decent prices and be left alone. Being boss is a pain in the ass and it makes people hate us. But we seem to be the only ones who have the objectivity and don't want to make total utter slaves out of everyone else. The author observes this is so, because when we find out it this has happened even to benefit us (e.g.: Foxconn) we are truly saddened. The author believes that once all nations are truly free then the Lord is finally boss as that should be. But that is an aside.) 

9) Ukrainian elections are held, along with any referndums in those places where petitions indicate they are required. There probably won't be any.  This territory loss, Crimea, Donbass are a hard price to pay for Ukrainians hoping for a better tomorrow. Hopefully the ones that are in those regions who want out are able to do that. It is a very very bad thing that has happened, and the territory will end up like Transnistria, perpetually "disputed" until more reasonable leadership comes to the fore in Moscow.

10) Ukraine is on a path to sane, representative government. It's got a support system comprised of other people who understand what it is to be a Soviet satellite, and who don't ever want that to happen again.

11) Go to church every once in a while. It won't kill you.

12) Be happy and free.

An Reply to Aleksandr Dugin's Open Letter, entitled "Jesus, America, Rome, Russia, Gudin, Hoss Cartwright, Crazy Talk"

Dear Aleksandr Dugin,

This is a reply to your open letter. There have been several drafts of this letter. The author does not speak hardly any Russian, or he would reply in that because you kindly wrote in English.


Previous drafts were much too long. These have been boiled it down in a way that the author hopes you find useful and not a waste of your time. The author uses a pretend person called "Gudin" as a mechanism employed for brevity and greater objectivity, as is the mechanism "the author" used.
Your letter included a brief and yet broad encapsulation of Russian history that this author would hope to have more people read in order to be familiar with it.  It seems like there is some unwarranted desperation that Russia be regarded as a "civilization"-- I'd think it certainly must be.


At any rate, you should have at least one reply. I won't join in any kind of "hate of the political elite" because hate is not a Christian thing. But the sword of truth goes this way and that, and it is power enough.


So, now here is a Story, about Mr. Gudin's Wonderful Soup:




There is a man named Gudin. He will say things like 'The essence of sausage is almost entirely meat, therefore anything employing sausage is meaty". There seems to be a misunderstanding in his way of conceiving things, such it is either 'all or nothing'.  You can use a little sausage in a soup, a big pot of it, and of course it will not make it a meaty soup. It's as if the basic assumption is, "Once you undertake to add sausage to a soup, you much add as much as possible" which is an odd way of thinking about it.




Also, he says things like, "Once a soup whose flavor is based on sausage is made, the bits and pieces in the soup will become sausage flavored to the point where a piece's entire flavor implodes". So this seems to be a misunderstanding, too, linked to the previous understanding, where one must take the whole sausage business to the extreme if one is going to dabble in it at all (this is maybe just extreme purism). That, somehow, the bits and pieces in the soup must give up their flavors and become wholly sausagelike. This is, of course, impossible. If anything, the sausage and other bits cause the broth to be flavored like a combination of the two. That I think is a true statement! At any rate...




Here, then, is the story of Mr. Gudin and his Fabulous, Awesome, Amazing Soup


So even though our friend Gudin thinks oddly, we do arrive at an understanding of the nature of soup.


I'm speaking in riddles because our friend really doesn't talk about sausage soup, but rather a very special soup that he is very fond of. He savors all of the flavors of this soup, and believes it is the best in the world. This is good he feels this way. Really, everyone should feel this way about their own favorite soup, and they probably do. In fact, the fact that they probably do makes the next thing rather implausible.




Because Gudin likes his particular soup so much, he thinks it should be the favorite soup of all his neighbors. ALL of them should pay deference to his soup, in particular because there is some historical link his soup has to a previous soup that was such an overpowering soup that it was the greatest soup of it's time. He believes that his soup is the Third such soup, which is strange because at the height of that soup's power it was a republic with a representative government, and it was only an empire when it was in it's decline.




At any rate, the other soups will not be like Gudin's soups, because each has achieved their distinction by being different.




Now another thing that is interesting that, despite the fact Gudin is so convinced about the merit of his soup, is that he sees another brash soup as aggressively "imposing" it's flavors on all the other soups. Isn't that strange? In one case, he wants his soup to basically turn the other soups into an appetizer for his soup, but he sees this brash soup as being "imposing".


It is true that the brash soup is really very brash. It is apparent even to the people involved with it, to the point where it's embarrassing. Also, some of the dominant flavors in the soup do not at all resonate well with the others. Gudin has noted this, which is a true observation. But the brashness does not invalidate the soup. Also, the other soups that go along well with the brash soup are always reminding it how brash it can be, and sometimes be very cross with that brash soup.


Soups do work together for various reasons.


Mr. Gudin has written a double digit number of books about his soup, which he finds fabulous, awesome and amazing.


So ends this brief tale.




Now here is a story about Hoss Cartright. The actor that played Hoss Cartwright on the 1960s American TV show, "Bonanza", is named "Dan Blocker".  Hoss Cartwright is a character, Dan Blocker was the real person. But most people would remember the fictional name before they'd remember the real person. You're likely familiar with this series, it ran for many many years on American TV during the Cold War, and a lot of writers who refer to American popular culture have made reference to it. Of course "Gunsmoke" is likely more famous and has the distinction of being the series that neoconservative Leo Strauss felt was one of the best, and was the sort of "law and order at the barrel of a gun" series. Bonanza was more of a moral lessons show.




It was incredibly inaccurate. Everyone had clean clothes, nobody had dirt under their fingernails, if there was a gunshot wound it never got infected because of the astringent, antisceptic healing power of liberally applied saloon whiskey and a cloth on the forehead.




Hoss Cartwright encapsulated the "salt of the earth" type of American. He was one of three Cartwright brothers, all of whom were "good guys" of course, but Hoss usually made humorous mistakes., In fact, all of the Cartwright brothers made mistakes to some extent or another, which could be as simple as being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and these were often the centerpiece of the plot.  Their father was Ben Cartwright successful rancher and all knowing father, played by iconic Lorne Greene who was as a result the most favorite Canadian actor amongst Americans ever (the vast majority of whom likely didn't know he was Canadian and many among those who must have felt betrayed once they found out). 



Here is an episode of Bonanza that you hopefully would be able to watch. If not, the story goes like this:


A visitor comes to town from the "big city", St. Louis. He wants to see how real western cowboys handle six guns. He is introduced to "the fastest in the territory", which happens to be Hoss Cartwright's younger brother, Little Joe. Just as the visitor is praising Little Joe's gun handling ability, a tall dark haired stranger shows up. He first insults the city fella, whom he calles a "dude", and then Little Joe, whose beer he very intentionally accidentally spills, eventually causing Little Joe to punch him in the face.




This of course is preamble to a showdown, and a gunfight is arranged the following morning for which the St. Louis fellow all of a sudden starts taking bets.


Of course the gambling aspect is an arrangement between the "dude" and the nasty gunfighter, who it turns out also has been holding a torch for the saloon barmaid, a recurring character.


There are several plateaus as the momentous fight is about to take place. Little Joe attempts to "make it good" with the gunslinger, who goads him only further. The black hat gunslinger and the barmaid reconcile, and as she leaves the gunman's hotel room, the "dude" pushes in, who wants to make sure that the black hat is not drinking too much to do the job, as he has been in all the previous townsone t.




After some musing on the part of the gunslinger, the shady city gambler is assured all will go as planned.




There is a scene where Hoss talks with his younger brother, and offers to go beat up the black hat. This of course will not resolve the younger man's issue, because he is still a man who has to fight his own battles, and needs to think about the situation, asking Hoss, "You can see that, can't you?".


Hoss says "Dadburn, Joe: I can see it. I can understand it. But I don't like it none."


At any rate, this is a particularly good episode. I won't tell you how it ends, but in the end everyone gets what they deserve and surprisingly nobody gets killed. Hopefully you'll be able to see it.




Finally, I'm going to leave you with some thoughts about the four horses and riders of the apocalypse.


There is the white horse and rider with a bow, which has been interpreted as meaning a "pure and just empire of organization" and Jesus, then the red horse and the sword wielding rider, which is "an empire of hate" and Satan, then the black/dark horse and the rider with scales, which is a "mercantile empire" and the war profiteer, then the pale/ashen horse, whose rider is Death followed by Hades-- this is the empire of the nonbeliever.




Which one is which and Who is who? I'll give you a clue-- it is neither Us, and neither You.




Peace,
MICHAEL

How to Use This (or any, really) Blog

When you are reading this blog, you may see a brief explanation of something and then see the phrase "here is a site that describes that" or words to that effect, right click the link and choose to open it in a new tab. This will allow you keep reading and refer to the detail later. The author will have abstracted or excerpted the content of the site enough to support what he's saying.


If you see a link labeled to the effect of "if you haven't, go here" you should just go there, because there is no use reading more until you have seen that thing.


Italics, bold, underlines or other typographical modes usually used to indicate emphasis will be used. Sometimes, an asterisk on either side of the word will be used, like *this*. Hopefully, this will occur rarely.


Inline graphics will be used, but the author feels that this will likely not occur enough to make this a visually appealing blog. Find a tumblr or flickr or Instagram site if you want that.


You are encouraged to search for things you want more information about. Highlight with right click then "copy", then paste into a search engine you like.

What This Blog is About, and Initial Post

This site is about things having to do with Christian mysticism, particularly as relates to the Revelations of John, current events, and world trends vis a vis the Bible and Christianity.


First, some notes regarding this. The posts herein are intended for thinking people as well as people who believe in Jesus. There will be things said in those posts for purposes of intellectual/philosophical/spiritual/mystical discussion that may irritate people of certain ethnicities, religions and so on.


Things will be said like this:


"There are people who say there is a 'Zionist Cabal that controls key aspects of the American economy and media.' With the exception of the terminology, I think that this is mostly a true statement. It is a Cabal of rich people who happen to have a network, and the network they have is mostly populated by people who are ethnically Jewish, but it is not the sort of thing that is exclusive to either ethnic or religiously Jewish people. It has more to do with the fact they are rich and powerful. What gets less easy to state with certainty is whether or not they attempt to apply their network to influencing public opinion. Some people seem to be rabidly convinced that they do, that in fact it is the whole reason they got into those businesses. Then again, why are those rabid people so rabid?"


If you are Jewish and this offends you, or not and it offends you, reading this blog will not inform or enlighten you.


Posts will also say things like this:


"Many Muslims are hypocrites. So are many Christians and atheists. This does not mean to equate those three belief systems, just to note that all of the practitioners of these can be as hypocritical as anyone else."


If you follow any of the religions mentioned above and are offended, then you are not intellectually advanced enough to read this blog. If you are an atheist and you don't think you have a religion, then you are not intellectually advanced enough to read this blog.


finally, things like this:


"Many African Americans were rightly enraged when the ludicrously racist things that were made public that were said by the fellow who (as of this writing) owns the LA Clippers. I was simply astounded when I heard the one audio clip where was disagreeing with his girlfriend that an utterly racist thing he had just finished saying was 'not racist', when it couldn't be any more racist. If there was a picture of the statement, it would be in the encyclopedia under 'racist'. 


Then, later, Snoop Dogg posted an Instagram video where he called this guy, whose last name is Sterling, various things including a racist, but he also included a racist slur used for white people among the things he said. Now, was Snoop Dogg being racist? I didn't feel that way, even though I'm white. However, with regards to the word he used, he was being racist. Do I think he's a racist? Not enough data. He was sounding pissed off, not at white people, but a this one white person.  But, I don't know the guy in the recording, and he was definitely sounding like a racist.


Also, was the team owner's girlfriend justified in making the recording public? Even though this was a conversation between two friends, where a higher standard of confidence is correct and required? I actually think she was, because it must have been an immense personal burden for her to hear those words, like: and 'He said this before, and I realized I'm on this jerk's side. I've got to get him to say it again while I record this because nobody will believe me otherwise'."


If you cannot parse statements like the previous, which is as close to a true opinion held by the author, and expressed the best he can, you should not read this blog, because you will not get the value of what is being said, and you will be confused and offended.  The author is not an expert writer, he tries to be clear, that was the best he could do.


Now, he will also link to other things to illustrate my thoughts. He will link to media that may have information that is useful, and other information that is worthless, blatantly incorrect, or even hateful.  The aspects of what is linked to that the author believes are useful will be indicated as clearly as he is able.


Finally, why say "the author" and not "I". That is because the blog is not about the author, but about what he thinks, believes, has learned and/or what he experiences and has experienced.


So I will get started, then.