It is good to get a discussion that at least promises to be more realistic than what we usually see in the West. Though I could not absorb all the information in one sitting, it is obviously much more thorough than most other "analysis" that I have been exposed to.
The "Deep State," its true identity and purpose, has been a neglected subject for thousands of years. After getting the word from my teacher (Hubbard) that something of the sort existed, I have been hard pressed to find any reliable details. I have resorted to the work of a group of remote viewers (Farsight) to get some better idea what is going on. Their findings would be rejected by most "sensible" people. That does not include myself.
I am afraid I cannot afford another subscription at this time. There are at least three writers on Substack who I wish I had more access to, but my income is very limited and I would prefer to read and write in my old age rather than trying to do something that would make money.
Dec 15, 2022·edited Dec 15, 2022Liked by Rurik Skywalker
looking at some of these personalities running the show it seems rather the continuation of the 90s set of noveau riche with all their vulgarity and looting mindset. they all want to drive their Western limos, send their kids to Western universities, live in utterly tasteless McMansions, collect Western watches and die to be accepted into the Western elite social circles. not quite the leadership Russia needs to emancipate and find its own path.
Beautiful dissection 👌🙂 Comprehensive knowledge of political history informs & refines common-sense heuristics for topical issues like nothing else bar nothing.
--
💬 I’ll come back to this theme more and more as I continue to write because it really is the missing piece in our understanding of the power balance in Russia and the Kremlin’s objectives.
Yes please! A vital missing piece it sure is. Your version of events ‘does pass the sniff test and does have explanatory power.‘
Dec 14, 2022·edited Dec 14, 2022Liked by Rurik Skywalker
Thanks, Rolo. There's so much to unpack in this article. Honestly, Westerners probably know diddly and squat about Russia's bureaucracy much less the Deep State. Is there an analog to the bureaucratic-think tank revolving door like in the US? Those people in the US never really leave power but continue to interact with their buddies that took the position they left. My favorite buggirl Victoria Nuland is always my example of the closed loop.
I've read analyses that stated the goal of the Cold War was to allow for convergence between the West and the USSR in order to bring about a true global government but that was always dismissed as a conspiracy theory despite a fair amount of white papers stating such. Many Trotskyites fill the ranks of the neocons (Max Boot comes to mind immediately) so this makes sense. I always bought into the narrative that the Soviets collapsed from the debacle of Afghanistan and Reagan's defense spending. Perhaps Bush the Elder saw a chance to claim victory and maintain the West's dominance. Now I have a homework assignment to dig into the collapse of the USSR. I never did understand how all those oligarchs suddenly got handed whole industries.
Dec 14, 2022·edited Dec 14, 2022Liked by Rurik Skywalker
A lot to unpack but very explanatory. Everything connects, but still a conjecture nonetheless. I may recall it was called captivating dialectics, when the orator is logically convincing but there's no hard evidence in support of what he says. Anyway, deserves to be published on Unz.
Based on my limited understanding of the Russian political system, it seemed to me that Primakov was the leader of the anti convergence faction and the godfather of Putinism .
As a spook bigwig it looked like he quietly led the anti convergence forces, based in the intelligence services, into power by manoeuvering spies like Putin into the leadership. As a result he curtailed the power of the oligarchs, reversed the decline of the Yeltsin years, and was the architect of the foreign policy based on multipolarity.
If the template of the present political system was designed by Primakov as a reaction to the humiliations of the Yeltsin years then it would be logical to conclude that the anti convergence forces should still have the upper hand. Let us not forget that Primakov,in vain ,tried to stop the 2003 invasion of Iraq, prevent the bombing of Belgrade ( famously ordering his Washington bound plane to do a u turn over the Atlantic after hearing that the bombing had started), appeared as a defense witness at the Milosevic trial etc.
Therefore I find it hard to believe that anybody in the deep state believes convergence is a viable policy after it failed so miserably under Yeltsin.
As I said I have a very limited understanding of the political system in Russia so please feel free to correct me. Perhaps I've put too much emphasis on Primakov as a key figure quietly operating in the background?
All those words and he never mentions the jews which so infest the halls of power on all sides, despite their names being so obvious, not in the least his own. It's really too bad that this article wasn't published on paper, I could have put it to good use following the powerful bowel movement it induced.
no, no and no. there are things that remained the same in russia for centuries, and any challenge against them is pure disinformation. to make sure which they are, look at stalin's period when, like now, the evil fought back harder when a game changer attacked its preminence and among these things always treu in russia are these: the espionage is more self serving and corrupt, the army is confused and needs to get its things right and the only lucid ones are the internal security. also, the traitors of russia are also the least competent, democratic and transparent, and they are supported from abroad EXACTLY FOR THESE REASONS.
«for the oligarchs to wield more power than the siloviks. [...] All it means is that the Western elite would prefer a different caste of elites take their place for one reason or another. This doesn’t mean that the siloviks are anti-globalist or upstanding moral guys.»
But there are at least two profound differences:
* The power and wealth of the "siloviki" depends on the power and wealth of their own state, that of the oligarchs depends on that of their USA "protectors". This gives very different incentives.
* Since ruling classes rarely can rule alone, the "siloviki" have an incentive to form a coalition with the lower classes of their own state, while the oligarchs form a coalition with the oligarchs of the USA to screw the lower classes of their own state.
Put another way, the "siloviki" are in business on their own, and their state is their collective asset to be protected from USA oligarch plundering, while the oligarchs are in business with the USA oligarchs, and their state is the target of their plundering. It could be the other way around: that the "siloviki" were eager to be "protected" by the USA oligarchs, and the oligarchs regarded their state as their own asset to be protected from USA oligarch plundering, but that is a less likely situation, and it has not happened.
«Case in point: who is really running America? We vaguely understand that there’s some spook cabal in places like the FBI, the Pentagon and other departments with black budgets who are more powerful than the president, especially this one. When it comes to specific names, I don’t think that the average political pundit knows them.»
The answer there is very easy, big business runs the USA:
#1 But big business is divided in factions that fight each other pretty hard even if they are one block when it comes to defending their collective power. Traditionally it was east coast bankers vs. midwest industrialists vs. Texas oil barons vs. west coast landowners, factions have changed a bit. The big business factions have allied themselves since Reagan with upper-middle class small investors in real estate and in shares as their electoral base, but the latter don't drive policy, even if they are richly rewarded for their support.
#2 There are dynasties of state officials, including the military (particularly in the US Navy), and because they are a permanent feature of the state and are a network of families with some loyalty to each other. They form a powerful lobby, but they are secondary to the dominant big business factions, in part because they have no electoral support, even if some of them go into politics. Their role is usually that of "trusties" to big business.
«When it comes to specific names, I don’t think that the average political pundit knows them»
People who have been around for a while notice patterns of families and names that recur generation after generation, and know some interesting details, for example how important SAIC is to that class.
"Case in point: who is really running America? We vaguely understand that there’s some spook cabal in places like the FBI, the Pentagon and other departments with black budgets who are more powerful than the president, especially this one. When it comes to specific names, I don’t think that the average political pundit knows them. Furthermore, even alternative news sources only ever comment on the shenanigans of the visible government and the latest outrage du jour. I don’t think it is because they are cowards or controlled op by default for not talking about this - I think there is simply a serious information deficit."
Excellent comparison: it's like reading tea leaves. For instance, from Trump's closeness to Kushner, a sympathy toward Israel and a Neocon stance toward all things Middle-Eastern could have been predicted. Maybe even Steve Bannon's demise. But there was no way to telll the forces in operation much less the individual players exerting influential advisements on a daily basis.
Certainly I know much less about Russia, but seeing the leaves you show us at the bottom of that cup is far better than MSM pronouncements.
The article would've been more meaningful if it compared the Russian Deep state to the US FBI, CIA, Deep State. I think they would find very little difference except US is Fascist and Russia is quasi commie. The names could of been switched out for US intel spooks...no difference.
It is good to get a discussion that at least promises to be more realistic than what we usually see in the West. Though I could not absorb all the information in one sitting, it is obviously much more thorough than most other "analysis" that I have been exposed to.
The "Deep State," its true identity and purpose, has been a neglected subject for thousands of years. After getting the word from my teacher (Hubbard) that something of the sort existed, I have been hard pressed to find any reliable details. I have resorted to the work of a group of remote viewers (Farsight) to get some better idea what is going on. Their findings would be rejected by most "sensible" people. That does not include myself.
I am afraid I cannot afford another subscription at this time. There are at least three writers on Substack who I wish I had more access to, but my income is very limited and I would prefer to read and write in my old age rather than trying to do something that would make money.
looking at some of these personalities running the show it seems rather the continuation of the 90s set of noveau riche with all their vulgarity and looting mindset. they all want to drive their Western limos, send their kids to Western universities, live in utterly tasteless McMansions, collect Western watches and die to be accepted into the Western elite social circles. not quite the leadership Russia needs to emancipate and find its own path.
Beautiful dissection 👌🙂 Comprehensive knowledge of political history informs & refines common-sense heuristics for topical issues like nothing else bar nothing.
--
💬 I’ll come back to this theme more and more as I continue to write because it really is the missing piece in our understanding of the power balance in Russia and the Kremlin’s objectives.
Yes please! A vital missing piece it sure is. Your version of events ‘does pass the sniff test and does have explanatory power.‘
Thanks, Rolo. There's so much to unpack in this article. Honestly, Westerners probably know diddly and squat about Russia's bureaucracy much less the Deep State. Is there an analog to the bureaucratic-think tank revolving door like in the US? Those people in the US never really leave power but continue to interact with their buddies that took the position they left. My favorite buggirl Victoria Nuland is always my example of the closed loop.
I've read analyses that stated the goal of the Cold War was to allow for convergence between the West and the USSR in order to bring about a true global government but that was always dismissed as a conspiracy theory despite a fair amount of white papers stating such. Many Trotskyites fill the ranks of the neocons (Max Boot comes to mind immediately) so this makes sense. I always bought into the narrative that the Soviets collapsed from the debacle of Afghanistan and Reagan's defense spending. Perhaps Bush the Elder saw a chance to claim victory and maintain the West's dominance. Now I have a homework assignment to dig into the collapse of the USSR. I never did understand how all those oligarchs suddenly got handed whole industries.
A lot to unpack but very explanatory. Everything connects, but still a conjecture nonetheless. I may recall it was called captivating dialectics, when the orator is logically convincing but there's no hard evidence in support of what he says. Anyway, deserves to be published on Unz.
Based on my limited understanding of the Russian political system, it seemed to me that Primakov was the leader of the anti convergence faction and the godfather of Putinism .
As a spook bigwig it looked like he quietly led the anti convergence forces, based in the intelligence services, into power by manoeuvering spies like Putin into the leadership. As a result he curtailed the power of the oligarchs, reversed the decline of the Yeltsin years, and was the architect of the foreign policy based on multipolarity.
If the template of the present political system was designed by Primakov as a reaction to the humiliations of the Yeltsin years then it would be logical to conclude that the anti convergence forces should still have the upper hand. Let us not forget that Primakov,in vain ,tried to stop the 2003 invasion of Iraq, prevent the bombing of Belgrade ( famously ordering his Washington bound plane to do a u turn over the Atlantic after hearing that the bombing had started), appeared as a defense witness at the Milosevic trial etc.
Therefore I find it hard to believe that anybody in the deep state believes convergence is a viable policy after it failed so miserably under Yeltsin.
As I said I have a very limited understanding of the political system in Russia so please feel free to correct me. Perhaps I've put too much emphasis on Primakov as a key figure quietly operating in the background?
this is a good report; there seems to be so little of this material available in contemporary literature.
Brilliant!
All those words and he never mentions the jews which so infest the halls of power on all sides, despite their names being so obvious, not in the least his own. It's really too bad that this article wasn't published on paper, I could have put it to good use following the powerful bowel movement it induced.
You shouldn't sell truth. Don't paywall please, at least not in these awful times. But keep the good job
Is the Insider related to FBI sponsored´´Russian Insider´´?
no, no and no. there are things that remained the same in russia for centuries, and any challenge against them is pure disinformation. to make sure which they are, look at stalin's period when, like now, the evil fought back harder when a game changer attacked its preminence and among these things always treu in russia are these: the espionage is more self serving and corrupt, the army is confused and needs to get its things right and the only lucid ones are the internal security. also, the traitors of russia are also the least competent, democratic and transparent, and they are supported from abroad EXACTLY FOR THESE REASONS.
The motor (apparently)
Fascinating but overwhelming insights
«for the oligarchs to wield more power than the siloviks. [...] All it means is that the Western elite would prefer a different caste of elites take their place for one reason or another. This doesn’t mean that the siloviks are anti-globalist or upstanding moral guys.»
But there are at least two profound differences:
* The power and wealth of the "siloviki" depends on the power and wealth of their own state, that of the oligarchs depends on that of their USA "protectors". This gives very different incentives.
* Since ruling classes rarely can rule alone, the "siloviki" have an incentive to form a coalition with the lower classes of their own state, while the oligarchs form a coalition with the oligarchs of the USA to screw the lower classes of their own state.
Put another way, the "siloviki" are in business on their own, and their state is their collective asset to be protected from USA oligarch plundering, while the oligarchs are in business with the USA oligarchs, and their state is the target of their plundering. It could be the other way around: that the "siloviki" were eager to be "protected" by the USA oligarchs, and the oligarchs regarded their state as their own asset to be protected from USA oligarch plundering, but that is a less likely situation, and it has not happened.
«Case in point: who is really running America? We vaguely understand that there’s some spook cabal in places like the FBI, the Pentagon and other departments with black budgets who are more powerful than the president, especially this one. When it comes to specific names, I don’t think that the average political pundit knows them.»
The answer there is very easy, big business runs the USA:
#1 But big business is divided in factions that fight each other pretty hard even if they are one block when it comes to defending their collective power. Traditionally it was east coast bankers vs. midwest industrialists vs. Texas oil barons vs. west coast landowners, factions have changed a bit. The big business factions have allied themselves since Reagan with upper-middle class small investors in real estate and in shares as their electoral base, but the latter don't drive policy, even if they are richly rewarded for their support.
#2 There are dynasties of state officials, including the military (particularly in the US Navy), and because they are a permanent feature of the state and are a network of families with some loyalty to each other. They form a powerful lobby, but they are secondary to the dominant big business factions, in part because they have no electoral support, even if some of them go into politics. Their role is usually that of "trusties" to big business.
«When it comes to specific names, I don’t think that the average political pundit knows them»
People who have been around for a while notice patterns of families and names that recur generation after generation, and know some interesting details, for example how important SAIC is to that class.
"Case in point: who is really running America? We vaguely understand that there’s some spook cabal in places like the FBI, the Pentagon and other departments with black budgets who are more powerful than the president, especially this one. When it comes to specific names, I don’t think that the average political pundit knows them. Furthermore, even alternative news sources only ever comment on the shenanigans of the visible government and the latest outrage du jour. I don’t think it is because they are cowards or controlled op by default for not talking about this - I think there is simply a serious information deficit."
Excellent comparison: it's like reading tea leaves. For instance, from Trump's closeness to Kushner, a sympathy toward Israel and a Neocon stance toward all things Middle-Eastern could have been predicted. Maybe even Steve Bannon's demise. But there was no way to telll the forces in operation much less the individual players exerting influential advisements on a daily basis.
Certainly I know much less about Russia, but seeing the leaves you show us at the bottom of that cup is far better than MSM pronouncements.
The article would've been more meaningful if it compared the Russian Deep state to the US FBI, CIA, Deep State. I think they would find very little difference except US is Fascist and Russia is quasi commie. The names could of been switched out for US intel spooks...no difference.