Spook Insider Andrei Pinchuk Believes That the Donbass War Was Really Part of an Internal Struggle Between Elites in Russia

Are the shadow-patriots actually in charge now? No joke? This time for sure?

The Stalkers will no doubt remember Dr. Livsci’s summaries of key chapters in the book, “Why the SMO”. It was written by a security state operative writing under a pseudonym who heavily criticized the Kremlin’s disastrous handling of the operation.

The author’s real name is Andrei Pinchuk.

That is a Ukrainian last name by the way — many Ukrainian names end on -ko or -uk. The anti-woke funnyman in America is called Danny Polishchuk. The author of Fight Club is called Chuck Palahniuk. And then we have Andrei Pinchuk who is better than both of them because he isn’t a homosexual.

Andrei passes the physiognomy check with flying colors. Russia sends men who look like him to the trenches. So does Ukraine.

And it turns out that he is still on the front, fighting and not simply sitting on his writer’s laurels.

Now that’s putting your money where your mouth is, eh ZAnon?

Andrei gave a very in-depth interview to another Russian war journal with an update about the situation as he sees it unfolding now. His book ended one year into the SMO. That means that the same amount of time has passed between the publishing of his book and now as between the publishing of his book and the start of the SMO.

In other words, a lot has happened.

So let’s listen to what he has to say.

Here:

The specifics of serving in the SMO

— Please tell us first about where you serve what your squad is. Is your squad called Bars 13"? What direction are you working in?

— The Bakhmut direction or, now taking into account the expansion of the front line, Bakhmut-Chasovyarovsk. Although initially our squad took up the position that the Wagner units left exactly a year ago". And therefore, we are just standing in the positions in which Wagner was previously located. Accordingly, for some time the detachment performed the functions of positional defense, then — of maneuverable defense, when you not only defend yourself, but also retaliate in kind, and somewhere from the end of winter — the beginning of spring, we have already switched to doing assault work — the most difficult kind.

— Storm troop units, right?

— A certain part of the unit is the assault squad, yes. But since there is never a pure assault, there is an assault and then an entrenchment, so part of the unit, including volunteers (for various reasons — someone with poor health — advanced age, who was injured, who is recovering after being injured, these are people who, for objective reasons, cannot go to storms), they go to the entrances. Because the assault requires very heavy physical stress and appropriate preparation.

— You just said that the assault work — is initially hard, difficult. I was struck when I spoke with people in Bakhmut, when they described that it was a real war of the norm: people were fleeing to positions, digging very quickly. They dig a hole. And all this works ... The war has completely changed. It has already changed since last summer. The number of drones is so overwhelming that it has become difficult to move at all. And now imagine that a person is sitting in these positions, marooned without water and food, because it is not always possible to bring relief under drones ... Do we now have a new war? Is this not like the Great Patriotic War?

— Any war is not like the previous war. We do not have two identical wars, especially large wars, which would be completely identical.

— What is the particularity of this war? Or rather the special operation?

— This is the story ... There are wars as an element of politics, as Clausewitz wrote. That is, a confrontation used to solve state-level problems. There are also wars that involve civilizational fractures, as Mr. Huntington once loved to write.

History of World Wars and Weapons

Here we have a war associated with a technological fracture. How did it come about? At first, the wars were simple: a sword, a bow, they ran, killed each other. Then they began to get complicated. Why did ancient Rome defeat everyone for a very long time? Because,

1. firstly, at that time they used various technologies,

2. secondly, they had other approaches to organizational processes.

Then — the Middle Ages. And the era of chivalry came. Beautiful in ballads, not very beautiful, apparently, in reality. And how was the era of chivalry destroyed? Why have chivalrous times ceased to exist? They invented gunpowder, invented new weapons, firearms. The archers who shot from the bow have been preparing for this since childhood, and the knights who went to the tournaments, — and now it’s enough to charge some kind of arquebus, to bang with them, and this ended their preparation of many decades.

War has changed, and then civilization has changed as a result. They invented firearms, invented caravels — explored, captured overseas states. War has always been an element of something new.

World War I — the creation of a bourgeois society, the emergence of new technological devices. In World War II, aviation, tanks, automatic weapons appeared, which inevitably make the war something else.

Now what are we watching? We rolled into a new industrial structure. That is, into the so-called digital age. Accordingly, these technologies and approaches greatly affect the war as such.

Suppose 20 years ago, NATO bombed Yugoslavia. Why couldn't Yugoslavia answer? Because there were no adequate means by which one could answer. And if this conflict was happening now, the situation would be radically different. Why?

A little simple example. Hussites. Hussites — is not even a country, it is a group, but they chop cables, shoot down planes, knock down ships, and no one can do anything with them. Because the means of destruction (the same drones, the same anti-ship missiles, etc.) were very cheap and became available. What used to cost almost as much as nuclear weapons is now simple and cheap.

Thanks to which, the same Ukrainians, for example, create their own BECs (crew-free boats), with which they hit the Crimean bridge and our ships. It used to be that if you have a fleet and the enemy does not have it, he has no options. Because you will win outright. The ship will sail, you will shoot from its guns, drop a landing, etc.

And there is nothing to oppose this ship.

And now it turned out that the parties disproportionate in economic and industrial potential, it turns out, can be in parity on the battlefield. And what does ensure parity now? First of all, drones.

In fact, — drones are such, when compared with the Middle Ages, a new kind of gunpowder, modern gunpowder. When gunpowder was invented, it first changed the battlefield, and then the technological and civilizational structure. The same thing happened when drones were invented. We now have drones everywhere: cars, satellites, weapons, hypersonic weapons…

Now they are getting ready for war in Taiwan, for example. All calculations of NATO and China are based on a variety of forms of unmanned use: sea drones, hypersonic drones at 4.5 and above the fly, etc.

Drones — they are the result of a long technological path. Cheap microelectronics, production speed, respectively, production base, machine tools and more, new competencies of specialists, military specialties that should be mastered, spare parts, warehouses, repair facilities, etc.

The use of drones has affected all subsequent factors. A tank, for example, can no longer go as an armored fist. So, if the enemy is massed as an armored fist, the entire 47th brigade under the Worker went against American and domestic tanks ... And we defeated them simply because we used drones in the same way.

Then there are the problems associated with the operation of the infantry…

— Yes, they explained to me the infantry problem. That even ten people will not fit in a trench…

— And how do you put ten people in if you were in a rush?

But we must not start with this, we must start with the fact that the battlefield itself has become open, it has become like the palm of the hand. It is impossible to covertly crawl anywhere. Because the same Mavic 3T with night thermal imagers and night cameras see you as well as during the day. It’s impossible to hide. We are unable to accumulate shock forces in one area. Because before you are destroyed, they will first see you. The beginning of the process is not even a form of combat, but a form of fixing the location of the enemy, a form of intelligence.

— So this is a dead end, it turns out? If both opponents see each other and both own the same weapon that can be made in a non-industrial way.

— When they invented automatic weapons, the powerful aerial bomb, then also nuclear weapons, each time they also said: "We have reached a dead end".

Of course, this is not a dead end. Because this dead end must also lead to new technological solutions, as happened in the past. There are several approaches. The first one. I really like it. I think that to one degree or another we will come to this.

Everyone is fussing now with the REB systems (radio-electronic warfare) and trying to measure the frequencies at which the means of destruction work, everyone knows them. This is somewhere 900-1200 FPVeshki, somewhere 5800 Mavic. And then the game begins to increase or decrease, as if in a casino. That is, increase the frequency, lower it, go beyond the scope of the EW, and then your bird flies".

He means figuring out the frequencies of the enemy and jamming them.

Accordingly, electronic intelligence is looking for the frequencies at which the enemy’s drone, already reconfigured with an increased or reduced frequency, works, and you are already rebuilding your EW. I believe,that the future is beyond the non-selective stations of the REB on the battlefield.

He means that electronic warfare and using signal-jamming weapons to knock out drones is the war of the future.

When a person gets sick, he drinks a pill of antibiotics that burns out all the bacteria in the body — good and bad. And then you drink bifidum, some lactobacteria, and the microflora starts slowly recovering. In the same way, we will come, I think, to the fact that powerful modern REB stations will fire out, creating a dome over the battlefield, in which there will be no drones.

Mass frying of all drone-devices using EMP weapons.

Yes, there will be questions for artillery, which is already used to aiming at drones, at radio intelligence. Again, the question will then arise about how instead of reconnaissance from the drone, exploration will again have to be carried out by traditional methods — military intelligence units. But this is another question.

— Is there any progress? Is there such a weapon? Prospects for one?

— You understand that there are no simple solutions to such complex issues. We have such a infantile thinking when we, as in American vampire films, want to find the main vampire, hammer him with an aspen stake, he will die, and immediately all the other bad ones will die too. And we, so happy, will go home to bask in the sunset somewhere. But this does not happen in life ... life requires some complex, multi-stage solutions.

One solution — is a non-selective EW.

He is about to talk about a big EMP bomb or a “pinch” essentially.

About another decision that was made, I think you already heard. This is a story about impulse weapons. That is, when the bomb explodes, an electromagnetic pulse is created that extinguishes all the electronics. And at one time, various agencies of different countries were tasked with — to develop this type of nuclear-free weapon so that it could extinguish electronics, including electronics in the sky, drones, etc. Americans used such samples in Iraq and Yugoslavia.

Remember, in Yugoslavia there was a cascading of electricity? This is just the use of such a bomb. There was a lot of talk about how the electronics had been extinguished, the generating stations had been fried. Americans used samples of these EMP weapons. Pulse weapons, that is, weapons that create an electromagnetic pulse in the enemy’s electronics coverage area, — they are a promising option.

There are tons of problems in this regard. In natural conditions, the pulse quickly loses its concentration, that is, some difficulties arise. The pulse can operate through to a depth of 20 kilometers for now. But this is an exclusively scientific task, a task for scientists. Whoever solves this problem will be able to dominate by extinguishing radio electronics on the battlefield.

There are a line of such solutions that, in fact, should completely restructure, firstly, the picture of the battlefield, and secondly, a person’s approaches to it. Just as they rebuilt after the First World War, after the Great Patriotic War and in all previous periods of mankind. Therefore, there are no dead ends. There are, on the contrary, scientific tasks. And whoever wins this scientific race will win in the entire subsequent spectrum of civilizations: in economics, politics, in geostrategy, etc.

Could you imagine what would happen to our society if those EMP weapons ever got in the wrong/right hands?

An entire multi-quadrillion dollar mass-surveillance panopticon just fried overnight with the push of one big button.

A sprawling globalist security state that spent years over-relying on 5G surveillance tech and AI systems trawling private communications to detect warning signs of dissident activity just blown to bits in a few short seconds.

Imagine the chaos that could follow in those moments after the Demiurge’s great electronic eye was gouged out …

— It turns out that everything depends not on the spirit, not on the idea, but on who will technologically break through first?

— This is a question from the category "What came first — the chicken or egg?". Where is our spirit? Suddenly, we have a spirit in technological processes ... Probably the only world religion that burned and destroyed technological progress, — is still the Catholics. In Islam, for example, and, by the way, in our Orthodox Church, it is believed that any scientific progress — is inspired. There is no contradiction between the will of the Lord and scientific progress.

NOTE: I really like Andrei, but this is just pure retardation on his part.

Eastern and Western Christianity and Islam are both very anti-science and there is simply no denying this. All of them are simply forms of Noahidism (religion for nations conquered by Yahweh’s nation of “priests” i.e., murderers and terrorists) and drew heavily on Aristotle’s view on science, which became a specific brand of Science™ that totally excluded the spiritual. The reason why Western Christianity was able to so rapidly outpace Eastern Christianity and the Islamic world was because Aquinas came along a thousand years ago and re-popularized Aristotle. Because Aristotle made a sharp divide between the metaphysical and the empirical (material), his Science™ could be accepted by the religious authorities, despite him ostensibly being a pagan. In fact, Aristotle was so beloved by the Italian Church that they insisted that he must have been a Hebrew for 500 some years. His worldview was so refreshingly materialistic and demiurgic and virulently anti-pagan, which meant anti-pantheist.

Naturally, I believe that Aristotle and Plato’s revolutionary anti-pagan teachings became the core of the Septuagint, not the other way around.

Point being: thanks to Christcuckolds and Aristotle, Science™ became the study of dead matter. All other forms of scientific inquiry would get your tongue nailed to a plank and your skin burnt to a crisp over a holocaust pyre as an offering to Yahweh, the god of the Judeo-Christians.

Then, by the time we get to the Enlightenment, Science™ was strong enough to stand on its own two legs as a political project without the support of the Church.

Now, what the West had going for it was several Phoenician-descended merchant clans operating in Italy, Spain and eventually in the Baltics, in Novgorod and then in Bohemia and in the Netherlands and finally in London. These organizations did not obey the Christian ban on mysticism and had protection from Rome despite flagrantly defying the Noahide Laws that the long arm of the Church imposed throughout Europe.

This occult knowledge was syncretized and crystalized (and perverted) with the Kabbalah, which the Church protected and fostered and accepted initially. Eventually, the Church came out against Kabbalah, but by that point, there was a rapid proliferation of “Christian” occult societies run by conversos mostly that then began driving technological progress almost entirely for nefarious reasons in their own right.

The best example of this is probably Isaac Newton, who was a student of Kabbalism and who simply “secularized” it by coming up with new English-language terms for Kabbalistic concepts like Inertia + Gravity = Chaos + Love (in the occult sense)

Because first Sviatoslav the Great and then Ivan the Formidable eliminated the Phoenician slave-trader mafias in the Slavlands, but kept the Christian Noahide bans on science, Russia initially refused to engage in the tech arms race started by certain cities in Western Europe.

That all changed with Peter the Great, who was in all probability just a German doppelgänger replacement for the actual murdered Peter, and who de facto outlawed organized Christianity in Russia and destroyed the Church as an institution. With the Church cowed, Russia entered the technological arms race with full gusto. In St. Petersburg today you can visit Peter the Great’s personal collection of “science” and see the workings of Peter’s dark and twisted mind for yourself.

On top of the building, the Kunstkamera, in question is a defiant atom (centuries before it was “discovered”) instead of a cross.

I approve of his disdain for Christianity generally, but not the terror regime that he unleashed on the Slavlands. He was the Stalin of his time. I’d only ever throw my support behind a kind of Julian the Apostate figure political, personally.

Anyway.

I think we were talking about new tech that could change the waging of war and the structure of society by extension.

About the opponent of Russia in the SMO

— If we are speaking about our opponent, well, everyone expected him to be demoralized.

— Who is — all? I did not expect this. Did you expect it?

— Me — no.

— You see, two people are here who have not expected that.

— When you read articles now, they constantly write that they are in tatters, that their morale has fallen. And yet that they fight well.

— Do you understand what the problem is, from my point of view, why this, as you say, is no leading to a breaking?

I have Ukrainian blood in me. By my last name you can guess this. [told you!] Therefore, I can afford to talk about it too. The Ukrainian mentality is largely infantile. He is of such a little playful nature. He wants to have some understandable beautiful goal. And this is a clear separation: who is a friend, who is an enemy. And this, until you choke like this, so that everything is without halftones [???]. And once Ukraine came up with a national idea (not invented for itself, it was also such a technological technique used on them). (The national idea is not immanent, it is always transcendental, that is, it is beyond the limits of some intellectual critical thinking.) This idea manifests as eventual European integration.

What is this idea? What is its allure for Ukraine? This also needs to be correctly understood.

Eurointegration for Ukraine — is an opportunity to realize a dream, when you lie under a tree, pebbles fly into your mouth, you eat, spit cherry bones, and everything is fine all around. That is, to find a fool, a sponsor in the face of a stupid Europe, which is fat, beautiful, secured, and which will feed you.

And almost everything worked out as they believed it would.

Well, actually not.

But they believe that yes, Europe, a generous Europe, which is not really generous, has almost agreed to feed Ukraine for nothing, just like in this folk fairytale image.

And then evil Russia appeared and at the last moment said: “No, you don’t get anything,” — as said in our famous classical work [???]. Ukraine, being a bum of a nation became very much offended.

And the second factor is this Ukrainian trait ... there is also a saying: "The Ukrainian was born and decided to become a bad Jew".

The second feature of a Ukrainian at the national level [Ukraine as a nation] is that he believes that he will deceive everyone. And he almost tricked this stupid Europe with America and almost agreed to be fed for free, and then Russia came and not just took the opportunity to be provided for, but she herself steal something, as they believe.

Here I agree with Andrei entirely.

I have had countless face-to-face conversations with Ukrainians “patriots” who unironically think that they’ve managed to trick the whole world somehow! In fact, I wrote about this in probably the very first posts I ever made on this blog.

See, the average somewhat clever Ukrainian literally thinks that they’ve managed to out-Jew the Jews now — that they are the cleverest and the most beloved of G_d’s children.

And so what if there is a war raging in Donbass? Nobody gives a rat’s ass about Donbass. Seriously though. No one in Russia cares very much about Donbass either. Russian volunteers certainly don’t fight for the Donbassian way of life, but for their own ideals like the Russian Empire, Nazism, Stalinism, pan-Slavism or whatever. Who could actually care about this ruined hellscape of rusted through mega-factories that once spewed poison into the water, land and air like a veritable … dare I say it … yes, like a kind of grotesque Soviet Isengard?

Anyway, it is very … edifying? to hear Andrei confirm this observation of mine about the nature of the Eternal Ukrainian.

There is also something very … Jewish about the Ukrainian mindset, yes.

Part of this can be explained by the fact that there is a lot of semitic swarth in the south of the country like in Donbass or Odessa especially. Many Ukrainians are almost phenotypical indistinguishable from Armenians and have a similar swindling mindset.

This is the same for the territories of Kuban and Don as well, sadly.

I feel the loss of the now-Swarthlands particularly keenly because my own family hails from there and nowadays it feels like cities like Krasnodar are occupied by hordes that somehow run the place now despite never winning a single battle, let alone a war against our people.

But that is not to say that there aren’t normal, decent, fair-haired folk from Ukraine.

Like, actual human beings, you know?

There are — mostly in the north, especially around Kiev.

Just look at Andrei’s photo again if you don’t believe me.

And I would never deny that there are decent folk in Ukraine and as proof of my claims, you have never seen me blindly cheering for the butchery going on in Ukraine. When I heard Putin say “de-Nazification” I had a creeping feeling in my subconscious begin to formulate that the real “Nazis” being referred to were people that looked like me and my family being killed by people who look like Mishustin.

Or, well, just about anyone in the Kiev or Moscow government, frankly.

And we know that the “Nazis” being referred to couldn’t be Azov fighters, because they got a luxury tour with tiramisu by Putin’s good friend and loyal Russian patriot Roman Abramovich. And you’re a traitor to Russia if you say otherwise, bigot!

We continue:

Crimea, Donbass ... that is the trickiest. How could you steal something like that? This greatly affects their self-awareness. Ukraine has developed an image, on the one hand, of resentment, an image of being a victim (…)

And, on the other hand, there was a certain vacuum of alternatives.

Well, then we come in and say: "There is no Europe. You are part of the Russian world, read the ethnogenesis theories of Gumilyov, and everything is written there why you will not be able to change the civilizational model".

(…)

Remember, Chernomyrdin had a chic phrase: "We will live badly [in Ukraine], but not for long".

What Russia can offer Ukrainians

— What can we offer as an idea that would be attractive to them in this situation? There is a vacuum of ideas.

— First, the moment when we could put anything into beautiful packaging as a result of the power of thought, we already safely, to put it mildly, made a mistake.

(…)

This is not a story about competition for the heart of a lady, as some are trying to present it. In Ukraine there is such a comparison that they consider insightful ...

There was a communal apartment, there was a family, a husband with a wife. Then they divorced —, and the wife went to another room or to a neighboring apartment and somehow began to build her personal life. And the husband of — an abuser, as it is fashionable to say now, goes, shakes her, shakes the new groom and pursues her in every possible way. Such an ugly image…

LOL.

Literally word for word.

I don’t lie to you on this blog. I just give you the truth years before anyone else does. For that I am hated. But let the record show that I also said the EXACT SAME THING!

Perhaps Andrei was reading my blog all the while???

But the truth is that we do not have two apartments and there are no two rooms. This is one room. Maybe even a big one. But one.

(…)

Therefore, now we have simply ended up in the zone where, without use of power tools [he means weapons], unfortunately, the problem cannot be solved, you can’t change the situation with sweet promises either.

But we must somehow generate a reality that is understandable to the Ukrainian layman as an alternative to his life, because now they say to him: "You see, rockets fly, you see, here, the Russians are advancing".

And he is sitting there [on the fence]...

Maybe he is even Russian by blood, maybe grandparents came from somewhere in Novosibirsk to this Odessa or Nikolaev. And he is a Russian guy. And so he sits, and he does not understand what reality will be like when the Russians come. Here it is necessary to somehow clearly explain it to him.

We had a moment when we could, for example, form alternative Ukrainian governments, exiled governments. We missed this moment. We missed it.

Ha!

Told ya!

— Why did we not do so?

— Because there was a period when we consistently recognized the Ukrainian governments, we built diplomatic relations. For me, for example, the outbreak of war occurred on May 26, 2014.

1. Firstly, May 26 — is the anniversary of the fighting at the Donetsk airport,

2. and secondly, this is the first day after the election of Petro Poroshenko as President of Ukraine.

— We recognized him.

— And we recognized him.

— Could they not bet on the same, whatever he was, Yanukovych? The legal president…

— Yes. And from that moment, it means that this was when we abandoned the idea of the government in exile, from that moment we, of course, messed up the situation, in fact.

What is worse, Moscow was probably planning to re-install Yanukovitch after the two-week SMO. He was on standby in Belarus at the time, apparently.

How horrid and macabre.

About the future of Ukraine

— Good. We are capturing new territories, the population there remains. How will we reintegrate this population?

— Good question. I can say for sure, in any case, I am personally sure that in the modern world a purely military victory is a priori impossible.

There is no war divorced from political, cultural, historical and other religious processes. The corridor of opportunities for making these political decisions has narrowed very much now.

(…)

Who thwarted the Ukrainian plan [the plan to take back Ukraine]

Many different influential people [in Russian] formed a subpoena. And all of them had joint businesses with the Ukrainian elite. We never had a situation of hard separation before the start of the SMO, and this business elite was absolutely international, according to Marx, "where money is, there the heart is as well".

Therefore, this whole period was associated with varying degrees of fierce warring for power in Russia, not for power in Ukraine. I draw your attention to this: [the internal struggle] for power in Russia at all levels, in various special services, in different rooms, in different towers of the Kremlin, etc.

And what seems to us for granted now was then simply impossible. I came to a Russian minister to register the Donbass Volunteer Union — they refused me, I went to the Russian banks — they refused to open accounts for me because I am a separatist. Many told me in 2014 – 2015 that criminal liability for mercenary activities is inevitable for me as the Minister of Security of the DPR.

Yes, the Putinist state was anti-Donbass independence and anti-Russian until, magically, it changed its colors in Year Zero of the SMO because it needed thousands of Russian patriots to go die for them in the mud of Ukraine.

(…)

These characters, who are now touring on Russian talk shows with foam in their mouth, say: "Where have you been for eight years while they were bombing Donbass?" Well, "where have you been these eight years?"

(…)

All these eight years, this struggle was primarily for the direction of development within Russia itself and for the heart of Ukraine. This struggle was the result of a model of elite formation within Russia itself.

I repeat once again, even those who are now responsible for some issues of confrontation with the West, for some Ukrainian sector, there were completely different people at those posts yesterday.

In general, we have now come to a completely anti-Western model of power in Russia.

Here Andrei starts pushing out the copium, sadly.

He is about to say that because of the last two years of mass death and atrocity, the secret-patriots have now started taking control of the government away from the “Westernizers”.

Now, I personally had hoped that this would occur in the beginning of the SMO and wrote all about it in the early months. This never occurred then.

Andrei is saying that this is occurring now, somewhere, behind the scenes.

But I refuse to believe it. There is a famous Ukrainian saying that I’d like to share that should better explain my position on the situation:

Trick me once, shame on you. Trick me twice — you can’t trick me twice.

Why is Andrei trying to ruse me again?

There is such a concept — "sin". Do you know what sin is? "Sin" in the literal translation means "in addition to the goal", and the goal is God. This is a verbatim canonical definition of sin.

So, the goal is to achieve God, discover God in yourself, unite with a divine essence, live according to God. All that which is past this goal is a sin. Past the goal — past God.

— How interesting...

— When we talk about power, there are only two models of natural existence. This is a model that is now commonly called "democratic", — a model that is in a state of constant critical analysis, external and internal, competition of ideas, some political platforms.

And then there is a natural self-cleaning, because it is always assumed that the authorities can make a mistake and, for example, the opposition party criticizes it for this mistake. And then they will come to power during the democratic elections and will correct this mistake.

Russia has tried this model. And it didn’t work out. For a huge number of reasons, such a model did not work.

And the second model, which exists in this regard (it can be called differently, whatever), I call it the "sacred model", it can be called autocratic, sacred, whatever, in terms you can play until you turn blue.

Yes, yet another Slavland Chronicles old talking point: there are only two forms of political government, really.

Oligarchy and Authoritarianism

Where is my citation?

— When does power become sacred?

— Power becomes sacred when it is from God. When power is not the result of democratic procedures, but some sacred…

— ... to unavailable processes?

— That's right. I believe that we have rolled into this state, natural enough for the thousand-year history of Russia. There are pluses, their cons. Democracy — is not a universal form, it is just one of the concepts of the political organization of the state. So, we rolled into a model in which sacredness is a basic principle. And in sacredness, the concept of "sin" in power disappears.

Because God and his entities, which he produces, a priori cannot be sinful. Because the sinful god — is Satan.

Andrei should stick to talking war and politics because he is hopeless at theology.

He is preaching some kind of version of Manichaeism here. In the Judeo-Christian understanding of Satan, he is literally Yahweh’s agent i.e., he works as a controlled opposition to Yahweh and his grand plan for humanity. The god of Esau/Edom/Rome/Whites is considered Lucifer by the people who wrote the Bible, just FYI.

Clearly, any thinking person almost immediately rejects Christian theology and makes a beeline for various Gnostic heresies even if they are unconscious of this simply because they make so much more sense than the nonsense that the Church has been peddling for centuries.

I tried to style myself as an Orthodox and to preach heresy under its protective banner as well in my own day. In reality, I was a gnostic heretic just like Andrei clearly is. Just like most Russians are if you actually probe them about what they really believe. Every single one of them thinks that they worship a different God than the Jews or Muslims and that the latter worship Satan, who is a separate all-powerful entity. They will deny my characterization, but, funny enough, the Bible itself is quite clear about how the nations/gentiles/goyim are always drawn to their native gods and native spirituality no matter how hard they try to adopt the Biblical mindset.

There is great deal of “power knowledge” in the scriptures — if only you allow yourself to look for it.

The Orthodox should try reading that big ol’ book of bullshit that they claim to worship sometime.

Anyway:

And in this case, this element of possible criticism of the authorities as a way to improve the system, in the sacred model [of authoritarianism] loses all positive meaning.

Any action of power in such a situation ceases to be a mistake, even the most reckless action. Any action simply becomes just a new reality.

Did we miss the mistake? Could we have acted differently and then it would have been some other power? This is a subjunctive mood, it does not make sense in the analysis, these are just convenient words for talk shows, but this is definitely not a serious political analysis.

What happened happened. We may or may not like it. But this is just a new objective reality.

(…)

Power creates convenient systems, comfortable, for the release of steam, within which you can release [tension through useless criticism].

(…)

Not to belabor the point, but there are obvious similarities in our thinking.

I think that everything that Andrei said in his latest interview should be viewed as a corroboration of the essential talkings points of this blog.

Chances are he wasn’t reading me and I know that I wasn’t reading him either.

It says something that we came to such similar conclusions.