LONDRES, ROYAUME-UNI - 8 MARS : Des danseurs exotiques se produisent à Piccadilly Circus, au centre de Londres, lors d'une manifestation contre la discrimination des travailleurs du sexe organisée à l'occasion de la Journée internationale des femmes. Des centaines de personnes ont participé à une marche de protestation pour exiger la dépénalisation totale du travail du sexe, la possibilité de se syndiquer, de meilleures conditions de travail et une protection contre la violence subie par les travailleurs du sexe. 8 mars 2019 à Londres, Angleterre. (Crédit photo : Wiktor Szymanowicz/Future Publishing via Getty Images)

On pourrait penser que Suffs, une pièce sur le suffrage des femmes, serait considérée comme assez progressiste. Elle est actuellement à l’affiche à Broadway et a reçu des critiques globalement positives de tous les médias habituels. Pourtant, plus tôt dans l’année, ce spectacle le plus libéral des spectacles libéraux a néanmoins été attaqué. En juillet, des activistes ont envahi le Music Box Theatre en pleine performance et ont commencé à scander des demandes d’annulation de la comédie musicale. Juste pour clarifier leur point de vue, ils ont également déployé une banderole, ornée des mots “Suffs est un blanchiment”.
Comme le suggère cette dernière phrase, et un coup d’œil rapide au site web Cancel Suffs le confirme, les manifestants sont finalement mécontents de Suffs pour une raison fondamentale : la blancheur de son féminisme. Un groupe autoproclamé de féministes “radicales, anti-racistes, queer”, le groupe rejette l’idée que “les femmes blanches sont toujours alignées avec des causes progressistes” — même s’ils attaquent Suffs pour avoir minimisé le supposé racisme de ces premiers réformateurs électoraux. Pris ensemble, en fait, Suffs n’est rien de moins qu’“une trahison” de la prochaine génération de féministes.
Le chaos de juillet n’est pas unique. Du moins selon un certain type de féministe intersectionnelle — le genre de personne qui croit que les femmes trans sont des femmes et que le travail du sexe est un travail — “les féministes blanches” sont désormais à blâmer pour tout. Considérons, pour donner un exemple, la popularité sauvage de l’insulte “Karen”, une attaque implicite (ou parfois pas si implicite) contre les femmes blanches qui se défendent. Ensuite, il y a l’explosion de livres. Les titres parlent d’eux-mêmes : Larmes blanches/Cicatrices brunes : Comment le féminisme blanc trahit les femmes de couleur; La femme autre : Comment le féminisme blanc nuit aux femmes musulmanes; Contre le féminisme blanc ; Le problème avec le féminisme blanc.
Le dernier en date est Faux féminisme : Pourquoi nous tombons dans le piège du féminisme blanc et comment nous pouvons arrêter par Serene Khader. Une universitaire au CUNY Graduate Center, Khader attribue aux féministes blanches la propagation de cinq mythes clés, consacrant un chapitre à chacun. Démolissant tout, de l’affirmation selon laquelle le féminisme concerne la liberté personnelle, à la fantaisie selon laquelle il vise à libérer des femmes individuelles, Khader fixe clairement ses objectifs très haut.
Mais en tant que féministe moi-même, bien que de la variété blanche, ce que Khader semble constituer comme féminisme semble totalement méconnaissable. Chaque “mythe” qu’elle dissipe, après tout, n’est rien de plus qu’une invention des féministes libérales “lean in”. À part la fameuse superficialité de telles personnes, elles sont de toute façon un groupe qui inclut à la fois des femmes blanches et non blanches. L’idée que Khader est en quelque sorte en train de démolir le monolithe racial du féminisme blanc semble donc plutôt peu plausible. Quoi qu’il en soit, ses cibles libérales — blanches, aisées, #girlbossy — n’incluent pas des féministes robustes et de base comme moi et d’innombrables autres à travers le monde.
Pas que les arguments réels de Khader soient beaucoup mieux. Contrairement à leurs homologues blancs, par exemple, elle affirme que les femmes de couleur ont toujours dû travailler en dehors de la maison. Vraiment ? Il n’existe pas de ménages noirs ou bruns riches ? Ensuite, il y a le relativisme culturel facile. Les femmes blanches sont accusées de contribuer à la destruction des cultures traditionnelles, même si Khader soutient à plusieurs reprises qu’avant la colonisation, les Amérindiens jouissaient d’une égalité des sexes presque totale. Pour une telle affirmation générale, on pourrait imaginer que Khader aurait rassemblé une pléthore de chercheurs sérieux à sa cause. Pas de chance. Au lieu de cela, elle cite Kim TallBear, une universitaire amérindienne qui affirme que les modes de vie non monogames sont un « projet de décolonisation » qui remet en question « la sexualité des colons ».
Et bien que cela soit risible, au moins cette idée peut être comprise de manière basique. Ce n’est pas toujours vrai, par exemple lorsque l’auteure affirme qu’en regardant les victimes de violence basée sur le genre, « les gens sont ciblés pour préserver l’hypervalorisation de la masculinité, et les victimes ne sont pas seulement des personnes qui ont été assignées femmes à la naissance ». Je n’ai aucune idée de ce que Khader veut dire par là. Peut-être que mon cerveau de féministe blanche n’est tout simplement pas à la hauteur d’une telle sagesse intersectionnelle.
En un sens, il est presque trop facile de se moquer de Faux Féminisme, rempli à craquer de tout ce non-sens pseudo-intellectuel. Pourtant, je pense que Khader et les autres comptent vraiment. Après tout, chaque ajout à l’écurie des « féministes blanches » déforme finalement ce qu’est réellement le féminisme mainstream. Plutôt que de s’engager sérieusement avec une idéologie sérieuse, avec une histoire et de profonds débats internes, cela crée plutôt un épouvantail. Le féminisme, soutiennent de manière désinvolte Khader et ses collègues, ne concerne désormais guère plus que le rouge à lèvres et les promotions au travail.
Et si cela suffit à rendre le féminisme généralement — bien que les girlbosses devraient sûrement être critiquées, il y a clairement plus que cela en nous — des livres comme Faux Féminisme sont tout aussi toxiques d’un point de vue racial. Pas une seule fois en plus de 40 ans d’activisme je n’ai été témoin d’une véritable féministe plaidant exclusivement pour les femmes blanches. En effet, j’ai passé mes premières années dans le mouvement de libération des femmes, tout au long des années quatre-vingt, à discuter de la véritable intersectionnalité : comment le féminisme devait représenter et inclure toutes les femmes sinon le progrès ne signifiait rien. Des droits à l’avortement à la lutte contre la violence masculine, je n’ai jamais été dans un groupe qui n’était pas racialement et ethniquement diversifié.
C’est tout aussi vrai en ce qui concerne des luttes spécifiques. Considérons la polygamie, que beaucoup des féministes noires et asiatiques avec qui j’ai travaillé considèrent comme une forme de contrôle patriarcal. Pourtant, Khader rejette cette opinion comme étant un « impérialisme blanc » — ignorant habilement le fait que de nombreuses femmes ex-musulmanes abhorrent l’islamisme et la culture qu’il apporte. Si, alors, l’insulte de « féminisme blanc » est sexiste, elle est aussi raciste. En refusant de donner aux femmes de couleur une quelconque capacité d’agir dans la formation de leur propre féminisme, cela suppose de manière condescendante qu’elles ont simplement été dupées par leurs néfastes sœurs blanches.
Je ne veux pas être injuste ici. Khader écrit certainement bien, et certaines parties de son livre sont méticuleusement recherchées. Le chapitre sur le « mythe de l’individualisme » — où elle décrit l’histoire du travail non reconnu des femmes — était particulièrement éclairant. Pourtant, entre généralisation et cliché, elle ne parvient finalement qu’à ignorer la plupart des réalisations des féministes, qu’elles soient blanches ou non, au cours du dernier siècle ou plus. Dites ce que vous voulez sur Susan B. Anthony, et même selon les normes de son époque, elle était assez progressiste sur les questions de race, il est sûrement mieux qu’elle ait poussé les femmes vers l’urne que de simplement rester à la maison ? Cela ne veut pas dire, bien sûr, que le féminisme commence ou se termine avec Suffs. C’est juste que la marche de la libération des femmes est longue, et chaque étape sur le chemin mérite d’être mémorisée.
C’est particulièrement vrai étant donné que de nombreuses femmes vivantes en ce moment aimeraient sûrement quelque chose d’aussi simple que le droit de vote. Alors que les talibans intensifient leur torture des femmes et des filles en Afghanistan, et qu’un nombre croissant de femmes dans le monde se retrouvent enchaînées par la charia, celles qui rejettent le « féminisme blanc » rejettent également les millions de femmes non blanches qui attendent du soutien de leurs sœurs en Occident. D’un autre côté, en tant qu’académique à CUNY, ou en tout cas en tant qu’activiste avec le temps de faire des piquets devant des comédies musicales, il est probablement facile de mettre ces questions de côté.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeIt’s great to have Luttwak on the Unherd team of writers. One doesn’t necessarily have to agree with every aspect of his analyses but they always come from an informed and concise position, which at least appears to be balanced.
It’s great to have Luttwak on the Unherd team of writers. One doesn’t necessarily have to agree with every aspect of his analyses but they always come from an informed and concise position, which at least appears to be balanced.
This reads like real-time realpolitik for the general or lightly-informed reader, such as me when it comes to Russian or military history (among other gaps in my reading). Way back in 1968 John le Carré, approvingly, said Mr. Luttwak was “like Machiavelli”. Much appreciated, with a grain of salt.
He did, and incredibly, that was over half a century ago.
Unlike many analysts, Luttwak has been involved both on the front line and in the war rooms where policy decisions are being made. That gives him an advantage that mere commentators can barely imagine.
Agreed. Truly a inside player.
Nonsense, he’s a first class bluffer, nothing more nothing less.
Do tell more. Are you disputing his time spent in the Israeli army, or his involvement with senior US foreign policy-makers? It’d be interesting to hear about such bluffing, and why he’s still taken seriously if that’s the case.
I was unimpressed by his ‘Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire’, when it was published in 1976.
I know he volunteered for the IDF in the ‘Six Day War’ but what EXACTLY did he get up to?
He seems to have spent sometime, intermittently as one of a plethora of ‘special advisors’ that infest both the Pentagon and the White House, but how really relevant is that today?
However the bottom line is that he is a journalist, an interesting one I’ll grant you, and certainly an asset for UnHerd, but he does have ‘form’ for making some fairly odd, if belligerent predictions.
I think the description of him as like “like Machiavelli “ is very apposite. He has certainly had an interesting life.
Fair enough. I think that probably still places him in a better place than many “mere” journalists whose experience of the decision-making around armed conflicts consists of either propaganda or the interests of whichever outlet they serve.
Fair enough. I think that probably still places him in a better place than many “mere” journalists whose experience of the decision-making around armed conflicts consists of either propaganda or the interests of whichever outlet they serve.
I was unimpressed by his ‘Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire’, when it was published in 1976.
I know he volunteered for the IDF in the ‘Six Day War’ but what EXACTLY did he get up to?
He seems to have spent sometime, intermittently as one of a plethora of ‘special advisors’ that infest both the Pentagon and the White House, but how really relevant is that today?
However the bottom line is that he is a journalist, an interesting one I’ll grant you, and certainly an asset for UnHerd, but he does have ‘form’ for making some fairly odd, if belligerent predictions.
I think the description of him as like “like Machiavelli “ is very apposite. He has certainly had an interesting life.
Do tell more. Are you disputing his time spent in the Israeli army, or his involvement with senior US foreign policy-makers? It’d be interesting to hear about such bluffing, and why he’s still taken seriously if that’s the case.
Agreed. Truly a inside player.
Nonsense, he’s a first class bluffer, nothing more nothing less.
He did, and incredibly, that was over half a century ago.
Unlike many analysts, Luttwak has been involved both on the front line and in the war rooms where policy decisions are being made. That gives him an advantage that mere commentators can barely imagine.
This reads like real-time realpolitik for the general or lightly-informed reader, such as me when it comes to Russian or military history (among other gaps in my reading). Way back in 1968 John le Carré, approvingly, said Mr. Luttwak was “like Machiavelli”. Much appreciated, with a grain of salt.
I think there are important conclusions that have to made and perhaps are not:
1. Putin may not be in full control to completely use his discretion. It is obvious there are various clans fighting with each other, and one of them is so called central apparatus of the Russian Ministry of Defense.
2. It seems like there are simply nobody to replace Shoigu and Gerasimov with. Other generals had been tried without much of a success.
3. It is clear that Russian generals learned from their failures. However overall state of affairs in Russia, including profound corruption, is not supportive of any military breakthroughs from the Russian side.
4. What happened was indeed very dangerous for Putin because the regime lost its monopoly on use of force. That ease with which Prigozhin was able to move around getting close to Moscow with practically almost no resistance must be very scary for Kremlin.
5. Putin will not forget and will not forgive.
I think there are important conclusions that have to made and perhaps are not:
1. Putin may not be in full control to completely use his discretion. It is obvious there are various clans fighting with each other, and one of them is so called central apparatus of the Russian Ministry of Defense.
2. It seems like there are simply nobody to replace Shoigu and Gerasimov with. Other generals had been tried without much of a success.
3. It is clear that Russian generals learned from their failures. However overall state of affairs in Russia, including profound corruption, is not supportive of any military breakthroughs from the Russian side.
4. What happened was indeed very dangerous for Putin because the regime lost its monopoly on use of force. That ease with which Prigozhin was able to move around getting close to Moscow with practically almost no resistance must be very scary for Kremlin.
5. Putin will not forget and will not forgive.
Interesting analysis. I knew that most Russian wars ended up starting badly but this was a whole other level of incompetence from the get-go. It’s strange that Putin hasn’t at least sacked those responsible, as I’m sure most of us thought him ruthless with a low tolerance for failure. We shall just have to see how this pans out in the coming weeks.
“…most Russian wars ended up starting badly..” – ended up starting? grammar? syntax?
Correct!
Changing the subject, the other day I noticed quite a few O’Mahony’s were buried in the ruined Franciscan (Observant) Friary Church at Kilcrea, Co Cork. Any of our lot by any chance?
Correct!
Changing the subject, the other day I noticed quite a few O’Mahony’s were buried in the ruined Franciscan (Observant) Friary Church at Kilcrea, Co Cork. Any of our lot by any chance?
“…most Russian wars ended up starting badly..” – ended up starting? grammar? syntax?
Interesting analysis. I knew that most Russian wars ended up starting badly but this was a whole other level of incompetence from the get-go. It’s strange that Putin hasn’t at least sacked those responsible, as I’m sure most of us thought him ruthless with a low tolerance for failure. We shall just have to see how this pans out in the coming weeks.
Not bad for a former hotdog seller..
The crowds cheering Wagner in Rostov was mind-blowing. I think the appropriate slang is ‘Russians be crazy’
Adolf did better it must be said,
Adolf did better it must be said,
Not bad for a former hotdog seller..
The crowds cheering Wagner in Rostov was mind-blowing. I think the appropriate slang is ‘Russians be crazy’
It does seem surreal that Prigozhin stopped, when he appeared to be rolling, unopposed. Surely he knows that in the next year he will die under mysterious circumstances, preferably, for Vladdy, via polonium.
The diminutive or nickname for Vladimir is Vova and then Vovka.
The diminutive or nickname for Vladimir is Vova and then Vovka.
It does seem surreal that Prigozhin stopped, when he appeared to be rolling, unopposed. Surely he knows that in the next year he will die under mysterious circumstances, preferably, for Vladdy, via polonium.
Everyone should get along and be friends.
Naive, isn’t it. But maybe someone can explain to Rodney King and Elvis Costello “what’s so funny about peace, love, and understanding”.
Naive, isn’t it. But maybe someone can explain to Rodney King and Elvis Costello “what’s so funny about peace, love, and understanding”.
Everyone should get along and be friends.
I must say I thought it possible that the whole episode was a ruse? ie to get Prigozhin into Belarus, his 25,000 troops to follow quietly for s new assault on Kyev.. a bit far fetched perhaps?
It’s heavy weapons that would make the difference, which Vagner currently lacks.
Just as it took weeks to get the Russians who eventually attacked Kyiv to get in position, it would take the same amount of time to equip Vagner.
And they aren’t even trained to fight combined arms actions.
While everyone is being pedantic, is it too much to ask that you check the spelling of one of the main topics and most used term of the article? “Wagner”! As in Richard, we know how to pronounce and spell that don’t we?
While everyone is being pedantic, is it too much to ask that you check the spelling of one of the main topics and most used term of the article? “Wagner”! As in Richard, we know how to pronounce and spell that don’t we?
Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found here.
https://www.ft.com/content/2cbc1abf-f818-4c5c-aed8-3256a1d775a2#comments-anchor
My personal troll Fav is Wagner, through a cleverly staged Putin ruse, has been magically beamed up north of Kiev in Belarus and will presently sack the city thus ending the special op. Also, why are so many military aged civilian men loitering around Rostov in the pics??
It’s heavy weapons that would make the difference, which Vagner currently lacks.
Just as it took weeks to get the Russians who eventually attacked Kyiv to get in position, it would take the same amount of time to equip Vagner.
And they aren’t even trained to fight combined arms actions.
Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found here.
https://www.ft.com/content/2cbc1abf-f818-4c5c-aed8-3256a1d775a2#comments-anchor
My personal troll Fav is Wagner, through a cleverly staged Putin ruse, has been magically beamed up north of Kiev in Belarus and will presently sack the city thus ending the special op. Also, why are so many military aged civilian men loitering around Rostov in the pics??
I must say I thought it possible that the whole episode was a ruse? ie to get Prigozhin into Belarus, his 25,000 troops to follow quietly for s new assault on Kyev.. a bit far fetched perhaps?
Has Putin in fact neutralised the criticism by effectively directing Wagner to Belarus where they are potentially poised to open up a new front in the rear of the Ukrainian forces bogged down slowly advancing in the South? At the very least Ukraine must ensure there is a force available to oppose such a threat.
Has Putin in fact neutralised the criticism by effectively directing Wagner to Belarus where they are potentially poised to open up a new front in the rear of the Ukrainian forces bogged down slowly advancing in the South? At the very least Ukraine must ensure there is a force available to oppose such a threat.
Whilst all of this makes sense is sense prevailing in Russia? Prigozhin appears to enjoy fighting and organising and not much else. Is this yet another show of defiance and irritation at Russia’s military command in a pattern that appears to be to provoke Putin to improve his military, not to replace Putin?
What does the lack of military engagement by either side tell us? There is a mismatch between Putin’s televised response and the response on the highway to Moscow appearing to be made haphazardly by civil rather than military officials.
Prigozhin is like a scorpion, he will engage in another fight, he cannot help it. Is he an opportunist or does Putin say where and when? If Lukashenko hosts Prigozhin and 25,000 Wagner troops and hardware, could he be in for a surprise? Belarus may not then be the best place for Russia to have sent the nuclear weapons Lukashenko talks so much about. Or, though I am generally against conspiracy theories, does this all look as though it is staged, does Putin want Prigozhin to have them? How else could Putin disown the use of such weapons in Ukraine to take revenge for being frustrated in creating greater Russia?
Whilst all of this makes sense is sense prevailing in Russia? Prigozhin appears to enjoy fighting and organising and not much else. Is this yet another show of defiance and irritation at Russia’s military command in a pattern that appears to be to provoke Putin to improve his military, not to replace Putin?
What does the lack of military engagement by either side tell us? There is a mismatch between Putin’s televised response and the response on the highway to Moscow appearing to be made haphazardly by civil rather than military officials.
Prigozhin is like a scorpion, he will engage in another fight, he cannot help it. Is he an opportunist or does Putin say where and when? If Lukashenko hosts Prigozhin and 25,000 Wagner troops and hardware, could he be in for a surprise? Belarus may not then be the best place for Russia to have sent the nuclear weapons Lukashenko talks so much about. Or, though I am generally against conspiracy theories, does this all look as though it is staged, does Putin want Prigozhin to have them? How else could Putin disown the use of such weapons in Ukraine to take revenge for being frustrated in creating greater Russia?
And so ends the latest in history’s long line of marches on Moscow. The snow must fall particularly heavily at this time of year. This was the first such column to have been designed to suit social media and 24-hour rolling news. 24 hours ago, the Wagner Group was a rabble of Nazis who had been crushed by the Ukrainian Army, even though it was not and it had not. Two hours ago, it was a body of brave patriots that was capable of crushing the Russian Army, even though it was neither. But what is it now?
What of Alexander Lukashenko, who had taken flight, except that he had not, like the precarious puppet that he was, except that he was not? And what if Vladimir Putin now wanted Russia to have the Wagner Group’s territory and interests in much of the world, especially Africa, as well as in Ukraine? One thing is for certain. We must stay out of this. Where necessary, we must be able to work with whoever had won. Therefore, we must not get on the wrong side of anyone who might. Yet that is not the position of the Conservatives, Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the SNP, or anyone who comes with any of them.
Spot on.
Most of those belligerent ‘deck chair warriors’ whom you mention have seen NO active service whatsoever, bar ‘gomorrahrising’ their wives, concubines or catamites.
In short they are a national disgrace, and should be purged accordingly.
Spot on.
Most of those belligerent ‘deck chair warriors’ whom you mention have seen NO active service whatsoever, bar ‘gomorrahrising’ their wives, concubines or catamites.
In short they are a national disgrace, and should be purged accordingly.
And so ends the latest in history’s long line of marches on Moscow. The snow must fall particularly heavily at this time of year. This was the first such column to have been designed to suit social media and 24-hour rolling news. 24 hours ago, the Wagner Group was a rabble of Nazis who had been crushed by the Ukrainian Army, even though it was not and it had not. Two hours ago, it was a body of brave patriots that was capable of crushing the Russian Army, even though it was neither. But what is it now?
What of Alexander Lukashenko, who had taken flight, except that he had not, like the precarious puppet that he was, except that he was not? And what if Vladimir Putin now wanted Russia to have the Wagner Group’s territory and interests in much of the world, especially Africa, as well as in Ukraine? One thing is for certain. We must stay out of this. Where necessary, we must be able to work with whoever had won. Therefore, we must not get on the wrong side of anyone who might. Yet that is not the position of the Conservatives, Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the SNP, or anyone who comes with any of them.
Isn’t this similar to the coup against De Gaulle in the early 60s? And suspicious is also the constant reporting of a coup against Putin by Western MSM. There is something fishy and curious about the raves and rants of YV in tandem with the Ukraine counter offensive..
Always look for a conspiracy, when dealing with complex military operations.
Always look for a conspiracy, when dealing with complex military operations.
Isn’t this similar to the coup against De Gaulle in the early 60s? And suspicious is also the constant reporting of a coup against Putin by Western MSM. There is something fishy and curious about the raves and rants of YV in tandem with the Ukraine counter offensive..
Brilliant article. One of Unherd’s best.
Brilliant article. One of Unherd’s best.
The real problem, as Luttwak alludes to it, is that Putin’s main goal is always to balance off various factions to stay in power. That’s why he keeps mediocrities like Shoigu and Gerasimov in charge. Incompetents are no threat.
Indeed, a victorious general is Putin’s worst nightmare. He began this war planning that Ukraine would roll over and play dead. When it didn’t, he had no idea what to do, simply sending his largely incompetent army to fail in pointless counterattacks, while expending his best weapons to deprive little old ladies in Kyiv of their sleep.
Most important, in view of the warm welcome the Southern Military District HQ and Rostov citizens gave Prigozhin, Putin has much to worry about. The army and the population no longer trust him. Everybody knows he is incompetent, and still worse, knows he will continue to keep military incompetents in power because they are no threat to him.
Very soon we will see just how accurate his toadies were when they claimed: “without Putin, there is no Russia.”
The real problem, as Luttwak alludes to it, is that Putin’s main goal is always to balance off various factions to stay in power. That’s why he keeps mediocrities like Shoigu and Gerasimov in charge. Incompetents are no threat.
Indeed, a victorious general is Putin’s worst nightmare. He began this war planning that Ukraine would roll over and play dead. When it didn’t, he had no idea what to do, simply sending his largely incompetent army to fail in pointless counterattacks, while expending his best weapons to deprive little old ladies in Kyiv of their sleep.
Most important, in view of the warm welcome the Southern Military District HQ and Rostov citizens gave Prigozhin, Putin has much to worry about. The army and the population no longer trust him. Everybody knows he is incompetent, and still worse, knows he will continue to keep military incompetents in power because they are no threat to him.
Very soon we will see just how accurate his toadies were when they claimed: “without Putin, there is no Russia.”
Update to 1984:
“Imagine the future as Vickie Nuland cramming Putin’s face into a pile of dog dookie till the end of time…”
Surely, an image too horrible to contemplate!
Update to 1984:
“Imagine the future as Vickie Nuland cramming Putin’s face into a pile of dog dookie till the end of time…”
Surely, an image too horrible to contemplate!
24 hours ago, the mere existence of the Wagner Group was screeched as the proof that the Russians, and by extension all critics of Boris Johnson’s war in Ukraine, were “the real Nazis”, and that we had pretty much made up Svoboda, Pravy Sektor, the National Corps, C14, the Azov Battalion, the Aidar Battalion, the Donbas Battalion, the Dnipro-1 Battalion, the Dnipro-2 Battalion, and the Kraken Regiment.
What a difference a day makes. Suddenly, Yevgeny Prigozhin is Dietrich Bonhoeffer. He’s not, you know. He is really, really, really not. Rather, he has changed sides, as belligerents in any war often do, to ally instead with the Freedom of Russia Legion and with the Russian Volunteer Corps, as well as with all of the above. He has done so only for the money, of course; that is what mercenaries do and are. But if the Wagner Group were not Nazis, albeit for pay, yesterday, then they certainly are today. And you love them for it.
Instead of being on neither or no side due to having little interest while nevertheless needing, to some extent, to have to deal with whoever won, the British Government loves them for it. The Labour Party, and therefore also the SDLP, love them for it. The Liberal Democrats, and therefore also the Alliance Party, love them for it. The SNP, and therefore also Plaid Cymru, love them it. The Greens, who are the King’s Party in every way, and who are already hardline hawks in government in Germany, love them for it. The DUP, the National Conservatives, and the Boris Johnson Fan Club that is the Conservative Democratic Organisation, love them for it. The Socialist Campaign Group loves them for it. Sinn Féin loves them for it.
Sat-Nav error.
Sat-Nav error.
24 hours ago, the mere existence of the Wagner Group was screeched as the proof that the Russians, and by extension all critics of Boris Johnson’s war in Ukraine, were “the real Nazis”, and that we had pretty much made up Svoboda, Pravy Sektor, the National Corps, C14, the Azov Battalion, the Aidar Battalion, the Donbas Battalion, the Dnipro-1 Battalion, the Dnipro-2 Battalion, and the Kraken Regiment.
What a difference a day makes. Suddenly, Yevgeny Prigozhin is Dietrich Bonhoeffer. He’s not, you know. He is really, really, really not. Rather, he has changed sides, as belligerents in any war often do, to ally instead with the Freedom of Russia Legion and with the Russian Volunteer Corps, as well as with all of the above. He has done so only for the money, of course; that is what mercenaries do and are. But if the Wagner Group were not Nazis, albeit for pay, yesterday, then they certainly are today. And you love them for it.
Instead of being on neither or no side due to having little interest while nevertheless needing, to some extent, to have to deal with whoever won, the British Government loves them for it. The Labour Party, and therefore also the SDLP, love them for it. The Liberal Democrats, and therefore also the Alliance Party, love them for it. The SNP, and therefore also Plaid Cymru, love them it. The Greens, who are the King’s Party in every way, and who are already hardline hawks in government in Germany, love them for it. The DUP, the National Conservatives, and the Boris Johnson Fan Club that is the Conservative Democratic Organisation, love them for it. The Socialist Campaign Group loves them for it. Sinn Féin loves them for it.
How wrong can one be? Less than half a day and the author’s prediction is discredited. What a hurry to pass the herd message!
I’m not sure which prediction has been discredited. The full consequences of Progozhin’s actions have yet to play out.
Which prediction is discredited? Do tell us.
It looks as if our discussion about the veracity of L has enraged the Censor!
So let me speak plainly. L was a neo-con even before that absurd word was invented.
Before we used to call such people “hawks”, and their undeniable influence on US foreign policy has been pernicious to say the very least. It will undoubtedly ‘end in tears’, although irritatingly I shall probably not see it.
It looks as if our discussion about the veracity of L has enraged the Censor!
So let me speak plainly. L was a neo-con even before that absurd word was invented.
Before we used to call such people “hawks”, and their undeniable influence on US foreign policy has been pernicious to say the very least. It will undoubtedly ‘end in tears’, although irritatingly I shall probably not see it.
I’m not sure which prediction has been discredited. The full consequences of Progozhin’s actions have yet to play out.
Which prediction is discredited? Do tell us.
How wrong can one be? Less than half a day and the author’s prediction is discredited. What a hurry to pass the herd message!