Thursday, 26 October 2017

Putin is a Russian De Gaulle

I agree completely with this article by John Bradley, called How Putin Came to Rule the Middle East. Please read it.

Had Hillary become President endless, pointless war in Syria would have ensued. 

Putin is a clever devil and has played his poor hand brilliantly. In some ways he reminds me of a (kleptomaniac, Bolshevik, possibly murderous) De Gaulle.

John Bradley concludes thus.
It is easy to understand why Netanyahu is quaking in his boots, but should we in Europe be alarmed at Putin’s Middle East triumph? Not unduly so. You do not have to be a Putin groupie to acknowledge that it isn’t him who has been launching one illegal invasion after another in the region, leaving millions
dead, maimed and displaced. And he has not only stemmed the flow of Syrian refugees into our continent, but started to reverse the trend. Half a million Syrians have returned to their country this year alone. 
And while no side has emerged with their hands clean from one of the most brutal civil wars in modern history, it is also hugely heartening that there were so few defections from a Syrian army overwhelmingly made up of Sunni Muslims (80 per cent by some accounts). They were battling against myriad
Sunni jihadi groups in the name of an Alawite-dominated regime, alongside Russian soldiers appalled (unlike us) by the carnage unleashed against their fellow Christians, as well as hardline Shia militias sent by Iran and Hezbollah likewise determined to protect their own sect. Given how Tunisia and Turkey — the two historically secular Muslim countries in the region — are fast embracing Islamism, and how Sunni–Shia infighting continues to tear apart much of the rest of the Middle East, the victory of pluralism and secularism over the wicked Wahhabi jihad in Syria is ultimately uplifting.
I foresaw this outcome when Putin intervened in Syria, but experts I read and ones I knew personally assured me that it would not happen. Russia was too weak, Syria too complex. Once again i draw the conclusion not to trust expert but to use what an English judge once called the unaided light of natural reason. (He said that no man ever understood an English mortgage deed by the unaided etc.)

Of course, I much prefer De Gaulle to Putin. I knew when a boy that England needed her own De Gaulle, but failed to see, when she appeared, that Margaret Thatcher was our De Gaulle.

How right he was about not letting England into the EEC.

His memoirs begin

"Toute ma vie, je me suis fait une certaine idée de la France".

These are his thoughts on Arabs in France. 
I wonder if he would have voted for Macron or Le Pen.



    An interesting article about how Russian propaganda effort today differs from Soviet times. Whereas Soviet authorities aimed to block as much Western propaganda as possible, Russian media today does the exact opposite. Such is the crudity and hysterical stupidity of Western media today that the Russian authorities make sure that what is reported by CNN/BBC regularly reaches a Russian audience.

    "The Americans are still operating as they did in the mid 1970s: they target their biggest propaganda efforts at the domestic audience as if the entire world was not carefully parsing everything CNN and the rest of them have to say, and they believe that the West is only unpopular in Russia because of “Putin’s control of the media”. It would be impossible to be more out of touch with reality than these people. The truth is that about 80% or more Russians support Putin precisely because they are exposed to the western propaganda machine and its message on a daily basis."

  2. William Langley commented elsewhere: "It’s a profanation even to suggest that De Gaulle would have voted for Le Pen. He believed in a politics, essentially conservative in nature, that were founded in faith and imagination. Marine’s “idée de la France” would have revolted him."

  3. De Gaulle would likely have regarded the choice between Macron vs Le Pen as a choice between fast Africanization vs slow Africanization. Le Pen he would have regarded as an extreme liberal. Another thought experiment would be say if in 1940 De Gaulle had been given the choice of two futures for his country:
    1. France continues under an authoritarian regime remaining a client state of Germany. France remains a Catholic country. No non-European immigration is ever permitted. The traditional French way of life is promoted and preserved.
    2. France becomes a liberal democracy run by the EU, French culture becomes more Americanized and degenerate by the decade. Near complete collapse of the family and Catholicism, steady demographic minoritization of the indigenous French by Africans and Arabs. Political opposition to this demographic replacement increasingly criminalised.

    I wonder which one De Gaulle would have regarded as the lesser evil? If you try to think like a man living from 1890-1970 I think it's pretty obvious which future he would have regarded as more horrific. Not even in De Gaulle’s worst nightmare would he have thought that France would look as it does today. Nobody from his generation would have.