Category Archives: Hypocrisy

Is Putin the ‘Preeminent Statesman’ of Our Times?

As the Western world kills thousands in the Yemen (10,000 in the last year beneath a rain of British bombs), in the Ukraine (10,000 Ukrainian citizens in the last two years), in Syria (by ‘moderate’ terrorists with Western arms) in Mosul (over 300 civilians murdered and many more maimed in March alone by US warplanes), and aggressively builds up its forces in Estonia to threaten Russia, the silence of the United Nations in New York astounds. Here are the views of an American Republican, Pat Buchanan:

Is Putin the ‘Preeminent Statesman’ of Our Times?


Thursday – March 30, 2017 at 8:35 pm

This post was viewed 16,003 times.
Votes: 4.66 Stars!

Share Pat’s Columns!

PrintFriendlyEmailGoogle GmailTwitterFacebook606Google+Reddit12TumblrStumbleUponShare618

By Patrick J. Buchanan

“If we were to use traditional measures for understanding leaders, which involve the defense of borders and national flourishing, Putin would count as the preeminent statesman of our time.

“On the world stage, who could vie with him?”

So asks Chris Caldwell of the Weekly Standard in a remarkable essay in Hillsdale College’s March issue of its magazine, Imprimis.

What elevates Putin above all other 21st-century leaders?
“When Putin took power in the winter of 1999-2000, his country was defenseless. It was bankrupt. It was being carved up by its new kleptocratic elites, in collusion with its old imperial rivals, the Americans. Putin changed that.

“In the first decade of this century, he did what Kemal Ataturk had done in Turkey in the 1920s. Out of a crumbling empire, he resurrected a national-state, and gave it coherence and purpose. He disciplined his country’s plutocrats. He restored its military strength. And he refused, with ever blunter rhetoric, to accept for Russia a subservient role in an American-run world system drawn up by foreign politicians and business leaders. His voters credit him with having saved his country.”

Putin’s approval rating (at 85%), after 17 years in power, exceeds that of any rival Western leader. But while his impressive strides toward making Russia great again explain why he is revered at home and in the Russian diaspora, what explains Putin’s appeal in the West, despite a press that is every bit as savage as President Trump’s?

Answer: Putin stands against the Western progressive vision of what mankind’s future ought to be. Years ago, he aligned himself with traditionalists, nationalists and populists of the West, and against what they had come to despise in their own decadent civilization.
What they abhorred, Putin abhorred. He is a God-and-country Russian patriot. He rejects the New World Order established at the Cold War’s end by the United States. Putin puts Russia first.

And in defying the Americans he speaks for those millions of Europeans who wish to restore their national identities and recapture their lost sovereignty from the supranational European Union. Putin also stands against the progressive moral relativism of a Western elite that has cut its Christian roots to embrace secularism and hedonism.

Have something to say about this column?

Visit Pat’s FaceBook page and post your comments….

The U.S. establishment loathes Putin because, they say, he is an aggressor, a tyrant, a “killer.” …Yet…what has Putin done to his domestic enemies to rival what our Arab ally Gen. Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi has done to the Muslim Brotherhood he overthrew in a military coup in Egypt?

What has Putin done to rival what our NATO ally President Erdogan has done in Turkey, jailing 40,000 people since last July’s coup — or our Philippine ally Rodrigo Duterte, who has presided over the extrajudicial killing of thousands of drug dealers?

Does anyone think President Xi Jinping would have handled mass demonstrations against his regime in Tiananmen Square more gingerly than did President Putin this last week in Moscow?

Much of the hostility toward Putin stems from the fact that he not only defies the West, when standing up for Russia’s interests, he often succeeds in his defiance and goes unpunished and unrepentant.
He not only remains popular in his own country, but has admirers in nations whose political establishments are implacably hostile to him.
In December, one poll found 37 percent of all Republicans had a favorable view of the Russian leader, but only 17 percent were positive on President Barack Obama.

There is another reason Putin is viewed favorably. Millions of ethnonationalists who wish to see their nations secede from the EU see him as an ally. While Putin has openly welcomed many of these movements, America’s elite do not take even a neutral stance.

Putin has read the new century better than his rivals. While the 20th century saw the world divided between a Communist East and a free and democratic West, new and different struggles define the 21st.
The new dividing lines are between social conservatism and self-indulgent secularism, between tribalism and transnationalism, between the nation-state and the New World Order.

On the new dividing lines, Putin is on the side of the insurgents. Those who envision de Gaulle’s Europe of Nations replacing the vision of One Europe, toward which the EU is heading, see Putin as an ally.
So the old question arises: Who owns the future?

In the new struggles of the new century, it is not impossible that Russia — as was America in the Cold War — may be on the winning side. Secessionist parties across Europe already look to Moscow rather than across the Atlantic.

“Putin has become a symbol of national sovereignty in its battle with globalism,” writes Caldwell. “That turns out to be the big battle of our times. As our last election shows, that’s true even here.”

Three Revolutions

At this very moment much is being written and spoken about the so-called ‘Russian Revolution’ or, more accurately, Western Revolution in Russia. This is because now is precisely the hundredth anniversary of that disastrous coup d’etat when Tsar Nicholas II, the Lord’s Anointed, was betrayed and deposed by the Westernized elite of Russia in Saint Petersburg. After that tens of millions were slaughtered, dying of war, starvation, torture and repression. Such is the sin of the aristocrats, generals, merchants and half-baked intellectuals, who brought such catastrophic misfortune to all the lands and peoples of the Russian Empire and beyond it. All this repentance is unreported in the West, for the West never repents for its crimes, but justifies them. Indeed, Russian repentance for the tragedy of those events today can only be compared to the lack of repentance for the two other Western Revolutions that preceded it.

The first such Western Revolution is the 1688 English Revolution. This was an invasion of England by a huge armada of foreign ships bringing a usurping Dutch prince to England. Called ‘Glorious’ and ‘Bloodless’ by the scheming bankers and merchants, Dutch and especially English, who organized it, it was neither. Figures of one million dead throughout the British Isles and Ireland as a result of it are sometimes quoted. Certainly it brought about the subjugation not only of England and Wales, but the repression of Ireland and within twenty years the subjugation by bribery of Scotland. In England it usurped the royal house, led to the so-called ‘Industrial Revolution’, with all its cruel exploitation, and completed the parliamentary tyranny that lasts to this day. These islands have never recovered from it. And there has never been repentance for it; indeed this tragedy is, literally, glorified, and was imitated by the stupidity of ‘constitutionalist’ Russian aristocrats 100 years ago.

The second Western Revolution was the French Revolution of 1789, 101 years after the English. Never billed even by its propagandists as ‘Bloodless’, it resulted in the public guillotining of thousands, the genocide of hundreds of thousands in the Vendee (‘kill them all’) and a generation of wars that engulfed all Europe, as far as Moscow. Such was the ‘genius’ of the self-crowned ‘Emperor’ who had replaced the French kings. Two and a half million dead throughout Europe is thought to be the great ‘achievement’ of the French Revolution. This too is glorified and celebrated by today’s corrupt French State, which promotes is memory worldwide as ‘progress’. It was on the foundation of the ‘Terror’ in France that the atheists in Russia five to six generations later carried out their terror. The immoral monster Lenin is said to have been responsible for the murder of four million.

Russia today is repentant for its tragic revolution. When will England and France repent for theirs?