Blog News

Dear friends,

From now on and until further notice vineyardsaker.blogspot.com will be my only blog.

Also, from now on, ALL comments about the former French or Serbian Saker blogs are BANNED. Please respect that.

Should vineyardsaker.blogspot.com be compromised for whatever reason, please write down these following emergency backup URLs:

http://thesaker.wordpress.com/
http://vineyardsaker.wordpress.com/
http://thesaker.ucoz.com/blog/

so far the following Saker Blogs are still functioning normally:

French Saker: http://lesakerfrancophone.net
German Saker: http://www.vineyardsaker.de/
Oceania Saker: http://www.vineyardsaker.co.nz/
Latin American Saker: https://vineyardsakerlatam.wordpress.com/

the following Saker Blogs are down due to domain name problems which I hope will be resolved soon:

Italian Saker: http://www.vineyardsaker.it/
Russian Saker: http://www.vineyardsaker.ru/

I will update you about the situation as best I can.

The Saker

my main email remains: vineyardsaker@gmail.com
backup email1: thesaker@unseen.is
backup email2: vineyardsaker@mail.ru

please write them all down

Thursday, January 29, 2015

Ouch - we screwed up...

Remember that great article "by Zakharchenko"?

Well, this is the email I just got from a friend:
Zakharchenko is a smart man and does see the big picture but he has nothing to do with that article. Its author is Eduard Birov (who blogs as "Russkiy Malchik" here: http://russkiy-malchik.livejournal.com/). The other publication simply reposted Birov's article and added Zakharchenko's photo.
 
 
Birov has been writing a lot in this vein in the last several months. He is also published at TASS-Analitika; a recent example:
 
I checked.  He is right.

The original publication at for FortRuss points to this page:

http://infopolk.ru/1/U/articles/41534-kogda-budet-dan-prikaz-pora.html#b1674fe6-ee25-6904-b07b-7fb63e01cc03

Which has a huge photo of Zakharchenko and, at the very bottom, this:


Can you see the tiny line in gray next to the red dot (which I added)?

It points to this page: http://russkiy-malchik.livejournal.com/574917.html

Which is the live journal of the real author of this article.  Not Zakharchenko.

Oops.

Sorry guys.  Call me an idiot and I won't argue.

Cheers,

The Saker

eng subs Spanish volunteers of NAF 'Ghost' brigade

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Another captive UAF 'cyborg' handed over to his parents by Alexandr Zakharchenko

"When the word comes ‘it’s time’"

By Aleksandr Zakharchenko 

This article was MISTAKENLY attributed to Alexander Zakharchenko. See here for details:


http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2015/01/ouch-we-screwed-up.html

Translated from Russian by J.Hawk for FortRuss

If one is to speak without geopolitical complexities and nuances, the situation is extremely simple. This is a battle for the continent, for the international system, for one’s own taiga. They are desperately attacking us and are trying to take us down quickly. They use all means at their disposal, except for direct military intervention on Russia’s territory. They are destroying Russians outside their boarders, are raising foreign legions in order to invade the country. The West undertook to destroy us for the simple reason it is trying to avert its own destruction. The main factors are the destruction of the economy and of the political authorities of Russia.


The main factor that might allow them to accomplish this is the decay within Russia, a split within the Russian government, the spreading of hatred among the people. That’s the reason for the constant provocations and the divide-and-conquer policies: inter-ethnic animosities, hatred toward the state, toward big capital (specifically the pro-Russian), toward the Orthodox Church, toward its own people and everything around it. All of that is being done to get Russia to destroy itself from within. But that’s precisely what is not happening. Everything is breaking apart against the unity of the government which has the support of its people which feels as if it was in a besieged fortress together with its leader. Even capitalists like Usmanov, Vekselberg, and others, who chose the West, moved their assets from offshore accounts back to Russia. Even Shuvalov swore his loyalty to Putin in Davos. To say nothing of ordinary mortals. No matter how much is said about “Putin the billionaire” and the government for sale, in spite of all the problems and the worsening financial situation, the solidarity with the national leader is not only not growing weaker, but is getting stronger. What is more, the people want him to act more firmly and not compromise with the West, no matter what the cost.

This is what angers the West so. It is trying to promote division and chaos in Russia but it is not happening. The only remaining possibility is to try to destroy the economy, to deprive Russia from access to dollars (which for the West itself is the equivalent of hara-kiri), or to convince Russians that Putin is their enemy and thus deprive him of his national support. Yes, the so-called patriotic maidan. There is an opportunity here, but a small one. And it is closely tied to the situation on the Donbass. It’s a primitive calculation: keep shouting that “Donbass was abandoned”, “there are idiots in the Kremlin”, “Surkov sold out”, etc. Putin is kept out of the line of fire in the first round, and the whole emphasis is on the myth of a palace coup (i.e., Putin was betrayed, they are deceiving him). But they are also pushing the “Putin abandoned the Donbass” line, and sooner or later someone will shout “we have no Czar!” and “down with the Czar!”. This, in a situation of conflict with the West, ought to help topple the “Putin regime.” Donbass is being used as leverage to increase dissatisfaction with the Kremlin: if you introduce Russian forces, you become an international pariah and Hitler (which is more or less how he has been labeled), if you don’t send in troops, you are a traitor.


Moscow chose an intermediate approach of containing Western aggression (until the x-hour) and indirect military confrontation on Ukraine’s territory. Yes, this is not the best variant from the perspective of the Donbass inhabitants. Moreover, it is a forced strategy based on the current realities: Russia’s forces are insufficient for a rapid victory over the consolidated West which, even though it is a giant clay feet, is still the dominant force in the world. As part of this post-Crimean strategy, Russia is taking steps which are far from obvious, but which nevertheless allow the aggression to be repelled. Yes, the position adopted by the eternal critics, who demand a cardinal resolution of the Ukrainian question arguing that it will have to be done “sooner or later”, may seem just and attractive to a patriotically-minded people who suffer at the sight of the dead inhabitants of the Donbass. But the critics don’t want to understand that in their desire to strike the final blow here and now, they are helping the West by forcing the Kremlin to strike when the West still has sufficient power. But the time is working against Washington. Even though it is assembling foreign legions against Russia and is taking Russian lives every day, it is not accomplishing its own task of destroying Russia in the nearest few months. To remove it from the world map as a single political unit. Break it up as an organism. If you want to take up the fight “sooner”, you may not find yourself living in Russia “later.”


If the majority of us understand it with our hearts and minds, then the final victory will be Russia’s. But if we stray from that path, even with good intentions, in the hopes of solving the problem here and now, we will lose. Everyone’s duty right now is to help the Donbass to the extent they can, and not give in to emotions, even if they are sincere or provocative. Be fully prepared for the moment when the word comes “it’s time.”


Translator’s Note: Zakharchenko is without any doubt one of the foremost Russian leaders of our time, one who not only proved himself an able commander of the DPR, but also someone who has a grasp of the big picture. And the big picture is one in which the West is suffering a systemic crisis not unlike the Great Depression, and is trying to stave off an internal breakdown through political and economic expansion. Hence the recent regime changes in the Middle East and elsewhere, hence the Maidan. EU and the US must keep finding new markets, otherwise their internal policies of austerity are bound to destroy their own economies. It need not be so—Greece’s recent election represents a ray of hope that Western institutions may yet be reformed. But one should not put too many hopes in the little Greece’s ability to stand alone against Germany and its quislings within the EU bureaucracy. What is happening in Ukraine is today’s equivalent of the Spanish Civil War. Then, too, USSR stood alone against fascism, hoping to enlist the help of like-minded citizens of Europe and to send a message to the aggressors. Had that war ended differently, tens of millions of people would not have perished in the Second World War. The stakes are equally high today. Russia’s stand is aimed at encouraging resistance within the EU (Greece’s suggests its stand is already having an effect) and also persuading would-be aggressors that the cost of aggression would be too high. As much is at stake in the Donbass today as was in Spain in 1938. 

Saker note: if anybody is still not aware of FortRuss - please make sure to visit this website: http://fortruss.blogspot.com/ .  There you will find a wealth of very interesting news.

My take on the Geneva Conventions

I get a lot of comments to the effect that the Geneva Conventions (GC) are only for victors, or inapplicable in war, or wishful thinking etc.

I very much disagree.

For the following reasons:

First, there is a difference between a solider and a thug and that difference is not in the guns they carry, but in what they do and why they do it.  Yes, there are indeed bad soldiers who act like thugs, but that does not mean that our society has to accept that and confuse aberration with the norm.  The norm, the ideal, must be upheld for the sake of being civilized.

Second, one does not observe the laws of civilized behavior because the other guy does it, one does that to be better then the other guy, to uphold the moral superiority over the amoral thug.  You don't behave like a maniac not in order to spare anybody, but to retain your own honor and integrity.

Third, and his is always totally overlooked, when military units begin to murder, kill, torture or target civilians their discipline goes does the tubes very fast followed soon by their combat capability.  Simply put - once you break the law, there is no law, and the unit's commander then becomes just an accomplice and pretty soon his authority will be challenged.

Fourth, committing atrocities is counter-productive.  Not only does it mess with the psyche of those committing the atrocities, it also strengthens the resolve of your opponents.

I think that human right and laws of war ought to be taught to every single person on the planet and especially soldiers and I think that they should be respected and enforced.

This being said, I don't think that supporting that mandates being naive or stupid about the realities of war.  This is why the most important task of all is to do everything possible and impossible to prevent wars in the first place.

My 2cts,

The Saker

Givi and the Geneva Conventions

There has been a lot of criticisms of the battalion "Somali" and Givi for the way they treated the junta's prisoners, including the Colonel who, apparently, was the commander of the junta's 93rd Brigade.  Let me begin by agreeing with those who say that the treatment of these prisoners did violate the Geneva conventions, no doubt about it in my mind.

The law (or how it maybe would be in a perfect world)

The first thing to notice here is that the Geneva Conventions (GC) apply primarily to international conflicts, not to civil wars. They do however have a Common Article 3 which is specifically tailored to "non-international conflicts". Common article 3 has a section c which prohibit: "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment".  Since Givi's purpose was precisely to humiliate his prisoners, you can say that his actions were in violations of the GC.

However,

For one thing, neither Novorussia nor the Donetsk People's Republic have signed these conventions.  But that is not that good an argument, because you can also refer to customary human rights instruments (the various conventions, treaties and agreements on human rights) which are always applicable anyway.  More relevantly is the fact that the junta's forces have committed massive and systematic violations of human rights and the laws of war and that they are all at the very least to be considered as war criminals.  Furthermore, unless they were wearing Ukrainian uniforms, they could also be considered as spies or mercenaries who do not benefit from the GC (but still are still protected under human rights instruments).

Finally, all of the above assumes that these forces are acting under the orders of a legal and legitimate government, not an illegal junta which came to power by a coup and then attempted to legitimize that coup in totally sub-farcical elections.

So while at face value Givi does violate the GC, I don't think any of those accusations would withstand a legal challenge in front of a court. And if they did, it would be for a very minor violation anyway.

The real world (this is Russia!)

Okay, not let's get real.  This is not Geneva.  This is Donetsk.  I don't think that anybody will argue that these prisoners had it coming.  Most of them had to chew on their beloved Ukie flag, and the Brigade commander got slapped (hard) by Givi.  Frankly, we have to be honest here, ok?

When the Novorussians were treating junta prisoners with kindness, treating their wounds, feeding them, clothing them, offering them all sort of hospitality, I had a deluge of comments about "how stupid it is to be kind to Nazis" .  And now that a bone fide junta death-squad leader and total SOB get's slapped, there is another deluge of comments about "Givi violating the GC".  Come on!

I have always said that junta death squad members did not get the kind of hospitality which the Novorussians extended to conscripts form the regular armed forces.  Let me repeat here: they get summarily executed, many of them after short but very painful interrogations.  This is what happened to the Wahabis in Chechnia, and this is what happens to Nazis in the Ukraine.  Are these actions in violation of human rights conventions?  Yes, totally.  Does it break my heart?  Not it all.  This is war.  Worse, this is a civil war.  And this war was started by the junta, not the Novorussians.  I remind you that according to the Nuremberg Trial, the ultimate crime is "aggression" because it "contains" all the other.  In other words, the party who starts the war (civil or not) is the prime culprit for all the horrors which are triggered in the course of this war.

I also remind that you that this junta Brigade Commander happened to be #3 in a Right Sector electoral list.  So he is the "real thing" - a real Ukrainian Nazi willing to murder, kill, torture anybody, especially the "bugs" and "subhumans" of the Donbass.

I think that Givi had the right to shoot him right there, on the spot.

All he got, is a good slap on his ape-like skull.  Oh, and that happened on camera.  I say - good thing that Givi did that on camera for the whole world to see.  This is how a real officer should treat a death-squad gang leader.

I also hope that the Novorussians will put that sorry Nazi scumbag on trial, that the trial will be public, and that he will get 30 years in jail (I oppose the death penalty and sentences over 30 years on principle).  And I don't think that the ICRC or anybody else should be granted access to this war criminal (except psychiatrists and those researching psychopaths/sociopaths).  As for the rest of them, I would send them home - at least they were minor riffraff not worth spending much time on.

I generally and sincerely feel sorry for the poor Ukrainian kids drafted to become cannon fodder for the junta and who get slaughtered by the Novorussian forces.  I really do.  But in this case, I simply am unable to muster any kind of pity for that evil piece of shit.  Sorry.  I call it as I see it.  And if somebody tells me that my feelings are crude and non-Christian I will fully agree.  I wish I could feel any Christian compassion for that guy, I can't.  And I won't pretend.

The Saker

28.01.2015 Ukrainian crisis news. Latest news of Ukraine, Novorossia, USA, Russia

Syriza: Voting to join a realm of shared, sustainable prosperity

by Mario
 

Recap:

In 1971 Bretton Woods failed. The United States implemented a new strategy:

Disregard its twin deficits and act as a gargantuan vacuum cleaner that sucked in the trade surpluses of Germany, Japan and later China, attracting into Wall Street between $3 to $5 billion net on each working day.

Forcing productivity and zero real wage rises created a further daily 5$ billion domestically for corporations.

All this money, in Wall Street banks, created new money with financialisation.
By 2007 for every one dollar issued by the Fed 50 dollars of this bank private money (mainly CDOs) were circulating.

It took a small correction in the housing market to collapse this bubble and we write 2008.

The CDOs became worthless and to save the criminal banks, governments printed trillions of public money. Debt was transferred to the tax payer.

The banking system was not reformed, to the contrary, it kept the freedom to speculate, to short and manipulate the world economy.


Greece:

A common currency, like the Euro, requires monetary and fiscal coordination.
As long as debt, taxes and government expenditure stays national, the weakest members of this monetary union have to run deficits and borrow.

A country which creates surplus (like Germany) needs to invest this surplus in the weaker members, to create employment and development, to maintain their health and their demand for German products. It was never done.

Borrowing was easy and rampant until 2008.

Enter 2008: The European banking system (mainly Germany and France) holds debt from Spain, Italy, Greece and others.

Germany, mainly, could have searched for a sustainable debt relief and repayment, taking into account the debtors ability, instead it instructed austerity and the granting of new and expensive loans to repay ultimately the German banks.


Enter 2015: Expensive $240 billion loans did nothing to help Greece.

25% unemployment (50% unemployed youths), halving of pensions, failing medical and social assistance and being treated as a 2nd class European is the result of the mantra "that debt is a contract and contracts must be honoured" (Lagarde).

The political class failed and Greece could have gone to 'Golden Dawn', the fascists, but it did not, as others in Europe do by taking refuge in nationalistic and xenophobe movements, instead it voted in a modern socialist alternative, based on democracy and solidarity.


Enter Syriza: The Thessaloniki declaration demands:

1. Confronting the humanitarian crisis
2. Restarting the economy and promoting tax justice
3. Regaining employment
4. Transforming the political system to deepen democracy


On (4) the immediate programme is:

Regional organization of the state. Enhancement of transparency, of the economic autonomy and the effective operation of municipalities and regions. We empower the institutions of direct democracy and introduce new ones.

Empowerment of citizens’ democratic participation. Introduction of new institutions, such as people’s legislative initiative, people’s veto and people’s initiative to call a referendum.

Empowerment of the Parliament, curtailment of parliamentary immunity, and repeal of the peculiar legal regime of MPs’ non-prosecution.

Regulation of the radio/television landscape by observing all legal preconditions and adhering to strict financial, tax, and social-security criteria. 


Re-establishment of ERT (Public Radio and Television) on a zero basis.

More details on the programme:

http://www.transform-network.net/en/blog/blog-2014/news/detail/Blog/-5ed1064aab.html

Must watch: Ukrainian Deputy: US to stage a civil war in Ukraine! This was 20.11.2013!! BEFORE Maidan



Transcript:

Deputy Oleg Tsarov has the word

Honourable Colleagues
Honourable Vladimir Vasiljevitch

In my role as a representative of the Ukrainian people…
…activists of the public organisation "Volya" turned to me…
…providing clear evidence…
…that within our territory…
…with support and direct participation
…of the US Embassy in Kiev…
…the "TechCamp" project is realised…
…under which preparations are being made for a civil war in Ukraine.

The "TechCamp" project prepares specialists for information warfare…
…and the discrediting of state institutions using modern media…
…potential revolutionaries…
…for organising protests…
… and the toppling of the State Order.

The project is currently overseen and under the responsibility…
…of the US ambassador to Ukraine…
…Geoffrey R. Pyatt.

After the conversation with the organisation "Volya“…
… I have learned…
…that they succeeded to access Facilities in the project "TechCamp“…
…disguising as a team of IT specialists.

To their surprise, briefings on peculiarities of modern media were held.

American instructors explained how social networks and Internet technologies…
…can be used for targeted manipulation of public opinion…
…as well as to activate protest potential…
…to provoke violent unrest on the territory of Ukraine…
…Radicalisation of the population and triggering of infighting.

American instructors show examples of successful use of social networks…
…used to organise protests
…in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya.

"TechCamp" representatives currently hold conferences throughout Ukraine.

A total of five events have been held so far.

About 300 people were trained as operatives, which are now active throughout Ukraine.

The last conference "TechCamp" took place on 14 and 15 November 2013…
…in the Heart of Kiev on the territory of the US Embassy!

You tell me which country in the world would allow…
…a NGO to operate out of the ​ US Embassy?

This is disrespectful to the Ukrainian government, and against the Ukrainian People!

I appeal to the Constitutional Authorities of Ukraine with the following question:

Is it conceivable that representatives of the US Embassy…
…which organise the "TechCamp" Conferences…
…misuse their diplomatic mission?

–– Let him speak ––

Carry On

UN Resolution of 21 December 1965 regulates…
…inadmissibility of interference in the internal affairs of a state…
…to protect its independence and its sovereignty…
…in accordance with paragraphs one, two and five.

I ask you to consider this as an official beseech…
…to pursue an investigation of this case


Thank You!

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

Genocidal "poetry" in English on "Ukrainian" armor?

Check out this photo taken today:


We are told that these units are staffed by Ukrainians wanting to free their own fellow-Ukrainians from "terrorists".

To me, this sure look like an English-speaking terrorist has come to Novorussia to commit genocide against the people of the Donbass.

But, hey, that's just me.

The Saker

Givi meets the Nazi death squad leader - feel the love...

Ukraine SITREP January 27th: Zionists, Nazis and a bit of history

The Zionists:

Oh this is too good!!!  My two "favorite" Russia-hating Ueber-Zionists join forces in the New York Times to call for the salvation of the Nazi Junta in Kiev by a massive injection of capital.

Priceless.

Here is what they wrote: (full text)

Save the New Ukraine

A NEW Ukraine was born a year ago in the pro-European protests that helped to drive President Viktor F. Yanukovych from power. And today, the spirit that inspired hundreds of thousands to gather in the Maidan, Kiev’s Independence Square, is stronger than ever, even as it is under direct military assault from Russian forces supporting separatists in eastern Ukraine.

The new Ukraine seeks to become the opposite of the old Ukraine, which was demoralized and riddled with corruption. The transformation has been a rare experiment in participatory democracy; a noble adventure of a people who have rallied to open their nation to modernity, democracy and Europe. And this is just the beginning.

This experiment is remarkable for finding expression not only in defending Ukraine’s territorial integrity from the separatists, but also in constructive work. Maidan’s supporters have moved from opposition to nation building.

Many of those in government and Parliament are volunteers who have given up well-paying jobs to serve their country. Natalie Jaresko, a former investment banker, now works for a few hundred dollars a month as the new finance minister. Volunteers are helping Ukraine’s one million internally displaced people as well as working as advisers to ministers and in local government.

The new Ukraine, however, faces a potent challenge from the old Ukraine. The old Ukraine is solidly entrenched in a state bureaucracy that has worked hand in hand with a business oligarchy. And the reformers are also up against the manifest hostility of Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin, who wants at all costs to destabilize Ukraine.

One drawback is that the new Ukraine is a well-kept secret, not just from the rest of the world but also from the Ukrainian public. Radical reforms have been hatched but not yet implemented.

It is instructive to compare Ukraine today with Georgia in 2004. When he became president that year, Mikheil Saakashvili immediately replaced the hated traffic police and removed the roadblocks used to extort bribes from drivers. The public recognized straight away that things had changed for the better.

Unfortunately, Ukraine has not yet found a similar demonstration project. Kiev’s police force is to be restructured, but if you need a driver’s license, you must still pay the same bribe as before.

Mr. Saakashvili was a revolutionary leader who first stamped out corruption but eventually turned it into a state monopoly. By contrast, Ukraine is a participatory democracy that does not rely on a single leader but on checks and balances. Democracies move slowly, but that may prove an advantage in the long run.

The big question is, will there be a long run? Although Russia is in a deepening financial crisis, Mr. Putin appears to have decided that he can destroy the new Ukraine before it can fully establish itself and before an economic downturn destroys his own popularity.

The Russian president is stepping up the military and financial pressure on Ukraine. Over the weekend, the city of Mariupol came under attack from forces that NATO said were backed by Russian troops, undermining the pretense that the separatists are acting on their own.

Ukraine will defend itself militarily, but it urgently needs financial assistance. The immediate need is for $15 billion. But to ensure Ukraine’s survival and encourage private investment, Western powers need to make a political commitment to provide additional sums, depending on the extent of the Russian assault and the success of Ukraine’s reforms.

The reformers, who want to avoid the leakages that were characteristic of the old Ukraine, have expressed their wish to be held accountable for all expenditures. They are passing extensive legislation but also want the International Monetary Fund to go on exercising oversight.

Unfortunately, just as democracies are slow to move, an association of democracies like the European Union is even slower. Mr. Putin is exploiting this.

It is not only the future of Ukraine that’s at stake, but that of the European Union itself. The loss of Ukraine would be an enormous blow; it would empower a Russian alternative to the European Union based on the rule of force rather than the rule of law. But if Europe delivered the financial assistance that Ukraine needs, Mr. Putin would eventually be forced to abandon his aggression. At the moment, he can argue that Russia’s economic troubles are caused by Western hostility, and the Russian public finds his argument convincing.

If, however, Europe is generous with its financial assistance, a stable and prosperous Ukraine will provide an example that makes clear that the blame for Russia’s financial troubles lies with Mr. Putin. The Russian public might then force him to emulate the new Ukraine. Europe’s reward would be a new Russia that has turned from a potent strategic threat into a potential strategic partner. Those are the stakes.
The way the NYT presents these two bloodthirsty clowns is also typical.  One, Soros, is a "philanthropist" while the other, Levi, is a "philosopher".  They might as well have presented them as modern day saints.

Clearly, the Neocons and their Zionist allies are in a full-war mode, they fear that their russophobic Nazi regime in Kiev is going to tank and they are terrified at the consequences. As they should.

The Nazis:

Well, just as predicted the Rada in Kiev has declared Russia an "aggressor state".  Now all that is needed to "prove" their point is a major false flag to show that hordes of Spetsnaz GRU throat-cutters are slaughtering babies in their cribs (Kuwait), blowing up peaceful shoppers (Markale market), committing genocide (Srebrenica), massacring villages (Racak) or using Viagra as a weapon of war (Libya).  Then Putin needs to be upgraded form "new Stalin" to "new Hitler" (or both) and, voilà, the US and NATO will have to "shoulder their historical burden" of having to defend "civilization, human right, freedom and progress" against the revanchist Russian aggressor.

I am sorry to have to say that, but I consider a large scale false flag a virtual inevitability by now.  God willing, the Junta is in too much disarray and chaos to make it happen, but I think that everybody in the Novorussian resistance needs to go to "red alert" for some crazy move by the Junta.

The belly is still fertile from which the foul beast sprang

Guys, I am constantly getting a flow of comments about "Jews this Jews that", "Nazis this, Nazis that", and the "killer argument" "Jews cannot be Nazis and Nazis cannot be Jews".  Guys, think again.  Look at all Zionists and Nazis have in common:

1) the belief in the existence of races/ethnicities
2) the belief in the superiority of their own race/ethnicity
3) the morbid obsession with blood and racial purity
4) a phenomenal propensity to use violence to achieve their goals
5) the belief that their opponents are not really human
6) a morbid interest for the occult (Ahnenerbe, Kabbalism)
7) a rabid hatred for Russia, Russians and Orthodoxy

Now, of course, they also happened to hate each other.  So what?  Trotskists hated Stalinists and vice versa, the SS hated the SA and vice versa and the Jesuits hated the Lutherans and vice versa.  But in each case these movement spring from the same well (Bolshevism, National-Socialism and Frankish Papism).

Zionism and Nazism are born from the same fetid womb: 19th European secular nationalism and, as Brecht so well put it: the belly is still fertile from which the foul beast sprang.  This is also the root of Ukrainian nationalism, Russian pan-Slavism, and many other ideologies.  Most of them have lost traction and have been repudiated, but in Israel Zionism is still the main official state ideology and the same is true for the part of the ex-Ukraine run by the Nazi junta in Kiev.

Now, sincere there are apparently quite a few of you who still hold on to racist/racialist ideas, I feel the need to repeat here what I wrote in my post AngloZionist: Short primer for the newcomers:

Now this might seem basic, but so many people miss it, that I will have to explicitly state it: to say that most US elites are Anglos or Jews does not mean that most Anglos or Jews are part of the US elites. That is a straw-man argument which deliberately ignores the non commutative property of my thesis to turn it into a racist statement which accuses most/all Anglos or Jews of some evil doing. So to be very clear:
When I speak of AngloZionist Empire I am referring to the predominant ideology of the 1%ers elites which for this Empire's "deep state".
By the way, there are non-Jewish Zionists (Biden, in his own words) and there are (plenty of) anti-Zionist Jews. Likewise, there are non-Anglo imperialists and there are (plenty of) anti-imperialists Anglos. To speak of "Nazi Germany" or "Soviet Russia" does in now way imply that all Germans were Nazis or all Russian s Communists. All this means it that the predominant ideology of these nations at that specific moment in time was National-Socialism and Marxism, that's all.
This is why the listing of Jews in power in Kiev because what is missing from the picture is either a list of all Jews who are not in power in Kiev or the list of all non-Jews who are in power in Kiev, or both.

Zionism is to Jews what National-Socialism is to Germans and what Communism is to Russians: a pathology triggered by a slight, but crucial, modification of these nation's "spiritual DNA".  This is like comparing healthy tissue to a malignant tumor: very similar but different enough to be fatal.

The real enemy:

The real enemy is not the Jew, the German or the Russian, of course. The real enemy are evil, satanic ideologies. As Saint Paul so eloquently put it: For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms (Eph. 6:12).  He did not say the "1%ers" of course, but if you ask me, this is close enough.


I recently got an email from a friend who asked me to stop using the word "Ukie" and I decided to follow his advice because even if some, or even most, Ukrainians nowadays might support the regime of freaks in Kiev, some, even maybe most, do not.

Yes, Soros and BHL are Jews.  Real evil, bloodthirstily and ugly buffoons whom I despise from the very bottom of my heart.  And yes, there ideology is the kind of Neocon Zionism which has become so popular in the USA and, in the past decades, in Israel (original Zionists were dramatically different, socialists, secularists and, actually, I think honest, if mistaken, idealists).  Oh, not that I believe for one second that either one of them sincerely cares about his fellow Jews or about Israel.  Not at all.  Contrary to the popular belief, one does not need to care for Israel at all to be a Zionist.  Are you shocked by that statement?  Okay, here me out.  Here is what I wrote in my "primer":
Let's take the (hyper politically correct) Wikipedia definition of what the word "Zionism" means: it is "a nationalist movement of Jews and Jewish culture that supports the creation of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the Land of Israel". Apparently, no link to the US, the Ukraine or Timbuktu, right? But think again. Why would Jews - whether defined as a religion or an ethnicity - need a homeland anyway? Why can't they just live wherever they are born, just like Buddhist (a religion) or the African Bushmen (ethnicity) who live in many different countries? The canonical answer is that Jews have been persecuted everywhere and that therefore they need their own homeland to serve as a safe haven in case of persecutions. Without going into the issue of why Jews were persecuted everywhere and, apparently, in all times, this rationale clearly implies if not the inevitability of more persecutions or, at the very least, a high risk thereof. Let's accept that for demonstration sake and see what this, in turn, implies. First, that implies that Jews are inherently threatened by non-Jews who are all at least potential anti-Semites. The threat is so severe that a separate Gentile-free homeland must be created as the only, best and last way to protect Jews worldwide. This, in turn, implies that the continued existence of this homeland should become an vital and irreplaceable priority of all Jews worldwide lest a persecution suddenly breaks out and they have nowhere to go. Furthermore, until all Jews finally "move up" to Israel, they better be very, very careful as all the goyim around them could literally come down with a sudden case of genocidal anti-Semitism at any moment. Hence all the anti-anti-Semitic organizations a la ADL or UEJF, the Betar clubs, the network of sayanim, etc. In other words, far from being a local "dealing with Israel only" phenomenon, Zionism is a worldwide movement whose aim is to protect Jews from the apparently incurable anti-Semitism of the rest of the planet. As Israel Shahak correctly identified it, Zionism postulates that Jews should "think locally and act globally" and when given a choice of policies always ask THE crucial question: "But is it good for Jews?". So far from being only focused on Israel, Zionism is really a global, planetary, ideology which unequivocally split up all of mankind into two groups (Jews and Gentiles), which assumes that the latter are all potential genocidal maniacs (which is racist) and believes that saving Jewish lives is qualitatively different and more important than saving Gentile lives (which is racist again). Anyone doubting the ferocity of this determination should either ask a Palestinian or study the holiday of Purim, or both. Even better, read Gilad Atzmon and look up his definition of what is brilliantly called "pre-traumatic stress disorder".
So  we need to be very careful here.  First, we cannot fight an Empire whose nature and essence we do not understand.  Second, we cannot fight an enemy whom we cannot even name.  I therefore submit that speaking of the AngloZionist Empire is not only correct, but even crucial: "Anglo" refers to historical roots and geopolitical reality, "Zionist" refers to its ideological world view.  HOWEVER, as soon as we start "counting Jews" or saying that Nazis and Jews cannot be in the same junta, we are immediately falling back into a completely discredited 19th century West European ideology which has triggered many millions of deaths in all the major wars of the past couple of centuries.

This is bull.  Acting like a bull.  In a corrida.

Personally, I don't even believe that the word "race".  Here again, I will quote my "primer"
First, I don't believe that Jews are a race or an ethnicity. I always doubted that, but reading Shlomo Sand really convinced me. Jews are not defined by religion either (most/many are secular). Truly, Jews are a tribe. A group one can chose to join (Elizabeth Taylor) or leave (Gilad Atzmon). In other words, I see "Jewishness" as a culture, or ideology, or education or any other number of things, but not something rooted in biology. I fully agree with Atzmon when he says that Jews are racist, but not a race. Second, I don't even believe that the concept of "race" has been properly defined and, hence, that it has any objective meaning. I therefore don't differentiate between human beings on the basis of an undefined criterion.
But I am aware that there are people out there who consider themselves as Jews or Jewish (never understood the difference between these two terms, but nevermind).  I say - let them.  But let's not paint them as the enemy when the enemy is a tribal ideology which is shared by millions of people who do not consider themselves as Jews (US Evangelicals, for starters, millions of them). 

If we miss the real target and get distracted by the fake one put in front of us by the real enemy, we will act just like a bull in a Spanish corrida: we will always miss the real enemy who will exhaust us and then kill us.

Let's us please be smarter and stop constantly chasing the wrong enemy.  Let's hit the real enemy there where he really is, there where he hides, there were it will really hurt him.  Let's accurately name him.  His name is "Legion" because he has many ideologies and manifestations and he shows up in any and all human groups.

One last thing: I am truly sick and tired of moderating comments about "Jew this, Jews that" or "Nazis this, Nazis that".  So, exceptionally, I will not allow any comments on this post at all.  And if some smart ass will post a comment about that elsewhere, I will delete it.  I want the level of conversation of this blog to go up, not down, and if that means shutting up the Jew-centric trolling then I will.  My apologies to everybody else, but the last thing I want here is 700 comments rehashing all the common racist/racialist inanities which were in fashion in the 20th century.

Please read the above post carefully, please re-read my "AngloZionists: a short primer" for a fuller discussion and, whether you agree with my arguments or not, please forgive me for exceptionally not opening this one post to comments.

Kind regards to all, cheers,

The Saker

27.01.2015 Ukrainian crisis news. War in Ukraine, Mariupol, DPR, NATO, Russia

Monday, January 26, 2015

Ukraine SITREP 26th January

I have been trying to wait as long as possible to get some facts confirmed, but at this point in time I am confident enough to say that there are numerous and convergent signs that things are going extremely badly for the Kiev junta. Just look at the following recent headlines:
Clearly, things are not going well *at all* for the Junta.

Concerning Debaltsevo and the rumors that the Junta forces were encircled in another "cauldron", they are probably a little premature.  However, even if the Junta forces have not been fully encircled *yet*, there is strong evidence that they are indeed in the process of being encircled and many reports even speak of panic.  However, the Junta has kept numerically large forces north of Donetsk and we should not dismiss them.  By all accounts, the Junta forces are trying hard to break the Novorussian noose around Debaltsevo and they are also trying to recapture the Donetsk airport.

Here are two SITREPS translated by the great Kazzura which I find interesting:

Prime Minister Zakharchenko



Corps commander Eduard Basurin


I am generally weary of triumphalism and I always get nervous when I see somebody underestimating the enemy.  Most importantly, we should remember that while the Junta seems to be suffering major military losses, it still has two options available a false flag operation and declare war with Russia.

Option one: false flag

The worse the Junta's military defeats, the higher the risk of a major false flag.  Keep in mind that the Nazi Junta despises the east Ukrainian which it considers as "bugs", "insects" and "subhumans" which should be barbecued and that it will have no pity for its own forces if they are defeated or, worse, disloyal.  And remember the Nazi slogan about Crimea: "the Crimea will be Ukrainian or empty".  We have to assume that the Nazi freaks in Kiev are capable of anything and, having already shot down a civilian airliner, I would not put it past them to sabotage a nuclear plant or some other very high risk target.

Option two: declare with with Russia

Notice, I did not say war "on Russia" because that would make the Junta the aggressor.  But the Rada is quite capable tomorrow of declaring Russia an "aggressor state".  And if that is not enough, Kiev is absolutely capable of striking (at least a few times) anywhere along the Russian-Ukrainian border (including in Crimea) in order to pull Russia in.  Even if Russia does not take the bait and simply rides out the strikes, or if Russia responds with a very minimal amount of force, Kiev will continue to declare the "thousands" of Russian troops have invaded and that Russian "tactical battalion groups" are operating all along the line of contact.  There is no way that Kiev will ever admit that its forces have been defeated by local Novorussian resistance fighters.  In other words, any defeat of the Junta forces will always be presented as a "Russian aggression against the European choice of the free Ukrainian nation".

Folks like Yatseniuk or Turchinov will never just flee like Yanukovich did - before they do that, they will make darn sure to destroy as much of the Ukraine as possible and that happens to be exactly the US plan to: if Uncle Sam cannot have it, neither will anybody else.

This one is far from over

I therefore caution everybody against any premature triumphalism.  It ain't over and it won't be over anytime soon.  Even if the Novorussians comprehensively defeat the Junta forces (again!), this will not push their attack very far beyond the current frontlines (they just don't have the manpower for that).  So don't expect the Novorussians to free Kiev and overthrown the Junta.  That is something only the Ukrainian people themselves can do, and right now they are nowhere near that kind of outcome.

Things to look very, very bad for Kiev and the current tactical difficulties faced by the Junta might well result in an operational level collapse.  At which point we can expect all sides except the Novorussians to try to revive some kind of stale and futile "peace process" which the Novorussians will have to accept, except that this time around Russia will probably make more demands then the first time around.  Now that Putin has declared that the Junta's army what just "NATO's legion" the mood in Moscow is rather dark and the disgust with Poroshenko and all his lies very wide-spread.  So even if Russia accepts another cease-fire, the Junta will have to pay a price for its failed assault.  I think that the loss of Mariupol might be one of the conditions demanded by Russia (at least I hope so).

What about the imperial "Axis of Kindness"?

The Empire is in full combat mode.  After George Soros, the US Commander of NATO ground forces has visited Kiev and the western credit rating agencies have further downgraded Russia even though every single objective economic indicator says otherwise.  Things are a tad more complicated in Europe were the victory of Syriza in Greece will create a major risk for the future of the EU.  Sure, Merkel is more then willing to do the USA's bidding, but her popularity suffers from it and tensions between the EU plutocrats and the European people are only on the rise.  In France the entire Charlie Hebdo psyop has resulted in a chaotic and most volatile situation, the Polish nonsense about Auschwitz being liberated by Ukrainians has damaged the credibility of the russophobic camp and the awareness that the Kiev Junta and its supporters are bona fide Nazis is slowly but inexorably growing everywhere.

As Lincoln is supposed to have said "you can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time".  Time is running out for the Nazi freaks in Kiev.

The Saker

Europe’s addiction to Russian gas: How long before withdrawal symptoms set in?

by Leonid Krutakov for Odnako

(translated by: Robin)

In mid-January, EU Energy Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič held talks with Gazprom CEO Alexey Miller and Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak in Moscow. After the talks, Mr. Šefčovič expressed surprise at three circumstances.

First, Gazprom has no intention of building the South Stream pipeline. Second, in the future natural gas will be delivered to Europe via Turkey. And, third, Russia is not prepared to discuss the terms of its gas deliveries to Ukraine.

To quote Mr. Šefčovič, all three circumstances, were “very surprising,” even though Russia’s decision to cancel South Stream and instead build Turkish Stream was announced in December of last year in Ankara at a joint press conference held by the Presidents of Russia and Turkey.

It’s easy to wax ironic about Mr. Šefčovič’s ignorance of South Stream in Turkey. And most commentators did just that. But his attempt to discuss new conditions for gas supplies to Ukraine with his Russian partners deserves much more attention. And confirmation of that was not long in coming.

Last week, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev convened a meeting with Messrs. Miller and Novak. He asked them for the details of their talks with Mr. Šefčovič, Ukraine’s gas debt and the repayment period. The meeting was broadcast live almost in its entirety.

Mr. Miller reiterated to Mr. Medvedev that Europe had only a few years to build its own transmission infrastructure to the Greece-Turkey border, where it will have to connect to the Russo-Turkish pipeline system. If Europe fails to do so, the gas will go to other markets.

And Mr. Novak pointed out that, when last year’s agreement on a $100 discount for gas sold to Ukraine expires on April 1, there will be no new discussions or agreements. The contract is valid and no one has cancelled it.

If we compare these statements, the fact that they were reiterated and broadcast live makes it clear that Russia has given Europe a firm ultimatum, outlined the consequences and set a deadline. So what is the nature of the ultimatum?

It’s a long story. But, like any long story, it offers an advantage. It allows you to assess the Ukrainian events not in terms of the abstract and immediate concepts of a struggle for freedom and democracy, but rather in the concrete terms of profit and loss over the long run.

At first glance, the link between the recent events in the Ukraine (the Maidan protests, the coup and the civil war) and the supply of Russian gas to Europe and the gas contract that Yulia Tymoshenko concluded in 2009 seems improbable. But any event whose workings are hidden from us is bound to seem improbable and inexplicable.

The European Union’s Third Energy Package (TEP) also came into effect in 2009. The gist of this document is that it establishes uniform rules for the gas supply system within the EU. All gas purchases must take place on an “entry-exit” basis at the European border. In other words, it creates a sort of single virtual gas buyer able to dictate terms to the seller.

The document sets other parameters, but they are all generally based on the idea of unbundling gas suppliers from the EU’s internal infrastructure and retail market, where prices are often more than three times the price of the “entry” price.

The stated reason for TEP was the need to enhance competition and reduce costs at the expense of a free flow of gas within Europe. This statement didn’t fool anyone. It was a new instrument that targeted only Gazprom, which is tightly connected to the European system.

In the event that Europe adopted unacceptable conditions, suppliers of liquefied natural gas (LNG) could at any time redirect their deliveries. In fact, that is what happened after TEP was adopted. The main flows of LNG left for the Asian markets. Gazprom, whose gas deposits are far from ports and have to be shipped by pipeline, could not pull off this trick.

As a result of the adoption of TEP, European gas prices did not fall; in fact they went up. From 2009 to 2013, the price of gas in the EU rose by an average of 29% to 30%. At the same time, the average price of Russian gas fell from US$410 per thousand cubic metres in 2008 to US$385 in 2013. And the volume of gas increased.

The paradox of a rising domestic price along with a falling “entry” price is easily explained by the nature of the increase. The increase was due mainly to the higher cost of gas transmission within the EU, which rose about 16%, and internal taxes, which were up 13%.

In fact, the energy component of the final gas price increased by no more than 2%, and even that was due to LNG. At the same time, the significant increase in the price of LNG was offset by the discounts that the EU obtained from Gazprom, taking advantage of Gazprom’s lack of wiggle room. And this occurred despite long-term contracts linked to the price of oil, which increased four-fold from 2008 to 2011.

In fact, TEP ultimately ended Gazprom’s access to the internal European market and, moreover, obliged it to sell 50% of its gas while still in the pipeline, even before it entered the EU. Under TEP, gas carried by the pipeline system has to come from at least two suppliers.

As for the timing, Gazprom’s long-term contracts with its European customers were renegotiated in 2004, and the following year saw the beginning of the TEP discussions. The peak of the discussions took place in 2008-2009, and precisely at that time the second Ukrainian-Russian gas war broke out.

Kiev, which was behind in its payments for Russian gas deliveries, began to siphon off transit volumes illegally, and in response Russia cut off the flow of gas. The EU had to take urgent action, brokering a gas contract signed by Yulia Tymoshenko almost entirely on Russia’s terms. Six months later, when peace prevailed, TEP was adopted, and so began the systematic effort to squeeze out Gazprom across the board.

South Stream was blocked on the grounds of non-compliance with TEP, even though the contract for its construction was agreed to before TEP was adopted on the government level. In point of fact, TEP was created to prevent individual countries from taking such “initiatives” in the future.

It should be noted that South Stream was blocked immediately after the start of the events in the Ukraine. The structure developed in such a way that the Ukraine retained its status as a major transit country for Russian gas and became a sort of gas reservoir for Europe. With the advent of TEP, under any new contract Gazprom had to halve its gas supplies to the EU or sell half of the volume to the Ukraine on the Russian border.

Simply put, Russia ultimately was expected to pay from its own pocket the cost of the Ukrainian coup and the formation of a Russophobic government in Kiev. That is why the United States initially tried to bail out Naftogaz of Ukraine. The son of U.S. Vice-President Joe Biden even became a member of the Ukrainian gas monopoly’s board.

Vladimir Putin’s visit to Ankara and his agreement with Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on the construction of Turkish Stream has put paid to all that. The role of European transit country has now shifted to Turkey; moreover, in accordance with TEP rules, to fulfill a contract all Gazprom has to do is deliver the gas to the EU border. Moving it any farther is not Gazprom’s responsibility.

It was a calculated, well-aimed blow. Turkey is the only communication corridor offering an alternative route for Russia’s gas. For example, the proposed Nabucco pipeline to supply gas from Central Asia and the Middle East to the EU, bypassing Russia in the process, is based exclusively on Turkey as a transit country. But now there’s no getting around Russia.

The only question without a public response is the deadline attached to Russia’s ultimatum to Europe. Mr. Miller did not specify any period, saying only that Europe has little time left, in fact only a few years. This is understandable because contract terms and conditions are confidential.

But, not being bound by any confidential agreements, we are free to speculate about the deadline. Most of Gazprom’s European contracts, as already stated, were concluded in 2004. Earlier on, in the 1980s, such contracts had a term of 30 years. The term of the last contract was reduced to 15 years. It follows that D-Day – the time for renegotiation of contracts under the terms of TEP – will arrive in 2019, in other words, in only four years.

Four years is a political framework that limits Europe’s decision-making time. The choice is very difficult. In fact, there is no choice. Rejecting Russian gas supplies to Europe is tantamount to suicide. Switching to LNG, which is from one and a half to two times more expensive, would instantly make all European industries uncompetitive.

Europe needs Russian gas. All it can choose is the routes and the means for its delivery. It can negotiate with Russia on clear and transparent conditions, or it can break Russia’s resistance in order to gain access to the gas on its own terms. And the conductor standing behind the EU finds only the second scenario acceptable.

In fact, Europe has even less time (just making a decision is not enough) because it has to build a pipeline to the Turkish border. Otherwise it will have to “surrender” Ukraine. We do not want to play the role of Cassandra, but in four years anything can happen – even attempted assassinations of top politicians, in both Russia and Turkey.

By the way, one curious detail is that the Russian-Ukrainian contract signed in 2009 by Yulia Tymoshenko and Vladimir Putin has a non-standard term of 10 years. And, like most of Gazprom’s European contracts, it ends in 2019. Would that be by coincidence or by design?

26.01.2015 Military Report of Novorossia

Important blog news: we are getting stronger, much stronger

Dear friends,

I have some important issues to bring to your attention:

1) Domain names:

We are trying to fix the domain name problems and also making some major changes in our IT architecture. As of right now, please note that the following Saker Blogs are still functioning normally:

French Saker: http://lesakerfrancophone.net
German Saker: http://www.vineyardsaker.de/
Oceania Saker: http://www.vineyardsaker.co.nz/
Latin American Saker: https://vineyardsakerlatam.wordpress.com/

the following Saker Blogs are down due to domain name problems which I hope will be resolved soon:

Italian Saker: http://www.vineyardsaker.it/
Russian Saker: http://www.vineyardsaker.ru/ 

=>Please note that these domain names are temporary and will be changed in the future.

2) Popularity vs Donations:

The number of visitors to this blog is at an all time high - just under 70'000 a day!  See for yourself on this blogger dashboard screenshot made this morning:



But donations have almost stopped.


So please click on that PayPal button on the left and show your support for this blog's effort with your donation.

3) Structural Changes in the Saker Community: the SCEC and SALLC

Following the recent crisis I have decided to make two major changes in the way the Saker community will be organized.

First, I have decided to hand over the responsibility for community-wide decisions to what I call the "Saker Community Executive Committee" or SCEC.  This is a small group of people whom I fully trust who will from now on be in charge of issues such as accepting new blogs into the Saker community, making key decisions about our IT architecture or deal with domain name issues.  After much thinking I have decided that the membership of the SCEC must remain confidential and known to me only.  This is first and foremost to protect the SCEC members but also to make this key component of our community a much harder target to hit then myself.  Besides, if you, the community, have trusted me in the past with the management of the community, then you can logically also trust those whom I have chosen to deal with these issues from now on.  Just to make clear: the SCEC will have no say in the way each individual Saker blog is run (each blog will retain its full editorial and organizational independence) and the SCEC will only deal with community wide issues.  In fact, the only person for whom this will be a major change is me, the Saker, as I will be able to focus on blogging and writing analyses rather then deal with technical/administrative issues.

Second, the corporation "Saker Analytics, LLC" or SALLC has now been formed.  It will have an "in house council", a US based lawyer who has agreed to help SALLC, the SCEC and myself on a pro bono basis. I shall share his name with all of you in the near future, but for the time being let's call him "spoonful".  "spoonful" will help the SCEC with domain name issues and he will advise me on a new copyright policy for the blog.

4) New copyright policy for the blog: CC-BY-SA 4.0

For a number of legal reasons I cannot continue to post everything and anything without thinking about the copyright issues which might be involved.  I wish I could, but I cannot.  During the latest crisis I was threatened with a lawsuit not once, but twice, and even though this threats did not involved copyright issues, I have to assume that the folks out there who hate me and the Saker community (there are a lot of them, believe me!) will resort to all sorts of dirty tricks to try to shut us down, including frivolous copyright lawsuits.  On the advice of "spoonful" I have decided that as soon as the new blog is back up, all my original contents will be published under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 International license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/).  This is also what I will recommend to guest authors.  As for external materials, they will remain under their original licenses.

Summary:

The crisis which hit me and the rest of the community was definitely a very bad one much worse then I can say here, believe me.  I have had to deal with betrayals, slander, blackmail, threats, sabotage and an amazing amount of hatred.  Still, I also have to admit that I myself have been naive and way too trusting.  For all my life I have many many mistakes, but at least I never made the same mistake twice.  And this time around, I had to make a painful "lessons learned" exercise, helped by some wonderful friends, and a few crucial things will now change:

1) We will built redundancy on all levels of our community.  From now on, no level will depend on a single individual, not the community, not the individual blogs and not the IT architecture.
2) We will de-personalize the community: it will still be "The Saker Community" but not "The Saker's Community" meaning that my community-wide "footprint" will shrink in size making personal attacks on my much less lucrative for those who hate me.
3) We will harden the community making all forms of attacks (political, technological, legal, etc.) much harder.

With these changes I hope to go back to my primary role as a simple blogger and to trade my "community leader" hat for a far more modest, and better fitting, "community founder" hat.

Various people have tried to bring down myself, this blog and our community.  God willing, their efforts will eventually result in the opposite effect and we will all bounce back much stronger than before.

The Saker

PS: if no major crisis erupts between now and then, I hope to resume the podcast in February (if only to remind you folks to donate - hint hint).