The Great Wall of Serbia - Dealing With Immigration -

--- European Immigration ---

I just got back from Europe and, having seen the effects of immigration firsthand there, that being hordes of men shouting at crowds to buy things while their peers pry at stragglers' pockets, I am not at all surprised at the headlines of the past couple of days. The Hungarian government is completely fed up with the current state of European Immigration. To completely measure the amount of patience that has been squeezed from the aforementioned government, all one must do is to imagine a 175 km long, 4 meter tall 'fence' which is to be built along Hungary's shared border with Serbia. That is a lot of patience which has found its way in the waste bin. Viktor Orban, Hungary's Prime Minister, said that the EU's current immigrant distribution plan "borders on insanity." Heh 'borders' heh. Anyways, immigration is a massive problem in Europe, but is constructing a cold-war style wall really the answer? I was in Berlin not two weeks ago. I saw Checkpoint Charlie and walked along where the wall stood. Surely we have learned our lesson? Hungary is not the only offender here, as Bulgaria is currently planning on extending its own wall which borders Turkey. So, here we have a real issue here. There are unavoidable waves of immigration heading to Europe. What can be done? What are the consequences? Is there a sensitive, ethical way to say no to immigration? I don't know the answer to any of these questions but I will give them a shot.

Source - BBC World News

To begin with, what is there to be done about immigration? European countries are not like the United States. They do not have the luxury of having immigration from predominately catholic countries with populations of resourceful, motivated dream-seekers. Europe borders the empires of Islam, whose immigrants can sometimes be dangerous. The EU has attempted a quota system which has done nothing to control the levels of immigration from abroad. Obviously, nobody in good conscience can idle about while people in need are drowning in the Mediterranean. The current system of distribution, as Orban has already pointed out, also does nothing. Layers of  bureaucratic nonsense piled upon security checks can reduce the threat from immigrants intending to cause mayhem, but it will, inevitably, create larger masses of people collecting like fat in a blood stream which will eventually cause a clog. Efficiency is key, but so is safety. It is already well established that the European economy cannot handle the unskilled labor force and is unwilling to face the additional security risk, so why must the Europeans even deal with immigrants? They have no choice in the matter. Either the Europeans take them in, or they die afloat on their rafts in the Mediterranean. So efficiency must trump safety, at least for the time being. Then infrequent, isolated events like the Charlie Hebdo attacks happen, and every immigrant everywhere is painted an eternal scapegoat. "Why didn't we care about security?"- the newscasters will shout with their inevitable and irritating tones of surprise. Either all the immigrants are to be taken in, and the occasional isolated event happen, or the EU develops tedious and inefficient security infrastructure and allow the lines of Adriatic rafts to pile up. The administrators in the EU must redirect funding it cannot afford toward dealing with immigration, or it must make the choice and deal with the consequences. This does not even touch upon the additional aspects of immigration which makes the Great Wall of Serbia even remotely morally viable.

An Intact Guard Tower From the Berlin Wall Source - Own Collection

To continue, the consequences of immigration are the creation minorities, plain and simple. Depending on the type of government and the power of said government, minorities can either have no impact on a nation or they can have a massive impact. Imperial Russia, for instance, could very easily keep tabs on its minority groups because of its autocratic nature and its ability to give and take autonomy at the drop of a hat. The United Kingdom, on the other hand, is undermined and made weaker because of the increasing division in society caused by reliance of constituencies in its democratic process. Minority groups are the targets of territorial claims, they are the starting point of dissent, and they are rarely satisfied! Czechoslovakia fell apart because of its German minority. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was brought to its knees by Ukrainian minorities. The Dutch declared independence from Spain because they were an unrepresented minority. Don't even get me started on the Balkans. Even in the United States, we have countless issues caused by the effects of multiculturalism. Unjust racism, riots, idiotic victimization, ghettos, affirmative action, imposed guilt, mistrust, failure to provide equal education, failure to provide equal opportunity. Whichever side one happens to be on, he/she believes in some negative aspect of multiculturalism. The opportunity for monoculturalism, however, is lost in most European countries. These immigrants are fueling a wave of new minorities which will be used by politicians to get their way either as scapegoats or as victims. In many cases, these immigrants will be borderline useless to the countries that receive them. On top of the security and social aspects of their journeys, they will drag down the economies of the nations which are unfortunate to have the closest doormat to whichever failed nation from which the immigrants came. Immigrants from the 'acquired' Eastern European countries come prepared to work, but these immigrants come unprepared to do nothing but be fed by welfare programs. This being said, THESE PEOPLE SHOULD BE HELPED NONETHELESS. The Hungarians are shutting off immigration to their country, but this does not keep them from helping immigrants.

This brings me to the final question- Is there a sensitive, ethical way to say no to immigration? My first thought is to STOP PURPOSEFULLY DESTABILIZING MIDDLE EASTERN COUNTRIES. After this country purposefully destabilized both Iraq and Syria, a militant group with a name that you all know, has been spreading its influence across the middle east. The United States does the minimum to contain its spread out of a spoken fear of intervention when the intervention has come and gone already. The time for worrying about the effects of intervention have long past. This is coming from one of the most die-hard non-interventionists that you will ever read from. I think that the United States has everything to gain from a destabilized Syria and Iraq, because it marginalizes Iran's sphere of influence and, naturally, Iran itself. Iran is increasingly allied with Russia and China, against whom, most of our foreign policy is directed against. Europe, on the other hand, wishes no part of this, and should be spearheading the offensive against ISIS/ISIL/IS/ whatever you want to call it. Italy, specifically, is very concerned about the fate of their close oil spewing friend, Libya. Back to the immigrants, Immigration could easily be halted at the re-stabilization of the middle east. How does one re-stabilize an entire failed region of the world? By backing legitimate governments instead of terrorists labeled 'moderate rebels.' Hungary and Bulgaria, for example, could be leading military assaults against the IS/whatever people and investing their wall money on legitimate governments to restore peace in their countries. They may be tyrants and dictators, but order and the rule of law is more important than idealism when the war front is on your front door. More important than their money is their lobbying power. Both Hungary and Bulgaria should appeal to the US and the EU to do something about the crisis from which their immigration problems stem. Not that the US is willing to listen to a country that none of its citizens could find on a map, however. Hungary can only justifiably say no to immigrants with the promises that it will attempt to remedy the situation in their homelands.

With regards to the wall, I cannot blame the Hungarians for attempting to find solutions, even as desperate as this one. I do, however, wish that they had the foresight to strike the problem at its roots, or even lobby to do so. Their resources could be directed in a more useful direction. Instead, their resources are being poured into a project that offers a short-term solution at best. Additionally, once the wall goes up, what is stopping immigrants from going though Romania or Croatia? Serbia's Prime Minister, Aleksandr Vucic said that he was "Surprised and Shocked," and that the wall is "not the solution." I can do nothing but agree with Mr. Vucic while I nod in silent disagreement with the Hungarian decision to erect the Great Wall of Serbia. I cannot say, however, that I do not share their concerns for their country.

On a lighter note, I had an incredible, borderline indescribable time in Germany these past two and a half weeks. I am, however, glad to be back in the states. I didn't get to go anywhere relevant to this blog, but I would definitely recommend that you, given the chance, should visit East Germany.

As always, thank you for reading and feel free to leave a comment.

History and Politics...Why? -The Political Desecration of Remembrance-

***This is not some silly argument about contribution ratios***

So, today is the anniversary of the surrender of Nazi Germany to Comintern forces (Allied Forces made peace the day before). Other than the obvious and self-evident significance of the anniversary, this particular date is being celebrated by some, but politicized by others. Of course, I am referring to Victory Day celebrations in Moscow. Every year, on May 9, a flurry of celebrations take place on Red Square. The flagship event is the military parade. This is a show of the Russian Armed Forces parading through the square as they had done from the very first Victory Day celebration back in 1946. This holiday is the Russian fourth of July. This parade is not just a show of muscle. This is a commemoration that honors those who sacrificed everything, to pay respects to those who were irreversibly damaged by oppressive Soviet policy regarding veterans, and to celebrate those who are still able to take pride in the successful defense of their homes. But this is not only about Russia. This holiday is about the contribution of the former USSR republics, the Allied forces who fought alongside the Comintern forces, and most importantly, peace. Russia has a tradition of inviting figures from western countries to participate in the event. For instance, in 2005, government ministers from the US, Canada, Poland, Italy, Spain, and even Germany were invited to attend. The Americans, French, and British were even able to march alongside the Russians. Today, the very invitation to attend the Victory Day parade was declined by the US, Canada, Ukraine, Germany, Czech Republic, the UK, the Nordic Countries, the Baltic Countries, Bulgaria, and Poland. My question is...why????

Of course, this is Russia's  equivalent of the Fourth of July, but imagine if we invited the Russians to participate in our Fourth of July!


The very fortunate side of this is that the ministers of a few of these countries are celebrating their own parades. Belarus, for example, will be holding its own parade. Alexander Lukashenko was quoted saying that, "We are together and [we] share [Russia's] feelings." Angela Merkel, however, will be visiting on the day after. What is the point? Why would you directly and purposefully miss the largest celebration of the defeat of your country's largest, darkest blot upon its history? Surely a leader as skilled and competent as Chancellor Merkel recognizes the diplomatic advantages of attending? Merkel confirmed plans to meet with Vladimir Putin to commemorate the event in an alternative manner. Her spokesman, however, stated that attending a military parade in light of recent actions would be 'inappropriate.' As stated above, this celebration is much more than that, and Merkel obviously recognizes that. In addition, such an event which is dedicated to the common struggle of Russia and its partners is a perfect starting point for a relations thaw. The value is there, and Merkel sees it. The question, again, is why would she downplay her attendance?. We can begin to see a clearer picture with the Czech President, Milos Zeman, whose situation is somewhat similar to Merkel's. Zeman has been a critic of western foreign policy since the beginning of the Ukraine conflict, and he has repeatedly criticized the boycotting of this event. Moreover, he remained steadfast in the desire to attend the V-day parade. All of this despite drawing criticism from the US and the EU. Zeman was so confident in his decision that he banned US ambassador-- Andrew Schapiro-- from Prague Castle. This is truly a man of convictions. Well, he was. Zeman has cancelled his attendance to the parade, but he is still visiting Moscow on the 9th to celebrate in a low-key, attention-avoiding way. This is incredibly odd. Two high-class EU leaders are acting independently from what seems like the rest of the western world. They appear to want to mend ties with Russia and participate in the holiday, but they aren't committed enough to face the criticism from the EU and the US. This answer begs yet another question- why are issues of diplomatic ties so extremely interwoven into a celebration of mutual perseverance over evil?

The United States and its not-so-subtle sphere of 'unquestioning co-operation' seems intent on making Russia an enemy on every front. Even, rather laughably, on the front of historical fact, opinion, and remembrance.  The unimportant arguments flow between distant, detached opponents as to the contribution ratio of the belligerent nations of Nazi Germany's surrender. US media outlets mock Belorussian WW2 memorials. We have already seen the desertion of the last bastion of co-operation between the US and the Russian neutral sphere. How hard is it to share in the remembrance of a common victory? How hard is it to not only celebrate liberty bought (long-term) by the sacrifices of another nation, but also your very own?  No two individuals would behave like this! The motive behind this is that the US doesn't want to bury the hatchet with Russia. The United States would very much love to marginalize the nation which does all in its power to defend against US interventionism. What better way to marginalize a nation than to isolate it? Unfortunately, Russia will not be quite as isolated as the US would like it to be. The use of the word 'unfortunately' comes with the consequence of Russia not truly being isolated. Russia has been historically divided between the East and West by both geography and ideologically. The United States, NATO, and the EU all belong to the Western Sphere. Who might head the Eastern Sphere? China of course. The silly behavior of the US is only serving to drive the head of an ideologically neutral sphere (Russia, Belarus, Central Asia, Serbia, probably Greece in the future, the separatist states in Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova, and the nation of Armenia) into the hands of the enemies that it should really be worried about. But that is enough of that aside. Back to the issue at hand. Merkel and Zeman value their ties with Russia, but they are unwilling to 'diplomatically insult' Washington. They are trying to walk a middle ground made necessary by childish behavior on the part of the US and the nations who went along with it. It is, however, encouraging to see an attempt from these leaders to bridge an ever-expanding rift, despite the fact that greater powers would rather that rift expand out of control. The US is using all of its diplomatic influence to keep Russia from thawing any relations. There has been so much pressure put on European leaders to boycott this event from the US, that it is near impossible for the leaders who need the relations the most to actually recover them. If the US was actually concerned with worldwide well being and peace, then it too would have jumped upon the opportunity to reforge ties through a shared historical struggle. Such an event would, however, loose the US its opportunity to utilize its diplomatic power projection to further isolate its new enemy. The US, as has been previously discussed on this blog, needs a validation for its power. Russia is the wrong target, but a convenient one. I fear that the politicians of my country have an unhealthy jingoist mentality against a country which poses no real threat to them, and, likewise, grovel at the feet of a nation that they should truly fear, China.. For the reasons discussed above, the American attitude toward this parade reflects its attitude toward a nation that doesn't have to be its enemy, but has been pushed and shoved into the uncomfortable role. And so it appears that we have found a possible answer answer to this question, but questions still yet remain.

In addition to the previous questions regarding motives, politics, and other distant topics, this question is far more real. Why does the US spit upon its history, embarrass itself, disrespect all of its veterans, and blatantly step on the effort and the cause of those who did not live to see their profound effect upon the course of the world? This ceremony is not only about Russia! This ceremony is a commemoration of OUR efforts!  I would love to attempt to draw up an answer to this question, but I simply can't. This is inexcusable. It is, however, a consequence of the actions of the lowest of the low who con-volute history by mixing it and its remembrance with politics best left to the present. History has always been and will always be a part of politics, but this is a new low. Especially for our government in the United States.

Despite what anyone has said on your television screen, I hope that you have celebrated victory on May 8th, and I hope that you will celebrate it again today. The Russian V-day parade will undoubtedly be hosted on the RT website and their channel on YouTube. Remember the lessons learned from this years events. Do not pollute or twist history because of modern politics. You will only make a fool of yourself and spit upon the graves of those you dishonor.

And by the way, guess whose army is marching alongside Russia's this time.... China's. This diplomatic disaster can still be prevented, but we must take a painful paradigm shift to vilify one of our largest trading partners. In addition, we must then undo the mess that we have created and drive Russia and its sphere out of China's grasp. This process could begin with a great potential for success next year. We could march alongside the Russians and celebrate our cooperation instead of playing the role of a high school drama queen by creating problems when there are none.

The Greatest Director in the World Would've Been 83 Today

I am going to take a break from geopolitics for today and tell you about my personal favorite director- Andrei Tarkovsky. It should be no surprise, at this point, that my favorite director would be Russian. Therefore, I must point out that my opinion, in this case, is completely uninfluenced by nationality. This being said, I think that Tarkovsky is the best of the best. In the case that you have never heard of him, he was the creative mastermind behind Solaris, Stalker, The Mirror, Anderi Rublev, The Sacrifice, Ivan's Childhood, and many more. These titles probably mean nothing to you, but each film holds an innovative edge that launch them miles above their competitors. This edge was Tarkovsky's cinematography.

If Tarkovsky was known for one thing, it would be his cinematography. This was his incredible talent, his contribution to the world, the revolutionary ability which would hardly be used again. This was his life. Tarkovsky was the most brilliant director of all time because he directed films which became like books. The images were projected, and they were moving. They were, however, open to the imagination. The level of symbolism present and the delicate balance between detail and vagueness in each frame allowed imagination to run at full capacity. It was like watching a book because the words of a book, like the frames of a Tarkovsky film, are there to dictate direction and fact, but beyond that, there is nothing to demand that the reader/audience member interpret anything in one particular way. He, himself, called his film style 'sculpting in time.'  To build upon this incredible technique, the plots of his movies often contained contemplative themes on various topics which were philosophical in nature. These topics ranged from war to faith to loss and far beyond. For example, here is a scene from the film Stalker (Сталкер) which shows a prime example of a standard Tarkovsky monologue.

Of course, such ramblings may come across as just that-- ramblings. The greatness of Tarkovsky and his work can either be accepted or rejected on simple listening skills. As Solzhenitsyn pointed out in The Gulag, "One thing is absolutely definite: not everything that enters our ears penetrates our consciousness. Anything too far out of tune with our attitude is lost, either in the ears themselves or somewhere beyond, but is lost." One must be interested in the subject matter to fully appreciate the content of the films. However, given that the truths of existence and of humanity are often deeply interwoven with the simpler outcroppings called 'exploration' or 'war' or 'science,' everyone with appreciation for the purest wisdom cannot be anything but enthralled by a Tarkovsky film. This being said, it is understandable for many people who watch movies to unwind or to be entertained by senseless, far-fetched, meaningless plots may find Tarkovsky's style to be unappealing. This is where the nationality matters. Tarkovsky would never have succeeded in Hollywood. Where his movies were blockbusters in the Soviet Union, they would never have even been in theaters in the US. Such a difference is an unfortunate reality to me, but I cannot fault the US for having different tastes. Truthfully, Tarkovky's movies were slow. They required one to be patient and thoughtful. Two things which the average American would probably rather not do while watching a movie. To an American, such as myself, Tarkovsky is an acquired taste. However, it took one film for me to be blown away, and only one more to call Tarkovsky my favorite all-time director. Because of this, I would like for American readers to give him a chance before going back to watching hundreds of near-identical Hollywood assembly-line products.

Time to reign this back in. Another of Tarkovsky's incredible feats were his common transitions between black-and-white and color. The crushing reality of this skill was that he only had the budget for limited amounts of color while producing most of his films. Tarkovsky, however, being the brilliant mastermind that he was, used the transitions to symbolize oppression vs freedom, the past vs the present, dreams, and the vibrancy of creation vs the dullness of the everyday. But this brings up another point about Tarkovsky's greatness-- his ability to create his visions without the enormous budgets allotted to modern-day filmmakers. For example, Stalker (my favorite and one of Tarkovsky's favorites) had a budget of 1,000,000 Soviet Rubles which amounts to around $659,000 in modern day USD. With such a small budget, he shot a total masterpiece. This was a science-fiction film which was fully on-location, the original take was accidentally destroyed, there were barely any special effects, and CGI wasn't even a possibility at the time. Stalker was a masterpiece despite all of this.

In addition to his prowess of budgetary control, his choice of cast and production were always spot on. Tarkovsky favored actors, such as Anatoly Solonitsyn and Nikolai Grinko, who performed the perfect balance between drama and realism. They were always sensible as to when a scene needed realistic responses or unnatural ones. Tarkovsky, himself, declared Solonitsyn as his favorite actor, and he intended that Solonitsyn perform a lead role in each of his movies. The evidence of Tarkovsky's optimal picks was easily seen on the television screen. In addition, Tarkovsky favored a little-known composer by the name of Eduard Artemyev, who was a pioneer in synthesized music. The great thing about musicians is that I don't have to sit here and tell you about how great they are, because you can simply listen. Artemyev composed some amazing music and ambiance for Solaris, Stalker, Siberiade, At Home Among Strangers, and his own work. Tarkovsky truly was a director who managed everything so close to his own vision that he was able to project it at an unprecedented level. He did so not by himself, but by thoroughly dictating it to his crew members. His companions were fully inspired by his vision and sought to honor it to the best of their abilities. I would like to end this remembrance of the greatest director of all time with an interview with Artemyev and a quote from Ingmar Bergman.

"Tarkovsky for me is the greatest [of us all], the one who invented a new language, true to the nature of film, as it captures life as a reflection, life as a dream."-Ingmar Bergman. 

(Swedish Director)

RIP ANDREI TARKOVSKY 1932-1986

---Katyń Massacre---

In addition to Tarkovsky's birthday, today is the 75th anniversary of the Katyń Massacre. In case you aren't yet tired of reading, I recommend that you educate yourself on this horrible event. Articles can be found here and here. There was also a movie made, titled simply "Katyń," which was well-produced and drew favorable reviews. The IMDB information can be found here. There is a low quality version available on Youtube if you are interested which can be found here. Lastly, tomorrow is Easter so try to be happy and don't let these remembrances drag you down! Happy Easter everyone! 

Debunking Я Русский Оккупант (I am a Russian Occupant) and the 'Putin's missing' scare

With over 5.5 million views, the russian video titled "Я Русский Оккупант" (Ya Russki Okkupant) has caused quite a stir. Before you continue reading, I recommend that you take a couple of minutes and see this monstrosity for yourself.

The vast majority of non-Russian viewers have (quite rightly) passed this video off as propaganda. Unfortunately, they do so for the wrong reasons. Allow me to explain that there is nothing in this video that is not true. Except, of course, the 'occupant by birthright' segment. Of course, this video could not have risen from the hands of any Kremlin associate. The channel was created by some video editing hot-shot based out of vk (Eastern European social media) who just so happened to think of some interesting (and controversial) ideas for videos. In case you are unfamiliar with youtube, here is a link to this channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCED5DUaqfEGLd6p8PnKoEWw. I will now go through the separate instances of occupations to illustrate that the propaganda aspect of this video is not through what is said, but it seeps through what is not said. 

To begin with, Siberia was, as the video states, occupied in 1581. This was the result of a power struggle in the region between Russia and the Siberian Khanate (Sibir). There was hardly any fighting involved in this power struggle, however. Once Russian explorers and landowners began building forts throughout Siberia, the Siberian Khanate basically dissolved itself. Siberia, today, remains a religiously diverse area. By this, I mean to say that the native Siberians were allowed to keep their religion. In addition, Siberia is the location of the JAO (Jewish Autonomous Oblast). This being said, the Russian occupation of Siberia had a significant net benefit for the indigenous population. Fur trading was booming and the rights of the natives were, for the most part, respected. So the Russian occupation occurred pretty much as the video said. The Siberian area was given new life, oppression wasn't a big issue, and everybody benefited.

In contrast with the Siberian occupation, the occupation of the Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania) came with far darker tones. The video refers to the Soviet occupation as opposed to the Russian Empire's conquest of those areas from Sweden (who conquered them from Denmark and the Livonian Order) in 1721. To be frank, the video would have gained some credibility in referencing the Russian Empire's occupation over the Soviet occupation, as the Soviet occupation involved mass arrests, a cultural war of 'political religion,' the forced relocation of thousands of Baltic inhabitants, as well as the hand off of Baltic land to Russian workers (All of the Baltic States still have sizable Russian minority groups). Again, nothing said in the video is untrue. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the populations of all of the Baltic nations have fallen dramatically. They have fallen to the point of  domestic crisis, in fact.

As the video correctly states, the majority of Baltic emigrants fill cheap labor positions throughout the EU. The conclusion on this one is a complete toss-up. On one hand, the Soviet Union made the Baltic States livable. On the other, the policies of Stalin, Khrushchev, and Brezhnev were unjustifiably wrong when dealing with the Baltic States. The video was partially correct on this one, but it left out very critical information that, if mentioned, voids the fantasy of a justified Soviet occupation. 

Next up on the list are the Central Asian nations. (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan). As with the Baltic States, the video is referring to accomplishments made during the Soviet period. Again, the video does so to the detriment of its argument. The Central Asian Nations were colonized by the Russian Empire and were even a part of the short-lived 1917 Russian Republic. So, they stayed with Russia throughout the most turbulent events of its recent history. The region, however, rebelled against Bolshevik rule and declared autonomy. The new government of the so-called 'Turkestan' was short lived despite its valiant defiance of Soviet rule. After this, the story is very much the same as that of the Baltic Nations. Infrastructure was rapidly constructed and massacres, deportations, and forced migration were commonplace. The end of the story is that the video is, again, only partially correct. Whether or not the average quality of life increase was worth the atrocities is up for debate. Although, you might want to refrain from arguing with the locals, as they know the answer for themselves. 

Now, for the biggest offender-- Ukraine. It is one thing to occupy the provinces of your enemies, wage war with those who constrain your ethnic borders, or colonize the vast stretches of land on your frontiers. But, to commit planned genocide of your nation's brother (Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus were born out of the same nation-- Kievan Rus'), exploit its people for grain profits, and generally label them as 'untrustworthy' cannot be balanced out by tanks, aircraft, or automobiles (as the video would love to attempt). Granted, the Russian people also suffered from the same crimes of their government, but not to the extent of the Ukrainians. If you want a picture painted for you, then look up the Soviet famine of 1932-33. Ukraine is the breadbasket of Eastern Europe. It produced grain. And it did so long before the Russians conquered Ukraine from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1793-95 (The Poles referred to Ukraine and Ukrainians as Ruthenia and Ruthenians, respectively). Stalin (and to a certain extent, his successors) intentionally starved out Ukraine by harvesting its grain and selling it on international markets (mostly to the US and Canada, ironically), which left hardly any grain left for the population. The non-farming populations of the Ukraine would fall, and more grain could be sold internationally. Horribly evil and brutally brilliant. The video's comparison of post-Soviet Ukraine and Soviet Ukraine is undoubtedly its biggest flaw. While the situation in Ukraine improved over the years in the Soviet Union; the crimes that were committed against the Ukrainian people remained equally numerous. I would dare say that this is one instance, in which, it is not arguable that the video was completely wrong. If the video, again, had chosen to examine Imperial Russia, the situation would not be quite as bad. As it stands, however, this is where the propaganda aspect of this video truly shows its ugly head. 

I don't think that I have to comment on the 'occupant by birthright' segment because I think that the narrator was being sarcastic at that point.

As for the rest of the video, I liked the segments about the 'time of troubles (Polish-Lithuanian Invasion & Occupation, failed Livonian War, Succession Crisis, etc.),' the war of 1812, and WW2 which show the resiliency and determination of the Russian nation & people. It was refreshing to get away from the propaganda and actually take a look at why Russia (NOT the Soviet Union) is so awesome (Obviously the Soviet Union fought WW2, but during this time, Stalin loosened his grip on his war against non-Soviet Culture. He even made promises and concessions to reward his citizens if they won the war. The average Russian, Ukrainian, Belorussian, etc. could look at the promises made and see everything that they wanted their nation to be. This nation, arguably, was a close depiction of where the Russian Empire would have been, had it not been interrupted. Obviously, it was all a lie). 

As for 'Western Values' and fake 'Democracy,' I will inevitably address those issues in detail later. So I will leave them alone for now.

The last segment, which involved an email to Barack Obama, was very clever. And, on another side note, it it pretty obvious that the animator (ОКеям Нет--OKeyam Nyet) used the Battlefield 3 Russian Soldier model. I, admittedly, giggled for a little bit upon realizing it. 

This video truly is unofficial propaganda, but keep in mind that some of its claims hold some merit. Of course, just about everything, including the nature of this video, is up for debate. 

---The 'Putin's missing' Scare---

Normally, I ignore most misinformed tripe about Putin, Russia, Putin's Russia, The New Cold War, etc. that is thrown out of alarmingly self-obsessed news outlets, but this one really got me thinking. No, not about Putin dying, or getting married, or taking a vacation, or affair this or alien abduction that. No. I was worried about who will become president of Russia once Putin is done. Obviously, with its overwhelming popular support, United Russia will remain in majority. In addition, a UR candidate would likely win any election. This brings up Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, who is hardly known in the west. Imagine Joe Biden, but he speaks Russian. He is a decent administrator but, for the most part, he is the government's public relations guy. Some unfair allegations have arisen that his is Putin's lapdog. The simple fact is that the two politicians are friends. Plain and simple. But back to the point. Medvedev is no Putin. Perhaps he can learn from close observation, but I am skeptical. As for the other options-- unless oligarchs, communists, or incompetent nationalists sound particularly attractive, I would hope that the Russians hunt high and low for another candidate as able and as dedicated to his/her country as Putin has been. I am now legitimately concerned about Russia's future, as no ruler, I fear, can guide Russia to the future that it deserves once Putin is gone. Obviously, by western standards, Putin is a dictator. But that is why he is so brilliant. As I said above with other issues, I will inevitably go into more detail at a later date, but I will go ahead and wrap up. I fear that no other leader can walk the same tightrope between democracy and autocracy. I fear that no other leader can tread between Russia's need to escape the shadow of communism while upholding the accomplishments of that era. And I certainly fear that no other leader has the backbone to set a nation's wealthy few into their place. Before you ask about his foreign policy, I'm afraid that I'll have to put that topic off until later also (But you can check out the book Frontline Ukraine by Richard Sawka if you are itching for information on the subject-- It was written by a Pole so you don't have to worry about untruthful Pro-Russian comments). 

As usual, thanks for reading. And, of course, never take my word as fact. If you're interested, look this stuff up yourself and formulate your own opinion. Chances are such that it will be different than mine.

Class Based Privilege vs Privilege Based Class and Leonard Nimoy

I, being a frequent adventurer on the internet, have come across the term 'privilege' on several occasions. Being the Russia fanatic that I am, I could not help but wonder about the nature of the word as it is used. Anybody who has studied Russia knows full well the lengthy divisions of privilege between the intelligentsia and the peasant class. Even further, The Soviet Union, that big, red, evil blob, encouraged the development of immense privilege inequality at every possible step. This may not seem to make any amount of sense given the 'egalitarian nature' of the Soviet Union (more on this below). But it was there. I am baffled to see the word privilege used, in its own slanted, assigned meaning, to describe the issue of inequality in the United States. To begin to address this, one must first define this word. Privilege is a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people.

I will begin with the Soviet Union. As I described above, the issue of inequality went far beyond any communist manifesto could possibly have predicted for a self-proclaimed 'socialist' society. I am, of course, referring to the game. The horrible, evil game. The game of political dependency, outing your neighbors, and whitewashing the actions of borderline-inhuman (secret) policemen. This is the game which is referred to in the phrase "playing the game" in reference to gaining an advantage in a political system. Widely known, but often rejected, the Soviet regime actively encouraged its citizens to be as selfish as possible. Stand for your Comrades! But as they look the other way, report their anti-state political activity. You will earn the trust of the ever-powerful communist party. With trust comes our infamous word, privilege. With the horrible policies of the power-hungry Supreme Soviet, the Soviet government relied on the dependency of its citizens. By this, I mean that their citizens would always have to look the other way. They were always unable to say anything. The outcry of the common, decent Russian /Pole /Ukrainian /Belorussian, etc would be answered with two world-shattering fates. 1) The break of the individual and his/her family with the state (itself a death-sentence). 2) (In many cases, worse than death) the further reduction of the individual into a source of hard labor in the Gulag (Archipelago for the Solzhenitsyn veterans out there). This was the case. It was a win-win for the state and a lose-lose for the individual. On one hand, the state held a free source of hard labor, and on the other hand, the state kept dissent in check and held hostage the 'happiness' of its people (which it could take away at the drop of a hat).

The 'Gulag Archipelago'

Having acknowledged that, it becomes easy to see that, in the Soviet Union, your privilege determined your class. The Soviet Class System (de facto) was not supposed to exist. The government would deny it at any point. This does not change the fact that it was a real entity. I would actually recommend that you would take a two-minute break and watch this video http://youtu.be/UeO44STvnJw?t=2m18s from here to around 4 05. Watched it? Good. This example is one of many. To reiterate, the closer you were to the top of the mighty Soviet ladder, the more privilege that the state handed out to you. This 'trust' that the government bestowed upon its good and loyal citizens quickly materialized into additional meal rations, first place in bread lines, diplomatic immunity, a reputation worthy of fear and respect. These things or their equivalents, to some degree, are determined by your class here in the United States.

To contrast the brutal, unfriendly Soviet 'class' system, we have that of the United States. This class system is, thankfully, very different from the other system. In this system, your class determines your privilege. If you are economically well off, you have the advantages of the society. If you are economically downtrodden, by contrast, then you have very little of those advantages. The biggest difference lies in the fact that there is class movement in the United States. If you, for example, are born into a poor family, you always have the opportunity to improve your standing (and not by condemning your neighbors to work themselves to death in the Gulag). This, of course, was not always the case. Even today, there is still education inequality based on different neighborhoods, states, counties, cities, etc. The opportunities are still there, however. While not perfect, the scholarship system and the military (as stated in a previous blog) provide a means to a higher education to those who cannot afford it. In many cases, scholarships specifically, this aid is designed to address those of less privileged backgrounds. A degree does nothing if it sits on a shelf in one's home, however. This brings us to another couple of issues employment and recession. http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm This chart shows that education, pay, and employment are directly related. This being shown, your chances are better when you are educated. Education, as mentioned before, can be attained with enough work (obviously, having parents that can pay for said education is more convenient, but if those who do don't work, then they'll fail eventually). Now, like all economies, that of the US must rise and fall, often unpredictably. Sometimes, it can be near-impossible to get a job. This is when people start to fall in class. Class movement is not always a good thing. In this case, when the economy goes bad, people start to suffer. It is inevitable. When your class falls, so does your privilege. It then becomes easy to feel resentment to those who have more privilege than you.

However, this is not about resentment. This is about inequality. Inequality will always exist in a multicultural society. Period. The United States is a multi-ethnic, multi-racial, multi-whatever nation. Bigotry exists among individuals, communities, and most importantly, business executives. What we must understand, however, is that we are not the Soviet Union. We do not deport mass amounts of Tatars from their homes, purposely starve out peoples deemed 'untrustworthy,' or arrest people en-masse because their inherent facial features make them seem 'suspicious'. Something we have done, on the other hand, is provide land set aside for specific ethnic groups. Some feel that ghettos, reservations, etc. are provided to offer safety, community, and whatever other garbage excuse that they can come up with. This is an area that the soviets may have beaten us on. The Soviet Union oversaw the creation of what is known as the Jewish Autonomous Oblast (region). This provided safety to Jews across the Soviet Union. Jews who had suffered terrible discrimination (odd considering that the hatred of Jews was a primary attribute of the Soviet's most hated enemy, Nazi Germany). I was kidding, not about the JAO, but about the Soviets beating us at something. While the JAO was a real construction, the Soviets still had no answer for the millions of displaced Poles, Germans, Tartars, Ukrainians, Lithuanians, etc. other than the Gulag, of course. In the creation of reservations and ghettos, the US had dug itself into problems which will take several generations to solve. The fortunate part is that our class system will play the largest part in solving these issues of historically created discrimination. The Soviet system of privilege based class kept the 'untrustworthy' and 'useless' ethnic groups at the bottom simply because the government controlled the class system (as described above). Here, anybody may rise above their background. Will people of minority status experience unfair discrimination? Probably at some point, but hardly ever will such discrimination be enough to keep them forever down. Especially if they really want to move up.

Specifically, the term privilege describes one's class standing by its very definition in relation to the US economic environment. However, privilege, on the internet, refers to one's racial, religious, and sexual background in addition to class. I do not think that this is the proper use of the word. To refer to one's privilege is a statement which is purposed, on the internet, to prove that an individual has had an easier life because of the aforementioned factors. For instance, a white, christian, middle-class, straight, male lives an easier life because of being white, christian,  middle-class, straight, and  male. I believe that this is the case but only because of one of the factors: being middle class. As we have already stated, discrimination will happen. It is unfortunate and inexcusable. However, class can be transcended in the US. Along with class comes wealth. Wealth is the key to all levels of immunity, special treatment, etc. which I despise. It does, however, mean that privilege is anyone's to be earned. I, for one, do not believe that something that someone has earned warrants accusations of privilege based blindness. Furthermore, I believe that it is wrong to discredit one's argument based on something that is a show of hard work and discipline. There are exceptions, however. Two examples strike me the most: those who inherited their wealth (and thus, their privilege) and those who have not yet been cut off from parental dependency. So, if you are arguing with the offspring of a multi-million dollar company owner or an immature middle schooler, high schooler, college student, dropout, etc. then you have a permissible reason for using the internet definition of privilege. I would, however, appreciate it if people didn't utilize the internet definition of privilege. It ignores the work that others have done, it ignores legitimate arguments, it is used as a silly comeback, and it is disrespectful to those who have truly suffered because of privilege immobility and inequality.

---Leonard Nimoy---

I, also being a trekkie, was deeply saddened to learn of the passing of Leonard Nimoy. I have watched Star Trek for maybe eight years now, and I have been a massive fan since I first saw the show. Spock was my favorite Star Trek character for maybe five of those years (I started with Scotty and eventually worked my way over to Bones). Spock was simply awesome. His character development over the course of the Original Series and the TOS movis was extremely touching, as an alien from another culture, who had no emotion at all, learned to care for his friends and become more and more human as Star Trek went on. Nobody could have portrayed Spock more perfectly than Leonard Nimoy. However, we must remember Nimoy as the man he was alongside the legend that he created. Leonard Nimoy was, in my opinion, one of the few respectful and good-hearted hollywood types. I despise hollywood and its selfish, over-dramatic, narcissistic tendencies. Leonard Nimoy was the complete opposite of all of those things. He looked out for his co-workers, he kept a cool head, he blew nothing out of proportion, he cared for others, and he was a bastion of decency. The world has lost a great man. Let us not only remember Spock, but let us remember and emulate the traits of human decency and honor that Leonard portrayed through Spock and through his own life. 

We should follow his (and Spock's advice) lets forget our differences on the day to day, because everyone should live long and prosper.

--- Keyboard Woes---

I want to apologize if I left out any "m's," semi-colons, or colons. The keyboard that I use hasn't been functioning properly lately. I can not type any of the above letters or symbols. I have been copy and pasting the m's throughout the post. Thanks for the forgiveness. 

50 Shades vs European Cinema

Since everyone seems to be having a cow about this stupid new movie; I thought that I might as well put their worries into perspective a little bit. I won't actually talk all that much about the movie or book "50 Shades of Grey" as everyone knows it for what it is. I will, of course, take a look at my experience with European cinema.

I will begin with the obvious, nudity is far more common but, for some reason, sex isn't. Of the recent few European movies that I have seen (Ivan's Childhood, 1612, C.K. Dezerterzy, With Fire and Sword, The Deluge, and Solaris) all of them have had nudity in one form or another, but only one of them had sex (but no nudity during). In complete contrast, most American films have plenty of sex but no nudity to speak of. In order to fully examine the difference, I will recount the use from a few of these movies and then look at 50 Shades among some other movies.

I'll begin with Solaris: This film, by Anderi Tarkovsky, is the most emotionally distressing movie that I have ever seen. The purpose of the film was to explore the concept of 'living loss'. The protagonist, who was a psychologist, traveled to a space station to investigate anomalous activity. He was shocked to find that the inhabitants have all had loved ones, who had died, come back. The scientists believed that they were diplomats from the planet Solaris (the planet that the station was orbiting). The protagonist himself found his wife, who had killed herself, alive. The 'diplomats' assumed the personality traits of their images. The protagonist's 'diplomat,' aware of the distress that she caused him, tried to kill herself. This is where the nudity comes in. She tried to drink liquid nitrogen and was flopping about on the metal floor. The nudity was purely used as shock factor. My own gut was wrenching at the sight of this event. So was that of the protagonist. To add to this horror, they discover that these 'diplomats' are immortal. The entire event was shown as needless suffering while the nudity amplified the shocking reality of what the characters faced. The use of nudity added, in a constructive way, a gut-wrenching sense of shock to the movie.                                    

In both Ivan's Childhood and With Fire and Sword, the nudity was simply bathing. This brings about another point unto itself. The Europeans are less prudish than we are. In these scenes, the characters were bathing, there was nothing sexual about it. Often times, I hear complaints about characters not reloading their weapons, sleeping, using the bathroom, eating, etc. Bathing, as it should be to us, is a normal activity and is used by these directors to convey realism. In the case of both of these movies: Ivan's Childhood being a dirty, grimy story of dirt and mud on the eastern front of WW2 and With Fire and Sword being a historically accurate tale of cossack rebellion in similar conditions, bathing is important. Nudity is a part of bathing. Again, in European cinema, nudity is used to convey a sense of realism. It is not used to coax teenagers and immature adults to flood into theaters. Nor is it used for mass-pornorgraphy, which 50 Shades is often being compared to.

Despite my wishes, not all European films use nudity for significant reasons. C.K. Dezerterzy (Deserters), for example, was a war comedy that poked fun at the rabble once known as the Austro-Hungarian Army. This movie was utterly hilarious. It did, however, use nudity as a tool of comedy. I did not think it was funny, but it tried. The group of disgruntled, multi-ethnic deserters, in their desperate search for money, comes upon a bathhouse. You can probably guess where this is going. It turned out that both halves of the bathhouse were guilty of taking pictures of one another, and these guys just had to get in on it. I won't elaborate further, but I can say that this was sexual in nature. It wasn't, however, to the point of mass-marketed pornography. This movie is about the equivalent of 21-Jump Street but with far less language. In addition, it contains less sexual references in general. I would call this movie more clean than a good share of american comedies, if you can get past one scene, of course.

Having examined a few of these movies, there is something to say about American cinema in constrast. Sex is everywhere. Specifically, sex is in trailers. Sex is a part of marketing. Sex is, in one way, shape, or form, in almost every American movie. 50 Shades, being an entire movie about what are, otherwise, two minute scenes should be unsurprising. There, of course, is the argument about the nature of the relationship between the characters.This, too, should be unsurprising given that relationships between partners in other movies are equally non-existent. It is always there for no reason. Sex has lost its status as taboo. Nudity, by contrast, has not. I find it a shame that these European masterminds can use the human body as an effective, compelling addition that makes their movies better, and we can't use sex for anything other than mass marketing. At the same time, our society and filmmakers ignore what can be used to create brilliant scenes. The outrage over 50 Shades, to me, is incredibly artificial. This is because it is only the tangible, long-term result of what filmmakers have been doing for fifteen years. As for the book, we are only angry because it has broken into the mainstream. Books like 50 Shades have existed since books became widely-available. I, for one, can only hope that our filmmakers can learn from their European counterparts and make nudity and sex something significant that adds to the film. As it stands in American film, sex might as well not happen because the movie would end the same way. Nothing changes. Sex, as used in Game of Thrones, for instance, is a leap in the correct direction, simply because sex actually matters. As far as 50 Shades goes, quit whining, we know its porn. Our society asked for it, after all.

                                             

Munich Security Council Reactions and Minsk Peace

-----Poroshenko's Passports-----

Imagine this, a room full of muttering journalists and jingoists silence themselves as a, rather short, man approaches a wooden podium at the center of a blue and white stage. This man was the most feared, respected, and outright loved man in the entire conference, and he came with a surprise.

Perhaps the most shocking moment of the entire conference came as Poroshenko, President of Ukraine, walked in a shaken hurry toward the podium. He had something in his hands: multi-colored, eagle-stamped, booklets. If you have eyes, you already know what they where, as you have undoubtedly read the heading already. They were passports. Russian Passports. Proof! Or so he claimed. Poroshenko was shaking, obviously excited. He intends to shove in the audience's face that he has proof and that they should support him in thwarting the Russian Menace. 

Unfortunately for the little Poroshenko, he failed to realize that soldiers of the Russian Federation (Official Government) do not carry passports while on duty. In addition, he dismisses the possibility of Russians serving for the Donbass People's Republic out of their own volition. If this wasn't enough, he neglects that if Russian troops were, in fact, in Ukraine, then they would not carry passports for fear of being captured. This, to me, is the biggest offender, as Russia's proxy-war would deteriorate completely if such a claim was proven. So, by necessity, if Russian troops were in Ukraine,then they would have left anything identifying themselves as such, far behind. To conclude the case against the legitimacy of Poroshenko's claims, he refused to send copies to the Kremlin, and only brandished them in front of the audience without showing their contents. 

The outcome of this little show is that those informed on the matters of Russia know that Poroshenko is a joke. Those who are not informed, believe every word that the man says, as he promotes his jingoist position. Poroshenko does not want autonomy for Russian speakers or for East Ukraine (he looked very unhappy at the end of the Minsk Peace Talks). He just wants help in quelling the rebellion and taking Crimea back from Russia. As it stands, the reddit thread for Poroshenko's speech has been upvoted over 6,000 times and the news is spreading everywhere. The peace talks in Minsk between Vladimir Putin (Russia), Angela Merkel (Germany), Petro Poroshenko (Ukraine), and Francois Hollande (France) are beginning to look like my last hopes for this to be resolved in a civilized manner. Progress was made, but I am not overly optimistic. The original Minsk peace didn't work, and I am unconvinced that these will. I am happy, at least, that world leaders are willing to recognize the need for Luhansk and Dontesk to have autonomy. 

-----Lavrov-----

I don't have much to say about Lavrov's speech, but rather, the audience's reactions and questions. Lavrov (Russia's flagship diplomat to just about everything) began his speech and ended it the exact same way. He encouraged dialogue between the EU and Russia. This doesn't seem like a funny topic, but the audience members thought that it was quite funny as Lavrov cited communication failures between the East and West regarding the situation in Ukraine. He continues to note that Russia has been limited in its participation in lawmaking in various peacekeeping and economical organizations. Again, this draws laughter. I do not really have much to say about this. It seems to me like the members of various governments attending do not care much about what Russia has to say. One may argue that they are laughing about Lavrov's claims to lack of dialogue, but here Russia stands, out of the G8 and out of PACE due to 'anti-Russian sentiment.' If the west is not willing to host a respectable dialogue, then they must bear the responsibility for the results. And laughing about a nation wanting dialogue after raping its economy and forcing the largest release of land resulting from zero warfare, seems silly to me, at least. 

There is one specific comment that was addressed to Lavrov that I would like to address: "The EU believes in self-determination, while Russia believes in spheres of influence." This commentator is quite right... about Russia. He is, however, completely wrong about the nature of the EU and its military counterpart, NATO. Everybody knows the arguments against the 'peacefulness' of NATO: Yugoslavia, Libya, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Syria, and now Ukraine. But, usually, there isn't much to say about the EU. Nobody considers that it may very well be a massive power bloc that has swallowed up sixteen countries since the fall of the Soviet Union. Imagine, for a moment, that the EU was made up of member states that were treated by Germany (in Brussles) like states are in the United States. Take a moment and fathom that Brussles and the EU is like an incredibly massive US federal government, usurping the will of the states underneath it. If you would indulge that thought, you'd be closer to the truth. As it stands, the EU is horribly corrupt as the politicians that snake about the massive conference halls would be happy to prove. The EU has a sphere of influence, and that sphere tried very hard to push into Ukraine, and is still trying desperately. I am disappointed that Lavrov failed to point this out, instead making the usual attacks at NATO which caused for more laughter. If you are having doubts about this theory, then ask any politician in the UK about what the EU has done to their country. If you're lucky, you'll get a down-to-earth fellow with serious problems with the forced, unrestricted immigration policy; the financial burden of propping up failed European Economies (Greece, Spain, Italy); and one that has serious problems with the globalized nature of the EU, which involves the sweeping away of borders, the destruction of national heritage and culture, and the scale of policy making that comes with such a massive government. Alternatively, you may encounter a politician that believes that these things are good, but you have my permission to laugh in their faces like they probably laughed in Lavrov's last week.

On a different note, Lavrov said something really, really, really stupid that really, really, really deserved to be laughed at. "Actually we (Russia) supported a unified Germany after WWII." This.. I just... Can't help but be amazed at what happens when someone's mind goes blank, as these diplomat's often do. He was trying to downplay Russa's involvement of dividing Germany, when instead, he should have put his big boy pants on and justified it. There is no European nation more historically appalling than Germany over the last half of a millennium, aside from the Soviet Union, which Germany created during WWI by directly funding Lenin and the Bolshevik Revolution. Add Imperialism (most nations were guilty of this), Nazism, Prussia's conquests against Poland and France, and a generally jingoist attitude toward its neighbors, and you begin to see that Germany well deserved division. I, for one, find it ironic that Nazi Germany was defeated by the evil red empire that it had created twenty-eight years earlier, and it divided her. Lavrov really should've pointed this out, but he was in Munich, after all. I, personally would have rather been booed than laughed at. But that's just me I suppose.

-----Conference as a Whole-----

If I could describe the entire conference with one word, it is funny. Really. The conference was incredibly funny to someone who doesn't care about East-West relations, but it was a damming scene to those of us who do. At least with some groundwork for peace, this situation may begin to wind down, but only if everyone does their part. Given the attitudes expressed at the Munich, Merkel and Hollande are the only western leaders who care anything about their relationship with their eastern neighbors. I certainly hope that Merkel and Hollande will serve as an example to the rest of the west and prove that co-operation is preferable to jingoist ideas of national hatred, assigning blame, and hunting for misunderstanding.