Think you have Putin’s number, huh?

30 Jun

Don’t be fooled by the title, “Russia is DESTROYING Ukraine’s Army”. It’s misleading. And not because Russia isn’t doing precisely that but because this video is about something else.

Don’t be fooled either by Scott Ritter’s folksy manner. In just twenty-six minutes the former UN weapons inspector delivers the most pithily on-target assessment of what Vladimir Putin, nine days my junior and coming to the top job literally on the eve of the 21st century, has pulled off. If you were wondering why, on a turnout far above that of the West’s hollowed-out ‘democracies’, this man took 88% of the vote – and if you weren’t, what forces could have so dulled your once sharp mind? – this is the most concisely accurate answer I’ve seen.

I almost gave it a miss, thinking it redundant. Time’s a demon. It demands that I prioritise what furthers my understanding over that which affirms what I think I already know. All the same, I thought to tune in for the first few minutes to catch Scott’s drift.

I stayed till curtain call, then watched again. I already gave my reason. Why not set aside what you think you know – from media that can’t even call a genocide a genocide or, until Thursday night, a demented US president a demented US president – about Russia’s leader?

Did I say twenty-six minutes? In truth he does the job in under twenty. You got twenty minutes, right? I wouldn’t ask if it wasn’t important.

* * *

2 Replies to “Think you have Putin’s number, huh?

  1. The extent of corruption in Ukraine is deep, persuasive and endemic such that the US in characteristic style must bribe its beneficiaries to exact their fealty and loyalty since such a corrupt class is totally immoral, vexatious and unreliable. No doubt Zelensky’s continuing windfalls are prescribed for his subalterns lest their loyalty wafers as reality demolishes their myths not unlike the Democratic apparatchiks of AIPAC who suck the teat of Jewish billionaires largesse.

    • You pinpoint a truth – ascertainable as much by logic as empirically – which merits a dedicated post, Rick.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *