Bird-Man Demands Kremlin Spit Roasts Lukashenko in a NATO Regime-Change Double Team

There is a NATO regime-change war on Lukashenko. Florida Bird-Man demands Russia makes it two-front

The verdict is in. Belarus’ Lukashenko is “a megalomaniac” who “lacks vision”. He is “incompetent”. He “cares only about himself”. He “needs to be replaced”. He has made Belarus into a “parasite”. His policy is “unacceptable” and his presence is intolerable. We must “get rid of” him. In short: “Lukashenko must go”!

This is the verdict of a certain Florida bird-man who proclaims: “I have exactly *zero* trust in Lukashenko”. And so it must be. When a Florida bird-man has exactly *zero* trust in you it is time to go.

In issuing this demand Florida Bird-Man joins Emmanual Macron who was the first to come up with the cute formulation of “Lukashenko must go” last September:

“We are witnessing a power crisis in Belarus with an authoritarian administration that is not able to accept the logic of democracy and is hanging on by force. It is clear that Lukashenko must go.”

When both Emmanual Macron and Florida Bird-Man are against you, you know that you are in trouble.

And who is this Lukashenko who has so displeased these two luminaries who imagine themselves to have such great standing when it comes to deciding who runs Belarus?

Simply put, Lukashenko is the head of state who for most of his career has been the Empire’s public enemy #1 in Europe. The Empire has had him targeted for regime change since the 1990s when he first rose to power and it explicitly refused to recognize him as the President of Belarus — a state of affairs that would go on for two decades.

Until 2001 the demonization of Lukashenko was second only to that of Milošević after which Lukashenko moved into first place. Not Russia, but tiny Belarus was the most stubbornly independent of the Empire and defiantly dismissive of its prescriptions of all the Slav countries. As Russia was rolling out the red carpet in Central Asia for the American invasion of Afghanistan, Belarus was being singled out as one of “Outpost of Tyranny”. As Medvedev’s Russia greenlighted a NATO no-fly zone over Libya, Belarus was being denounced as “Europe’s last dictatorship”. As Putin was still attending the G8 and  Belarus was laboring under Western sanctions. It is Lukashenko — not Putin — who for the majority of his and Putin’s career has been the foremost fighter on the frontline of Slav independence from the Empire.

This changed only in 2014, and only because this role had been hoisted on Putin by the West after he had spent 15 years bending backward trying to build and maintain bridges. This new prioritization of Empire’s war on Russia over its war on Belarus was followed by the West suddenly forgetting all their lofty ideals and making limited overtures to Lukashenko to see if he could be pried away from Russia. He accepted their overtures, secured the dropping of sanctions, and gave nothing in return.

2020 brought “normalcy”. After the opposition disputed the outcome of an election the West returned to its forever regime-change war vs Belarus and Lukashenko is again the Slav leader the most under attack by the Empire and closest to the anti-Imperial frontline. In his characteristic style, however, he is undaunted. Sanctioned again (tobacco and potash), he has made it clear he has zero interest in acting as their border enforcement, creating a migrant problem for them, and has told them if they keep up their shenanigans he’ll close Belarus to their imports of Russian gas. There’ll be no bending backward and infinite patience from his Slav head of state! How refreshing!

Anyhow, as Lukashenko finds himself — once again — the target of a NATO regime-change war, the Florida Bird-Man demands Russia makes it two-front and pounces on Lukashenko from the east.

It is a demand that is as bizarre as it is moronic. It is so soaked with imbecilic vomit that I will spend this whole week writing about it, deconstructing every cretinous sentence. But for now a few main points.

Firstly, this proposal is so incredibly moronic because of how far it is from anything that Moscow would ever be willing to entertain. Bird Man fancies himself a VeRy sErIoUs aNaLySt, yet here he is issuing entitled demands that couldn’t be more alien to Putin’s political nature as demonstrated over 20 years. Say what you want about Putin — and I’ve said plenty — but, for better or worse, his style is characterized by caution, patience, and most of all, loyalty.

In 2016 when Erdogan was on the receiving end of an attempted coup Obama kept quiet and bided his time. Putin meanwhile — who had far more reason to be hostile to Erdogan — immediately backed him. To my knowledge (Western Russia derangement syndrome aside) Putin has never and nowhere backed renegades against an existing authority, but has always dealt straight with the de facto government no matter how unpalpable that power ought to have been to him.

Even in 2014 he speedily recognized Poroshenko’s post-coup administration in Kiev of very questionable legitimacy and opened communication links to it even before that. He even recognized its claim to Donbass — where it was not the de facto government, but an outsider — and only asked of it that it secures the region peacefully in talks, and not in a bloody invasion.

At home, he has been incredibly loyal to Ramzan Kadyrov despite all the cringe the murder-child has pulled over the years (from exterminating the Yamadayevs to “reelecting” himself with 99% of the vote).

He has been similarly loyal to Medvedev and the rest of the system liberals in his team that Saker calls “the Atlanticist 5th Column”. Saker maintains there is a “civil war” raging between Putin’s patriots and Medvedev’s traitors but after 20 years of continued influence of the system liberals, it is perhaps time the Bird-Man faced the obvious fact that there is no internal deathmatch and that Putin values them and has great personal loyalty to them, especially Medvedev.

And let us not forget that the very first order of business for Putin when he rose to power in 2000 was to reassure the Yeltsin-era oligarchs that they could keep their ill-begotten gains, a promise which he kept. The only ones who ended up expropriated were the few who tried using their stolen riches to compete with him for power.

Right from the start, and time and time again, Putin has opted for stability and continuity over risk, and caution and engagement over uncertain adventure.

The idea that a leader like that who didn’t seek to overthrow Erdogan after Erdogan had ambushed and murdered his pilot, who tolerates (and gets along with) serial killer Kadyrov, who made peace with the oligarchs, and who kept pointlessly attending the G8 for decades in order to keep only the faintest positive tie with the West alive, would ever knife Lukashenko — whom he has known and met with for over 20 years — in the back is beyond fantasy. It is so utterly unrealistic and beyond the pale that it can be raised as an actually serious proposal by a certified lunatic alone. As a Twitter hot take it would be passable. As an actual policy proposal it’s exhibit A for urgent mental health hospitalization.

The pair in younger days

Aside from the utter unreality of a Putin backstab against virtually anyone, why fantasize precisely about Lukashenko getting one between the ribs?

We are talking about a leader who upon reaching power in 1994 immediately organized a referendum to declare Russian a co-official language in Belarus, and to seek support for a “union state” with Russia. We are talking about a leader who in 1999 invited Yugoslavia — then under NATO bombs — to join the Russia-Belarus union. We are talking about the only leader who held the 75th Victory Day parade on May 9th. We are talking about a leader who visiting Moscow the year prior shouted out to a passerby on the street “I am visiting our capital city. I am visiting the capital of our joint homeland.” The “joint homeland” for this unreconstructed Sovietophile is the Soviet Union. His administrations have never included Medved-style “Atlanticists” and he never allowed oligarchs to bring the country to its knees as was the case with Russia in the 1990s.

A mural in Kosovska Mitrovica, NATO-occupied Serbia: Lukashenko, Putin, Milošević, Putin, Lukashenko (Photo by me in 2015)

To my knowledge, this is the first time ever the Bird-Man has uttered this charming formulation of “X must go”.

The first time ever he singles out a leader for Russian regime change and it’s a guy who defies the Empire, holds Victory Day parades, feels at home in Moscow, and brings back Russian as an official language? What the hell is going on here?

When Putin had Erdogan’s back in 2016 Bird-Man praised this as “the perfect illustration of how the Russians turn ‘the enemies into neutrals, neutrals into friends and friends into allies’.” Bird-Man has also laid lavish praise at the feet of Ramzan Kadyrov who fought against Russia in the First Chechen War and who probably killed Russian soldiers, who is a hardline Islamists, and who has loyalty to Putin but none to Russia, and who imagines himself to be the spokesman for all 15 million Muslims in Russia and believes this grants him veto on Russia’s foreign policy.

Bird-Man is also famously a proponent of an alliance between Orthodoxy and Islam. He is a fan of Hassan Nasrallah and has extolled the virtues of Iranian mullahs and of a Russian-Iranian and a wider Russian-Shia partnership.

So then we have a situation where the Bird-Man would like to see a close relationship between Hezbollah, Ramzan Kadyrov, Ali Khamenei, and Vladimir Putin, but there isn’t room in this little club for Aleksandr Grigoryevich Lukashenko? What the hell is going on here??

All due respect to Hezbollah and the mullahs, but somehow I feel even they would agree that honorable, close, and stable relations between the White Rus and the Great Rus ought to take precedence.

What is really going on here?

What is really behind Saker’s sudden and intense hatred of Lukashenko?

Why is it now that Belaya Rus and Velkaya Rus have been brought closer than ever by a NATO assault against both of them, that it is suddenly so urgent that Kremlin coup d’états Lukashenko and removes him from the scene?

Saker offers a number of reasons that I will go through in follow-up pieces, but suffice it to say that they are all incredibly flimsy. They are stuff only a retard could buy. I don’t believe Saker is a retard.

So what has fried his brain?

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
15 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Stella
Stella
1 month ago

Long mental Covid !

Ilya G Poimandres
Ilya G Poimandres
1 month ago

I think some Russians are coming around to the opinion that Luka would be a better President of a fully integrated Union State that Vlad – I get errors with respect to a virus, but the Russian leadership is deep into unconstitutional tyranny, and Vlad is a lawyer by training..

Mr Reynard
Mr Reynard
1 month ago
ken
ken
1 month ago

The elephant in the room is the covid restrictions Luka has not placed on his country. He is making the “free worlds” leaders look like the idiots they are.

As for Putin…. before he flipped on the mandatory shots I would have agreed completely. He never ever went back on his word. Today Russia is doing all the stupid covid stuff the West is. So imo Putin could go either way on this.

I used to read the Saker all the time and used to post there. Noticing he was changing I haven’t went to his site much.

JSS
JSS
1 month ago
Reply to  ken

Agreed, Saker is all in on the Covid hysteria and Lukashenko flat out calling BS on it is driving Saker crazy.

Maiasta
Maiasta
1 month ago

Marvellous article, Marko, even though it raises more questions than it answers. I actually understand the Saker’s stranger ideas, such as his braindead Covidism (it’s the leftist “trust the science” in the same vein as MoA ). But pushing to oust Lukashenko is really something else.

As good as Saker’s geopolitical analysis can be, sometimes he’s wildly off-base. I remember him arguing that there’d be no Russian intervenntion in Syria (just weeks before it happened). He also believed that Serbia had sent in special forces to carry out a massacre in Srebrenica in ’95 in odrer to discredit the Bosnian Serb leadership.

So maybe he has a tendency to just disappear down his own rabbit hole sometimes. I think it’s an occupational hazard of all thinkers.

Nevertheless, this is a most strange departure for him.

Btw, that picture with Slobo really stopped me in my tracks. Great nostalgia.

Voz 0db
Voz 0db
1 month ago

Lukashenko refusal to accept the impositions made last year (2020) in regard to OPERATION COVIDIUS – via IMF/WB loans – could only result in this attack.

SteveK9
SteveK9
1 month ago

Bucking the lockdown and holding the Victory Day Parade on time, made me a fan of Lukashenko.

Mr Reynard
Mr Reynard
1 month ago

Ohh.. Since when they went from ?? “Assad must go” ! To now “Lukashenko must go” ?

Les7
Les7
1 month ago

Since the US threatened contributors to a range of websites with $300,000 fines and jail time, I think birdman is trying to avoid the same ban

But to be clear , ever since 2015 he has had a set of weird agenda stuff going on in the background. Sometimes I think such sites as his collect dissenting thinkers so their contact info can be forwarded to interested authorities.

Ya gotta ask yourself why strategic culture is banned but saker and his pro hezbollah stuff continues to be acceptable.

Dr Ignacy Nowopolski
1 month ago

Saker, by his own words, is a long time CIA operative, and that explains everything.
 
And so is Orlov, and others of their Russian-American clique.

Maiasta
Maiasta
1 month ago

Can you flesh that out a bit?

Russian Observer
Russian Observer
1 month ago

Orlov? No way.

edwardi
Noble Member
edwardi (@edwardi)
1 month ago

It hurt my brain a bit to read through this, but found myself largely taking his points. I have always attributed much of Putin’s foot dragging and slow movement to an enlightened pragmatism, his ‘buying’ time to allow his ducks to get together in a row, so to awkwardly speak, and have been cheered since 2015, and his commitment to Syria, and the current ongoing blunt (finally) assessment by both him and Xi when speaking to or about the western barbarians, always at the gate. I am thinking this author should really put together his analysis and submit it to the Saker site, let’s see if the Saker is openly willing to debate the issues in public.

Russian Observer
Russian Observer
1 month ago
Reply to  edwardi

A good idea.

Anti-Empire