No Russian revolution after a year of protests

Comments (7)
DeanMJackson wrote:

The article reads, “Artyom Kolpakov has learnt not to hope for too much after an exhilarating but ultimately frustrating year of protests against Russian leader Vladimir Putin.”

As I’ve been telling Reuters readers for half a year now, the Russian “opposition” leadership is controlled by the Communists in Moscow who never left power in 1991. This tactic of creating opposition to oneself is called the “Scissors Strategy”.

As William F Jasper, Senior Editor for The New American magazine, said, “It is difficult for the West to understand the Leninist Hegelian dialectical method — the creation of competing or successive opposites in order to achieve an intended outcome [below see my two examples above for the "Scissors Strategy"]. Equally difficult for us to comprehend is the fact that these Leninist revolutionaries plan their strategies over decades and generations. This extraordinary behavior is naturally alien to Western politicians, who can see no further than the next election. Western politicians usually react to events. Leninist revolutionaries create events, in order to control reactions to them and manipulate their outcomes.”

You ask, what does Jasper mean when he says, “Leninist Hegelian dialectical method — the creation of competing or successive opposites in order to achieve an intended outcome”?

Simply explained, and on a tactical level, it’s called the “Scissors Strategy”, where one blade represents (for example) Putin & Company, however the other blade of the scissors–the leadership of the political “opposition” to Putin & Company–is actually controlled by Putin & Company*, which leaves the genuine opposition in the middle wondering why political change isn’t taking place. Understand this simple strategy?

On a strategic level, from 1960-1989 the USSR and China played the “Scissors Strategy”, by pretending to be enemies. This strategy allowed one side to play off against the other with the West, thereby gaining political advantages from the West, which neither Communist giant could have achieved if it was believed they were united. Clever, huh?

For more on this subject, read KGB defector Major Anatoliy Golitsyn’s 1984 book, “New Lies for Old” (available at Internet Archive), the only Soviet era defector to still be under protective custody in the West. What does that tell you about the “collapse” of the USSR in late 1991?

Dec 04, 2012 2:15pm EST  --  Report as abuse
chekovmerlin wrote:

Is good. We now have another Ramonov in control. Is just like Nicholas I and Alexader III. “Autocracy, Orthodoxy, Nation.” Just lke 19th Century. Army and Church united behind Tsar Vladimir I. Is good. Is stable. We even have Cossaks on streets of Moscow. Watch out. Sabers very sharp.

Dec 04, 2012 11:06pm EST  --  Report as abuse
chekovmerlin wrote:

DeanMJackson is concentrating too much on Soviet Russia without puting that kind of governance in perspective. Lenin AND Trotsky adopted the old conservative line and use of force that the Tsars had used. During the Civil War, they used the old technique of terror to subdue those that were against them. However, the peasants in most of Russia saw little difference in their lives that that in 1900. The Russian peasant is passive. He sees no future no matter who rules. In addition, most people in most places, especially in rural areas would ratheer have stability than chaos. Lenin and Trotsky used the bureauracy of the Tsar to enfore their form of government which may have had the facade of change but did not have it. In 19th Century Russia after the death of Alexander I, Nicholas put down the radical army revolt (Decembrists). The phrase of government was “Autocracy, Orthodoxy, Nation.” It was also used during the reign of Alexander III, father of Nicholas II. We have now seen the same phrase of Putin. He has given more strength to the church – “Orthodoxy.” He has assumed more power “Autoracy” and he is speaking more of nationalism or “Nation.” As in the period after the Napoleanic Wars, the intelligensia took their take on the French Enlightenment that Catherine II had introduced, without realizing what she did, the nihilists reading Turgenev in the mid-1800′s and their subsequent killing of Alexander III showed some resistance to the old style. However, the Secret Police and Army put them down. The only reason Nicholas II finally abdicated was that the RUSSIAN ARMY came over to the Bolsheviks (and the other left-wing revolutionaries) and deserted the Tsar. Unless the Secret Police and Army do the same thing, no revolution. With the return of the Cossaks to Moscow, there is even more of a conservative bent to security forces within the Russian State composed mostly of Great Russians.

Dec 04, 2012 11:20pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Macedonian wrote:

Putin should bring all slavic people in one union a Slavic Union

Dec 05, 2012 12:39am EST  --  Report as abuse
Alekhin wrote:

There are some very ambitious and very pitiful leaders of opposition in Russia. Please, dont support them – money cant create charisma.
I suppose we just dont deserve democracy yet.

Dec 05, 2012 1:07am EST  --  Report as abuse
DeanMJackson wrote:

chekovmerlin says, “DeanMJackson is concentrating too much on Soviet Russia without puting that kind of governance in perspective.”

You didn’t understand my comment…the Communists in the USSR NEVER left power in 1991, that is why the Russian “electorate” are only “electing” for President Soviet era Communist Party Quislings and why Lenin’s Tomb still exits in Red Square, among other anomalies.

The Tsars didn’t employ the “Scissors Strategy” as do Communists, they employed the “Sword Strategy”. Not very subtle!

See my recent postings at Reuters for more on this subject concerning the USSR “collapse” disinformation operation, which falls under the “Long-Range Policy” (LRP), the “new” strategy all Communist nations signed onto in 1960 to defeat the West. If you’re ignorant of the LRP, then any comment you make concerning the “former” USSR is in error.

Dec 05, 2012 9:00am EST  --  Report as abuse
NeilMcGowan wrote:


“DeanMJackson” is a rightwing bigot whose ideas aren’t worth $0.02. He has never been to Russia, can’t speak Russian, and his head is full of witless neonazi garbage about ‘communists’.

Sadly he represents the average American.

Dec 05, 2012 9:06am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.