Home / Europe / Putin: A Nationalist with Nuclear Weapons
Print Friendly and PDF

Putin: A Nationalist with Nuclear Weapons

Written by Gary North on January 21, 2017

Vladimir Putin is hated by the Western Leftist Establishment. A representative example is the final speech of Obama’s appointee to the United Nations, the institutional incarnation of internationalism. Ironically, her name is Power. She never had any, and neither has the UN.

He is hated by these people for good reason. He is the most powerful nationalist on earth. He leads a country with nuclear weapons. He’s a nationalist who cannot safely be pushed around by neoconservatives and Progressives.

From 1917 until 1991, the Soviet Union was internationalist. It was tyrannical. It was bureaucratic. It was in favor of world revolution. It was an empire. And because of this, the Western liberal media gave the Soviet Union, if not a free ride, then at least a discounted ride. The Soviet Union was Marxist, and Marxism for people on the Left was always considered a legitimate political philosophy.

Putin grew up in the Soviet system, and he was a functionary within the KGB. But, deep down, he was a man who saw the handwriting on the wall, and that wall was the traditional Russian wall of nationalism. It goes back to the founding of the Russian Orthodox Church in the tenth century. It has a name: Mother Russia. It has always sought military power.

Putin represents this older Russian nationalist tradition. He also commands the second most powerful military forces on earth. The Russians are still armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons. They are the other superpower.

We have heard at a lot about America as the sole superpower, but this is not true. Any nation that has over 5,000 nuclear missiles is a superpower. That is Russia. When that nation has missiles that can deliver these weapons to their targets, it is a superpower. You don’t push it around.


The Russians have backed the legitimate government of Syria. That disrupted the attempt of the Obama Administration to create yet another failed state in the Middle East. This goes back to George W. Bush’s Administration. It goes back to the list of nations that the neoconservatives who ran Bush’s administration planned to invade and overturn. Former NATO Commander Wesley Clark has described this here.

Russian planes overturned the neoconservatives’ plans for the legitimate government of Syria. The neoconservatives will not forgive him for this, and the mainstream media, which is not neoconservative but rather Progressive NWO-oriented, also will not forgive him.

Putin is a nationalist. Nationalism is hated by the Progressives. They have been pushing the New World Order ever since Woodrow Wilson decided that the United States of America was going to join the League of Nations. Progressives have never forgiven the United States Senate, led by Henry Cabot Lodge, for not ratifying the Versailles peace treaty in 1920. That treaty would have pulled us into the League of Nations. We stayed out.

The League of Nations would have been the same toothless bureaucracy that the United Nations has been since 1945. It would not have achieved anything significant, any more than the United Nations has achieved anything significant. But the idea of internationalism captivated the minds of the Progressives. Anyway, it captured the minds of the Democrat Progressives. Teddy Roosevelt, who was clearly a Progressive, was a nationalist. He titled his campaign book, The New Nationalism (1910), whereas Wilson titled his campaign book, The New Freedom (1912). But at least they both wrote their own books. There were no ghost writers involved.


Great Britain’s voters did not vote to leave the European Union because of anything that Putin did. The liberal media are still trying to prove that he did, somehow.

LePen is leading France’s polls for the Presidency. This has nothing to do with Putin.

The liberal media desperately want to find an explanation why a nagging, shrill, dish-throwing, platitudinous old woman lost the Presidential election in 2016. That was not supposed to happen. That wasn’t in the script. She was the most hated political candidate in recent American history, with the exception of Donald Trump. She was so utterly incompetent politically, and her campaign was headed by people so utterly incompetent, that she could not defeat the most hated political Presidential candidate in history. Her defeat indicates a deep-seated distrust of the Progressives’ agenda. It means that the Progressives’ much-praised democracy is moving back toward nationalistic populism. They cannot stomach this idea. It would mean that the Democratic masses don’t want to move in the direction of greater internationalism.

(For the rest of my article, click the link.)

Continue Reading on www.garynorth.com

Print Friendly and PDF

Posting Policy:
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

Comments are closed.