Putin as Chess Piece

Oligarchs gotta Oligarch

http://johnhelmer.net/naive-questions-about-russias-war-economy/#more-47916

Tough times. Oligarchs are the power in post-Soviet Russia. Or if you take a different view like William Blake “Ignorant Hirelings.”

Putin is popular. He is not all powerful. Or perhaps he is more closely connected to the Atlanticist model than his champions suggest. However that may be, Putin being all in on the Covid fraud suggests to me the game played is not que es mas macho so much as dynastic control by Oligarchy.

Western tyranny breaching the water with Covid fraud. It may be the Ukraine conflict has the Russian deep state breaching water as well.

It seems to me that after Covid the war helps the Reset through starvation and energy loss by winter.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2009/09/the_perestroika_deception.html

The Thinker piece above from 2009 is somewhat kid gloves with Democrats. Fails to grasp FDR was strongly pro-communist, fails to consider Globalist elite corruption, fails to grasp the role of the USA in building the USSR, but does cover a key point of Anatoliy Golitsyn that the power of communism moved to China.

From the article: The second facet of the "perestroika deception" has been to engineer a "peaceful transition to socialism" in the US by way of a manufactured economic crisis.  Soviet manuals from the seventies outline this dimension in some detail.  In 1974, Alexander Sobolev of the Moscow Institute of Marxism-Leninism developed the means by which a "peaceful revolutionary process" could take place.  To do this, Sobolev stressed the need for a "nationwide political crisis" to be followed by "effective measures to neutralize wavering social strata."  It was Lenin himself that said, "A revolution is simply impossible without an overall national crisis."

The aim was to co-opt well-meaning Democrats in Congress into advancing a "peaceful transition to socialism" in the wake of US economic collapse.  Why the Democrats? 

One reason is that the Democratic base is so closely aligned with the interests of big labor.  If anyone doubts this claim, consider that President Obama virtually gave GM to unions with little outcry among Congressional Democrats, allotting unions an 89 percent stake in the company.  Ditto for Chrysler, now 55 percent owned by unions.  Since a big aim of Communist strategy is "unity of the working class movement," and since organized labor owns the Democratic Party, this conclusion seems only logical. 

In 1987, Chairman of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) Gus Hall said as much: "The U.S. trade union movement has taken the lead in the struggle against the reactionary policies of Reaganism....   We must not even inadvertently undermine... trade unions."[10]

A second reason for the Communists' alignment with the Democratic Party is that the Communist Party still lacks a "mass-political organization" in the United States able to achieve their radical ends and the Democratic Party provides a springboard from which to instigate these policies.

Democrats may take offense at this assertion, but to do so they will have to counter the remarks of James Steele, Communist Party USA Legislative Director in the eighties.  He said, "In the absence of a mass-based third party, it is possible and necessary for the people's movement to make use of the Democratic Party in the struggle for reforms...."[11]  He then went on to suggest that the progressive wing of the Democratic Party was growing in importance and would eventually drive the party, signaling hope for his plan.  Even a cursory glance at the recent policies of the present Democratic leadership make Steele's declaration prophetic.  Forget the term "progressive"; the Democratic Party has become the party of Lenin.

If the idea that the Communists could use an economic crisis to turn the United States into a Communist country sounds far-fetched, perhaps Gorbachev's recent remarks will serve to enlighten: 

The model that emerged during the final decades of the 20th century has turned out to be unsustainable...It was based on a drive for super-profits and hyper-consumption for a few...I have no ready-made prescriptions.  But I am convinced that a new model will emerge, one that will emphasize public needs and public goods....

Will this new model be called Communism?  Almost certainly not.  But whatever it's called, the outcome for the US will be the same.