fursov: full transcript and videos, complete with q&a

Lecture here with transcript. I don’t think Fursov’s insinuation at the end of this that an important faction among Russian psychiatrists regard Blacks as “monkeys in top hats” is good politics for Russia. Note that this Fursov appears on a TV channel which also features a great deal from Alexander Dugin. I would interpret it as white supremacism in the service of Judaism. Also, these people labour under the peculiar misconception that Israel does not take sides in the Ukraine conflict. A little more close observation would have made the truth clear to them, but they are in thrall to the Jewish elite of Russia (which Fursov denies exists, below) and only see what it wants them to see. Their casual white supremacism is simply a symptom of the garbage the Jews feed them, just as they fed the Americans. One can always detect a culture enslaved by the Jews by its racial megalomania, which obviously will rebound upon it when the Jews choose, and by its sentimentalism and false ecumenism regarding religion. So the fact that these Furzov materials were posted to the Vineyard of the Saker blog, which repeats all these symptoms, is unsurprising – RB

Questions & Answers with Andrei Fursov (67 mins)
Andrei Fursov, Poznavatelnoe.TV, Apr 26 2014

~
For those interested in historian and sociologist Andrei Fursov’s lecture in April about the events leading to the Feb 2014 coup: a questions & answers session with the audience followed, which is subtitled in English. Major topics in the second hour:
03:00 China has been publicly quiet on Ukraine, but continues in the background to build their Silk Road across the Eurasian continent.
10:33 Gorbachev neglected his legal duty as head of state by not issuing an arrest warrant for Yeltsin. There needs to be a proper political-legal assessment of the actions of both.
14:29 Lukashenko has come out against the federalization of Ukraine. Does he fear the same in Belarus, which does not have the same socio-cultural fracture that divides Ukraine?
31:42 History of the more or less non-existent Russian elite on the global stage, while the dominant elite on the planet has been the Western one, who are inherently invisible.
37:23 The Yellowstone super-volcano, with the power of 1000 atomic bombs, will inevitably erupt some time in the 21st century. The elite are preparing for it, but it could wipe them out too.
44:42 The war in Ukraine will be fought between private armies from outside and self-defense units from the local population. Russia will only enter under a UN mandate. There are “ways” to deal with private armies. The junta would not survive federalization.
48:51 None of the explanations for the disappearance of MH-370 is satisfactory. However, the list of patents of the 20 specialists, who, moreover, all happened to be on the same plane, is very noteworthy.
50:40 : 10,000 soldiers in Crimea who maintained their allegiance to Ukraine could, legally speaking, undertake the country’s liberation against the anti-constitutional junta.
51:56 Ukraine only had a functioning economy within the Soviet industrial framework.
54:12 Road-map for developing the Customs Union (disparagingly called “USSR 2.0”), as the only viable alternative to exploitation by foreign predators. Absorbing Western Ukraine into the Soviet Union was a mistake.
59:50 The EU´s bleak future: economically, socially, culturally. The future micro-chipping of their population.
1:02:04 Stalin thrice mobilized society to thwart the Anglo-Globalists’ plans to eliminate Russia.

Transcript

A: … In the Crimean Victory we won because our leadership, above all the president, was always a step ahead of the opponent. He took a step. They reacted. He set the agenda. So that’s everything I wanted to say about the Ukraine situation. If you have any questions, I’ll try to answer them.

Q: Three points which were not mentioned. I know it’s hard to cover everything. Firstly. What are the interests of China in Ukraine? Secondly. Putin indicated that the events in Ukraine happened earlier than planned, supposedly they were meant to happen at election time. What caused them to pull the trigger earlier? It was all meant to happen in the run-up to the election. Were there some other factors which made them trigger the mechanism earlier than planned? Third point. What influence do the Uniates have? And the Greek-Catholics?

A: Regarding the second question. Two factors played a role. This is what Nassim Taleb calls a “Black Swan.” Firstly. Putin offered financial assistance to Ukraine, which was on the verge of bankruptcy, even if they are not currently declaring bankruptcy as such. This created a situation for Yanukovych, where he had an opportunity, which he seized. This contradicted the game-plan of Euia. The US had presumed that the EU would get their part of the job done, then they would intervene later. The Russian bail-out disrupted their plans. The second point is that Yanukovych aborted the clearing of the Maidan. If he hadn’t done that, then events would have ended there. Those were the two factors. This once again illustrates the point: you can plan all you want, but something will always happen which you didn’t anticipate. I always quote the example of the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains in 451 AD. On one side Aëtius, the last great warrior of Rome, and the Visigoths. On the other side, the Huns. They were fighting the whole day. A torrential rain fell. The Huns retreated, so technically the Romans won the battle. But Aëtius’ army remained. The next day Aëtius could have beaten up the Huns. But he decided: Firstly. We will need the Huns if we fall out with the Visigoths. Secondly. We will need the threat of the Huns to pressurize the Emperor in a future maneuver. So he went to Rome. But one thing he hadn’t anticipated. The emperor Valentinian III had already ordered his death. When he reached Rome, he was knifed to death.

As for China: good question! Now, I don’t have direct proof, but, just from what I’ve seen on TV, regarding the visit of Jackass Kerry to China at the end of Jan 2014: when Jackass left China, he was really flying high, literally and figuratively. But then I got thinking. You know, the Chinese, and Japanese too, they can make a certain impression, especially on Europeans. They nod their head and smile. It doesn’t mean they agree with you. It means they have understood your point of view. Many Europeans assume, that nodding and smiling means they agree with you. Nothing of the sort! “We have understood your point of view.” That’s all. I have the feeling that the Chinese left Jackass with the impression that China either supports them, indirectly, in all their Ukraine escapades, or that it has nothing to do with them. Look. In the triangle of relations, China, US, Russia, who is the winner in case of a severe degradation of relations between US and Russia? China. The current situation in Ukraine suits China very well. Because there was an agreement, which no-one yet has canceled, between Yanukovych and China, for the construction of a major port, similar to Gwadar in Pakistan. That’s the first thing. Secondly, there was a secret part of the agreement, according to the information I got, under which Yanukovych agreed to permit the presence of 2 to 2½ million Chinese in Crimea. The Chinese are playing their game of Wei Qi. They have placed a distant marker in Crimea, at the end of the Silk Road. Consequently, the Chinese are not formally supporting us. But they are not supporting all the measures against us either. Our relations with the Usaians have deteriorated. China can feel very good about that. Additionally, in the China-Japan dispute we have tried to take a neutral position. But since China is now supporting us indirectly on these matters, we will of course act very differently with regard to China. So China has played a very, this is a typical Chinese style of play. But at the end of the day, as Cardinal Richelieu said, it’s all to the good, beyond our expectations. We got Crimea. We saved the Crimeans from the Banderites. One of our experts put it very well when he was asked:

Can’t we negotiate with the West: you recognize Crimea and we won’t interfere in the East and South-East?

His answer was:

Crimea is not an object for negotiation. Crimea is in the zone of the Russian world and not subject to negotiation.

That was a very principled position. You touched on the Chinese position. But have you not considered the influence of the US energy sector on the events in Ukraine? It’s not a secret that natural gas production in US is already surpassing Russia’s, with a trend toward further growth. But the re-industrialization in the US is not advancing so fast, and surpluses are building. So these surpluses should be exported. When Obama went to Europe for some meeting, he announced he was inviting them to buy US natural gas. This might be part of the game to destabilize Ukraine: Half the gas to Europe stops flowing, meanwhile in 5-6 years they will have built ports for … No doubt, there is that line too. That’s like when you pocket two balls in billiards. You hit one and after that a second goes in. Yes, no doubt that is a consideration. As indeed there are other considerations, as it appears to me. You know, Kissinger has taken a very restrained position. At the height of the criticism against Putin, Kissinger said, for example, that the criticism of Putin demonstrates incompetence of Western leaders. Kissinger is closely connected with the Rockefellers. The Rockefellers are more Republican. I think the discrediting of Obama, which arose from our Crimean Victory, not only greatly damages Obama, which we know, it damages the Democrats too, and influences the election toward a win for the Republicans. Here the Usaian Establishment is divided too. Walnuts McCain, the halfwit, is shouting against Russia this, against Russia that.

Incidentally, notice the threats of the West: We’re going to introduce more sanctions! We’ll fine you five cents! The next sanctions will be even more terrible! We’ll fine you six cents! As the joke used to go in Soviet times, this is the “333rd Chinese warning.” These are not real maneuvers. It turned out that the West has no maneuvers against Russia in this respect. But the gas aspect, yes, that was a good point you raised. That has its place too. In general, in these major episodes in history, there is a first floor, then a second, third, fourth. Several times I was thinking we’ve reached the fifth, sixth. Half a year passes. You analyze the information and understand there was another floor. Moreover, from the sixth floor there were side-events, from the fifth too there were other goings-on. Some part of the story always remains hidden. Without insider information, you can’t understand it. After a certain time a lot of it can become clear. One of the philosophers, not one of ours (Sir Thomas Browne: Hydriotaphia – RB), said:

What song the Sirens sang, or what name Achilles assumed when he hid himself among the women, are puzzling questions, though not beyond all conjecture.

Q: A question about the current events in Ukraine. As we know, the South-East has started rising up. How strong is Russia’s influence on these events? You said that the West, the CIA, is directly influencing events in Kiev. To what extent are we influencing those who have begun to rise up and organize things in South-East, compared with Crimea? What are Russia’s plans to develop this scenario?

A: You know, that’s not a question for me. It’s for the leadership of Russia. You see, Crimea was a particular case. A compact territory, peninsula. That’s one thing. And in Crimea 97% supported re-unification. Here the situation is different, at least while the authorities haven’t started to crush them: Some want federalization, some want to be in Russia. But under this brutal policy of oppression, people have begun to defend themselves. But you know the position of our government and the president, who said that we can only send in our forces upon a decision of the UN. We can’t just send in our people. But, like any country, we have lots of other ways to influence events, and I hope that we will use them. And God willing, that will be successful.

Q: Considering the recent events, I wonder what one should take away from the statements by Lukashenko that he had been talking with Turchynov and was against federalization. What does this mean? Regarding the statements by Kiselëv yesterday. He said that Gorbachev wasn’t trying to break up the Soviet Union. What do you think?

A: I don’t think Gorbachev was wanting to bring down the Soviet Union just like that, because then Gorbachev would be out. He’d be simply gone. But by his policies, objectively speaking, everything he did paved the way for the Soviet Union to collapse. Once again, when we say “Gorbachev”, it really means a certain cluster of interests, a part of the nomenklatura. Gorbachev himself was only the instrument of this process. But even the instrument can be asked questions. Gorbachev bears a huge part of the blame for the collapse of the Soviet Union. For a start, it was his duty to give the order, although some say the order wouldn’t have been fulfilled, for the arrest of Shushkevitch, Yeltsin and Kravchuk. But he never even gave the order. As the head of state, he was obligated to do that. If people wouldn’t have complied with his orders, that’s a different matter. Then he could have said, “I did everything.” At least at the final stage. But Gorbachev’s whole program of economic reforms, all of his political so-called reforms, they were all leading to the collapse of the Soviet Union, as wise people were already telling him in 1987. The whole foreign policy of Gorbachev was an absolute surrender of every position. I categorically disagree with Kiselev. I can’t understand his position. You’ll have to ask him. On the other hand, a person can’t re-live their past. I only recently learned, for example, that apparently Kiselev was decorated by the Lithuanians with a medal for correct interpretation of those events. And now it has been revoked. There were only two such awards. Tatiana Mitkova was given the same award, and she too refused it.

Thus at the end of the 1980s, in 1990, Kiselev was fully on the side of Perestroika. But that is his problem. Not a single person can demonstrate that Gorbachev is not to blame for the collapse of the Soviet Union. Of course, he didn’t want to lose his position. I’ll never forget when Gorbachev – someone in my association put up the picture of this, after the Putsch, it was in September, I believe, he had begun to speak about the Party, when Yeltsin shouted out: “I’m going to sign,” and showed everyone the paper, “the prohibition of the Communist Party of the USSR.” Gorbachev, humiliated, shouted back, “Boris, don’t do that, don’t!” Yeltsin firmly pushed down on the paper and signed it, then went up to Gorbachev and showed it to him. And the humiliated Gorbachev muttered something back. So these two people bear full responsibility. From my point of view both of them are state criminals. More so Yeltsin, less so Gorbachev. But they belong in the dock together. How could the current authorities condemn Gorbachev and Yeltsin? They can’t condemn, but they could distance themselves. Stalin came from the Leninists, but he eliminated the Leninist Guard. I’m not calling for condemnation, but there should be a political-legal assessment of their actions. Putin took a step in that direction when he described the disintegration of the USSR as the greatest geo-political catastrophe. A different matter is that it is difficult for him to do this, as he comes from that background. But the logic of the events dictates our position. If we are now going to begin restoration, then we have to say whose fault it was in the first place. And journalists are journalists. If they get told to say something different, they will.

And your second question? Why is Lukashenko against federalization? It’s hard to comment on that. Belarus is an ally of Russia, and, at that, a faithful military ally. It’s hard to comment on Lukashenko. From my point of view he’s got it wrong. If he comes out against federalization of Ukraine, it means that the East and South-East will be at the mercy of the current Kiev authority. From an abstract perspective, of course, a unified, neutral Ukrainian state, friendly with Russia, would be better. But in the current reality… As Stalin said: There’s a logic of intentions. And there’s a logic of circumstances. The logic of circumstances says that without federalization, Ukraine will become Banderastan. But I understand what moves Lukashenko and what he fears. Lukashenko is afraid of the federalization of Belarus. That’s clear. However, Belarus doesn’t have the kind of West-East differences that Ukraine has. Belorussians are a single homogeneous ethnic group. Ukrainians are two different ethnic groups.

Q: What about the Polish part?

A: Yes, I know. Besides, a year or two ago Lukashenko gave the order to roll out a program for restoration of the Polish-Lithuanian castles. This is effectively part of our history. At the same time, what other castles do they have, apart from the Polish-Lithuanian ones? They don’t have any other castles. So there’s nothing strange about this.

Q: Yes, sir. Among the reasons you gave for the events in Ukraine, why people were protesting, which was understandable, was the social stratification, the systemic disintegration and so on. This was also considered a factor which would be exploited in Russia. What measures need to be taken in order to do something about that situation?

A: Understood. A mobilization economy creates a system in which there isn’t an acute gap between poor and rich. A mobilized system will eliminate it in one way or another. What is meant by a mobilization economy? For example, Lilia Shevtsova, a pro-Western lady at the Carnegie Endowment, she hit the nail on the head when she said with horror: “What? Are they going to foist upon us a mobilization economy again, where everyone will be equal?” She has the correct sense of class distinction regarding what awaits Russia in the case of a mobilization economy.

Q: Two questions. You mentioned that the sanctions they are imposing on Russia are pretty soft. Couldn’t this be a kind of trap, in order that Russia gets involved in Kharkov and Donetsk, after which they introduce some other measures which are very critical for our economy?

A: That’s one of those scenarios. To a large extent, the West provoked our entry into Czechoslovakia by saying: “Under no circumstances will we send our forces.” However, there is one problem which severely limits the possibility of a military intervention by us in East and South-East Ukraine. The President already established that this could only happen under a UN mandate. Secondly, imagine if the East, South-East became part of Russia. This is a very heavy economic burden. This is not Crimea. It’s a very serious matter. But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t support the East and South-East, and just abandon them to be torn to pieces by the Banderites. And the West would clearly be alarmed and start thinking about other measures. For example, they could try to lower the price of oil. But the winners from a lower oil price would be China. So the Chinese aspect greatly inhibits them. That is the triangle, China-Russia-US. I don’t count the EU. The EU is an economic giant, but politically they are an utter dwarf, absolutely weak. Regarding what’s happening with the economy of the EU: Recently Daniel Estulin, who wrote a book about the Bilderberg Group, was in Moscow. We recorded an interview with him and afterwards had a chat about Europe. I didn’t know, for example, about the level of unemployment in Spain, where he lives. It’s 45%. I had thought 25-30%. Daniel was saying that statistics in Spain are very deceptive. He said generally in Europe statistics are deceptive. For example, someone working once a month is not unemployed. In Spain the situation is staggering. The whole of Southern Europe is a basket case. Hence the rise of the right-wing nationalist parties in Europe, which greatly changes the actual political situation in Europe.

Q: This is a bit off-topic, but I’d like to know. Against the background of events in Ukraine, information came out in passing about Russia’s first-ever military exercises in the Antarctic. I’d like to know your opinion. The second question is related. There exists a legend about a semi-mythical land called Neuschwabenland, to where, according to legend, the Chancellor of the Third Reich evacuated his assets, which is in the Antarctic too. What’s your view? Thank you.

A: That some of the German artifacts, works of art, and money were stashed in the Antarctic, there is no question. This has been written about extensively. The fact that we are conducting military exercises in the Antarctic, I mean in the Arctic, that is excellent. It’s the right thing to do. This territory, without doubt, will become one of the prizes of the 21st century. If we don’t have a global geo-climatic catastrophe. It means that we will have shown the West that we are not giving away the Arctic just like that, it’s our backyard (Fursov seems to be confused here – RB). The more military exercises we conduct, the better, in my view.

Q: 1st question: You said that the West and East of Ukraine are already divided up between the financial elites, the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers. It’s not that they’re divided up. They have their principal interests: one in the East, the other in the West. I was wondering about the economic and political clashes between those families. What position should Russia take? And is that something that could be exploited, or could it just backfire?

A: That’s one of those “what if” questions. Russia’s position in such a scenario should be to exploit the conflict. I don’t think it would backfire on Russia, since we’re not in the 90s any more. The Crimean episode has shown that Russia is a far more serious global player than it was in the 90s. But the basic principle of geo-politics is to exploit conflict. There isn’t really another principle. Obviously, being powerful. Because if you are powerful, then they can shout at you, impose sanctions on you, and that’s all.

Q: Second question. What is the position of the Crimean Tatars and Turkey with regard to the events in Ukraine? Considering, on the one hand, that there is still a battalion of Crimean Tatars in Syria, fighting on the side of the opposition. At some point they will return home, not necessarily together or unharmed, but sooner or later they will return from Syria to Crimea. On the other hand, mass-protests are now taking place in Turkey, which to some degree or other appear to have been orchestrated by the West: one of the opposition leaders is currently in the US. What is the position of Turkey with regard to Ukraine and Crimea? The third question concerns the personal sanctions imposed by the US and EU. The EU imposed personal sanctions against such figures as Surkov, Rogozin. At the same time, the US imposed personal sanctions on Timchenko and other representatives of the financial elite, who support Putin and his political force. Does this not seem to indicate that the EU doesn’t want to look like idiots by promoting certain grievances against Russia, while at the same time the EU is burdened with permanent support for the US in its various escapades.

A: So what’s the question? On that basis, can one say that the EU, although not openly opposed, is not 100% behind the US? The situation is this. In Europe there is an atlanticist, pro-US elite, and there is a pro-European, nationally orientated elite, indeed, quite a lot of them among the European elite. The problem, however, is that the mass-media is controlled by the Atlanticists. That’s why you often get the impression that Europe simply lies down before the US. But that’s not entirely true. Yes, the current European elite is people who look toward Usaia, even considering that they don’t particularly like Usaia. Here their interests greatly differ, i.e. what the EU mostly needs from Ukraine, as I already explained, and what the US needs. Besides, the EU is significantly more dependent on the Russian economy, and for the next 5-6 years they’re not going anywhere. 5-6 years is a good timeframe to prepare for the coming changes. In 1931, Stalin said that the Soviet Union has to progress in 10 years as far as the Western countries have progressed in 100 years. Otherwise 10 years from now they will crush us. 10 years later came the war. In those 10 years the Soviet Union had solved its problems, even in less than 10. in 1937 the Soviet Union reached industrial self-sufficiency vis-a-vis the West. As for Turkey: yes, they have had and will continue to have a significant interest in Crimea. It is a certain hot-bed which they could exploit. But Turkey also has relations with Russia, which they don’t want to jeopardize. And, as we have seen already, problems can be made for Turkey too, which the Syrians and Iranians have successfully done. You know what’s really going on here? Foreign policy, interaction of corporations, states, supra-national structures, it’s a perpetual war, an endless battle. Yes, we will have problems with Turkey, and we will solve them. Certain intellectuals from Tatarstan have begun saying to the Crimean Tatars that they need to solve their problems as follows: The starting point is that Russia is the ‘husband’, Tatarstan is the ‘senior wife’, and the Crimean Tatars are the ‘junior wife’. On that basis they should try to make peace, and so on. Of course, there will be problems. But problems can be solved, more so if the fifth column is purged from the mass-media.

Q: You said they are promoting Slavic russophobia in Ukraine. Was the same done in Poland 100 years earlier? Was that country designed to be Slavic-Russophobic? As Rzeczpospolita (Polish Commonwealth) may have been at some point.

A: Rzeczpospolita, no. It was founded at a time when the West did not regard Russia as a threat at all. Indeed, for the whole of the 16th-17th century there were no major problems. Although at the end of the 16th century the West came up with two concepts for establishing control over Russia. One was the holy Roman Empire. The other was hatched by John Dee in England. One Roman Catholic, one Protestant. Undoubtedly, with the Ukraine crisis in February and Yankovych’s loss of the Maidan, the US, of course, seized upon the situation to put their own people into place, using the Neo-Nazis to break the power structure, so they could get their powerful russophobic state. So, of course, that was the thinking. But clearly it’s not working out yet. Firstly, the state is bankrupt and has no armed forces. Well, they have Yarosh’s Right Sector, against whom people in the East and South-East have taken up arms. The key point here is that in the last month people in the East and South-East have understood what they didn’t yet understand in February: They are coming to kill you. And that has completely changed their view of the situation. Anyone who saw this half-insane Iryna Farion from Lviv, calling for the occupiers to be shot, will understand that it no longer matters what Tymoshenko promises. No-one is going to believe her. You can’t believe these people at all. They are constantly lying in everything they say.

Q: Regarding the Chinese and the Silk Road. Firstly: The Silk Road is intended to be a transportation artery independent of the maritime nations, US and UK. Consequently, could this land-based artery become a catalyst for a future war, as once happened with the Baghdad railway, Berlin- Istanbul- Persian Gulf? Second question: We are living 100 years after the start of WW1. There was this great figure, Otto von Bismarck. How would you characterize his actions through your prism of history? And the third question: Lately we’ve been hearing a lot of interviews with the former head of Nativ, Yaakov Kedmi, who currently commands a lot of popularity. He talks about Russia sending in forces to solve the crisis. Considering what you said about Mossad and Nativ being active in Ukraine, and, as we know, there is no such thing as a “former” intelligence agent, how would you evaluate these statements by Kedmi? Is it a provocation?

A: It’s hard to say what’s going on inside his head. I don’t know. As for the Silk Road, if it were connected to the Trans-Siberian railway, I don’t think it could have the same consequences as the Baghdad railway. Bismark was brilliant for Germany in the 1870s, 1880s. But every politician has their time. And, to be fair to Bismarck, he understood that he had outlived his time. Half a year before he died, he was taken to the Port of Hamburg. He observed the new ships and said: “Yes, we’re now in a completely different era, one which I don’t understand.” Every political figure has their time, where they fit in. It’s rare that a figure belongs in a wider period. They live in their own times, in their own jungle. The expansion of German capital across the world around the turn of the 19th-20th century, was that an intrinsic process, or just done at the whim of the Kaiser? Of course, it was intrinsic. Besides, it wasn’t only the expansion of German capital. With the demographic growth of Germany there was good reason to focus on Lebensraum. A relatively small country in the center of Europe with a huge demographic growth, the place was simply bursting. At the same time, they feared a wave of Slavs, who were multiplying. So there were several factors. The problem of capital was one, of course.

Q: You said that the Rothschilds and Rockefellers are not the highest echelon of economic power. There are Baruchs and others. Can say anything about the higher players? What about any books worth studying?

A: There are no such books. What I was saying about Rothschilds, Rockefellers and Baruchs was a hypothesis. I think I am right, but direct proof will probably never be found. Although, maybe at some point something will come to light. But clearly the global elite has its own particular construction with its own rules and the people who are controlling events, by definition, shouldn’t be seen. The constant distractions reveal that there are real problems and conflicts among the Rothschilds and Rockefellers, which are hidden, and this is part of the truth, but by no means the whole story. Any power structure works like this, and, in principle, that’s how it has to be. We don’t assume that the US ruling class acts and thinks like Obama, or even like Bush, although, of course, Obama and Bush are not equal. That’s a description of the Western ruling class.

Q: I have the impression that the Western elites are the ones mostly controlling the world. Is there any force on the Russian landscape, maybe working with the Chinese or other Asian countries?

A: I understood the question. I never heard of such a force. I don’t think it exists. In the last 300 years Russia’s elite, with the exception of a short, Soviet, period, never played at geo-politics. If I’m wrong, then I’ll be happy, if we have our own hidden global elite. But I don’t sense their presence, I can’t put my finger on them. So I doubt very much that they exist. Besides, our elite never had time to develop into global players. Russia’s pre-revolution elite never controlled the global flow of capital. They lost the global infowar. Because they were reacting. There was a period when we were not simply acting reactively: from 1925 up to the Cuban missile crisis. After that came the reactive era, exemplified by the events of 1968. So no, I’m afraid not. Maybe they’ll appear one day.

Q: Continuing from the previous question, what about the shift of power from Yeltsin to Putin? Who are behind Putin? Assuming Yeltsin was a protégé of the West, then Putin came along and thus began the strengthening of Russia.

A: I don’t know who’s behind Putin. But that’s like the question, who was behind Stalin. Stalin came to power as the heir of Lenin. But by 1939 the Leninist Guard had completely disappeared. Who was behind Stalin? You see, Stalin was self-made in very favorable conditions. There was a battle in which you either lose and die, or you win. And in that a number of forces came together. Of course, we know who was behind Trotsky: that was the globalist left and, partly, International Finance. The people behind Stalin, well, I would formulate the hypothesis, that it was people from the intelligence and counter-intelligence of Imperial Russia, who were working very hard, and without whom Stalin would have had great difficulty solving the problems he did. Do you mean the social forces behind Putin?

Q: No, I mean, maybe there is some elite?

A: I don’t have the impression that there is a powerful elite behind Putin. If there were, then that powerful elite would have acted more firmly. But as he acts very carefully, that demonstrates that he’s playing a tricky game. When someone has powerful people behind them … Look at Obama. There are certain clans behind him. Another matter is that there are powerful, opposing clans. It’s clear from Obama, that the people behind him, as was said by Legolas in the film based on Tolkien’s work: “They are driven by ill-will.” It’s clear that an ill-will is driving Obama. And that certain financial groups are behind him. And who was behind the Bushes, that’s absolutely clear. The Russian, or rather Soviet, elite was basically backed by the Communist Party and the Soviet people. Then all of that disappeared. I think our elite is still forming. Incidentally, any elite will form most effectively during a crisis. So I very much hope that the crisis with the West will enable a certain part of our elite to form, and that they will not be defeatist, like the elite of the ’90s, but a completely different one.

Q: You mentioned Yellowstone. Firstly, how likely is this to happen in the next 1-2 years, according to your information? Secondly, what are the issues and by whom could they be resolved?

A: I first heard about the Yellowstone super-volcano in the 1960s. I was reading an article about the national park in the journal “Science and Life”, throughout which it was said that people visiting this wonderful national park have no idea it could blow at any moment. According to information from the Internet and from some geophysicists I spoke to, an eruption of this super-volcano is inevitable some time in the period 2016 – 2074. This is 1000 atomic bombs. The last massive eruption of this sort was in the year 545 AD. That was an eruption of a super-volcano the equivalent of 100 atom bombs, located between Sumatra and Java (Mindanao – RB), which evidently had been one island. As a result of the eruption, according to Byzantine and Chinese chronicles, ash clouds hung over the earth for 18 months. After the rain fell, the harvests failed. Basically this geo-climatic instability was what finished off the ancient world. Very noteworthy is the fact that it weakened the Byzantine empire and Iran. I agree with researchers who say that Islam arose… The rise of Islam began in the 7th century, and ended in the middle of the 8th century, in 737 AD, at the Battle of Poitiers (Battle of Tours), where the Arab advance was stopped at the Western frontier, and the Battle of Talas in 751, when the Turks and Arabs routed the Chinese. But that was a Pyrrhic victory, as the Arabs couldn’t advance any further. The year 750 marked the end of the geo-climatic instability in Eurasia. The expansion of Islam generally coincided with that period of geo-climatic instability. Such were the consequences of an eruption equivalent to only 100 atom bombs.

What will 1,000 atom bombs mean? We really have no idea. What’s clear is that it will not eliminate all life on the planet. But paradoxically, it could solve for the Western elite the problem which they have been unable to solve. Global population reduction is the primary goal of the Western elite. An 80% reduction. Not as low as 1 billion. They still need people to work. In this context they only have to worry about bunkers, where people can live 5-7 years. After that they will emerge and carry on. So this could be the solution. However, the eruption could be such that bunkers don’t help. The Bubonic Plague, the Black Death in the middle of the 14th century consumed not only the commoners, but also the elite. AIDS consumes not only the commoners, but also the elite. It’s hard to run away from a boomerang the size of an asteroid. Clearly, the eruption of the Yellowstone super-volcano will totally change the trajectory of civilization, because in the cold… By the way, who has read books by Sergey Tarmashev? His latest series of novels is called “Cold”. I can warmly recommend them. He’s a spetsnaz commando, writes brilliant novels. Although, of course, the books by Oleg Markeev and Gera are more exciting. But I strongly recommend Tarmashev. You see, in the cold, capitalism is impossible. Only a mobilization economy is possible in the cold, with a solid hierarchical structure, and very firm control over the distribution of resources. Only a few will decide over ownership, authority, and many other things.

The eruption of this super-volcano, if it happens, will bring very material changes. Because if the temperature drops by 15-20°C, I don’t think it will drop by 50°C, as some geologists are saying, that would be too steep, but 15-20°C is plenty. No-one will remain unaffected. What will that mean for the Anglo-Saxon elite’s project to relocate? Then that project is suspended. That project is for when the Gulf-stream ceases. However, the gulf-stream could cease significantly earlier than the super-volcano blows. We’re entering a crisis environment with so many unknown variables. You had prepared for one outcome, rolled the dice, and it came out differently. But I have no doubt that the Western elite are seriously preparing for Yellowstone. Information has already come out on the Internet that Usaians are negotiating with the government of South Africa about allocation of a reserve in their territory, for which they will pay $10b/yr. South Africa is a wonderful place with a great climate, not too hot, kind of like the US. Same as Uruguay, Paraguay, South Brazil, Argentina, a bit away from the equator. This information which has come out is sensational. But notice that not much is being said or written about it. Because it’s rather frightening information, which could trigger panic. So this could completely change the situation. Far from everyone has options for handling this crisis. So, once again, this could solve a few of the elite’s problems. It could eliminate the problems of the elite, but it could eliminate the elite too, while other people survive: the Joker pops out.

Q: What do you think is the probability that a climatic catastrophe in Yellowstone will be provoked artificially, for example, by placing some kind of bomb there, so that it happens at a planned moment?

A: No. Because the Yellowstone super-volcano is such a powerful thing. According to my information, no means exist which could trigger the Yellowstone super-volcano. Moreover, this is a very dangerous game. Supposing it strikes in a different direction? No… That’s what they call Russian Roulette.

Q: Going back to Ukraine: why was Firtash detained in Vienna?

A: I’m not going to attempt to answer that one, because that would require very detailed knowledge about his dealings: what are his dealings in Russia, what are his dealings with the Rothschilds. What is clear is that Firtash is no friend of Citizen Tymoshenko. Apart from that, it’s a question requiring inside information. Maybe the intelligence services have such information. I haven’t. It’s clear that the issue du jour in Ukraine is federalization, which is, roughly speaking, Plan A. What could be Plan B, if federalization isn’t achieved? No federalization means civil war. It might smolder or flare up. What is clear is that the East and South-East will not lay down their arms. What will help is good people and weapons. What could the Banderites do? Obviously, they’re going to send in their private armies, who are already in place. There could be Albanian mercenaries too. But there are various means with which to respond to that.

Q: Is the Transnistria scenario possible in Ukraine?

A: I don’t know. Transnistria is a small, compact region. Eastern Ukraine is a huge territory, an industrial region. It’s not the same thing. We’re not talking about Abkhasia, Ossetia. And this will be decided not only in Ukraine. It’s good that Russian people in Eastern Ukraine have decided to fight to the death. But a lot depends on what deal is struck by the global players. Of course, the best would be federalization and no civil war. But the junta will never accept federalization, because it would mean they’re finished. However, their masters could decide: let’s get rid of these idiots, and reach some other kind of arrangement. “OK, it didn’t work out for now (like in Syria), so we’ll retreat and continue working on it.” Moreover, the West is in an unfavorable situation, contemplating the phenomenon of Putin, which they didn’t anticipate. Russia presented them with something of a surprise. It once again illustrates that they’re right to fear Russia. Because something can always happen which doesn’t fit their templates. We have this situation, where, on the one hand, we are told that forces will only be sent in under a UN mandate, while on the other hand it was announced that if the bloodshed begins, Russia will not stand idly by. And a third aspect is that our position is never supported in the UNSC. Whatever Vitaly Churkin tries to submit for discussion by the UNSC, he always remains isolated representing Russia and the international community doesn’t support us. So they don’t support us. So what? We’re not here to be liked by the international community. But having made the announcement that forces will only be sent in under a UN mandate, if the situation on the ground then becomes critical…. I repeat, there are many other means. During the Suez Crisis of 1956, Khrushchev informed the Anglo-French and Israelis that the Soviet Union will not get involved, unless, of course, someone is threatening to use nuclear weapons. However, he did say: “We cannot guarantee that there won’t be tens of thousands of volunteers who come to save their fellow Arabs. As a state we won’t be doing anything. They will be volunteers.” I repeat, there are all kinds of possibilities. I know people here, who fought in Serbia. It’s clear that, at this stage at least, NATO troops will not launch a military aggression. The war will be fought using private armies. There are always ways to respond to private armies. The main thing, in case of a clash with mercenaries, is to apply a very strict rule: No prisoners will be taken.

Q: A very conspiratorial question: Considering the supremacy of information in today’s world, a question about the plane which crashed in Malaysia, interestingly enough, at the peak of the Crimean events and was finally forgotten about on the very day when sanctions were announced against Russia. Maybe it wasn’t an accident?

A: Firstly, we don’t know whether it crashed, or it landed. Secondly, I think it was really just coincidence that it happened during the Crimean events. But I think there is a very devious story behind that airplane. I saw a few interesting publications on the Internet. None of them explains the situation satisfactorily. What made the biggest impression on me was the list of patents of the 20 engineers who were on board. It is strange that all 20 of them were together, of course. In the publication I examined, their list of patents was remarkable: military sphere, nuclear sphere, controlling people’s psychology. These 20 people on board who disappeared are a treasure for any trans-national corporation or large state. Supposing they were forced to work, or, conversely, not allowed to land: that’s a serious incident. Also notice how suddenly everyone was rushing to search for this plane. They were like bursting veins to find this plane. So I can’t say anything about the plane. It’s a very shady story. Maybe some day we’ll find out.

Q: In Crimea there are over 10,000 soldiers who have sworn allegiance to the Ukrainian Republic. Would it be possible to use this army under the command of President Yanukovych?

A: Not sure. It would be a good maneuver. Legally speaking, I think that’s entirely possible. The issue is a practical one: how would that work? Legally I don’t see any obstacle. Would that army be Russian or Ukrainian? Obviously for the West they would be Russian from the word go. From a legal point of view, of course, it would be… We still regard Yanukovych as the President of Ukraine. So for us that’s the Ukrainian army. In other words, the position is this: The West doesn’t recognize Yanukovych, they recognize the junta. We don’t recognize the junta, we recognize Yanukovych. The matter will be settled by whoever is stronger. I want to stress that those soldiers did not swear allegiance to Russia. Indeed, that’s very good. That was a very intelligent move. 10,000 soldiers and officers could absolutely solve the Ukraine problem. They would have no difficulty putting down the Right Sector.

Q: Andrey, you said Ukraine is not a viable state outside the framework of the Soviet project. At the same time they do have a decent economic potential: agriculture, and manufacturing from the Soviet era. Any comments?

A: The thing is that it was all integrated into the Soviet Union. Alone, Ukraine cannot exist. Some of those connections remain, but many have been severed. Ukraine as such can only be of interest to the West for raw materials, women’s bodies, and organs for sale. It could only function normally as part of the Soviet industrial complex. What happened in the 1930s? At the end of the 20s, beginning of the 30s, how many manufacturing hubs were there? Three: Birmingham, Pennsylvania, and I forgot the third. Then suddenly at the end of the 1930s: the Donetsk-Dnepropetrovsk region and Urals-Siberia. This is a very powerful region, but entirely orientated toward the Soviet Union and built within that framework. The Soviet Union collapsed and under the system which arose in Ukraine, which is not Russia, all of that went to ruin. Now Belarus, which has a completely different socio-political system… Belarus is a much poorer country in terms of resources, population, opportunities. But compare Kiev and Minsk. The aura in these cities is different. As it happened, last summer I went to Kiev to make a film at Poroshenko’s Channel 5, a film about the future, and in Belarus I gave a lecture. Of course, Minsk doesn’t look as classy, there’s no Khreschatik. Minsk is a clean city. You can breath freely. But in Kiev… You know, I’m very thick-skinned. Nevertheless, I couldn’t escape this uncomfortable sense of something in the air. Even the central part was a bit neglected and dirty. So that’s the difference.

Q: A wider question: regarding the Customs Union and entry into the WTO in the context of events in Ukraine and the so-called sanctions. There are contradictions between WTO and the Customs Union, which could impede the goals of Belarus, Russia and Kazakhstan. What do you think will happen next? What are the prospects for the Customs Union?

A: The thing is that large territories will inherently integrate. Northern Eurasia has always been integrated, either by the Russian empire or by the Soviet one. Not because the Czar or the Bolsheviks so decided. There is just an inherent logic in the evolution of large territories. Either they integrate, or else some foreign predators will move in and seize control. The fact that Northern Eurasia for a long time existed within the framework of the monarchical Russia, then the Soviet Union, was inevitable. I think the process of re-integration will progress, especially as our relations with the West become more aggravated. Exactly how it will come about, I don’t know. The process won’t be easy. But there is no alternative to re-integration. I have no doubt about that. The only thing which can oppose the globalist system is large empire-like formations. Don’t be alarmed by the word “empire”. I’m not talking about “empires”, but empire-like formations. What’s needed is a population of 250-300 million, a very strong military-industrial complex, a strong security service, strong army, and a strong scientific establishment, consisting not of “Professor Zubov” types, but other people. How long will be the process of re-integration? Recall, the Soviet Union re-integrated certain territory and established the socialist framework, in the course of which they went beyond the perimeter of their zone. I think the integration of Western Ukraine into the Soviet Union was a mistake. There’s no point in swallowing what you cannot digest. They should have given Western Ukraine to Poland. Let them love each other. They have all kinds of relations between them. Including the Volyn massacre. So let them develop their relations. Absorbing Western Ukraine was a bad idea. I do understand Stalin’s geo-political thinking. Tactically it made sense, but strategically it turned out to be a mistake. Of course, it’s easy for us to judge, with hindsight. Oftentimes you find that what seems right today turns out to be wrong in the long term. The alternative to re-integration is very simple, I think: The territory will be seized by trans-national corporations, calling themselves the “international community”. So either we re-integrate and be our own masters, or else a very different set of people will move in and be our masters. So it’s time for “Strong Armor and Fast Tanks” (ref: 1938 song, “Tankmen’s March”)

Q: Why the so slow progress toward re-integration? 17 types of agreement on the Customs Union have been signed. Not one of them has been ratified.

A: Correct. They can sign anything. As I said: it’s a slow and difficult process. Particularly within the bureaucracy the process is very difficult. Moreover, far from everyone who has remained in the bureaucracy under the legacy of Yeltsinism is burning to put their life into re-integration. Repeat: it will be a slow and difficult process. But maybe the current situation is a blessing in disguise, which could accelerate the process. The role of Obama in this process was highlighted in some images which appeared on the Internet. In particular I liked the one with the vicious face of Tymoshenko, where she is saying: “We shall return Crimea!” Alongside is an image of Putin, saying: “Thanks. You’ve returned Crimea. Now return the rest!”

Q: What’s the thinking of this or that political elite, establishing a re-integration process, considering that in the history of the world no integration project has been based on economic wisdom? Meaning: “Now we are partners, so let’s trade with each other.” What about the EU? You think that was only a political project?

A: Sure, the political and military dimensions have been racing ahead, but there was an economic basis. There was a cultural aspect too. I wouldn’t overstate the significance of culture, race, and so on. For example, nothing stood in the way of the Germans. They declared the Japanese to be respected Aryans, and the Russians, subhuman. Even though Russians are white and Japanese are not. So there’s no need to overstate the cultural factor, although it does play a big part. Economics was a big part in the creation of the EU. As evidenced by the fact that the EU is now an economic player to a greater extent than it is a political player.

Q: Don’t you think that differences have emerged between on the one hand the Atlanticist-Brussels bureaucracy and on the other hand the industrial capital of Germany-France? And they will continue to diverge. What will that lead to?

A: I think that de facto the EU will quickly evolve into something rather different. There will be a core: the empire of Charlemagne, i.e. France, Germany, Northern Italy. As for the rest, well, off they go. There will be a growing split. But the split between the Atlanticist elite and the industrial capital is not the most serious issue. There is something more dramatic. The population mass from Asia, Africa and Latin America, young, poor, mostly Muslims. Versus the established, comfortable population, who are unable to preserve their racial, cultural or religious identity, They see it as a free for all. That’s a far more serious issue. A friend of mine who lives in the West, a serious, analytical type, he has a 16-year old child from his first marriage, and a 6-year old from his second. In his opinion, the 16-year old, sadly, will be the last generation of humans in the West. The 6-year old will be micro-chipped, connected up to computers, and so on. This is another problem in the West, which you won’t find here, because we always break things and drink too much (and thank goodness), nor among Latin-Americans, Africans or Arabs. Sadly, an experiment is being conducted on the white race. By the way, I strongly recommend you read the book by Richard Fuerle, “Erectus Walks Amongst Us: The Evolution of Modern Humans.” It’s on sale here, translated into Russian. Unfortunately, I missed it. But it was recommended to me by a psychiatrist from a very serious private organization. For them it’s an essential reference work.

About Putin and related questions, mobilization economy, etc: An aggressive anti-Stalin campaign has recently been rolled out in the West, equating him to…. It’s anti-Russian. You see, any criticism of the Soviet Union and Stalin is fundamentally criticism of Russia. Under the surface of every anti-Soviet is a russophobe. I’ve noticed recently people in Russia are recalling Stalin, in the spirit of: “Remember Stalin, those were the good times, everything was great.” In parallel there is a campaign in the West. Well, you know why they are doing that. Look. The objectives of the current Western elite are reminiscent of the objectives of the Nazi Third Reich. The new Prime Minister of France, Manuel Valls, for instance, that’s an interesting figure. I strongly recommend you visit the website of the Strategic Culture Foundation and read the article by Olga Chetverikova. He called for the word ‘socialism’ to be abandoned, as it “recalls 19th-century ideas”. Now we have neo-liberal economics. What is clear is that the only successful alternative to the globalist neo-liberal project is the Soviet project, which is identified with Stalin. So they had to equate that project with Hitler, i.e. hide a Hitler within Stalin. In 10-20 years they’ll be depicting Hitler as a victim of Stalinism! Remember that the Third Reich was a joint project of the West. He was solving their problems for them. Why do you think Hjalmar Schacht was writing letters to European bankers in 1930 to gain their support for Hitler? He wrote:

Hitler will do something very important: he will destroy the nation-states of Europe. We will have a Venice the size of Europe.

Indeed, Hitler did create the first European union, cutting into the Soviet Union along the way, but then we finished him off. Hitler is much closer to Europeans than is Stalin. Again, Stalin represented simultaneously systematic anti-capitalism and a strong Russia. Three times Stalin foiled the Globalists’ plans to eliminate Russia. Firstly, he finished off the “World Revolution” project and established the “Red Empire” under the concept ‘Socialism in One Country.’ Next, he crushed Hitler. And thirdly, in the early 1950s we produced the first bomb, the second bomb… Not many people know this: the first H-bomb test was scheduled for Mar 5 1953. But they weren’t ready and it took place much later. So the West had to take into consideration everything that we had built up. That’s why they needed forty years to establish here the forces wanting to break up the Soviet Union. That wasn’t just Gorbachev and a couple of figures around him. It was a whole stratum of people seeking to gain from its dissolution. So it’s clear why they feel the way they do about Stalin. Equally clear is the perspective of those in Russia who regard the Stalin era as the peak of the country’s might. But there’s no point in idealizing or demonizing Stalin. Remember that when Kissinger became the US Sec State, he was asked: “Will you repeat the mistakes of your predecessors?” He said: “Certainly not. We will make our own mistakes.” Stalin made plenty of his own mistakes, as any political figure does.

What’s the conclusion? The Stalin era was the peak of Russia’s power, under whatever name the country has been known. Recall what Brzezinski said: “Whatever it’s called, it’s still Russia.” The natural instinct of normal, sensible people, particularly when comparing the Stalin era with the Yeltsin period, is: It’s clear where rapid progress was made and where it clearly wasn’t. Regarding Ukraine I recommended everyone read the material by Vladimir Matveev. You’ll understand why he’s being threatened by Mossad and by the Ukrainian oligarchs. This is a very serious guy. Vladimir Matveev. Look him up on the Internet. He has tons of material. For those interested in Europe, the white race, and so on, check out the book by Richard Fuerle, “Erectus Walks Amongst Us: The Evolution of Modern Humans.” Basically a monkey in a topper. With Obama currently being US President that’s not something we’re even able to joke about. Irina Rodnina supposedly published an image of Obama with a banana, and people made a big deal out of it. But I like Obama’s disposition. When he met with Yatsenyuk and reluctantly reached out his hand without eye contact, the look on his face was like the renunciation of Napoleon at Fontainebleau. Clearly things were not progressing as they were supposed to. We will see. Anyway I’m very pleased that I was wrong. To be honest, at the beginning of February I didn’t think we could strike such a blow in defending our interests. But we did. And how great, I lived to see that day!

———

Both hours in one video: Lecture + Questions (with a few typos corrected in the 1st hour):

Battlefield Ukraine. Andrey Fursov (2hr 18min)