russia-insider--2020-12-22--Russia's New Nukes Check-Mate a War-Happy US, Make the World Safer

This article from our archives was first published on RI in March 2018 Orlov is one of our favorite essayists on Russia and all sorts of other things .
He moved to the US as a child , and lives in the Boston area .
He is one of the better-known thinkers The New Yorker has dubbed 'The Dystopians ' in an excellent 2009 profile , along with James Howard Kunstler , another regular contributor to RI ( archive ) .
These theorists believe that modern society is headed for a jarring and painful crack-up .
He is best known @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American collapse ( he thinks America 's will be worse ) .
He is a prolific author on a wide array of subjects , and you can see his work by searching him on Amazon .
He has a large following on the web , and on Patreon , and we urge you to support him there , as Russia Insider does .
His current project is organizing the production of affordable house boats for living on .
He lives on a boat himself .
If you have n't discovered his work yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ archive of articles on RI .
They are a real treasure , full of invaluable insight into both the US and Russia and how they are related .
A lot of people seem to have lost the thread when it comes to nuclear weapons .
They think that nuclear weapons are like other weapons , and are designed to be used in war .
But this is pure mental inertia .
According to all the evidence available , nuclear weapons are anti-weapons , designed to prevent weapons , nuclear or otherwise , from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used correctly , nuclear weapons are war suppression devices .
Of course , if used incorrectly , they pose a grave risk to all life on Earth .
There are other risks to all life on Earth as well , such as runaway global warming from unconstrained burning of hydrocarbons ; perhaps we need to invent a weapon or two to prevent that as well .
Some people feel that the mere existence of nuclear weapons guarantees that they will be used as various nuclear-armed countries find themselves financially , economically and politically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this , they trot out the dramaturgical principle of Chekhov ’ s Gun .
Anton Chekhov wrote : “ Если вы говорите в первой главе , что на стене висит ружье , во второй или третьей главе оно должно непременно выстрелить .
А если не будет стрелять , не должно и висеть.
» ” [ “ If you say in Act I that there is a gun hanging on the wall , then it is a must that in Act II or III it be fired .
And if it won ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t have been hung there in the first place.
” ] And if you point out that we are talking about military strategy and geopolitics , not theater , they then quote Shakespeare ’ s “ All the world 's a stage , And all the men and women merely players ; They have their exits and their entrances… ” and believe that it is QED .
Now , I happen to agree wholeheartedly with Chekhov , when it comes to dramaturgy , and I agree with the Bard as well , provided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ the world of theater , ” from which the worlds of geopolitics and nuclear physics are both dramatically different .
Let me explain it in terms that a drama major would understand .
If there is a nuclear bomb hanging on the wall in Act I , then , chances are , it will still be hanging on that wall during the final curtain call .
In the meantime , no matter how many other weapons are present on stage during the play , you can be sure that none of them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be , but then the entire audience would be dead , in which case you should definitely ask for your money back because this was billed as a family-friendly show .
Back in the real world , it is hard to argue that nukes haven ’ t been useful as deterrents against both conventional and nuclear war .
When the Americans dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki , they only did this because they could do so with complete impunity .
Had Japan , or an ally of Japan , possessed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attacks would not have taken place .
There is a considerable body of opinion that the Americans didn ’ t nuke Japan in order to secure a victory ( the Japanese would have surrendered regardless ) but to send a message to Joseph Stalin .
Stalin got the message , and Soviet scientists and engineers got cracking .
There was an uncomfortable period , before the USSR successfully tested their first atomic bomb , when the Americans were seriously planning to destroy all major Soviet cities using a nuclear strike , but they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they didn ’ t have enough nukes at the time to keep the Red Army from conquering all of Western Europe in retaliation .
But in August 29 , 1949 , when the USSR tested its first atomic bomb , these plans were set aside—not quite permanently , it would later turn out—because even a singular nuclear detonation as a result of a Soviet response to an American first strike , wiping out , say , New York or Washington , would have been too high a price to pay for destroying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ period between 2002 and two days ago—the ability of nuclear weapons to deter military aggression has remained unquestioned .
There were some challenges along the way , but they were dealt with .
The Americans saw it fit to threaten the USSR by placing nuclear missiles in Turkey ; in response , the USSR placed nuclear missiles in Cuba .
The Americans didn ’ t think that was fair , and the result was the Cuban Missile Crisis .
Eventually the Americans were prevailed upon to stand down in Turkey , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threat to the deterrent power of nuclear weapons was the development of anti-ballistic weapons that could shoot down nuclear-tipped missiles ( just the ballistic ones ; more on that later ) .
But this was widely recognized to be a bad thing , and a major breakthrough came in 1972 , when the USA and the USSR signed the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty .
Over this entire period , the principle that kept the peace was Mutual Assured Destruction : neither side would provoke the other to the point of launching a nuclear strike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be suicidal .
The two sides were reduced to fighting a series of proxy wars in various countries around the world , which were so much the worse for it , but there was no danger of these proxy conflicts erupting into a full-scale nuclear conflagration .
In the meantime , everybody tried to oppose nuclear proliferation , preventing more countries from obtaining access to nuclear weapons technology—with limited success .
The cases where these efforts failed testify to the effective deterrent value of nuclear weapons .
Saddam Hussein of Iraq didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mass destruction ” and ended up hung .
Muammar Qaddafi of Libya voluntarily gave up his nuclear program , and ended up tortured to death .
But Pakistan managed to acquire nuclear weapons , and as a result its relations with its traditional nemesis India have become much more polite and cooperative , to the point that in June of 2017 both became full members of Shanghai Cooperation Organization , along with China , Russia and other Eurasian nations .
And then North Korea has made some breakthroughs with regard to nuclear bombs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ result of that the US has been reduced to posturing and futile threats against it while South Korea has expressed some newfound respect for its northern neighbor and is now seeking rapprochement .
In 2002 the prospect of continued nuclear deterrence was set a major setback when the US pulled out of the ABM treaty .
Russia protested this move , and promised an asymmetrical response .
American officials ignored this protest , incorrectly thinking that Russia was finished as a nuclear power .
Since then , the Americans spent prodigious amounts of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballistic missile defense system .
Their goal was simple : make it possible to launch a first strike on Russia , destroying much of its nuclear arsenal ; then use the new American ABM systems to destroy whatever Russia does manage to launch in response .
On February 2 , 2018 the Americans decided that they were ready , and issued a Nuclear Posture Review in which they explicitly reserved the right to use nuclear weapons to prevent Russia from using its nuclear deterrent .
And then , two days ago , all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when Vladimir Putin gave a speech in which he unveiled several new weapons systems that completely negate the value of US missile defense shield—among other things .
That was the response the Russians promised to deliver when the US pulled out of the ABM treaty in 2002 .
Now , 16 years later , they are done .
Russia has rearmed with new weapons that have rendered the ABM treaty entirely irrelevant .
The ABM treaty was about ballistic missiles—once that are propelled by rockets that boost the missile to close to escape @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a ballistic trajectory—just like an artillery shell or a bullet .
That makes its path easy to calculate and the missile easy to intercept .
The US missile defense systems rely on the ability to see the missile on radar , calculate its position , direction and velocity , and to launch a missile in response in such a way that the two trajectories intersect .
When they cross , the interceptor missile is detonated , knocking out the attacking missile .
None of the new Russian weapons follow ballistic trajectories .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ B ” —it maneuvers throughout its flight path and can fly through the atmosphere rather than popping up above it .
It has a short boost phase , making it difficult to intercept after launch .
It has the range to fly arbitrary paths around the planet—over the south pole , for instance—to reach any point on Earth .
And it carries multiple maneuverable hypersonic nuclear-armed reentry vehicles which no existing or planned missile defense system can intercept .
Among other new weapons unveiled two days ago was a nuclear-powered cruise missile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ faster than Mach 10 , and a nuclear-powered drone submarine which can descend to much larger depths than any existing submarine and moves faster than any existing vessel .
There was also a mobile laser cannon in the show , of which very little is known , but they are likely to come in handy when it comes to frying military satellites .
All of these are based on physical principles that have never been used before .
All of these have passed testing and are going into production ; one of them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ duty in the Russian armed forces .
The Russians are now duly proud of their scientists , engineers and soldiers .
Their country is safe again ; Americans have been stopped in their tracks , their new Nuclear Posture now looking like a severe case of lordosis .
This sort of pride is more important than it would seem .
Advanced nuclear weapons systems are a bit like secondary sexual characteristics of animals : like the peacock ’ s tail or the deer ’ s antlers or the lion ’ s mane , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vigor of a specimen that has plenty of spare energy to expend on showy accessories .
In order to be able to field a hypersonic nuclear-powered cruise missile with unlimited range , a country has to have a healthy scientific community , lots of high-powered engineers , a highly trained professional military and a competent security establishment that can keep the whole thing secret , along with an industrial economy powerful and diverse enough to supply all of the necessary materials , processes and components with zero reliance on imports .
Now that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new confidence and competence can be turned to civilian purposes .
So far , the Western reaction to Putin ’ s speech has closely followed the illogic of dreams which Sigmund Freud explained using the following joke : 1 .
I never borrowed a kettle from you 2 .
I returned it to you unbroken 3 .
It was already broken when I borrowed it from you .
A more common example is a child ’ s excuse for not having done her homework : I lost it ; my dog ate it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was assigned .
In this case , Western commentators have offered us the following : 1 .
There are no such weapons ; Putin is bluffing 2 .
These weapons exist but they don ’ t really work 3 .
These weapons work and this is the beginning of a new nuclear arms race Taking these one at a time : 1 .
Putin is not known to bluff ; he is known for doing exactly what he says he will do .
He announced that Russia will deliver an asymmetric response to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treaty ; and now it has .
2 .
These weapons are a continuation of developments that already existed in the USSR 30 years ago but had been mothballed until 2002 .
What has changed since then was the development of new materials , which make it possible to build vehicles that fly at above Mach 10 , with their skin heating up to 2000ºC , and , of course , dramatic improvements in microelectronics , communications and artificial intelligence .
Putin ’ s statement that the new weapons systems are going into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going into production .
3 .
Most of Putin ’ s speech wasn ’ t about military matters at all .
It was about such things as pay increases , roads , hospitals and clinics , kindergartens , nurseries , boosting retirements , providing housing to young families , streamlining the regulation of small businesses , etc .
That is the focus of the Russian government for the next six years : dramatically improving the standard of living of the population .
The military problem has already been resolved , the arms race @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s defense budget is being reduced , not increased .
Another line of thought in the West was that Putin unveiled these new weapons , which have been in development for 16 years at least , as part of his reelection campaign ( the vote is on March 18 ) .
This is absurd .
Putin is assured of victory because the vast majority of Russians approve of his leadership .
The elections have been about jockeying for a second place position between the Liberal Democrats , led by the old war horse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who have nominated a non-communist oligarch businessman Pavel Grudinin , who has promptly disqualified himself by failing to disclose foreign bank accounts and other improprieties and now appears to have gone into hiding .
Thus , the Communists , who were previously slated for second place , have burned themselves down and Zhirinovsky will probably come in second .
If Americans don ’ t like Putin , then they definitely wouldn ’ t like Zhirinovsky .
Putin is practical and ambivalent about “ our Western partners , ” as he likes to call @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hand , is rather revenge-minded , and seems to want to inflict pain on them .
At the same time , there is now a committee , composed of very serious-looking men and women , who are charged with monitoring and thwarting American meddling in Russian politics .
It seems unlikely that the CIA , the US State Department and the usual culprits will be able to get away with much in Russia .
The age of color revolutions is over , and the regime change train has sailed… all the way back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chance of getting dethroned Ukrainian-style .
Another way to look at the Western reaction to Russia ’ s new weapons is using Elizabeth Kübler-Ross ’ s stages of grief .
We already saw denial ( Putin is bluffing ; weapons do n't work ) and the start of anger ( new arms race ) .
We should expect a bit more anger before moving on to bargaining ( you can have the Ukraine if you stop building Sarmat ) .
Once the response comes back ( “ You broke the Ukraine ; you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we move on to depression ( “ The Russians just don ’ t love us any more !
” ) and , finally , acceptance .
Once the stage of acceptance is reached , here is what the Americans can usefully do in response to Russia ’ s new weapons systems .
First of all , Americans can scrap their ABM systems because they are now useless .
Russia ’ s Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu had this to say about it : « То , что сегодня создаётся в Польше и Румынии , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ в Южной Корее и Японии — этот `` зонтик '' противоракетной обороны , получается , `` дырявый '' .
И не знаю , зачем за такие деньги теперь этот `` зонтик '' им приобретать.
» [ “ What is being built in Poland and Romania , and in Alaska , and is planned in South Korea and Japan—this missile defense ‘ umbrella ’ —turns out to be riddled with holes .
I don ’ t know why they should now buy this ‘ umbrella ’ for so much money.
” ] Secondly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
All it ’ s useful now for now is threatening defenseless nations , but there are much cheaper ways to threaten defenseless nations .
If Americans are still planning to use them to dominate sea lanes and control world trade , then the existence of hypersonic cruise missiles with unlimited range and drone submarines that can lurk at great ocean depths for years make the world ’ s oceans off-limits for American navy ’ s battle groups in the event of any major ( non-nuclear ) escalation because now Russia can destroy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any of their assets or personnel at risk .
Lastly , Americans can pull out of NATO , which has now been shown to be completely useless , dismantle their thousand military bases around the world , and repatriate the troops stationed there .
It ’ s not as if , in light of these new developments , American security guarantees are going to be worth much to anyone , and America ’ s “ allies ” will be quick to realize that .
As far as Russian security guarantees , there is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US , which is increasingly seen as a rogue state—and an ineffectual and blundering one at that—Russia has been scrupulous in adhering to its international agreements and international law .
In developing and deploying its new weapons systems , Russia has not violated any international agreements , treaties or laws .
And Russia has no aggressive plans towards anyone except terrorists .
As Putin put it during his speech , « Мы ни на кого не собираемся нападать и что-то отнимать .
У нас у самих всё есть.
» [ “ We are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over anywhere .
We have everything we need.
” ] I hope that the US doesn ’ t plan to attack anyone either , because , given its recent history , this won ’ t work .
Threatening the whole planet and forcing it to use the US dollar in international trade ( and destroying countries , such as Iraq and Libya , when they refuse ) ; running huge trade deficits with virtually the entire world and forcing reserve banks around the world to buy up US government debt ; leveraging that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( now around a trillion dollars a year ) ; and robbing the entire planet by printing money and spending it on various corrupt schemes—that , my friends , has been America ’ s business plan since around the 1970s .
And it is unraveling before our eyes .
I have the audacity to hope that the dismantling of the American Empire will proceed as copacetically as the dismantling of the Soviet Empire did .
( This is not to say that it won ’ t be humiliating or impoverishing , or that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a huge increase in morbidity and mortality . )
One of my greatest fears over the past decade was that Russia wouldn ’ t take the US and NATO seriously enough and just try to wait them out .
After all , what is there to really to fear from a nation that has over a 100 trillion dollars in unfunded entitlements , that ’ s full of opioid addicts , with 100 million working-age people permanently out of work , with decrepit infrastructure and poisoned national politics ?
And as far as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Germany , which is busy rewriting “ Deutschland , Deutschland , über alles ” to be gender-neutral .
What are they supposed to do next ?
March on Moscow under a rainbow banner and hope that the Russians die laughing ?
Oh , and there ’ s also NATO ’ s largest Eurasian asset , Turkey , which is currently busy slaughtering America ’ s Kurdish assets in Northern Syria .
But simply waiting them out would have been a gamble , because in its death throes the American Empire could have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ am glad that Russia chose not to gamble with its national security .
Now that the US has been safely checkmated using the new Russian weapons systems , I feel that the world is in a much better place .
If you like peace , then it seems like your best option is to also like nukes—the best ones possible , ones against which no deterrent exists , and wielded by peaceful , law-abiding nations that have no evil designs on the rest of the planet .

This article from our archives was first published on RI in March 2018
Orlov is one of our favorite essayists on Russia and all sorts of other things. He moved to the US as a child, and lives in the Boston area.
He is one of the better-known thinkers The New Yorker has dubbed 'The Dystopians' in an excellent 2009 profile, along with James Howard Kunstler, another regular contributor to RI (archive). These theorists believe that modern society is headed for a jarring and painful crack-up.
He is best known for his 2011 book comparing Soviet and American collapse (he thinks America's will be worse). He is a prolific author on a wide array of subjects, and you can see his work by searching him on Amazon.
He has a large following on the web, and on Patreon, and we urge you to support him there, as Russia Insider does.
His current project is organizing the production of affordable house boats for living on. He lives on a boat himself.
If you haven't discovered his work yet, please take a look at his archive of articles on RI. They are a real treasure, full of invaluable insight into both the US and Russia and how they are related.
This man is your friend, he comes in peace
A lot of people seem to have lost the thread when it comes to nuclear weapons. They think that nuclear weapons are like other weapons, and are designed to be used in war. But this is pure mental inertia. According to all the evidence available, nuclear weapons are anti-weapons, designed to prevent weapons, nuclear or otherwise, from being used. In essence, if used correctly, nuclear weapons are war suppression devices. Of course, if used incorrectly, they pose a grave risk to all life on Earth. There are other risks to all life on Earth as well, such as runaway global warming from unconstrained burning of hydrocarbons; perhaps we need to invent a weapon or two to prevent that as well.
Some people feel that the mere existence of nuclear weapons guarantees that they will be used as various nuclear-armed countries find themselves financially, economically and politically in extremis. As “proof” of this, they trot out the dramaturgical principle of Chekhov’s Gun. Anton Chekhov wrote: “Если вы говорите в первой главе, что на стене висит ружье, во второй или третьей главе оно должно непременно выстрелить. А если не будет стрелять, не должно и висеть.»” [“If you say in Act I that there is a gun hanging on the wall, then it is a must that in Act II or III it be fired. And if it won’t be fired, it shouldn’t have been hung there in the first place.”]
And if you point out that we are talking about military strategy and geopolitics, not theater, they then quote Shakespeare’s “All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players; They have their exits and their entrances…” and believe that it is QED. Now, I happen to agree wholeheartedly with Chekhov, when it comes to dramaturgy, and I agree with the Bard as well, provided we define “the world” as “the world of theater,” from which the worlds of geopolitics and nuclear physics are both dramatically different.
Let me explain it in terms that a drama major would understand. If there is a nuclear bomb hanging on the wall in Act I, then, chances are, it will still be hanging on that wall during the final curtain call. In the meantime, no matter how many other weapons are present on stage during the play, you can be sure that none of them would be used. Or maybe they will be, but then the entire audience would be dead, in which case you should definitely ask for your money back because this was billed as a family-friendly show.
Back in the real world, it is hard to argue that nukes haven’t been useful as deterrents against both conventional and nuclear war. When the Americans dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they only did this because they could do so with complete impunity. Had Japan, or an ally of Japan, possessed nuclear weapons at the time, these attacks would not have taken place. There is a considerable body of opinion that the Americans didn’t nuke Japan in order to secure a victory (the Japanese would have surrendered regardless) but to send a message to Joseph Stalin. Stalin got the message, and Soviet scientists and engineers got cracking.
There was an uncomfortable period, before the USSR successfully tested their first atomic bomb, when the Americans were seriously planning to destroy all major Soviet cities using a nuclear strike, but they set these plans aside because they calculated that they didn’t have enough nukes at the time to keep the Red Army from conquering all of Western Europe in retaliation. But in August 29, 1949, when the USSR tested its first atomic bomb, these plans were set aside—not quite permanently, it would later turn out—because even a singular nuclear detonation as a result of a Soviet response to an American first strike, wiping out, say, New York or Washington, would have been too high a price to pay for destroying Russia.
Since then—continuously except for a period between 2002 and two days ago—the ability of nuclear weapons to deter military aggression has remained unquestioned. There were some challenges along the way, but they were dealt with. The Americans saw it fit to threaten the USSR by placing nuclear missiles in Turkey; in response, the USSR placed nuclear missiles in Cuba. The Americans didn’t think that was fair, and the result was the Cuban Missile Crisis. Eventually the Americans were prevailed upon to stand down in Turkey, and the Soviets stood down in Cuba. Another threat to the deterrent power of nuclear weapons was the development of anti-ballistic weapons that could shoot down nuclear-tipped missiles (just the ballistic ones; more on that later). But this was widely recognized to be a bad thing, and a major breakthrough came in 1972, when the USA and the USSR signed the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
Over this entire period, the principle that kept the peace was Mutual Assured Destruction: neither side would provoke the other to the point of launching a nuclear strike, because such a move was guaranteed to be suicidal. The two sides were reduced to fighting a series of proxy wars in various countries around the world, which were so much the worse for it, but there was no danger of these proxy conflicts erupting into a full-scale nuclear conflagration.
In the meantime, everybody tried to oppose nuclear proliferation, preventing more countries from obtaining access to nuclear weapons technology—with limited success. The cases where these efforts failed testify to the effective deterrent value of nuclear weapons. Saddam Hussein of Iraq didn’t have any “weapons of mass destruction” and ended up hung. Muammar Qaddafi of Libya voluntarily gave up his nuclear program, and ended up tortured to death.
But Pakistan managed to acquire nuclear weapons, and as a result its relations with its traditional nemesis India have become much more polite and cooperative, to the point that in June of 2017 both became full members of Shanghai Cooperation Organization, along with China, Russia and other Eurasian nations. And then North Korea has made some breakthroughs with regard to nuclear bombs and ballistic missiles, and as a result of that the US has been reduced to posturing and futile threats against it while South Korea has expressed some newfound respect for its northern neighbor and is now seeking rapprochement.
In 2002 the prospect of continued nuclear deterrence was set a major setback when the US pulled out of the ABM treaty. Russia protested this move, and promised an asymmetrical response. American officials ignored this protest, incorrectly thinking that Russia was finished as a nuclear power. Since then, the Americans spent prodigious amounts of money—well into the trillions of dollars—building a ballistic missile defense system. Their goal was simple: make it possible to launch a first strike on Russia, destroying much of its nuclear arsenal; then use the new American ABM systems to destroy whatever Russia does manage to launch in response. On February 2, 2018 the Americans decided that they were ready, and issued a Nuclear Posture Review in which they explicitly reserved the right to use nuclear weapons to prevent Russia from using its nuclear deterrent.
And then, two days ago, all of that came to a happy end when Vladimir Putin gave a speech in which he unveiled several new weapons systems that completely negate the value of US missile defense shield—among other things. That was the response the Russians promised to deliver when the US pulled out of the ABM treaty in 2002. Now, 16 years later, they are done. Russia has rearmed with new weapons that have rendered the ABM treaty entirely irrelevant.
The ABM treaty was about ballistic missiles—once that are propelled by rockets that boost the missile to close to escape velocity. After that the missile follows a ballistic trajectory—just like an artillery shell or a bullet. That makes its path easy to calculate and the missile easy to intercept. The US missile defense systems rely on the ability to see the missile on radar, calculate its position, direction and velocity, and to launch a missile in response in such a way that the two trajectories intersect. When they cross, the interceptor missile is detonated, knocking out the attacking missile.
None of the new Russian weapons follow ballistic trajectories. The new Sarmat is an ICBM minus the “B”—it maneuvers throughout its flight path and can fly through the atmosphere rather than popping up above it. It has a short boost phase, making it difficult to intercept after launch. It has the range to fly arbitrary paths around the planet—over the south pole, for instance—to reach any point on Earth. And it carries multiple maneuverable hypersonic nuclear-armed reentry vehicles which no existing or planned missile defense system can intercept.
Among other new weapons unveiled two days ago was a nuclear-powered cruise missile which has virtually unlimited range and goes faster than Mach 10, and a nuclear-powered drone submarine which can descend to much larger depths than any existing submarine and moves faster than any existing vessel. There was also a mobile laser cannon in the show, of which very little is known, but they are likely to come in handy when it comes to frying military satellites. All of these are based on physical principles that have never been used before. All of these have passed testing and are going into production; one of them is already being used on active combat duty in the Russian armed forces.
The Russians are now duly proud of their scientists, engineers and soldiers. Their country is safe again; Americans have been stopped in their tracks, their new Nuclear Posture now looking like a severe case of lordosis. This sort of pride is more important than it would seem. Advanced nuclear weapons systems are a bit like secondary sexual characteristics of animals: like the peacock’s tail or the deer’s antlers or the lion’s mane, they are indicative of the health and vigor of a specimen that has plenty of spare energy to expend on showy accessories.
In order to be able to field a hypersonic nuclear-powered cruise missile with unlimited range, a country has to have a healthy scientific community, lots of high-powered engineers, a highly trained professional military and a competent security establishment that can keep the whole thing secret, along with an industrial economy powerful and diverse enough to supply all of the necessary materials, processes and components with zero reliance on imports. Now that the arms race is over, this new confidence and competence can be turned to civilian purposes.
So far, the Western reaction to Putin’s speech has closely followed the illogic of dreams which Sigmund Freud explained using the following joke:
1. I never borrowed a kettle from you
2. I returned it to you unbroken
3. It was already broken when I borrowed it from you.
A more common example is a child’s excuse for not having done her homework: I lost it; my dog ate it; I didn’t know it was assigned.
In this case, Western commentators have offered us the following:
1. There are no such weapons; Putin is bluffing
2. These weapons exist but they don’t really work
3. These weapons work and this is the beginning of a new nuclear arms race
Taking these one at a time:
1. Putin is not known to bluff; he is known for doing exactly what he says he will do. He announced that Russia will deliver an asymmetric response to the US pulling out of the ABM treaty; and now it has.
2. These weapons are a continuation of developments that already existed in the USSR 30 years ago but had been mothballed until 2002. What has changed since then was the development of new materials, which make it possible to build vehicles that fly at above Mach 10, with their skin heating up to 2000ºC, and, of course, dramatic improvements in microelectronics, communications and artificial intelligence. Putin’s statement that the new weapons systems are going into production is an order: they are going into production.
3. Most of Putin’s speech wasn’t about military matters at all. It was about such things as pay increases, roads, hospitals and clinics, kindergartens, nurseries, boosting retirements, providing housing to young families, streamlining the regulation of small businesses, etc. That is the focus of the Russian government for the next six years: dramatically improving the standard of living of the population. The military problem has already been resolved, the arms race has been won, and Russia’s defense budget is being reduced, not increased.
Another line of thought in the West was that Putin unveiled these new weapons, which have been in development for 16 years at least, as part of his reelection campaign (the vote is on March 18). This is absurd. Putin is assured of victory because the vast majority of Russians approve of his leadership. The elections have been about jockeying for a second place position between the Liberal Democrats, led by the old war horse Vladimir Zhirinovsky, and the Communists, who have nominated a non-communist oligarch businessman Pavel Grudinin, who has promptly disqualified himself by failing to disclose foreign bank accounts and other improprieties and now appears to have gone into hiding. Thus, the Communists, who were previously slated for second place, have burned themselves down and Zhirinovsky will probably come in second. If Americans don’t like Putin, then they definitely wouldn’t like Zhirinovsky. Putin is practical and ambivalent about “our Western partners,” as he likes to call them. Zhirinovsky, on the other hand, is rather revenge-minded, and seems to want to inflict pain on them.
At the same time, there is now a committee, composed of very serious-looking men and women, who are charged with monitoring and thwarting American meddling in Russian politics. It seems unlikely that the CIA, the US State Department and the usual culprits will be able to get away with much in Russia. The age of color revolutions is over, and the regime change train has sailed… all the way back to Washington, where Trump stands a chance of getting dethroned Ukrainian-style.
Another way to look at the Western reaction to Russia’s new weapons is using Elizabeth Kübler-Ross’s stages of grief. We already saw denial (Putin is bluffing; weapons don't work) and the start of anger (new arms race). We should expect a bit more anger before moving on to bargaining (you can have the Ukraine if you stop building Sarmat). Once the response comes back (“You broke the Ukraine; you pay to get it fixed”) we move on to depression (“The Russians just don’t love us any more!”) and, finally, acceptance. Once the stage of acceptance is reached, here is what the Americans can usefully do in response to Russia’s new weapons systems.
First of all, Americans can scrap their ABM systems because they are now useless. Russia’s Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu had this to say about it: «То, что сегодня создаётся в Польше и Румынии, создаётся на Аляске и предполагается к созданию в Южной Корее и Японии — этот "зонтик" противоракетной обороны, получается, "дырявый". И не знаю, зачем за такие деньги теперь этот "зонтик" им приобретать.» [“What is being built in Poland and Romania, and in Alaska, and is planned in South Korea and Japan—this missile defense ‘umbrella’—turns out to be riddled with holes. I don’t know why they should now buy this ‘umbrella’ for so much money.”]
Secondly, Americans can scrap their aircraft carrier fleet. All it’s useful now for now is threatening defenseless nations, but there are much cheaper ways to threaten defenseless nations. If Americans are still planning to use them to dominate sea lanes and control world trade, then the existence of hypersonic cruise missiles with unlimited range and drone submarines that can lurk at great ocean depths for years make the world’s oceans off-limits for American navy’s battle groups in the event of any major (non-nuclear) escalation because now Russia can destroy them from an arbitrary distance without putting any of their assets or personnel at risk.
Lastly, Americans can pull out of NATO, which has now been shown to be completely useless, dismantle their thousand military bases around the world, and repatriate the troops stationed there. It’s not as if, in light of these new developments, American security guarantees are going to be worth much to anyone, and America’s “allies” will be quick to realize that. As far as Russian security guarantees, there is a lot on offer: unlike the US, which is increasingly seen as a rogue state—and an ineffectual and blundering one at that—Russia has been scrupulous in adhering to its international agreements and international law. In developing and deploying its new weapons systems, Russia has not violated any international agreements, treaties or laws. And Russia has no aggressive plans towards anyone except terrorists. As Putin put it during his speech, «Мы ни на кого не собираемся нападать и что-то отнимать. У нас у самих всё есть.» [“We are not planning to attack anyone or take over anywhere. We have everything we need.”]
I hope that the US doesn’t plan to attack anyone either, because, given its recent history, this won’t work. Threatening the whole planet and forcing it to use the US dollar in international trade (and destroying countries, such as Iraq and Libya, when they refuse); running huge trade deficits with virtually the entire world and forcing reserve banks around the world to buy up US government debt; leveraging that debt to run up colossal budget deficits (now around a trillion dollars a year); and robbing the entire planet by printing money and spending it on various corrupt schemes—that, my friends, has been America’s business plan since around the 1970s. And it is unraveling before our eyes.
I have the audacity to hope that the dismantling of the American Empire will proceed as copacetically as the dismantling of the Soviet Empire did. (This is not to say that it won’t be humiliating or impoverishing, or that it won’t be accompanied by a huge increase in morbidity and mortality.) One of my greatest fears over the past decade was that Russia wouldn’t take the US and NATO seriously enough and just try to wait them out. After all, what is there to really to fear from a nation that has over a 100 trillion dollars in unfunded entitlements, that’s full of opioid addicts, with 100 million working-age people permanently out of work, with decrepit infrastructure and poisoned national politics? And as far as NATO, there is, of course, Germany, which is busy rewriting “Deutschland, Deutschland, über alles” to be gender-neutral. What are they supposed to do next? March on Moscow under a rainbow banner and hope that the Russians die laughing? Oh, and there’s also NATO’s largest Eurasian asset, Turkey, which is currently busy slaughtering America’s Kurdish assets in Northern Syria.
But simply waiting them out would have been a gamble, because in its death throes the American Empire could have lashed out in unpredictable ways. I am glad that Russia chose not to gamble with its national security. Now that the US has been safely checkmated using the new Russian weapons systems, I feel that the world is in a much better place. If you like peace, then it seems like your best option is to also like nukes—the best ones possible, ones against which no deterrent exists, and wielded by peaceful, law-abiding nations that have no evil designs on the rest of the planet.


russia-insider--2020-12-23--Shale 'Miracle' Is a Retirement Party For the Oil Industry

`` But it ( shale ) was something to do , at least , if you were an oil company — an alternative to 1 ) doing no business at all , or 2 ) getting into some other line-of-work , like making yoga pants or gluten-free cupcakes . ''
This article from our archives was first published on RI in February 2018 The author is a prominent American social critic , blogger , and podcaster , and we carry his articles regularly on RI .
His writing on Russia-gate has been highly entertaining .
He is one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 'The Dystopians ' in an excellent 2009 profile , along with the brilliant Dmitry Orlov , another regular contributor to RI ( archive ) .
These theorists believe that modern society is headed for a jarring and painful crack-up .
You can find his popular fiction and novels on this subject , here .
To get a sense of how entertaining he is , watch this 2004 TED talk about the cruel misery of American urban design - it is one of the most-viewed on TED .
If you like his work , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Editor 's note : Kunstler is an expert on the shale question , which is central to his theory that the gradual drying up of hydrocarbon energy around the world is going to lead to inexorable economic and social upheaval .
It is great to have someone writing about this in a way that not only does n't make ones eyes glaze over , but is actually fun and entertaining .
Shale is also central to Russia 's fortunes .
The Russians invented fracking in the 70s and never implemented the technology because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been very dismissive of it in recent years , arguing that it is a short term phenomenon made possible with ultra-low interest rates and is ultimately economically unsustainable , which coincides with Kunstler 's view .
Should the US shale industry get ship-wrecked on the rocks of rising interest rates , global oil prices will rocket to economy-busting highs again , albeit giving a temporary windfall to low-cost producers like Russia , Iran , and Saudi Arabia .
As of this week , the shale oil miracle launched US oil production above the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million barrels a day .
Techno-rapturists are celebrating what seems to be a blindingly bright new golden age of energy greatness .
Independent oil analyst Art Berman , who made the podcast rounds the last two weeks , put it in more reality-accessible terms : “ Shale is a retirement party for the oil industry.
” It was an impressive stunt and it had everything to do with the reality-optional world of bizarro finance that emerged from the wreckage of the 2008 Great Financial Crisis .
In fact , a look the chart @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shale oil production took off after that milestone year of the long emergency .
Around that time , US oil production had sunk below five million barrels a day , and since we were burning through around twenty million barrels a day , the rest had to be imported .
In June of 2008 , US crude hit $ 144-a-barrel , a figure so harsh that it crippled economic activity — since just about everything we do depends on oil for making , enabling , and transporting stuff .
The price and supply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year 2000 that the US had to desperately engineer a work-around to keep this hyper-complex society operating .
The “ solution ” was debt .
If you can ’ t afford to run your society , then try borrowing from the future to keep your mojo working .
The shale oil industry was a prime beneficiary of this new hyper-debt regime .
The orgy of borrowing was primed by Federal Reserve “ creation ” of trillions of dollars of “ capital ” out of thin air ( QE : Quantitative Easing ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the borrowed money ( ZIRP : Zero Interest Rate Policy ) .
The oil companies were desperate in 2008 .
They were , after all , in the business of producing… oil !
( Duh… . )
— even if a giant company like BP pretended for a while that its initials stood for “ Beyond Petroleum.
” The discovery of new oil had been heading down remorselessly for decades , to the point that the world was fatally short of replacing the oil it used every year with new supply .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the North Sea , and Siberia — had been discovered in the 1960s and we knew for sure that the first two were well past their peaks in the early 2000s .
By 2005 , most of the theoretically producible new oil was in places that were difficult and ultra-expensive to drill in : deep water , for instance , where you need a giant platform costing hundreds of millions of dollars , not to mention armies of highly skilled ( highly paid ) technicians , plus helicopters to service the rigs .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of drilling a “ dry hole ” ) was matched by the environmental risk of a blowout , which is exactly what happened to BP ’ s 2010 Deepwater Horizon platform in the Gulf of Mexico , with costs estimated at $ 61 billion .
Technology — that El Dorado of the Mind — rode to the rescue with horizontal drilling and fracturing of ” tight ” oil-bearing shale rock .
It was tight because of low permeability , meaning the oil didn ’ t flow through it the way it flowed through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had to sink a pipe down , angle it horizontally into a strata of shale only a few meters thick , and then blast it apart with water under pressure and particles of sand or ceramic called propants , the job of which was to hold open those fractures so the oil could be sucked out .
Well , it worked .
The only problem was you couldn ’ t make any money doing it .
The shale oil companies could get plenty of cash-flow going , but it all went to servicing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ financing schemes , and for many of the companies the cash flow wasn ’ t even covering those costs .
It cost at least six million dollars for each shale well , and it was in the nature of shale oil that the wells depleted so quickly that after Year Three they were pretty much done .
But it was something to do , at least , if you were an oil company — an alternative to 1 ) doing no business at all , or 2 ) getting into some other line-of-work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cupcakes .
The two original big shale plays , the Bakken in North Dakota and the Eagle Ford in south Texas , have now apparently peaked and the baton has passed to the Permian Basin in west Texas .
If the first two bonanzas were characteristic of shale , we can look forward not very far into the future when the Permian also craps out .
There are only so many “ sweet spots ” in these plays .
The unfortunate part of the story is that the shale oil miracle only made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in history when we really can ’ t afford to believe in fairy tales .
The financial world is just now entering a long overdue crack-up due to the accumulating unreality induced by Federal Reserve interventions and machinations in markets .
As it continues to get unglued — with rising interest rates especially — we will begin to see the collapse of the bonding and financing arrangements that the fundamentally unprofitable shale “ miracle ” has been based on .
And then you will see the end of the shale “ miracle.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It was fun while it lasted .
Now comes the hard part : getting through this without the nation completely losing its marbles and doing something stupid and desperate — like starting another merry little war .

"But it (shale) was something to do, at least, if you were an oil company — an alternative to 1) doing no business at all, or 2) getting into some other line-of-work, like making yoga pants or gluten-free cupcakes."
This article from our archives was first published on RI in February 2018
The author is a prominent American social critic, blogger, and podcaster, and we carry his articles regularly on RI. His writing on Russia-gate has been highly entertaining.
He is one of the better-known thinkers The New Yorker has dubbed 'The Dystopians' in an excellent 2009 profile, along with the brilliant Dmitry Orlov, another regular contributor to RI (archive). These theorists believe that modern society is headed for a jarring and painful crack-up.
You can find his popular fiction and novels on this subject, here. To get a sense of how entertaining he is, watch this 2004 TED talk about the cruel misery of American urban design - it is one of the most-viewed on TED.
If you like his work, please consider supporting him on Patreon.
Editor's note: Kunstler is an expert on the shale question, which is central to his theory that the gradual drying up of hydrocarbon energy around the world is going to lead to inexorable economic and social upheaval.
It is great to have someone writing about this in a way that not only doesn't make ones eyes glaze over, but is actually fun and entertaining.
Shale is also central to Russia's fortunes. The Russians invented fracking in the 70s and never implemented the technology because it is not profitable. They have been very dismissive of it in recent years, arguing that it is a short term phenomenon made possible with ultra-low interest rates and is ultimately economically unsustainable, which coincides with Kunstler's view.
Should the US shale industry get ship-wrecked on the rocks of rising interest rates, global oil prices will rocket to economy-busting highs again, albeit giving a temporary windfall to low-cost producers like Russia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.
As of this week, the shale oil miracle launched US oil production above the 1970 previous-all-time record at just over ten million barrels a day. Techno-rapturists are celebrating what seems to be a blindingly bright new golden age of energy greatness. Independent oil analyst Art Berman, who made the podcast rounds the last two weeks, put it in more reality-accessible terms: “Shale is a retirement party for the oil industry.”
It was an impressive stunt and it had everything to do with the reality-optional world of bizarro finance that emerged from the wreckage of the 2008 Great Financial Crisis. In fact, a look the chart below shows how exactly the rise of shale oil production took off after that milestone year of the long emergency. Around that time, US oil production had sunk below five million barrels a day, and since we were burning through around twenty million barrels a day, the rest had to be imported.
In June of 2008, US crude hit $144-a-barrel, a figure so harsh that it crippled economic activity — since just about everything we do depends on oil for making, enabling, and transporting stuff. The price and supply of oil became so problematic after the year 2000 that the US had to desperately engineer a work-around to keep this hyper-complex society operating. The “solution” was debt. If you can’t afford to run your society, then try borrowing from the future to keep your mojo working.
The shale oil industry was a prime beneficiary of this new hyper-debt regime. The orgy of borrowing was primed by Federal Reserve “creation” of trillions of dollars of “capital” out of thin air (QE: Quantitative Easing), along with supernaturally low interest rates on the borrowed money (ZIRP: Zero Interest Rate Policy). The oil companies were desperate in 2008. They were, after all, in the business of producing… oil! (Duh….) — even if a giant company like BP pretended for a while that its initials stood for “Beyond Petroleum.”
The discovery of new oil had been heading down remorselessly for decades, to the point that the world was fatally short of replacing the oil it used every year with new supply. The last significant big fields — Alaska, the North Sea, and Siberia — had been discovered in the 1960s and we knew for sure that the first two were well past their peaks in the early 2000s.
By 2005, most of the theoretically producible new oil was in places that were difficult and ultra-expensive to drill in: deep water, for instance, where you need a giant platform costing hundreds of millions of dollars, not to mention armies of highly skilled (highly paid) technicians, plus helicopters to service the rigs. The financial risk (for instance, of drilling a “dry hole”) was matched by the environmental risk of a blowout, which is exactly what happened to BP’s 2010 Deepwater Horizon platform in the Gulf of Mexico, with costs estimated at $61 billion.
Technology — that El Dorado of the Mind — rode to the rescue with horizontal drilling and fracturing of ”tight” oil-bearing shale rock. It was tight because of low permeability, meaning the oil didn’t flow through it the way it flowed through normal oil-bearing rocks like sandstone. You had to sink a pipe down, angle it horizontally into a strata of shale only a few meters thick, and then blast it apart with water under pressure and particles of sand or ceramic called propants, the job of which was to hold open those fractures so the oil could be sucked out. Well, it worked. The only problem was you couldn’t make any money doing it.
The shale oil companies could get plenty of cash-flow going, but it all went to servicing their bonds or other “innovative” financing schemes, and for many of the companies the cash flow wasn’t even covering those costs. It cost at least six million dollars for each shale well, and it was in the nature of shale oil that the wells depleted so quickly that after Year Three they were pretty much done. But it was something to do, at least, if you were an oil company — an alternative to 1) doing no business at all, or 2) getting into some other line-of-work, like making yoga pants or gluten-free cupcakes.
The two original big shale plays, the Bakken in North Dakota and the Eagle Ford in south Texas, have now apparently peaked and the baton has passed to the Permian Basin in west Texas. If the first two bonanzas were characteristic of shale, we can look forward not very far into the future when the Permian also craps out. There are only so many “sweet spots” in these plays.
The unfortunate part of the story is that the shale oil miracle only made this country more delusional at a moment in history when we really can’t afford to believe in fairy tales. The financial world is just now entering a long overdue crack-up due to the accumulating unreality induced by Federal Reserve interventions and machinations in markets.
As it continues to get unglued — with rising interest rates especially — we will begin to see the collapse of the bonding and financing arrangements that the fundamentally unprofitable shale “miracle” has been based on. And then you will see the end of the shale “miracle.” It is likely to happen very quickly. It was fun while it lasted. Now comes the hard part: getting through this without the nation completely losing its marbles and doing something stupid and desperate — like starting another merry little war.


russia-insider--2020-12-22--Vyshny Volochok: An Enchanted Point Between Russia’s Two Capitals

On your way from Moscow to St. Petersburg stop by Vyshny Volochyok to find out why it is sometimes called the `` provincial Venice '' This article from our archives was first published on RI in November 2016 RBTH disclaimer : While being a very charming place to visit , numerous visitors have reported that their visits to Vyshny Volochyok have been ruined due to the enormous traffic jams that can occur here .
An ideal stopping off point between Russia ’ s two largest cities , we recommend that you choose your times of departure carefully if traveling by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vyshny Volochyok is an important dot on the map between Moscow and St. Petersburg .
Prior to the 19th century , the Vyshny Volochyok Waterway connected St. Petersburg with central Russia : Its channels served as cargo lines for all sorts of supplies from food to construction materials .
From the perspective of Russian art , Vyshny Volochyok was a `` place of strength '' for famed artists including Ilya Repin , Isaac Levitan and Arkhip Kuindzhi .
It is the latter half of the 19th century .
Ilya Repin has already completed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Volga .
The artist comes to visit his friend Kokorev , who lived in the vicinity of the small merchant town of Vyshny Volochyok on a peninsula formed by the head of the Msta River and Lake Mstino .
Repin grew very attached to this plot of land .
`` Is n't it the promised land for a landscape painter !
It is the essence of Russia , its soul and its beauty ...
It 's like a song ! ''
he once wrote .
The guides of the Academic Dacha Museum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me a story about Repin dancing on the table , filled with delight upon seeing the scenery of Vyshny Volochyok .
Such connoisseurs of beauty as artist Ilya Repin and philanthropist Andrei Kokorev were the first to notice the advantages of the Vyshny Volochyok District in the north of the Tver Region , which would later play an important part in the Russian and global history of arts and crafts .
A good starting point for a walk around Vyshny Volochyok is the first and the oldest House of Pictorial Art , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Union of Russian Artists since 1884 .
Every year , students of art academies come here to learn traditional Russian scenery painting .
Vyshny Volochyok has taken pride in its waterway for more than two centuries .
In the 18th century during the reign of Peter I , after a lengthy construction and reconstruction process supervised by Dutch and Russian engineers , the Vyshny Volochyok Waterway linked the Volga River with St. Petersburg for the first time .
Today Vyshny Volochyok features about 40 bridges of all sizes , frequented by both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ town the `` Venice of the Russian provinces . ''
If you are traveling around Russia in late fall or in winter , remember to visit a traditional workshop of handmade goods not far from Vyshny Volochyok 's center .
This workshop produces authentic Russian felt boots called `` valenki . ''
Most people wear these boots without socks , even if the temperature drops to -30 Celsius .
The Museum of Russian Valenki Boots , which was launched in 2012 on the occasion of the workshop ’ s 20th anniversary , will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even say that wearing valenki boots lowers your risk of heart attack and other conditions .
Apart from instruments and the felting technology behind this traditional Russian footwear , museum visitors are also shown the astonishing Tsar Valenok ( `` The Royal Felt Boot '' ) , size 201 .
It is 225 centimeters high and weighs 52 kilograms and features decorative felt panels .
With a pair of valenki boots to keep your feet warm , you can continue your tour of cathedrals and bridges , and if you try hard enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Venice .
Six years ago , Vyshny Volochyok even teleported to Venice as part of the Factory Russia Project , which was presented at the 12th Venice Architecture Biennale in 2010 .
A hall dedicated to the 100 year old local factory Parizhskaya Kommuna ( `` Paris Commune '' ) at the local history museum is a harbinger of the changes that are about to occur as the result of a large-scale reconstruction of the factory : The architects plan to build a residential block , a congress center and an art school @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hall .

On your way from Moscow to St. Petersburg stop by Vyshny Volochyok to find out why it is sometimes called the "provincial Venice"
This article from our archives was first published on RI in November 2016
RBTH disclaimer: While being a very charming place to visit, numerous visitors have reported that their visits to Vyshny Volochyok have been ruined due to the enormous traffic jams that can occur here. An ideal stopping off point between Russia’s two largest cities, we recommend that you choose your times of departure carefully if traveling by car.
Dating back to 1471, Vyshny Volochyok is an important dot on the map between Moscow and St. Petersburg. Prior to the 19th century, the Vyshny Volochyok Waterway connected St. Petersburg with central Russia: Its channels served as cargo lines for all sorts of supplies from food to construction materials. From the perspective of Russian art, Vyshny Volochyok was a "place of strength" for famed artists including Ilya Repin, Isaac Levitan and Arkhip Kuindzhi.
A source of inspiration for Russian artists
It is the latter half of the 19th century. Ilya Repin has already completed his famed canvas, Barge Haulers on the Volga. The artist comes to visit his friend Kokorev, who lived in the vicinity of the small merchant town of Vyshny Volochyok on a peninsula formed by the head of the Msta River and Lake Mstino. Repin grew very attached to this plot of land.
"Isn't it the promised land for a landscape painter! It is the essence of Russia, its soul and its beauty... It's like a song!" he once wrote.
The guides of the Academic Dacha Museum go out of their way to tell me a story about Repin dancing on the table, filled with delight upon seeing the scenery of Vyshny Volochyok.
Such connoisseurs of beauty as artist Ilya Repin and philanthropist Andrei Kokorev were the first to notice the advantages of the Vyshny Volochyok District in the north of the Tver Region, which would later play an important part in the Russian and global history of arts and crafts.
A good starting point for a walk around Vyshny Volochyok is the first and the oldest House of Pictorial Art, which has served as a field facility for the Union of Russian Artists since 1884. Every year, students of art academies come here to learn traditional Russian scenery painting.
Walking over bridges with warm feet
Vyshny Volochyok has taken pride in its waterway for more than two centuries. In the 18th century during the reign of Peter I, after a lengthy construction and reconstruction process supervised by Dutch and Russian engineers, the Vyshny Volochyok Waterway linked the Volga River with St. Petersburg for the first time. Today Vyshny Volochyok features about 40 bridges of all sizes, frequented by both locals and tourists who have nicknamed the town the "Venice of the Russian provinces."
If you are traveling around Russia in late fall or in winter, remember to visit a traditional workshop of handmade goods not far from Vyshny Volochyok's center. This workshop produces authentic Russian felt boots called "valenki." Most people wear these boots without socks, even if the temperature drops to -30 Celsius. The Museum of Russian Valenki Boots, which was launched in 2012 on the occasion of the workshop’s 20th anniversary, will tell you all about it. They even say that wearing valenki boots lowers your risk of heart attack and other conditions.
Apart from instruments and the felting technology behind this traditional Russian footwear, museum visitors are also shown the astonishing Tsar Valenok ("The Royal Felt Boot"), size 201. It is 225 centimeters high and weighs 52 kilograms and features decorative felt panels.
With a pair of valenki boots to keep your feet warm, you can continue your tour of cathedrals and bridges, and if you try hard enough you might imagine that you are in Venice. Six years ago, Vyshny Volochyok even teleported to Venice as part of the Factory Russia Project, which was presented at the 12th Venice Architecture Biennale in 2010. A hall dedicated to the 100 year old local factory Parizhskaya Kommuna ("Paris Commune") at the local history museum is a harbinger of the changes that are about to occur as the result of a large-scale reconstruction of the factory: The architects plan to build a residential block, a congress center and an art school with an exhibition space and a concert hall.


russia-insider--2020-12-23--What If Everything We’ve Been Told About Recent History Is a Lie?

`` Behind the War on Terror is a strategic plan crafted decades in advance to redraw the map of the Middle East .
9/11 was a false-flag operation blamed on Muslims ... '' This article from our archives was first published on RI in August 2018 The author is a prominent American Christian conservative who was a presidential candidate for the paleoconservative Constitution Party in 2008 , when he was endorsed by Ron Paul .
He is the pastor of Liberty Fellowship , a non-denominational church in Montana , and he is a popular radio host and columnist .
His @ @ @ @ @ @ @ channel .
He is a relentless foe of neoconservatism and frequently criticizes the neocon hostility towards Russia .
His views are representative of an influential and substantial part of Trump 's popular support .
Here is an archive of his excellent articles which we have published on Russia Insider , when they were relevant to the debate over Russia .
What if everything we ’ ve been told about 9/11 is a lie ?
What if it wasn ’ t 19 Muslim terrorist hijackers that flew those planes into the Twin Towers and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing whatsoever to do with the attacks on 9/11 ?
What if everything we ’ ve been told about the reasons we invaded two sovereign nations ( Afghanistan and Iraq ) is a lie ?
What if the 17-year-old , never-ending “ War on Terror ” in the Middle East is a lie ?
What if our young soldiers , sailors , airmen and Marines who have given their lives in America ’ s “ War on Terror ” died for a lie ?
What if G.W .
Bush , Barack Obama and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toadies for an international global conspiracy that hatched the attacks of 9/11 as nothing more than a means to institute a perpetual “ War on Terror ” for purposes that have nothing to do with America ’ s national security ?
Would the American people want to know ?
Would the truth even matter to them ?
The sad reality is that the vast majority of Americans who would read the above paragraph would totally dismiss every question I raised as being unrealistic and impossible—or even nutty .
Why is that ?
Have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ No .
Have they given any serious thought to the questions ?
No .
They have simply swallowed the government/mainstream media version of these events hook , line and sinker .
It is totally amazing to me that the same people who say they don ’ t believe the mainstream media ( MSM ) and government ( Deep State ) versions of current events—which is why they voted for and love Donald Trump—have absolutely no reservations about accepting the official story that the 9/11 attacks were the work of jihadist Muslims and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” is completely legitimate .
These “ always Trumpers ” are dead set in their minds that America is at war with Islam ; that Trump ’ s bombings of Syria were because President Assad is an evil , maniacal monster who gassed his own people ; and that Trump ’ s expansion of the war in Afghanistan is totally in the interests of America ’ s national security .
BUT WHAT IF ALL OF IT IS A BIG , FAT LIE ?
What if the Muslims had NOTHING to do with 9/11 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gas his own people ?
What if America ’ s “ War on Terror ” is a completely false , manufactured , made-up deception ?
What if America ’ s military forces are mostly fighting for foreign agendas and NOT for America ’ s national security or even our national interests ?
What if America ’ s war in Afghanistan is a fraud ?
What if the entire “ War on Terror ” is a fraud ?
The Trump robots have bought into America ’ s “ War on Terror ” as much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s robots did .
Bush was elected twice , largely on the basis of America ’ s “ War on Terror.
” Obama campaigned against the “ War on Terror ” and then expanded it during his two terms in office .
Trump campaigned against the “ War on Terror ” and then immediately expanded it beyond what Obama had done .
In fact , Trump is on a pace to expand the “ War on Terror ” beyond the combined military aggressions of both Bush and Obama .
But who cares @ @ @ @ @ @ @ engaged in a global “ War on Terror.
” Just ask G.W .
Bush , Barack Obama , Donald Trump , ABC , CBS , NBC , CNN , FOX News , The Washington Post , the New York Times and the vast majority of America ’ s pastors and preachers .
They all tell us the same thing seven days a week , twenty-four hours a day .
Liberals scream against Trump , and conservatives scream against Maxine Waters ; but both sides come together to support America ’ s never-ending “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s ALL a lie ?
What if Obama and Trump , the right and the left , the MSM and the conservative media are all reading from the same script ?
What if they are all ( wittingly or unwittingly ) in cahoots in perpetuating the biggest scam in world history ?
And why is almost everyone afraid to even broach the question ?
Left or right , liberal or conservative , Democrat or Republican , secular or Christian , no one dares to question the official story about the 9/11 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” And those who do question it are themselves attacked unmercifully by the right and the left , conservatives and liberals , Christians and secularists , Sean Hannity and Chris Matthews .
Why is that ?
Why is it that FOX News and CNN , Donald Trump and Barack Obama , Chuck Schumer and Ted Cruz equally promote the same cockamamie story about 9/11 and the “ War on Terror ?
” Why ?
Why ?
Why ?
Tell me again how Donald Trump is so different from Barack Obama .
Tell me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Chuck Schumer .
They all continue to perpetuate the lies about 9/11 .
They all continue to escalate America ’ s never-ending “ War on Terror.
” They are all puppets of a global conspiracy to advance the agenda of war profiteers and nation builders .
The left-right , conservative-liberal , Trump-Obama paradigm is one big giant SCAM .
At the end of the day , the “ War on Terror ” goes on , bombs keep falling on people in the Middle East who had absolutely NOTHING to do with 9/11 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coffers of the international bankers and war merchants .
All of the above is why I am enthusiastically promoting Christopher Bollyn ’ s new blockbuster book The War on Terror .
Of course , Bollyn is one of the world ’ s foremost researchers and investigators into the attacks on 9/11 .
He has written extensively on the subject .
But unlike most other 9/11 investigators , Bollyn continued to trace the tracks of the attacks on 9/11 .
And those tracks led him to discover that the 9/11 attacks were NOT “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ merely the trigger for “ the event.
” “ What was the event ?
” you ask .
America ’ s perpetual “ War on Terror.
” As a result , Mr. Bollyn published his findings that the attacks on 9/11 were NOT perpetrated by Muslim extremists but by a very elaborate and well financed international conspiracy that had been in the planning for several decades .
Bollyn ’ s research names names , places and dates and exposes the truth behind not just 9/11 ( many have done that ) but behind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” that resulted from the attacks on 9/11 .
IT ’ S TIME FOR THE TRUTH TO COME OUT !
And Christopher Bollyn ’ s investigative research brings out the truth like nothing I ’ ve read to date .
His research connects the dots and destroys the myths .
Mr. Bollyn ’ s research is published in a book entitled ( full title ) : The War On Terror : The Plot To Rule The Middle East .
I mean it when I say that if enough people read this book , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and save our republic .
This is written on the book ’ s back cover : Folks , 9/11 was a deception .
The “ War on Terror ” is a deception .
The phony left-right paradigm is a deception .
FOX News is as much a deception as CNN .
The “ always Trump ” group is as much a deception as the “ never Trump ” group .
America has been in the throes of a great deception since September 11 , 2001 .
And this deception is being perpetrated by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alike .
I do not know Christopher Bollyn .
I ’ ve never met him .
But I thank God he had the intellectual honesty and moral courage to write this book .
I urge readers to get this explosive new book .
If you don ’ t read any other book this year , read Mr. Bollyn ’ s investigative masterpiece : The War On Terror : The Plot To Rule The Middle East .
Again , I am enthusiastically recommending this book to my readers , and I make no apologies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this research MUST get out , and I am determined to do all I can to help make that possible .
Order Christopher Bollyn ’ s blockbuster book The War On Terror : The Plot To Rule The Middle East here : The War On Terror : The Plot To Rule The Middle East I am confident that after you read this book , you will want to buy copies for your friends and relatives .
The book is under 200 pages long and is not difficult reading .
However , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and powerful .
I have read the book three times so far and I ’ m not finished .
Frankly , Bollyn ’ s book made so many things make sense for me .
His book dovetails and tracks with much of my research on other topics .
Truly , his book helped me get a much fuller understanding of the “ big picture.
” What if everything we ’ ve been told about 9/11 and the “ War on Terror ” is a lie ?
Well , Bollyn ’ s book proves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here is where to find Christopher Bollyn ’ s phenomenal new book The War On Terror : The Plot To Rule The Middle East : The War On Terror : The Plot To Rule The Middle East

"Behind the War on Terror is a strategic plan crafted decades in advance to redraw the map of the Middle East. 9/11 was a false-flag operation blamed on Muslims ..."
This article from our archives was first published on RI in August 2018
The author is a prominent American Christian conservative who was a presidential candidate for the paleoconservative Constitution Party in 2008, when he was endorsed by Ron Paul.
He is the pastor of Liberty Fellowship, a non-denominational church in Montana, and he is a popular radio host and columnist. His weekly sermons are available on his YouTube channel.
He is a relentless foe of neoconservatism and frequently criticizes the neocon hostility towards Russia. His views are representative of an influential and substantial part of Trump's popular support.
Here is an archive of his excellent articles which we have published on Russia Insider, when they were relevant to the debate over Russia.
What if everything we’ve been told about 9/11 is a lie? What if it wasn’t 19 Muslim terrorist hijackers that flew those planes into the Twin Towers and Pentagon? What if the Muslims had nothing whatsoever to do with the attacks on 9/11? What if everything we’ve been told about the reasons we invaded two sovereign nations (Afghanistan and Iraq) is a lie?
What if the 17-year-old, never-ending “War on Terror” in the Middle East is a lie? What if our young soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who have given their lives in America’s “War on Terror” died for a lie? What if G.W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump have been nothing but controlled toadies for an international global conspiracy that hatched the attacks of 9/11 as nothing more than a means to institute a perpetual “War on Terror” for purposes that have nothing to do with America’s national security? Would the American people want to know? Would the truth even matter to them?
The sad reality is that the vast majority of Americans who would read the above paragraph would totally dismiss every question I raised as being unrealistic and impossible—or even nutty. Why is that? Have they studied and researched the questions? No. Have they given any serious thought to the questions? No. They have simply swallowed the government/mainstream media version of these events hook, line and sinker.
It is totally amazing to me that the same people who say they don’t believe the mainstream media (MSM) and government (Deep State) versions of current events—which is why they voted for and love Donald Trump—have absolutely no reservations about accepting the official story that the 9/11 attacks were the work of jihadist Muslims and that America’s “War on Terror” is completely legitimate.
These “always Trumpers” are dead set in their minds that America is at war with Islam; that Trump’s bombings of Syria were because President Assad is an evil, maniacal monster who gassed his own people; and that Trump’s expansion of the war in Afghanistan is totally in the interests of America’s national security.
BUT WHAT IF ALL OF IT IS A BIG, FAT LIE?
What if the Muslims had NOTHING to do with 9/11?
What if Bashar al-Assad did NOT gas his own people?
What if America’s “War on Terror” is a completely false, manufactured, made-up deception?
What if America’s military forces are mostly fighting for foreign agendas and NOT for America’s national security or even our national interests?
What if America’s war in Afghanistan is a fraud?
What if the entire “War on Terror” is a fraud?
The Trump robots have bought into America’s “War on Terror” as much as Obama’s robots and Bush’s robots did. Bush was elected twice, largely on the basis of America’s “War on Terror.” Obama campaigned against the “War on Terror” and then expanded it during his two terms in office. Trump campaigned against the “War on Terror” and then immediately expanded it beyond what Obama had done. In fact, Trump is on a pace to expand the “War on Terror” beyond the combined military aggressions of both Bush and Obama.
But who cares? Who even notices?
America is engaged in a global “War on Terror.” Just ask G.W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX News, The Washington Post, the New York Times and the vast majority of America’s pastors and preachers. They all tell us the same thing seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day. Liberals scream against Trump, and conservatives scream against Maxine Waters; but both sides come together to support America’s never-ending “War on Terror.”
But what if it’s ALL a lie? What if Obama and Trump, the right and the left, the MSM and the conservative media are all reading from the same script? What if they are all (wittingly or unwittingly) in cahoots in perpetuating the biggest scam in world history? And why is almost everyone afraid to even broach the question?
Left or right, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, secular or Christian, no one dares to question the official story about the 9/11 attacks or the “War on Terror.”
And those who do question it are themselves attacked unmercifully by the right and the left, conservatives and liberals, Christians and secularists, Sean Hannity and Chris Matthews. Why is that? Why is it that FOX News and CNN, Donald Trump and Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer and Ted Cruz equally promote the same cockamamie story about 9/11 and the “War on Terror?”
Why? Why? Why?
Tell me again how Donald Trump is so different from Barack Obama. Tell me again how Ted Cruz is so different from Chuck Schumer. They all continue to perpetuate the lies about 9/11. They all continue to escalate America’s never-ending “War on Terror.” They are all puppets of a global conspiracy to advance the agenda of war profiteers and nation builders.
The left-right, conservative-liberal, Trump-Obama paradigm is one big giant SCAM. At the end of the day, the “War on Terror” goes on, bombs keep falling on people in the Middle East who had absolutely NOTHING to do with 9/11 and the money keeps flowing into the coffers of the international bankers and war merchants.
All of the above is why I am enthusiastically promoting Christopher Bollyn’s new blockbuster book The War on Terror.
Of course, Bollyn is one of the world’s foremost researchers and investigators into the attacks on 9/11. He has written extensively on the subject. But unlike most other 9/11 investigators, Bollyn continued to trace the tracks of the attacks on 9/11. And those tracks led him to discover that the 9/11 attacks were NOT “the event” but that they were merely the trigger for “the event.” “What was the event?” you ask. America’s perpetual “War on Terror.”
As a result, Mr. Bollyn published his findings that the attacks on 9/11 were NOT perpetrated by Muslim extremists but by a very elaborate and well financed international conspiracy that had been in the planning for several decades. Bollyn’s research names names, places and dates and exposes the truth behind not just 9/11 (many have done that) but behind America’s “War on Terror” that resulted from the attacks on 9/11.
IT’S TIME FOR THE TRUTH TO COME OUT!
And Christopher Bollyn’s investigative research brings out the truth like nothing I’ve read to date. His research connects the dots and destroys the myths.
Mr. Bollyn’s research is published in a book entitled (full title): The War On Terror: The Plot To Rule The Middle East. I mean it when I say that if enough people read this book, it could change the course of history and save our republic.
This is written on the book’s back cover:
The government and media have misled us about 9/11 in order to compel public opinion to support the War on Terror. Why have we gone along with it? Do we accept endless war as normal? Are we numb to the suffering caused by our military interventions? No. We have simply been propagandized into submission. We have been deceived into thinking that the War on Terror is a good thing, a valiant struggle against terrorists who intend to attack us as we were on 9/11. Behind the War on Terror is a strategic plan crafted decades in advance to redraw the map of the Middle East. 9/11 was a false-flag operation blamed on Muslims in order to start the military operations for that strategic plan. Recognizing the origin of the plan is crucial to understanding the deception that has changed our world.
Folks, 9/11 was a deception. The “War on Terror” is a deception. The phony left-right paradigm is a deception. FOX News is as much a deception as CNN. The “always Trump” group is as much a deception as the “never Trump” group. America has been in the throes of a great deception since September 11, 2001. And this deception is being perpetrated by Republicans and Democrats and conservatives and liberals alike.
I do not know Christopher Bollyn. I’ve never met him. But I thank God he had the intellectual honesty and moral courage to write this book. I urge readers to get this explosive new book. If you don’t read any other book this year, read Mr. Bollyn’s investigative masterpiece: The War On Terror: The Plot To Rule The Middle East.
Again, I am enthusiastically recommending this book to my readers, and I make no apologies for doing so. The truth contained in this research MUST get out, and I am determined to do all I can to help make that possible.
Order Christopher Bollyn’s blockbuster book The War On Terror: The Plot To Rule The Middle East here:
The War On Terror: The Plot To Rule The Middle East
I am confident that after you read this book, you will want to buy copies for your friends and relatives. The book is under 200 pages long and is not difficult reading. However, the facts and details Bollyn covers are profound and powerful. I have read the book three times so far and I’m not finished.
Frankly, Bollyn’s book made so many things make sense for me. His book dovetails and tracks with much of my research on other topics. Truly, his book helped me get a much fuller understanding of the “big picture.”
What if everything we’ve been told about 9/11 and the “War on Terror” is a lie? Well, Bollyn’s book proves that indeed it is.
Again, here is where to find Christopher Bollyn’s phenomenal new book The War On Terror: The Plot To Rule The Middle East:
The War On Terror: The Plot To Rule The Middle East


russia-insider--2020-12-24--A Novice’s Guide to Drinking With Russians

If you find yourself in Russia , you will have to drink with Russians , one way or another .
Follow this handy guide for advice on how to survive the experience This article from our archives was first published on RI in October 2016 Contrary to popular belief , Russians are not alcoholics , and they do not drink just for the sake of doing so .
However , Russians are happy to raise a glass to practically any occasion — a new job , a new car , Friday…but especially for a wedding .
As a rule , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bender , but sometimes trouble sneaks up on you .
Say you get home from work on a Tuesday night having met a friend you had not seen for a long time in the subway .
Is n't this a significant event ?
Always be on the alert .
There will likely be times when you will have to drink on a weekday evening or in the middle of the night .
And definitely on Friday .
And most likely on Wednesday : because everybody in Russia knows that Wednesday is a little @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vodka .
But of course they do drink vodka .
You should be aware that a Russian party is structured differently from parties in other parts of the world .
First , the alcohol is usually bought by the host .
This solves two problems at once : at first the guests do not have to know that they will have to drink and then they do not have to regret that they were unable to switch to something else after wine ran out because they did not bring it .
The table @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so drink whatever you want .
Just do not overdo it .
Brush up on your knowledge of all key events in world history , religion , politics , sports and arts , and make sure to form an opinion on all current issues , whether or not they seem important to you .
First off , when drinking , Russians are sure to start a conversation about lofty matters .
If you do not take part in these discussions , you will run the risk of simply falling asleep at the table @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to talk .
Secondly , such knowledge is simply useful .
Do not be afraid of expressing your opinion .
All conversations and disagreements that take place while drinking will not be held against you — no one will remember them in the morning .
Around 11 p.m. , there is unprecedented level of activity in Moscow supermarkets and convenience stores .
In Russia , there is a law that says alcoholic beverages can not be sold later than a certain time , although the time varies .
In Moscow , it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it is 10 p.m. Russians like to make lengthy toasts .
Of course , the toast depends on the circumstances , but the more solemn and important the event , the longer the toast .
It is customary to take a glass in your hand at the beginning of the speech and not lower it until the speaker has finished .
You should train yourself to keep your hand raised for a long time .
After the toast , you must clink your glass against the glasses of all those present at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ single girl , keep in mind that an old Russian superstition holds that the last person you clink glasses with should be an unmarried man – then you will marry soon .
In the West , it is perfectly fine to take a drink and put a half-full glass back on the table before you take another drink .
In Russia , however , you have to drink everything in the glass at once , otherwise people will think that you disagree with a person who delivered the toast — for which he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ event .
The toast `` Na zdorovye ! ''
or “ to your health , ” which foreigners for some reason consider to be the most popular and appropriate toast to make in Russia , is not used by anyone .
Ever .
To really prepare for drinking with Russians , watch the classic Soviet film “ The Irony of Fate , or Enjoy Your Bath . ''
This movie is always shown on New Year ’ s Eve , and everyone knows it .
Even if you watch it before your visit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ watch it again .
But besides being a classic Soviet movie everyone should know and the source of 95 percent of the references made by your Russian friends , it shows clearly how not to drink — and what can happen to you if your visit to a banya with your friends goes wrong .
To drink with Russians is an art and , like any other , you will not be able to master it at once .
But you will never be bored drinking with Russians , and if you can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may even grow to like this process .
Probably you will .
And , upon returning home , you will look differently at the wildest parties thrown by your friends , thinking to yourself `` That 's nothing ; in Russia , they call it 'propustit po stakanchiku ' ( to grab a drink ) . ''

If you find yourself in Russia, you will have to drink with Russians, one way or another. Follow this handy guide for advice on how to survive the experience
This article from our archives was first published on RI in October 2016
Contrary to popular belief, Russians are not alcoholics, and they do not drink just for the sake of doing so. However, Russians are happy to raise a glass to practically any occasion — a new job, a new car, Friday…but especially for a wedding.
As a rule, you have time to prepare for a bender, but sometimes trouble sneaks up on you. Say you get home from work on a Tuesday night having met a friend you had not seen for a long time in the subway. Isn't this a significant event?
Two men drinking vodka as if they are sitting in the Soviet era kitchen room seen at the Museum of history of alcohol dependence, a part of the Museum of all the museums project, opened at the All-Russian Exhibition Centre (VDNKh) in Moscow, Russia.
Always be on the alert. There will likely be times when you will have to drink on a weekday evening or in the middle of the night. And definitely on Friday. And most likely on Wednesday: because everybody in Russia knows that Wednesday is a little Friday.
Russians drink other things besides vodka. But of course they do drink vodka. You should be aware that a Russian party is structured differently from parties in other parts of the world.
First, the alcohol is usually bought by the host. This solves two problems at once: at first the guests do not have to know that they will have to drink and then they do not have to regret that they were unable to switch to something else after wine ran out because they did not bring it. The table full of drinks is for all, so drink whatever you want. Just do not overdo it.
Brush up on your knowledge of all key events in world history, religion, politics, sports and arts, and make sure to form an opinion on all current issues, whether or not they seem important to you.
First off, when drinking, Russians are sure to start a conversation about lofty matters. If you do not take part in these discussions, you will run the risk of simply falling asleep at the table – or drinking more to avoid having to talk. Secondly, such knowledge is simply useful. Do not be afraid of expressing your opinion. All conversations and disagreements that take place while drinking will not be held against you — no one will remember them in the morning.
Around 11 p.m., there is unprecedented level of activity in Moscow supermarkets and convenience stores. In Russia, there is a law that says alcoholic beverages cannot be sold later than a certain time, although the time varies. In Moscow, it is 11 p.m., while in St. Petersburg, it is 10 p.m.
Russians like to make lengthy toasts. Of course, the toast depends on the circumstances, but the more solemn and important the event, the longer the toast. It is customary to take a glass in your hand at the beginning of the speech and not lower it until the speaker has finished. You should train yourself to keep your hand raised for a long time. After the toast, you must clink your glass against the glasses of all those present at the table. If you are a single girl, keep in mind that an old Russian superstition holds that the last person you clink glasses with should be an unmarried man – then you will marry soon.
In the West, it is perfectly fine to take a drink and put a half-full glass back on the table before you take another drink. In Russia, however, you have to drink everything in the glass at once, otherwise people will think that you disagree with a person who delivered the toast — for which he likely rehearsed for a week before the event.
The toast "Na zdorovye!" or “to your health,” which foreigners for some reason consider to be the most popular and appropriate toast to make in Russia, is not used by anyone. Ever.
To really prepare for drinking with Russians, watch the classic Soviet film “The Irony of Fate, or Enjoy Your Bath." This movie is always shown on New Year’s Eve, and everyone knows it. Even if you watch it before your visit, you are likely to have to watch it again. But besides being a classic Soviet movie everyone should know and the source of 95 percent of the references made by your Russian friends, it shows clearly how not to drink — and what can happen to you if your visit to a banya with your friends goes wrong.
To drink with Russians is an art and, like any other, you will not be able to master it at once. But you will never be bored drinking with Russians, and if you can endure the first few times, you may even grow to like this process. Probably you will. And, upon returning home, you will look differently at the wildest parties thrown by your friends, thinking to yourself "That's nothing; in Russia, they call it 'propustit po stakanchiku' (to grab a drink)."


russia-insider--2020-12-25--Russia's Badass Monument to Tsar Ivan the Terrible

This article from our archives was first published on RI in October 2016 The first monument to Tsar Ivan the Terrible to be put up in Russia was unveiled on Oct. 14 in the city of Oryol , which is believed to have been founded by the Tsar .
The monument was erected near the Epiphany Cathedral .
`` We have come a long way to reach this point , we have been through many debates .
I am not a historian but I believe that he was a great Russian monarch , the collector of Russian lands , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us all and did not let anyone encroach on our territory .
We are indebted to him for founding our great city of Oryol , a stronghold on the approaches to our capital , '' said Vadim Potomsky , head of the Oryol region .
Tsar Ivan IV Vasilyevich , known as Ivan the Terrible , is one of the most controversial figures , but at the same time one of the most prominent in Russia ’ s history , Minister of Culture Vladimir Medinsky said in his welcome letter .
According to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ivan the Terrible succeeded in taking a number of bold and decisive steps designed to strengthen the unity of the Russian state .
During his rule , administrative reforms were implemented , new state bodies were established , a professional army was formed and the first ever Russian book was printed .
The minister also said that the activities of Ivan the Terrible should be assessed in comparison with his contemporaries ruling other European countries .
If that is done then the Russian Tsar will no longer seem as cruel as he is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to journalists on Oct. 14 .
`` It would be incorrect to compare Ivan the Terrible to Mother Teresa or Mahatma Gandhi , he should be compared to his contemporaries who ruled the ‘ enlightened ’ Europe , England and France , in those times .
For example , ( French king ) Charles IX caused the death of about 30,000 Huguenots ( French Calvinist Protestants ) in just a few days , mainly in Paris and other big French cities , '' said the minister .
At the same time , Medinsky @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people were assassinated on the Russian Tsar ’ s orders during the period of oprichnina ( a state policy implemented by Ivan the Terrible between 1565 and 1572 , named after the secret police organization ) .
As the Nikon Chronicle documents , the Oryol fortress was founded in 1566 at the behest of Ivan the Terrible in order to protect the southern borders of the state .
The year 1566 is officially considered the year of the city ’ s foundation .
As one legend has it , the city was named @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' in Russian ) that took off from the first tree being cut down for the construction of the fortress .
Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich ordered the future city to be named after the bird .

This article from our archives was first published on RI in October 2016
The first monument to Tsar Ivan the Terrible to be put up in Russia was unveiled on Oct. 14 in the city of Oryol, which is believed to have been founded by the Tsar. The monument was erected near the Epiphany Cathedral.
"We have come a long way to reach this point, we have been through many debates. I am not a historian but I believe that he was a great Russian monarch, the collector of Russian lands, the one who preserved the Orthodox faith for us all and did not let anyone encroach on our territory. We are indebted to him for founding our great city of Oryol, a stronghold on the approaches to our capital," said Vadim Potomsky, head of the Oryol region.
Tsar Ivan IV Vasilyevich, known as Ivan the Terrible, is one of the most controversial figures, but at the same time one of the most prominent in Russia’s history, Minister of Culture Vladimir Medinsky said in his welcome letter.
According to the minister, during his reign, Ivan the Terrible succeeded in taking a number of bold and decisive steps designed to strengthen the unity of the Russian state. During his rule, administrative reforms were implemented, new state bodies were established, a professional army was formed and the first ever Russian book was printed.
The minister also said that the activities of Ivan the Terrible should be assessed in comparison with his contemporaries ruling other European countries. If that is done then the Russian Tsar will no longer seem as cruel as he is said to have been, Medinsky explained to journalists on Oct. 14.
"It would be incorrect to compare Ivan the Terrible to Mother Teresa or Mahatma Gandhi, he should be compared to his contemporaries who ruled the ‘enlightened’ Europe, England and France, in those times. For example, (French king) Charles IX caused the death of about 30,000 Huguenots (French Calvinist Protestants) in just a few days, mainly in Paris and other big French cities," said the minister.
At the same time, Medinsky went on to say, about 3,000-7,000 people were assassinated on the Russian Tsar’s orders during the period of oprichnina (a state policy implemented by Ivan the Terrible between 1565 and 1572, named after the secret police organization).
As the Nikon Chronicle documents, the Oryol fortress was founded in 1566 at the behest of Ivan the Terrible in order to protect the southern borders of the state. The year 1566 is officially considered the year of the city’s foundation.
As one legend has it, the city was named Oryol after an eagle ("oryol" in Russian) that took off from the first tree being cut down for the construction of the fortress. Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich ordered the future city to be named after the bird.