Hannes Wessels

I honestly do not know if Vladimir Putin is a good guy or a bad guy. From most of what I read and most of what I hear, he is very much the latter and worse; ‘pure evil’ rolls off a lot of lips. Like the Obamas, the Blairs and the Clintons, he has also made himself rich through holding high office. Having said that, I have watched him handling the press and he might not be a ‘good’ guy, but he strikes me as a man of calm demeanour, a good listener, extremely well informed on history and current affairs, and seldom, if ever, have I heard him say anything that struck me as outrageous or ridiculously wrong. I cannot think of any ‘leaders of the free world’ I can say the same about. Joe Biden often seems unsure of the name of his vice-president.

Putin is being panned by the press but when I see people, particularly white, older, male, Christian, heterosexuals demonised by the ‘establishment’ media I am instantly wary because I have seen this before. As a young man I saw what happened to us in Rhodesia where no matter how hard most of us whites tried to conduct ourselves in a civilised and constructive way, and no matter how hard we pleaded for a fair hearing based on the facts, we were denied an audience and we were damned on the basis of maliciously perpetuated falsehoods. The majority of people were successfully persuaded we were a group of self-serving white racists deserving of elimination and this is pretty much what happened. This media-orchestrated contagion has now spread to Europe and America where the white populace are allowing their countries to implode around them, driven by a privileged, postmodernist woking-class bent on destroying their western culture and incredible heritage built over the past 2000 years.

In another arena, as the anti-Russia onslaught continues, I recall it was not long ago that the media, intelligence agencies and powerful politicians including Tony Blair and George Bush II, assured us that Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, who had been successfully portrayed as a genocidal maniac, was in possession of mountains of chemical weapons that would soon be used to extend his capacity to murder to countries further afar including the UK. This scared a lot of people and triggered a form of Mass Formation Psychosis in the West which was whipped up by the politicians and the stage was set for war. One world leader who disputed this allegation and argued against a violent intervention was Putin, but he was of course ignored. On the back of the big lie that the majority bought into, the US led an invasion that caused more deaths and more suffering than Saddam would have managed in his wildest dreams and created endemic instability in the region that exists to this day.

More recently we had the ‘Russia Collusion’ allegations foisted on the American people by the press. Simply put the message was quite clear; Putin, through cyber- warfare means, had manipulated the electoral system and was responsible for Trump winning the presidency. As a result the new, much loathed president was deemed to have won office illegitimately.

This was the pretext for unprecedented hostility from the media and the Democrats. For the duration of if his entire tenure in the Oval Office Trump daily endured contempt, media ordure and falsehood; hounded almost daily and eventually impeached as a result of these allegations, Trump inevitably fell at the last election.

We now know, beyond any reasonable doubt, that this entire ‘collusion’ story was a hoax and thanks to the Durham investigation we also now know that the Clinton campaign, with the knowledge of the FBI and the CIA (including Bill and Hilary themselves), illegally tapped into communications systems used by the Trump family and his official servers in the White House. Of course Trump knew what was going on at the time but when he tried to protest his innocence and accused the Clintons of spying on him, he was vilified as a serial liar.

So forgive me for my jaundiced view of what is unfolding on the borders of the Ukraine as Putin is again pilloried by politicians and the press who accuse him of wanton aggression visited upon a peaceful neighbourhood. The war-rhetoric out of Washington and London is at fever pitch. The arrogant British Foreign Secretary, Liz Truss, who confuses the Baltic with the Black Sea and appears unsure about what cities are within Russian territory, has been in belligerent mood. In Putin’s defence, his insistence that Russian security is threatened by the deployment of ballistic missiles in the Ukraine has been dismissed, and one can only ask if this is reasonable. One can only wonder what Washington’s response would be to a similar scenario unfolding in Mexico or Canada but there, different rules undoubtedly apply.

One can only speculate, but with the US military, recently defeated by a rag-tag mountain militia in Afghanistan, being led by ‘progressive’ admirals and generals more focused on Critical Race Theory, diversity, inclusivity and transgender rights, their dislike of Putin is certain. Putin believes in only two genders and rejects same sex marriage. His army is made up of tough guys unencumbered with having to attend diversity training classes who almost certainly have little fear of men attacking them in dresses.

If the media, Western politicians and their intelligence agencies are to be believed, Russia was supposed to invade on Wednesday 16th and possibly provide the spark for WWIII and Armageddon but headlines in UK newspapers were aimed at Prince Andrew’s out of court settlement with Virginia Roberts who has accused him of rape when he was consorting with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell. Something not quite right here?

Don’t say the Russians have no sense of humour; Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has issued a statement asking that

“Bloomberg, The New York Times and The Sun media outlets… publish the schedule for our upcoming invasions for the year” to help her “plan my vacation” in response to the announcements of the February 16th invasion date. She also said “(this prediction) will go down in history as the day of the failure of Western war propaganda. Humiliated and destroyed without firing a shot.”

Once again, I am reminded how dangerous a reckless establishment media with an agenda is, particularly when influential world leaders are on the political ropes as we see in the UK and the US.

In Britain, Boris Johnson, thanks in no small part to his wife, is waiting to hear if he will be criminally charged with breaking his own lockdown rules. If he is, he will face strong demands for his resignation. In the US Joe Biden is being considered one of the most incompetent presidents in the history of the republic. With illegal immigrants streaming through his southern border, he is widely accused of paying more attention to Ukrainian sovereignty than his own. His popularity is at a record low.

Both desperately needs a distraction; with Covid losing some of its scare appeal, what better way than to start a nuclear war?

24 thoughts on “Is Putin the Problem?”
  1. My previous comments obviously exclude our esteemed commentator Hannes. 🙂

  2. Wow Hannes this is certainly not a view I would have arrived at but….flip… very insightful….Putin is certainly way ahead of our current western leaders in terms of being qualified to lead a country.
    Well said, you have altered my media polluted thinking!?

  3. Thanks Hannes. USA and UK media propaganda, why is NATO still there whilst the Warsaw Pact is dead, who then want the Cold War to continue. USA and UK want to control foreign governments and the people are brainwashed like sheep. The West in the past century shown double standards and falsehood. The USA 🇺🇸 has interfered and destabilised many independent countries, a big thanks to the CIA. The USA 🇺🇸 is the big bully with its side kick the UK 🇬🇧.

  4. A bit partisan, Hannes, but you make your point unwaveringly, and ultimately spot on target.

    1. John Cowper is right. Since 1997 some 14 countries in Eastern Europe have joined NATO and the bloc is moving ever closer eastwards towards Moscow. Tyrant, pure evil, dictator, however one wishes to characterise Putin, he still gets nervous, like the rest of us, when the waters get choppy. He’s responding accordingly.

  5. Putin is pure evil. He has people who disagree with him murdered and interned. That cannot be applauded irrespective of how you feel about those who are standing up to. He wants to promote Russia as something that is greater than they are. If you take away their nuclear capability they are not that significant in the world and Putin does not like that.

    1. Dream on shumbaman.

      Firstly, ad-hominem is the basest form of debate. “Putin is a thug” DUH!

      Secondly, you are spouting lame stream media propaganda and leftist talking points. In fact, Russia is extremely significant:
      – The world’s largest country.
      – The world’s largest supply of freshwater.
      – Extraordinary supply of natural resources.
      – The world’s largest exporter of wheat. And their agriculture is non-GMO.
      – The US is dependent on Russian rockets for its space program, although this has begun to be mitigated by Elon Musk.
      – Russia’s non-nuclear military capability is far in advance of the US and China – hypersonic missiles, stealth submarines, electronic warfare, air defense systems etc.
      – Russian military aircraft are not only incredibly effective, but they’re also beautiful and elegantly designed. Look at the clunky US F35 compared to the latest SU and Mig aircraft.
      – The Russian military itself is miles ahead of the US and NATO, who one-on-one, pound for pound wouldn’t last 10 minutes against them – tough, hard soldiers led by tough, hard officers.

      Lastly, Russia is financially in the black, unlike the US which is in the red to the tune of over $30 trillion

      1. Hey shumbaboy, have you tried drinking from a fire extinguisher. You are such a loser.

  6. Don’t forget that Putin was a KGB officer responsible for aiding/controlling southern african terrorist groups. He is anything but stupid and a manipulator/spook par excellence

    1. @Paul de Mattos, do you have any evidence to support your assertion that Putin was “responsible for aiding/controlling southern african terrorist groups”? I consider this to be highly unlikely. I have encountered no evidence to support this claim.

  7. Vladimir Putin’s first responsibility, as any country leader, is the defence of Russia. One is reminded of the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, when John Kennedy effectively stared down Kruschev who was daring to deploy nuclear missiles within a short firing distance of the USA. Kennedy succeeded and was the Hero of the Hour – quite rightly so.

    I cannot for the life of me see any difference of principle here. The only variation is that this time it is Russia objecting to nuclear weaponry being too close to Moscow. Militaristically speaking the key words in this crisis are ‘Odessa’ and ‘Sebastopol’ – ports in the Crimea and Ukraine where so-called ‘NATO’ (i.e. the USA) can offload under cover of darkness massive shiploads of ‘defensive weaponry – including nuclear bombs.

    Putin and the Russians have explained their easily understandable and reasonable case until they are blue in the face; as with Kennedy in ‘62 this is an unacceptable situation under any and all circumstances. What? Are they supposed to trust the endlessness duplicitous Americans and British? Not Putin – he wasn’t born yesterday.

    That’s the thing here – Vladimir is the toughest of eggs to crack and way more skilled at realpolitik than the likes of the incompetent Biden – to the point where he has now used this situation to cement ties with Xi of China, after decades of hatred and mistrust. In truth, a blunder of this magnitude would never have happened on Nixon’s watch.

    If and when this does go to war, the historians of the future will conclude it was the West which started it, justifying it with their obsessional fixation on ‘democracy’ being the panacea of all things. To avoid getting invaded Ukraine should reject membership of NATO and set itself up as a neutral country.

    1. With all due respect @John Cowper, the Cuban missile crisis was far more nuanced than reported in the western press.

      In 1961, after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion, the United States moved American Jupiter ballistic missiles into Italy and Turkey. In response, the Soviets sent nuclear warheads to Cuba. For the first time in the Cold War, both the US and the USSR had a real threat posed against their mainland.


      In the end, President Kennedy accepted the Turkey-for-Cuba Deal offered by the Soviets, not quite the staring down of Khrushchev in popular mythology.

  8. Well laid out Hannes once again with absolute clarity – thank you for your opinion of how history has rolled out and what we can expect going forward!

  9. Hannes, I agree with most of what you say and wont take issue with any of it. The Putin issue however needs an understanding of his background and his paranoia about reestablishing Russia to it’s cold war status within the USSR. Statements by Putin supporters that he was never offered incentives to play a greater part in the post cold war order are simply not true but the way this was handled by the west and particularly the EU that relied on Germany to foster good relations with Russia has resulted in the present impasse. Rather than bore you with regenerated detail I recommend you read “Germany’s Russia Problem” by John Lough which will give you a very good understanding of the situation. Lough was a NATO analyst for many years, speaks fluent Russian, German and French and spent time in the French embassy in Moscow so was intimately involved throughout the period in question; he now consults for Chatham House.
    And if you wish to understand how Putin operates internally than I suggest you read “Red Notice” by Bill Brouder. The latter was the founder of Hermitage Capital in Moscow that became the largest ever hedge fund and was deported from Russia after failing to tow the Putin line. The latter reads like a John Grisham novel but is non-fiction.

    1. @Peter Vowles – “Statements by Putin supporters that he was never offered incentives to play a greater part in the post cold war order are simply not true “. I disagree:

      “In 1990, while negotiating German reunification at the end of the Cold War with U.S. Secretary of State James Baker, Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev said that “You say that NATO is not directed against us, that it is simply a security structure that is adapting to new realities … therefore, we propose to join NATO.” However, Baker dismissed the possibility as a “dream”. During a series of interviews with filmmaker Oliver Stone, President Vladimir Putin told him that he floated the possibility of Russia joining NATO to President Bill Clinton when he visited Moscow in 2000. It was rejected in both these instances.”


      I guess that equates to Rusia not being offered incentives…?

    2. @Peter Vowles, John Lough consulting for Chatham House is hardly an endorsement. They are one of the foundations of the New World Order along with Queen Elizabeth, Bill Gates, George Soros, World Economic Forum, Bilderberger Society etc., etc., etc.

Comments are closed.