Putin: An alternative perspective
A conversation with Iurie Roșca
In a series of articles published last month, Moldovan journalist Iurie Roșca proposed something truly radical: Perhaps it’s time to break free from the false dichotomy that restricts how Russian President Vladimir Putin is discussed in Western “alternative” media?
Obviously I had to learn more about this provocative suggestion.
In July, Roșca was kind enough to share his thoughts about the rise of technocracy. I am pleased to announce that he has returned to answer more questions.
Iurie, you recently published three articles (Paul Craig Roberts: Putin’s Lack of Vision and Political Will Could Lead to WWIII; Political correctness and the crime of opinion in today’s Russia; On false dichotomy and “useful idiots”) that challenge the prevailing narratives we are fed about Russia and Putin, in both Western mainstream and alternative media. This isn’t really a question, but: It’s shocking how narrow the Overton window is whenever Western “independent” media discusses anything Russia-related, and I think your recent commentaries serve as a necessary first step towards igniting substantive dialogue on these issues.
Thank you for the invitation to answer your questions. For someone like me, who is neither affiliated with the liberal-globalist discourse of the collective West, nor with the propagandist narrative of the Kremlin, such an opportunity is quite rare. This is because unfortunately most of the alternative media in the West, while rejecting US hegemony and the globalist agenda of the West as a whole, zealously promotes the idea that Putin represents an alternative civilizational model. This creates a false dichotomy and leaves little room for discussion in alternative media spaces.
It’s fair to say your assessment of Putin differs a great deal from the dominate narratives in mainstream and alternative media. You describe Russia’s president as “hesitant, timid and above all obsessed with the need to regain recognition from ‘Western partners’”. Have you always felt this way or have your views on Putin evolved over the years? Can you point to specific events, decisions, or “new information” that prompted you to reassess him as a leader?
To understand what any political figure or phenomenon represents, it is necessary to go to its origins. Putin and his regime are a direct continuation of the Yeltsin period. That is, the successors of the leaders of the first post-Soviet decade are, as in the Perestroika period, the exponents of the former communist nomenclature and KGB officers, who joined with Jewish businessmen, who then became oligarchs in complicity with the former.
The type of careerists like Putin look at politics from the perspective of pecuniary interests, and have the mentality of merchants who know how to sell natural resources and national interests at optimal prices. The eminently political logic of state interests is foreign to them. In post-communist Russia the same situation was created as in the West after the fall of monarchies and the rise of merchants. The economic factor subordinated the political factor. Or, to put it another way, big business installed and maintains its servants in key state functions. And Putin fits exactly into this logic.
As a nationalist in Moldova, I could only be in opposition to Russian President Putin, who remains obsessed with the same imperial idea of imposing total control over the former peripheries of the Soviet empire. But understanding that the collective West represents absolute evil through its demonic elites, at one point I hoped that Putin had broken away from the occult nets of the West.
I was in total solidarity with Putin’s rhetoric against the putschists in Kiev during the coup in Ukraine in 2014, which was instigated and coordinated by the neocons (Zionists) in Washington. However, after the takeover of Crimea, there followed the abandonment of Donbass and the shameful negotiations in Minsk—plus another eight years of betrayal as Russians were terrorized and killed by the Zionist regimes in Kiev under the mandates of Poroshenko and Zelensky.
But the key moment when it became clear that Putin was totally under the control of the globalists came in 2020, when the false Covid-19 pandemic was triggered. The Kremlin showed complete obedience to the undeclared World Government that operated under WHO cover, imposing the same tyrannical policies, including compulsory injections. And the military intervention in Ukraine in 2022, which initially seemed to represent a rift with the West, soon showed that Russia is being led by weak people, who have neither strategic vision nor the ability to wage a successful war.
So if Putin isn’t the all-powerful leader he’s portrayed to be in Western and Russian propaganda, who is really calling the shots in Moscow?
There is no single person who exercises unlimited power in Russia. Instead, interest groups shape the politics in this country. Among them are the circles of Jewish oligarchs as well as billionaires with key functions inside the power vertical (basically all the top dignitaries in Russia are fabulously rich!). Perhaps the most influential power bloc could be described as Kabbalistic-Zionist in nature.
In this context, Putin must be regarded as a front man, a spokesman for the circles that hold power rather than an all-powerful dictator. The image of Putin as a person who controls nearly everything in Russia is nothing more than a manipulation strategy. And from here, the black propaganda of the globalists is complimented by their supposed opponents, who make “white propaganda” for the Kremlin.
While we’re on the subject: What explains Western “alternative” media’s idolization of Putin?
Personally, I think that the fanatical trust in Putin’s virtues and merits, which the alternative press in the West exalts, has several explanations.
First, since Putin is demonized by the globalist media, those in the alternative media perceive him as an opponent of the System. This illusion is fueled by the fact that Putin’s speechwriters have a gift for wooing Western “dissidents” with criticisms of the political class in the West and the LGBT agenda.
Such rhetorical tricks trigger fascination and admiration among Westerners, preventing any realistic assessment of the true state of affairs in Russia. And when you try to show these bewitched people the harsh reality in this country, they greet you with accusations that you are playing the game of the globalists.
You can talk to them with numbers and with irrefutable facts, for example, that the Central Bank of Russia is affiliated with globalist policies, that it is controlled by the IMF and the BIS, that it is imposing the digital ruble; you can show that assassination by vaccine is carried out under Putin, you can show that even in today’s Russia the production of insects for food purposes is underway, etc., etc., but nothing can rouse them from their enchanted state. This phenomenon, which is common in alternative media, is not caused by stupidity or incompetence. Rather, the temptation to present the desirable as reality is extremely psychologically comfortable.
The idolization of Putin is a sign of the neo-pagan nature of the Western intelligentsia, which allows itself to be manipulated because it has lost its celestial compass and mystical reason. Even if some of our friends declare themselves Protestants or (former) Catholics, there are rare cases when you can observe a spiritual lucidity that supports an adequate geopolitical analysis.
Another reason for this state of adoration, which presents itself as a direct continuation of the Kremlin’s propaganda apparatus, is the effectiveness of the Russian secret services, which propels power-affiliated Russian academic figures into Western dissident circles. Also worth mentioning here is the effectiveness of Sputnik and RT, which court and flatter our “dissidents” with regular invitations to criticize the political class in Western countries. Let one of them try to make any critical comments about power in Moscow, and he will see how he will be forever shunned by those who until yesterday flattered him in every way.
And finally, the most mundane explanation for the fact that a large majority of alternative media in the West has aligned itself with the Kremlin’s official discourse is of a financial nature. The Russian secret services have not lost the ability to seduce anti-System militants with money. This technique was widely applied by the Soviets.
Let me give you some very recent examples of what David Icke calls MAM, meaning mainstream alternative media. In other words, false dissidence affiliated with occult power circles. Americans Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson. Both are Trump fans, both have become friends with monstrous globalist technocrat Elon Musk, and both love Putin like their father. But what unites the two, as well as other “opinion leaders”, is their affiliation to the interests of the Zionist lobby in the USA, including the avoidance of univocal claims of genocide in the Gaza Strip.
To simplify, we could say that organizations like Chabad Lubavitch strongly influence politicians like Trump (Jared Kushner) and Putin (Berel Lazar) and, implicitly, their servants in the alternative media. In this sense it is worth noting that the few Russian intellectuals who are invited to speak with media personalities like Alex Jones praise both Trump and Putin, demonizing the globalists in abstracto—as if Trump and Putin aren’t guilty of imposing state terrorism with the code name Covid-19, and didn’t make repeated public calls in favor of fake vaccines; as if they were not blind tools of the globalists operating through the UN and Agenda 2030.
By the way, sources in the fake alternative media claim that Tucker Carlson is in Moscow and is going to conduct an interview with Putin himself. Wow what a colossal performance! How many millions does such a banal propaganda trick cost? AND if it’s not a prank, let's see how uncomfortable the questions posed by this famous TV star to the eternal Kremlin leader and savior of mankind, Mr. Putin, will be.
What do you think motivated Putin to launch the “special military operation” in Ukraine? With the operation entering its third year, is Moscow close to achieving its stated goals (as you understand them) in Ukraine?
We should ask ourselves why Putin’s Russia began its military intervention on February 24, 2022, and not in 2014, when the Ukrainian army was extremely weak. I see two reasons: The mediocrity and cowardice of Russian leaders and the major influence of the “fifth column” on their decision-making process.
Also, how should we interpret the two key slogans that accompanied Russian military intervention in Ukraine, “denazification” and “demilitarization”?
Everyone assumed that Putin could no longer tolerate the “anaconda” strategy of the Anglo-Saxons and decided to carry out a blitzkrieg to end the transformation of Ukraine into an anti-Russia.
But what Moscow has been pursuing for two years is a strange military action that has caused hundreds of thousands of deaths on both sides and many millions of Ukrainian refugees, plus the destruction of the European economy caused by those sanctions, which may actually benefit the US and the UK, while devastating the economy of continental European countries. A long-term war is also dangerous for Russia because it can cause serious economic problems and political crises. This is what Russia’s enemies are hoping for.
Following the slowness and clumsiness that accompanied Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine, as well as Moscow’s willingness to enter into peace negotiations, the question arises: what are the true purposes of this military campaign? Or maybe we are trying to find logical and rational explanations to explain the actions of leaders who are overcome by the complexity of the situation?
It is quite possible that Western strategists lured Russia into Ukraine in hopes of creating a second Afghanistan, that is, an accelerator of the destruction of Russia, similar to what happened with the USSR.
In my opinion, one should not underestimate the risk of plots within power blocs in Moscow, as was the case in 1917 or 1991. Between the presentation of Putin as a monster (atlanticist version) and that of a Putin as a patriot and savior (loyalist version), I would prefer a more realistic image of a mediocre person, without any special gifts or talents. As I have said before, you cannot be simultaneously a merchant and a hero or a profiteer and a patriot.
The geopolitical trap in which Moscow now finds itself can be explained this way: Even if Russia had managed to carry out a quick and highly successful military campaign, taking control of the entire territory of Ukraine and installing its allies in leadership positions, Moscow would be swallowing a poisoned apple. Because Western-sponsored destabilization and partisan warfare in Ukraine would have likely led to catastrophe.
Other hypothetical outcomes do not seem to be much better. Annexing only a part of Ukraine to Russia and signing a peace and border demarcation agreement would spark revolts among both Russian and Ukrainian nationalists. Nor does the prospect of complete withdrawals from the territories controlled militarily by Russia seem to guarantee lasting peace and stability.
As a side note, I would like to comment on Putin’s obsessive mantra about the perfidious nature of the West, which brainwashed the Ukrainians for over 30 years and grafted their hatred towards their Russian brothers. I agree, that is at the root of this crisis. But what did the Russian government do to counter this strategy? What has Putin done for nearly 24 years? He promoted only compromised and corrupted friends of the Kremlin, like Yanukovych and Medvedchuk, who embezzled public money and clung to communist symbols, pushing Ukrainians further into the arms of the West. Responsible leaders do not blame their own failures on the hypocrisy of their rivals, but acknowledge their own failures and rush to correct them.
Medvedchuk was of course exchanged for Azov fighters as part of a controversial prisoner swap with Kiev. Coincidentally, Igor Strelkov, one of the most outspoken critics of this decision, was recently sentenced to four years in prison for “extremism”. Why are pro-war “turbo patriots” like Strelkov being targeted by Russian authorities?
As you know, the imprisonment of Strelkov and other patriots such as Father Sergei of the Sredne-Uralsk monastery, as well as the newly adopted draconian law allowing for the deprivation of liberty and confiscation of wealth for “discrediting the military”, is perceived by many Russian patriots as a prelude to a capitulatory and shameful peace with the West and their marionettes from Kiev. If this is the case, those who manipulate Kremlin policy are pushing Putin’s regime towards a very possible collective suicide. That’s because the hundreds of thousands of soldiers on the front, who have been fighting for two years, may rebel and arrive in Moscow to ask Russia’s president why they were betrayed. In such a situation, we might see a more successful repeat of Prigozhin’s march on the Russian capital.
You’re a devout Orthodox Christian and I know that your Christian faith plays a key role in how you interpret world events. What do you say to those who believe that it is immoral or misguided to question or criticize Orthodox Russia while she is in conflict with the collective West?
I do not criticize Russia, nor its Orthodox people and their glorious history and splendid culture, but rather those who destroy, plunder, and demean Russia from the position of greedy and perverse bosses. True patriots and anti-System militants around the world must understand that Russia can and must represent an alternative to the collective West dominated by the Satanists who are imposing a tyrannical regime of dystopian technocracy.
But today’s rulers of this country are only a simulacrum, an imitation, a Potemkin village, who put on the mask of patriots so that they can continue to plunder Russia’s natural resources.
Meanwhile, Russians are being replaced with Muslims from Central Asia. Few people in the West know that not only the US, Canada and Europe are subject to a premeditated invasion of extra-European and non-Christian populations, but also Russia.
My criticism is directed against an occupation administration, subordinated to the UN, WHO, WTO, IMF, BIS. The same is true of the administration of my own country, the US, the EU, China and all BRICS members. The famous Romanian sociologist Dimitrie Gusti described this worldwide predicament as the conflict between the state and the nation.
True, in Russia there is a major spiritual revival. I have been to this country many times, to various cities, and I have seen the churches full of people during the holy liturgies. This is a mystical force and represents a historical chance for a people replete with saints, martyrs and heroes.
Unfortunately, the church hierarchy colludes with political power, pays tribute to Sergianism, and has fallen into the heresy of ecumenism. But Russian Orthodoxy could one day break out as a major political expression. A vicious regime cannot generate significant victories, and a minor politician cannot generate major achievements. Putin is trying to reconcile Jewish oligarchs with national interests, the Chabad Lubavich sect with Orthodoxy, but this is impossible.
Iurie Roșca is the former leader of Moldova’s Christian Democratic People’s Party. He was twice appointed Deputy Chairman of the Moldovan Parliament, and served as Deputy Prime Minister for Security Agencies. Roșca is a prolific author, commentator, and translator, as well as the head of the Chisinau Forum, which holds an annual conference in Moldova.
Don’t forget to read and reread Edward Slavsquat’s previous interviews: