Russia and America: What is and Might Be

The Dialogue in the Kremlin

Not that I have an inside source or anything…

Imagine the conversation in the Kremlin. Certainly, they have their hawks and doves.  Let’s call them the “war party” and the “hopeful diplomats.”

War Party: “NATO has been moving ever closer to the motherland.  First Yugoslavia, then the Baltics, then Georgia, now Ukraine.”

Hopeful Diplomats: “We think we finally have someone in Trump that we can work with.  He says he wants to talk.  Let’s give it a chance.”

War Party: “You don’t understand.  There is no more buffer between NATO and the motherland; next stop St. Petersburg, then Moscow.”

Hopeful Diplomats: “We only have to wait ten more days, and then we can officially talk to Trump.”

War Party: “OK, but if things go south, so will you.  We will have to fight.”

Hopeful Diplomats: [Gulp]

On the one hand, Putin can be described as a patient diplomat: despite the continued eastern encroachments by NATO he has not launched an overt counter-attack.  On the other hand, the Russian military – while certainly capable – is no match for the US military when push comes to shove…and Putin knows this.  He has to be (and so far has been) very selective about where and how he engages.

There is one place, certainly, where the two are – for all practical purposes – equal: weapons of mass destruction, aka nukes.

What will the Russians look for from Trump?  Satisfactory resolutions on the Ukraine and Syria and an end to the economic and other sanctions.  Given that it is the west and the US that have been the aggressors in all these conflicts, what this means is that the desired outcome is all one-sided – reasonably favorable to Russia.

After all, what compromise can be reached when you are the aggrieved party?  As is obvious, there are too many in the US – neocons whether democrat or republican – that will fight hard against this.

This is the place for wise diplomats, good negotiators.  Find a way to leave a neutral Ukraine, even one that offers autonomy to certain regions; Assad stays in power until proper elections are held; once an agreement is reached on these two, the sanctions will be lifted.  In other words, find deals where both sides can claim some form of victory (whether true or not).

What is left for Russia if the hopeful diplomats are wrong?  The war party in the Kremlin will take control, as they must give that the situation is existential.

There is a third group in Russia – those willing or even desirous of moving toward the west, under the western orbit.  If the hopeful diplomats fail, will this group come to the fore instead of the war party?

Hard to imagine.  The bloodiest battles in Europe over the last 150 have usually come as a result of Russia facing an existential crisis.  They haven’t lost yet.  It is difficult to imagine an easy transition to subservience for such a people.

What happens if the Russian political and military leadership find no reason to hope that the dialogue and the actions will change under Trump?  That is the question, isn’t it?

There should be no doubt that many western leaders favor war; they will do all they can to ensure Trump is cornered.  This will not be an easy road for Trump.

Conclusion

When facing an existential crisis and you cannot otherwise fight on equal terms, why not go all Samson on your enemy.

Judges 16:27 Now the temple was crowded with men and women; all the rulers of the Philistines were there, and on the roof were about three thousand men and women watching Samson perform.

28 Then Samson prayed to the Lord, “Sovereign Lord, remember me. Please, God, strengthen me just once more, and let me with one blow get revenge on the Philistines for my two eyes.”

29 Then Samson reached toward the two central pillars on which the temple stood. Bracing himself against them, his right hand on the one and his left hand on the other,

30 Samson said, “Let me die with the Philistines!” Then he pushed with all his might, and down came the temple on the rulers and all the people in it. Thus he killed many more when he died than while he lived.

Let’s hope Trump can leave Russia with two eyes….

Reprinted with permission from Bionic Mosquito.

From Lewrockwell.com, here.

re: Reviewing Breslov By Means of a Book Review

It can’t be denied some Breslovers have disturbing tendencies (maybe they got it from Berland?). See more here for exempla, and the money quote:

I don’t think I have a problem with Breslov, but if it’s getting distorted into idolatry, I certainly do.

I now quote from centrist Breslov.org’s FAQ page:

Is the Rebbe an intermediary between the Chassid and God?

The Second Commandment forbids us to accept any mediator between God and man. There is no sense in which the Tzaddik carries out some form of devotion which then absolves the individual Jew from fulfilling his own religious duties. On the contrary, Rebbe Nachman’s teachings call on each Jew to accept responsibility for his life and take practical steps to develop his own personal relationship with God, especially through intense prayer and hisbodidus.

At the same time, Torah literature frequently portrays the Tzaddikim interceding with God on behalf of the Jewish People, as Moses did after the sin of the Golden Calf, when he prayed to God for forgiveness (Exodus 32:11-13). Similarly when the Jews were taken into exile in Babylon the soul of Rachel came forth from her grave entreating for mercy on their behalf (Rashi, Genesis 48:7). Rebbe Nachman thus emphasized the importance of turning to the Tzaddik to intercede in times of trouble. It is like when a private person is summoned to court. Recognizing his own inexperience in matters of law and court procedure, he turns to an experienced advocate to help put his case in the best possible light.

Belief in the power of the Tzaddik is quite different from relating to him as an intermediary. Having belief in the Tzaddik means recognizing one’s own inadequacies and accepting that the Tzaddik is wiser and more saintly. Because of the Tzaddik’s closeness to God, he is able to reveal the ways of serving God to others. The book, `Crossing the Nar row Bridge,’ (Chapter #17) explains this concept in detail.

From Breslov.org, here (question #14).

Wedding Pains

Some friendly advice:

Are the Chassan or Kallah avoiding you? Please don’t take it personally. I have never known a couple to go from engagement and onward without both of them losing a few friends (at least temporarily). It has probably happened to you from one side of the dais, so now it’s time for the other.

Renewing the Old: ‘Yashan’

Yoshon: Why More Today Than Years Ago?

Q. Why does it seem that there is a greater emphasis on Yoshon today than there was generations ago?

A. The Rama (Yoreh De’ah 293:2) writes that where we are uncertain when grain is planted and harvested, it is permissible based on a sfek sfeika (double doubt): The wheat may have been harvested before Pesach, and even if it was harvested after Pesach, it may have taken root before Pesach. In past generations, it was impossible to know when a particular sack of wheat was harvested or in which month it was planted. In addition, historically (until the 1970s) the U.S. stored their surplus grain from one year to the next. Under such circumstances, it was possible to apply the sfek sfeika of the Rama.

However, today the wheat supply can be tracked so efficiently that there is much less doubt as to whether the wheat is from this year’s or last year’s crop. Every shipment of wheat contains paperwork that identifies the type of wheat and the year it was harvested. Crop reports inform us when each variety of wheat is planted for every state. Furthermore, there is little chance that the wheat is from a previous year, since the U.S. exports its wheat surplus. Far from qualifying as a double doubt, in certain circumstances one might even know with certainty that a particular batch of flour is chodosh. The Mishnah Berurah (489:45) cautioned against purchasing Russian wheat which was known to be chodosh.

However, the opinions of the Magen Avrohom and Bach (cited in the previous Halachah Yomis) would still apply, for those who wish to be lenient.

This column comes from OU Kosher’s Halacha Yomis dedicated in memory of Rav Chaim Yisroel ben Reb Dov HaLevy Belsky, zt’l, Senior OU Kosher Halachic Consultant (1987-2016). Subscribers can also ask their own questions on Kashrus issues and send them to grossmany@ou.org. These questions and their answers may be selected to become one of the Q and A’s on OU Kosher Halacha Yomis.

From Matzav, here.