2 replies »

1. It’s how they plan on getting rid of the rest of us, not all humanity, just us of European ancestry who value and cherish our past. They ran the math and we’re too hard to “manage” so they’ll try to send us off to the meat grinder, don;t go and for god’s sake don’t send your kids, they’re the “seed corn” for the future. Let the dinghy ppl go, if they survive the meat grinder we can then talk about their future in Europa.

   LikeLike

   Reply

2. (in reply to your letter of September 13, 2026)

   Dear Frol Sergeyevich,

   (in reply to your letter of September 13, 2026)

   Thank you for your letter and summary! I read/re-read with interest your gloomy thoughts concerning the “puddle at the bottom of the ditch beyond the roadside,” as well as about the “life of the Primorskaya Embankment.”

   As to the first point, I can only advise you to ABANDON AS SOON AS POSSIBLE ALL HOPES FOR “OPTIMISTIC SCENARIOS” regarding the conclusion of the present systemic crisis. All such scenarios have already “gone into the wastebasket.”

   Accept the fact that a terrible future is inevitable. We will have to ENTER IT and only afterward TRY TO GET OUT OF IT. Preferably at least relatively intact—although it is by no means certain that, “at the exit,” there will not be nothing left but “dismembered pieces.” Still, perhaps something will depend on us as well.

   As an aside: “Zhenya Pinochet”—a bloody and poorly educated imbecile from a St. Petersburg back alley—ended, together with his team, exactly as virtually all bandit chieftains have usually ended throughout history. And thank God for that!

   Because living under “Zhenya Pinochet” would have been approximately the same as living in Haiti under “Baby Doc” [Duvalier], if you have heard of him.

   That, of course, does not eliminate the possibility that such figures may emerge in the “horrible future,” but I simply cannot believe that anyone who actually wants to continue living in our country could be “interested” in them.

   The reason is simple: “Zhenya Pinochet” would mean lawlessness an order of magnitude worse than what exists now, except that inconvenient people would not be sent to prison, but simply “disappeared into nowhere.”

   And that would appeal to absolutely no one, not even the “captains of business.” They already experienced this sort of thing in the 1990s and have no desire whatsoever to “bring back the holy nineties,” from which “Zhenya” himself crawled out.

   “Business people” need stability and “rules that are the same for everyone”—or at least almost everyone. They need arbiters, not sullen cocaine-addicted gangsters with the inclinations of sadistic perverts.

   Such people might, of course, be used by our “dear Western partners” during the process of “finishing off” Russia—breaking it apart and “digesting” it—but even then only temporarily, after which their inevitable destruction would follow.

   Regarding the paragraph about the “Embankment”: THIS TOO HAS HAPPENED MANY TIMES IN HISTORY.

   It strongly resembles 1917–1918, when a great many people likewise stubbornly “failed to notice” what was happening around them—they ate, drank, and went strolling as though nothing unusual were taking place.

   But then the time came when “everyone was touched by it,” and there was no longer any room for “light music.”

   People are people…

   Regarding your question about the growth in Turkish military spending:

   The answer is obvious: the Turkish establishment has reached the unequivocal conclusion that a major war in the near future is inevitable.

   Since Turkey is presently governed by leaders accustomed to rapidly translating decisions into concrete and appropriate action, the country has begun feverish preparations for a war in which it WILL BE FORCED TO PARTICIPATE ACTIVELY.

   Let us answer the question:

   UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD TURKEY ACTUALLY BE FORCED TO FIGHT?

   Answer:

   a) in the event of a direct attack upon Turkey;

   b) in the event of Turkey’s own aggression against one of its neighbors—assuming that this state possesses capabilities comparable to Turkey’s or even exceeding them;

   c) if Turkey is required to fulfill its treaty obligations within NATO.

   Let us examine these points one by one.

   a) Who could attack Turkey?

   Answer: NO ONE IN HIS RIGHT MIND WOULD DO SO.

   Even the Greeks, who hate the Turks, would not do it, because Turkey is simply “too tough for them to bite.”

   Someone acting irrationally might imagine Israel or Iran attacking the Turks. But I do not believe either possibility.

   Israel is having enormous difficulty trying to finish off Hezbollah and somehow resolve the issue of the Palestinian territories. It recently “took a beating” from Iran and, until Iran is destroyed as a military power, Iran will remain the principal target of Israeli aggression.

   Iran does share a border with Turkey, but with the United States and Israel “on its tail,” it will not openly enter into conflict with the Turks. That would amount to suicide for the Islamic Republic of Iran.

   And if Iran is defeated by them, then all the more so.

   Consequently, the probability of anyone attacking Turkey is below any meaningful level of probability.

   b) and c) Turkey’s own aggression against one of its powerful neighbors:

   This is more plausible.

   There are only two realistic candidates: the Russian Federation and Iran.

   But in either case, Turkey will not go in ALONE—neither against one nor the other.

   Only as part of a coalition.

   At the present moment, both variants appear equally possible.

   For example, the United States could somehow “buy Erdogan lock, stock and barrel” and use him as its own “ground-force proxy” against the regime of the ayatollahs. Israel, in such a case, would become Turkey’s ally.

   The Turks, within the framework of their obsessive idea of “Greater Turan,” have motives to “bite off” the whole of South Azerbaijan from Iran and thereby elevate themselves to the role of REGIONAL HEGEMON—a role occupied by the Ottoman Empire a little more than 100 years ago.

   Since Iran currently possesses significant capabilities for carrying out air and missile strikes against all of its neighbors, including Turkey, and is also “one step away” from creating its own nuclear weapons—15 to 20 warheads—Turkey’s emergency measures, if a preliminary decision has been taken to “get involved” in the war, are more than justified.

   But an equally probable possibility seems to me to be Turkey’s participation in 2027–2029, as part of the “Coalition of the Willing,” in “dividing up the hide of the Russian bear”—if that bear, under the incomparable leadership of “NUSP,” finally manages to bring itself to the point of death.

   And in that case too, alongside the coveted “goodies”—Crimea, the eastern and northeastern Black Sea region—Turkey would also acquire a substantial threat, because even among the “ruins” of Russia there would remain considerable forces and weapons capable of “dragging Turkey into hell along with itself.”

   And then there is c), in its pure form:

   If someone—Iran, Russia, or China—actually launches a full-scale attack on NATO with major forces.

   In that case, Ankara “would not even be asked.” The alliance would operate from Turkish territory and, accordingly, retaliatory strikes would hit Turkey.

   Turkey would have to fight regardless.

   The same applies to a NATO-initiated attack against China or Russia.

   The scenario would be approximately the same, and even in the event of a hypothetical “complete success” of a surprise strike, Turkey itself could still “get hit very hard.”

   CONCLUSION:

   At the present moment, TURKISH INTERVENTION in a U.S./Israeli war against Iran is MORE LIKELY.

   Accordingly, Turkey is preparing for precisely such a war—for example, one beginning two or three months after a new and sharp escalation of hostilities.

   Looking further ahead, the probability will increase of Turkey entering a war against Russia in alliance with “ukraine,” the “Coalition of the Willing,” and probably the United States as well.

   And, of course, no one has eliminated the possibility of World War III, in which the Turks would be compelled to participate whether they wished to or not.

   I emphasize once again:

   The fact that defense expenditures have increased many times over indicates that Ankara has concluded that a new major war is inevitable and that the probability of Turkey’s participation in it is extremely high.

   That is the most important point contained in this information.

   Regarding the other subjects in your summary—which are closely connected with the answer to the preceding question—I believe that the United States and Israel will undertake every possible measure before the end of the year to “finish off” Iran.

   This could include the use of tactical nuclear weapons—and perhaps not only tactical ones.

   Moreover, I believe—and agree with your assumptions—that the United States will now attempt to “postpone” the “Ukraine–Russian Federation conflict” in order to ensure the maximum possible isolation and blockade of Iran, using fictitious and strictly temporary concessions to the “Kremlin.”

   Trump cannot afford to “postpone” an attack on Iran even until November.

   I think the “denouement” may already come in October—if it does not begin in September.

   As for “our” front, unfortunately I have practically nothing to add to the forecasts I have already given:

   A “BRUTAL DEADLOCK”…

   with no prospects whatsoever for overcoming it successfully—from our point of view.

   At the same time, there will again be no “honorable compromises”—not now, not ever.

   By the end of autumn or toward winter, the situation will once again approach another “point of collapse.”

   With respect and gratitude,

   With the wish that you ACCEPT GOD’S WILL, WHATEVER IT MAY BE,

   Sincerely yours,

   [signature]

   I. V. Girkin

   September 16, 2026

   LikeLike

   Reply