Russia: History repeats itself

I’ve been trying to find this article in English, but for some reason, all I find is really crappy translations.

Does this look a bit Big Brother-ish to you?

Does this look a bit Big Brother-ish to you?

Bottom line: Russian President Vladimir Putin has created a “National Guard” (Нацгвардия), but it’s not like the National Guard we’re accustomed to. While Putin claims this armed force, which incorporates some of the Interior Ministry troops, is created specifically to address terrorism, transnational organized crime, and arms trafficking in the country, it as a way to continue consolidating power in the presidency. It is a ministry-level organization that falls directly under the control of the President.

“If you have noticed, this decision is not simply related to detaching the interior troops from the Interior Ministry. But this has been done so that this new structure will now concentrate all that is connected with firearms. This refers to various kinds of security provision and the authorization system [to get the right to possess firearms], ensure oversight of private security firms and this also refers to interior troops proper,” Putin said.

Yes, I know the translation sucks, but think about this for a moment. The Russian president, who already has been well on the path to grabbing power, censorship, stringent nationalism, and violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of his country’s neighbors, is now creating himself a little army that’s focusing not just on terrorism and TOC, but also firearms trade. By the way, the Russian Federation in November 2014 eased firearms restrictions to allow its citizens to carry firearms for self defense, but now Putin is controlling some pretty powerful military troops who focus internally.

Call me crazy and untrusting, but I wouldn’t want any government – especially not an authoritarian crap weasel like Putin – having control of his own little army that can be used against the citizenry, and given Russia’s pivot toward statism in the past few years, this Нацгвардия is more than concerning.

We view the right to keep and bear arms as a bulwark against tyranny. The fact that Putin has now created an armed entity, controlled solely by him, to focus on “all that is connected with firearms” should tell you everything you need to know about where that nation is headed internally. And that, my friends, coupled with the recent aggression of Russian fighter jets first buzzing the USS Donald Cook, and then flying dangerously close to one of our recon craft, is indicative of the kind of threats with which the next President will be dealing.

Everything old is new again.

14 responses

  1. Didn’t our own dear leader want to make his own “civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the military. But that was just the peace corps, because we haven’t had enough Orwellian utopia yet.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/video/2012/11/flashback_obama_wants_civilian_national_security_force.html

    I am glad that so far POTUS and the DOJ doesn’t have an actual military (as opposed to a militarized police force) to pacify the unruly and bring safety to the homeland.

    Like

  2. “…. the recent aggression of Russian fighter jets first buzzing the USS Donald Cook, and then flying dangerously close to one of our recon craft,…”

    Indeed. And there is this—

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04/17/budget-cuts-leaving-marine-corps-aircraft-grounded.html?intcmp=ob_article_sidebar_video&intcmp=obinsite

    Like

  3. I think they were once called the “Brownshirts” in a earlier time…

    Like

  4. This is close: http://www.voanews.com/content/russia-creates-national-guard-fight-terror-crime/3270633.html

    It doesn’t provide the same level of detail, but gets the main idea across, which should be enough to be…troubling.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks. That’s pretty good.

      Like

  5. First saw this at TZP and thought I should first come here before commenting. Good thing. Everyone beat me to most things I had in mind. I do have one thing that I did learn recently. My son is a Navy Sailor. He told me that the ship he is on does not have modern computers like I expected. Instead, they are using computers from the 1960’s like the ones that sent the spacecraft to the moon. They use tape drives and everything. They have to have the drive motors rewound 5 or 6 times a year.
    I couldn’t believe it, but then the more we talked the more it made sense. He said they had signed 30 year contracts for some of those pieces of equipment. I immediately thought retirement plan for Rear Admiral. Then, when wondering why not fix other aging pieces of equipment, I thought, a shiny new F-999 airplane that will never fly is so much sexier. And can hide so much more money that can be used for nefarious purposes.
    I guess I have a bad attitude towards our military spending bureaucrats. I tend to not believe them first, unless they prove themselves to me. It hasn’t happened yet.

    Like

    1. On The Other Hand… sometimes the older tech is harder to hack.

      I took a tour of a Titan II missile silo, and the target was read off of punched paper tape…only it wasn’t paper, it was some sort of plastic that would be hard to tear. Damned difficult for someone outside to hack into! (Admittedly that tech wasn’t very out of date (if at all) at the time.)

      Like

      1. That was my thought too. The new tech has its advantages, but anyone can get in there.

        Like

    2. On the other hand, all that old school tech can be repaired to the component level on site.

      Like

  6. I must admit, I hadn’t thought of any of those things. They could be quite valid. I am not sure that they have entered into consideration of the powers that be, based on all of the other things that have happened in the government reigns of control, but it is certainly a possibility. It just seems like the modern technology is so much more accurate and simple to use that it would be worth the need for security. I tend to not give our leadership enough credit at times, and that is my own problem. I would rather err on the side of less credit than more. I can always change my mind.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. […] The Liberty ZoneWe view the right to keep and bear arms as a bulwark against tyranny. The fact that Putin has now created an armed entity, controlled solely by him, to focus on “all that is connected with firearms” should tell you everything you need to know about where that nation is headed internally. And that, my friends, coupled with the recent aggression of Russian fighter jets first buzzing the USS Donald Cook, and then flying dangerously close to one of our recon craft, is indicative of the kind of threats with which the next President will be dealing.A very ominous sign indeed. […]

    Like

  8. […] a continuingly complacent Congress and judicial branch, a suitable Constitutional Amendment, and a Putinesque civilian national security force) at most he can regulate lawful commerce in defensive arms into […]

    Like

  9. […] creating himself a nice little armed force that’s solely under his control – partly to project power to any who dare challenge […]

    Like

%d bloggers like this: