THE MEANING OF THE WORD REVANCHIST
COMPILATION AND COMMENTARY
BY LUCY WARNER
JULY 14, 2018


A REVANCHIST RUSSIA AND THE TRUMP/PUTIN BARGAIN IS THE NEXT INEVITABLE STEP PERHAPS. I HOPE FERVENTLY THAT IS NOT TO BE THE CASE, BECAUSE WE ARE ON A VERY SLIPPERY SLOPE DOWNWARD FROM THE RELATIVELY PEACEFUL RELATIONSHIP WITH RUSSIA IN THE COLD WAR. I SAY THAT BECAUSE RUSSIA IS EVEN CLOSER TO US NOW THAN THE POST WWII YEARS, AND IN A VERY THREATENING WAY – INFILTRATION CULTURALLY AND TECHNICAL SUPERIORITY BEING TWO REASONS FOR THAT. WHY, FOR INSTANCE, DID RUSSIA PLANT THEIR NATIONAL FLAG ON THE SEA FLOOR OFF THE CANADIAN TERRITORY A FEW YEARS AGO? IS OURS THERE, TOO? [ON THIS, GO TO: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6927395.stm --

“Both vessels have now rejoined the expedition's ships, completing their risky return journey to the surface.
Canada, which also claims territory in the Arctic, has criticised the mission. "This isn't the 15th Century," Canadian Foreign Minister Peter MacKay told the CTV channel. "You can't go around the world and just plant flags and say 'We're claiming this territory'," he said.

Melting polar ice has led to competing claims over access to Arctic resources.”]

IS THIS IRON LADY OF LITHUANIA THE ONLY HEAD OF STATE WITH THE INTESTINAL FORTITUDE TO BE HONEST ABOUT THE TYPE OF SOCIETY THAT RUSSIA IS THESE DAYS? I THOUGHT, BELIEVED THAT GLASNOST WOULD CURE THAT PROBLEM, BUT APPARENTLY NOT. PUTIN SEEMS TO ME TO BE THE MOST AGGRESSIVE LEADER IN RUSSIA WITHIN MY MEMORY, AND YET IN A SLICK AND CONNIVING WAY. HE APPEARS MORE URBANE THAN HE IS. IT MAKES ME VERY UNCOMFORTABLE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP SEEMS TO WANT TO BE HIS “SIDEKICK” – HIS TONTO OR HIS ROBIN THE BOY WONDER.

IN THE WORDS OF LITHUANIA’S PRESIDENT DALIA GRYBAUSKAITE, “WE ARE NOT CRITICS, WE SIMPLY CALL RUSSIA’S ACTIONS BY THEIR REAL NAMES. THE KREMLIN CONDUCTS CONFRONTATIONAL POLICY, VIOLATES INTERNATIONAL LAW, DESTROYS THE GLOBAL AND REGIONAL SECURITY ARCHITECTURE, AND SEEKS TO DIVIDE EUROPE AND WEAKEN TRANS-ATLANTIC STRUCTURES. FOR THE KREMLIN, SILENCE SIGNIFIES CONSENT.” IN THIS ARTICLE BY THE DAILY BEAST, THEY HAVE HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD AGAIN. LIKE THE LITTLE BOY IN THE GREAT OLD FABLE, SHE IS STATING IN MORE SOPHISTICATED WAYS, “THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES!!”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-president-who-dared-to-call-putins-russia-what-it-is-a-terrorist-state
IRON LADY
The President Who Dared to Call Putin’s Russia What It Is: A Terrorist State
Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite was blunt about her neighbor’s aggression after it took over Crimea—and in an interview, she sounds the alarm about her nation’s vulnerability.
MICHAEL WEISS
03.18.16 1:00 AM ET

Not many world leaders call Vladimir Putin a terrorist and get away with it.

But Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite refused to resort to diplomatic euphemism in describing Vladimir Putin’s aggression in Ukraine. “If a terrorist state that is engaged in open aggression against its neighbor is not stopped,” she declared in November 2014, about eight months after Moscow’s annexation of Crimea, “then that aggression might spread further into Europe.”

Sometimes referred to as the Baltic Iron Lady, Grybauskaite is outspoken about NATO’s responsibility to fortify its eastern periphery and forestall any future acts of Russian military adventurism into Europe. Lithuania, she has said, is “already under attack” from Kremlin propaganda and disinformation, a targeted campaign she considers the possible curtain-raiser to an invasion of her country.

The Daily Beast got in touch with Grybauskaite via email to discuss the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, Article V’s relevance in the 21st century, the Mideast refugee crisis, and Lithuania’s vulnerability as the smallish neighbor of re-militarized and revanchist* Russia.

You were one of the few European heads of state to boycott the Sochi Olympics over the Kremlin’s crackdown on human rights, particularly LGBT rights. This was, of course, before the invasion of Ukraine and what many consider to be the West’s “waking up” to Putin’s Russia. What has Lithuania experienced during your presidency that made you an outspoken critic of Putin and his policies?

We are not critics, we simply call Russia’s actions by their real names. The Kremlin conducts confrontational policy, violates international law, destroys the global and regional security architecture, and seeks to divide Europe and weaken trans-Atlantic structures.

For the Kremlin, silence signifies consent. We cannot be complicit or create a climate of impunity that encourages dangerous behavior. That is why speaking the truth is our obligation.

RELATED IN WORLD NEWS --
Russia's Trump Summit Propaganda War
The World’s Beating a Path to Putin’s Door

U.S. President Donald Trump, right, and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, left, gestures while speaking during their bilateral breakfast, Wednesday July 11, 2018 in Brussels, Belgium. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

TRUMP, GUNNING FOR NATO, PITS GERMANY AGAINST RUSSIA

Along with Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves, you used the word “terrorism” to describe the actions taken by Russian-backed separatists (and Russian soldiers) in Donbas. Obviously this is the word used by Kiev to describe its military response to these activities, but doesn’t accusing a major power of terrorism suggest that something more than sanctions is in order to confront it? What should NATO and the EU and United States be doing that they aren’t?

It’s evident that having a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council that occupies and annexes territories of its neighbors poses a serious threat to the international security system. This is the goal pursued by the Kremlin. Divide and rule is the name of the game.

We cannot accept any “new normal” in our relationship with Russia. With the war continuing in eastern Ukraine, Crimea occupied, and the Kremlin directly helping the murderous Assad regime to stay in power in Syria, cooperation cannot be built on blackmail and menace. The EU and NATO should see beyond Kremlin propaganda. The EU and NATO must have their own agenda with Russia, not be part of the Kremlin’s puppet show. That means expanding our influence in the neighborhood, strengthening our defenses, breaking barriers for trade, and protecting the rule-based international order.

Kremlin information warfare is particularly acute in the Baltic states. What is the Russian government trying to achieve in Lithuania? Is it seeking regime change by appealing to the Russian diaspora or fringe political movements here?

Propaganda and information attacks are part of hybrid warfare. They seek to provoke social and ethnic tensions, promote mistrust in government, discredit our history, independence, and statehood, and demonstrate that Western democracy is functioning on dual standards.

But the most dangerous goal of information warfare is to break the people’s will to resist and defend their state, and to create a favorable environment for possible military intervention. And the example of Ukraine is proof that conventional war in Europe is no longer theoretical.

Many Americans don’t count the trans-Atlantic relationship among their top foreign policy priorities. What does the fate of Europe, much less the fate of the postwar liberal democratic order, mean for the United States? Do we have to fear another world war? Do you see that as a proximate or remote possibility?

Perhaps there is less debate about the trans-Atlantic relationship because everyone agrees that it remains strong and must only be getting stronger. We all have the same perceptions of existing threats. What we should do now is take the necessary defense measures against those threats through NATO’s defense planning, updated defense scenarios, sufficient and credible deterrence, rapid reaction, and smooth decision-making process. We shouldn’t just fear war but do everything possible to make sure it doesn’t happen.

Lithuania has not been too directly affected by the Middle Eastern refugee crisis. There are only six Syrians living here, although members of your government have said they would welcome more. What policies should European countries be adopting with respect to this crisis? Do you agree with Gen. Breedlove that Putin is “weaponizing” refugees to try to undermine democratic societies and governments, namely Germany?

Migration routes can change very quickly, and all of us have to be prepared. We already see migrants coming through Russia to Norway and Finland.

Helping refugees is our duty. But it is also important to try to solve the problem at its source, use all diplomatic tools to find a peaceful solution, provide humanitarian support, engage more with Turkey and other countries in the region to fight smuggling networks, and give people support closer to home so they are not forced to choose a dangerous trip by sea.

Regarding Russia’s involvement, no one can deny that Russia’s support of Assad as well as airstrikes only contributed to the destabilization of the situation in Syria and made many more people flee their homes.

EU sanctions have not deterred Russia from continuing to arm and escalate in Ukraine. Just this last week we saw an uptick in violence in Donbas. Also, both the separatists and Kiev seem to be underreporting the violations of the ceasefire; the OSCE Monitoring Mission typically carries many more violations (by orders of magnitude) in its weekly reports. Are new sanctions a possibility? There seems to be more of a willingness by other countries in Europe to roll back the existing sanctions regime and return to business as usual with Russia.

The European Council agreed that the duration of sanctions against Russia is linked to the complete implementation of the Minsk agreements. We are nowhere near that. Russia continues to send its troops and military equipment to Donbas in direct violation of the Minsk agreements. Therefore I do not see a reason to discuss lifting sanctions or rolling them back. On the contrary, sanctions are the only thing that could force Russia to take its Minsk commitments seriously. And if the situation in Ukraine deteriorates, all options should be on the table for the EU to consider how to increase the cost of Russian involvement.

Russian corruption has been described as one of the country’s chief exports, alongside oil and gas. All of the Baltic states have suffered, since their independence, from gangsterism, issues with money-laundering, and so on. How bad is it the situation in Lithuania?

While the culture of corruption has its roots in the Soviet system, it is something that we have to fight ourselves. Lithuania is ranked 32nd in Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index. That’s 15 places up from five years ago. But there’s another 31 to go…We are focusing on fighting impunity, ensuring that responsibility is both unavoidable and sufficiently severe.

Ensuring competition and transparency in the energy sector is another area where there has been substantial progress, including by limiting Russia’s influence. Lithuania has successfully built the LNG terminal, which ensured the security of supply and fair competition in the gas market. We also unbundled energy supply from ownership, which helped us to create more transparent relations in our energy sector.

Similarly, Russian espionage in the Baltic states continues to be a major national security issue. One recalls the Hermann Simm case in Estonia and annual arrests of Chekists in the state security services. And the problem is just as bad, if not worse, in other former occupied states. Just today, it was announced that a military adviser to your Czech counterpart had his security clearance taken away because of his perceived closeness to Russia. Are you concerned about the infiltration of Lithuania’s security and intelligence establishment? Is counterintelligence in general something that NATO and the EU should place a greater emphasis on?

No one can be 100 percent sure that there won’t be such attempts. But we take all the national security threats very seriously. Our and NATO security services are vigilant and on high alert.

Are we in another Cold War, as Dmitry Medvedev said at the Munich Security Conference? If so, what does that mean for Western defense policy? Do we need a strategy of containment with respect to Russia?

With over 9,000 dead in Ukraine since the conflict started two years ago, the war is far from being cold. And Russia’s aggressive actions did not start with Ukraine. We should not forget its role in frozen conflicts throughout Eastern Europe or the 2008 war in Georgia.

The only containment strategy is not to underestimate the nature of the threat and be prepared to act in our own defense.


REVANCHIST*
https://www.google.com/search?q=REVANCHE&spell=1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjY_8X__p_cAhXKqlkKHTXlBhkQBQgmKAA&biw=820&bih=483

REVANCHIST (ROOT WORD IS “REVANCHE” MEANING “REVENGE” – FRENCH)
re·vanche
rəˈväNSH/Submit – The audio sample of this word sounds to me like
“re-vawnsh.”
noun
noun: revanche; plural noun: revanches

A POLICY OR MOVEMENT aimed at achieving the RETURN OF A NATION'S LOST TERRITORY (frequently with reference to France's desire to regain Alsace–Lorraine after its annexation in the Franco-Prussian War).

EXAMPLE -- "Sorel was no starry-eyed advocate of revanche in the decades following the defeat of 1871"

ORIGIN

French -- literally ‘revenge.’

[Translate revanche to
Use over time for: revanche]


TO SHOW MORE THAN JUST A FINE NEW VOCABULARY WORD, SEE THESE ARTICLES WHICH CAME UP WHEN I SEARCHED “PUTIN RUSSIA REGAIN ALASKA?” HOW IS THIS FOR A CASE OF “REVANCHE”?

I CAN SEE WHY TRUMP WANTS TO BE CLOSE WITH PUTIN, HE’S DEEPLY IN DEBT AND POSSIBLY IS BEING BLACKMAILED BY THE RUSSIANS; BUT WHAT IS PUTIN GETTING OUT OF THE DEAL? ANOTHER LAND GRAB? CRIMEA IS ON ONE SIDE OF RUSSIA, AND WE ARE ON THE OTHER, WITH A LITTLE WATER IN BETWEEN. ALASKA HAS TIMBER, OIL AND MINERALS, PLUS PROBABLY SOME VERY GOOD FISHING. PUTIN HAS ALSO SEEMED TO ME TO WANT TO REGAIN THE OLD SOVIET UNION OF THE 1950S, PERHAPS AS A GAME; PERHAPS BECAUSE JUST AS “THERE IS A FOOL BORN EVERY DAY,” THERE IS ALSO A DICTATOR, ANOTHER ALEXANDER THE GREAT. (REVANCHE)

https://www.quora.com/Does-Russia-regret-selling-Alaska-to-the-Americans
Does Russia regret selling Alaska to the Americans?

Matthew Sutton, worked at History
Updated Sep 3, 2016 · Author has 3.3k answers and 3.8m answer views
Originally Answered: Why did Russia sell Alaska?


The Russians were primarily motivated by money when they decided to sell it to the US.

Alaska was fantastically profitable for awhile (from about 1820–1835), but the Russians depleted both the Aleut human and the seal populations within a generation. Furthermore the world market had become saturated with furs by the mid-1840 with North American and Siberian trapping rapidly driving down prices, while demand in an increasingly destitute China collapsed. Alaska has other vast resources (timber, fish, crabs, oil, copper, some coal, even some gold) but these weren't remotely exploitable or profitable in the mid-19th century. There was no immediately exploitable resource that was as profitable as sealing for Alaska in the 1850s. The interior remained largely unsurveyed, terra incognita until long after the Americans took possession (as in until aerial surveying starting in the 30’s). Furthermore the inland tribes were restive and the powerful Tlingit especially limited Russian colonial activities to the coast. Throughout the 1840s and 50s the Russian government was having to subsidize the ailing Russian-American Company’s operations.

By the middle of the 19th century, Alaska had been financially marginal for awhile and Russia was finding it difficult to keep it supplied and maintained via extremely long maritime routes (this was before the Trans-Siberian railway and Vladivostok being a major port.) Logistically keeping Russian Alaska fed and liquored up proved nearly impossible. Outside of plentiful salmon there was always a shortage of grain in Alaska; a perfunctory attempt to set up a "nearby" fort down in California (Ft. Ross in California) to grow wheat and trade for food with more southern tribes didn't really help much.

Russia had more pressing concerns closer at home than the poor, hopelessly remote colonial enterprise and was looking to unload the expensive enterprise at the end of the world. Like Napoleonic France and the Louisiana Purchase, it seemed like a good idea to sell it to the Americans before it eventually passed into British hands by force of arms. The British had just defeated Russia in the Crimean conflict, had surrounded the vast territory over land on the North American continent, could arm tribes in Alaska with impunity and sabotage Russian control, and had the overwhelming naval means to settle and exploit and supply the territory. Russia didn't have means or willpower to invest money in defending an already money losing colonial enterprise.

While the decision to sell Alaska for spare change seems absurd in a resource and territory-conscious 21st century, it was probably the best option the Russians then had available. Letting America take Alaska off its hands put a neutral power between the Russian Far East and often hostile British Canada, blunting any threat from the British to attack the Russian Far East. To attack Russian ports in Kamchatka or in the Sea of Okhotsk, the Royal Navy would have to operate across US shipping lanes to and from Alaska which almost certainly be a diplomatic deterrent to Britain which had fought a frustrating war to a draw with the USA in 1812, and had concern for its rapidly growing power below the longest undefended border on Earth (US-Canada).

Ridding itself of Alaska saved the Russian crown a fortune, netted some quick cash for the habitually broke Tsar, and established a neutral buffer in Alaska to discourage any Britsh encroachment on Russian territory (further saving Russia money in having to defend both it and its fledgling Far East ports). So as a sale it was very a smart move for generations afterwards. Russia already had more barely populated, subarctic taiga in Siberia than it knew what to do with (even today), and with its hands full in Europe, the Near East, Central Asia, and Far East Asia couldn't afford to worry about North America.

Not until the Klondike gold rush of 1898 and subsequent resource surveys in the 20th century (especially vast oil reserves in the North Slope) did the USA’s benefits from Alaska become fully known. Supplying Alaska was easier and cheaper for the Americans from developed agricultural regions along the West coast, with transcontinental rail lines, and with shorter shipping routes from SF and Seattle. Better and more efficient management, though heavily patriarchal, lead to better relations between the indigenous peoples and the American administrators. The Panama Canal made shipping from the US east coast to Alaska far cheaper, dependable and safer than old, serpentine Russian routes which ran through Turkish controlled Instanbul, British controlled Suez, Gibraltar, Hormuz, and around Cape Horn down in some of the roughest seas on Earth, then back through British controlled Singapore. The US enjoyed an uninterrupted and comparatively cheap line of communications with Alaska that 1867 Tsarist Russia did not. Alaskan fisheries could profitably sell to West coast US cities due to shorter distances and industrial refrigeration. Enjoying friendly relations with Britain the US could spend nothing in defense of Alaska (or anywhere for that matter) for generations, instead focusing on developing critical infrastructure there which Russia never could.

Overall the sale was a “win-win” for Tsarist Russia, USA, and arguably the Alaskans—quite a rare transaction in history.


SOME OF THE RUSSIA/ALASKA ARTICLES IN GOOGLE TODAY:

https://www.independent.co.uk
› News › World › Americas
Mar 31, 2017 - Speaking about Alaska, Russian President Vladimir Putin previously ..... Russian activities in the Arctic were aimed at restoring navigation and ...

http://observer.com/2016/10/on-alaska-day-russians-still-dream-of-getting-alaska-back/
Oct 26, 2016 - The U.S. purchase of Alaska from Russia in 1867 has been ... Like the Japanese, who haven't lost hope of regaining control over the Kuril Islands ... (Vladimir Putin is set to visit Japan in December, and the islands will be first ...

https://www.npr.org/.../04/.../not-an-april-fools-joke-russians-petition-to-get-alaska-back
Apr 1, 2014 - President Vladimir Putin's annexation of Crimea is reigniting talk in Russia of taking back Alaska from the United States, which purchased the ...


150 Years After Sale of Alaska, Some Russians Have Second Thoughts:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/30/world/europe/alaska-russia-sale-150.html
Mar 30, 2017 - A bill of sale for the purchase of Alaska from Russia. ... of Vladimir V. Putin's presidency, and his projection of military might and cyberpower ... Memphis, said that irredentist calls to reclaim Alaska were not limited to extremists.

THERE IS A CERTAIN BARBARITY IN OUR CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT SINCE THE RISE OF THE VARIOUS GROUPS OF FAR-RIGHT PEOPLE IN THE USA AND EUROPE, I THINK. THEY BRING A VICIOUSNESS THAT WE SHOULDN’T HAPPILY CLAIM AS OUR OWN; BUT I’M REFERRING ALSO TO A LESSENING OF THE SUPPOSED GENTILITY OF OUR BEST SOCIETY. IN FACT, TOO MANY NEO-FASCIST POLITICAL STRAINS ARE IN EUROPE AND EASTERN EUROPE, INCLUDING EVEN OUR FRIEND AND STANDBY BRITAIN.

I AM AFRAID THE STAGE IS BEING SET FOR REALLY SERIOUS CULTURAL CONFLICT ON THE GRASSROOTS LEVEL, AND ON HIGHER CLASS LEVELS ALSO. PUTIN’S “LIE FACTORIES” ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR A GREAT DEAL OF IT, BUT WE’VE ALWAYS HAD OUR OWN HOMEGROWN RACISM AND DENIAL OF THE VIRTUES OF ART, MUSIC, LITERATURE, HISTORY, AND SCHOLARLY PURSUITS IN GENERAL. IF THAT’S TOO BIG AN IDEA, TRY A DECENT BASIC EDUCATION WHICH CAN BE A STEPPING STONE TO A COLLEGE DEGREE AND ENOUGH CURIOSITY TO BROADEN THE MIND VOLUNTARILY. THAT WOULD CHANGE THIS COUNTRY HUGELY.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revanchism
Revanchism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“Revanchism (from French: revanche, "revenge") is the political manifestation of the will to reverse territorial losses incurred by a country, often following a war or social movement. As a term, revanchism originated in 1870s France in the aftermath of the Franco-Prussian War among nationalists who wanted to avenge the French defeat and reclaim the lost territories of Alsace-Lorraine.[1]

Revanchism draws its strength from patriotic and retributionist thought and is often motivated by economic or geo-political factors. Extreme revanchist ideologues often represent a hawkish stance, suggesting that their desired objectives can be achieved through the positive outcome of another war. It is linked with irredentism, the conception that a part of the cultural and ethnic nation remains "unredeemed" outside the borders of its appropriate nation state.[2] Revanchist politics often rely on the identification of a nation with a nation state, often mobilizing deep-rooted sentiments of ethnic nationalism, claiming territories outside the state where members of the ethnic group live, while using heavy-handed nationalism to mobilize support for these aims. Revanchist justifications are often presented as based on ancient or even autochthonous occupation of a territory since "time immemorial", an assertion that is usually inextricably involved in revanchism and irredentism, justifying them in the eyes of their proponents.”