Sunday, November 30, 2014

Meet the First Congress of the Warlords of New Russia

Summaries of the militia of New Russia
Today at 12:10 pm

The first congress of the warlords of New Russia
Posted by journalists: "The first congress of the warlords of New Russia. This is just the beginning, but in general - is a huge step forward on the path to create a united army of New Russia. Because all commanders are acutely aware that the time has come to unite and or they have developed mechanisms the creation of joint forces and create a single Novorossia Army Staff Novorossia or each of them one by one destroy APU with agents of influence of the enemy forces.

This is only the first congress at which it was a joint decision on practical steps "from below" Start the process of unification and structuring of the army of New Russia. But when it is taken decisive commanders with great experience in dealing with the humanitarian problems of the population in the liberated areas they - the process should be as determined and fleeting. 

All those who took up arms and stood in the struggle against fascism and Nazism are united by a common idea the creation of a single state New Russia. And this is what should unite us all: the Cossacks and militiamen and Russian and Ukrainians, miners and sailors. This idea will unite all armed forces in the Donbas and compress into a fist all units militia. And when that fist shrink finally, there will be more robust in Europe, united and motivated army! "

The first congress of the warlords Novorossia

commanders are acutely aware that the time has come to unite

first congress which adopted sovmesno decision on practical steps "from below" Start the process of unification and structuring of the army of New Russia.

Saturday, November 29, 2014

"We are simply stronger, all because we are on the right force with truth".

Russia will have to become much more truthful 
DATE 11/28/2014 

Translated from Russian: Here

After an interview with the phrase "We are simply stronger, all because we are on the right force 
with truth". 

"When a Russian man feels right, he is invincible, " was added to a reviewer with TASS, by Vladimir Putin. It comes about from the famous monologue from the movie "Brother 2".  "Tell me,  what an American believes is power? Is it money? That's as "Brother 2" says it too, that money is power. If you have a lot of money, and why only then? I'm thinking that power is the truth. Who ever has the truth - is the stronger. 

Here you have deceived someone, that the more money amassed, is how you become stronger? No - it is Not! Because the truth for you, is of no value! And the ones who you have cheated and denied the truth, so he's no longer stronger. Yes I'm using an aforesaid speech in the film now distributed pleasantly caressing Russian ears affirmatively squeaks the American millionaire, and then the main character goes to a reality stemming from prior philosophizing: "Dmitry Gromov mani. Quickly. " "Bismarck" is credited with the phrase "Do not expect that, once taking advantage of the weakness of a Russian, you will receive dividends forever. 

Russians always come back for their money. And when they do come -they do not rely on an agreement signed by your Jesuit bankers who allegedly justify you. They are not worth the paper on which they are written. Therefore, Russians play fair, or do not play at all. All this is very nice to see that the Russian president is trying to take on the role of Danila Bagrov. I really hope that this role Vladimir Putin will be able to play decently. 

But for all the positive emotions and hopes there are still other questions. And the essence of all these questions is the same what then is - our truth? What is it now? The above quote from the movie - is a paraphrase of the other sayings, much more ancient, "Not in force, but in God is truth." So it turns out that when Daniel says: "the power of the truth", he identifies the strength and Gods Power of the truth because the truth ie. God, as God in various places in Scripture is called "Truth" and "Sun of Righteousness." True - it is true (not a false) statement. Previously, the "truth" is called the first collections of laws. In the history of law, they are called "barbaric truth." Science known monuments such rights as "Salic", "True Adalbert," "True Æthelstan" Visigoth and so on. And, of course, we all remember the Russian legal monuments - "Truth Yaroslav", "Truth Yaroslav". Thus, though - it's not just a true statement. True - this statement is true, that is the proper order of things.
It is true - a representation of the people of the order of justice and, consequently, of good and evil. That is why the Russian language the word "righteousness" and "truth" - same root word. Russian Truth Yaroslav and his descendants are not very different from other "barbaric truth." Except that they were significantly less cruel punishments and class division. But now the situation is quite different. Russian truth is bisected by the whole world. In some countries, Russia welcomed, admired, followed, in others - actively curse. The world is in a state of global confrontation, and Russia, with its understanding of good and evil is at the heart of this confrontation. What should I write in detail about the "Russian truth twenty-first century," said a long time. And only now beginning, and only because of the harsh necessity. 

We are Just finding out that nedosformulirovannost our inner values ​​and goals creates a huge field for speculation of this kind here: Professor MPGU Elena Galkina : The project "New Russia" is not utopia, like communism, fascism or Islamism. There is no bright future. Its sole purpose, as they see it the terrorists themselves - the forcible annexation of part or all of Ukraine to the dark present Russia, which Lubyanka propagandists mischievously dubbed Russian world.
From now on, any land where the Russian-speaking population lives, may be forced to Russian world with his KGB dictatorship of the oligarchy, neo-feudalism, total injustice and cruelty of power. Power of the truth - primarily because the truth as the notion of justice, good and evil brings people into society. It was she who creates a civilization - a system of conservation, reproduction and development of culture. Civilization must develop a culture so as to provide the main condition - the historic ascent of humanity . 

Civilization, which is aimed at the preservation of the historical process of ascension of humanity, or take advantage of the exercise lowering humanity back into savagery, holds for mankind regression - it antitsivilizatsiya. This criminal community. In the natural enemy of society - people and communities, contrasting its interests to its interests. Criminals and criminal groups. They also create and reproduce their culture, which in Russian is now called "thug". It is characterized by infantile narcissism and contempt for labor and order, the division of people on the floor, prey themselves and other submissive. This separation takes "herbivorous" from the sphere of morality and justify any actions against them. 

Criminal culture fosters and justifies in a vehicle a sense of exclusivity, which gives him the right to violence, on assignment fruits of the labor of others, to the neglect of justice. His interests are in the hierarchy of values ​​in the main place. If such a culture begins to be produced at the state level, then most likely, we have the state-offender, the State predator. I believe that the experimental confirmation of this theory in the history of mankind we find easily. And just as easy to find that all States have begun to produce such an ideology - were killed and quite scary.
I think that the reason is that the history, in the laws of historical development will not tolerate states opposing the history, becoming the way of the development of mankind. True - it is always a state of ascent. While all show on Putin's interview with Tass and remember, "Brother 2", I would like to recall another interesting comment made ​​by US President Barack Obama. Barack Obama has recently stated that Russia is the wrong side of history . The statement is quite categorical and great responsibility. And what we have with the story? It's funny, but the United States is now the full scheme lays own "Dream Factory". Now the box-office tears as Tuzik warmer, next, is the third film of the franchise, "The Hunger Games." World franchise curious enough for us. It has the Capitol - VIP-area in which he lives elite who eats three throat, drink a medicine to break and could eat again, goes to the brightest belongings haute couture, with debility hairstyles. In a word - successful managers, lawyers and startups, to build an economy of services and innovation. 

Effective darlings Invisible Hand. And then there are the "District". They live the working class, which produces coal, uranium, working up a sweat and lives from hand to mouth away from drugs, glamor and education. Once a year from each of the district take one boy and one girl to participate in "The Hunger Games" - in fact, gladiatorial contests held in memory of had taken place once the uprising districts. Simply put, it is a tribute to the human - a manifestation of power and intimidation. 

My question is: what is the situation described is fundamentally different from the currently existing? Than, for example, what is happening now in Ukraine, and earlier in Yugoslavia, Syria and Libya is different from "The Hunger Games", where some poor people to kill other fun and for profit zhruschy how not to, queers in all senses, living in the economics of innovation? By the way, about the economy of innovation. Adoration of the liberal party that same innovation economy can only have two explanations - Intense misunderstanding of its essence or completely sincere worship before a successful criminal. 

Because "the economy of innovation" is that one country through military force, political pressure and other means to make others for her working class, makes social oppression of their borders. In this country the parasite remains with the two stages of production with the highest added value - marketing and development, leaving all the hard work with low added value of donor countries. This model is unstable, as any other model based on an imbalance, and should continue to grow or breadth - subjugating more and more donor countries value added or deep - all deteriorating situation of these countries and strengthening their operation. In this model, the United States and Europe take the place of the Capitol. 

A Capitol opposed country-proletarians, led primarily by TC and BRICS. This is the part of the current relevance of international Russian truth. The current crisis in international politics, in the economy - it is a crisis of this particular model foul caused by the fact that the country-proletarians not prepared to sacrifice themselves and more and more to maintain the level of consumption in the Setter. In 2010, the G20 was decided to reform the main international financial institutions - the International Monetary Fund to reduce the imbalance of income, but in 2014 at the summit in Brisbane Vladimir Putin was forced to say the following: " The US Congress has blocked this decision, and all. And negotiators, our partners, say, well, we would be happy, but we have signed, we made ​​this decision, but Congress does not pass.
Here you have all the solutions. But, nevertheless, the fact that such a decision has been formulated, and all participants of international life within the framework of the "twenty" decided that it is right and true, and corresponds to present-day realities, it is already in a certain way sets international public opinion and brains experts, and this has to be considered. And the fact that the US Congress refused to pass this law, says that the US is running out of the general context of the decision facing the world community problems. 

This is only no one remembers. Capitalizing on its monopoly in the world media, the information choke, it is sort of not. You see, everyone is talking about some current issues, including sanctions, with Russia, but in fact globally but in this case the United States do not comply. This is a fundamental, by the way, thing. But she was not done . " This can be translated as "Rushen mani. Quickly. " And in this case, Russia - the country's leader, is presented an ultimatum to the old world order. Putin's speech on international economic summits in its meaning are a carbon copy of Daniel monologue from our beloved movie, "Here you have deceived someone, money amassed, and then you become stronger? No - he did not. Because the truth for you not. " On such a powerful background may seem that the other differences between Russia and the West - on sexual minorities, religion, euthanasia, legalization of drugs and other things - it's just ideological thingies. But it is not. 

If you look closely, it becomes evident that the difference in relation to human rights, their reading of Russia and the West is due to the difference understanding of man as such, and its role in society and the universe. Western man - a successful consumer rights which provide him the most complete, best of consumption. Total. Including, of course, and their kind in the form of slaves, prostitutes, sources of organs, even food. Western tolerance - a derivative of the purposes of consumption. Intolerance to commodities makes it difficult to consumption. Man Russia, China, Brazil - is primarily a worker who must create, extract, process, coming up. He needs other rights. The right to development - education, health care, employment, housing, family and so on. The right to food of their own labor and the right to fair remuneration of labor. And this work must be understood - it should provide a historic ascent of humanity. All these rights have to be defended in the fight against world consumption. 

Here is misplaced tolerance. Here, instead it requires a partnership. This is not thingies. This is essentially the opposite extreme answers to questions. With our Russian point of view, history, humanity and every individual has a point. Consequently, an attempt to limit someone's development, to stop someone else's biography in his own interests - a crime. Assigning any country resources necessary for human development, human appropriation of resources necessary for the development of another person - a crime. Preference for luxury development - regressive behavior. Crime. The present development - is the development of a person.

 Development of "unlimited and diverse" consumption - has a fake. The leaders of the inhabitants of the West-blinded successful consumption of the last couple of decades, arrogant and believe themselves the apex of the historical process. They do not notice that they were to save the current state of affairs falls from year to year more and spend more forces to fight the objective historical processes. They do not notice that they are fighting with the story. They do not notice, the fight against all humanity. Mankind rebelled against them, and they punish him - in Libya, Syria and Ukraine. To call everything that they are doing good, they have to adapt their culture, to enter into her new idiologemy and remove some of the old. Not long ago, Obama had to indicate to the world that the Americans - an exceptional nation. And in Europe is increasingly becoming popular theory about the "traditional European values" - respect for human rights, democracy and other, completely opposite Asian traditions. 

It is reached by a naive child forgetting the past. And even more recently. As I see it, it's all quite exhaustively shows who's on the wrong side of history. Putin's phrase that "we are the strongest, because for us the truth," certainly inspires some optimism. But do not soar. Currently walks excellent poem on this theme: we are so strong that it becomes nowhere have stronger and everything that does not kill us does not kill us all Reorganization of the world, scrap the regressive order that transforms resources of human development in their own luxury consumption, require a huge effort. Russia in the present state of his cope with this task can not.
We need to become much, much stronger. By orders of magnitude. But the truth is - it's the support, with which you can change the world. Without this support point any power - military, intellectual, economic - is doomed to a miserable floundering in weightlessness. And if the power of the truth, that our country and internally have to be truthful. Much truer than now. 

Roman Nosikov

For People who Ask me About the Name "Fascist Junta"

For People who Ask me About the Name "Fascist Junta"

Briefly touching on the issues, and why the current Government system in Ukraine, I call them a "Fascist Junta", because, like their so called sham elections, they're an "unlawfully-elected Government". 

1. I call this method which the Junta has employed its actions since the early days, a pointing on how to illegally seize power with oligarchs, their Nazi troops and of course the American sponsors. What ever kind of ass and worthless leader Yanukovich was, from the point of view of the law and of
the bourgeois people, he was in fact the legal and legitimate President. How he was removed from power, was in violation of all the legal procedures. So what happens on 21 February in Ukraine had nothing to do with the law, and the law was not duly enforced. So all appeals to any rights by Poroshenko, Yatsenyuk and Turchinov were an act of an illegal Coup d'état

2. All extraordinary presidential and parliamentary elections in the aftermath were held with the use of terror and persecution for anybody in dissent with the unlawful regime, including deputies of the party of regions and the COMMUNIST PARTY altogether. This persecution continued into and during the so-called "elections", which named Poroshenko to office,(in terms of mass falsifications and overestimating turnout, commissioned by the United States to hold the election in one round). The same applies to elections to the Verkhovna Rada, when candidates were selectively beaten, received death threats. In the South-East they deployed terror against dissenters protesting against the Junta fascist regime now in Kiev. 

3. And most importantly, Many still do not recognize,and are not going to recognize their illegitimacy and the illegality of this  "Fascist Junta" regime in Kiev. Fascism should have been destroyed, even if they had usurped the public institutions and law enforcement authorities. Coming from this is why fascist run with chains and beat people on the street and offend police officers or sit in an expensive area of the "Golden sticks" signing the decrees resulting in the death of tens of thousands of innocent people, while not ceasing to be a Nazi Bandera Fascists. As was once mentioned back in May, what has happened in Ukraine is now is a direct transcription log of blogger including the famous definition of Georgi Dimitrov, who directed a terrorist dictatorship of big business' backed by the power of fascist Nazi death  squads who openly inserted themselves into power positions. You can easily argue, pointing out that the Ukrainian fascists are a wicked parody of the German Nazis, the show caricatured characters such as Ukraine or Klitschko, but the essence of the regime responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Russians and Ukrainians is obvious. So regardless of what is said and will say in Moscow and Kiev, I will call this fascist regime a Junta and will continue to call, it just as they deserve, because personally they always be in reality a fascist junta. All which continue in the current ugliness of Kiev since February are now also War Criminals. Some argue that by my saying that they are a Nazi regime, as this is an obvious feature, but the "Junta" is not quite the exact word, saying this only applies to the "black colonels" or "Latin American military coups". In the dictionary of foreign words, among the opredelinij Word for junta is in my opinion a quite suitable interpretation-[a group of conspirators, who illegally seize power by using dictatorial ruling methods], of course, there are synonyms like, "clicks", or "Kamaril′â", that some would view a more precise definition of this regime, but I personally like "Fascist Junta", because this term reflects both the nature of the fašistskj of the existing regime and the illegal seizure of power by a conspiracy. Moreover, the interpretation of various terms are not frozen in time thing and they can be, so it does not rule out that the term "Ukrainian" as the junta will be able to get your line in the definition of "junta" at least in some dictionaries. By the way, if you notice, if you drive in the search word "junta", most of the links on the page will be connected with a Ukraine article.

Blinded by Arrogance, Western Policy Has Gone Horribly Wrong in Ukraine

Blinded by Arrogance, Western Policy Has Gone Horribly Wrong in Ukraine

  • At first it all seemed like such a good idea, - now its a miserable disaster
  • Anti-Russian hysteria was supposed to split Ukraine from Russia, instead it has split Ukraine
  • Instead of birthing a democracy, - they lost Crimea and East Ukraine, and gave rise to neo-Nazis - and still no democracy in sight
The West under-estimated Russian resolve, and anger, - and its huge influence in Ukraine
Vladimir Golstein

This article from our contributor Vladimir Golstein was first published in September at but we decided to run it now, because it is just as relevant today

Vladimir Golstein is an associate professor of Slavic languages at Brown University, an ivy-league institution in the USA

Ukraine is sinking deeper and deeper into the hole that it began to dig for itself since the last year.

The process continues to be cheered if not facilitated by western powers, who while calculating the mutual benefits of "Kiev’s spring," have failed to acknowledge that such a drastic reorientation comes with the price tag attached.

Or maybe these western backers never worried about the price of Kiev’s "homecoming." In Chomsky’s famous formulation, they were ready to privatize the profits and socialize expenses; at least, that’s what they have been doing so far: it is Ukrainians and Russians who are being killed, turned into refugees, lose their property, engage in civil war, and surrender to hatred, intolerance, and bigotry.

But who can blame the Western supporters of the Ukrainian revolution for their failure to contemplate those price tags. The profits were so tempting, so glittering, so within the reach, that any voice of reason or caution had to be silenced.

On material level, there was a new market, great soil, possibility of gas-fracking, geopolitical location, Black Sea; the list can go on, of course.

There were also plenty of alluring goals on the cultural and political level: the march of the liberal democracy for neoliberals, and the chance to weaken Russia and humiliate Putin – for neocons. How can one resist all that?

The neocon establishment of Washington could have overlooked financial profits (they are ideologues, after all, as opposed to plain old conservatives) but they could not resist putting Putin in his place.

How dares this KGB upstart, the leader of the country "which doesn’t make anything," – as president Obama put it rather unceremoniously in his interview to the usually proper Economist – to interfere in Syria, harbor Snowden and thumb his nose at the West?

The process of bringing Ukraine back into its European fold started very smoothly indeed, despite the fact that this move was based on two innocent white lies. Not even lies. Just half-truths.

That Ukraine is the country which is ready to embrace democracy and western type of the government. And that Russia, weakened by its corrupt and greedy leaders would stay out of the conflict.

So let the former KGB apparatchiks spend their misguided efforts on impressing the world with expensive Olympics, or harassing their gays, or arresting their protesters, while we pull Ukraine into brave new world of liberal democracy. Russians would not even notice that.

I am sure obedient clerks in State Department and CIA have confirmed to their politically motivated leaders that these conclusions are correct. Opposite conclusions could have been supported by equally abundant data, but who wants to say what your boss doesn’t want to hear.

Skeptical Europeans, who probably should have known better, were also silenced into believing that the "liberation of Ukraine" from the yoke of Moscovy is a worthy goal.

Furthermore, there was a strong conviction, never challenged by the Western press reporting, as they were, from Kiev or other European capitals, that Ukrainians are willing to die to see this accomplished. How could this obvious win-win situation go wrong?

The answer, of course, lies in both geography and history.

Russia was too close to Ukraine and Russia was inside it. Plagued by its explosive combination of pro-and anti-Russian sentiments, Ukraine is literally a schizophrenic country.

It might neighbor Poland, but it surely, "ain’t Poland," a country more or less unified by its Catholic faith, political anger at Communism, national anger at Russians, and economic aspirations for the market economy.

So pretty much everything went and continues to go wrong: instead of some bright eyed democrats, the power in Kiev fell into the lap of unhealthy alliance of nationalistic fanatics and greedy old oligarchs and politicians, the alliance that could not come up with anything better than malign, bully, and then try to repossess the Eastern Ukraine.

For Kievan leaders, freedom, democracy, and Europe didn’t mean what one expects it to mean, but rather freedom to plunder and abuse Donbass region, while embracing virulent nationalism, and revisionist history in which Ukraine’s mythic achievements are interlaced with equally mythic victimhood in the hands of Russia. The tension between the regions only escalated after Crimea joined Russia.

Anti-Russian hysteria that was supposed to split Ukraine from Russia, instead, has split Ukraine in two. One conjures up demons of nationalism at one’s own peril.

What were the Kiev or its western backers thinking when Ukrainian army began to bomb and destroy Donbass, the area filled with Russian speakers and native Russians?

The loss of Crimea, failed to serve as a rude awakening for the nation that continues to live in the fantasy land, in which one can do anything one wants in the backyard of a powerful nuclear state, including pushing it from the access to the Black Sea, joining the hostile military alliance, banning the language, humiliating and abusing the population of the same ethnicity as your neighbor, and deliberately invoking Nazi symbolism and proclaiming Nazi collaborators as heroes into the face of the country which lost 25 million of its citizens to Nazis.

This utterly deranged flurry of activity, worthy of Bedlam inhabitants, was condoned if not cheered by the Western politicians and press. Instead, it was that very opponent, who urgently addressed its geopolitical and security concerns, who was unanimously declared to be living in a warped reality.

From a distance it all seems very strange – realistic and consistent behavior of Russians (they showered the same resolve in the war with Georgia in 2008) was dismissed as irrational, while those who embraced groundless expectations that culturally, ethnically, and politically diverse country torn apart by the virulent nationalism, would somehow metamorphose into a liberal and united Ukraine, have simply raised their decibel level.

History tells us of law-abiding, civilized Germans turned into beasts as the result of their rampant nationalism, yet, Ukraine was somehow expected to undergo the transformation as the result of which its bacchanalia of Russophobia would result into instant Europeanization, while the murderous crowds capable only of lengthy and infantile reciting of nationalistic and anti-Russian slogans, burning its opponents in the buildings as they did in Odessa, and otherwise intimidating and humiliate them, would become Dutch or Germans.

Apparently Chancellor Merkel, when she coined by now ubiquitous phrase that Putin inhabits a different reality, didn’t really mean it. Merkel might have meant something different, but the phrase has clearly caught on. So maybe Madame Merkel should come out again and explain how does she spell "different reality": Bundestag, Poroshenko, NATO, EU, the State Department, or NYT?

In the absence of Merkel’s clarifications, the game of "spotting Russian madness" spread like wildfire. While Anthony Lane of the Washington Post pontificated on Putin’s "warped reality", Julia Joffe of New Republic went on from diagnosing Putin to suggesting that the whole Russians is deranged. Not to be outdone, other commentators began to observe Putin’s symptoms in Russian press, and then Russian public.

This delicious irony of madmen falling heads over heal in their attempts to detect signs of madness in sane people was obviously lost on the corporate media.

Would someone living, say, in China, has the nerve to tell people in Rhode Island about events in Massachusetts, and correct Rhode Islanders who work, shop, party, and eat in Massachusetts, that what they see unfolding there is wrong. And then accuse them for living in alternative universe. That’s exactly what numerous Washington pundits did in the case of Russia? And why?

Only because Soviet Russia has once been the center of propaganda? So Russians should never be trusted?

This thinking became so pervasive, that even the calls to face reality and prevent further Ukrainian destruction in the light of Russian resolve, are couched in the language of "irrationality." Ukraine should surrender to Putin’s demands because "Mr. Putin is not rational" – and therefore can’t be convinced by the economic sanctions, writes Ben Judah in the NYT.

The pervasiveness of these madness charges demonstrate the scope of anti-Russian campaign, mounted against the country that dared to interfere in the "rational" script that worked so well in Yugoslavia. Russia, of course, is dead certain not to replay the Yugoslavia scenario. Anyone with the eyes to see and ears to hear, could have detected it in both Russian behavior and the statements of their political leaders.

The question of self-induced blindness of the western handlers of the crisis is worth exploring further, utilizing "Benito Cereno," a short story written by an astute and sane observer of his country’s fixations, Herman Melville.

Andrew Delano, a bright-eyed and naïve captain of American frigate, sees another boat seemingly drifting in the sea. When he boards this boat with the offer of help, he observes the signs of disrepair coupled with an ideal picture of racial harmony, Spanish sailors and black slaves – function in perfect unison. Only when leaving the ship, Delano notices a violent action directed at the Spanish captain of the ship.

It occurs to him that what he’s observed was a show; that reality behind it is by far more gruesome, that dead bodies are hidden by trampoline beyond which he refused to look. Melville’s point here is not to justify or condemn the revolt, or the institution of slavery. Fundamental as these issues are, they lie beyond the scope of his scrutiny.

What he depicts is the American refusal to recognize evil, especially when some positive alternative is offered. Look how harmonious are these groups, thinks Delano, failing to poke beyond the surface and register fear, violence, intimidation, and lies.

It is very likely that people who run State Department knew exactly what is going on in Ukraine. The press and the gullible public itself, however, acted exactly like Melville’s Lieutenant. Traditional Russophobia shaped by the years of Cold War, played its role, but why such an urgent need to embrace all things Ukrainian?

Only because the land that served the backbone of Soviet regime, and supplied it with such leaders as Khruschev and Brezhnev, all of the sudden declared itself the victim of Russia?

Be it as it may, modern day Delanos, refuse to recognize Nazi collaborators in newly glorified Nationalist heroes, refuse to see corrupt oligarchs and failed politicians in President Poroshenko and Prime Minister Yatseniuk, nor do they realize that the new leader in Ukrainian Jewry is the notorious oligarch, Igor Kolomoisky, who now runs Dnepropetrovsk region – Brezhnev’s former stronghold – as his own fiefdom.

The West also failed to recognize Russian anger and Russian resolve. Those who know Russia well, understand that Russia is both weak and strong, both poor and rich, both alienated and united. Furthermore, due to the endless amounts of misery and hardship that the country had endured, its population – when pushed to the wall by the sanctions, lecturing, bullying, and other forms of school-yard showmanship – can become very tough indeed.

Being on the border with Ukraine, and defending its national interests, Russia has way too many tricks at its disposal and is willing to use them all, ranging from "little green men," to nuclear arms as President Putin has recently reminded his audience.

Does the West really want to get engaged? Is it ready to start WWIII, only because few paranoid Baltic or Polish politicians push them into this fight with the battle cry, "The Russians are coming," ridiculed by Hollywood already half a century ago?

Washington bullies, these liberal interventionists, as John Mearsheimer called them, have clearly underestimated their opponent – a big mistake in any confrontation.

They also overestimated Ukrainian resolve. Ukrainian army was not really ready to fight in the East. Regular soldiers know that they act as an invading force, no matter what their politicians tell them. Of course Kiev has the air dominance and can continue to bomb but similar dominance didn’t help US in Vietnam, nor did it help Russians in Afghanistan.

The soldiers of these countries have to deal with the situation long time ago diagnosed by Leo Tolstoy, who in his War and Peace explains Russian army’s failure in earlier, European wars against Napoleon (as opposed to their success against his invasion): "There was nothing to fight for." Well, it is clear that Vietnamese, Afghanis, or Donbass "separatists" have plenty of reasons for which to fight.

So what do we have now as the result of these white lies, misguided ambitions, and miscalculations? – Thousands of killed and wounded, tens of thousands of refugees; Civil war that refuses to die out. Ukrainian government that persists in its stubborn refusal to deal with the reality of losing war, failing economy, falling currency, and frustrated army which doesn’t really know what it is doing in the eastern Ukraine.

It is clear, that Europe might complain about Macbeth-like tyrant Putin or let some of its unhinged politicians to declare that Ukraine is fighting on behalf of Europe but it is more than ready to back off, and let Ukrainian leaders to get their act together.

It is a different matter for the US, however. Logical thing to do would be to emulate Europeans and tell Ukrainians to start rebuilding whatever is left of the country. But that would also mean that all those neocons and interventionists, who pushed US into this predicament would have to be discredited.

But such an honorable and mature way of dealing with the situation is hardly to be expected. It is easier to argue for more action, for deeper involvement. If sanctions do not work, let’s provide military help, if that doesn’t work, let’s send the army, or air force, or what have you.

Letting Ukraine fail – the argument goes – will result in tremendous blow to US, to its prestige, it will weaken US standing as the one indispensable hegemon on the world stage. The very concepts of "prestige" and "standing" might be as old-fashion, as the sphere of influence, or country’s backyard, but being a realist, I recognize their power over politicians’ imagination.

Will President Obama do the right thing and tell Poroshenko – who is supposed to be in the States in late September – what he has to do? I doubt it.

The neocons, entrenched as they are in their alternative reality, rather than admitting their miscalculations, would prefer to push Obama into the military escalation with Russia, ignoring the fact, that it is theirs and not US prestige which is on the line.

President Obama doesn’t have a very good record of standing up to their pressure, and their fanatical rhetoric of American exceptionalism.

Ukraine will be turned into Afghanistan, Ukrainian nationalists from the country’s western regions would become new mujahedeen armed with Stingers, or new ISIS.

These actions obviously would not go well with Russia, so the proxy war at the Ukrainian territory will continue.

We might wait for the newly elected president, to remind us that what makes us powerful and exceptional is not denials or threats, but mature and democratic way of dealing with mistakes and miscalculations.

Ukraine might be destroyed in the process, though.

Malaysia Barred from Official #MH17 Investigation, Dictates another US illegal Nazi Junta Cover-up

MH17: Malaysia’s Barring from Investigation Reeks of Cover-up

It was a Malaysian jet, carrying Malaysian passengers, flown by Malaysian pilots, yet after Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was shot down over Ukraine in July 2014, Malaysia has been systematically blocked from participating in the investigation, leaving an overwhelmingly pro-NATO bloc in charge of the evidence, investigation and outcome as well as the manner in which the investigation will be carried out.

Despite the integral role Malaysia has played during several pivotal moments in the aftermath of the disaster, it appears that the closer to the truth the investigation should be getting, the further Malaysia itself is being pushed from both the evidence and any influence it has on the likely conclusions of the investigation. With the downed aircraft in question being Malaysian, Malaysia as a partner in the investigation would seem a given. Its exclusion from the investigation appears to be an indication that the investigation’s objectivity has been compromised and that the conclusions it draws will likely be politically motivated.

Joint Investigation Team Includes, Excludes Surprising Members

With the Dutch leading the investigation, the logic being that the flight originated from the Netherlands and the majority of the passengers were Dutch, it has formed a Joint Investigation Team (JIT). At the onset of its creation it seemed obvious that Malaysia would too be included, considering it lost the second largest number of citizens to the disaster and the plane itself was registered in Malaysia. Instead, JIT would end up comprised of Belgium, Ukraine, and Australia, specifically excluding Malaysia.

Malaysia was both surprised and has protested its exclusion from JIT, and has repeatedly expressed a desire to be included directly in the investigation.

Malaysia’s Star newspaper would report, “Malaysian Ambassador to the Netherlands Datuk Dr Fauziah Mohd Taib said Malaysia had not been invited to officially join the Dutch-led Joint Investigation Team (JIT), which is undertaking the criminal probe.” It would also report that, “Transport Minister Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai said recently that Malaysia had expressed its stand very clearly that it must be part of the criminal investigation team and had informed Dutch authorities of its intention.”

The Malaysian Insider cited Malaysian scholar Dr. Chandra Muzaffar who believes the decision to exclude his country from the investigation is politically motivated, aiming at excluding members that may urge caution and objectivity instead of draw conclusions first and bend the investigation’s results around those conclusions. In particular, Dr. Muzaffar believes that the investigations is intentionally being skewed to target Russia.

Ukraine’s involvement in the investigation is particularly troublesome. Had MH17 crashed in Ukraine under different circumstances, Ukraine’s role would be welcome. However, it was apparently shot down specifically in a conflict in which Kiev itself is a participant. With both sides of the conflict possessing anti-aircraft weapons and with Kiev itself confirmed to possess weapons capable of reaching the altitude MH17 was flying at when it was allegedly hit, Kiev becomes a possible suspect in the investigation. Kiev’s inclusion in JIT represents a monumental conflict of interest.

Imagine a potential suspect leading an investigation into a crime they may have committed. The possibilities to cover up, skew, spin, tamper with or otherwise distort both the evidence and the outcome of the investigation are endless.

And to compound this already glaring conflict of interest, it was revealed recently that an alleged “secret deal” was struck by JIT in which any member could bar the release of evidence. With all members of JIT being pro-NATO and decidedly arrayed against Moscow, such a “deal” could prevent crucial evidence from being revealed that would effect an otherwise distorted conclusion drawn by the investigators aimed specifically at advancing their greater political agenda in Eastern Europe. Had Malaysia been a member of JIT, the ability of other members to withhold evidence would have been greatly diminished and it is likely such a bizarre deal would not have been conceivable, real or imaged, in the first place.

Malaysia’s Exclusion Foreshadows Politically Motivated Outcome

With the ongoing conflict in Ukraine perceived as a proxy war between NATO and Moscow, JIT’s membership including the NATO-backed Kiev regime itself (a possible suspect), two NATO members (Belgium and the Netherlands) and Australia who has passed sanctions against Russia over the conflict, is a textbook case of conflict of interest.

Those nations and international organizations calling for an investigation and for justice but who ignore the obvious problem of participants in a conflict investigating a key incident that may benefit their agenda directly, indicates that such calls for justice are disingenuous and instead, what is being done is not an investigation, but a politically motivated witch-hunt aimed at serving an ulterior motive.

Malaysia is not generally perceived to be a stanch ally of Moscow, but it is neither a loyal client state of Washington, London or Brussels. On many issues, Malaysia has exhibited an independence in foreign policy that has perturbed the so-called international order maintained by the West. And Malaysia’s internal politics have long wrestled to stem inroads by Washington’s favorites including Anwar Ibrahim and his political faction, Pakatan Rakyat.

Its inclusion in the investigation would provide a much needed, impartial counterweight to an otherwise fully pro-NATO JIT membership.

To casual observers, the current investigation led by NATO members and Kiev, a possible suspect, would be no different than the Donetsk People’s Republic and Russia leading it. Few would consider a DPR or Russian led investigation impartial, and few should see a NATO-led investigation as impartial. Had Malaysia been included in the process, an argument could have been made that an actual investigation was taking place rather than a complex propaganda campaign.

Malaysia’s exclusion is a troubling sign for the victims of the MH17 disaster, meaning the true culprits will never be known. The overt politically motivated nature of the investigation will on one hand help fuel NATO’s propaganda war, but on the other hand, fuel the doubts of millions worldwide over the true events that took place in the skies of eastern Ukraine that day. Like so many other events in human history that took place amid a high stake political struggle, the downing of MH17 will be shrouded in mystery, mystery draped over the truth by the irresponsible leadership of NATO, and those in Washington, London and Brussels egging on the conflict in Ukraine to this very day.

Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

What the Fake Syria Sniper Boy Video Tell Us About The So Called“Media Experts”

What the Fake Syria Sniper Boy Video Tell Us About The  So Called“Media Experts”

When Fake Videos Go Viral

Many mainstream media websites helped a fake video go viral this month. The video showing a young Syrian boy running through sniper fire to save a little girl, was exposed as a fake when the Norwegian producer Lars Klevberg made the fact public. One of the stated aims of the Norwegian film makers was to “see how the media would respond to a fake video.” This article examines how that experiment went.

The western press very quickly accepted the video as real and used it to support the US administration’s narrative on Syria. Many top US news sources began to spread the story. Even though the producer said he explicitly added big hints that the video was fake, like the children surviving multiple gun shots.

Propagating false stories on Syria, is nothing new for the western press. In the lead up to the conflict many stories were exposed as frauds, such as the Anti-government activist “Gay Girl in Damascus” which turned out to be a middle-aged American man in Scotland. Syrian Danny Abdul Dayem which was frequently interviewed by CNN was using fake gun fire and flames in his interviews.

The fake sniper video wasn’t enough to support US government narratives by itself, as the now deleted original upload didn’t suggest the identity of the snipers. So the west’s media suggested that it was Syrian military snipers that were targeting the children without any evidence. Journalists failed to mention how they reached the conclusion that an actor in Malta was shot by the Syrian military. It may be that the western press is quick to trust pro-rebel sources, as the video was uploaded by the pro-rebel Sham Times along with their own twist.

The Guardian’s headline for the video was “Syrian boy ‘saves girl from army sniper’” and the Telegraph delicately suggested the Syrian military was responsible for the fake bullets. The International Business (IB) times stated, “the snipers, who reportedly are said to be the government forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.” IB Times never explicitly mentioned who reported this information. They then took it a step further and concluded the article with “the incident certainly is not the first time that Pro-Assad gunmen have targeted children”. Well it is at least not the first time the mainstream media has presented false reports as fact. In 2012, CNN claimed a bullet that killed a four year old girl in Aleppo was shot by government snipers even whilst admitting the bullet came from rebel held buildings.

Other journalists took to Twitter to make unfounded claims about army snipers targeting the boy. Vinnie O’Dowd who has done work for Channel 4 and Al Jazeera tweeted “Syrian Regime Targets kids. Liz Sly of the Washington Post tweeted incredulously that “Soldiers kept shooting” at children.

These tweets were inline with an official State Department Twitter account @ThinkAgain_DOS which blamed Assad for the fictitious bullets in the film. This casts doubt on how deeply the US administration scrutinizes information it bases it’s policy on. In 2013 they relied heavily on video footage provided by rebels to support its planned attack on Syria in the wake the Ghouta chemical attack.

Scrutinising the Scrutinisers (Experts)

But it isn’t just the mainstream media that was easily duped by the convenient propaganda film. The video experts that were asked to scrutinise the video, failed to recognise that the video was a fraud. The Telegraph stated that upon enquiry ‘experts told them they had no reason to doubt that the video is real”. International Business Times went a step further spinning the statement to “experts told The Telegraph that they have no doubts on the authenticity of the footage.”

This is very strange since both children in the film walk away after being directly and repeatedly hit by bullets. The creators of the film said he purposely scripted this as a big hint that the video is fake. The lack of scrutiny the media experts employed suggests incompetence or the same level of bias as the media that employs them .

Heather Saul of the Independent wrote that one of the ‘Middle East experts” she showed the video to was from Human Rights Watch. Indeed, Human Rights Watch European Media Director Andrew Stroehlein, showed no doubt on the authenticity of the film when he tweeted it out to his followers. The New York based human rights organisation is not new at tweeting false information, last month they used an image of the Odessa fire, where US-backed militia’s burned thirty two people to death, as an example of ‘Putin’s repressive policies’. In 2008 Venezuela expelled two HRW staff members accused of “anti-state activities” after producing a report against the Chavez government. Guardian journalist Hugh O’Shaughnessy accused HRW of using false and misleading information in the report, as well as pro-Washington bias. In 2009 HRW received financial donations from the Saudi government which may, in part, explain the anti-Syrian slant.

11HRW employed so called video expert Eliot Higgins and his colleague Daniel Kaszeta to investigate the August 21 chemical attack in Ghouta, and quickly reached the conclusion the Syrian government was behind the attack. Daniel Kaszeta was referred to as a fraud by prominent physicist and MIT Professor Theodore Postol. HRW’s CEO Kenneth Roth recently used a report by Eliot Higgins to make unfounded claims about Ukrainian rebels shooting down Malaysian flight MH17. Heather Saul did not respond to questions on whether Eliot Higgins was one of the expert she asked for advice. However the mainstream media’s most often quoted video expert, did not recognise that the video was a fraud, tweeting cautiously that he wasn’t sure if it was authentic but gave the video a reaction non the less.

However many viewers who aren’t referred to as video or Middle East experts, immediately recognised the video was a fraud and flooded social media sites Twitter and Youtube with doubts on its authenticity. If Heather Saul had used these individuals as experts rather than HRW, she would have reached the correct conclusion about the video. But perhaps it is this unbias eye that the mainstream media avoids. The vast majority of Higgin’s conclusions support US government narratives and agendas, and that’s the kind of bias the mainstream media prefers.

Blaming the Producer

Instead of humbly accepting blame for spreading disinformation, many western journalists and their experts reacted by blaming the producer of the film. The collective rage of the entire mainstream media forced the film’s producer to delete any trace of this 30,000 dollar experiment. Some journalists took to Twitter to express their rage at being exposed as easily duped by convenient propaganda.

The experts that were fooled by the video also strongly protested. HRW posted a complaint that the fake video “eroded the public trust in war reporting’, in other words blind trust in HRW analysis and war propaganda. Eliot Higgins posted an open letter to the producer of the film on his website Bellingcat, condemning the film.

GlobalPost referred to the film as ‘irresponsible and dangerous’ but not because it could be used to promote wars and make false accusations. What the real danger to the mainstream media and their experts seems to be, is that as a result of the films exposure as a fraud, future video claims may now have to be properly scrutinized and the public may not be so unquestioning in future. However it is the journalists’ lack of scrutiny that is truly what is irresponsible and dangerous. Had the director not admitted the film was fake, these journalists more than likely would have kept promoting the story as an example of Syrian Army war crimes.

Original at:

Friday, November 28, 2014

Kharkiv - New-Russia News Today

Kharkiv - New Russia News Today 
Yatsenyuk heroically threw himself under a Russian bus. On his problems in world politics for Banderastan___... Actually, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, has said that Banderastan, The (Ukrainian territory occupied by the Kiev junta,) into Europe would not be considered soon. In saying this, he did not say anything new or unknown to many others. In the short and medium terms, no matter how Banderastan's saw its chances for participation in EU institutions, or in the structure of NATO nobody had it been even seriously considered providing all that was happening. In his statement he added that he couldn't even seen how this would become possible without major governmental changes transpiring. And !, - whats even more funny than that, is all this taking place in the very beginning of the intensified civil confrontation ATO in East Ukraine, Had Kiev actually thought about the actions or statements (or more precisely, that the lack of an immediate and direct military intervention by the US or NATO structures, in this area, were not even on the table.) This was clearly outlined by the United States President Barack Obama - and he, too, was not joking. Because above all, he said it in front of an "Internal Auditor" and to the American voters, therefore, emphasizing it to be not the public policy in the US, Who would not accept it as a joke ever.

‘Does Poroshenko believe all Ukrainians are corrupt?’ Wants Foreign Appointed Officials ?

Poroshenko aims to change laws to allow foreigners into Ukrainian govt
Published time: November 28, 2014 12:35

‘Does Poroshenko believe all Ukrainians are corrupt?’ Wants Foreign Appointed Officials ?

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko gives a speech during a parliament session in Kiev on November 27, 2014. (AFP Photo / Sergei Supinsky)

Ukraine’s president has announced plans to change the nation's legislation to make it possible to appoint foreigners to top government positions. This has been dubbed “unprecedented,” and may indicate that the country is being governed “from outside.”

“My idea is to change the laws in order to give the right to engage foreigners in state service, including government,” President Petro Poroshenko said in his address to Parliament on Thursday. “Or to expand the list of people whom Ukraine’s president may provide with Ukrainian citizenship in a speedy procedure,” he added.

He stressed that those foreigners’ willingness to accept Ukrainian citizenship in order to take the posts will “confirm” the “strong commitment of our potential partners and candidates.”

Poroshenko also suggested appointing a foreigner as the head of the newly-created National Anti-corruption Bureau. He elaborated that foreigners would have a particular powerful “advantage,” due to their “absence of links to the Ukrainian political elite.”

“Nobody will be anybody’s godfather or matchmaker,” he said, referring to political nepotism.

Earlier, Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseny Yatsenuk suggested the creation of a new position – deputy prime minister of European integration affairs. He proposed that a European leader be appointed to the post.

On Thursday, Yatsenyuk received approval from lawmakers to remain Ukraine's premier, while five Ukrainian parties formed the new ruling European Ukraine coalition during the first session of the new parliament.
‘Does Poroshenko believe all Ukrainians are corrupt?’

If Kiev is truly planning to suggest that top government positions be filled by citizens of other countries, the situation is unprecedented, a Ukrainian political expert told RIA Novosti, also questioning the legitimacy of such a move.

"Such cases are exempt from modern [political] practice, when someone who does not have the right to even theoretically have access to state secrets – because he is a citizen of another country – is invited to take a post of minister in the government of a sovereign country. I think this is another demonstration of the degraded status and allegiance to the so-called European choice,” said Mikhail Pogrebinskiy, head of Kiev's Center of Political Studies and Conflict Management.

He questioned whether Poroshenko’s plans to appoint a foreigner as head of the anti-corruption government department suggests a total lack of confidence in his own people.

The president’s “reasoning is also surprising – does Poroshenko believe that every citizen of Ukraine will certainly be corrupt while holding this post?”

Reports cited by RIA Novosti claim that foreigners may be offered top jobs in the ministries of finance, energy and coal production, and infrastructure, as well as the post of deputy prime minister.

Aleksander Kwaśniewski, Poroshenko’s close friend and Poland's president from 1995 to 2005, has reportedly been suggested for an unnamed position, Denis Denisov, the head of the Ukrainian branch of the Institute of CIS, told RIA Novosti.
‘Ukraine not welcome as EU, NATO member’

Many foreign experts – predominantly from the US and Europe – are already advising Ukraine while working in various government departments and ministries. Such practice of foreign administration puts Ukraine under external control, said Denisov.

In his Thursday address to Parliament, Poroshenko said that Ukraine's neutral out-of-bloc status had proved unjustified and should be abandoned.

"For this reason we have got back to the idea of integration with NATO," he added. "We are deepening our cooperation and the compatibility of our army with NATO's armed forces and reorienting to NATO standards.”

He stated that implementing the reforms in Ukraine will allow the country to apply for EU membership in five years. EU membership was the key demand of those taking part in the Maidan protests, which led to the armed coup earlier this year.

Despite Poroshenko’s aspirations, EU officials have repeatedly said that the union is not ready to welcome Ukraine as a member.

On Monday, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said in an interview with Der Spiegel that he does not believe it is realistic for Ukraine to join the EU in the foreseeable future, as the economic and political modernization of Ukraine is a “project for several generations.”

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius in an interview to i-Tele right after Poroshenko’s pro-EU inauguration speech said that the idea of Ukraine entering the EU doesn’t find support among “his Western colleagues.”

Nor have NATO members said that they support Ukraine's hope of joining the alliance. On Monday, Steinmeier said he is against Ukraine joining NATO, and would only consider supporting the possibility of a partnership.

On Thursday, Poroshenko also put the issue of Ukraine’s federalization out of question, saying that "100 percent of Ukrainians are in favor of a unitary state."

Meanwhile, Ukraine's federalization has been a key demand of residents in the country's eastern regions of Donetsk and Lugansk, and was a major point in the September Minsk agreement between Kiev and eastern authorities.

As Kiev authorities continue to repeatedly reject the idea of federalization, the president of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, said on Wednesday that Ukraine should indeed undergo federalization, stressing that this may be a comprehensive solution to the current crisis.