Jar2

The Russian World

Work by John Robles 

Twitter Banning Russian Patriots En-Masse

While I was in hiding over the holidays due to threats from Olga Dotsenko I was off-line as well and just got back up to speed and found two very well known Russian bloggers have been banned from Twitter. Please help https://twitter.com/001russia  by following his account. Бан Коробкова - 125 000 читателей Бан Щаранского - 59 000 Бан Нефритового - 17 000 PART OF THE PROBLEM WITH MY FRIEND MAY BE THIS VIDEO https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6IC9E6O4P0

Russian Businesses Targeted in Germany

January 13, 2016  Hidden story: In Kehl, Germany (on the border with France) there is a wonderful food shop which sells imported Russian food called Mix Market. According to reliable sources during the past days a gang from France burned the place down. Rumors going around the Arab circles in the area are that it was done out of revenge for the Russian intervention in Syria. My sources say there is absolutely nothing in the news with one source saying a contact in the German BKA explained that it was just one of many incidents hidden to keep things calm in Germany and Europe.

FZ981 Victims List Уточненный список погибших пассажиров

Final updated list of all passengers and crew who died on FZ981

США когда Россия начнем продавать нефть за рубли

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6ooIrrdTec&list=FLNamQFr5WPwowV3w1_iyGkw&index=113 

Empire Gone Mad: Connecting the Dots on Destruction of Ukraine

This article has been published after repeated attempts to reach the buyer who has disappeared amid active attempts to suppress its publication.

Connecting the dots on the destruction of Ukraine and the frontal attack on Russia

Sold 31 Page Article Detailing Western Lies on Ukraine

This article was sold and has not been published and all e-mails to the publisher are being blocked and all attempts to reach the buyer have proven futile. Text me at +7-965-131-5479

Targetting of Minorities Continues in Moscow

I love Russia but Xenophobia is on the Rise with a frightening police action titled Migrant 2015

President Vladimir Putin 

12-04-2014 Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly 

1-23-2014 President Putin, World War III and Global US Hegemony by John Anthony Robles II

08-03-2014 Why Americans Should Like President Putin by Joseph Zrnchik 

03-14-2014 Ukraine-Obama-CIA-and-NATO-demonize-Putin-to-hide-their-crimes  

01-29-2014 Russia-will-not-interfere-in-Ukraine-President-Putin  

12-25-2013 President Putin deserves Nobel, Obama an empty raincoat    

12-18-2013 Presidents-Putin-and-Yanukovich-cement-Russian-Ukrainian-ties  

12-14-2013 US-NATO-EU-and-the-desperate-subversion-of-Ukraine 

12-11-2013 Russia-modernizing-and-building-its-defenses-in-response-to-modern-threats-8984/  

11-13-2013 President Vladimir Putin: A Force for Peace in Asia and the World

 

Jar2 

19 June, 07:06

Demonizing Russia: Silent Collusion

John Robles

Part of the demonization that has allowed the Kiev junta to wage a war against ethnic Russians and the Russian speaking population in Ukraine is a very carefully planned and intense campaign of demonization and dehumanization. Another aspect is the silence and non-coverage in the western media of war crimes and atrocities being committed against innocent civilians. This was no more evident than in Victoria Nuland's recent visit to Odessa at a time when there was a ceremony being held for the victims who died at the House of Unions. While Nuland paid US officials paid respects to those who died on the Maidan she ignored the event and reportedly met with Kolomoisky or his representatives.

The Language of Silent Collusion in the Media

With the unprecedented media campaign being waged by the West in support of the junta, with White House spokes tool Psaki, who confuses Iran and Iraq, uses phrases she does not understand like "carousel" and denied that she had any information that two Russian reporters were killed, anyone who attempts to ignore or chooses not to report the reality of what is happening in Ukraine is guilty of silent collusion.

It is this silent collusion that allowed the neo-nazi lunatics to come to power in Ukraine in the first place and this silent collusion serves the interests of fascist groups in any country when they begin to gain power. They may start by demonizing foreigners and immigrants, and this is allowed get by unchallenged, and once such a precedent is set they gain force, as they did in Ukraine. So it is the responsibility of any media outlet or journalist to document the truth, and not flee from it to please an audience. The responsibility of a journalist is to get the truth to the audience, not pander to it. The tactic of psychological transference, where the victim becomes the aggressor is being used in Ukraine and I have written about this before. This goes with the demonization and dehumanization and serves to remove all blame from the true aggressor.

Call it what it is

The western-backed Ukrainian government which is trying to claim it is legitimate and represents western and European values is engaged in a punitive war of genocide against ethnic Russians and anyone opposed to it. The regime is also engaged in a war against the media and any reporter, including writers like myself, who dare to present the truth are targets and a danger to the nazi junta whose greatest enemy is the truth. They have proven this. They will kill anyone who publishes the truth or attempts to report the truth. Is this what they mean by European and "Western Values"?

If we look at the price that Julian Assange has had to pay for telling the truth and the war being waged on "hackers", bloggers, reporters, sources, whistle blowers and even anyone who simply links to content the US Government does not approve of, then perhaps Nuland is right in supporters the nazis in Ukraine? Perhaps as the United States was founded on genocide the real western value is genocide? That would explain why Nuland still has her job and the American media are marching lock step with the narrative, which is enabling genocide.

Two honorable young men, with families and friends and a group of innocent refugees were killed by some lunatic peering through the sights of an artillery weapon. The junta has forbidden refugees from fleeing the conflict zone as it continues to eradicate them. And the "West" is silent as the US continues to sugar coat genocide, which has become, as seems to be the case, official US policy.

Jar2

19 June, 07:05

Demonizing Russia: Formula for Extermination

John Robles

How is it that in our age of information technologies, the internet and lightning fast communications that a nazi junta has been allowed not only to come to power but has been allowed to legitimize itself and then engage in a war to (in their own words) clear out half of the country of those who are opposed to them?

The answer to the question I have posed is quite simple really and the formula works for almost every state and grouping. It begins with nationalism or patriotism or some other reason why a certain policy or group is better than the rest. This usually proceeds by the enabling of those who would promote hate or racist polices and even in the extreme, genocide. Finally when the polices or campaigns are begun they are allowed to grow and flourish by quiet or passive collusion (perhaps out of fear of reprisal or loss of social status) and by the subtle or outright demonization of the target group. As the campaign grows to the point where to all thinking people there is something obviously wrong (this may occur at any time during the process) then the campaign to terrorize or demonize or outright eradicate those who would express dissent, the press, the academic community or even religious bodies. Finally there is institutionalized denial and historical revisionism, either by rewriting the history or by omission.

From the genocide of the American Indians, to the genocide of the Jews, the Serbs, the Tutsis and the Slavs, these elements have always existed. In order to facilitate the genocide of the Indians they were classified as animals, the Jews as genetically inferior and sly manipulators and architects of control and repression and for the Slavs ignorant or godless invaders and aggressors, not exactly in that order and not only limited to those areas, but you get the idea.

Determining the Target, Unleashing the Tool

Why would Ukrainians want to commit genocide on their fellow Ukrainians? In reality few of them would, which is where the foreign hands come in and this is the dirtiest part of the situation in Ukraine and one which no one wants to talk about. The US wants NATO in Ukraine and they want to fulfill their other objectives which include turning Ukraine against Russia. Politically and with the use of billions of dollars turning Ukrainians against Russia did not work out so well. Organizing multiple "color revolutions" and installing puppet governments also did not work out, so the need arose to eliminate the pro-Russian part of the population. Since this was the majority and the Russian speaking part of the population was immune from western manipulation, elimination was the only solution. With that in mind backing and unleashing Ukrainian nationalists was the natural choice. Who else?

Demonization and Dehumanization: the Language of Death

What normal Ukrainian man, enlisted in the army and sworn to uphold his constitution and protect his country and his people would kill his own women and children? None. Therefore the targets have to be demonized and more importantly dehumanized.

Operation Ukraine has a component that non-Russian speakers are not very aware about, Stevan Gajich pointed out to me in an interview recently. This component is one that I also elaborated on with journalist Sergey Bolous who recently spent over a month in Slavyansk Ukraine and other areas of Donbas where the junta is engaged in punitive military operations. This component is one which has allowed the nazi junta to demonize a large segment of the population to the point where there are thousands who are convinced that it is okay to literally exterminate them.

The Kiev junta with the advice of Soros, US NGOs and the entire US propaganda, war and intelligence machine set about demonizing those who would support Ukraine's historic affinity for Russia. The US wants Ukraine in its orbit and will do anything to bring that about, including genocide. Genocide is not a problem for America. It is a country founded on it and dependent on it for its continued existence. Just ask an American Indian.

Official Kiev (which officially we have to call them), in other words, the junta is currently engaged in what the Russian government and media are calling a punitive war against the people in the eastern part of Ukraine. More and more evidence, including statements by the junta regarding "clearing the regions", is pointing to it being in fact a scorched-earth genocide of the entire populations in the east, again semantics.

This war is being facilitated by officially calling and labelling everyone in these regions as terrorists, terrorist supporters and enablers and separatists. Just like the US justified invading Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and the attempt on Iran and extinguishing millions of lives, this label is working for the Ukrainian army, even though it has nothing to do with reality. Officially that is the label, unofficially it is worse. Just like the US habituated US racists to calling Muslims ragheads, sand niggers and the like and portraying them as backward, uncivilized and worst of all "non-Western" Ukraine has also waged a campaign of dehumanization.

While the Maidan Defense Forces and Right Sector were burning people alive in Odessa the crowd was chanting "burn, Colorado, burn" and "glory to Ukrainian patriots". Although primitive the labels employed by Ukraine's murderous nationalists are effective. According to journalist Sergey Belous Colorado is a reference to the Colorado Potato Beetle and this phrase is used by many public speakers in the media and those wishing to demonize those in the east. The children of the Ukrainians who are against the junta are called Colorado larvae which actually look like worms. Of course it is psychologically possible or easy for the lunatics doing the bidding to brutally kill a woman or child if you can plant in their minds that they are mere insects or worms.

The term Colorado comes from the colors of the St. George's Ribbon which the Svoboda Party wants outlawed. The St. George's Ribbon symbolizes Russia's historic victory over nazi Germany. As Svoboda sees itself as a nazi party it members see the defeat of Nazi Germany as a day of shame. Even Victory Day was changed in very carefully coded language by the Ukrainian authorities to a day of "memory of the victims" rather than a celebration of the victors, in effect turning the holiday into one where the "victims", the Banderavites and the nazis, are remembered.

In general those wishing federalization or simply against the regime are called insects. There are other words such as Rashisty and a combination of Putin and Hitler which attempt to paint the pro-federalization Ukrainians as somehow being nazis. This is clearly for the western audience as well. Rashisty is a combination of natsisty (nazist) and Russian.

In order to facilitate eradicating the people in the east the junta has also come to calling the residents of these regions "okupanty" or occupiers. How one can "occupy" one's own country is beyond me but that is the logic here. This demonization goes hand in hand with the demonization of Russia as well which anyone can see on any western media outlet.

Although the populations in the east and in particular Lugansk and Donetsk which held referendums, had initially merely wanted federalization as they saw this as the only way to have their language and religion respected, they were immediately labelled as separatists by the junta. It is important to note that the junta and their neo-Nazi paramilitaries, now organized as the "National Guard" (a name which gives them credibility), are not only engaged in an illegal (Geneva Conventions) campaign of collective retribution and "clearing" operation but have also regularly targeted not only schools and hospitals but churches. The destruction of churches and the killing of journalists are almost unprecedented events in world history, in fact I do not recall any regular "army" which literally bombed and targeted churches. Other than CIA created Al-Qaeda and the western-backed Islamic lunatics in Syria no other "force" in recent history has targeted churches.

Back to the language. Another term being used is Moskal(i) a derogatory for (Muscovite), Sovki and Sovok (derogatory terms which plays on the word Soviet and the Russian word for dustpan "sovok").

All of the terms and the stirring of nationalist sentiment while targeting Russia and ethnic Russians and others whom the regime does not find to their liking is simply a common trick used by all nationalist/fascist movements to justify what normal people know is wrong.

Jar2

10 June, 12:59

Russian Gas, NWO and US Energy Mafia

John Robles

Bulgaria’s acquiescence to the US hegemony in stopping work on the South Stream gas pipeline is another sign that the United States is effectively attempting to become the master of Europe if it is not already such. With no political or other socio-economic strings attached Russia was attempting to simply supply European consumers and states with a needed commodity to keep themselves warm and cook their meals. Russia provides Europe with very attractive prices, with no conditions attached, and was attempting to merely do business. This of course is something the US does not want.

Ukraine: Open US Meddling

While the US and its western "partners" are demonizing Russia for the situation in Ukraine, falsely labelling it "Russian aggression", "Russian annexation" and everything else under the sun, while completely failing to provide or present a single tiny little piece of evidence to back up such aggressive war rhetoric (something the US specializes in), Russia and the world have a mountain of evidence to make such claims against the United States of America but continue to allow the world’s most destabilizing country to bash around unhindered.

Revelations that are already part of the public record (none of which have been denied officially by Washington) include the entire spectrum of egregious meddling into the affairs of a sovereign nation. The quantity of what we already know is stunning and what is worse is that this is just the tip of the iceberg.

From Victoria Nuland alone (the leader in revelations) we know enough to tie the US directly into subverting a foreign government, from the December 2013 $5 billion accounting at a speech sponsored by Exxon and Chevron, to her conversation with US Ambassador Pyatt in which they laid out the makeup of the post-coup government in Ukraine, her activities are in complete violation of acceptable international standards, protocols, conventions and laws. But that is not even the most serious US violation.

We know, because of evidence that is available for anyone in the world to see if they simple look for it, that there are at least 400 Greystone/CIA mercenaries in Ukraine reportedly engaged in punitive military operations against civilian targets and assisting in the commission of war crimes.

We know the names of all of the US NGOs and CIA/USAID bodies that helped destabilizing the country, even the funding tree and the chain of command, it is all available on-line, yet nothing is being done about it.

We know the Maidan sniper killings were ordered by members of the junta, even the fact that a silenced M-16 was used and the name of the official who transported it out of the area.

We know that people were burned alive in Odessa or set on fire after they were brutally murdered and even have the testimony of the head of the emergency services to back that up. There is even evidence that the people were gassed with gas that was only available to security services and some say only used by the CIA, but there is no investigation.

We have seen and uncovered evidence that the hand of the CIA is behind these events and other atrocities, the clues are everywhere, including in intercepted e-mails, telephone calls and other communications.

We know that the Right Sector and Crimean Tartar separatists funded and armed by Islamic terrorist elements who were to deliver weapons through Turkey were supposed to destabilize Crimea for NATO intervention and the annexation of Crimea by NATO, yet there is no outcry (this is all well-documented on-line).

We know Kolomoysky, Yarosh, Turchynov, Yatsenyuk and Poroshenko are involved in illegal punitive operations and the commission of war crimes against the Ukrainian people and doing so with the blessing of the United States, yet there is still no outcry.

We know from the former head of the Ukrainian Intelligence Services Alexander Yekimenko that the current head of the SBU, Valentin Nalivaychenko was recruited by the CIA and Alexander Danyluk the leader of the movement "Spilna Right" which controls the country’s Central Election Commission, works for British intelligence, yet they are not being tried for treason.

We also know large portions of the country did not even vote in the recent presidential election; and that there is evidence that Poroshenko was simple placed in power by his foreign benefactors. Yet there is not a word in the western media.

And lastly we know the United States and its agents had a plan to include in the EU Association agreement clauses to transfer the ownership of the Russian Ukrainian gas pipeline to major US oil companies and are planning to place NATO war elements in Ukraine directly on Russia’s border.

These are not secrets, yet there is silence and somehow Russia is at fault. Russia continues to be blamed for everything the US has done in Ukraine and as President Putin recently said: "provide the evidence". No one can, because there is none.

Russian People are Peace-Loving People

Russia continues to deal with the direct threat to its national security that exists in Ukraine through peaceful means and continues to attempt to deal with those in power in an above-board-basis and under accepted international laws and norms. Russia is also the only country which has steadfastly supported and assisted the Ukrainian people as their own government has escalated its war on its own population.

From the first stage of marginalizing the Russian speaking and ethnic Russian population of Ukraine and ignoring their legitimate grievances against policies implemented by the junta until the current bombing and killing of these very populations by the fascists in Kiev, Russia has attempted to assist the people through peaceful means.

The strength of the Russian people, and I believe history is a testament to this, is that they believe in peace, strive for peace and are incredibly patient and slow to anger. Russia and the Slavs have historically never been invaders and attackers but have always risen to any threat to their own integrity or security. Sometimes it might appear too late but when the time comes it always with complete resolve and devastating effects on those who would prod a sleeping bear.

This is in contrast to the United States which seems to be involved in and itching for a new military "adventure" before the previous one even finishes and which to this date, other than Pearl Harbor (and there are those who have presented evidence and believe that Pearl Harbor was allowed to happen and constituted a false flag attack) has waged wars all over the world whilst never being attacked by any of its targets.

In over simplified schoolyard terms the US would be the bully, beating and terrorizing everyone in sight whilst Russia would be the big quiet kid that never bothers anyone but whom the bully avoids. Just take a look at John McCain and compare him to Foreign Minister Lavrov if you have a problem with the allegory.

Statesmen, Diplomats, Businessmen

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union Russia has strived to build a fair and democratic society while having to constantly deal with attempts to break the country up and attempts by the US/CIA to facilitate it breakup and a spiral into anarchy. While USAID and the CIA may have spent 5 million dollars on destabilization/regime change operations in Ukraine that figure was in the $400 billion dollar range for Russia and they failed.

Whilst fighting real threats to its security Russia has managed to somehow keep a free democratic society and not strip the right s of its citizens away or sink into the tyranny of a hyper-security sate. Something few talk about but a feat worthy of admiration.

On the international stage Russia’s diplomats, heads of state, business leaders and others have continuously without fail called for the respect of rule of law, respect for sovereignty and relations based on equal partnerships. This can be seen in every interaction with the international community that Russia has had. Especially in the energy sector where Russia has been more than generous with "partners" such as Ukraine and in which Russia has never set political or other conditions in order to simply do business.

Again in sharp contrast to the US and its perpetual blackmailing, sanctions, strong arming, draconian conditions, spying, market manipulations, regime change operations, endless wars and threats of aggression, conditional loans and its forever meddling into the affairs of every country that has the misfortune of warranting US attention or which has something the US wants.

All of that brings me to where I have been headed with all of this: namely the mafia-like strong arm tactics of the US on the international stage in general, in the energy sector in particular and even more precisely the strong arming of Bulgaria by when-will-he-ever-retire-neocon John McCain.

Russian Gas Pipeline: Energy Independence for Europe

In reality, with all rhetoric and political shadings aside, Russian gas to Europe is the best option for the continent and any pragmatic European leader should understand this. So while the US is terrorizing Europe about "Russian energy dependence" and how Europe must be free to buy its energy supplies from anyone (namely US companies) except from Russia, let’s pause and think for a minute.

Russia has supplied Europe with very affordable quality energy resources since day one, not only affordable but always in a dependable, timely and generous manner (except for the past problems with Ukraine) and has done so without ever seeking to manipulate the internal politics of its customer states or setting political or other conditions on its consumers.

As we have seen with Ukraine Russia has even been generous when payment has not been received, allowing Ukraine for instance, to run up a debt of $3.5 billion or more.

Affordable gas and oil, with no conditions attached and always delivered on-time and within contractual terms, what could be more conducive to energy independence and security?

According to US thinking of people like John McCain, the foreign power destabilizing Europe and causing energy insecurity, all European countries must follow US political whims and abide by the dictates of Washington, not only on whom to befriend, who to do business with, how to run internal economies, how to carry out national defense, who to trade with and not to trade with and finally where to buy energy resources and from whom. And if you do not obey Washington’s dictates, you will be targeted for destabilization and regime change, plain and simple. You do what we say or we will destroy you.

Yes the energy giants and the corporations on Wall Street do not want Europe receiving gas from Russia. They want Europe to buy it from America but there is one problem: America cannot fill Europe’s energy needs.

Some say the energy giants, the corporations and the military industrial/intelligence complex control the US government and attempt to force their will on the people, and this is in fact the case. Why else would a European association agreement for Ukraine include raising the price of gas for consumers to "European levels"? So that the new sellers will make more money it is that plain and simple.

The hypocrisy of McCain arriving in Bulgaria and dictating to the Bulgarian government who to buy gas from and how to run its affairs while talking about energy independence is stunning and almost unbelievable, but it is what we have come to expect from dysfunctional self-serving US foreign policy. Talk of independence, democracy and freedom while delivering subservience, tyranny and enslavement: economically, militarily and politically.

Broken EU: Good for America

Does the US hegemon have the interests of Europe in mind? Of course not, otherwise they would not have destabilized the whole continent by forcing Europe into a mindless confrontation with Russia whilst unleashing nazis on a continent that has already suffered enough.

The very real and present threat to European security, sovereignty, peace, economic well-being and political cohesion is not Russia, who has been merely attempting to do business with its partners, but the United States which has been attempting to establish its hegemony and subjugate the continent by force.

And the record has shown, if the US cannot subjugate and control a country it will destroy it and break it up.

And I leave you with the list of countries where the US has organized coup d’états, supported revolutions, overthrown governments, invaded, annexed, supported groups or forces who overthrew or attempted to overthrow governments or outright executed the leaders. Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Argentina, Bolivia, Bosnia, Brazil, Cambodia, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guam, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Korea, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Macedonia, Mexico, Nicaragua, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Philippines, Puerto Rico, Russia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Turkey, Ukraine, Uruguay, USSR, Venezuela, Vietnam, Virgin Islands, Yemen, Yugoslavia and Zaire (Congo).

Any country which is visited by McCain, please take heed, hopefully yours won’t be next.

The views and opinions expressed here are my own but I will share them with you. I can be reached at jar2@list.ru.

Jar2

7 June, 09:53

At D-Day Putin Professional, Poroshenko Bows to the Queen

John Robles

President Vladimir Putin must be applauded, hailed and deeply respected for his statesmanship, his unwavering composure, his respect for protocol, his diplomacy and his iron self-control in maintaining his cool professionalism and business-like demeanor when being forced into what must have been a pressure cooker of historic proportions during the D-Day Celebrations in Normandy.

The leader of the largest country in the world clearly outclassed all of the gathered "royalty" in spite of, or perhaps due to, their united attempt to demonize and portray him as the "bad guy", when in fact the elephant in the room is that they are responsible for unleashing nazis in Europe and continue to attempt to legitimize an illegal coup and forces who are engaged in military operations against civilians.

Thus the gathering of heads of state for the 70th Anniversary D-Day Celebrations had an undercurrent of hypocrisy as leaders who backed an armed nazi coup d’état in Ukraine shook hands and patted each other on the back for a victory over Nazism that their countries only played a small part in while at times appearing to snub the leader of the one country that lost more people than all other countries combined and without whom Nazi Germany and the Third Reich would have conquered Europe.

The Big Lie and Alternative Reality

The alternative reality that they are so shamelessly promoting in the West with regard to Ukraine and Russia’s role in the conflict is so far removed from what is actually taking place that one can only come to the conclusion that the West is in fact channeling Goebbels and his big lie theory.

Thankfully the “celebrations” are over as there is no way that anyone could possibly have envied President Vladimir Putin for the position he was placed in, having to smile and be diplomatic with leaders who are actively engaged in sanctions and a campaign against Russia. It is difficult to stay indifferent especially when mindless propaganda rags like the Daily Mail publish headlines like “Putin the pariah…” and outright lies such as “Russia’s aggression towards Crimea” in their summaries of the events.

President Putin Comments on Poroshenko

The Voice of Russia reported that President Vladimir Putin expressed satisfaction with his meetings with western leaders in Deauville, Normandy: "Our meeting began the way a meeting usually begins - we sat down and began to talk about some of the acutest problems, both some international and bilateral problems. But the main subject was the problem of settling the situation in Ukraine," Putin told reporters.

"I cannot but welcome Mr. Poroshenko's position as to the need to immediately stop bloodshed in eastern Ukraine,"Putin told journalists in Deauville when asked to comment on outcomes of this conversation with Poroshenko on Friday.

"He has his plan on this account, but it's better to ask him, not me, what plan this is. He said in a nutshell about this, but it's one thing to say about this here, in France, and another to say it in his own country," President Putin said.

The Reality About Ukraine

Just in case you have not been informed about what is really happened in Ukraine or if you actually believe the lies that the western media is attempting to paint as reality please allow me to give you a quick rundown of what has transpired.

After stopping a US/NATO invasion of Syria, once again initiated by the US based on fabricated evidence, and holding what were assessed to be the best Winter Olympics in history, the US/NATO/EU activated a long planned operation to take over Ukraine.

Operation Ukraine (as I have labelled it) was decades in the planning and was carried out by the CIA and its front USAID with taxpayer funding and additional funds provided by billionaires George Soros and Pierre Omidyar as well as Exxon and Mobil Oil. Through the use of NGOs and endemic fascist neo nazi groups, in particular the Right Sector and followers of brutal nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera, the United States of America was able to activate already existing Color Revolution infrastructure and bring about an armed coup d’état and the ouster of the democratically elected president and government of Ukraine.

US/NATO plans for the installation of first strike military infrastructure directed against Russia in Ukraine were at risk when the elected President of Ukraine Victor Yanukovych was given an ultimatum by the US/NATO/EU to sign an association agreement and effectively cease relations with Russia and he refused.

The evidence shows that US State Department officials at the highest levels with the approval of US President Obama activated Operation Ukraine and chose the lineup of the post-coup government.

The coming to power of radical armed nazi and fascist grouping and armed military formations was not something that the majority of the Ukrainian people supported and the nazi junta’s refusal to listen to the people and their ensuing punitive military operations and pogroms led to the autonomous region of Crimea declaring independence and rejoining Russia as the population refused to live under a fascist junta. The punitive campaign by the junta against all of those opposed to them continued with hundreds being burned alive in Odessa, and dozens of pogroms and countless acts of violence against those opposed to the junta. This led the Donetsk and Lugansk Regions holding referendums on independence with at least 8 other regions being suppressed from doing the same.

Under these conditions the junta held a presidential election in which another oligarch was chosen as President of Ukraine, leaving the Ukrainian people in a worse condition than before the coup.

The elected oligarch Petr Poroshenko, after an election campaign where opponents of the coup were beaten, had their families attacked and threatened, and in the case of outspoken anti-junta candidate Oleg Tsaryov even had their homes burned down and were forced to pull out of the race, before even being inaugurated is guilty of war crimes and violating the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statutes in his continuing punitive military operations against civilians opposed to the junta in Kiev.

Despite the fact that there have been multiple official requests for a Russian peacekeeping operation to stop the bloodshed and the loss of civilians lives Russia has not intervened militarily in Ukraine but has attempted to facilitate a diplomatic and humanitarian resolution to the crisis.

Russia has now been forced to attempt to deal with the “president elect” as if he was the actual choice of the Ukrainian people, despite the fact that more than half of Ukraine did not even vote in the recent elections.

The Western Version

The West has used what is called DARVO in blaming the entire situation in Ukraine on Russia. (DARVO refers to a reaction that perpetrators of wrong doing, particularly sexual offenders, may display in response to being held accountable for their behavior. The perpetrator or offender may Deny the behavior, Attack the individual doing the confronting, and Reverse the roles of Victim and Offender such that the perpetrator assumes the victim role and turns the true victim into an alleged offender.)

According to the West Russia is an aggressor in Ukraine, there is no humanitarian catastrophe currently taking place as perhaps as many as tens of thousands of refugees flee Ukraine and the punitive military operations directed against entire regions, there is not an illegal military operation being waged against the civilians in the east of Ukraine and the president and the junta are legitimate holders of power.

The West also claims the people of Crimea do not have the right to self- determination because they decided to rejoin Russia. Had they decided to join the EU there is no doubt the legitimacy would be hailed around the world.

A Thousand Words

Having studied photographs and footage of the events at Normandy, because as they say a picture speaks a thousand words, several facts stood out which I feel might be worth mentioning. More than anything and this might fuel conspiracy theories and add fire to those who claim the New World Order is run by London Bankers as well as be an issue for those who claim to be American patriots, was the deference all of those gathered paid to the Queen of England (the person who owns more land than anyone else in the world).

Sure the Queen is a wonderful person and the UK did lose half a million people in WWII, but her central role at the event seemed odd to say the least. Of course no one is allowed to say anything about this but I thought it worth mentioning.

Yes France and the UK and the US all lost approximately 500 thousand men each and these heroes must be remembered but Russia lost what could be more than 28 million and in all fairness it was the Russian leader who should have been the guest of honor. But of course Russia’s “contribution” is always minimized in the West, a fact I have taken issue with many times in the past, and the West has its version of events that must be respected as well, I suppose.

The most stunning photograph for me was one of Poroshenko all but bowing in front of the Queen as he shakes her hand, appearing to have been led to the Queen by Obama, as Obama and all of the heads of state around the Queen looked down or pretended not to notice.

No matter that Poroshenko is engaged in military operations against his own civilians, no matter that he has not even been inaugurated as president, it is clear he is the West’s man in Kiev, and he can do no wrong.

In television footage Poroshenko for his part looked rather uncomfortable during a performance in honor of those who fought and died against nazism, perhaps he was wondering how his Banderavite supporters and Right Sector militias might react back home?

Prince Charles looked overly pleased to see Obama and after his Hitler comments with regard to Russia was completely unapologetic towards President Putin. Prince Charles continuously shot President Putin hard glances as he and his assembled “friends” attempted to stay separate from the Russian leader. I suppose making Hitler references while knowing that the nazis in Ukraine were let loose by your own “friends” might be cause to stay away from the target of your operation.

President Putin behaved in a completely statesman-like manner despite knowing that those amassed around him are bent on surrounding Russia with their missiles and have caused the single largest threat to Russia’s national security in this century.

A President for Peace

We will never know what the leaders actually said to each other but we can be certain that the language was hard and if President Putin is pleased, then we will probably soon see an end to the civil war raging in Ukraine.

While all of the leaders of countries waging war around the world, destabilizing governments and bent on the global expansion of their NATO infrastructure celebrated D-Day President Putin’s quiet dignity and record for fighting for peace and rule of law clearly are what made him stand out.

No amount of demonization or blame will change the fact that Operation Ukraine was a western project and Russia’s security is under attack, as NATO reneges on all deals and continues to expand to the east.

Despite everything President Putin continues to seek a diplomatic solution and continues to attempt to assist the Ukrainian people who are being attacked by their own military. I am certain that without a shot being fired, President Putin will find a solution to the crisis in Ukraine, even though it is not one Russia had any part in bringing about but which Russia is being forced to deal with.

The views and opinions expressed here are my own. I can be reached at jar2@list.ru.

Jar2

6 June, 10:16

On D-Day Never Forget the Great Patriotic Wars

John Robles with Michael John Smith

When French President Francois Hollande invited President Vladimir Putin to take part in the 70th Anniversary D-Day Celebrations he stated: "We can have different views. But I didn't forget and will never forget that the Russian people lost millions of lives in World War II." The President of France must be commended for not forgetting, he is obviously one of the few western leaders who has not forgotten the lessons of history and one who is pragmatic and who connection with reality does not change with the perpetual political winds of change.

Against the backdrop of the events in Ukraine, where the West and its agents have unleashed Nazi and fascist forces bent on the destruction of Russians, the "Moskali" and anyone they can demonize as "pro-Russian", watching the West celebrate D-Day while at the same supporting Nazis in Kiev and ignoring war crimes being committed by fascists in Ukraine, one is left with the a sickening feeling and a lingering unease that something is completely and utterly wrong here.

Just yesterday, on the eve of D-Day 8,700 refugees fled the punitive military operations being waged on the populations in eastern Ukraine by the fascist junta who has vowed to clear out the east and found refuge in Russia. Yes, 8,700 women and children and innocent civilians fleeing those who would follow Nazi ideology and who are bent on nothing less than their total and complete annihilation. Their crime? Being in regions that are against the junta in Kiev. According to Pavel Astakhov, the Russian President’s Children’s Rights Ombudsman, some of the refugees recounted how a small boy was shot to death for wearing a St. George’s Ribbon.

The West however has suddenly become blind to Nazis, refugees, war crimes, democracy and the rights of people’s to self-determination, not to mention the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statutes. Not even the International Red Cross is admitting that there is a humanitarian disaster taking place in eastern Ukraine.

The US/NATO/EU through its nefarious instruments and organizations and with conscience knowledge of what it was doing brought about an armed coup d’état in Kiev and installed a puppet regime to bring about its geopolitical objectives. That illegal fascist junta has not conducted a mockery of what is being passed for as presidential elections and elected an oligarch sympathetic to their cause who continues to "clear the east" and will fast track Ukraine into allowing NATO to place its war machinery on Russia’s border.

I can try to be politically correct and diplomatic as some of our officials are at times when they refer to these monsters as "partners" and "colleagues" but my readers know that is not my style, and labeling such amoral murderous madmen and hypocrites as such is demeaning to the memory of everyone who died as a result of or fighting the first Nazi scourge. So how dare they celebrate a victory in a war that they only assisted in winning? How dare they blame Russia for unleashing Nazis in Ukraine and destabilizing the country because the people said no to NATO and an EU agreement? How dare they? Dare they may.

The West has completely forgotten the lessons that should have been learned from World War II and as it celebrates the landing at Normandy this is an incredibly sad development. Once again Russia is left to fight a fascist scourge.

The Great Patriotic War

Last February, when US propaganda outlet CNN, desecrated a great monument to the Great Patriotic War I wrote an article which is still being cited today in article written by a writer who is doing her utmost to demonize Russia and President Putin. In it I wrote about the real events of WWII, without the propaganda revisionism that is evident in the western educational system. I would like to share that with you once again because it is more than topical today.

Previous article by Robles: "… the American educational system and the US media promotes myths, institutionally implements omissions and spreads falsehoods about the Great Patriotic War, known in the West as World War II."

"To hide US collusion with the Nazis, even after the war when over 40,000 of them were given refuge in the US, and to glorify their own small effort in the war, Americans and many countries in the West are taught and continue to believe that it was the US and its "allies" that won World War II on the Western Front. Nowhere do American historical textbooks (and if I am wrong and some have been updated please e-mail me) fairly portray the effort of the USSR in winning the war on the Eastern Front. For it was won on the Eastern Front, the West's D-Day was for all intents and purposes a mopping up operation on the Western Front and mere support for the Soviet Forces."

"The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) lost more than 28 million people in their heroic effort to rid the world of the Nazi [sic] scourge and blood flowed all over its territory. In contrast the US lost about 400 thousand which is about how many Italy lost and less than half of what Yugoslavia lost but is still worthy of mentioning, but to say they won the war is an egregious lie and historical revisionism. Of which the US is clearly unapologetically guilty but which follows the endemic US belief that for some reason their lives are worth more than the lives of others. This belief is founded on their own exceptionalism, the genocidal nature of the basis of the "American" state, their endemic racism and their long history of enslavement and exploitation of other peoples."

"… for Americans war is an abstraction, something that happens to others, in faraway lands and to strange and "foreign" people. And this fact can be no more clearer than the American outcry when "American boys" start coming home in body bags or beautifully flag covered coffins. Rarely if ever is there an outcry if some poor Afghan family is droned into oblivion, this on the other hand is seen as normal."

"Americans have never faced and enemy on "their" territory (other than fighting the French, English and Spanish for stolen Indian lands) and they have never seen their cities destroyed, or their neighbors butchered, or their daughters raped, or their people slaughtered. Blood has never flown on their territory as it did in Belarus and Russia and all of Europe and as it is flowing in…"Ukraine.

President Putin attending Ceremonies

President Vladimir Putin will attend a ceremony later today commemorating the 70th anniversary of the D-Day landings in Normandy. On June 3rd in Sochi, ahead of his visit to France, President Putin gave an interview to Radio Europe 1 and the TF1 TV channel. In it the President once again laid out the reality of the situation in Ukraine for the information ally challenged western audiences.

President Putin

President Putin did not call the Right Sector and the fascists who were brought to power Nazis, and like a true statesman he deferred to the organizers as "friends", but what he says must be repeated because in his words lies the truth, and the truth is that Russia has had nothing to do with what has occurred in Ukraine nor with what is happening there today. Russia is faced with an unprecedented attack on its security and a historic campaign of demonization as well as sanctions while once again faced with the task of fighting fascists. I am confident: Russia beat the Nazis once, Russia will beat them again.

"There was a conflict and that conflict arose because the former Ukrainian president refused to sign an association agreement with the EU…. We discussed this with our European partners. Instead of continuing the debates by legitimate and diplomatic means, our European friends and our friends from the United States supported the anti-constitutional armed coup. This is what happened. We did not cause this crisis to happen. We were against this course of events."

"The point is no one should be brought to power through an armed anti-constitutional coup, and this is especially true in post-Soviet space where government institutions are not fully mature. When it happened some people accepted the regime and were happy about it while other people, say, in eastern and southern Ukraine just won’t accept it. And it is vital to talk with the people who didn’t accept this change of power instead of sending tanks, as you said yourself, instead of firing missiles at civilians from the air and bombing non-military targets."

President Putin answered about false claims of Russian troops and advisors: "Proof? Why don’t they show it? The entire world remembers the US Secretary of State demonstrating the evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, waving around some test tube with washing powder in the UN Security Council. Eventually, the US troops invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein was hanged and later it turned out there had never been any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. You know, it's one thing to say things and another to actually have evidence. I will tell you again: no Russian troops… There are no armed forces, no Russian 'instructors' in southeastern Ukraine and, there never were any."

President Putin also said: that Russia had never "annexed Ukraine"; that the Ukrainian government must now sit down and talk with their own people instead of using weapons, tanks, planes and helicopters; that joining [NATO] would cause a partial loss of sovereignty; that if Ukraine joins NATO, NATO's infrastructure will move directly towards the Russian border, which cannot leave us indifferent; that it is a delusion that Russian troops annexed Crimea; that under Article 1 of the UN Charter the Crimean people held a referendum and that in accordance with the expression of the will of people who live there, Crimea is now part of the Russian Federation and its constituent entity.

On US foreign policy: "Speaking of US policy, it's clear that the United States is pursuing the most aggressive and toughest policy to defend their own interests – at least, this is how the American leaders see it – and they do it persistently. There are basically no Russian troops abroad while US troops are everywhere. There are US military bases everywhere around the world and they are always involved in the fates of other countries even though they are thousands of kilometers away from US borders. So it is ironic that our US partners accuse us of breaching some of these rules."

A good friend of mine Michael John Smith, the last person convicted of spying for the Soviet Union in the World, and someone who is especially outraged by the support by the West of Nazis in Ukraine was kind enough to give his views on the twisting of history by the West when it comes to World War II.

Robles: Given the current situation in Ukraine and the fact that the Nazi junta is currently engaged in punitive military operations against the civilian population in what has been called by the "elected" president Petr Poroshenko an operation to "clear the eastern regions" and the continued demonization of Russia by the West, which is forced to deal with a real threat to its security and its people from western backed fascists, what is your impression of the D-Day celebrations currently under way in Normandy?

Smith: "Throughout the era following the Second World War it has always been presented through the media in the UK that the D-Day landings of June 6th 1944 were the start of the downfall of the Nazi regime. Children are taught at school that without the allied invasion of Normandy then Hitler would not have been defeated."

"Nobody will deny the heroic way in which American, British and other allied troops bravely fought their way off the Normandy beaches and battled against the Nazis as part of the Western Front. But that Western Front was in the planning stage for an awful long time, and those populations in countries occupied by Nazi troops were desperate to see an end to the war, and they had to wait many months for the allied forces to decide when to make their move. Some sceptics at the time even believed that the British and the Americans were waiting for Hitler to defeat the Soviet Union before they would make a move and open up a Western Front!"

"Because the 70th anniversary of the D-Day landings is happening at this time, it concentrates our minds on their significance. One point that stands out as a distortion of history is that, whatever the significance of battles on the Western Front, it was really on the Eastern Front where the major part of the Second World War was won. Would any genuine military historian really concentrate all this attention on D-Day, when the facts tell us that millions more were fighting hundreds of miles away on the Eastern Front, and that it was the Soviet Army that defeated Hitler and the scourge of Nazism in Europe?"

"True history is telling what actually happened, and not some fiction that provides Hollywood with such blockbusters as Saving Private Ryan or The Longest Day, but then the USA always glorifies war as a beneficial experience. Perhaps it is considered more patriotic for a US audience to show Americans fighting Germans, when the real bloodbath had occurred among the Russian population facing the Nazi Blitzkrieg."

"What this D-Day celebration should be telling us is that we will never again accept fascist parties running countries around the world. This is something most normal people would support. However, we see those same Nazi style elements emerging and taking over in Ukraine in 2014, and the USA and other western governments praising them as democratic groups that should be encouraged. How dare these western governments lie to us about the true nature of the neo Nazi threat, festering away in modern Europe? Have our leaders, particularly Obama and Cameron, learned nothing from previous wars?"

"Instead of blaming Russia and President Putin for the troubles in Ukraine, the western powers assembled to celebrate D-Day should be turning their attention to promoting world peace and working together to stop a growing civil war in Ukraine. How can world leaders celebrate D-Day, 70 years ago, and yet turn a blind eye to the suffering of innocent civilians today in the heart of Europe?"

HISTORY

The Eastern Front: The Great Patriotic War

Given the record keeping of the day it is difficult to give an exact number of those killed on what is called the "Eastern Front" by the West and the Great Patriotic War by the USSR and Russia, but of the estimated up to 80 million deaths caused by the war between 28 to 40 million of those who perished were Russians and citizens of the USSR who died on the "Eastern Front". The war was fought between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, considered to be the principal belligerent powers.

Although no forces from the United Kingdom or the United States fought on the Eastern Front, they did provide material aid to the USSR in what was called a Lend-Lease Policy yet they failed to meet the specific quotas that had been agreed on. Some say this is due to the secret desire for Nazi Germany to defeat the USSR.

The war waged on for years and when Nazi Germany was almost defeated and the Soviet Union was moving closer to Berlin, the West engaged in a race to Berlin, afraid that Germany would become Soviet Territory. There are many who say that D-Day was very late in coming and that the allies were intentionally holding off to see if Hitler would defeat the USSR, but regardless there were brave men who died there and they did help in ending the war. But the fact is that the battles on the Eastern Front were what constituted the largest military confrontation in history and without which, as many in the US love to say, Europe would be speaking German.

The largest part of the Holocaust took place on the Eastern Front as well, where almost all of the concentration camps and ghettos were located. Almost all of the pogroms, death marches and mass deportations also took place here. The front also saw the most brutal fighting and the largest losses of life due to combat but also because of starvation, exposure, disease, and massacres.

The Great Patriotic War won WWII and resulted in the destruction of the Third Reich and an end to Nazi Germany’s ambition to clear Russia of its people for Lebensraum, in what I would call the Second Holocaust, the elimination of the Slavs. Let us not forget history even as it is being repeated today in what many are now chillingly calling Banderstan, where its government is trying to clear the eastern regions as collective punishment for being against their junta.

How dare the West let Nazis loose in Europe again, in a campaign against Russia! How dare the West blame Russia for anything that has happened in Ukraine when the evidence only shows they are at fault. How dare the West pretend that the Right Sector and Svoboda and the Banderavites under Yarosh are anything other than what they really are, Nazis and fascists. How dare the West claim victory in a war that Russia lost perhaps more than 100 people for every 1 the West lost.

Russia beat the Nazis once, Russia will do so again.

The opinions and views expressed here are my own. I can be reached at jar2@list.ru.

Jar2

21 May, 22:52

NATO will not stop attempting to destroy Russia – Danijel Simic

Download audio file

Under NATO there is no freedom of speech. Under NATO occupation, before the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, activists and people who spoke openly about human rights or even the rights of Serbia under the Dayton Accords, were taken to US military bases and beaten, if all other attempts to silence their voices failed.

Danijel Simic

Freedom, democracy, rule of law and human rights are flexible concepts for the elites behind the US-NATO war machine. In Bosnia - Herzegovina they are attempting to absorb the Srpska Republika, while in Serbia they staunchly insist on making Kosovo independent. As with Ukraine, this is a continued war to divide the Slavic world and to bring it to its knees or obliterate it entirely. We spoke to Danijel Simic – a writer, political analyst and activist about these issues, as well as the ongoing crisis in Ukraine.

Danijel Simic

Hello! This is John Robles, I’m speaking with Mr. Danijel Simic. He is a writer, a political activist, a commentator and the founder of the frontal.rs web resource.

Robles: Hello Sir! It’s a pleasure to be speaking with you.

Simic: The pleasure is all mine.

Robles: Can you tell our listeners a little bit about the situation that is going on in the Srpska Republika right now? Who is behind it? And give us a little bit of the history, please.

Simic: The Republika Srpska is a Serbian part of Bosnia. Until 1995, when the Dayton Peace Accord was founded, we used to have our army, we used to have our judiciary, we used to have our totally independent system of taxes. But from 1995 till now, under the pressure of the NATO forces, by brute force and by so-called high representative of the international community destroying every aspect of Dayton Peace Accords regarding Republika Srpska.

In the same time, they did totally the opposite in Serbia and Kosovo. Until the so-called independence in Kosovo they used to have totally the same documents and even flags from the same designer. You know, the NATO narco-cartel state in Kosovo has more or less the same flag as they made in Bosnia. So, the signature of the creators of those two states are visible to anyone who would like to look.

Robles: So, these are your national symbols, or the national symbols and you are saying that they were designed by whom?

Simic: By NATO forces, NATO analysts or NATO think tanks.

The main explanation why they do all that brute forces to first pacify us then civilize us and include us in the family of civilized nations in European Union.

Then, when they do that, they do totally the opposite things. In the Republika Srpska, for example, which is a part of Bosnia, which is more than a federal state… Bosnia consists of two entities. Those entities are, more or less, in 1995 they were complete, complete states with the armies. The Republika Srpska had their own army.

And now, under NATO, they extinguished that fire of independence or autonomy in a military way. So, now, the Republika Srpska has only her own police force. And that police force was also targeted in 2006 and there was an enormous pressure on the Republika Srpska to give up on their police.

The Republika Srpska will be reduced to some kind of citizens’ society without any prerogative. And that was the main purpose of any so-called international diplomats or representatives from the international community. That was their main purpose here in Bosnia or in the Republika Srpska.

In Kosovo, Serbia is an independent state and they took the path of an independent state by force, by an overwhelming force of all major countries. And they do totally the opposite. They don’t want to unify that state and they sponsor their people with a terrorist background and people who are trafficking people, and drugs and all kinds of illegal and forbidden substances.

Robles: Right. What is currently going on in the Srpska Republika, in Banja Luka with a supposed color revolution that they are trying to organize there? And can you tell us about President Dodik? How then, if they want to absorb the Srpska Republika, which is what it sounds like to me, what you are describing how is that, that you can have a president?

Simic: The Republika Srpska is currently in the state of pre-election hysteria. There will be elections in October. And the political parties are now in a full throttle to gain the trust of their voters.

And now in the Republika Srpska is a pretty dull situation, because we are talking about color revolutions. A pretty funny thing, because in the state of Bosnia, the so-called state, and the Republika Srpska, and Federation of Bosnia Herzegovina were under occupation of the NATO forces until they went to Iraq and Afghanistan. And now, more or less we can have like freedom of speech and more or less laws are respected by the international community.

Until the international forces went to Iraq and Afghanistan you could not freely speak in a public space of Republika Srpska, especially speak about rights of the Serbs or rights which are given by Dayton Peace Accords to the Republika Srpska. That was forbidden. If you tried to speak in that manner as I tried, you will be totally sanctioned by the international community, mainly in the matters that you will not gain any funds and you will not gain any commercial support.

And after that, if they do not succeed to extinguish your media or your think tank to express your thoughts about what is happening here, they will send you brute force, they will arrest you, they will take to Tuzla – the American military base – they will beat you up.

And they say – okay, we did that wrong, you are not suspect of a war crime. That was some other person and we made a mistake. But we have an international community of diplomatic and military, so we must be punished for your like total isolation in a physical and a psychological manner.

But what they are all doing, the President Dodik is now in some funny situation, because he was one of the leaders of the color revolution which took place in 1998 here in the Republika Srpska, when they extinguished lots of state prerogatives. Now in those times the Republika Srpska has their own license plates on a car, which were all in the Cyrillic alphabet. We have our own ID cards which were with the Serbian insignia – a two-headed eagle – with a Serbian insignia on it. And we have a Serbian flag and stuff like that.

Now, President Dodik was the person who under his first term as the Prime Minister of the Republika Srpska he gave all that under American pressure. But he was sponsored by the United States to be in power. But after that he learned the lesson, because he lost the next election, and he learned the lesson. His next appearance in a command post of our Republika Srpska meant he was a second time the Prime Minister. He learned that people doesn’t appreciate.

So, he is now leading a totally different politic – against the international community, against the Americans, who brought him into the power both times. So, they are now trying to get rid of him. So they will pressure him. There is, maybe same as in Ukraine, there is lots of corruption, there is lots of unemployment, there is lots of economic crisis here, but that is not the reason to violently overthrow some government.

In the Republika Srpska there will not be some kind of a color revolution, as we saw in Ukraine, because people here is totally aware, maybe not really on a conscious level but on a subconscious level. They remember 1998 and that color revolution which totally put us in a totally wrong direction after the Dayton Peace Accord.

Robles: What have the people in Banja Luka and the Srpska Republika learned? You said subconsciously they are aware of these manipulations. The people there in the Srpska Republika, they would rather have independence. They’ve seen what the West means by democracy. They’ve seen what the international community means by human rights etc. What is your opinion on- let’s say those words - democracy, the international community and what their intentions are for the Srpska Republika?

Simic: For me, personally, when I hear the phrases as democracy, rule of law free society, open society, I’m all flat, I'm terrified, when someone is trying to speak about such things. And certainly in Bosnia Herzegovina, in that Muslim Croats part, especially in the parts with the majority of Muslim people we had a colored revolution of some kind.

It was a real revolution, in the matter that they burnt some government buildings and overtook them, and stuff like that, because that was the plan of Muslim politicians here in Bosnia to make to international community, but some will look they see burning buildings, battles with police and stuff like that. But that was only in the parts which are settled by Muslims.

Their plan was to make some new convention about Bosnia on which they will proclaim that Bosnia is unfunctional state because the Republika Srpska, because the Republika Srpska is always being blamed for everything that you can imagine. Everything is Republika Srpska to blame.

So they try to do that, and even if one citizen in the Republika Srpska, even one in Banja Luka to throw a stone on some government buildings, they will call violations of international convention and they will make a new constitution of Bosnia. People here are subconsciously and consciously totally aware of what their plan was, and so that plan wasn’t fulfilled as they planned.

So, when we see what is going on in Ukraine, it has the same signature as was in former Yugoslavia. The same forces which tore apart the former Yugoslavia are doing now that same thing in Ukraine. They are like totally satisfied when the Russian people or Slavic people wage wars against themselves.

And what I'm seeing now in Ukraine is totally awful. I’m like totally disgusted what the West is capable to do just to gain some political power. It is totally the same as it was in the past. If you take like Hitler’s opinion that Ukraine and the western parts of Russia will be Ostland or eastern lands to settle the German people, because they needed their liebenstraum or a large space for living.

So, it is happening in the European Union. The European Union is trying to overtake Ukraine from the Russian zone of influence. And by my opinion, that happening now in Ukraine is the Cuban crisis in the Russian backyard and Russia must react really strongly. If they do not do what Kennedy did in the Cuban crisis, the consequences will be devastating to Russia.

Robles: Where do you think the situation in Ukraine is headed? Where do you see this going, let’s say, in six months or a year?

Simic: Full-scale civil war, which is terrible. And what Russia now needs to do is to strongly backup those so-called pro-Russian activists on the east and that federation of people who will like to have a federation of Ukraine, with some larger portion of land which is Russian speaking, and to have more rights of the Russian language and stuff like that. Russia must threaten with their army to reason these people from the illegal government in Ukraine to stop using army against their own people.

They do not hesitate, they use force. They will send tanks on Slavyansk, they will send tanks on Kramatorsk, they will send tanks to Odessa, they will send tanks to Donetsk, they don’t care. My prediction to the crisis in Ukraine is not so bright, it is gloomy to the Russian side, because Russia is acting pretty sustaining. Russia must react strongly and Russia must put cash flow, you know money flow into Ukraine and other countries.

For example, here in the Republika Srpska is a fertile ground to have good pro-Russian agenda here in the republic. But the Russian presence here is through some companies, who are writing in Latin alphabet, contents not to offend Muslims and Croats and they are not publically advertise themselves as the Russian companies or do any deeds which will improve Russia’s positions here.

Most of the people here in the Republika Srpska, because of the totally media domination of the Western powers from 1995 till now, they think that Russia is some backward dark state of conquered and conquered unions and poverty. And the fact that Russia is the 8th economy in the world, they do not know that, because nobody is speaking to them.

For example, Russian channels, when they appear here, they slowly but strongly extinguish them. So there is a lot of cable operators which are now possessed by some NATO countries, they switched off the Russian channels in the time of crisis in Ukraine. So, they are, and that government in Kiev, do not hesitate. They are doing the same here.

Robles: What is the West’s paranoia and insanity about Russia and the Slavic world, in your opinion?

Simic: Slavic people, which are mostly represented by Russia, as the largest nation and with the most technological and economic advances to the other nations, they look at Russia as a fertile ground, to Russian civil wars and all those things which will implode in Russia. They are trying to do with Russia what they did with the Soviet Union.

They pumped cash flows through the NGOs in all of Russia. You know of Ukraine there is more than 400 NGOs in Ukraine which are receiving unimaginable amounts of money. Until the recent times you cannot do anything if you have not the support of the NGOs from the United States or the European Union.

Robles: They are not here anymore, thank God for that!

Simic: When you meet even the most liberal Americans, they will say – "okay, we are terrorizing all the world and we are opposing ourselves as a world’s policeman, but if we didn’t to not do that, someone will do that to us". And that’s why they will not stop.

This is John Robles, you were listening to an interview with Danijel Simic. He is a writer, a political analyst, activist and commentator from the Srpska Republika. He is also the founder of the frontal.rs web resource.

Thank you very much for listening, and as always I wish you the best wherever you may be.

You can reach John at jar2@list.ru.

Jar2

7 May, 09:40

President Putin Signs Law Criminalizing nazi Revisionist Tactics

John Robles

President Putin signs law criminalizing nazi revisionist tactics

On Monday May 5, 2014 the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin passed a Russian Federal Law "On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation" aimed at opposing attempts to infringe on historical memory in relation to events that took place during World War II(the Great Patriotic War), according to the Kremlin. This is a clear sign to fascists worldwide.

The passing of the law shortly before the May 9th Victory Day celebrations (a bittersweet day when Russians remember the tens of millions who fell fighting the scourge of nazi Germany and joyfully celebrate the victory of Russia, the Red Army and the USSR over the nazi fascists) and against the backdrop of the events in Ukraine (where the US installed and backed fascist junta has mobilized the army and is employing armed paramilitary nazi Right Sector extremists to engage in what can only be described as a nazi "war of extermination" against those who refuse to be ruled by the degenerate followers of nazi SS stooge Stephan Bandera and grant legitimacy to the junta which violently overthrew the democratically elected government in February) has received a lot of attention worldwide, in particular with nazi glorifiers, white supremacists and Jewish groups.

According to the Kremlin"The new Federal Law makes it a criminal offence to deny facts recognized by the international military tribunal that judged and punished the major war criminals of the European Axis countries, approving the crimes this tribunal judged, and deliberately spreading false information about the Soviet Union's activities during World War II."

The brief summary wording of the law (the full text of which was not accessible at time of writing) has been posted on the Kremlin website and recognizes the findings of the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal and while not explicitly stating such as did a draft of the bill proposed in March of last year, would make Holocaust Denial a crime in the Russian Federation as this comes under "facts recognized by the international military tribunal".

Approving of the crimes the Nuremberg Tribunal judged and deliberately spreading false information about the USSR is not something that happens very often in Russia, but is more exemplified by the current junta in Ukraine including: Turchinov, Yatsenyuk, Tyganbok and the groups that brought them to power such as the Trident, the Right Sector and Svoboda.

These groups not only approve of the nazi crimes against the Jews but also glorify them and attempt to paint them as deeds of heroism. A madness we saw recently in Odessa when "Maidan Defense Forces" and their Right Sector brethren shot people who were trying to escape as they were burning them alive and screamed "Glory to Ukraine" every time someone jumped out of a window to escape the flames.

Events such as these make it clear that such laws are necessary, and although such nazi ideology and glorification are not common in Russia, the danger of extremism, xenophobia and racial hatred is always present in almost any culture.

Russia, which lost more people than any other country during the Great Patriotic War, officially the figure is said to be at approximately 28 million (but there are some studies and estimates that say as many as 40 million due to the chaotic state of record keeping at the time and the fact that many died of disease and related traumas away from the battlefield or were not recorded), is one of the last of the countries to pass such laws in Europe.

Countries in Europe with Holocaust denial laws (many of which participated in the Holocaust themselves) and similar nazi related laws include: Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, and Switzerland. Israel also has strict laws regarding Holocaust Denial.

Russia did not have such laws in the past for the reason that other laws covering extremism, the outlawing of nazi groups and the like also for the most part covered specific crimes such as public incitement to hatred and the Holocaust Denial and because racial hatred was not a serious problem in Russia. Although some say there has been a trend towards xenophobia in Russia.

The absence of such laws before now may have caused many white supremacists and neo-nazis (not at all bright people to begin with) falsely believe that Russia in some way supported their twisted ideology. A common statement by skin heads and other xenophobes and racists on the white supremacist website Stormfront is that somehow President Putin must be sympathetic to their cause because he is "the white leader of a white country". They obviously recognize that President Putin is a strong, brave and no-nonsense leader and would surely love to have someone so intelligent and powerful on their side, and judging by the number of posts and comments on their site, their hopes have been dashed.

President Putin's position on racism, anti-Semitism, extremism and those who would spread racial and interethnic hatred have been clear from the very beginning and those who mistake his patriotism for Russia, as somehow a nationalist/racist thinking, are sadly mistaken.

White supremacists, anti-Semites, neo-nazis and those who attempt to glorify the horrendous deeds of the Third Reich believe that if they can prove one fact to be wrong, for example about the Holocaust, then they can unravel some huge conspiracy. However these attempts always fail miserably as exemplified by the attempt by Yuri Sergeev, the nazi junta's representative at the UN, whose first move was to deny the validity of the Nuremberg Trials and evidence by the USSR presented against the Banderavites. His crimes of denial, attempted rehabilitation of war criminal Bandera, approval of the horrific acts of the nazis, misrepresentation of the facts and the attempting spreading of lies about the USSR's role in the defeat of the nazi fascists, through the media and using his position in power would make him a prime candidate for prosecution in almost any European country and now in Russia.

The Kremlin: "Criminal penalties are increased if the above-mentioned activities are carried out by individuals using their official position or mass media, or by fabricating proof of accusations."

Statements by Russian officials that those responsible for ordering military operations against civilians will surely have to answer for their crimes, especially to the Ukrainian people, is now backed up by President Putin who has sent a clear message to all extremists and in particular those of the nazi tilt, that they will not find refuge or sympathy in Russia.

The Kremlin: "The Federal Law also makes it a criminal offence to publicly spread information on military and memorial commemorative dates related to Russia's defense that are clearly disrespectful of society, and publicly desecrate symbols of Russia's military glory. The Federal Law sets administrative liability for legal entities that commit these offences."

The last paragraph should clearly be a cause of concern for fascist groups, officials and organizations that are planning to launch events or attempt to blacken the celebrations planned for Victory Day, May 9th .

In summary the recent law passed by the President is necessary to protect society and the honorable memories of all of those who died defeating fascism. It is sad that such a law is necessary but the specter of fascism and historical revisionism has risen its head in Europe and in particular in certain former Soviet Republics and unfortunately Russia has to defend itself again against those who would re-write history and those who would spread fascism. Yet Russia beat the nazis once, and apparently Russia will have to play a decisive role in beating them again.

Once the nazi Bandera coup in Ukraine implodes and collapses as any sick gangrenous cancerous disease is bound to do and the Ukrainian people rise up and begin prosecuting the criminals pretending to be the leaders of the country. They can rest assured that they will find no refuge in Russia. So where can they run?

Well, the answer to that is quite simple; the US. For one the United States is fully 100% supporting nazis in Ukraine, has no laws against Holocaust Denial or historical revisionism, neo-nazis, the KKK and other scum are allowed to stage parades and hold public functions openly and what normal countries would classify as hate speech, whitewashing nazism and approving the Holocaust is allowed in the US. Because when it comes to nazis (and 40,000 thousand found refuge in the US after WWII and many got good jobs in the CIA and new identities) freedom of speech applies. I wonder how Israel feels about all this?

If I do not get chance to talk to you all before Victory Day I would just like to say: Glory to those who beat the nazi scourge, glory to those who stand against fascism today, glory to Mother Russia and the memories of all her fallen children known and unknown who perished so that we would could live. Glory to Russia's great military victories! Hurrah! Hurrah! Hurrah!

The views and opinions expressed here are my own. I can be reached at jar2@list.ru. Happy Victory Day! Remember the fallen and don't forget what they died fighting against.

Jar2

30 April, 21:44

Another US Fail: Sanctions on Russia Backfiring

John Robles

The US geopolitical strategies of: isolation; "projecting US power by force"; destabilization; economic manipulation (sanctions); regime change; military expansion through the use of surrogate countries surreptitiously annexed by NATO; the continued demonization and attempted "isolation" of Russia through the use of the old and tired Cold War bogeyman and the current onslaught of anti-Russian propaganda, lies and reverse blame, are all backfiring on the increasingly aggressive, irrational and dangerous war hungry Washington planners.

For over two decades, with a marked acceleration after September 11, 2001, the world stood witness to the tragic effects, devastation and huge loss of life that the US inflicted on the Middle East, the only outcomes of barbaric US geopolitical strategies and policies.

Whether designed to spread US hegemony, do the bidding of Israel or Saudi, ensure the continued profits of the US military industrial complex, establish more US/NATO military outposts, steal the natural resources or more likely all of the above, the US/NATO invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and almost of Syria were unprovoked acts of aggressive war which are crimes against peace and crimes against humanity under international law.

In the same way that the world and the "international community" turned a blind eye to the rise of nazi [sic] Germany (and on a smaller scale the rise of nazis to power in Ukraine with the assistance of the US/NATO) the world has allowed all of the crimes committed by the US in their global war of domination to go unanswered. Whether out of self-interest (NATO members are accessories), cowardice or blackmail, this refusal to take measures against the out of control "sole superpower" amounts to nothing more than passive (if not active) collusion which has emboldened the US/NATO to the point where they are pushing the world to the brink of World War III.

Russia, China and the US "pivot" to Asia: the final solution for US hegemony

Due to more principled individuals in the West, like General Wesley Clark, we know that they US is in the business of destroying countries. We also know, thanks to the publicity hungry PNAC, Brezhinsky, CIA Front USAID and whistleblowers like Edward Snowden, that the US is bent on global domination and will do anything and everything to advance their own "national interests", this is not a secret. The plan by Zbignew Brezhinsky (a madman who is still running US foreign policy) to break up Russia into 68 autonomous regions and US/NATO plans to surround Russia and China with their missile shield elements, which is in reality part of a nuclear first-strike system, is also not a secret. The "tool", Prompt Global Strike, is an illegal system designed by the most perfidious groups of cowards in history to allow the "West" to carry out a nuclear first strike on Russia and China and anyone else they please without the threat of a retaliatory strike.

In their desperation, as their economies are on the brink of collapse and over-extended having been taken over by the military industrial complex, the US/NATO and its client states (allies), have decided to carry out a “pivot” into Asia and put into play plans to divide, weaken and then take out Russia and China. That is why Ukraine is crucial and why Russia has announced this as a "red-line". Will the US/NATO listen? Obviously not when madmen like Brezhinky are allowed to continue to work in the shadows.

However, living in their alternative Washington suburban universe where they have obviously been brainwashed themselves by Hollywood portrayals of US exceptionalism and unstoppable military might, the Washington planners continue to shoot themselves in the foot and obtusely refuse to learn from their own mistakes. But then again why should they? After all the have the US populace on "lockdown" and it is the poor taxpayers who are footing the bill and paying with their lives.

Backfire

The US-organized-nazi-assisted-violent-coup in Ukraine and the installation of a puppet government is failing. US/NATO/CIA blinded by their own ignorance and self-righteous pathological belief in their own exceptionalism, have once again, ignorantly and like the mindless brute they are, miscalculated and misunderstood the human factor. For this they owe the people of Ukraine an apology and restitution and in a sane world, would have to answer for the attempted destruction of Ukraine.

You might argue that the US has succeeded in Ukraine. I would beg to differ. The US is a dangerous murderous global failure and the failures in the Middle East are in very little way different from the failure taking place in Ukraine and based on the same simple fact that they simple do not understand the peoples of the countries they invade, annex and destabilize with their operations.

Puppet Fail

Sure Ukraine is destabilized, nazis are once again in power in Europe and the US cherry picked puppets are in power, with even the Right Sector’s nazi puppet boy Yarosh running for president, but they will not be there for long. The logical result of the coup, if the country is not pushed into endless civil war and anarchy, will be for the Right Sector to be locked up, banned forever and all of the US/NATO/USAID/CIA tools also expelled like a disgusting hairball out of Ukraine forever.

Black Sea Fail

Thanks to the peaceful citizens of Crimea, the major US/NATO fail occurred with regard to Crimea. US/NATO wanted to expel the Black Sea Fleet, establish US/NATO bases in the territory and control the Black Sea, in effect expelling Russia from the region. Despite the fact that the planners in Washington, who obviously spend too much time playing war with little armies on maps of the globe, decided (like they did for the Ukrainian people) that the territory would be theirs no matter what, their planned viciously backfired, and the people (the PEOPLE) of Crimea decided to reunite with Russia.

Sanctions/Asia/Major Fails

When the US first "imposed sanctions" on Russia, Russian officials reacted in a completely unified manner and unanimously scoffed the US chest pounding "sanctions". They did so for good reason and just like all previous warnings to the US on everything from Vietnam to Afghanistan fell on deaf suburban Virginia/Washington ears so have the warnings by Russian officials, experts, politicians and the like, that sanctions will backfire. And oh how beautifully they are backfiring. It does my heart good!

We have seen Eurasian integration plans take more urgency, Russia preparing to offer an alternative to Visa and Mastercard and more unity than ever between countries seeking to maintain their sovereignty and independent foreign policies not under the influence of the US bloc.

President Putin

The Eurasian Economic Union, which the US/EU hoped to put an end to was given even more impetus after the US adventure in Ukraine. The level of unity between the partners in the upcoming bloc would not be so high if it were not for US sanctions.

President Vladimir Putin stated that US and EU sanctions against Russia over the Ukrainian crisis cannot affect Eurasian integration.

They can’t have any impact [on Eurasian integration] as this issue concerns only the countries that are involved in this integration, Putin told reporters after a summit of the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council in the Belarusian capital.

Foreign Minister Lavrov

Moscow repudiates US and EU sanctions on Russia over the Ukrainian standoff and calls for national reconciliation in Ukraine through all-inclusive political dialogue, Russian foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Tuesday, RIA Novosti reports.

"We denounce sanctions in all their forms, including those that have been announced by the United States and the EU against all common sense due to events in Ukraine," said Lavrov during talks with Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla in Havana.

"We insist on immediate resolution [of the crisis in Ukraine] through all-Ukrainian national dialogue," Lavrov said.

Cuban Leadership

The leadership of Cuba supports the position of the Russian Federation in connection with the situation in Ukraine and opposes double standards and sanctions, states the Russian Foreign Ministry after the visit of Sergei Lavrov to this country.

Russian Foreign Minister met with the Chairman of the State Council and the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Cuba, Raul Castro, and held talks with Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez. In addition, he had an informal conversation with the leader of the Cuban Revolution Fidel Castro.

"The parties stressed the complete convergence of approaches in regard to strengthening multilateralism in world affairs, multipolarity and mutual respect," added the ministry.

President of Nicaragua Ortega

In a meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov the President of Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega said the following: "It is absolutely clear that the position of the US and EU with sanctions and pressure is the wrong way," said Ortega. "A peaceful solution is needed with the respect of international law. Only this way can save the humanity, because it threatened".

"Sanctions only lead to greater instability and lesser security throughout the region and around the world," said Ortega.

Speaker Matvienko

In the words of Valentina Mitvienko, the speaker of the Federation Council, sanctions against Russia "will not have any serious influence on our economy. What the West can be thanked for is that they consolidate Russian society more and more by such actions.

"As regards sanctions as pressure upon Russia designed to make it change its foreign policy, this is totally unacceptable with any sovereign state in the world, especially with such a powerful and influential state as Russia that plays a huge role in the global politics and economy," she stressed.

Presidential Aide Fursenko

Sanctions against Russia are a dead-end policy but it stimulates the country to revise its priorities, Andrei Fursenko told Rossiya 24 channel Tuesday.

"This atmosphere, these sanctions attempted to be imposed are a unique opportunity for us to revise the situation as a whole, to reconsider our priorities at some point, to understand that we have to think about our development prospects in the first place, counting on our own abilities, and consider how it can be ideally arranged," Fursenko said.

Conclusion

So the US has once again made themselves weaker at the cost of billions to US taxpayers and helped to make Russia and its partners stronger, more resolved and more united than ever. Which is wonderful except that when madmen such as Brezhinsky finally see that they are facing imminent demise they will become dangerous and unpredictable, and we must not forget, Russia never asked for this. Russia had been doggedly trying to maintain normal relations with the US since the end of the cold war. Unfortunately some in Washington will just not let go.

The opinions and views expressed here are my own. I can be reached at jar2@list.ru

Jar2

21 April, 08:14

US Russophobia Approaching Pathological Transference

John Robles

The headline in the Boston Globe reads: "Obama focuses updated Cold War approach on Putin" and the New York Times article by one Peter Baker that follows is one of the one of the most acidic, fact-starved, sanctimonious, self-righteous, chest beating, Russophobic, war-propagandistic, Putin-envious, out-of-touch diatribes to come out of the western media in the current tidal wave of Gleichschaltung-like anti-Russian war-propaganda. 

The attack is almost criminal in its eschewing of the truth and if you dear reader ever entertained the idea that Boston was a bastion of liberal truth and that the first black American president was some sort of Martin Luther King, you may now group Boston with the vilest redneck burgs in Alabama and the president to the right of the farthest right of the neo-conservative war profiteers.

Rarely does an article deserve to be taken apart at the seams but this one does as the outright lies and vitriol are so blatant that there is a danger if even a small portion of the masses believe even 10% of it.That danger is not to the world, or to us over here in Moscow (we are unfortunately used to these kinds of attacks from the Russophobic lunatic fringe), that danger is to the American public, who continue to have the wool pulled over their eyes by a president and a government that is ready to send them off to die and force countless generations to come into slavery to pay for their maniacal excesses.

Openly Reviving the Cold War

To begin with the headline and the first paragraph take no issue with the fact the Cold War is over. However it does serve to announce to the world that what even three months ago was a well kept secret and something denied by politicians and those in power in Washington, namely that the US/NATO were pursuing a continuation of the Cold War, is now official policy and neither Obama and his henchmen nor the US media establishment have the slightest reservation (due to their delusional architecture) in admitting to what is in fact the complete and utter failure that is forcing the US to cling to a desperate outdated recidivist strategy that it now hopes to apply to a democratic country.

Baker writes: "The crisis in Ukraine defies easy resolution and President Obama and his national security team are looking to forge a new long-term approach to Russia that applies an updated version of the Cold War strategy of containment."

The outright idiocy of the first sentence (as if the US is actually looking for a resolution) denies the fact that it is the US that destabilized Ukraine in the first place and that they continue to support the illegitimate coup government and the neo-nazis who brought the junta to power.

"... updated version of the Cold War strategy of containment."

We must recall that this strategy was supposed to be against the Soviet Union and in order to stop the spread of Communism. Yet like bringing nazis back to power in Europe, we can see that the US never learns history's lessons and continues to pursue dangerous, confrontational, aggressive caveman policies on the international stage

The US Pariah's Psychotic Transference

Let read the next installment:

"Just as the United States resolved in the aftermath of World War II to counter the Soviet Union and its global ambitions, Obama is focused on isolating President Vladimir Putin’s Russia by cutting off its economic and political ties to the outside world, limiting its expansionist ambitions in its own neighborhood and effectively making it a pariah state."

Clearly the pathological transference of those directing the writer and the manipulation in the above is aimed at painting Obama as some sort of great "war president" when in fact he is a cowardly puppet who gets pleasure from authorizing extra-judicial executions and destroying countries.

The pathological transference of applying outdated policies designed as tools against the Soviet Union to Russia and accusing Russia of having "expansionist ambitions" is stunning. Just the fact that Obama and the US think they have some right to meddle and dictate to Russia and Europe, what they can do in their own neighborhood is a sign of their own expansionist mindset.

The unbelievable arrogance, hypocrisy and self-serving historical revisionism is also stunning in the above as we know that it was the US that destabilized Ukraine, organized the armed takeover of a democratic European nation and brought nazis to power in Europe who are calling for killing Russians.

The truest pariah and rogue criminal state in the world is the United States of America. Guilty of multiple acts of aggressive war, continuing to maintain an illegal torture prison, continuing to execute its own citizens, executing people worldwide without trial or charge and overthrowing governments and killing leaders whenever the whim pleases them makes the US the most dangerous pariah nation in the history of mankind.

Now tell me. In what way is Russia a pariah nation?

Obama Stomps His Feet and Holds His Breath

The writer says Obama has "concluded he will never have a constructive relationship with Putin" no matter what. I dare say after the campaign by the US to ruin the Sochi Olympics, Obama running around the world trying to implement sanctions against Russia for the coup d'état he himself signed off on, the non-stop placing of NATO war elements closer and closer to Russia and the fiasco in Syria, I think it would be safe to say that it is President Putin, who has continuously tried to work with Obama, who should refuse to have anything to do with Nobel-Peace-Prize-fraud president.

Ignore the Master?

"Obama will try to minimize the disruption Putin can cause. .. ignore the master of the Kremlin."

The disruption Putin might cause? What "disruption" is the writer talking about? Disrupting plans by Washington to violate further the sovereign state of Ukraine or NATO continuing to surround Russia and the People's Republic of China or perhaps the extermination of Russians in Ukraine and the attempted destruction of the Slavic World or the invasion of the next country that Washington is planning to destroy?

And what is with the "master" thing? This is a new one. Is this another transference of endemic US racism and an attempt to conjugate and/or elicit slave/master images?

“That is the strategy we ought to be pursuing,” said Ivo H. Daalder, formerly Obama’s ambassador to NATO, "... it may solve your Russia problem.”

Your "Russia problem"? Perhaps Mr. Daalder has also lost it? Maybe he will enlighten us with a "final solution"? Unbelievable!

McFaul 2.0: Dangerous Russophobe

The article states that John F. Tefft, a Russia hater who served as US Ambassador to Ukraine, Georgia and Lithuania and promoted the invasion of South Ossetia while in Georgia, the current crisis and the resurgence of fascist forces in Ukraine and the rabid Russophobia and demonization of Russia in Lithuania, has been chosen to be the next US Ambassador to Russia. Tefft was extremely active and involved and one might say instrumental in bringing about the aforementioned anti-Russian events. As McFaul failed to organize the destabilization of Russia and the ouster of President Putin, apparently Obama is seeking more experiences hands.

Dangerous rhetoric

With regard to the assignment the article states: "... now there is no reluctance to offend the Kremlin."

The US insists on isolating itself even further, for such a policy will backfire as Russian diplomats and leaders continue to stay open to dialogue and diplomacy. Again the arrogance is stunning.

An International Consensus: Coalition of the Willing 2.0

The US is becoming more and more hated every day. As Europeans and the world realize that Obama and his myopic, knuckle-dragging foreign policy elites vetted (like Obama himself) by senile-rabid-Russophobe Brezhinsky are only interested in resources and expanding their own caveman hegemony by force, the consensus against the US will grow thousand-fold. The writer tries to say China is against Russia, this is while China and Russia are discussing plans for tighter military cooperation against the ongoing provocation that is the placing of NATO war elements around both countries.

"The administration’s priority is to hold together an international consensus against Russia, including even China, its longtime supporter on the UN Security Council."

The US is Broke

The writer revealed a little too much I think with the following statement:

"... economic advisers and White House aides urging a measured approach have won out, prevailing upon a cautious president to take one incremental step at a time out of fear of getting too far ahead of skittish Europeans and risking damage to still-fragile economies on both sides of the Atlantic."

We know the US economy is about to collapse and we know that in contrast to the $15 billion Russia was ready to single-handedly hand Ukraine, the entire US/NATO/Eu could only come up with a $1 billion "loan".

Money talks, as they say.

More Sanctions Blackmail: Outright Lies

"The White House has prepared another list of Russian figures and institutions to sanction in the next few days..."

The first round did not phase Russia and was laughed off. I doubt this round will be more successful. Washington might take heed: Your sanctions will backfire I can promise you that.

"... while Putin seems for now to be enjoying the glow of success, he will eventually discover how much economic harm he has brought on his country. Obama’s aides noted the fall of the Russian stock market and the ruble, capital flight from the country and increasing reluctance of foreign investors to expand dealings in Russia."

Again Washington must be delusional, the Russian economy is going strong, the country is in the black and unlike almost all of Europe which is suffering from austerity measures, and the US with forced austerity where the public pay approximately 33% of their income in taxes and are enslaved to the military industrial complex for the next 1,000 years or more, Russia is growing stronger by the day.

Oops! Did I let the cat out of the bag? But then again, that is the real "Russia problem" isn't it?

Jar2

17 April, 19:49

Opinion: Putin's Q&A Session was Brilliant, Sincere, Warm and Compassionate

John Robles

Opinion: Putin's Q&A session was brilliant, sincere, warm and compassionate

The President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin conducted his yearly question and answer session with the public and citizens of Russia, this time spending approximately three hours and fifty minutes answering a wide range of questions in an impressive manner never once faltering or at a loss and citing facts, figures and details on everything from assisting a disabled man to obtain a home to the aggressive expansion of NATO to the East. This year the Kremlin added a the possibility of sending in video for those who wanted to ask the president questions, as well as text messages, e-mails, regular post, phone calls and submissions through the Internet.

Those calling up army in Kiev have lost it - President Putin

President Putin once again showed his keen and brilliant mind and his amazing ability to remember what to most of us would be minutiae citing, figures, quotes, dates, historical events and the like with ease. But what was more impressive and what no doubt makes him one of the most popular leaders in history and to the Russian people is his genuine compassion, sincerity the obvious fact that he has vision.

Ukraine

The continuing unrest in Ukraine was the most pressing issue for most of those who contacted the president, including those in the audience, and the president minced no words when expressing his position and thoughts on the issues surrounding the crisis.

Illegitimate

With regard to the junta in Kiev President Putin's assessment remains unchanged and he called those occupying positions of power after the armed coup d'état illegitimate. Although he did say that the Russian Government was still in contact, on the ministerial level, which such junta figures as Turchinov and Yatsenyuk.

Yanukovich and Elections

Although President Putin was critical of President Yanukovych's decision to leave Ukraine the President underlined the fact that Yanukovych is still the legitimate and legal president of Ukraine under the Ukrainian Constitution as he had not been impeached, stepped down or passed away.

Given the fact that Ukraine, in legal and constitutional terms, still has an acting president there can be no way that without changes to the Ukrainian Constitution that any rushed elections scheduled to be held in the country can yield results that can be called legitimate.

The president blasted the actions of the Right Sector "activists", and those occupying the Verkhovna Rada who are in collusion with them, for the attacks on those running for the office of President of Ukraine and underlined that under such conditions there can in no way be normal elections.

Mobilization of the Army

Commenting on the fact that the coup forces had mobilized the army against civilians in the east of Ukraine, President Putin became animated when recounting details about the mobilization of fighter jets, heavy artillery, tanks and heavily armed forces brandishing artillery and even flamethrowers, by repeatedly saying that those behind such moves had obviously gone off the reservation and had literally "lost it".

He underlined the utter hypocrisy of the calls by the neo-nazi coup for the civilian population to disarm by questioning why they did not ask the neo-nazi Right Sector insurrectionists to disarm as well.

Authorization to Use Force

President Putin reminded the audience that he still had the full authorization to deploy Russian forces in Ukraine but stated that he hoped that things would never come to that.

Gas

With regard to Julia Timoshenko President Putin recalled her statements to kill 8 million Russians in Ukraine with an atomic weapon and said he had had a normal business-like relationship with her and that she must have stated such things in a spate of emotion.

The president underlined the danger to gas deliveries to Europe through Ukraine and re-iterated the government's position with regard to gas prices delivers and the like to Ukraine, underlining the fact that Russia had supported Ukraine to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars during the last several decades.

Nations

The president underlined the shared history and brotherly relations between Ukraine and sympathized with the Ukrainian people. He gave a historical backdrop to the Right Sector and the nationalist fervor sweeping western Ukraine by detailing how western Ukraine had historically been belonged to various different countries and empires which caused an inherent schism in the minds of the people.

NATO

Popular Russian journalist and television personality and the Director General of the Rossiya Segodnya International Information Agency Dmitry Kiselyov asked President Putin about the expansion of NATO and the threat to Russia's national security that NATO poses. Mr. Kiselyov underlined the fact that NATO is attempting to expand into Ukraine which for many Russians is an issue that it becoming a real and present danger and one which more and more people are worried about.

Mr. Kiselyov dramatized the actions of Russia being surrounded by NATO and its military elements by telling the president that he felt like there were metaphorical hands attempting to choke him as NATO surrounded Russia with its missiles.

President Putin stated that NATO's so called Anti-Ballistic Missile Defense System (ABM) was nothing but part of a US first strike capability and underlined the fact that NATO had repeatedly refused to sign any sort of document stating that these weapons were not being deployed against Russia. He underlined NATO's refusal to cooperate with Russia on missile defense and stated that NATO's push into the Black Sea was inexcusable and that NATO's move into Ukraine was akin to Russia being pushed out of the region.

President Putin guaranteed that the Russian people should not be afraid and that Russia was capable and would do what it has to in order to guarantee the safety of Russia and its people.

Snowden

President Putin answered a question from the second American to be given asylum in Russia (me being the first), Edward Snowden, by starting out by saying he was a spy for America and as a former intelligence officer himself would answer him in professional terms. Snowden asked the president if Russia was conducting mass surveillance on the Russian people to which President Putin quite frankly answered that the Russian security services were subject to strict legal controls and could only conduct such surveillance on individuals and with a warrant.

Social and Other Issues

When asked by a man from an area that had been devastated by recent flooding but was being rebuilt if the president could order roads built to the isolated village, the man who said he had a car but complained that there were no roads, evoked a rare show of humor for President Putin who responded that the question must be some sort of provocation.

President Putin spent part of the session choosing questions by himself and answered several questions from small children, pensioners and others. His answers were brilliant, sincere, warm and compassionate and to be honest it was remarkable to watch the most influential president on our planet speak so unpretentiously, compassionately and at the same time seriously and with genuine concern, to common people from all across the spectrum.

Jar2

7 February, 2014 11:06

American Insult to WWII Monument a Sign of Ignorance and Demonization of Russia

John Robles

American insult to WWII monument a sign of ignorance

US broadcaster CNN, which for all intents and purposes has been leading the anti-Russia US propaganda effort to denigrate and attempt to take away Russia's prestige as the Russian Federation hosts the Olympic Games in Sochi is apparently stopping at nothing in their effort to insult Russia and the Russian people.

The latest offending remarks came in a "list" of the world's ugliest monuments and concerns the Courage Monument at the Brest Hero-Fortress Complex in the Republic of Belarus.

The objective of such egregious comments is clear, as is the bad taste, and indignation over the blasphemous remarks is also completely understandable but what may be hard for Russians and the international audience to understand is the psychology of the American people and their own lack of any normal respect or indignation over such offensive remarks.

Quite frankly the pathetic ignorant American propaganda effort to demonize Russia is something that shows that they are to be pitied and points to the lack of intelligence prevalent in their mindless society.

CNN has in fact apologized for the listing, giving a glib reasoning but has not removed the proud and heroic monument from its ridiculous list showing the recalcitrant and transparently obtuse endemic American penchant for unapologetically "sticking to their guns" even when what they are doing is offensive and has been proven to be wrong and in this case absolutely callously ignorant.

The reaction to the "listing" has been almost completely united against the broadcaster across the board with bloggers condemning CNN for their "bile" and "ignorance," the Head of the Russian Presidential Human Rights Council Mikhail Fedotov saying it was an inappropriate joke and that such things cannot be joked about, the administration of the Brest Hero-Fortress complex saying the listing was blasphemy and demanding CNN officially apologize and the even the Moscow Helsinki Group's head Lyudmila Alexeyeva saying that the monument is one to heroes whom we cherish greatly and that she was sorry it is seen this way.

CNN should remove the listing and apologize to every country on it but that is not the American way. They are recalcitrant in their own self-propagated endemic exceptionalism which is such an integral part of American society that perhaps it cannot be removed without killing the patient and they will certainly never sincerely apologize.

Having been raised and educated from elementary school to the university level in the US and in fact being an educator myself for almost two decades I can say with utmost certainty that the American educational system and the US media promotes myths, institutionally implements omissions and spreads falsehoods about the Great Patriotic War, known in the West as World War II. Hence it is normal for the populace to see their broadcasters insulting monuments to WWII heroes in other countries. But this is not the sole reason and I will get into that in a minute.

To hide US collusion with the Nazis, even after the war when over 40,000 of them were given refuge in the US, and to glorify their own small effort in the war, Americans and many countries in the West are taught and continue to believe that it was the US and its "allies" that won World War II on the Western Front. Nowhere do American historical textbooks (and if I am wrong and some have been updated please e-mail me) fairly portray the effort of the USSR in winning the war on the Eastern Front. For it was won on the Eastern Front, the West's D-Day was for all intents and purposes a mopping up operation on the Western Front and mere support for the Soviet Forces, I would boldly state with the historical record on my side and the numbers clearly support and prove this point.

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) lost more than 28 million people in their heroic effort to rid the world of the nazi [sic] scourge and blood flowed all over its territory. In contrast the US lost about 400 thousand which is about how many Italy lost and less than half of what Yugoslavia lost but is still worthy of mentioning, but to say they won the war is an egregious lie and historical revisionism. Of which the US is clearly unapologetically guilty but which follows the endemic US belief that for some reason their lives are worth more than the lives of others. This belief is founded on their own exceptionalism, the genocidal nature of the basis of the “American” state, their endemic racism and their long history of enslavement and exploitation of other peoples.

Another key reason why Americans can be so callous as to ignorantly insult monuments to heroes who defeated the nazi scourge is that for Americans war is an abstraction, something that happens to others, in faraway lands and to strange and "foreign" people. And this fact can be no more clearer than the American outcry when "American boys" start coming home in body bags or beautifully flag covered coffins. Rarely if ever is there an outcry if some poor Afghan family is droned into oblivion, this on the other hand is seen as normal.

Americans have never faced and enemy on "their" territory (other than fighting the French, English and Spanish for stolen Indian lands) and they have never seen their cities destroyed, or their neighbors butchered, or their daughters raped, or their people slaughtered. Blood has never flown on their territory as it did in Belarus and Russia and all of Europe and as it is flowing in Iraq and Afghanistan and as it has flowed in all of the other places where the US has committed it "sanitary" remote "humanitarian" wars such as Yugoslavia, Serbia, Libya and the over 70 other countries the US has destroyed.

Yes there is a complete disconnect in America, for them war is something that they wage from bunkers in California, from hundreds of miles away, using robotic drones where there is not even a real pilot involved in the process. No real witness to the murder and bloodshed they are carrying out and absolutely no risk to themselves.

Which is why 9/11 was such a shock for Americans that even to this day they refuse to believe that it was their own government who committed or was complicit in the "events" of that fateful day.

The world has looked away from the fact that America is a country founded by invaders who stole the lands and committed genocide on the peaceful Indian Nations that called it their home for thousands of years. "America" is a stolen country founded on the blood of over 400 million Indian lives, so their callousness towards other peoples is understandable and their disregard for the lives of the people they eradicate in their “humanitarian” wars is also understandable. But that does not make anything about it right or justifiable.

"Americans" have never had to fight for or defend their homeland, on the contrary the ancestors of "Americans" cowardly fled their own homelands and committed genocide to steal a new one. So it is understandable that the ancestors of British filth and genocidal maniacs are taught to ignore and even glorify the deeds of their forefathers who built a country on blood and used slaves to do it. But that also does not make it right.

America is a nation that feeds on and glorifies violence and death and destruction, even from the cartoons children watch from the earliest of ages, so it is also understandable why they can denigrate a monument to heroes who died and gave their lives to fight the nazi scourge. One might say that the nazis and their racist genocidal war of extermination is much closer to American history than any American is comfortable admitting. Just change the names and the era around a little bit and the situations are the same.

As for monuments I personally think Mount Rushmore is an abomination, the complete defacement of a mountain on land where the Indians put up one of their last and most heroic fights. Completely inappropriate and historically egregious, but of course a sign of the "victors."

As for other American monuments in my personal opinion the Washington Monument is completely lacking in any creative, artistic or appealing esthetics, a boring overbearing obelisk polluting the sky, but again that is my opinion. The Statue of Liberty on the other hand is quite appealing but that was a gift from the French. The St. Louis arch is also not much of a wonder and the stench inside is enough to make the eyes water and the most memorable thing about being inside of it, I could go on but I won’t. I would not want the Americans to demand I apologize. Which I will do now in advance as I am sure "Americans" are sorry for committing genocide on my people. I am sorry the designers of your monuments were so austere and lacking in creativity. As for your monuments to those killed in your wars I will not have the bad taste to denigrate them, but perhaps you do not care America, after all you built new buildings on the site where 3,000 of your own countrymen died.

The views and opinions expressed here are my own. I can be reached atjar2@list.ru.

1 February, 01:54

The Economist's Rabid Hate of President Putin

John Robles

The Economist and their rabid hate of President Putin

As the Olympic games approach the American media just cannot seem to get enough of demonizing Russia and rolling out their tired old stereotypes and continue to do so on such a scale that it should be getting ridiculous even for the people that the US media is apparently writing for, namely the under informed and non too worldly. One thing is sure however when the demonizing of other countries starts, especially Russia, you can have no doubt that there are serious problems at home and a distraction is desperately needed. Normally, as history has shown, a new humanitarian resource war is begun on some far off poor little country as was planned in Syria, but alas launching the Hellfires was not to be. So they pull out all of the old tired Cold War clichés and xenophobic stereotypes and sling the falsehoods, half-truths and lies like only the American Murdoch owned media can.

Why does it seem that Americans are obsessed with our President Vladimir Putin? Could it be that he is a strong leader whose policies and actions match his words? Or perhaps Americans really are sore because President Putin stopped the invasion of Syria? Maybe it is not the American people who hate Putin so much but the government controlled media, regardless if they are playing to their base or attempting to manipulate public opinion the latest hit by the Economist is truly in poor taste and playing to the lowest common denominator (no link sorry).

Apparently the Economist has lost all journalistic ethics if it ever had them with a new cover featuring a poor Photoshop job of a falling skater and President Putin. The photo and the article both have one thing in common they are full of fake “data”. It si quite remarkable, and extremely telling that the article in question is unauthored. It is nothing more than a hit piece that would be laughable if it weren’t for the fact that the American public might believe the false points it makes while being led into ignoring the catastrophe that is the Obama Administration and their own government.

The first sentence gives away the intention of the writer (anonymous) by saying Russia won a competition to “stage” the Olympics. Strange yet when the US does it they are “held” or “hosted”. The “writer” then improperly quotes President Putin and ridicules the fact that others “heed” Russia and that Mother Russia can “stand up for itself”. Could this be due to the end of US hegemony in much of the world? As for standing up for itself, sure the US only loves countries that are broken or weak and cannot defend themselves. If you doubt then why is it that the US always forces small countries to disarm and prove they have no weapons before moving in and destroying the country and killing the president? Kind of hard to do with Russia so of course they are indignant.

The “writer” then says the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin has had a good year because the western organized and backed protests have somehow disappeared, failing to mention this was after NGOs were required to become transparent and show where their funds were coming from and USAID was expelled. Not to mentioned the failed color revolution plans of certain US functionaries that completely fell flat on their faces.

Yes the Russophobes and the lunatic fringe are angry, Russia is hosting what looks to be a very successful Olympics and the Russian economy is on the rise and Russia has made the world a multi-polar place again. They know the days of their empire are over and no matter how much they rattle their sabers and scream terrorism no one is really listening.

In the article the “writer” laments that the US missiles were not allowed to fly in Syria proving that he/she is obviously oblivious to the suffering that US missiles bring around the world and has obviously never seen the results of US “humanitarian” intervention as he/she derides and makes little of our president for preventing the US from destroying Syria.

The person (idiot) who wrote the thing thinks brokering peace and destroying chemical weapons is something bad and has the nerve to compare the US catastrophe and loss in Afghanistan with the assistance that was requested and then granted to that country by the USSR. He also obviously does not know that almost all Afghan infrastructure was built by the USSR and then destroyed by US/NATO. But that is okay fact don’t appear to be part of the debate in the American media.

The “writer” also has no idea what is really going on in Ukraine and does not have any idea that a country might make a sovereign decision and of its own will say no to America and the West. He/she derides the President of Russia on Ukraine because Europeans looked “flat-footed”, ignoring the fact that if they in fact did, they made themselves look that way themselves. As did Victoria Nuland handing out cookie to street hooligans. He/she obviously does not know the math either, Ukraine had a choice of $1 billion over 7 years by signing the EU deal or $100 billion over the same period by joining the Russian led Customs Union.

The “writer” derides President Putin for positive economic growth in Russia and even for raising standards of living and paid pensions. Simply shameless. He of course does not mention the desperate situation that his own president has brought about and the fact that Americans cannot even afford health care and the military industrial complex and big corporations want to steal Social Security from the old and Food Stamps from the poor and the lives of American have never been worse or more desperate with no outlook for the future.

The rest of the “article” is full of pseudo economic arguments that do not wash and are not even worth countering or repeating but the last one is rich and almost as good as the promotion of fracking described as how America will take over the world. The “writer” also ignores that recent American government shut down and that the paper that dollars are printed on are worth more than the figures on them and that the US is effectively bankrupt, well not effectively, literally, and has been for a long time, and not only economically but also morally.

As you see I have had the manners not to smear Obama. Every American already knows he is a complete failure and guilty of war crimes, why rub it in?

I will not publish my article anonymously and will even include my e-mail address:jar2@list.ru. Have a nice day. Really!

Jar2 

15 October 2012, 14:44  

President Putin Attacked by West on His Birthday

John Robles

President Putin attacked by the West even on his birthday

This past week the western media just couldn’t seem to get enough of Russia’s president Vladimir Putin. Rather than having the common decency and respect for an elected leader, the media jackals chose to use the occasion of the president’s birthday to deride and undermine.

The attacks on President Putin ranged from small one page articles to whole exposés featuring abundant photos and even video. There were many but I have had to choose only a few.

The most insidious article was written by Matt Blake and Leon Watson at the UK’s Daily Mail, the article was so long and attempted to cover so much ground that one is left with the feeling that the writers not only hate or are jealous of the Russian leader but have some deeply personal vendetta against him.

They start by implying that 60 years is old for a third term president, false. Do a Google search for “age of presidents” if you disagree. These are the same people who gave kudos to John McCain who at 72 would have been the oldest first-term president in history. The fact that President Putin is popular with young people is also portrayed as something “bad” although in the West this is always something viewed as being a positive. All of this was just in the lead.

Further, the article contains such statements as: “… grip on power appeared as tight as ever,” is this an inference to the fact that despite concerted attempts by the West to cause Russians to question his legitimacy he is still as popular as ever or are they implying the president of Russia should not be in control of the country? Does anyone say these things about Obama or the Queen?

Then they state: “…continues to paint himself as an adventure-loving sex-symbol that oozes machismo” as well as, “…the ultimate ladies’ man, waited on by a gaggle of long-legged women”, such statements attack the president for his excellent health, love of sports, and popularity with the ladies. What is wrong with that? Should he be popular with young men? Perhaps the writers, two young men themselves, are jealous? Maybe even overly so?

The article blasts President Putin for being: “…a tireless and no-nonsense leader contemptuous of domestic and international criticism”, I suppose he should follow Bush’s lead and go on vacation for most of his term or listen to everyone and then become a “flip-flopper” as the West labels those who change their policies every time they are criticized?

Then we have: “…he brushed aside concerns the two-year jail sentence for punk bank Pussy Riot was too severe”, he properly did so as the sentence was the decision of the court. Is Obama asked every time someone innocent “accidently” gets executed in the United States about his opinion?

The writers then deride the president for his position that if someone wants to criticize government policies or the way things work, let them offer a responsible alternative, rather than what the Western funded opposition do, which is attack and deride and offer no concrete option or basis for their attacks which are solely aimed at causing a riff in Russian society and bringing into question the legitimacy of the government (a key ingredient for a “color” revolution). They take issue with the fact that: “…he welcomes opposing views, but that they should come from people willing to take responsibility for running the country.”

Further it only gets worse, they repeat the above groundless claims, in an apparent attempt at: “if you repeat a lie long enough it becomes true” and they cite a “wave of satire” which has hurt his “macho image”, something no one in Russia has seen, perhaps they know Russia better than Russians do?

The way the writers use the term “KGB Spy” as something terrible, is so cliché and cold-war that it is laughable. First off many western presidents and leaders have had ties to the CIA and Mi-5/6, yet they are never derided for it, secondly President Putin was a KGB Officer, not a “spy”! A spy is someone who passes information or performs other functions obtained under a false cover. Either they don’t know what a spy is, or they failed to do their homework.

The Guardian took issue with President Putin supporting the decision of the court in the case of Pussy Riot and played on the assumption that he has influence over court decision undermining the legitimacy of the Russian judiciary. They claim his popularity is dropping by citing unnamed and unknown polls.

Forbes once again, as the West loves to do, paints a picture of convicted serial tax-evader Mikhail Khodorkovsky as a “prisoner of conscience” and takes issue with his 12 year sentence. First of all for similar crimes in the US someone would no doubt be locked up for multiple life terms, second of all how in the world can someone convicted of the crimes he was convicted for be called a “prisoner of conscience”? Does this mean that all of us citizens of the world can stop paying taxes and gain the protection of Amnesty International? Please Louise!

Forbes also attacks President Putin and claims Khodorkovsky would have to get on his knees for a pardon, although President Putin generously said if Khodorkovsky files a petition for an appeal it would be looked at amicably. Forbes claiming that filing a petition for an appeal is the equivalent to “Khodorkovsky getting on his knees” is ignoring the fact that a petition is required in any case before there can be any chance of an appeal being granted by the president.

I wonder what the reaction in the West would be if we started attacking their presidents?

Jar2 

7 October 2012, 21:51  

Russia in the Biased Media: Report on Chieftains, Trees and Religious Hatred

John Robles

In this installment of the Media-Bias series we look at more twisting of the facts, omission of the context, and sheer fabrications, in attacks on Russia involving the infamous group Pussy Riot. In another piece the elected President of Russia is once again demonized and the Russian people are portrayed as ignorant simplistic slaves. Russians are not slaves to anyone, and yes, there is democracy in Russia.

In yet another piece of “balanced reporting” by the Washington Post titled “Shoring up Putin in Russian countryside” another attack on Russia’s elected leader and the Russian Government, we once again see the same lack of context and omission of facts, the use of clichés and half-truths, and the stretching and manipulation of facts to make yet another event appear sinister and evil and a sign of some Machiavellian machinations by President Putin’s Government.

The writer, Kathy Lally, immediately draws a black foreboding cloud over her canvas of Russia by calling the elected head of the local administration in Izhevsk a “local chieftain”, she then goes on to claim as fact ridiculous “events’ that barely deserve the attention to be repeated but as they appear in such a respected publication demand retraction.

Calling the head of the local administration a chieftain, as if they are running around in fields living in tents is one thing, but stating as fact that the Head of the Republic of Udmurtia, walks around with a notebook with election percentage results for the United Russia Party and makes decisions regarding social programs and government projects based on the results, is insulting, scandalous and shows a complete lack of knowledge of the facts and reality. What is more it shows a complete disregard for journalistic ethics and a propensity for creating facts to suit the message.

The big story for the writer is a project to build a road and facilitate parking in the courtyard between several buildings which required the cutting down of some trees. One of the buildings houses government offices allowing the writer to target the project. What she does not mention that beyond the courtyard where the trees are that need to be cut down there are thousands of trees and city itself is surrounded by thousands of kilometers of forests.

The writer also claims that when she harassed a local opposition candidate who refused to talk to her and then she presented herself at his offices anyway, he told her that “he could be barred from the ballot if anyone photographed him talking with an American”. Something that would be true for an American politician as well if he were photographed secretly speaking to “Russians”. The fact that he did not want to talk to a questionable reporter writing a smear piece on Russia never enters her mind.

Lastly she claims that the city manager of Izhevsk told veterans that funding depends on the how United Russia did in their districts, another fantasy provocation and twisting of reality.

Sure United Russia may be involved in running the government, they campaigned in elections, won seats, and took part in the democratic electoral process but no matter how you want to paint it, the fact is that the government is not being run “for” the United Russia Party, as many hacks in the West want to portray, part of it may be being run “by” them, and if voters are unhappy they will be voted out.

Russians are not slaves to anyone, and there is democracy in Russia. One last point the writer made is citing the banning of USAID from Russia and painting this as some move by Putin. She ignores the facts about USAID and the subversive activities they fund all over the world, and sees the CIA Front through her US Government Issued rose-colored-glasses. It is critical to note that this was a decision by the Foreign Ministry and the Russian Government, not a personal one by the President. And really? What right does USAID have to subvert governments in the first place.

Moving on:

Another key phrase in stories we will touch upon in today’s media bias piece is one we see time and again and one the West loves to use all the time when pointing their fingers at others, that phrase is “Witch Hunt”. The phrase is once again used in yet another article in the Western press about the group “Pussy Riot” a group created by Western backers to bring about a divide in Russian society and to cause the questioning of the legitimacy of the Russian Government by the people.

It is important to note that even their name was created for a Western audience, and like their Ukrainian counterparts FEMEN their provocative slogans are for some “strange reason” always written in English. The first article in question, like almost all on the topic, again ignores all of the facts in the case and the activities of the members of the group before they were finally arrested and fails to take into account the context and the rage at their “stunt” justifiably felt by the majority.

Anna Nemtsova in a piece for the Daily Beast claims that the political youth group Nashi was hunting for the remaining members of Pussy Riot. She says that the group has a special investigative unit headed by Konstantin Goloskov which offered a reward for the names and addresses of the remaining members who are hiding from police. The writer is obviously unaware that such information has been available on the Russian net for a long time but I guess that is not important.

The fact that the group may be assisting the police is of course portrayed as something bad and evil, as if the group is being unfairly persecuted for their “innocent” deeds, which include being filmed have sex in a museum, and ignores the fact that if what she writes is true then this shows broad widespread displeasure by the populace in general with the activities of the group in question.

Nemtsova portrays the youth group Nashi as some sort of evil part of “Putin’s internal and foreign political machine” and Nashi activists as easily and cheaply bought supporters who would join demonstrations just for the chance to get a free bus ride to Moscow. She also claims the Nashi “commissars” are given parliamentary seats, ignoring the fact that under Russia’s democratic system these seats and positions are won in elections. She ends her “article” by comparing “The witch hunt to McCarthyism”. Clearly she knows nothing about McCarthyism to make such a comparison.

Another article on the same topic in the Guardian makes the statement that the case “highlights the crackdown on freedoms since Putin returned to the presidency in May” and also ignores everything the group did in the months leading up to their arrest, including a performance on Red Square for which they were merely fined. Although their sentence was dropped from 7 to 2 years for a religious hate crime, as with all the Western Press this leniency is ignored.

This great crackdown they are speaking about must mean the implementation of fines for illegal activities inciting hatred and a threat to the populace or perhaps the requiring of foreign funded political organizations to declare the source of their incomes, I would assume. As the write gives no examples and makes such a broad all-encompassing statement one can only assume.

An article in the New York Times sporting the headline “Moscow Court Postpones Pussy Riot Hearing” immediately tries to shed a bad light on the court with the headline although the reason for the postponement was the fact that one of the members of the group decided to fire her lawyer during the court hearing.

The article also ignores the basic details in the case and parrots the Western Media claim that this was simply a “Punk Prayer”. Something I have never heard of happening in the West. The article makes no issue over the fact that political statements were spliced into a video of the “punk prayer” later, something which should prove to anyone that their act was one of religious hatred and not a political statement as they are claiming.

The article also takes no issue with the fact that, as they report: “Ms. Tolokonnikova and her husband were filmed having sex in a museum alongside other couples, in a 2008 “protest” against Dmitri A. Medvedev…” something that no normal “protestor” or anyone in their right mind for that matter, would do.

Once again we see that the Western Press is using the case to deride Russia and to paint Russia in a bad light and continues to ignore all of the facts in the case and the actions of the group which had they taken place in any Western country would have had them locked up in a mental institution or worse.

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_10_07/Russia-in-the-biased-media-report-on-chieftains-trees-and-religious-hatred/

Jar2 

6 October 2012, 13:26  

Media-Bias and Gazprom: Western Media Rehashes “Tired Clichés of Kremlin Intrigue”

John Robles

This week Western media blames Moscow for engaging in a conspiracy to make shale gas unpopular. For example, the opening of one of the articles is sensational and right out of the cold war “The Kremlin is watching, European nations are rebelling, and some suspect Moscow is secretly bankrolling a campaign to derail the West's strategic plans.”

And just like the article says, despite exploiting cliché cold-war terminology from the very start, it’s not about the cold war, or geopolitical machinations or even military cooperation, it’s about natural gas drilling.

The article cites two shale gas fields in the US as evidence of what the writer calls “vast reserves of gas buried in deep shale rock” yet ignores the difficulties in extracting shale gas, the high-cost and the environmental concerns.

The writer also blames Moscow for engaging in a conspiracy to make shale gas unpopular by citing anonymous “industry watchers” who say “Russia is bankrolling environmental groups that are loudly opposing plans for fracking in Europe.” Fracking is the term used for a drilling process called hydraulic fracturing. The writer also fails to mention the real dangers of the practice and tries to paint Russian President Vladimir Putin in a bad or conspiratorial light because he spoke about how dangerous fracking was.

Calling Russian energy giant Gazprom “state controlled” gives the concern a less-than-legitimate connotation and ignores the fact that all energy and strategic industries worldwide are in one way or another “state controlled”, this is true for the US as well.

The article cites low gas prices in the US as something that the has gotten the world’s attention but plays down the fact that, again, shale gas is expensive to extract and that the current prices in the US are abnormally low and will rise in the future. A fact stated by Gazprom executive Sergei Komlev, whom the article cites.

Lastly the article attempts to paint an overall picture that the US may be able to provide cheap gas to Europe and compete for that segment of the Russian gas market, something completely unrealistic but that Americans want to hear, underlined by Mitt Romney who has repeated that he "will pursue policies that work to decrease the reliance of European nations on Russian sources of energy."

The whole article completely ignores many important undeniable facts, one being that part of Russia is physically in Europe, another is that Russia already has pipelines into Europe and is providing Europe with cheap gas, and the last that the US is an Ocean away and has not pipelines or realistically competitive means to get any quantity of gas to Europe, let alone on a regular and competitive basis.

Promises that the US can compete in the European gas market may sound good to the American electorate and in political speeches but lacking a pipeline from Texas to Europe such promises are merely dreams and empty political rhetoric.

The only way for the US to actually compete in the European gas market is for them to take control of resources in the Middle East for example, which would also allow them to compete elsewhere, a fundamental reason for the US’ current resource wars throughout the Middle East.

I am not the only one taking the Western Media to task, this time on the subject of media bias and slanted reporting against Gazprom. Gazprom’s spokesman Sergei Kuprianov also took on the issue much better than I could, being a man who is truly in the know of all of the nuances, in a letter to the Washington Post. According to Mr. Kuprianov the Washington Post ignored the realities of “Gazprom’s recent strategic decisions” and rehashed “tired clichés of Kremlin intrigue”.

 “Rehashing tired clichés of Kremlin intrigue” is something the Western Press seems unable to get out of the habit of doing. In case anyone needs reminding, and obviously many do: the Cold War has been over for a very long time people.

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_10_06/Media-Bias-and-Gazprom-or-Western-media-rehashes-tired-clich-s-of-Kremlin-intrigue/

Jar2

5 September 2012, 16:07  

The ‘Biased-Media’ and Its Desecration of Church

John Robles

Continuing this week’s look at the biased media we look at the Japan Times Online, the UK’s Independent and the Guardian as well as the New York Times.

In a piece titled Pawns of the neo-Putin era the author, Andrey Borodaevskiy, wastes no time in launching his attack on Putin although the piece turns into an article parroting views on the group Pussy Riot. In the first paragraph he assumes to know President Vladimir Putin’s state of mind, as many critics and politicians in the West love to do, stating as fact that the president felt “anxiety” due to certain people’s actions, who exactly cause such anxiety he does not say but of course we are to assume the writer means the “opposition”.

The author then states that the president began taking “revenge” and calls the president’s staff or supporters, “henchmen”. Again he does not state exactly who the henchmen are or the objects of said revenge, but for this writer it is not important who, neither are the facts, the whole idea is to attack.

I don’t pretend to know the president or his mind but I imagine if the president were to take “revenge” on everyone who caused him “anxiety” he would not have time to eat or sleep, let alone run the country and would have to go after everyone who ran against him or ever questioned him. If what the author were writing was to be believed, in particular that the president of the largest country in the world spends time getting revenge on everyone, and it is clear he himself does not believe what he is writing, then he would have been a bit more careful in what he says. Otherwise the KGB, which does not exist anymore, might get him!

As if to back up his already thin argument based on air, the writer then continues by citing a law that increased the fine for illegal public events which he has obviously not read and then taking it out of context makes it seem like the security services are just itching to arrest people. The law in question regards fines for illegal public activities which cause a danger to the public and society and was written to prevent the further abuse and non-adherence to the law that was starting to spread in Russia. A law made necessary by the actions of groups such as P-Riot, but that is not important either I guess. The reason for the changing of the law was brought about by the aforementioned group and the Western funded and backed, so-called “opposition”, after their events became more and more violent and scores of innocent people were injured and adversely affected.

Of course painting the picture of people who gathered to cause public discontent and throw rocks and spit at police, as innocent victims of oppression is to the writer’s advantage. The fact that the “opposition’s” leaders and many of the organizers receive instructions and money from a certain ambassador who specializes in organizing color revolutions as well as the fact that many of the “activists” were paid to attend events and provoke the state and police is something the author fails to say anything about, also not important since it does not serve his purpose.

The writer continues as an apologist for the greatest provocateurs of recent history, the group P-Riot. Calling their costumes “luminous”, obviously he forgot to check his dictionary before publication, and their “song”, filled with obscene language disguised as a religious hymn making a mockery of the church and the Orthodox faith, an “irreverent number”, he proceeds to attempt to paint a picture of the Russian judiciary as being politically motivated and the “girls” (women with kids) as innocent victims.

Calling the desecration of the holiest part of the holiest church of the Orthodox faith “regretful” and an “artistic carnival-like performance of a kind that can be widely seen around the world” and pretending to know better than the judge in the case how to deal with such an unprecedented case, the writer continues to attempt to make this into some conspiracy against the people by the “evil” state.

As with all of these apologists and detractors, I wonder why they never bring up, for example California’s three-strikes law that has people serving life sentences for things like shoplifting, or Islamic law which would have probably had every one of these “girls” executed. Well the answer is rhetorical, as always any opportunity to deride Russia is something they rarely miss.

I have asked many Western supporters of P-Riot what would have happened if the event took place in the Vatican or in the church where Barrack Obama worships and no one has answered yet. Perhaps we could ask Mr. Borodaevskiy what he would do if the “girls” barged into his mother’s house and gave a “performance”, after all, according to him it was not a hate crime but just good fun. Would he agree? Fat chance.

Another publication, the Independent, published an article by Roland Oliphant, which also wastes no time in painting a very dark picture of Russia for the reader by stating “investigators tried to link a double murder to the group”, the problem with this is obvious. He implies the investigators had some interest in doing something so illegal and beyond any accepted norms.

Just to mention it since no else is, the words "Free Pussy Riot" were scrawled in blood on the wall, in English. Remember this is Russia, why would the killers write in English? For the Western press perhaps? As no one has made a point of this fact perhaps it is something we could use to paint an even darker picture of how far Western forces would go, but we won’t go there will we?

The writer calls the P-Riot provocation a simple “punk prayer” (Perhaps the Western media should take the time to find and translate the “lyrics” before they write about it?), the Christ the Savior Cathedral he calls simply “a Moscow cathedral” again diminishing the importance of the event and says, in an attempt to show some connection with the authorities, that the photos were published by a “tabloid website known to have close links to the authorities”. Known by whom? I politely ask.

Near the end of the article the writer quotes Nikolay Polozov a lawyer for the (now he calls them) “art collective”, as questioning when the slogan was written. Maybe he should seek an answer from the authorities? But even though this is an unsolved double murder investigation since it is Russia I suppose for the writer it is enough to quote people not even close to the case.

The Guardian did quote the authorities, in a piece by Miriam Elder , published alongside an offer to buy the book “Mafia State” (another attack on Russia), yet makes the inference that unknown Kremlin supporters who say the group “… encourages dangerous radicalism” accuse the group of involvement. No such accusation was made.

Almost every piece in the Western press regarding the group takes the same sympathetic slant with very few if any presenting the view held by a majority of the Russian population and those of the Russian Orthodox Faith. The attack and provocation, which they claimed was an attack on President Putin, and the coverage of it in the West has now taken a much darker and wholly different nature and appears to have changed into perhaps what it was from the very beginning, an attack on the faith of most of the Russian people.

In seeking articles presenting Orthodox opinions I did come across one in the Western press that mentions the position of people holding Orthodox views in the New York Times. At first I was pleasantly surprised, but the pleasantness ended in a matter of seconds as unfortunately it was another unbalanced smear job, this time by oneRobert Mackey. The completely unbalanced and totally biased article wins my “most biased anti-Russian report of the week award”. Starting with the misleading headline, “After Pussy Riot Verdict, Christian Culture Warriors Run Riot in Moscow” it immediately paints an extremely negative picture of activists who defend the Orthodox Church.

“Running Riot” is the term the writer has chosen to describe 2 young men who have chosen to confront those who are openly blaspheming their faith, the term would better describe what the group P-Riot was doing in the lead up to the previous presidential elections, jumping on roofs, on top of trolley busses, the insides of metro stations, Red Square and other improper locations, a rampage which ended in one of the holiest places for the Orthodox faith.

The writer does call the P-Riot “song”, which was staged in the cathedral a “profane anthem” but calls the activities of the “conservative” Orthodox activists “audacious attacks” on “liberal” Muscovites. He tries to transpose internal American culture warfare parameters onto Russian Society. I am sorry to have to inform him but there are not “conservative” and “liberal” sides in Russia, that division in American society does not exist in Russia and to use this case in particular to attempt to instill a social divide is as stupid as the antics of P-Riot. Almost every Russian would agree the Christ the Savior desecration was a stupid attack. Many might argue as to the sentence or other points in the case, but the act itself is not supported by an almost absolute majority of Russians of all faiths and leanings.

Can one really be said to “barge into” a sex museum? Apparently for Mr. Mackey such a place of “reverence” deserves quiet respectful behavior, unlike a cathedral in the middle of a service I suppose.

The bias and derision of the Orthodox activists, whose actions were filmed by a television channel, continues for the rest of the article with the writer quoting the “moral icon of society”, sex museum director Alexander Donskoy, who makes wild exaggerations of the quiet Orthodox young men saying: they are; “…threatening our lives and tearing clothes off simple passers-by, and tomorrow they’ll go raid churches of other confessions and stab atheists.”

The writer attempts to paint a picture of the P-Riot attack as not being an attack on the Orthodox Religion, which is beyond the pale. If it were in fact something political they should have attempted to stage their provocation in a more “political” location. Red Square for example, as they already had, and were not locked up (a fact the Western Press has conveniently forgotten). After they “performed” on Red Square they were emboldened by the leniency of the authorities and they attacked the Church.

Freedom of expression, dissent, opposition, demonstrations, the right to be heard and represented are all natural aspects of a democracy, but you don’t attack the holy religious places of the people, no matter what the faith. No one could be so stupid to do so “accidently” and barring insanity, logically anyone who does so must hold a hatred for the religion they attack.

The hypocrisy is staggering.

That is all for now, if you have any examples of media- bias please send and we will try to include it and your letters in my next column. I can be reached at jar2@list.ru.

John Hellevig sent me this example from what he calls the “Propaganda Press” about misrepresentations regarding preparations for the Democratic National Convention. He recalls how President Putin was attacked with similar allegations.

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_09_05/The-biased-media-and-desecration-of-church/

Jar2 

2 September 2012, 19:31  

This week in the 'Biased-Media': Putin, Romney and Berezovsky

John Robles

This week in the biased-media we have Berezovsky obliterating what little credibility he had left in a London courtroom, President Putin continuing to be attacked by anonymous entities lacking facts, “poor” Russia should be pitied because it has a plateful of problems and Romney a “bad” guy “wink-wink”. Those are some of the offerings we have this week from the Wall Street Journal, the Guardian, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the Economist and ForeignPolicy.com.

An event related to Russia this past week which received a lot of attention in the Western Press was the lawsuit in a London Court between “Oligarch on the run” Boris Berezovsky and Chelsea owner and multi-billionaire Russian businessman Roman Abramovich.

Although the case was one which the Western Media could have used once again to propagate anti-Russia sentiment and deride President Putin, media outlets were on the whole factual in reporting the case.

Berezovsky has been a poster boy for the West in the derision of Russia and in Western attempts to usurp President Vladimir Putin’s power, popularity and political support. However after the ruling and the statements by the judge in the case, Judge Elizabeth Gloster, it is highly unlikely he will now be much use to MI-5/6 and Western spin-doctors as his credibility was all but obliterated.

The Wall Street Journal, who we cited as being biased several weeks ago, was not apologetic towards Berezovsky calling the ruling “a culmination of Mr. Berezovsky's stunning fall from power.” However their reporting on the case also included the further promotion of misconceptions and half-truths about Russia.

The judge in the case, in a 38 page summary of her judgment dismissing the case, said Berezovsky was "…. an unimpressive, and inherently unreliable, witness, who regarded truth as a transitory, flexible concept, which could be molded to suit his current purposes." She also said: "I regret to say that the bottom line of my analysis of Mr. Berezovsky's credibility is that he would have said almost anything to support his case."

Further blasting his credibility the judge said; "At times, the evidence which he gave was deliberately dishonest; sometimes he was clearly making his evidence up as he went along in response to the perceived difficulty in answering the questions in a manner consistent with his case; at other times, I gained the impression that he was not necessarily being deliberately dishonest, but had deluded himself into believing his own version of events."

Berezovsky’s slanderous claim that he was pressured by President Putin into selling ORT television was also the subject of the judge’s ire, something which greatly upset Berezovsky and which might have resonance on his case for asylum as the claim was one of the cornerstones of his asylum application. The judge said flat out that she did not believe his claim.

After the ruling Berezovsky did what he did best, he blamed President Putin for his own failure, this time in the court saying he "had the impression that Putin himself wrote this judgment.” He also provided more evidence that he may be delusional, as was stated by the judge, and losing touch with reality when he accused the judge of “re-writing Russian history”, as it did not coincide with his own self-serving version of events.

In contrast, she found Abramovich, who did not appear at the hearing to be "a truthful, and on the whole reliable, witness."

Back to the Murdoch Owned Wall Street Journal, as I said above, they did present a slight slant that was not fully in keeping with reality. Their characterization of the case as coming out of “a post-Soviet soap opera” and “bordering on comedy” as well as references to the “Godfather”, “modus operandi” and the like only served to paint the events as less than legitimate, rather than blaming Berezovsky for making outrageous claims as he strives to rebuild his dwindling millions by suing everyone he can. All that said the coverage by the WSJ was on the whole surprisingly balanced.

Berezovsky did manage to further damage Russian business and the image of Russia by suing Abramovich in a British court as the case should have been heard in a Russian court. Holding the case in London was an affront to the Russian judiciary and damaging to its image. The case also damages the image of Russian business as it brought out old stereotypes and the dark side of Russian business after the collapse of the Soviet Union, an environment that no longer exists and which the Russian business community has worked hard to eradicate.

Moving on to a much more deceptive, layered and intricate anti-Putin piece published on one of the “blogs” of the Economist, we see anti-Putin propaganda reach an entirely new level. The piece deceptively begins by criticizing other “Russia-watchers” for “much talk and few facts” and immediately links to an article on the Guardian citing Stanislav Belkovsky whom the anonymous writer calls a “rumor-monger” and one who speaks “without citing sources”, in an obvious attempt to make the reader believe that what follows are credible and unbiased facts.

The piece is called “Nice Work” I would re-title it “Nice Try”. What follows is even more talk, conjecture, the twisting of the facts and the citing of questionable sources who clearly have an agenda of their own to promote.

The “anonymous” author continues to cite a “report” by Boris Nemtsov, someone whom the Russian media reported was in the pay of one of the western Ambassadors to Russia and who did everything possible to hurt President Putin’s chances of re-election during the last elections.

Anonymous also cites an unrelated Levada center report regarding general corruption in a way that attempts to show a link to President Putin and “research” by one Mikhail Dmitirev another person with an agenda to promote, which supports claims of discontent amongst the “middle-class opposition” in Russia.

Finally the piece finishes up with quotes from, (Are you ready for this?!), “A man in the city of Dzerzhinsk”, and a suggestion to visit a “mysterious palace” that the BBC investigated but was unable to prove belongs to anyone.

Nice try!

The next article to enter the radar screen appeared in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and again is by an anonymous author. From the first sentence it paints Russia in a negative light continuing with its “problems” and attacking the Kremlin, democracy in Russia and President Putin.

The article slanders President Putin by saying things like “Mr. Putin could be described kindly as a control freak or a frustrated dictator.” It also paints Russia as some sort of 3 rd world country by saying WTO entry will “raise the living standard” and again attacks the president for the actions and deserved punishment of the group Pussy Riot.

The article which just repeated anti-Russian talking points then makes a final “apologetic” swipe at Russia by saying Romney was wrong in calling Russia geo-political enemy number one. Not for the million reasons that this is false, but because Russia has “a full plate of demanding problems”.

Bravo.

The last piece for now brought a small surprise when I found a two paragraph quote by yours truly in it. The article in question titled: "Russian press rips Romney and his promise of ‘Republican hell’" by one Uri Friedman, no anonymous author here, deals with the topic in a more or less balanced manner, however he does not counter or go against any of the statements made by Romney or support any of the points that were brought up in the Russian Press.

If there are Americans who feel differently from Romney it is not apparent from the article as there are no views presented from the other end of the political spectrum to counter Romney’s aggressive anti-Russian rhetoric.

Silent support or just a biting of the tongue? Hard to blame him for what he did not say, but still.

That’s all for now. If you have any examples of “biased-media” please send us a link and please send me your comments and I will publish them in the next edition. I can be reached at jar2@list.ru

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_09_02/This-week-in-the-biased-media-Putin-Romney-and-Berezovsky/

Jar2

29 August 2012, 21:54

End of US-Russian 'Reset', or Romney's Cold War Thinking as a Threat to Global Security

John Robles

Cold war thinkers have drawn up Mitt Romney’s foreign policy stance and it does not look good neither for the U.S., nor for Russia or the free world. Continuing the rhetoric that Russia is geo-political enemy number one and promising to confront and make Russia cow to U.S. interests the Republicans have once again proven their complete disregard for diplomacy.

Whether or not the Republicans are just playing for their base or are seriously proposing such policies, they have proven that they will be force for more instability and conflict in the world.

Mitt Romney and his vice-presidential running mate, now the official contenders for the White House, will dangerously radicalize U.S. foreign policy in particular they will openly and with extreme prejudice confront the Russian Federation on a number of issues, and advance U.S. interests and geo-political policies and plans regardless of the wishes of the international community.

To say that Romney and his Republican brethren are a danger to world peace would be an understatement. Their “ultra-conservative” views and stances on a number of issues will bring about another era of neo-conservative subjugation for the American people and the world and their backward thinking and confrontational posturing will destroy much of the delicate compromise that has kept the world stable for the last four years.

According to Romney, who not long ago called Russia enemy number one, and his Republican advisors who have approved a program for their party at their convention in Florida, the Russian Federation is the number one geo-political enemy of the United States and a “traditional rival” along with North Korea, Iran and China. They also believe the Russian Government is authoritarian, does not respect human rights, suppresses the press, aligns with dictatorial regimes and the clincher: “was guilty of an unprovoked invasion of Georgia”.

In short all of the prehistoric, cold-war style, holier-than-thou, self-elevating, self-advancing, blatantly false and confrontational rhetoric and talking points that the Republicans are famous for.

To take their points apart one by one is to give them credibility they do not deserve but in case you just arrived from planet Sirius 7, Russia did not invade Georgia but rather prevented the genocide of Russian citizens in South Ossetia by the Georgian Army, the press in Russia is freer than ever, the U.S. is currently supporting and creating more dictators than ever before (Bahrain anyone?), the U.S. is engaged in a program of global domination and instigating regime change wherever they see fit and the U.S. through its military surrogates and NATO is attempting to subjugate the entire planet and bend it to its will by placing it under it military control.

Romney adviser Rich Williamson at the "round table" on the Foreign Policy Initiative, a paper filled with misconceptions laying out Republican Foreign Policy posturing and their political stance, stated that the Romney Administration will end the “reset” and confront Russia on issues such as Georgia, Iran, Syria and others.

Georgia I have already mentioned, Syria and Iran are points of contention for the most part only when it comes to the U.S.’ plans to aggressively invade these two countries and attempt to make the sovereign nations bend to Washington’s will and bring these peoples to their knees.

Williamson also said that Russia has “chosen the path of confrontation rather than cooperation", apparently such blatant lies are more rhetoric for the Republican “base” who as I have already said see no difference between a “Sheik” and a “Sikh”. To say that Russia has chosen such a path when the entire Republican platform is based on and call for confrontation with Russia is disingenuous and a complete and total lie.

Russia has embarrassingly bent to almost every U.S. encroachment on its sovereignty, its geo-political position, its internal functions and its military security since the collapse of the Soviet Union, even going so far as to attempt to repeatedly work with NATO and the U.S. in their plans to surround Russia with their missiles.

To listen to Romney and his Republican like and read how they plan to “curb Moscow”, “confront Russia”, surround Russia with missiles and the like is to get the impression that he is talking about some small third world nation they can just obliterate at any moment and not the largest country on the planet and a formidable nuclear power.

The Republicans shamelessly have also said they will meddle in European affairs and attempt to reduce Europe’s “dependence” on Russian oil and gas, which Europe obtains cheaply. I suppose if the oil and resource starved U.S. succeeds in re-making the Middle East and seizing control of all of the oil and resources in the region they will offer Europe a cheaper alternative.

As for the Asia-Pacific Region Romney has said he will strengthen ties with Asian countries, it seems whether they want it or not, and reduce Russian influence in the region.

Lastly, according to Pravda.ru, “Romney expressed his willingness to be the godfather of the Russian opposition and organize the training for opposition activists at American educational centers.”

As for the RNC Convention Republicans have once again let their hypocrisy shine, with Tampa expecting a wave of strippers and prostitutes who will no doubt “service” the “family values” of the Republican conventioneers. Even a porn star named Lisa Ann, who impersonates Sarah Palin, making millions on Republican’s lustful desires for the Alaska Governor and right-wing propaganda mouthpiece.

Not only prostitutes have descended on Tampa but those opposing the Republican’s narrow minded platform including Occupiers from all over the U.S.

According to Jeffrey Billman at the Orlando Weekly, some issues of import to Americans are Republican plans to gut Medicare, bring back the gold standard, eviscerate abortion rights, ban gay marriage, deport brown people, and more.

The Huffington Post was also not very “optimistic” in a look at the GOP’s extreme positions, in short promising hell not only for Russia but for Americans if these people come to power.

From where I am sitting, even taking into account the fact that Romney is playing to his base, he will no doubt be detrimental to Russian-U.S. relations and will be a "tyrant" and a "threat to global security" if he becomes president.

Hopefully Americans will not let this happen.

The views and opinions expressed here are my own. I can be reached at jar2@list.ru.

Jar2

23 July 2012, 13:42

Pussy Riot: Provocation Against Church and State

John Robles

Pussy Riot: provocation against church and state

On Friday the Khamovnichesky court in Moscow extended the pre-trial detention of three members of the group Pussy Riot, Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, Maria Alyokhina and Ekaterina Samutsevich, until January 12, 2013 with their preliminary hearing to continue on Monday July 23.

The three members were part of a group of four who entered the holiest church for followers of the Russian Orthodox Church, the Christ the Savior Cathedral on February 21, 2012, and from a sacred area where only ordained priests are allowed to be present, proceeded to sing an anti-Putin song disguised as a church hymn, filled with obscene language and making a mockery of the entire Christian faith.

Their action coincided with other staged and carefully organized anti-Putin provocations which were taking place before the past presidential elections, and like almost all of the other “opposition” groups and individuals, their only goal was to foment hatred towards and do everything possible to damage the popularity of then presidential candidate Vladimir Putin.

The majority of Russians hold the view that the group went way too far in their activities with most people of the opinion that their actions were everything from an act of sheer brainlessness to a carefully planned insult to the Orthodox Church, the Russian people and the Russian state.

This was evident at Friday’s hearing where more people in protest of the group showed up outside the court to protest what many of them see as an attack on morality, family values and their faith.

Supporters of the group, strangely enough, appeared outside the court at the time the women were exercising their constitutional right to defend themselves before the court, holding signs asking for mercy from the same church that those in custody had blasphemed.

Although the women had already been in custody for four months their behavior in front of the court in no way showed remorse for what they had done, nor did the statements and actions of their lawyers who filed almost a dozen briefs and then blamed the court for not being able to deal with all of them in one sitting.

The women were all smiles and as in evident by witness statements, news reports, and video and still footage, they behaved as if the whole thing were a big joke, smiling and looking glib and not showing even the slightest hint of remorse.

Their lawyers told the press, and I am paraphrasing, that the whole process was a circus. Strange when they are demanding the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin and the Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia and Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church Kirill I appear in court as witnesses, although neither was even present or connected with the foolish stunt in anyway.

Sadly, as can now be expected, the Western media and even Amnesty International have jumped on the bandwagon and are portraying the women as innocent victims of evil machinations. The latter saying on Friday that;”…it considers the three women to be prisoners of conscience detained solely for the peaceful expression of their beliefs."

Had the event taken place at the Evergreen Chapel located in Camp David where U.S. President Obama prays or in the Holy See or from behind the pulpit where the Pope addresses Catholic believers, would they be so quick to defend those guilty of such an act of desecration? Even those at war with the West do not dare to, or have enough taste not to, blaspheme the holy places of the people. Why should this event be deemed as somehow being acceptable and a peaceful expression of beliefs when it occurred in Russia?

As more Russians begin to understand the resonance that is being caused by what these women did, the crowds outside the court will no doubt grow larger and the views of those who have been largely quiet will begin to be heard, not in support of these women, but against the affront to all Russians.

Jar2

28 July 2012, 08:09

VOR Reports from the Olympics

John Robles

Download audio file

Hello! This is John Robles. I’m speaking with Tim Walklate, he is the Voice of Russia’s correspondent, he is in London and he was at the opening of the Olympics, and he’s been all around London watching the preparations.

Hello Tim!

Hello John!

How are you this evening?

I’m very well. I’m absolutely ecstatic about the beginning of the Olympics. I think it is difficult to be one of the 8 million people leaving in London and not being carried away with the Olympic fever at the moment.

What’s the mood in London, I mean it sounds pretty positive right now? What’s the mood of the Russian team? And can you give us some of the highlights to the opening ceremony?

Well, about you question what the mood like in London… past week I arrived at work on Monday morning in London and it was just absolutely crazy. The mood in London has completely changed. There are so many different people from creeds and cultures that are around and it completely embodying the kind of the nature of the Olympics. Everyone is so happy and cheerful and wanting to help each other, often so excited. Everyone seems so excited over the past week that will lead up to the opening ceremony which as we speak is going on right now. As to the team Russia’s chances, well, I’ve been with a lot of team Russia over the past three days, with Alexander Zhukov who is the Head of the Russian Olympic Committee and sometimes with Vitaliy Mutko who is the Sports Minister today. And at the opening of Sochi Park and Russia Park which are these two kind of visitor attractions where people can come and kind of experience Russian culture and have a taste of what maybe the Sochi Olympics in 2014 will be like.

What kinds of things people can see there?

Sochi Park is more of a visitor attraction, it is kind of selling the Sochi Olympics. So, they can go and have a look at how the railways are developing, go into different interactive zones, play video games, there is an ice-rink at the end. It is a good place where people Russian and not Russian fans can go and chill out and enjoy the spirit of the Olympics Games so to speak.

Russia Park is more kind of a place where officials can meet but also it is open to the public. They can go in and there is going to be concerts there and sort of food tasting sessions. I think even a yoga class will be held there once a day. So, that’s going to focus probably not on the Russian cultural side of things but at those kind of advertise Russia and show Russia to the rest of the world while the rest of the world has its eyes on London. In terms of the Team Russia, I think they really are very confident that Team Russia can really push to try to come close to China and Team USA. There are some absolute class acts in the Russian team. You don’t have to explain that the gymnastics team are out there, synchronized swimming – they’ve got a very good duet this year. Of course you’ve Isinbaeva Elena in pole vaulting will almost inevitably beat the previous world record that she made in Beijing, she is in top four. And of course in Britain we are all focusing on heptathlon with the British hopeful Jessica Ennis. But Russia of course have got Tatyana Chernova how is a real Russia hopeful for the heptathlon. Team Russia has got tons and tons of real gold medal hopefuls. And speaking to Alexander Zhukov yesterday, he was very optimistic about Team Russia’s chances.

What is the mood of the Russian sportsmen and sportswomen? Are they pretty positive?

Obviously we haven’t had too much access to them in the past few days. They are obviously concentrating on what is going on over the next two and half weeks. We will find more after once the competitions end. But at the opening ceremony today several former gold medal winners from the US and from Russia turned up and I spoke to a few of them and they said that at the moment they are really just doing their best to focus and close out all other destructions. And tonight the whole of Britain is celebrating this opening ceremony. So far it has been fantastic. I expect a lot of the athletes that are trying to concentrate on making sure that they get everything ongoing and making sure that everything is done perfectly.

Sounds wonderful! You mentioned yoga. Is this some sort of Russian yoga that’s going to be going on over there or what?

I just attended today the press box and there was a lady doing yoga as the various officials were doing their speeches. And I think it is just an aspect of Russia Park which they are trying to promote and make it a bit more cute, more relaxed so that people can come into Russia Park, have a drink and maybe do some yoga on top of that.

I was just wondering about Russian yoga… was it to the tune of balalaika music or something?

No idea, John. You have to come and try out yourself.

A lot has been made of the security situation in London. Some people have called it – I came to a war zone. Have you noticed any negativity or negative feelings due to the security procedures and measures that have been implemented all over London right now?

I think that the security situation has been kind of the biggest problem that the London Olympics has faced so far. I think that it was the problem. But as I think the Sports Minister of the UK Hugh Robertson has said – it is a problem that is dealt with swiftly and effectively. And there is an issue of late sign of this contract and they didn’t fulfill this contract G4S, the private security firm that then agreed to supply these trips and it didn’t happen. And also it should be said that they did receive a lot of negative media attention in Britain. I think the British media were waiting for that negative thing to happen. And having said that it was dealt with very quickly and I think on the streets there have been absolutely no problems whatsoever. And I can’t say there’s been any problems considering the way things are dealt with so far, my fingers are crossed for that.

Yes, we’ll keep our fingers crossed as well. There’s been also a lot of talks about massive traffic jams and problems getting around for Londoners. Is that a real problem?

That’s too false. First of all, there is the issue of Olympic Games congestion on the streets. And one big issue that has been taken up by the taxi driver, they are saying that this is completely unfair.

That was an interview with Tim Walklate, he is the Voice of Russia’s correspondent and he is covering the London Olympics in the UK. Thanks for listening.

 Jar2

27 July 2012, 16:11

Femen and Pussy Riot: Provocations Against Russia

John Robles

Both marginal protest groups - Femen and Pussy Riot - have several things in common: they are both women groups, anti-Russian, use vulgarity and anti-social behavior to shock as many people as possible, have no clear agenda and offer no alternative policies and they both seem to exist for one purpose, that being to attempt to shame and disgrace Russia and its leaders.

As it is already well known, on Thursday his Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia Kirill I arrived in Kiev, Ukraine where he is to stay for three days to mark the 20th anniversary of the Primate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church Metropolitan Vladimir of Kiev. The Patriarch’s arrival in Ukraine was momentarily marred by yet another provocation against the Russian Orthodox Church, when Yana Zhdanova, a member of a Ukrainian group calling themselves Femen, rushed the Patriarch as if to attack him, shouting “Get out! Get out!”. She was intercepted within meters of Patriarch Kirill by a priest, body guards and members of the security detail, who within seconds surrounded his Holiness and escorted the screaming woman away.

The attack appears to have been carefully planned and designed to get maximum press attention, as his arrival would be the moment when he would be in the limelight the most. The words “Kill Kirill” were carefully written in large letters on the woman’s bare back in English. To me this was a curious detail no one has really noticed but which makes it clear the act of provocation was choreographed for the Western media. Had it been aimed at Russia or Ukraine the words would have been obviously written in the language of either country. It is also clear she did not act alone.

The Femen women protest group famous for its radical exhibitionism first appeared in 2008. WikiPedia claims that they are receiving the financial support from the American businessmen Jed Sunden. The group also organized a protest action in front of the Christ The Savior Cathedral in December 2011.

Femen also posted a statement on the Internet accusing the Patriarch of encouraging the detention of activists, an obvious reference to members of another provocation group Pussy Riot which on February 21, 2012 desecrated the Christ the Savior Cathedral and are currently detained in Russia.

Some say Femen aims to advance women’s rights but I think the “women’s libbers” of the 60s would not support their tactics, if you are as old as I am, or older you may recall how those “feminists” threw away their bras, high-heels and cosmetics because they were “womanizing” objects and dressed in a sever fashion, yet these women choose to wear sexy lingerie and run around top-less in a bid for attention.

If these two groups really have a coherent agenda we can sympathize with, such as women’s rights, freedom of expression or eliminating prostitution, then I am afraid their message is not getting through. What is getting through is the fact that they have absolutely no respect for any kind of authority and that their tactics are vulgar and socially unacceptable. How they behave is always the focus, not why they are doing what they do, that is assuming they really do have a message and are not just out to insult and provoke Russians and the Orthodox Church.

This time the reaction from the West is a bit more subdued, compared to all of the Pussy Riot hoopla. However, many in the Western press are still attempting to show this in a way which plays down the vulgarity of the display. Had anyone rushed the Pope with Kill the Pope written on their back, well you know what the reaction to that would have been.

Another curious thing concerning both groups is the lack of transparency they possess when it comes to who backs them financially. This is very important because when you want to know what an organization is really about you have to look at who is financing them. Several web searches only revealed the names of a German individual called DJ Hell, one Helmut Josef Geier and Jed Sunden, an American ex-pat living in Ukraine who is the publisher of the English language Kiev Post, as financial backers for Femen. No information on the shadowy backers of Pussy Riot is currently available.

Jed Sunden, a pro-Western American with a history of meddling in the internal affairs of Ukraine, a man who called Lenin statues: “… a disgusting sight Ukraine should be ashamed of….” and was declared persona non grata in Ukraine, might be a good indication of who is behind these groups. If they are being financed by the West, then this would explain many things, among them the level of arrogance and boldness and lack of coherent message they both possess. They also appear to exist for one reason, to provoke Russia.

On July 28, Patriarch Kirill will take part in commemoration ceremonies to mark the day of the Enlightenment of Rus’, a national holiday in commemoration of the anniversary of Kyiv’s baptism and of Saint Volodymyr. After the service, the primate will lay flowers by the eternal flame at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.

Hopefully the likes of Pussy Riot and Femen will have the good taste to not attempt to mark the events with yet another vulgar, pointless and silly display of their own foolishness.

How about it girls? Maybe you should all write a coherent argument in the form of a treatise (not striptease), or an essay and distribute it to the masses (after all you do have a publisher as a backer). Here’s another idea: gather a million signatures in support of some change in policy. That is what real activists do. And please keep the vulgarity to yourselves and for crying out loud, keep your shirts on, your message (if you have one) is being ignored and overshadowed by your public nudity and anti-social behavior. Or could it be you have no message?

Jar2

31 July 2012, 18:46

Russia as Reflected by the Western Media: Weekly

John Robles

Russia as reflected by the Western media: weekly report

The Western media is full of inaccuracies and biased reporting regarding Russia. In an attempt to counter such information, we will be publishing and countering examples of this on a weekly basis. If you see something in the press and you think it might sound fishy, please let us know and we will include your name in the material.

Even in this day and age of instant messaging, world-wide-web and hand-held wireless communication devices capable of sending and receiving information to and from anywhere in the world, there still exists a huge divide between reality and what is presented as fact in the information and the news that is being broadcast around the world. This is painfully obvious when it comes to information about Russia in the Western Press.

During the past week there have been several topics concerning Russia in the news which have not been entirely un-biased. The main one being the situation in and around Syria, of which the coverage is more often than not skewed in favor of the West’s views and plans for the region. This includes claims that Russia was providing offensive weapons to kill protestors, delivering attack helicopters and the like. All claims were later found to be untrue, yet the West keeps putting them forth.

Russia has, since day one of the internal upheavals in Syria, promoted an internal peaceful resolution to the Syrian conflict and has made many attempts to bring the opposing sides to the negotiating table.

According to Prime Minister Medvedev in the transcript of an interview he gave to the Times newspaper in London, the differences between the Russian stance and the Western one are much less than the world’s media have made out.

Russia has also been a staunch defender of respect for the sovereignty of Syria, something which the West has vilified as many see it as acceptable that certain powers in the West constantly interfere in the internal affairs of other countries.

According to Russia’s Communist leader Gennady Zyuganov, “By supporting radical Islamists, the USA aims at impose control over the entire region and points the edge of an extremist dagger at Russia…” and “While making grandiloquent statements about democracy and human rights, the West has been waging naked aggression against Syria.” Also, “The West – that declares war on international terrorists, such as the CIA’s brainchild Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brothers – in fact actively cooperates with them. It is with their help that the undeclared war on Syria is waged today.” Of course these issues have, for the most part, been ignored by the Western media, although any cooperation between the US government and Al-Qaeda should be something that would be scandalous for the American public.

Russia (or the USSR – even worse in their opinion) is also the country of choice by right-wing American commentators and pundits and many politicians when they give example of “evil” countries. For example, on June 29 Rush Limbaugh compared the reporting of job forecasts in the media to Soviet media reporting on wheat production. Why the comparison? Because it is convenient to bad mouth Russia to scare people into supporting some irrational or baseless position in an argument.

Another good example of this was on the June 29 edition of Fox and friends, another in a long chain of Murdoch-owned operations. Co-host Stephen James Doocy asked the question, while speaking about healthcare, “What is this, Russia?” First off, why is affordable healthcare such an evil thing for America’s far right? Second, the Russian Federation has universal healthcare for everyone, including Doocy if he were to become ill here, and people can buy supplemental policies if they want. Nothing evil at all there.

The coverage of the Pussy Riot trial is also another area where the divide is great. For most of the West and the Western media, these are people exercising their freedom of speech. For many in Russia, these are people who went way too far and unjustifiably desecrated the Church. For instance, Western reports are full of claims of large crowds of supporters while balanced news sources and most Russian media report of crowds opposed to these women.

That’s all for this week, if you have any tips please send them to jar2@list.ru Have a nice one, wherever you may be.

Jar2

18 July 2012, 19:07

Media Bias: U.S. Coverage of Russia

John Robles

Media bias: U.S. coverage of Russia

In the western media there exists a tangible and increasingly obvious media bias towards global events and countries around the world, in particular when it comes to reporting on Russia related issues. For the U.S. media in particular, recent years have seen a decline in readership and a plethora of other problems: scandals about manipulation, plagiarism, intimidation, falling profits and obvious cases of reporting outright lies as fact.

The reasons for this are many and even though there does not exist an official censorship body which controls the media, most U.S. media outlets are the victims of self-censorship or “Market Censorship” as some call it. This occurs due to a desire not to offend or displease their advertisers, owners or the government.

Regardless of the underlying reasons it exists and must be countered. Most readers and consumers of information and news are intelligent and can often judge for themselves how much validity to give a particular source but the majority do not have the time to investigate and take a closer look at the information they are presented. Most of their time is spent in digesting the information they are given and this is exactly what those who wish to manipulate the media count on. Unfortunately this occurs so regularly that media-manipulators have become emboldened and rely on this fact.

One shining example of “less-than-honest-media”, and that is putting it lightly, would be Ruport Murdoch’s Fox News, an outlet so blatantly dishonest that it is rarely taken seriously by anyone who slightly opposes their views or seeks a balanced source of information. The practices of Fox News include everything from having their own goon squad, or “Fox Security” as they call it, which is used to harass and physically intimidate people who oppose the organization, to doctoring photographs of people they target so they appear less attractive. (Wikipedia, Political Cortex, Prison Planet, Dailykos.com, Firedoglake.blogspot.com)

When investigating Western media bias toward Russia some recent shining and blatant examples are impossible not to mention and too often Fox News is right in the middle them. (NewsHounds) The most recent outright falsifications and attempts at cover up involve the events in South Ossetia and the recent demonstrations by the so-called “opposition” here in Moscow. Other areas that are continuously the object of censorship and manipulation include Iran, Syrian, the Middle-Eastern conflicts and Balkan coverage.

One good example of manipulation by the media was coverage of the invasion and bombing of South Ossetia and the murder of civilians by the Georgian Army. The false reporting quickly became clear and obvious as witness reports began to come out. The clearest example being the scandal surrounding the then 12-year-old Amanda Kokoeva who was stopped from telling her story in an interview on Fox News after she began telling how she and her family were saved from the Georgians by Russian forces. (Russia Today)

The numerous doctored photos and even video coverage of the recent demonstrations in Moscow are also another clear example of western media manipulation. These include the usage of Moscow crowd photos from 1991 (TheAtlantic.com) and footage of Greek riots passed along as being in Moscow, (HyperVocal.com) also by Fox News. All of these attempts were engineered to show that the level of violence and the amount of the people involved were much greater than they were in reality.

The reality was that many of these events were attended by more western reporters than demonstrators and that even though they were being funded by the U.S., through NGOs and their agents, (ActivistPost.com) and people were being paid to attend the anti-government demonstrations, (SFGate.com) the actual turnout was nothing to write home about. The fact that the U.S. attempted to interfere in the election of President Putin and organized anyone it could to do everything possible to de-legitimize the election of the popular and well-loved leader is just one more example of U.S. meddling into the internal affairs of sovereign nations.

The internet has, for its part, been helpful in off-setting many attempts at media manipulation. Many incidents would never come to light if it were not for media watchdogs, bloggers and alternative media outlets. For this reason the U.S. has aggressively pursued anyone who does damage to its media manipulations or is too successful in getting out the truth. This was clear after 9-11 and the attacks on 9-11 truth sites and has been epitomized by the U.S. reaction to the efforts of Wikileaks.

The truth is something that criminals and tyrants fear. It is also something that can not be allowed when it interferes with geo-political plans for domination, resource wars, or the military takeover of the planet. We saw this on 9-11 when reputable experts, witnesses and even engineers were gagged by the hundreds, if not thousands, from telling the truth. We saw this in the invasion of Iraq, with yellowcake, WMDs and fake atrocities. We also saw this in the former Yugoslavia, with fake atrocities and the continuing media blackout in Serbia.

Unfortunately that is not all, we continue to see this in Syria and Iran, and other locations where the West has plans in place and the reality on the ground must be made to coincide with their scenarios, even if it means creating complete and total fabrications.

As the falsehoods continue so do the number of dead, this is most obvious in such places as Afghanistan, Syria, Bahrain and other “hot-spots”, even in Egypt, where the U.S. recently did a 180° about face and supported the Muslim Brotherhood.

Once again we see that for the U.S., the truth is a very inconvenient thing and if it does not please them, they will attempt to create their own.
Read more:
http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_07_18/Media-bias-US-coverage-of-Russia/

 Jar2

12 June 2012, 20:25

Russia Day 2012

John Robles

The Russian Federation is the largest country on the face of the Earth; a country with a long, rich and great history full of upheavals, wars, tragedies and great victories.

Russia is a country that unites Asia and Europe and has a total area of 17,075,400 square kilometers (6,592,800 sq mi), covering more than a ninth of the Earth’s land area. The Russian Federation extends across the whole of northern Asia and 40% of Europe and is a country that spans nine time zones with times ranging from UTC+03:00 to UTC+12:00.

On the 12th of June Russia celebrates Russia Day. The holiday is still a new one for Russia, and has only been celebrated since 1992. June 12th 1990 was the day when the First Congress of People's Deputies of the Russian Federation adopted the Declaration of State Sovereignty of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union the country’s new name was the Russian Federation, adopted on December 25, 1991. Among other changes after the collapse of the USSR was the introduction of the post of president, a new national flag, a new national emblem and a new anthem.

June 12th the day when the declaration was adopted was proclaimed a national holiday by the Supreme Soviet in 1992 and again proclaimed a national holiday Presidential decree of June 2, 1994. Under the presidential decree of June 16, 1998, it was renamed Russia Day, from the previous name of Independence Day, a name which did not really reflect the nature of the holiday.

For many June 12th was a day when, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, they were thrown into poverty, when all of the social guarantees of the Soviet State were taken away and when the greatest country on the planet, the USSR was officially dissolved, for this reason at the beginning many Russians did not celebrate the holiday.  Holiday many did not even understand.

In the last few years many people have begun to celebrate the holiday as a day to demonstrate national pride in their great country. It is a day when the president gives state awards for achievements in science and technology, literature and art, and humanitarian activities. It is also a day when people can watch firework displays, concerts and entertainment events.

This year President Vladimir Putin presented awards in the St. George Hall of the Grand Kremlin Palace and according to the press office of the president the recipients were many and the awards were as follows:

In the scientific spheres: for the discovery of large deposits of platinum-palladium on the Kola Peninsula Felix Mitrofanov received the State Prize in Science and Technology, for achievements in Immunology Rem Petrov and Khaitov Rahim received an award, an award was given to Boris Trofimov for a major contribution to the development of organic synthesis along with Valery Charushin and Oleg Chupakhin, for the development and creation of a missile warning Sergey Boev, Sergei Saprykin and Valery Karasev.

The Russian Federation State Prize in Literature and the Arts was awarded to Oleg Dobrodeyev, Sergey Shumakov, and Svyatoslav Belza for the popularization of culture and science achievement and outstanding educational activities; Oleg Zharov, Elena Ankudinov, Nikolai Mukhin for their contribution to the revival and development of traditional cultural and historical values, and Galina Malanicheva for her contribution to the preservation of the national cultural heritage.

A State Award for outstanding achievements in the field of humanitarian work was awarded to Vladimir Spivakov.  

According to the Voice of Russia festival activities include some 1,550 events,  with 20 being held in Moscow, culminating in a five hour concert on Red Square in the evening and ending with a spectacular fireworks exhibition. One of Moscow’s parks has also been used as a venue for a festival of the indigenous peoples of the Russian Federation with participants including traditional folk and dance ensembles and craftsmen.

This year another event that the country’s football fans are focused on is the match between Dick Advocaat’s national team and Poland, with a win guaranteeing Russia moving on to the quarterfinals after tromping the Czech Republic 4-1.

After the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the country has remarkably pulled itself up by its own bootstraps, an upheaval that would have led many countries to fall into anarchy and something that must be applauded and something that points to the resilience and strength of the Russian people.

In this regard alone I believe we must be grateful to President Putin and the pivotal role he has played in doing everything he can to return the country to greatness in the face of truly Machiavellian machinations. He has also made an increase in the living standards and the quality of life possible for all Russians.

Russia is a great country and on Mother Russia’s day we can celebrate her sportsmen and women, like Maria Sharapova (my favorite), her great scientists, her great victories; such as that over nazi Germany, her wonderful food and culture, her music and musicians, her great and beautiful lands, from the Urals to her spectacular Pacific coasts, the great and long religious history, people who are open and seek peace with others and for many the most beautiful women on earth.  

Personally Russia Day has taken a deeper meaning for me as I celebrate the history and greatness of a country that took me and my family in 15 years ago. As a Taino Indian who was born on a small island in the Caribbean I am proud and honored to be a able to write to all of you on this great day here on the Voice of Russia and for me it would be an honor to be called Russian.

Have a great RUSSIA DAY!!!

John Robles II 

Jar2

This week's Biased-Media: Pussy Riot and Anonymous Russian “Officials”

John Robles

Here is this week's installment regarding media bias in the Western media. Today we will look at not the outright lies or twisting of facts but the much more subtle art of semantics, connotation, context and choice of words. In this article we also published readers' emails who spotted more examples of the media-bias.

Russia as reflected by the Western media: weekly report

The first article that caught my eye this week was one by Time Magazine, a publication I used to enjoy reading. The article was by Simon Shuster and right from the start it is clear that it is biased and follows the vilify-Russia-any-chance-you-get editorial policy prevalent in the West. The article in question is titled: Russia’s Pussy Riot Trial: A Kangaroo Court Goes on a Witch Hunt.

Starting the headline with “Russia’s” instantly shows it is something “foreign” to the American reader and not “ours”. His choice of words depicting the judicial process as “A Kangaroo Court” is another carefully chosen insult to the entire Russian judicial system and plays loose with the term Kangaroo Court, which is an unofficial or mock court set up spontaneously to deliver a predetermined verdict.

Clearly Mr. Shuster knows very little about the Judiciary of the Russian Federation and also the term Kangaroo Court as the term does not really apply here at all. There was nothing spontaneous or preplanned in the court nor in its hearing of the case, with its months of filing, the hearing of arguments and all of the processes that take place in a court of law.

The term “Witch Hunt” also does not apply but Mr. Shuster does not really care about the facts or accuracy when choosing to deride Russia. A “witch-hunt” is a term that implies a widespread systematic campaign against wrong-doers or those who hold different views. To characterize the Pussy Riot case as a witch hunt is an incredible distortion of the facts. These women spent months, jumping on trolley-busses, climbing the interiors of metro stations, performing in places they were not supposed to including the Red Square and then defiled the most sacred area of the most sacred church of the Russian Orthodox Church. A witch hunt? They were provoking a reaction and like the fabled Russian Bear, slow to anger and slow to rise, they finally got their smirking selves arrested.

Mr. Shuster opens his “article” by asking: “Is the ongoing trial of three Russian feminist punk rockers in Moscow a sign of a new tyrannical streak defining the rule of President Vladimir Putin?” To which I will answer, NO Mr. Shuster, it is a sign of the new and transparent nature of the Russian judiciary and is a testament to the patience and wisdom of President Putin and Patriarch Kirill and Russian Society as a whole. Maybe Mr. Shuster will answer a question I have asked human rights “defenders” and others in the West who support this group. What would have happened if a group staged a similar act, attacking the president, in the Church at Camp David where Obama worships, or in the Vatican? Are we to believe if someone blasphemed the Catholic Church would a country with “In God We Trust” written on their money, have done absolutely nothing? I doubt it Mr. Shuster.

A country that brutally arrests people for silently dancing at memorials (HuffingtonPost) would probably execute someone for barging into Obama’s church during a service and while making a mockery of a hymn, proceed to scream vulgarities and epithet’s at the leader of the country.

The rest of the piece continues by citing questionable percentages, and quoting those in collusion as well as reporting the facts through an anti-Russia prism.

Mr. Shuster attacks the fact that President Putin saved the country in the 90’s, a fact for which we are all grateful, he makes it a point that Mr. Putin received the blessing of the church, something U.S. leaders also receive when visiting the Pope. He also uses so many generalizations and ambiguous phrases and quotes only those who support the group making his piece completely unbalanced.

Another case of twisting the truth and stretching the meanings of words comes from CNN’s Christiane Amanpour (Amanpour.Blogs.CNN.com) and a supposed “expert”, one Dimity Simes, who cited unknown and unnamed Russian “officials” who he claims said Russia would not resist a military intervention in Syria and this intervention would not become a major issue in the U.S.- Russian relationship. If such “officials” made such “official” statements regarding the position of Russia on Syria it would be scandalous as this runs counter to everything Official Moscow has been saying for years.

The so-called-expert also claims, like many in the West love to do, to understand President Vladimir Putin’s psychology, something CNN calls a “fascinating insight”, he stated “If you understand Putin’s psychology, the last thing you want to do is to put him publicly in the corner if you want his cooperation.” I wonder how he understands the “psychology” of President Putin as he is neither a psychologist nor has ever met the President.

That is all for this week, if you have any other suggestions or spot any other twisting of the facts, let me know. I can be reached at jar2@list.ru

Last week I received several responses and would like to ask all of you, if you see a story that is particularly anti-Russian or cites unnamed sources for derogatory information please let me know. We will publish your comments and I will include them in my weekly media-bias summary (jar2@list.ru).

Readers' e-mails:

1. Elijah Traven, from Hull UK wrote:

Hello, I have just read your article on VOR about Western media lies. We can report to you their inaccuracies and continued blackening of Russia's character but I am not sure where it will get us. They are demonisers. There is no opposition to them. It is a dictator's voice we are hearing.

We can't do anything about it. They don't recognize the people's existence. They are occupiers of our countries and colonizers.

Russia is the last defence we have in the world. Without Russia there is no hope for the human race. The enemy focuses on everything that is negative about Russia. They have created a giant lie system. The truth exists and they can't escape the truth. Their economies and societies are breaking down.

Your call for your listeners to send you examples of anti Russian lies which you can then deal with in your programme is just what we need.

The absence of an opposition press and media in Britain and no doubt elsewhere in the Western world is bad for democracy and bad for peaceful relations between countries. It makes my blood boil to read editorials like the one published in the Observer on Sunday. Especially given the positive appraisal of Britain by Russia's leaders. It is one sided spite.

Who is the conductor behind this kind of anti Russian hate. Who is orchestrating it all? Britain isn't independent. It is hardly a country at all. It is ruined by class division and class hatred. This same anti people press and media is at war with us just as it is at war with Russia. Russia is our strategic friend. But it isn't the strategic friend of the ruling class here who have no interests other than their own. They are a colonial force. America suits them very well. Arrogant and war mongering. Vicious minded and mass murdering.

America hates Russia. Mitt Romney has used his visit to Poland to criticise Russia. This is the man who described Russia as America's number one enemy or words to that effect. By the way he met the leader of the Labour Party in Britain and didn't have a clue who he was. He called him Mr Leader. My intense hatred of the ruling class in Britain has got nothing to do with my long term interest and affection for Russia. They are separate matters. I am a revolutionary and reject the monarchy and the landowners and the private indoctrination schools that breed them.

I am a Morning Star reader and have been a socialist since I was 16 years old in 1977. You must urge your listeners to complain and to write to the offending journalists and politicians. Do not let them get away with their lies and slander.

Elijah Traven, Hull UK

VOR supporter and number one fan.

 

2. John Kerry, from Eastern Africa wrote:

Hi,

Thanks for giving us this opportunity!

I am sick and tired of the Western media. They are 100% anti Russia. All the news they broadcast regarding Russia is all negative. But the reality is Russia is much better than those western countries.

I understand well about their motives toward Russia since 2008 Georgia war. Now again about Syria. I’m grateful for President Putin’s ability to challenge them and to win over them.

I live in Eastern Africa; we are watching the news channel dominated by Western media. BBC, Aljazeera, France 24, even NHK World they are 24 hrs give us US and western propaganda news. In my view Euro news is a little bit better. I try to watch RT English but couldn’t find it on satellite. Because it’s run by American puppet regime so called Saudi Arabia and other GCC nations. So, better I read news from Russian news agencies on internet.

Regards,

John Kerry

Jar2

21 June 2012, 06:46

Kremlin to Launch Social Networking Site

John Robles

Mikhail Abyzov the Minister of the Russian Federation responsible for the work of the Government Commission for Coordination of the "Open Government" initiative has told Izvestia that the Kremlin, along with financers from the private sector, is planning to open a Facebook like site sometime in June.

Mikhail Abyzov the Minister of the Russian Federation responsible for the work of the Government Commission for Coordination of the "Open Government" initiative has told Izvestia that the Kremlin, along with financers from the private sector, is planning to open a Facebook like site sometime in June.

According to Russian media reports the site is to replace a site currently at the url: russiawithoutidiots.rf, which was developed under an initiative from former president Dmitry Medvedev and was designed to accept complaints about the actions of Russia’s civil servants.

One reason for the needed development of such a site was best summed up by President Vladimir Putin last year when asked about the internet in the context of its manipulation by the so called “opposition”. The Russian president said: "On the same internet platform you have to propose different answers … and collect a larger amount of supporters."

This is particularly true in Russian since the internet in extremely popular and has more users than any European country. Also due to the lack of strict regulation of the Russian net and the popularity of the internet with the more affluent Russians and for other reasons, any type of Chinese or even American style censorship is not something the government sees as feasible or as an option to be considered.

The big question is will users flock to a Kremlin based social network? Some officials and critics of the project are skeptical saying no, yet there are millions of people in Russia and I am sure around the world, who support the Kremlin, love Vladimir Putin and would love to have a place to meet people they can share similar views with.

As part of the “E-Government” and “Open Government” initiatives of the Russian Federation such a network makes sense and would allow the Kremlin a unique, real time and useful interface with the masses and could become an indispensable tool for testing the waters when drawing up policy changes or getting a truer reaction to the work of government.

Once again, as with the on-line web cams and streaming video during the last presidential elections, the Russian Government is using the internet as a tool to reach out to the people and to truly provide the people an open and transparent government.

Such a network is seen as an asset if not as necessary for the reason that the “opposition” has manipulated the internet to their own ends, abusing social media to plan actions and spread ant-government propaganda with many “opposition’ leaders having gained their fame through their internet blogs and other activities.

Any government in the world should stand up and pay attention, if they have not already, after social media was used recently to organize the wide-spread so called “color revolutions” and the “Arab Spring”. This should have made it clear to anyone who had doubts that social media has also become a tool by certain government’s intelligence services to foment mass unrest and promote their own agendas in foreign countries.

From an intelligence viewpoint it may be dangerous as any such open public forum would leave open the possibility for the targeting, monitoring and intelligence gathering, by foreign bodies and individuals, of the activities of people who may be innocently expressing their views or partaking information. Such information might be used by trained intelligence operatives or possibly by those want to cause social unrest. But of course this depends on what they are posting, and it is going on anyway on other social networking sites.

Most internet users in Russia today are very savvy and may be hard to manipulate but there is always that danger and it is obvious that this is already taking place all over the world if we look at the abovementioned events.

Things are not all bad and scary however, another good reason for introducing such a project is the unifying quality it may have for the country, as people from all over Russia, and let’s not forget it is a huge country, could have a place to “meet”. People who may differ in everything except perhaps their love or “like” or just plain curiosity of the Kremlin or have similar problems or complaints may finally have a common location to share their views.

So far the government has not released too many details about the interface and how exactly the whole site will work, but we do know users will be able to meet each, share their views, upload media, and chat with other users. There is also no news about what will happen to the current site at that address. Will it be eliminated completely or will it be integrated into the new project? I guess we will have to wait and see.

As for me I hope they have more options than Facebook, for example a “hate” or “indifferent” or a “love” button”, now that would be neat. I will be signing up as soon as it is possible, so see you there and happy networking. Hmmm, I wonder, will President Putin be on-line?

Best wishes, wherever you may be.

The views and opinions expressed here are the writer’s own.
Read more:
http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_06_21/78786328/

 Jar2

21 June 2012, 04:25

Putin-Obama Meeting and G-20 Summit

John Robles

Putin-Obama meeting and G-20 Summit: productive

It was President Putin’s first big international event since being reelected to the post of President of the Russian Federation and the results were positive, productive and constructive.

It was President Putin’s first big international event since being reelected to the post of President of the Russian Federation and the results were positive, productive and constructive.

In a statement following the summit the Russian president answered questions from the press stating that overall he thought that the G-20 leaders came a step closer to mutual understanding, adding that they had worked together smoothly, constructively, fruitfully, and reached compromises.

This was reflected in the bilateral talks on the sidelines and in the G-20 working sessions, said President Putin. The Russian leader also stated that substantial discussion were held on reviving and stimulating economic growth, focusing particularly on the problems of global imbalances and how to reduce developed countries’ debt levels.

President Putin also said that one of the main results of the summit was the decision to increase the International Monetary Fund’s resource base by $430 billion.

There were many issues discussed both in the working sessions and on the sidelines, with the G-20 Leaders Declaration containing 85 points and being over 40 pages long.

Here are some other important points made by Russia’s leader:

On food security

“The working session also examined food security issues. Limited resources, climate change, and volatile raw materials prices are among the negative factors in this area. It is possible to stabilize the situation, including by concentrating efforts on resolving agriculture sector priorities.”

On Russia’s G-20 presidency and continuity

“The issues discussed in Los Cabos will remain on the agenda and develop further during Russia’s upcoming presidency of the G-20. We will ensure the group’s continuity and focus on discussing the problems that the G-20 was established to address.”

On Syria

“We think that no one has the right to decide for other peoples who should come to power and who should be removed from power. Yes, we know that part of Syria’s people, those represented by the armed opposition, want to see President Assad leave. Firstly, they do not represent the entire Syrian people. Secondly, the most important thing is not simply changing the regime itself, but ensuring that if it does change – and this should be achieved through constitutional means only, the bloodshed will then stop and peace will return to the country.”

On the U.S. missile network

“I think the missile defense issue will not be resolved regardless of whether Obama wins the election or not. The United States has been working on its own missile defense system for many years now, and I do not see anything for now that could change the situation. I think that real change in the situation would be possible only if the United States agreed to our proposal that Russia, the USA, and Europe all be equal participants in this process…”

On Jackson-Vanik

"The Jackson-Vanik amendment negatively affects Russian-US trade and economic relations. What more can I say? Our bilateral trade with the USA comes to $32 billion. This is nothing really, zero."

On the Magnitsky list

"As for the law connected to the Magnitsky tragedy, well, if they pass it they pass it. We do not think that this case requires such attention from Congress, but if restrictions are imposed on particular Russian citizens’ right to enter the USA, we will respond with similar restrictions on 'however many' American citizens’ rights to enter the Russian Federation. I do not know who needs all this and why, but if this goes ahead, so be it. This is not our choice."

On the G-20

“I think that more attention could be paid to the key issues the G-20 was established to address. I mentioned this at the start. In other words, the G-20 should focus more on the architecture of international financial relations and the global economy.”

Some reactions from the West

The body language and the seriousness of the demeanor of the presidents was the subject of a lot of the commentary in the American press and media. However both leaders said the atmosphere was businesslike and productive.

According to MSNBC the encounter between the President Putin and the US leader was chilly and cold, like a cold Moscow winter.

In a piece for the AFP, Stephen Collinson characterized the meeting as; “Obama embarking on what may be a treacherous presidential relationship”, a bold and completely negative interpretation. The same writer went on to call President Putin “the former KGB man”, as if this is something bad. Could we say the same thing about Bush Senior being the “former CIA man” as if this is something discrediting. President Putin served his country well, not something to deride him for.

The same writer also made it a point to chide President Putin for as he put it, “jealously guarding Russia's "great power status" and making no secret of his suspicions of the United States, blaming Washington for organizing anti-government protests in Moscow last year”, as if interfering in the internal affairs of sovereign nations is something to applaud and completely normal and standing up for your country something bad. Typical.

NPR’s coverage was more balanced stating, “President Barack Obama met with Russian President Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Mexico on Monday. Their meeting comes at a low point in U.S.-Russia relations. Neither country wants a civil war in Syria, but they haven't figured out a way to work out the issue.”

The Voice of America was also more on the balanced side reporting that “U.S. President Barack Obama said tensions with Russia could be worked out following talks with the Russian president spanning a range of topics, including Syria, Iran and trade.”

The VOA characterized the relationship between the leaders as “prickly of late”, citing the U.S. leader’s pointed delay in making a customary congratulatory call to his Russian counterpart after being elected to the post of president. They also mentioned President Putin’s decision to stay home rather than attend a Group of Eight meeting Mr. Obama hosted at his presidential retreat near Washington.

USA Today, in a piece by Richard Wolf, made a point of the lack of smiles between the leaders and used the piece on the meeting to push false unconfirmed and dangerous accusations that Russia may be providing weapons to the Syrian regime so they can quote, “kill their own people”.

His basis was a report from Interfax that Russia was sending marines to protect a Russian base and Russian citizens, something completely normal and understandable. He also cited a Pentagon spokesman who spoke regarding the supposed weapons deliveries, once again showing the US hypocrisy when they have admitted to arming the rebels.

Such accusations are the basis for an armed intervention according to many experts watching the developments surrounding Syria, and historically we have seen this many times before when it comes to the West and their “humanitarian” interventions.

Overall the meeting between President Putin and Obama was professional, cordial and productive, but there is a lot of work ahead.

The opinions and views expressed here are the writer’s own.

 Jar2

20 June 2012, 18:26

US Provokes Russia to WWIII

John Robles

Download audio file

Recent statements by Hillary Clinton regarding Syria and the Russian Federation; a provocation or something else?

Hello, this is John Robles. You are listening to the interview with Rick Rozoff, the manager and the owner of the Stop NATO website and mailing list and a regular contributor to the Voice of Russia.

I’d like to talk to you about the recent statements by Hillary Clinton regarding Syria and the Russian Federation and the seeming provocation by the U.S.

You are referring of course to the statement earlier this week when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton accused Russia of sending helicopter gunships to Syria, more or less in her words for the expressed and exclusivHello, this is John Robles. You are listening to an interview with Rick Rozoff, the manager and the owner of the Stop NATO website and mailing list and a regular contributor to the Voice of Russia.

I’d like to talk to you about the recent statements by Hillary Clinton regarding Syria and the Russian Federation and the seeming provocation by the U.S.

You are referring of course to the incident earlier this week when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton accused Russia of sending helicopter gunships to Syria, more or less in her words for the express and exclusive intent of murdering Syrian civilians. You know an absurd contention but a very dangerous provocation.

Why do you think the U.S. is set on, it seems to me, provoking Russia?

You're using the right word. These are actions that usually, ordinarily rather, are employed against a nation with which the U.S. is at loggerheads and is considering potential hostile actions against. This is wild rhetoric, it's reckless, it’s unjustified of course and it’s not even so much evocative of the Cold War period; in many ways it is even worse than some of what we heard during even the most stressful years of the Cold War.

Why is the U.S. taunting Russia, why is it challenging it, why is it attempting to discredit and humiliate it? I think I am using the right verbs. I can only say that Russia, by standing its ground and maintaining its position on the territorial integrity and sovereignty of nations and continuing to oppose unilateral and lawless intervention, military intervention in the first place, into the internal affairs of sovereign nations, is an obstacle to U.S. plans for extending its military and political influence globally and to affect in the specific case of Syria and other nations so-called regime change to bring about a geopolitical configuration more favorable to the United States. Russia is standing on the way of that, then, has to be condemned and excoriated by the United States in an effort to win international support against Russia. And any fabrication, any exaggeration, any outright lie that serves that purpose, will be something that U.S.
government officials will not hesitate to employ.

What kind of things are they saying in the U.S. press about Russia right now?

We are seeing the gutter journalism mill churned up of course. There was an article in the Los Angeles Times yesterday by a regular contributor that has a statement to the effect that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s actions in Syria in supporting tyranny and dictatorship and so forth are in his genes, that is presumably that as a Russian he is genetically programmed to support genocide and dictatorship and so force.

This was in U.S. press?

This was in the Los Angeles Times, one of the major dailies in the United States. And the fact that filth like this can be published quite openly, and uncontested evidently, is something that truthfully I don’t recall during the Cold War where the U.S. government and its obedient mass media at least attempted to draw a distinction between, let’s say, the Soviet government and the people of the Soviet Union. Now, evidently the actions of the Russian government are attributed to some genetic deficiency within the Russian people. This is horrific, it’s almost evocative of the Hitler period.

Hillary Clinton, as she decided to make some serious anti-Russian remarks during a press conference at the Brookings Institute, you wrote something about the fact that in the background there was an Israeli flag. Do you think it was done on purpose and how was it played out in the Arab countries?

These are both very penetrating questions, so I’ll attempt to answer them. She was speaking at the Brookings Institution, which has given the Barack Obama administration amongst other personnel, on leave from the Brookings Institution, Dr. Susan Rice, who is the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Ivo Daalder who is the U.S. ambassador to NATO and other officials, so that is a venue dear to the likes of Hillary Clinton but she was speaking with Israeli President Shimon Peres and that was the occasion presumably for the Israeli flag being in the background, though I didn’t see an American flag.

She was sitting down when she made the wild accusation that Russia was sending helicopter gunships to be used against Syrian civilians, because that’s what she stated, and in the meantime incidentally waving her arm in the air and almost shaking her fist, I guess for rhetorical effect. The irony or the fact that anyone watching that on Youtube throughout the world and particularly in the Arab world watching her make one of her more provocative statements to date in relation to Russia as she is all but draped in the Israeli flag would certainly send a message other than what she intended I suppose, unless it was intended as you imply. And I certainly can’t answer that.

But we do have to recall that her comment is not an isolated one. It was backed up by her spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, spokesman for the State Department, former U.S. ambassador to NATO incidentally. It was backed up by Jay Carney, White House spokesman, and others who have immediately afterwards made comparable statements indicting Russia for an event that as we now know never occurred.

Every few years there seems to be an intensification of the Russia-baiting initiative. It's generally stirred up the press in the United States and perhaps even more so in Britain. There have been recent articles in the Daily Telegraph, there have been some in recent months in the Guardian, including by Simon Tisdall, who's their deputy editor, and it’s the worst sort of anti-Russian vitriol that, again, I have seen since the Cold War and perhaps worse than anything I saw during that period, and it is clear that the U.S. wants to complete its transformation of the Middle East as they would perhaps refer to as. That is, the overthrow of secular, non-monarchical governments in Arab countries in favor of the U.S.’s dearest military client in the world right now – Saudi Arabia - with whom it signed a $60 billion arms deal late last year as your listeners will recall, which by my calculations is probably the largest bilateral military weapons package in human history, and the fact that the democracy-loving and freedom-promoting and so forth United States (those are all in italics, ironic italics) is siding with the likes of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and other monarchic, theocratic regimes in the Persian Gulf and working hand-in-glove with them, much as the United States and Saudi Arabia did against Afghanistan starting since 1978, when the Saudis provided the funds and not a few fighters for the Mujahideen war and the United States provided weapons and advisers.

And we seem to see a resumption of that bilateral strategic, or geostrategic, alliance between United States and Saudi Arabia. Russia stands in the way. First of all, Russia’s government is very principled is demanding adherence to international law, to particularly non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign nations as we’ve talked about, and the United States is the opposite. They feel emboldened to, feel driven by, I would add, the need to interfere in and topple the governments of any number of countries in the world, and because these two nations, Russia and the United States, are so fundamentally opposed on that key principle of international relations, then the United States has to isolate, has to discredit and has to politically if not otherwise crush Russia in order to have its position become the dominant one, one that is uncontested.

Thank you.

You were listening to the interview with Rick Rozoff, the manager and the owner of the Stop NATO website and mailing list and a regular contributor to the Voice of Russia.e intent of murdering Syrian civilians - you know absurd contention but a very dangerous provocation.

Jar2

7 May 2012, 16:12

President Putin Inaugurated

John Robles

President Putin Inaugurated

As the Russian Federation prepares to celebrate Victory in the Great Patriotic War a new dawn has come to Russia as the country inaugurated its new democratically elected president, a president elected in one of the most closely watched and one of the most unprecedentedly transparent elections  ever held in modern history.

As the Russian Federation prepares to celebrate Victory in the Great Patriotic War a new dawn has come to Russia as the country inaugurated its new democratically elected president, a president elected in one of the most closely watched and one of the most unprecedentedly transparent elections  ever held in modern history.

President Elect Putin, having previously been elected to two four year terms, will be the first Russian president to hold office for a six year term, something now mandated by the Russian Constitution. 

The world is also watching the events unfold here in Russia, and for many countries and many people the world over, it is also a new dawn. Many look to Russia and in particular to Vladimir Putin as the last hope to counter the global expansion and what many see as the subjugation and enslavement of the world by the culturally insensitive and morally destitute west and its surrogates.

As a genius in global politics and the leader of the largest country in the world Vladimir Putin is perhaps the only leader in the world who has the potential and the chance to return the world to its once multi-polar state, something that people all over the world are dreaming of as they become more and more disillusioned with the US and its fast food culture and policy of pre-emptive aggressive war and its blatant global military expansion.

Today when the symbols of presidential power, the presidential badge, copy of the constitution and the presidential standard were passed from President Dmitry Anatolevich Medvedev to President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, Russia celebrated its young and vibrant democracy, a democracy more and more based on Russian ideals and a Russian model than that propagated by the West.

Despite the overall festive and positive mood in the country inauguration day has not passed without conflict as, on the eve, Western backed forces attempted to stage acts of provocation. Inauguration day is a day which must be respected for it is a day which embodies what in fact is democracy, the choosing of a leader by the popular vote of the people, for that is what has taken place in a fair and orderly manner.

The immensely popular Vladimir Putin has been chosen by the people again. A moral, upstanding, humble, intelligent, capable, strong and tireless leader with an immaculate political record, long term vision for Russia and the Russian people and the courage to draw the line when it is necessary, is now to run the largest country in the world once again and to lead it into a bright future and must be supported by all of us.  

I wish President Putin all the best as he takes his rightful office.

Have a great day wherever you may be.

 

Below is a short biography of President Putin courtesy of the President’s site.

Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin was born  on the 7th of October 1952 in Leningrad.

1960-68 studied at school #193, then school #281 and graduated in 1970. During his school years Putin proved himself to be a remarkable student especially when it came to studying languages. When he was 11 he entered a wrestling league, engaged in martial arts and judo. Putin became a master sportsman and a champion in Leningrad.

1970 entered juridical faculty of the Leningrad State University and graduated in 1975. He entered the Communist Party when he was a student and stayed its member till its prohibition in 1991.

1975-1990 worked in KGB in the First main directorate (foreign intelligence) and specialized in German-speaking countries.

Sometime around the end of ‘70s beginning of 1980s he graduated from the Moscow KGB Institute.

1981-87 worked in Germany (watched Russian students, controlled Socialistic Party of Germany, investigated anti-socialistic acts).

1987-90 worked as an assistant dean at LSU ( Leningrad State University) with international contacts (watched foreign students). Putin was a KGB resident at LSU.

1990 became a councilor of A. Sobchak, president of Lensovet (Leningrad Central Council).

1991 he was appointed as president of Exterior Contacts Committee (ECC) of the city hall. In the beginning of 1992 he was transferred into active reserve by the KGB.

1992 he became a vice-mayor of Saint-Petersburg still staying president of ECC.

1994, March. Putin was appointed as the first vice-president of the Saint-Petersburg government – president of the Exterior Contacts Committee.

1995, May. He was the chief of the organizational committee of the OHR’s (Our Home is Russia – political party) Saint-Petersburg section. In the summer of 1995 he managed OHR’s electoral campaign.

1996, He joined the Saint-Petersburg headquarters of the Russian movement of the social support of the President (RMSSP), which united organizations supporting the re-election of Boris Yeltsin.

In the spring of 1996 Putin worked with Sobchak’s electoral campaign. When Sobchak lost, Putin retired from all his positions. Soon he received an invitation from P. Borodin, one of the Yeltsin’s managers, to be his deputy. He accepted it and worked in this position from June of 1996 till March of 1997.

1997, March. Putin became vice-president of the President’s Administration. In June he retired from the OHR.

1998, July Putin was designated to the position of the director of FSB.

1998, March he became the secretary of the Security Council of Russia.

1998, August he became the chairman of the Government of the RF

1999, December – 2000, March he took over the duties of president of the Russian Federation from an ailing, and by then, completely ineffective Boris Yeltsin.

2000, March he became the President of Russia.

May 7, 2012 He became the president of the Russian Federation for a third term.

The author can be contacted here: http://www.facebook.com/JohnARoblesII 

Jar2

31 May 2012, 02:28

Sedition: Berezovsky (Oligarch on the Run)

John Robles

Sedition: Berezovsky (oligarch on the run)

He fled the Russian Federation with billions of dollars that he amassed in criminal schemes after the collapse of the Soviet Union (Mainly involving Aeroflot but who is keeping track?) and claimed that he was being politically persecuted because the government was seeking to prosecute him for his crimes.

He fled the Russian Federation with billions of dollars that he amassed in criminal schemes after the collapse of the Soviet Union (Mainly involving Aeroflot but who is keeping track?) and claimed that he was being politically persecuted because the government was seeking to prosecute him for his crimes.

With his billions he fled to the UK where he was quickly given asylum and a new identity and quickly began working with MI-5 and 6 against the interests of the Russian Federation. He told them what they wanted to hear saying anything to malign Russia and to paint himself as a poor victim of the system. He also paid millions of dollars to political parties and politicians and to anyone else who could help him and who was willing to take his money to look the other way.

Even though he has a record of funding Chechen terrorists and direct involvement in other criminal enterprises including in the killing of police the UK continues to give him asylum, and they continue to protect him for the sole reason that he helps them to keep their anti-Russian rhetoric and policies alive and well.

In case you haven’t noticed every time it seems that there is a concerted effort by the intelligence services of the West to attack or to attempt to change the political or economic landscape of the Russian Federation, somewhere in the mix Berezovsky’s name inadvertently pops up.

When the Litvienko affair caused Russian-British relationship to almost return to cold war levels, whose name kept coming up again and again? Gordievsky? Yes. Berezovsky? Yes.

When efforts by the West were stepped up right before the latest presidential elections to try to throw the country into a state of upheaval whose name came up and who threw his two cents into the mix? You got it, Berezovsky.

The West has many of their agents in Moscow and their efforts are becoming more open, concerted, active and energetic but the agents they have, have so far proven to be ineffective and the Russian people are much too intelligent to fall for the lies and the provocations that the West keeps putting forward. Whose name keeps popping up? Berezovsky.          

One of the most official bodies of state power, the Russian Investigative Committee, does not do things lightly and takes its responsibilities very seriously. They do not open cases where there is not enough evidence to convict and they have opened two more criminal cases against Boris Berezovsky, this time for publicly instigating mass-scale unrest, or in other words “sedition”.

According to the spokesperson for the Investigative Committee, Vladimir Markin, in April Berezovsky posted statements on the Internet calling for massive violent riots and for preventing the inauguration of the legally elected Russian President. Not only were there calls for violence but Berezovsky even promised to pay huge sums for evil deeds against the state.

And here we have that word again, “sedition”, for that is exactly what Berezovsky is guilty of. If anyone were attempting to do such things to the US Government, i.e. attempting to overthrow it, the instigators would be targeted by Obama’s hit teams and liquidated, let there be no doubt.

Yet here in Russia, for some reason the government is supposed to tolerate such things; to show that they are “democratic” and allow dissent. Why doesn’t Russia do the same as the American government and sanction extra-judicial executions?   

Russia could also come up with a hit list and the president could also play God like Obama does and decide who lives and who dies. One of the people on the first list could be Berezovsky. Why not? If Obama can do it why can’t Putin or any other president for that matter?

Boris Berezovsky’s candidacy to be on such a list would be backed by almost anyone who loves Russia even the slightest bit. Not just for his calls for the Russian opposition to wreck the presidential vote, but also for attempting to interfere in the country’s internal affairs.

Even Russia’s real opposition leaders such as Sergey Mironov are tired of Berezovsky. Mironov recently said: “Let Mr. Berezovsky mind his own business and not pry into Russia’s internal affairs, he is Russia’s enemy.”

Berezovsky has even alienated Orthodox Christians with his purported attempt to form a party with the word Christian in the name.

“I think Boris Berezovsky must first prove his devotion to Christian values and donate the capital that he has to the Russian Pension Fund or to charity foundations.” Yabloko leader Sergey Mitrokhinwas quoted as saying by the Interfax news agency.

According to RT a Russian Orthodox Church cleric said Berezovsky should create a “Party of the Antichrist” and mentioned the Vsevolod Chaplin of the Church and Society Relations Department of the Holy Synod as saying Berezovsky’s reasoning sounded like parts from the Gospel that described the antichrist.

Whatever the case may be, and whoever Berezovsky really is, be he Mi-5 tool, Chechen terrorist financier, mafia-boss in hiding or the anti-Christ, few would argue, it is time for the UK to wake up stop harboring the fugitive. Or is it time for Russia to also start drawing up lists?

Just a thought, have a great day.

The opinions and views expressed in this piece are those of the author.

Jar2

10 April 2012, 19:27

Smolensk Disaster Revisited

John Robles

Today Russia mourns along with Poland a disaster that should never have happened and which hit Russia almost as hard as it hit Poland. At 10:41 GMT a minute of silence was observed and ceremonies were held in both countries.

Today Russia mourns along with Poland a disaster that should never have happened and which hit Russia almost as hard as it hit Poland. At 10:41 GMT a minute of silence was observed and ceremonies were held in both countries.

On April 10th 2010, during an attempt to land in thick fog at Smolensk North Airport, a former military airbase, the Polish President’s Air Force Tupolev Tu-154M Aircraft crashed near the city of Smolensk, Russia, killing all 96 people on board. The pilots attempted to land under conditions where visibility was reduced to about 500 meters (or 1,600 feet) and approached too low clipping trees which caused the aircraft to flip upside down, impact the ground, break apart, and eventually come to rest 200 meters (660 feet) short of the runway in a wooded area.

All 96 people on board died including Polish president Lech Kaczyński and the First Lady Maria, the Head of the Intelligence Service, Former President Ryszard Kaczorowski, the Chief of the Polish General Staff and other senior Polish military officers, the President of the National Bank of Poland, Poland's Deputy Foreign Minister, Polish government officials, 15 members of the Polish parliament, senior members of the Polish clergy, and relatives of victims of the Katyn massacre.

All of the victims were en-route from Warsaw to attend an event in Russia marking the 70th anniversary of the Katyn Massacre at a location approximately 19 kilometers (12 miles) west of Smolensk.

For Russia the disaster came at a time when the Russian Federation and the Russian people were taking unprecedented steps and showing unprecedented openness towards the Polish people and the Polish State in attempting to bring closure to one of the darkest moments in Russian-Polish history.

Unfortunately the intense pressure and the importance of the ceremony at Katyn coupled with the hurried preparations and errors in the cockpit led to a tragedy of historic proportions and another dark moment in Russian-Polish History.  

The death of the so many top officials at one time has no parallel in modern history. Never has such an event taken place causing many to fault the Polish side for allowing the entire top echelon of the Polish Government to be on a single airplane at the same time.

From the beginning many in the Western media and all over the internet pounced on Russia and tried to find fault with the Russian side with conspiracy theories popping up left and right, every breaking detail being twisted to fit into some black scheme or another.

The whole premise that Russian had something to gain from orchestrating such a tragic event in my opinion seemed ridiculous, the entire country was in shock and everyone from the president on down were doing all they could to console and assist the Polish people in their time of shock and mourning but even in such a time of pain and national mourning cynical anti-Russian hysteria reared its ugly mindless little head.

I have spoken to many experts and conducted hours and hours of my own research into the tragedy, part of which included studying and reading dozens of theories on the disaster and my conclusion was the same as that of many top professionals. Blame lies with the cockpit crew and with the events that occurred in the cockpit, including the interference and the influence of passengers on the crew. In the end, however, after all is said and done, no matter what else was happening, with the Captain of the aircraft.    

As for the conspiracy theories, well, there are some that for me could have been developed but for some reason never were and the very fact that they were not can lead one to cast a suspicious eye in that direction.

You know as well as I do that when there is a crime committed, the first place to look is at who benefits, who has a motive. This is a tried and true investigative approach and must be part of any healthy debate or thinking in approaching such events. What I noticed, and I am sure that many would not go there, is that many in the West had more to benefit from the disaster than anyone in Poland or the Russian Federation. 

Now, I am not accusing, or pointing the finger, but just as theories were concocted blaming Russia, based on the flimsiest of evidence, much more could be said for conspiracies involving NATO for instance.

With the US and NATO’s aggressive interference in the internal affairs of nation after nation since 1999 and especially since September 11, 2001, one has to ask oneself some hard questions. In the case of Poland, in which the US had already installed its own regime, (remember “Solidarnost” and Lech Walesa and the “color revolution” there?) the problem for the Alliance was quite an acute one. They saw that Poland was mending fences in a real and significant way and in a truly heartfelt manner which was not in any way conducive to allowing for NATO Missile Batteries to be placed on Polish soil to neutralize Russian Defenses.

If one is to concoct conspiracy theories then one must look at who benefits and if we look at 9-11 and at the Smolensk crash and at a slew of other such events that I do not have the time nor the space to get into here, then we see a pattern that begins to emerge, a pattern that points to a black and evil plan in progress, that the US and NATO have been engaged in for years.  However, we won’t go there. Will we? Not today. We are better than that. Aren’t we?

Today is a day of mourning, my thoughts and wishes go out to all of those affected by this tragedy and are with those who perished, may they have found peace. 

Epilogue:

According to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) annex 13, on Russia befell the responsibility for investigating the accident as it occurred on Russian territory. Russia and Poland agreed even though the flight was flown by a military aircraft and Smolensk Northern is a joint civil-military airport not certified by ICAO.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev appointed a special state commission to investigate the accident and placed Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin in charge.

Other parties were also involved in the investigation including the Interstate Aviation Committee (IAC), accredited investigators from Poland, the USA's National Transportation Safety Board, and the USA's Federal Aviation Administration.

The final accident report was published on the 12th of January 2011and placed the majority of the blame for the accident on the pilots.

Related links:

Interview with Captain John Cox, the Chief Executive Officer of Safety Operating Systems in Washington DC and a world renowned aviation expert, July 16, 2010:  http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/07/16/12497718.html

December 20, 2010: http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/12/20/37263356.html

August 15, 2011: http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/12/20/37263356.html

Smolensk crash remembered: http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_04_10/71207814/

Joint grief:

http://english.ruvr.ru/photoalbum/6325973/6326725/

Jar2

23 March 2012, 12:41

Russia’s Nuclear Forces in Danger?

Rick Rozoff

Download audio file

Interview with Rick Rozoff, the Manager of the Stop NATO website and mailing list and a Contributing Writer to GlobalResearch.ca.

What do you think will be some of the evidence that Ministry of Defense will present very soon proving the ABM shield is a danger to Russia’s nuclear forces?

You are referring of course to the statement by Russian Defense Minister Serdyukov about a conference that will be held in Moscow in early May.

One can speculate about what evidence the Russian Defense Ministry and government as a whole is prepared to present but if we are to trust an account run in today’s RosBusinessConsulting, quoting Kommersant, the newspaper, there are some concerns that the velocity of the Standard Missile 3, SM-3’s, that the U.S. intends to deploy in Romania and Poland as well as their ship-based equivalents. Should that velocity be intensified that in the words of the Russian daily the U.S. NATO missile system could threaten Russian strategic nuclear potential.

There is another component to that, incidentally, which is; from its inception, Prompt Global Strike program is to include intercontinental ballistic missiles, which the U.S. states will be equipped with non-nuclear warheads, with conventional warheads. Of course taking the U.S.’ word on that, that an ICBM would be used to deliver a nuclear warhead, nevertheless this is a question of trust; whether a country like Russia and China takes the word of the United States that the ICBM heading towards them or in the general direction of their country, is or is not equipped with a nuclear warhead, and this has been a consistent pattern on behalf of the Pentagon and the White House, on one hand, and NATO headquarters and Brussels, on the other, or jointly rather. Where they are loathe to divulge any meaningful details and they are certainly not willing to give any assurances, which would include for example the possibility of Russia inspecting both radar and the missile sites that have been installed and will be installed in South Eastern Europe and Turkey as well as throughout Eastern Europe.

We have to keep in mind by the way what we are talking about with the U.S. system is something that in the autumn of 2009, the incoming at that time Obama administration, referred to as the European Phased Adaptive Approach. That is, it’s a four-pronged process of introducing increasingly larger and more sophisticated missile and radar deployments in the area of the Baltic Sea in Poland, in the area of the Black Sea in Romania, and recently what’s referred to as a Forward-based X-Band Transportable Missile Radar facility in Turkey, which is now operational. And this is the U.S. component, the major component of the Phased Adaptive Approach. However, at the NATO summit in Lisbon, Portugal in November of 2010 NATO endorsed the U.S. plan and is integrating it with two other NATO programs, one of which is called Active Layered Theatre Ballistic Missile Defense and the other – NATO program that goes by the acronym of MEADS, Medium Extended Air Defense System, which is a joint project of the United States, Germany and Italy. Incidentally, the Active Layered Theatre Ballistic Missile System was… achieved interim operational capability last November, where there was for the first time a live fire exercise of a missile for that purpose. So what we are looking at is an increasingly broad stratified sophisticated anti-ballistic missile system, which includes an intensification of what are refered to as Aegis class U.S. warships, which carry the sea-based version of the Standard Missile 3. Just last week the Netherlands announced it is going to upgrade four frigates for radar purposes for the U.S. NATO missile system.

What can you tell our listeners about the upgrades?

There are constant upgrades, that aren’t always publicly acknowledged, for example, in May of 2010 the opening salvo of the U.S. interceptor missile system in Europe was fired when the U.S. deployed a Patriot Missile Battery in Polish city of Morag on the Baltic Sea, which is only some 40 miles from Russian territory from the Kaliningrad district, and this is the newest and most sophisticated longest range version of the Patriot, it’s referred to as Patriot Advanced Capability-3, but there is also an enhancement, which is called Missile Segment Enhancement that permits an even greater distance, and I believe what Russia fears is the Standard Missile 3, which has been used up until now strictly on ships, will be, when they are based on land in Romania, Poland and who knows where else after that, also enhanced in such a manner to give them greater velocity and greater range.

The other thing Russia has to be worried about is that more advanced interceptor missiles could follow the SM-3’s and thinking particularly of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, the acronym is THAAD, that can intercept not only short and medium, but intermediate range missiles, (there is actually a distinction between medium and intermediate) and then behind that what the George W. Bush administration had planned to install in Poland, 10 Ground-Based Midcourse weapons, which can intercept missiles in space. So, you know, U.S. and NATO assurances have been proved less than trustworthy in the past, there is no reason to believe that the U.S. may exceed its announced goal, the four-phased European Adaptive Approach and institute in its place or in addition to that, more advanced weapons like the THAAD and the ground-based midcourse weapons.

Recently Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov offered NATO the Vostochny airport in Uliyanovsk. Have you heard about this?

I have no idea what Russian national interest Mr. Lavrov is defending. You know, we have to keep in mind that referring to NATO and the Pentagon as partners, when just this week as a matter of fact there’s an unprecedented NATO war game going on in the Arctic with 16,000 troops, and that’s of course could only be aimed against Russia, and simultaneously 300 U.S. marines are in Georgia conducting the second of what have now become annual, joint military exercises called Agile Spirit. So that you have the southern border of Russia and the north-western border of Russia with U.S. and NATO military exercises going on, and to accommodate NATO in any manner by setting up a transit center in Ulyanovsk to ease their transition out of Afghanistan seems to me perhaps not the most well advised move. I believe to allow NATO and U.S. cargo planes to fly over Russian territory, with assurances in that case that they don’t carry surveillance equipment and so forth, is something I would want to look into very closely before I permitted it to occur were I an official of the Russian government.

Parting

Jar2

8 March 2012, 10:00

He Who Has the Biggest Gun Wins

Doctor Dale Herspring

He who has the biggest gun wins?

PART 1  Download audio file    PART 2   Download audio file

Dr. Dale Herspring , University Distinguished Professor in the Political Science Department at Kansas State University and a Russian specialist, speaks on president-to-be Vladimir Putin’s program of modernizing the Russian military sector, Iran’ nuclear program and US-Russia relations in the face of the changing world.

http://m.ruvr.ru/2012/03/27/1304318124/Dale.jpg

Jar2

4 February 2012, 21:08

Violence in Russia Would Satisfy US

Rick Rozoff

Download audio file

Interview with Mr. Rick Rozoff, the manager of the Stop NATO website and mailing list and a contributing writer to Global Research.ca.

I’d like to speak today a little bit about color revolutions. I think we will go back to Saakashvili, Mr. McFaul might play into this and all these demonstrations going on all over the world.

Yes, one of the more significant developments of the past decade is, you know, what is euphemistically referred to as color revolutions, and you are right, to cite the example of the current head of state, I hesitate to call him president, Mikhail Saakashvili in Georgia, who came to power on the back of the prototype of the color revolution, what was called “The Rose Revolution”. It was shortly thereafter followed by a comparable development in Ukraine, the so called “Orange Revolution”, and the following year the US State Department and its various adjuncts stepped up the pressure to replicate that model in several countries both within the former Soviet Union and outside it. I’m thinking of the so called “Tulip Revolution” in Kyrgyzstan in March of 2005 and subsequently the “Cedar Revolution” in Lebanon and a number of others in the interim. It’s a method for unconstitutionally unseating a standing head of state through a series of what are referred to as demonstrations and other non-violent actions but which in many cases are very coordinated efforts to attempt to delegitimize the standing government in the eyes of its populace and certainly to do so in the eyes of the international community. They generally occur, the prototype again being in Georgia in 2003, they generally occur against the backdrop of national elections.

Do you see parallels in Russia 2012 after parliamentary elections leading into presidential elections?

Well, the fact that the parliamentary and presidential elections are occurring so close together, the parliamentary elections in December and of course March 4th the presidential election, gives time for, what is referred to by Russian political analysts sometimes, political technologies to be able to be put in place and to build up momentum. We have to recall for example that maybe the real prototype of the color revolutions is what is enduringly known in the West as the “Bulldozer Revolution” in Yugoslavia in the year 2000, that at that time there were methods of communication by anti-government forces that were fairly limited compared to those in existent now.

For example, I just saw in Novosty a few minutes ago the fact that the Russian “Opposition”, or the coalition of opposition forces claims to have recruited 30,000 people, I can guess their age incidentally, through social networks, that is social media like Twitter and Facebook. It was roughly a year ago today that the US Secretary State Hillary Clinton announced at the State Department, which at that time had recently started that Twitter feed in Arabic and Farsi, revealing languages considering what has happened in the interim, was going to expand those Twitter feeds into Russian, Hindi and Chinese. So, the social networks that are recruiting people for anti-government marches in Russia are ones that the State Department openly acknowledges as playing a direct role in, meaning its interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation of course and it’s interfering particularly in terms of elections.

What can you tell us about the new Ambassador to Russia – Mr. McFaul? I think what he did was unprecedented, I can’t think of any other examples ever, anywhere in the world where an ambassador has come into a country and the first thing he does is meet with opposition politicians and opposition leaders, an opposition, I might add, that appeared not long ago.

Yes, immediately ahead of the presidential elections. Were the situation to be reversed, any newly appointed Russian Ambassador who acted in that manner, would be declared persona-non-grata and expelled from the country. The fact that on the second day on the job Mr. McFaul, who came to that position from being in the Obama Administration’s National Security Council Advisor on Russian and Eurasian Affairs revealingly enough and who was cited as having acted as the so called advisor to Russian President Boris Yeltsin in 1996 during the presidential election, one that, the results of which were controversial even on this side of the Atlantic.

There’s a…on the Wikipedia entry on Mr. MacFaul, there is a quote attributed to Russian news portal in which McFaul delivered an interview and described himself, if this account is to be trusted, as, and I quote Wikipedia quoting McFaul, “a specialist in democracy, anti-dictator movements and revolutions”. This fellow in fact sees himself in that capacity and on the second day again, of his taking charge of his position as the US envoy to Russia, he met with the coalition of opposition forces, then to claim in any way or form that he is not interfering in the internal affairs of Russia is ludicrous.

Why would the US be interested in doing this now?

The United States wants to weaken Russia in any capacity regardless of who the head of state would be. The fact that Vladimir Putin in his earlier term as President of the Russian Federation made statements challenging the uni-polar world, one power dictating terms to the rest of humanity and so forth, hardly endeared him to Western policy makers, particularly those who would like to see NATO expansion progress into the South Caucasus and into the Ukraine and so forth. It’s very important to note that the first two official colored revolutions, those in Georgian and Ukraine were followed immediately by an intensification of the integration of those two countries into arrangements with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

As a matter of fact that in the year of 2008, shortly after Georgia provoked a war with Russia by invading South Ossetia, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization setup what they call Annual National Programs with both Georgia and Ukraine and the United States setup roughly at the same time what were called Charter on Strategic Partnerships with both Georgia and Ukraine. So, colored revolutions are followed by increased NATO integration as certainly as night follows day.

But I think there are a number of objectives in terms of Mr. Mcfaul’s appointment to the ambassadorship to Russia and what his role is likely to be between now and the presidential elections on March 4th, the US may not realistically expect to be able to affect the outcome of the Russian election. But they certainly can attempt the standard color revolution approach of discrediting government institutions in the country, trying to alienate and antagonize sectors of the electorate and also on the international scene to try to discredit Russia as a whole. They have several degrees of objectives if you will, and just simply bring chaos or dissension, you know, if some form of violence can be provoked in the process, the US would be even more satisfied with the outcome.

It is one thing to engage in a standard electoral or political opposition to the government, it is another thing to accept foreign monies from a power that’s increasingly hostile. I mean we have established the fact that no one less than the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton states that the State Department is tweating in the Russian language to an audience in Russia, and this is the same Hillary Clinton who said the parliamentary elections in December last year were “neither free nor fair”, so you can imagine what the content is of the State Department propaganda going into people’s cell phones in Russia.

Parting

Jar2

8 December 2011, 17:00

"U.S not in a position to criticize Russian elections"

Rick Rozoff 

Download audio file

Interview with  Rick Rozoff , the manager of the Stop NATO website and mailing list and a contributing writer to Global Research.ca. Mr. Rozoff also worked "against the Chicago political machine" for approximately 25 years, from 1976-2000, including as: a ward-wide voter registration coordinator, the founder and leader of an independent ward organization, a congressional district coordinator for Mayor Harold Washington's 1987 reelection bid, a campaign manager in two state representative and one alderman election, and as a third party candidate for state office.

http://m.ruvr.ru/2011/12/08/1245297171/Rozoff.jpg

What’s the reaction there to the Russian elections? We’ve heard a lot of statements that I think are way out of line from the US State Department, in particular Hillary Clinton. What’s your opinion of those statements?

They are outrageous. They are unwarranted. Regardless of what the actual details are about the recently concluded Duma elections, parliamentary elections in Russia, the statements emanating, as you mentioned, from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and others, are arrogant to a degree. If the situation were reversed and Russian and/or others major political figures in other nations commented similarly on US elections, which are not without their flaws as we can talk about, I hope, there would be the strongest possible protest from the State Department and the White House. You know, statements by Clinto, for example that she has serious concerns about the elections on Sunday, presuming to speak on behalf of the Russian people, stating that Russian voters deserve, an I quote: “a full investigation of electoral fraud and manipulation.” end quote. This is somebody who is from the Chicago suburb of Park Ridge. And like her commander-in-chief, Barack Obama, who is from Chicago and is a product of the Chicago political machine. They are hardly in a position to complain about electoral fraud, and manipulation, and ballot box stuffing. They are products of the political machine that all but invented the process. I’ve spoken with a fellow Chicago resident who had lived in the former Soviet Union and talked about the fact elections were held, where election days were holidays so that people were off work and could not only vote but could participate in the political process, including in the polling place, which is not a luxury accorded to Americans, though we hold ourselves up, of course, as being the model for democratic processes, including elections. She (Clinton) made this statement about the recently concluded parliamentary elections in Russia, in State Duma and stated, mentioning again, in her own words, “electoral fraud and manipulation.”

What are some of the other flaws in the US system? Can you tell us something about foreign observers? Why aren’t they allowed into the US?

The second question is particularly fascinating! The first: “Their name is legion”, to use the line from the Gospels. That is there are so many flaws in the American electoral system, not least of which of course is that next year several billion dollars are going to be spent by lobbyists and others to choose their candidates, buy their candidates into office, what is politely put an auction block. I’ll give you the best example I can think of. Today at work in Chicago most everyone were glued to television sets to learn which sentence was going to be passed down on former Governor Rod Blagojevich on 18 counts of corruption. He was sentenced to 14.5 years, as it turns out. We have to recall his major transgression was trying to sell the Senate seat, of at the time incoming US President Barack Obama. During the course of the initial trial, Blagojevich mentioned that he had had several phone calls with Rahm Emanuel – who is now the mayor of Chicago; at the time he was Chief of Staff of the White House – about just that, about selling, the Senate seat, or selling the right to appoint the successor to the incoming president of a country that President Obama in December of 2009 referred to as “the world’s sole military superpower.” But it’s tolerated in the US simply because the US is the US, what's referred to as “American exceptionalism,” so that even though we have an electoral system tainted by billions of dollars changing hands as almost all offices go to the highest bidder. As to foreign observers, the US will not tolerate any intrusion on its own sovereignty – but will interfering in the grossest fashion imaginable in other peoples’ internal political processes.

 Regarding NATO?

NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen has recently presumed again to lecture Russia, just as Hillary Clinton does, on how Russia should conduct its elections. Rasmussen is telling Russia, though he is in no formal position to do so, how to defend itself, saying for example that Russia should not follow up on the pledges and on some of the actual commitments made by President Medvedev to increase surveillance radar and other surveillance installations in North-East Russia and to reposition tactical missiles in both Kaliningrad Enclave near North-East Russia and so forth. But the statement by Rasmussen was particularly condescending and patronizing, at one point basically telling the Russian government they’d better take care of their own people first, or words to that effect, again just reeking of arrogance and contempt. This sort of talk one expects from a NATO chieftain and Rasmussen, though less abrasive than some of his predecessors, feels empowered evidently to tell major nations like Russia what they ought to and ought not to do in terms of defending the borders of their own country. I should add that the current US permanent representative to NATO, Ivo Daalder, made a statement two days ago where he said the US and NATO are forging ahead with the interceptor missile system in Europe, and I believe I am quoting him word for word: "whether Russia likes it or not.”

He said that?

That's correct. If anything, we are hearing more and more ambitious plans. For example, the Upper House of the Romanian Parliament, their Senate, yesterday ratified the agreement of the US to station 24 anti-missile -3 interceptors in Romania, which as we know is immediately across the Black Sea from Russia. This is in conjunction with the comparable deployment of missiles in Poland in addition to the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missiles that are already present in Poland; the radar missile defense facility that will be placed in Turkey. And there is a discussion now about maybe in the dozens, maybe in the scores of NATO nations’ warships being converted to the so-called Aegis combat system so that they could be equipped with either radar or in most instances missiles, Standard Missile-3s for what’s called the European Phased Adaptive Approach, a US-NATO missile system. So they are forging ahead at all fronts, at the same time the Secretary General of NATO is lecturing Russia on what it should or should not do in terms of self-defense. And the US Ambassador to NATO, who is a pretty influential person in his own right – he is a former senior fellow with the Brookings Institution, I am talking about Daalder of course – who could make such a curt and a

Jar2

28 November 2011, 18:23

Hypersonic Missile: To Target Russia

Rick Rozoff 

Download audio file

Interview with Rick Rozoff, the manager of the Stop NATO website and mailing list and a contributing writer to Global Research.ca.

 http://m.ruvr.ru/2011/11/29/1244663462/Rick%2520Rozoff.jpg

The first thing that is on everybody’s minds is President Medvedev’s statement regarding NATO. Why at this late date exactly, at this juncture?

In a rather alarming manner we’ve seen the recruitment, for the US missile system in Europe at large, through the mechanism of NATO, in the last couple of months where in addition to the countries where we know there are going to be US interceptor missiles stationed the extension of foreign based X-Band radar facility in Turkey but we’ve also seen the recruitment of nations like Spain, the Netherlands and others into what the While House and the Pentagon curiously refer to as the European Phased Adaptive Approach Missile System, one that is going to proceed in four phases, but the third and fourth phase, with the introduction of very advanced-stage, what are called Standard Missile-3 Land-Based Interceptors, that the understanding is that these can be employed not strictly for defensive purposes but to target all Russian strategic deterrent forces and capabilities rather in Europe.

Recently, the US and NATO conducted tests for their new hypersonic missile. Could you tell the listeners a little bit about that?

Earlier this month, the US DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency).  And it’s actually an interdepartmental weapon system, its part of what’s called Conventional Prompt Global Strike, or sometimes simply Prompt Global Strike. Last year, for example, the Obama administration asked for somewhere in the neighbourhood of the third of a billion dollars for this year to develop this capacity. It’s meant to deliver conventional weapons attacks, or conventional attacks on any site on the planet within no more than 60 minutes. And what happened earlier this month was that the US army tested the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon (AHW), which traveled an estimated 7,400 km/h, which is over six times the speed of sound. In August, an unsuccessful test of AHW-related component was to have traveled at 27,000 km/h, which is known as over MACH 20 – that is 20 times the speed of sound. To be hypersonic one has to exceed MACH 5, or five times the speed of sound. What happened the day before President Medvedev’s statement about moving mobile ISKANDER missiles into the Kaliningrad District, but also potentially into Belarus and into the Southern Krasnodar Region, which would be closer and closer to US missiles in Romania and to the NATO radar facility in Turkey, the day before the Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov mentioned that Russia’s new air-defense systems are capable of intercepting any kind of missiles, including US interceptor missiles but also he explicitly mentioned  hypersonic weapon.

He said that explicitly? Hypersonic?

Yes, he said it specifically in reference that had been conducted a couple of weeks earlier by the US.

You mentioned earlier this was a part of the Prompt Global Strike System? Is this a first-strike system?

I’ll read you a comment that was made a couple of years ago by the person who is now retired. It was Deputy Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, US military General Cartwright, who stated that the proclaimed intent of the Prompt Global Strike was to deliver a conventional missile or heavy bombers – you know, long-range bombers – anywhere in the face of the Earth within an hour. Marine General James Cartwright, who is now retired, stated: “At the high end, strikes could be delivered in 300 milliseconds,” which is a fraction of a second. There was a comment by another person, who is retired, Deputy Secretary of the Department of Defense, William Lynn, who stated roughly the same things but a year and a half ago. He said: “The next air warfare priority for the Pentagon is developing a next-generation, deep-penetrating strike capability that can overcome air defenses,” meaning again that this first-strike capability or part of a general first-strike capability that would permit the US to strike fast, deep and undetected presumably into the interior of countries that have advanced air defense systems. I can only think of three countries that would match that description – Iran, to a lesser extent, and Russia and China, to a greater.

How would this all tie in with the Cyber Warfare Center that’s been active recently in Estonia?

Yes, in 2008, NATO set up one of what they call, what NATO calls a Center of Excellence, a Cyber Defense Centre in the capital of Estonia, in reaction to alleged cyber attacks, real or alleged. So that we have three components being integrated, one of them being the so-called Global Missile Shield. But, first of all, there is no real assurance that the missiles, in fact pack a non-explosive warhead. They are supposed to be what kinetic or hit-to-kill missiles but at any time that the US chooses I suspect put a strategic warhead on one of these missiles and when they are deployed in Poland or Romania no one would be the wiser. We know that the momentous statement by President Medvedev on Wednesday cited the fact that Russia was not consulted about anything. In his own words, the US rather blithely announces after the fact or rather that the President or Defense Minister of Russia have to read in western newspapers US plans to deploy, under NATO auspices, 48 Standard Missile-3 interceptors in Romania and Poland, 24 each, and, as he put it, it’s presented to us as an accomplished fact. With that lack of consultation, with that lack of openness, transparency, one could, with great justification, fear the ultimate purpose of US missiles in nations like Poland and Romania or ship-based versions of Standard Missile-3 that will be deployed in the Baltic Sea – and they may well find their way into the Black Sea.

Jar2

Pilot Error Cause of Smolensk Disaster

Captain John Cox

Pilot error cause of Smolensk disaster - expert

Download audio file

Interview with Captain John Cox, Chief Executive Officer of Safety Operating Systems in Washington D.C. and a world renowned aviation expert. My first question was regarding the Polish report.

Interview with Capitan John Cox, Chief Executive Officer of Safety Operating Systems in Washington D.C. and a world renowned aviation expert.

My first question was regarding the Polish report. Since the crash report is supposed to be complete about the country’s authorities, where the crash takes place, how much weight can we give the Polish report and what were the reasons for them coming up with it?

It is unusual for a country to produce a second report outside of the state of occurrence, where the accident occurred. I think that Polish authorities dealt as though some of the Russian report needed some amplification and they elected to produce a second report. It’s not unprecedented but it’s very unusual.

Do you see politics playing a role in this process at all?

Anytime there is the loss of a government airplane like this – and it has so much visibility – I hesitate to speculate on politics. The Russian report was very well-written. I found it in my experience the Russian investigators have always been very good. They are very thorough. The reasoning behind the Polish report could have some political overtones but I’d hesitate to speculate on it.

I’ve recently read an article about the late President Kachinsky – I don’t know if you can speculate on it either – that he often ordered his pilots to land in very dangerous conditions. Have you heard anything about that?

There was concern in all the reports that the pilots felt pressure to continue approach. There is a comment on the voice recorder makes reference to if they miss the approach they are concerned that one or more of the passengers will be upset. I think the pilots felt some pressure. To what degree that played in the accident it’s a bit harder to tell. But clearly there was pressure.

The Polish report stated the pilots were not prepared. What can you say on this after reading the report?

I found that an interesting comment. The pilots were clearly prepared. They’d flown the airplane before, they were properly trained, they knew the type of approach that they would be executing in the bad weather, they had talked to the facility, to another Polish airplane, a JAK, that had landed previously. They knew the weather. So, I would have counted them as being prepared for the approach. To say otherwise, I don’t understand the reasoning behind it.

They came in rather low. Were there any reasons for that since it was not an instrument approach?

The last segments of the approach are really the core issues for the investigators in the cause to the accident. When the weather is very bad pilots can never get their instruments to a specific altitude. And you know what that altitude is in advance. This airplane descended below that altitude when they still didn’t have adequate visibility to safely land. That’s the core issue, and it’s acknowledged by the Russian report ad also the Polish report. Thad’s the core issue.

In the Polish report, did they go to why pilots ignored the TAW system? Can you remind our listeners what that is?

The Terrain Awareness and Warning System (TAWS) is a very good bit of technology that helps pilots not have the airplane strike the ground unintentionally, which has been a problem in aviation for decades. This very good technology shows where that potential conflict might be and gives the pilot time to avoid the pending accident. So, in this case, the TAWS did activate and the pilot ignored it.

What were the main differences between the Polish report and the Russian report? Did you see any glaring differences?

Actually, the two reports are reasonably close. The Russian report centered more on the actions of the crew as being the primary cause and they were very specific about that. The Polish report attempted to spread the cause out, including the Russian air traffic control system, the type of autopilot, the type of aircraft, the training of the pilots. They diversified the cause out much more broadly.

Whose fault was the disaster?

As an accident investigator, it’s not my job to ascertain fault. The primary causal factor was the descent of the airplane below the proper attitude without adequate visibility to land. Therein is the primary cause. Beyond that there are some contributing causes. Therein is the probable cause of the accident.

Are you satisfied with both of the reports? Was that question answered at all as to why they came down so low?

I am very satisfied with both reports, particularly the Russian one, which I think was actually very well done. There was some discussion of the pressure the pilots felt as to continue the descent. They knew the weather was bad and the visibility was very restricted. And that is the decision that pilots have to make on a frequent basis. And it’s not always an easy one. But, in this case, they continued, and, unfortunately, they were a bit short of the runway, and the left wing struck a very large tree, causing significant damage and loss of control of the airplane.

What questions did you see brought up from the Polish report? Are there any unanswered questions that need to be answered or that we can bring closer to this tragedy?

I think we have reached the point where closure to this tragedy is the next step. There have been some training changes. The Polish government has reassigned VIP government travel, reconstituting that specific squadron of the air force. That’s probably a positive step. And I think in the future the Russian air traffic control system will also learn something from this tragedy to be extra vigilant and to assist pilots to the maximum degree they can in terms of bad weather. Out of all the accidents comes the learning process and we try very hard to make the aviation safer. This very high-profile accident will do that also.

What lessons could be learnt from this?

I think the training for the pilots that fly VIP airplanes will be improved. I think the types of technology available to those crews will be improved.  And they’ll recognize that they may want to move into new generation aircraft. The Tupolev-154 is a workhorse, it’s been in the fleet for many, many years. But there are some new technology airplanes out there. I think that’s a possibility for VIP government travel as well. So, there are a number of lessons that the industry will learn.

Jar2

Polish Air Crash: It Was the Pilots' Fault

Michal Olszacki

Download audio file

Interview with Michal Olszacki, a Polish Political Analyst with the University of Reading . You did your dissertation in politics after the Smolensk air crash which killed the Polish President and more than 95 of the top government officials at the time. What was going on in Poland right after that? And why did they decide to politicize this disaster?

Interview with Michal Olszacki, a Polish Political Analyst with the University of Reading.

You did your dissertation in politics after the Smolensk air crash which killed the Polish president and more than 95 of the top government officials at the time. What was going on in Poland right after that? And why did they decide to politicize this disaster?

First of all, I think that many people were surprised with the positive and very helpful actions taken by the Russians.

Were people surprised?

It was commented on very very positively in the Polish news. However, I can see that the problem started after release of the Russian report on the plane crash, and I think it triggered some kind of questions, and, of course, the conflict between the ruling party and the opposition. Just to remind everyone that before he was elected, the president was the founder of the opposition party which is Law and Justice Party, and, of course, his twin brother who is now the main person in the party, officially claimed that this report was a lie, and that triggered some kind of internal conflict within Poland and also raised various questions, difficult questions, towards Russia. So, in response to this report, the Polish government decided to run its own investigation the results of which were published yesterday.

You are familiar, of course, with what happened in Katyn?

This is one of the biggest obstacles on the way towards good relations between Poland and Russia.

Right, just one point to add, I mean it was almost unprecedented because President Medvedev opened up the archives and, it was, I think, a pivotal point in the Russian-Polish relations; it was that important in Poland as well.

I think the opening of the archives for the Polish was a big step forward towards good new relations. Vladimir Putin admitted that all those actions consituted terrible crimes, which I believe was also quite an important thing. But nevertheless, the Polish political stage had been already divided, that was why there were two delegations to this anniversary. So, as far as I remember, the Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk met with Vladimir Putin at the end of the week and I think a couple of days later, there was the second delegation headed by the Polish president. It already shows the current situation in Poland.

What is the view in Poland among ordinary people in the street? When they talk about this disaster, do they say it was the pilot’s fault? What do people say? Whose fault was it?

I think first of all a lot of people are a bit tired of all this conflict around this plane crash. First of all, I believe that it was a mistake of the pilots, but actually the same idea was shared by the Russian report of the plane crash. I think that people on the street, their opinions are divided depending on the political party they support. So, people who favor the Law and Justice Party perhaps are not happy with the results of both reports and still want the truth ‑ that is the word which come up quite often – the truth, but who knows exactly what the truth was? And the supporters of the Civic Platform mostly agree or partially disagree with the results of the plane crash investigation.

I have talked to many experts, and they say the pilot is the one flying the plane. That is his main responsibility.  It is the pilot’s fault.

Yes. Just to be sure, I think that this whole issue is very broad and it is quite difficult to narrow it down to one thing.

Jar2

21 July 2011, 17:57

No More Independent Adoptions

Irene Steffas

Download audio file

Interview with with Irene Steffas, an attorney accredited under The Hague International Convention on incoming and outgoing adoptions. I’d like to ask you some questions about the recent agreement on adoptions signed between the United States and Russia. Why was the US federal government reluctant to sign the agreement at the beginning?

Interview with with Irene Steffas, an attorney accredited under The Hague International Convention on incoming and outgoing adoptions.

I’d like to ask you some questions about the recent agreement on adoptions signed between the United States and Russia. Why was the US federal government reluctant to sign the agreement at the beginning?

Initially, all efforts are being made to everyone to follow the procedure under the Hague convention. And the US has not been very flexible and not willing to enter into any memorandums, as we understand it, or bilateral agreements. However, in this instance we made an exception and the exception is really one of nomenclature, just a name, because if you look at the essence of the agreement, many of the safeguards that are built into the new agreement are the same safeguards we have under The Hague convention.

I heard, one of the parts of the agreement calls for no more independent adoptions.

That’s correct.

Only agencies authorized by the Russian government will be allowed to participate in the adoption process. Where could the parents that want to adopt a Russian child find such a list of agencies?

They are on the website of www.adoption.state.gov.

Are these accredited by the Russian government or by the US government or both?

These are the ones that have been accredited by the US authorities and then you have to actually inquire and ask: are you authorized to work in Russia? And agencies are going to tell you the truth on this because they are not actually going to be able to move a case forward if they are not certified to work in Russia.

What is entailed by part of the agreement? What’s that more complete information that will be given to the adopting parents on the adoptee? What is entailed by more complete information?

There is more emphasis in knowing who the adoptive parents are and training that they are going to receive that was not there in the past and also in having more certain understanding about the child. We now have a more formal child study, which will be one at the orphanage where the child has resided. It will require medical, family, social history. You know, getting good medical background makes the match more secure. We don’t want a family to adopt a child, who is uncomfortable dealing with the prosthesis.

Who is going to be overseeing this process? Is that both sides that are going to be responsible for that or is it the responsibility of the Russian side?

Let me walk you through the process. The US government, through the Department of Homeland Security, is going to certify the adoptive family.

This is a new procedure? Is this something new?

This is a little bit more involved than what we had in the past. Then the Russian authorities will say: we want this child to go to this specific adoptive family in the US. So the matching is not going to be done by an orphanage, it is not going to be done by an individual. The actual matching is done by the Russian authorities, which is your Department of Education.

Russia will now be able to receive reports on the children, on their well-being. How often will these reports be given and how reliable will they be and who will be administering them?

Let me dissect your question. The person who is responsible for getting those reports back to Russia is a US accredited agency. What was happening in the past – and I’ve seen it with my own eyes – is that sometimes agencies had these reports but they never made it to the right place in Russia. So one of the things that this agreement has done is identify exactly where these reports are going with some sort of a receipt system, so that we know, this agency sent a report and it was in fact received. And there will be no ifs and buts about that. We will have evidence that the report was sent and received. The frequency of the reports and for how many years these reports go on – that is a determination made by Russia. We have different requirements for different countries and what I can tell you is that the US adoption agencies and the US government work very hard to make sure there is compliance with getting those reports and getting them to the correct authority.

Who is going to oversee all this? Because normally this was the domain of state governments, and now the federal government is involved. So who exactly will be administering reports, doing checks and so on?

Let’s say we have ABC agency. And ABC agency is accredited in the US and also certified to work in Russia. However, the family lives in a different state, let’s say in Hawaii. And this agency does not have a branch office in Hawaii. The ABC agency will supervise an agency in Hawaii for the family’s home study and will also supervise that agency to make sure that those post-placement reports are done. Post-placement reports are always going to be sent to the accredited agency and then the accredited agency, also certified in Russia, is going to make sure that they get to the right place.

In summery, is this a positive thing?

Absolutely. This is a very good thing. Our two governments worked very hard together to keep inter-country adoptions open and also to improve the system that’s in place.

Jar2

5 August 2010, 13:28

Chichvarkin to stay in UK until Russia joins Europol

Giovanni Di Stefano

Chichvarkin to stay in UK until Russia joins Europol - expert

Download audio file

John Robles interview with the international lawyer Giovanni Di Stefano on the Yevgeny Chichvarkin extradition. John Robles : “Voice of Russia” world service. This is John Robles. I’m speaking with the international lawyer Giovanni Di Stefano on the Yevgeny Chichvarkin extradition.

John Robles interview with the international lawyer Giovanni Di Stefano on the Yevgeny Chichvarkin extradition.

John Robles: “Voice of Russia” world service. This is John Robles. I’m speaking with the international lawyer Giovanni Di Stefano on the Yevgeny Chichvarkin extradition. Chichvarkin was the former owner of “Yevroset”. The hearing, in which a London court was due to decide whether to send Chichvarkin back to Moscow on kidnapping charges, was postponed until September.

Giovanni Di Stefano: The problems with Yevgeny started in 2005, when he was accused in Russia of unlawfully and illegally importing mobile phones priced at more than 500 million dollars.  This case was closed a year later. But it’s followed him and shadowed him all the time. It would appear in Russia, according to the defense, that those who have successful businesses, unless they are prepared to tow the government line, may have a number of problems and may be the subject of criminal charges, and this is where the problem lies.

John Robles: So, you’re saying that he did nothing criminal; he just didn’t tow the government line. That’s not fair.

Giovanni Di Stefano: Well, that is the defense point of view. I mean the defense line of the prosecution in Russia. And we’ve seen a number of prosecutions in Russia. One of the biggest problems that Russia faces is that Russia is not a part of Europol. In other words, they cannot issue a European arrest warrant. If they were within the European Union, within a week Yevgeny would be on his way to Moscow.  That is the difference between a European arrest warrant and an International arrest warrant.

John Robles: You’re saying the only reason he has not been extradited is because Russia is not a member of Europol? 

Giovanni Di Stefano: Russia is not a member of the European Union, it is a member of the Council of Europe, and therefore it cannot issue a European arrest warrant.  A European arrest warrant is a fast-track procedure which allows any European Union country to insure issue a warrant and after that the person is sent back to the requesting country.

John Robles: Can I ask you a question regarding previous cases? For example, Berezovsky.

Giovanni Di Stefano: I know all the cases in Russia. I have a lot of sympathy for the Russian government. However until such time as Russia can be in the European Union or a member of Europol its criminal justice system will always face problems. Every single country, and the United Kingdom is of course the major one, will always say: “Here we have a country that issues an arrest warrant to a business man who does not tow the company line or the government line” , that’s the reason and the excuse why he should not be extradited. You cannot say “these are political offences and therefore don’t extradite me”, as you could in the old days. For example, there was a case, the Red Brigades which I defended, when people were accused of murdering a number of people  during bombings in Italy, and the British courts said “No, these are political offences”, because there are 80 or 90 murders.  So, it appears that if you kill 80 or 90 people in the name of politics, it’ ok, you can’t be extradited, but if you come home and kill your wife that is extraditable.

John Robles: Is something wrong with the British system? It seems like it’s protecting a lot of people who shouldn’t be protected.

Giovanni Di Stefano: The UK is in the European Union and they have to abide by it. They have a treaty, they have an extradition agreement with each different country. This is so easily remedied that it’s unbelievable.  All Russia has to do is to seek admission to the European arrest warrant system, and comply of course with the criminal justice system of the European Union.

John Robles: What do you think are the chances that Mr. Chichvarkin will, in fact be, extradited?

Giovanni Di Stefano: Zero.

John Robles: Why?

Giovanni Di Stefano: Because of the reasons that I’ve mentioned. They will say it is a political offence but it’s easily remedied by Russia applying to join Europol and hence the European arrest warrant system.

Jar2

 12-20-2010 

Praise for Russian Professionalism in the Smolensk Crash Investigation

Captain John Cox

John Cox praises Russian professionalism in the Smolensk follow-up

Download audio file

Interview with Captain John Cox, the chief executive officer of Safety Operating Systems in Washington DC and a world renowned aviation expert, on the Katyn air disaster draft report and the reaction by Polish authorities.

Interview with Captain John Cox, the chief executive officer of Safety Operating Systems in Washington DC and a world renowned aviation expert, on the Katyn air disaster draft report and the reaction by Polish authorities.

John Robles: Mr. Cox, last time we spoke you had said that your experience with Russian investigators had been very good and that they were professional and regarded their reputations quite highly. Do you still stick to those words?

John Cox: Absolutely. I believe that the Russian investigators are very high-quality investigators. I think that they will look into all aspects of the accident and work in cooperation with the Polish authorities to understand the ramifications.

John Robles: In your opinion, is it common for a politician, even one as high up as a Prime Minister, to comment on an aircraft disaster report?

John Cox: It is unusual to see a senior politician to take such a strong position on a technical document. And I am a little uncomfortable until we know all the details that are contained in this draft report. It is still in its formulative stage. It's been brought to the Polish authorities for input. So, I think it is a bit premature on the part of the Prime Minister. He may express displeasure, but I think it is part of the normal ICAO process. 

John Robles: The Interstate Aviation Committee (IAC) is responsible for civilian airspace and operations in the CIS. Do you have any experience working with them?

John Cox: I have no personal experience with them, but I know they enjoy a good reputation as far as being a quality organization.

John Robles: Anyway, Edmund Klich had said that there were 12 factors leading to the plane crash. What do you think those may have been?

John Cox: It is most important to say that there are probably well more than twelve. In over 30 years of accident investigation I have never seen an aircraft accident be down to one or two causes. There are usually many causal factors and there are even more contributory factors. So, to fully understand what happened, you must look at contributory as well as the causal factors. I believe that it is highly likely that  these 12 additional factors that were brought in; some maybe causal, some maybe contributory. In all my years of accident investigation have I ever seen it an accident be caused by just one or two things.

John Robles: Some have made an issue whether the airport was military or civilian. Apparently, as I understand it, under Polish law, or rules, if it was civilian the crew was 100 percent responsible. If it was military, then the military should have given them an order not to land. And there have been reports that they had over a dozen orders to pull up and they did not. Can you shed some light on that? Who is in charge, who is in control of the landing process?

John Cox: In the end, the pilot flying the airplane has the final authority to land or not to land and that is true throughout civilian aviation. So, that final decision process rests with the captain. That being said, information from the ground can be very critical and we don’t know, to my knowledge, exactly what the crew saw or did not see. And that would play very heavily into the decision made by the flight crew. As far as military airport versus civilian, the rules may be different. I know that in some of the eastern European countries there can be a prohibition against lining up with a runway in, iclement or, bad weather, but this final decision still rests with the captain.

John Robles: What would you say about reports that the president himself and the head of Polish military aviation were in the cockpit during the landing process? Can you comment on that at all?

John Cox: I have heard reports that there were people in and out of the flight deck. On a VIP flight the flight deck door is permitted to be open in most operations. So, having them in and out of the flight deck during the course of the flight may be a very usual thing. As far as during the instrument approach itself, I don’t have information to say if there was pressure applied to the crew or not and who those people were. Normally, that close to landing, everyone is in their seats with their seatbelts fastened. It would be unusual to have a non-crewmember in the flight deck during that phase of flight.

John Robles: Can I ask you a personal question as a pilot yourself? If you were in a similar situation, say, and you had the president of the United States standing behind you telling that you had to land the plane right now, and you knew that it was a very dangerous thing to do, what would you do in that situation?

John Cox: I think it would solely depend on whether I could see or not, the safety of the airplane would supersede anyone’s comment to me, as to whether we had to land or not; that decision rests exclusively with the captain.

John Robles: Mr. Klich said the head of the Polish military aviation had attempted to intimidate him into blaming Russia for the air disaster. Can you comment on that at all?

John Cox: It's heresay, I have no way to determine the accuracy of a statement like that or not. There's no way to know,

John Robles: Is it possible, I mean, to fully blame the people on the ground for this? It sounds kind of odd to me.

John Cox: It is never one thing. If there are  issues with the ground they should be included in the report, if there's issues with the flight crew and if there's issues with the aircraft. All aspects should be evaluated and a good report will be inclusive of all the causal and contributory factors.

John Robles: Here is some technical information I have, and this should be right up your alley. This is a quote from Vladimir Gerasimov, a Hero of Russia and a pilot: “The conventional rate of descent is 3.5 meters per second, and theirs was more than 9 meters. With such high vertical speed, I quote, the “descent” of the Tu-154 reaches 50 meters on the second round. In other words, after descending lower than 60 meters, the airplane fell into a trap, that's what they said.” Basically, once they had started descending, there was nothing else they could do. I mean they couldn’t pull up.

John Cox: Jet aircraft are high-performance vehicles, and as such, they are capable of arresting descent very quickly. The Tu-154 is a well-known and well-tested airplane. Those were highly experienced pilots and if they did have an excessive rate of descent, which I have not seen proof of yet, then it would make it more difficult for them to arrest that rate of descent if they were close to the ground. That assumes that this excessive rate of descent actually existed.

John Robles: Can you recover from a nine-meter rate of descent in the Tupolev Tu-154?

John Cox: Yes.

John Robles: What would you say to all the people on the Internet and a lot of people in the press, who want to make a big conspiracy out of this and say that there were something planned behind it?

John Cox: The are allegations that are made in virtually every aircraft accident I’ve ever been around, they are usually without foundation. My experience has been that if the agencies investigating the accident are cooperating and they are all directed to get the best and most complete answer possible, they will bring forward a full and complete report. And I believe that will happen in this case.

John Robles: Is there anything you would like to add in conclusion?

John Cox: I think the important thing to realize is that this is still not a finalized report. And so, before saying that conclusions can be drawn, I think we need to wait in fact, for that final report.There are still, obviously, discussions going on between the Russian investigators and the Polish investigators. I think once those discussions are concluded and the final report is released, then and only then can we see all the issues that contributed to this tragic accident.

John Robles: Can you comment on the condition of the aircraft?

John Cox: That airplane had received very high-quality maintenance. It was a presidential airplane and it was therefore kept to high standards. The Tu-154 is an older design, but that does not in any way imply that it is less safe. If properly maintained, aircraft of its age and older can certainly be flown safely for many-many years or decades.

John Robles: Thank you so very much for speaking with me.

John Cox: My pleasure.

John Robles: That was Captain John Cox, the chief executive officer of Safety Operating systems in Washington D.C. We were talking about the draft report on the investigation into President Lech Kaczynski’s airplane crash in April this year.

Klich said the head of the Polish military aviation had attempted to intimidate him into blaming Russia for the air disaster. Can you comment on that at all?

John Cox: It's heresay, I have no way to determine the accuracy of a statement like that or not. There's no way to know,

John Robles: Is it possible, I mean, to fully blame the people on the ground for this? It sounds kind of odd to me.

John Cox: It is never one thing. If there are  issues with the ground they should be included in the report, if there's issues with the flight crew and if there's issues with the aircraft. All aspects should be evaluated and a good report will be inclusive of all the causal and contributory factors.

John Robles: Here is some technical information I have, and this should be right up your alley. This is a quote from Vladimir Gerasimov, a Hero of Russia and a pilot: “The conventional rate of descent is 3.5 meters per second, and theirs was more than 9 meters. With such high vertical speed, I quote, the “descent” of the Tu-154 reaches 50 meters on the second round. In other words, after descending lower than 60 meters, the airplane fell into a trap, that's what they said.” Basically, once they had started descending, there was nothing else they could do. I mean they couldn’t pull up.

John Cox: Jet aircraft are high-performance vehicles, and as such, they are capable of arresting descent very quickly. The Tu-154 is a well-known and well-tested airplane. Those were highly experienced pilots and if they did have an excessive rate of descent, which I have not seen proof of yet, then it would make it more difficult for them to arrest that rate of descent if they were close to the ground. That assumes that this excessive rate of descent actually existed.

John Robles: Can you recover from a nine-meter rate of descent in the Tupolev Tu-154?

John Cox: Yes.

John Robles: What would you say to all the people on the Internet and a lot of people in the press, who want to make a big conspiracy out of this and say that there were something planned behind it?

John Cox: The are allegations that are made in virtually every aircraft accident I’ve ever been around, they are usually without foundation. My experience has been that if the agencies investigating the accident are cooperating and they are all directed to get the best and most complete answer possible, they will bring forward a full and complete report. And I believe that will happen in this case.

John Robles: Is there anything you would like to add in conclusion?

John Cox: I think the important thing to realize is that this is still not a finalized report. And so, before saying that conclusions can be drawn, I think we need to wait in fact, for that final report.There are still, obviously, discussions going on between the Russian investigators and the Polish investigators. I think once those discussions are concluded and the final report is released, then and only then can we see all the issues that contributed to this tragic accident.

John Robles: Can you comment on the condition of the aircraft?

John Cox: That airplane had received very high-quality maintenance. It was a presidential airplane and it was therefore kept to high standards. The Tu-154 is an older design, but that does not in any way imply that it is less safe. If properly maintained, aircraft of its age and older can certainly be flown safely for many-many years or decades.

John Robles: Thank you so very much for speaking with me.

John Cox: My pleasure.

John Robles: That was Captain John Cox, the chief executive officer of Safety Operating systems in Washington D.C. We were talking about the draft report on the investigation into President Lech Kaczynski’s airplane crash in April this year.

Jar2

Blame for Polish Crash Lies in the Cockpit

Douglas Moss

The blame lies in the cockpit - expert

Download audio file

Interview with Douglas Moss, President of AeroPacific Consulting in Torrance, Callifornia on Smolensk air disaster which led to the death of Polish President

Robles: Hello, I’m John Robles with the Voice of Russia, I’m speaking with Douglas Moss, he is the President of AeroPacific Consulting in Torrance, California. We are speaking about the recently released IAC report on the Smolensk air disaster, which occurred in April of last year. For Russia as well as for Poland it was a very, very terrible tragedy.  Recently, many politicians in Poland have been trying to politicize the release of this report. Hopefully, this interview will shed some light as to the facts and the actual events that led up to the disaster. Hello Mr. Moss..

Moss: Hello.

Robles: The first question I want to ask you was regarding the people that were in the cockpit during the approach, can you give us some views on that??

MossMoss: Well, there appeared to be a violation of protocol in aviation. During the approach Tupolev-154 has a three member crew and there were two other people in the cockpit apparently, one seemed to be the Commander in Chief of the Polish Air Force and the other one was the Director of Protocol for the Polish president. In aviation, any time you are below 10.000 feet, primarily in time you are flying an approach, especially in the weather, it’s very important for all the pilots and crew to be focusing on doing just that, flying the approach precisely and doing all the procedures required for the approach and that’s not the time to have other people in the cockpit, distracting the crew, making demands of the crew and trying to influence their judgment. For example, the pilot was trying to determine and assess the weather conditions at the field and whether he had the right equipment and ability to fly the approach. Two other people in the cockpit were encouraging him if not demanding that he continued the approach and make the attempted landing.

Robles: So you say they were actually interfering with the operation of the crew??

MossMoss: Yes, absolutely, that was my impression from listening to the cockpit voice recorder.

Robles: And those people they shouldn’t have even been there at the first place. The fact that it was the Commander of the Polish Air Forces. What kind of effect do you think it had on the pilot or the crew??

MossMoss: It has a tremendous implication. That individual on the flight deck was trying to assert his authority and trying to change the pilot’s judgment and affect his decision-making ability. And even though be or not of indirect pressure there was inferential pressure that would affect his judgment.

Robles: You watched the video, I believe, you did watch the video, right??

MossMoss: Yes.

Robles: They ignored the onboard alert system, I think about six times. Can you comment on that??

Moss: Yes, the airplane was equipped with what sounds like Western terrain collision and avoidance system. It does two things - one, it gives a preliminary warning of impact with the ground based upon the radar altimeter it gives the  last minute, a last second advisory or command  guidance telling the pilots to pull up, pull up. And the pilot flew, continued flying the instrument approach, continued his descend to the ground, even though the initial preliminary warning sounded and even though the final directive precautions sounded, they flew right through those. In aviation that’s one thing you just do not ignore –if the machine tells you, you should pull up because of terrain absolutely positively every time you pull up and you don’t ask questions.

Robles: No matter what your other instruments are saying, no matter what anyone out is telling you pull up, right??

Moss: Exactly, if they are going off, then it means you did something wrong, either your reading instruments   were incorrectly or you had the wrong altimeter setting set or something along that nature means that you are off. It means that you are unaware of your danger and they start telling you to start to pull up and think about that later.

Robles: How much blame, do you think, can be placed on the ground controllers??

Moss: From what I’ve seen, the air traffic controllers really had no colossal part in this accident. The blame, in my opinion, lies almost exclusively in the cockpit in the airplane itself. The air traffic controllers, you have to understand, are kind of   in a finny position, they control air traffic, they give instructions and guidance but they are not really the decision makers. They issue instructions, but the ultimate decision- maker is still the pilot in command of the airplane.

Robles: There’s been talk from the Polish side that the airport in Smolensk, Smolensk Northern it is called in Russian, should have been just closed completely but under international law, since it was not a scheduled flight that would have been impossible. Can you share a little bit insight on that? It’s a presidential airliner, would it be possible in normal circumstances to deny that plane the right to land..

MossMoss: I’m not an expert on the international law as it applies to opening and closing airports in weather conditions, but here’s the case where each air field manager generally has the authority to close down an airport   for weather, for other reasonable causes. But here’s the case we have a presidential airplane inbound.    And the reasonable thing to do would be to leave the decision whether or not to land to the captain of the airplane.

Robles: That was the President of AeroPacific Consulting in Torrance, California. That is aeropacific.net on the Net. Thank you very much..

MossMoss: You are welcome, John.

 

28-06-2010