Napetost v Ukrajini - Krimu
- Ustvarjalec teme darjan
- Začetni datum
Ne, Rusija govori o kijevskih fašistih, o svojih pa noče nič vedet, čeprav ima mnogo večji problem s skrajno desnico kot Ukrajina.
Za začetek:
Russia bans Ukrainian language from schools in Crimea
19/84! Russian and European fascists reverse the 1945 Yalta Conference
Please help to identify participants of the Yalta conference
Italian fascists love Putin
(Pro-)Russian extremists in 2006 and 2014: the Dugin Connection
Neo-Nazi Russian National Unity in Eastern Ukraine
Ruski naciji so ruska narodna enotnost.
National bolsheviks in da haus
Ni dvoma, da v Ukrajini obstaja (nasilna) skrajna desnica, tako kot v praktično vseh ostalih državah in tega tudi nihče ne zanika. To jim je recimo uspelo prejšnji teden:
Ukrainian intellectual was attacked by paramilitary right-wing thugs in Kyiv
Ampak samo ena država v Evropi ima skrajno desnega uradnega ideologa in ideologijo. Rusija. (Dugin, Evrazijaizem/Tradicionalizem)
Samo ena država v Evropi podpira (tudi finančno) skrajno desna gibanja v preostanku sveta. Rusija. (Praktično vso evropsko skrajno desnico, sploh če je parlamentarna, v ZDA par white-power gibanj, anti-abortion/anti-gay/defense of family aktiviste in funny enough krog libertarcev okrog Ron Paula)
32ka bi moral po kolenih v Kremlin.
Fakin' narobe svet.
Zdaj pa še malo dodajmo k zbirki. Recimo:
ali morda
Who Are You Calling Fascist?
Putin’s Russia is in no position to criticize Ukraine.
Far-right extremism in Ukraine is indeed a worrisome problem. But the alarmist narrative of “neofascists in Kiev” is vastly exaggerated, more often than not with the blatant goal of discrediting a pro-democracy, pro-Western government—a bias all the more glaring when the alarmists ignore the rise of de facto fascism in Vladimir Putin’s Russia and its startling connections to ultra-right nationalism in Europe.
Concerns about the political ascendancy of militant Ukrainian nationalism generally focus on two groups: Svoboda (Freedom), a far-right party which advocates some patently illiberal policies—including a ban on what it deems anti-Ukrainian hate speech—and whose leaders have a history of xenophobic comments; and Right Sector, an armed militia that gained prominence in the Maidan protesters’ defense against government riot squads. (Vyacheslav Likhachev, a Russian-Jewish journalist and monitor for the Euro-Asian Jewish Congress, has estimated that only about 1 percent of the demonstrators were “radical nationalists.”
...
The encouraging news is that popular support for the far right is negligible; in a March 26 poll, 2.5 percent of likely voters in the May 25 presidential election said they would vote for Svoboda leader Oleg Tyahnibok and just 1.4 percent for Yarosh. Moreover, Ukraine’s current leadership is clearly determined to curb its influence. A Svoboda-driven bill that would have effectively made Ukrainian the country’s sole official language was promptly vetoed by interim president Oleksandr Turchynov (a fact ignored in several subsequent articles in the American press that cited the language law as a Svoboda success). In late March, one of the top Svoboda-affiliated cabinet members, Defense Minister Ihor Tenyukh, resigned under pressure and was replaced with a nonpartisan career military man. It should be noted that Ukraine’s Jewish leaders are strongly supportive of the new government, in which several key posts are held by Jewish politicians.
Writing in Novaya Gazeta, one of Russia’s surviving dissident media outlets, journalist Alexander Lipsky has pointed out that smearing opponents as “fascist” was a standard Soviet propaganda ploy. Its revival is particularly ironic today, when some Russians using this slur may fit it far better than their targets do. Take Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, who recently lamented on Twitter that Ukrainians, his Soviet-era compatriots, had turned to “Nazis all around.” Rogozin first entered politics as a leader of the nationalist bloc Rodina (Motherland), which got booted from local Moscow elections in 2005 over an ad—featuring Rogozin himself—that used blatantly racist caricatures of Azerbaijani migrants. In 2011, he was the subject of a glowing tribute on the American “white identity” site Occidental Observer.
A far more sinister figure is Alexander Dugin, founder of the “Eurasian movement,” which defines its mission as opposing “liberal hegemony” and modernity. In the 1990s, Dugin, a college dropout active in marginal ultranationalist groups, wrote essays openly advocating fascism as a “third way” alternative to communism and capitalism. Dugin argued that real fascism had never been properly tried (an argument usually made on behalf of communism) and would eventually emerge in Russia; while disavowing the racist “excesses” of Nazism, he also praised the SS as an “intellectual oasis” in the Third Reich and fantasized about the rise of “a race of Nordic warrior priests.”
All this would make Dugin merely an odious crank if, by the mid-2000s, he had not emerged as a leading “intellectual” in Russia’s Putin-era political establishment, with ties to top politicians and members of the official media. Dropping the word “fascist,” he began to style himself a “traditionalist”; he also procured a Ph.D. and became the head of the Center for Conservative Studies at Moscow State University. In 2009, his International Eurasian Movement counted among its board members Alexander Torshin, Duma vice speaker and a leading figure in the ruling United Russia party, and Nikolai Yefimov, editor in chief of the army newspaper Krasnaya Zvezda (Red Star). Dugin was cited as an intellectual guru by Ivan Demidov, who headed United Russia’s ideology section in 2008, and currently serves as an adviser to the chairman of the State Duma, Sergei Naryshkin.
Dugin has long been a staunch foe of Ukraine’s independence and a champion of reclaiming Crimea for Russia. New evidence points to his direct involvement in fomenting unrest elsewhere in Ukraine. On March 31, a Eurasian Youth Movement leader, Oleg Bakhtiarov, was arrested in Kiev on charges of plotting attacks on the parliament; two days earlier, a video turned up online that showed Dugin giving tactical advice to Ekaterina Gubareva, a separatist activist in Donetsk, in an intercepted Skype conversation. (Gubareva’s husband, Pavel Gubarev, in detention after leading the takeover of a local government building, is an ex-member of Russian National Unity, a militant group with black uniforms and a swastika-like symbol.)
Amidst Russia’s current patriotic fervor, rhetoric with scarily fascistic overtones has gone increasingly mainstream. In his speech on the Crimea annexation, Putin called antiwar dissenters not only a “fifth column” but “national traitors,” a phrase that sounds as odd in Russian as it does in English and that some bloggers traced directly to Hitler’s “National-Verräter” in Mein Kampf. At times, this rhetoric has specifically singled out Jewish dissidents. In one eyebrow-raising moment, TV talk-show guest writer Alexander Prokhanov (a notorious peddler of anti-Semitic “journalism”
voiced bafflement at the Ukrainian revolution’s Jewish supporters who could be “bringing on a second Holocaust”—to which host Evelina Zakamskaya replied, “They brought on the first one, too.”The Putin regime’s flirtation with fascism is not just domestic. A recent article by Northeastern University political scientist Mitchell Orenstein in Foreign Affairs documented extensive ties between the Kremlin and the nationalist extreme right in Europe, including Hungary’s Jobbik and Greece’s Golden Dawn. The “international observers” Moscow invited to the referendum in Crimea included Belgian neo-Nazi Luc Michel and former Polish MP Mateusz Piskorski, currently head of the European Center for Geopolitical Analysis, identified in a 2006 Anti-Defamation League report as a former “translator and publisher of hardcore Nazi material.” According to an exposé in a leading Polish newspaper, Gazeta Wyborcza, Piskorki’s magazine Odala, published in the late 1990s and early 2000s, openly praised Nazi Germany, featured Holocaust deniers, and called for a united Slavic empire as “the only hope for the White Race.”
In a particularly bizarre twist, Piskorski—a member of Dugin’s Eurasian movement—showed up as a speaker at a March 30 St. Petersburg international conference called “Neo-Fascism in Europe: 70 Years Later,” which, Novaya Gazeta reports, had a transparent agenda of promoting the myth of a neofascist takeover in Ukraine. Presumably with a straight face, he declared that “fascism is rearing its head worldwide.”
If Ukraine’s fledgling democracy survives the Russian threat, its extremist problem will likely be contained. Not so in Russia, where the rot of far-right nationalism currently starts at the top.
Ali pa morda kaj novejšega?
Saur-mohyla včeraj, najvišja točka v regiji in lokacija, ki jo je verjetno branila zračna obramba, ki je sklatila MH17.
Par neandertalcev s strelnim orožjem, nič novega. Pozornost prosim posvetite zastavi ki je vidna npr. pri :07. Rdeča zastava z belim krogom. Sumljivo že samo po sebi.
Logo v belem?
Ruska narodna enotnost.
Že omenjeni fašisti, ki imajo sicer precej bolj jasen simbol
a so se za svoje delovanje v Donbasu maskirali.
Kdo je naci?
Morda malo Žižka?
Barbarism with a Human Face
The entire European neo-fascist right (in Hungary, France, Italy, Serbia) firmly supports Russia in the ongoing Ukrainian crisis, giving the lie to the official Russian presentation of the Crimean referendum as a choice between Russian democracy and Ukrainian fascism. The events in Ukraine – the massive protests that toppled Yanukovich and his gang – should be understood as a defence against the dark legacy resuscitated by Putin. The protests were triggered by the Ukrainian government’s decision to prioritise good relations with Russia over the integration of Ukraine into the European Union. Predictably, many anti-imperialist leftists reacted to the news by patronising the Ukrainians: how deluded they are still to idealise Europe, not to be able to see that joining the EU would just make Ukraine an economic colony of Western Europe, sooner or later to go the same way as Greece. In fact, Ukrainians are far from blind about the reality of the EU. They are fully aware of its troubles and disparities: their message is simply that their own situation is much worse. Europe may have problems, but they are a rich man’s problems.
...
The Maidan protesters were heroes, but the true fight – the fight for what the new Ukraine will be – begins now, and it will be much tougher than the fight against Putin’s intervention. A new and riskier heroism will be needed. It has been shown already by those Russians who oppose the nationalist passion of their own country and denounce it as a tool of power. It’s time for the basic solidarity of Ukrainians and Russians to be asserted, and the very terms of the conflict rejected. The next step is a public display of fraternity, with organisational networks established between Ukrainian political activists and the Russian opposition to Putin’s regime. This may sound utopian, but it is only such thinking that can confer on the protests a truly emancipatory dimension. Otherwise, we will be left with a conflict of nationalist passions manipulated by oligarchs. Such geopolitical games are of no interest whatever to authentic emancipatory politics.
Kdo je naci?
Barbarism with a Human Face
The entire European neo-fascist right (in Hungary, France, Italy, Serbia) firmly supports Russia in the ongoing Ukrainian crisis, giving the lie to the official Russian presentation of the Crimean referendum as a choice between Russian democracy and Ukrainian fascism. The events in Ukraine – the massive protests that toppled Yanukovich and his gang – should be understood as a defence against the dark legacy resuscitated by Putin. The protests were triggered by the Ukrainian government’s decision to prioritise good relations with Russia over the integration of Ukraine into the European Union. Predictably, many anti-imperialist leftists reacted to the news by patronising the Ukrainians: how deluded they are still to idealise Europe, not to be able to see that joining the EU would just make Ukraine an economic colony of Western Europe, sooner or later to go the same way as Greece. In fact, Ukrainians are far from blind about the reality of the EU. They are fully aware of its troubles and disparities: their message is simply that their own situation is much worse. Europe may have problems, but they are a rich man’s problems.
...
The Maidan protesters were heroes, but the true fight – the fight for what the new Ukraine will be – begins now, and it will be much tougher than the fight against Putin’s intervention. A new and riskier heroism will be needed. It has been shown already by those Russians who oppose the nationalist passion of their own country and denounce it as a tool of power. It’s time for the basic solidarity of Ukrainians and Russians to be asserted, and the very terms of the conflict rejected. The next step is a public display of fraternity, with organisational networks established between Ukrainian political activists and the Russian opposition to Putin’s regime. This may sound utopian, but it is only such thinking that can confer on the protests a truly emancipatory dimension. Otherwise, we will be left with a conflict of nationalist passions manipulated by oligarchs. Such geopolitical games are of no interest whatever to authentic emancipatory politics.
Kdo je naci?
Težave za Putina: Če sankcije EU ostanejo, se bo rusko gospodarstvo sesulo v enem letu
Ruski predsednik Vladimir Putin velja za vladarja, ki vlada z železno roko, pri čemer pa zaenkrat uživa visoko podporo svojega naroda. To bi se lahko kmalu spremenilo, meni nekdanji ruski premier Mihail Kasjanov, ki opozarja, da se bo Rusija zaradi sankcij, ki so posledica vmešavanja države v razmere v Ukrajini, zapletla v velike težave.
Ruski predsednik Vladimir Putin velja za vladarja, ki vlada z železno roko, pri čemer pa zaenkrat uživa visoko podporo svojega naroda. To bi se lahko kmalu spremenilo, meni nekdanji ruski premier Mihail Kasjanov, ki opozarja, da se bo Rusija zaradi sankcij, ki so posledica vmešavanja države v razmere v Ukrajini, zapletla v velike težave.
Prispevek Duginovega privrženca:
Behind the Ukranian Crisis: Alexander Dugin, Eurasianism, and the Nouvelle Droite
The question of the hour is; what is Russia doing and why? The Russian strategy is grounded in the geopolitical agenda of Eurasianism. As the name implies, Eurasianism is a projected political alliance between the nations of Europe and Asia (including Russia and the Islamic world) designed to counteract what is termed the “Atlanticism” of American-European Union objectives/agendas. Eurasianism has a long history stretching back to the 1920’s Russian émigré community, where many of its ideas were formed. However the man most closely associated with the doctrine today as well as responsible for its modern form is Alexander Dugin.
Dugin was born on January 7th, 1962 in Moscow. In his youth, he worked as a journalist and became involved in Pamyat, an Orthodox-Christian nationalist group and later the National Bolshevik Party and then eventually with Vladimir Putin’s political machine. In 2001, Dugin formed the Eurasia Party and the Eurasia Movement. Supported by both the government and Orthodox-Christian establishment in Russia, Alexander Dugin’s Eurasia Movement stands on the threshold of a seismic shift in world power. He is truly one of the handful of people whom are actively contributing to and affecting the historical process unfolding before our eyes. His 1997 book, “Foundations of Geopolitics” has been very influential in elite circles within the Russian government and lays out his geopolitical strategy. The Eurasian Party is the political entity pursuing the goals enumerated in Foundations.
The Eurasia Movement can be described as a branch of the Nouvelle Droit or New Right, which is a collective of philosophers and political parties across Europe and America whom oppose the forces of modernity, given form in the doctrines of Cultural Marxism and stand for the restoration of European traditionalism. The Nouvelle Droit advocates a complete break from the left-right political dichotomy entrenched in liberal Western democracies. Instead it incorporates useful facets of both as well as novel approaches of its own, constituting a political third or in some cases, fourth position; a kind of syncretism. Key individuals in this movement include Alain deBenoist, Tomislav Sunic, Guillaume Faye, Michael O’Meara and of course Alexander Dugin. Key political parties include the German National Democratic Party, the British National Party, the Golden Dawn of Greece, Jobbik of Hungary and the National Front of France.
In addition, the Eurasian Movement incorporates the ideas of Jean-François Thiriart, whom advocated self-determination for the peoples of the world and a pan-European outlook, a kind of Europe-wide nationalism for the European peoples.The agenda of the Eurasian Movement can be summarized as intended to form axes of power throughout the world by which American world hegemony can be undermined and ultimately displaced by a Finlandized Europe where larger and more powerful nations have a sphere of influence over smaller nations. In the words of Dugin, Europe would be united in common cause “from Lisbon to Vladivostok”. Specifically Dugin’s book, Foundations of Geopolitics and the English language condensed version; The Fourth Political Theory, outline several prescriptions of this type, among them:
In Europe:
Germany should be offered the de facto political dominance over most Protestant and Catholic states located within Central and Eastern Europe. Kaliningrad oblast could be given back to Germany. The book uses the term a "Moscow-Berlin axis".
France should be encouraged to form a "Franco-German bloc" with Germany as both countries have a "firm anti-Atlanticist tradition".
The United Kingdom should be cut off from Europe.
Finland should be absorbed into Russia. Southern Finland will be combined with the Republic of Karelia and northern Finland will be "donated to Murmansk Oblast".
Estonia should be given to Germany's sphere of influence.
Latvia and Lithuania should be given a "special status" in the Eurasian-Russian sphere.
Poland should be granted a "special status" in the Eurasian sphere.
Romania, Macedonia, "Serbian Bosnia" and Greece - "orthodox collectivist East" - will unite with "Moscow the Third Rome" and reject the "rational-individualistic West".
Ukraine should be annexed by Russia because "Ukraine as an independent state with certain territorial ambitions represents an enormous danger for all of Eurasia and, without resolving the Ukrainian problem, it is in general senseless to speak about continental politics". Ukraine should not be allowed to remain independent, unless it is cordon sanitaire, which would be inadmissible.
In the Middle East and Central Asia:
The book stresses the "continental Russian-Islamic alliance" which lies "at the foundation of anti-Atlanticist strategy". The alliance is based on the "traditional character of Russian and Islamic civilization".
Iran is a key ally. The book uses the term "Moscow-Tehran axis".
Armenia has a special role and will serve as a "strategic base" and it is necessary to create "the [subsidiary] axis Moscow-Erevan-Teheran". Armenians "are an Aryan people ... [like] the Iranians and the Kurds".
Azerbaijan could be "split up" or given to Iran.
Georgia should be dismembered. Abkhazia and "United Ossetia" (which includes Georgia's South Ossetia) will be incorporated into Russia. Georgia's independent policies are unacceptable.
Russia needs to create "geopolitical shocks" within Turkey. These can be achieved by employing Kurds, Armenians and other minorities.
The book regards the Caucasus as a Russian territory, including "the eastern and northern shores of the Caspian (the territories of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan)" and Central Asia (mentioning Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kirghistan and Tajikistan).
In Asia:
China, which represents a danger to Russia, "must, to the maximum degree possible, be dismantled". Russia should offer China help "in a southern direction – Indochina (except Vietnam), the Philippines, Indonesia, Australia".
Russia should manipulate Japanese politics by offering the Kuril Islands to Japan and provoking anti-Americanism.
Mongolia should be absorbed into Eurasia-Russia.
The book emphasizes that Russia must spread Anti-Americanism everywhere: "the main ‘scapegoat’ will be precisely the U.S."
In the United States:
Russia should use its special forces within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism. For instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics."
The Eurasian Project could be expanded to South and Central America.
The Eurasian Movement seeks to achieve its ends not necessarily militarily but instead through non-violent means. Cooperation with and mutual respect between traditionalist societies around the world would be used in order to undermine the Americanism which currently dominates global politics and culture.
Še enkrat, za lene:
The agenda of the Eurasian Movement can be summarized as intended to form axes of power throughout the world by which American world hegemony can be undermined and ultimately displaced by a Finlandized Europe where larger and more powerful nations have a sphere of influence over smaller nations.
Kdo je naci?
Behind the Ukranian Crisis: Alexander Dugin, Eurasianism, and the Nouvelle Droite
The question of the hour is; what is Russia doing and why? The Russian strategy is grounded in the geopolitical agenda of Eurasianism. As the name implies, Eurasianism is a projected political alliance between the nations of Europe and Asia (including Russia and the Islamic world) designed to counteract what is termed the “Atlanticism” of American-European Union objectives/agendas. Eurasianism has a long history stretching back to the 1920’s Russian émigré community, where many of its ideas were formed. However the man most closely associated with the doctrine today as well as responsible for its modern form is Alexander Dugin.
Dugin was born on January 7th, 1962 in Moscow. In his youth, he worked as a journalist and became involved in Pamyat, an Orthodox-Christian nationalist group and later the National Bolshevik Party and then eventually with Vladimir Putin’s political machine. In 2001, Dugin formed the Eurasia Party and the Eurasia Movement. Supported by both the government and Orthodox-Christian establishment in Russia, Alexander Dugin’s Eurasia Movement stands on the threshold of a seismic shift in world power. He is truly one of the handful of people whom are actively contributing to and affecting the historical process unfolding before our eyes. His 1997 book, “Foundations of Geopolitics” has been very influential in elite circles within the Russian government and lays out his geopolitical strategy. The Eurasian Party is the political entity pursuing the goals enumerated in Foundations.
The Eurasia Movement can be described as a branch of the Nouvelle Droit or New Right, which is a collective of philosophers and political parties across Europe and America whom oppose the forces of modernity, given form in the doctrines of Cultural Marxism and stand for the restoration of European traditionalism. The Nouvelle Droit advocates a complete break from the left-right political dichotomy entrenched in liberal Western democracies. Instead it incorporates useful facets of both as well as novel approaches of its own, constituting a political third or in some cases, fourth position; a kind of syncretism. Key individuals in this movement include Alain deBenoist, Tomislav Sunic, Guillaume Faye, Michael O’Meara and of course Alexander Dugin. Key political parties include the German National Democratic Party, the British National Party, the Golden Dawn of Greece, Jobbik of Hungary and the National Front of France.
In addition, the Eurasian Movement incorporates the ideas of Jean-François Thiriart, whom advocated self-determination for the peoples of the world and a pan-European outlook, a kind of Europe-wide nationalism for the European peoples.The agenda of the Eurasian Movement can be summarized as intended to form axes of power throughout the world by which American world hegemony can be undermined and ultimately displaced by a Finlandized Europe where larger and more powerful nations have a sphere of influence over smaller nations. In the words of Dugin, Europe would be united in common cause “from Lisbon to Vladivostok”. Specifically Dugin’s book, Foundations of Geopolitics and the English language condensed version; The Fourth Political Theory, outline several prescriptions of this type, among them:
In Europe:
Germany should be offered the de facto political dominance over most Protestant and Catholic states located within Central and Eastern Europe. Kaliningrad oblast could be given back to Germany. The book uses the term a "Moscow-Berlin axis".
France should be encouraged to form a "Franco-German bloc" with Germany as both countries have a "firm anti-Atlanticist tradition".
The United Kingdom should be cut off from Europe.
Finland should be absorbed into Russia. Southern Finland will be combined with the Republic of Karelia and northern Finland will be "donated to Murmansk Oblast".
Estonia should be given to Germany's sphere of influence.
Latvia and Lithuania should be given a "special status" in the Eurasian-Russian sphere.
Poland should be granted a "special status" in the Eurasian sphere.
Romania, Macedonia, "Serbian Bosnia" and Greece - "orthodox collectivist East" - will unite with "Moscow the Third Rome" and reject the "rational-individualistic West".
Ukraine should be annexed by Russia because "Ukraine as an independent state with certain territorial ambitions represents an enormous danger for all of Eurasia and, without resolving the Ukrainian problem, it is in general senseless to speak about continental politics". Ukraine should not be allowed to remain independent, unless it is cordon sanitaire, which would be inadmissible.
In the Middle East and Central Asia:
The book stresses the "continental Russian-Islamic alliance" which lies "at the foundation of anti-Atlanticist strategy". The alliance is based on the "traditional character of Russian and Islamic civilization".
Iran is a key ally. The book uses the term "Moscow-Tehran axis".
Armenia has a special role and will serve as a "strategic base" and it is necessary to create "the [subsidiary] axis Moscow-Erevan-Teheran". Armenians "are an Aryan people ... [like] the Iranians and the Kurds".
Azerbaijan could be "split up" or given to Iran.
Georgia should be dismembered. Abkhazia and "United Ossetia" (which includes Georgia's South Ossetia) will be incorporated into Russia. Georgia's independent policies are unacceptable.
Russia needs to create "geopolitical shocks" within Turkey. These can be achieved by employing Kurds, Armenians and other minorities.
The book regards the Caucasus as a Russian territory, including "the eastern and northern shores of the Caspian (the territories of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan)" and Central Asia (mentioning Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kirghistan and Tajikistan).
In Asia:
China, which represents a danger to Russia, "must, to the maximum degree possible, be dismantled". Russia should offer China help "in a southern direction – Indochina (except Vietnam), the Philippines, Indonesia, Australia".
Russia should manipulate Japanese politics by offering the Kuril Islands to Japan and provoking anti-Americanism.
Mongolia should be absorbed into Eurasia-Russia.
The book emphasizes that Russia must spread Anti-Americanism everywhere: "the main ‘scapegoat’ will be precisely the U.S."
In the United States:
Russia should use its special forces within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism. For instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics."
The Eurasian Project could be expanded to South and Central America.
The Eurasian Movement seeks to achieve its ends not necessarily militarily but instead through non-violent means. Cooperation with and mutual respect between traditionalist societies around the world would be used in order to undermine the Americanism which currently dominates global politics and culture.
Še enkrat, za lene:
The agenda of the Eurasian Movement can be summarized as intended to form axes of power throughout the world by which American world hegemony can be undermined and ultimately displaced by a Finlandized Europe where larger and more powerful nations have a sphere of influence over smaller nations.
Kdo je naci?
Še malo o ukrajinskih prisluhih
6. maja je ukrajinska obveščevalna na youtube objavila prisluh s prejšnjega dneva:
V njem Aleksander Barkašov, častitljivi gospod na spodnji sliki in ustanovitelj Ruske nacionalne enotnosti, nadre operativca na terenu, naj že nehajo komplicirat in dajo ven rezultat, da je 89% glasovalo za neodvisnost.
11. maja so izvedli referendum o neodvisnosti donetske regije. Glasovnice so bile preštete presenetljivo hitro.
Kdo ugane kak je bil rezultat?
Lemingi.
P.S.
Tistih 400 ulta-spešl plačancev iz Amerike - če so prisotni zelo verjetno pomagajo pri tovrstnih prisluhih.
Kdo je naci?
6. maja je ukrajinska obveščevalna na youtube objavila prisluh s prejšnjega dneva:
V njem Aleksander Barkašov, častitljivi gospod na spodnji sliki in ustanovitelj Ruske nacionalne enotnosti, nadre operativca na terenu, naj že nehajo komplicirat in dajo ven rezultat, da je 89% glasovalo za neodvisnost.
11. maja so izvedli referendum o neodvisnosti donetske regije. Glasovnice so bile preštete presenetljivo hitro.
Kdo ugane kak je bil rezultat?
Lemingi.
P.S.
Tistih 400 ulta-spešl plačancev iz Amerike - če so prisotni zelo verjetno pomagajo pri tovrstnih prisluhih.
Kdo je naci?
Žižka sicer cenim, v mnogih stvareh ima prav, ampak vse pameti na svetu le ni pojedel.
Majdanski demonstranti nikakor niso heroji, ampak samo dobro orkestrirana in vodena banda z strani zahoda. Ukrajina je imela veliko več prometa in trgovskih povezav z Rusijo, kot pa z EU. EU ima dovolj revežev za poceni delovno silo (romunija, bolgarija, poljska, slovaška...). bolj se gre USA za dominacijo in povečanjem proračuna za vojsko, kjer služijo najbogatejši. Zgoraj nekje sem dal link o proračunu za f35, lahko bi kupili hiše za vse brezdomce.
Poglej si dokumentarec Težina lanca/Weight of chains, hitro boš videl vzporednice z Ukrajino. Ko se začne vojna, vsakršna nacionalistična sodrga priplava na vrh. Ne rečem da ni nacionalistov na kakšni strani, so na vseh. Ampak eno je če so avtohtoni, drugo pa če jih kdo podpira od zunaj. Pa ne odobravam nikakršnega nacionalizma na kateri koli strani.
Sicer pa če smo mi imeli pravico odcepitve, jo dajem tudi drugim. Če se je večina prebivalcev JV Ukrajine odločila za samostojnost, naj jo imajo.
Preverljivo netočno.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Ukraine
Main export partners
EU 28.7%
Russia 25.6%
Turkey 5.4%
Egypt 4.2%
Main import partners
EU 39.1%
Russia 32.4%
China 9.3%
Germany 8.0%
Belarus 6.0%
Poland 4.2%
Države se ven mečejo, kaj lahko narediš? Rusi so se šli pa Soči npr.
Drugače pa tista statistika ni povsem iskrena, opleta s 400 miljardami stroškov. Kar je sicer točno, ampak gre za vse stroške povezane z razvojem & nakupom cca. 2400 letal do l. 2035. Zraven pride še okrog 600 miljard operativnih stroškov tam do 2050/2060.
Do 31. decembra 2013 so ZDA za F-35 program zapravile okrog 83 miljard.
zadnja stran:
http://www.acq.osd.mil/ara/am/sar/SST-2013-12.pdf
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29455133
Spopadi za letališče v Donetsku se nadaljujejo.
+posadko dobiš na leasing
.
Če kdo verjame takim traparijam.
Spopadi za letališče v Donetsku se nadaljujejo.
Sama oprema, ki jo lahko nabaviš v vsaki lokalni trgovini z železnino..
+posadko dobiš na leasing
Če kdo verjame takim traparijam.
Ma to ti je zaradi pozitivne diskriminacije. Če bi ta lopovski črnuh ustrelil policaja se ne bi zgodilo nič.
http://downtrend.com/admin/the-michael-brown-picture-you-probably-havent-seen/
Pogreb 54 neznanih borcev, Kijevska oblast ni hotela plačati DNK analiz. ŽALOSTNO....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPpopZAud_c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPpopZAud_c
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/ukraine/balance-of-trade
http://stat.wto.org/CountryProfile/WSDBCountryPFView.aspx?Country=UA&Language=F
http://atlas.media.mit.edu/profile/country/ukr/
Ma sej nima veze kateri podatki so točni, Rusija je (morda bila) velik partner Ukrajine.
I
Izbrisan uporabnik #488
I