Комментировать здесь даже и смысла не вижу.

Виктория Магер, маленькая одиннадцатилетняя девочка из поселка городского типа Еленовка, что расположился неподалеку от Донецка, знает что такое гражданская война не понаслышке. Родной поселок обстреливали неоднократно. Один из таких дней чуть не стал для Вики последним. Гуляя с маленькой сестрой по поселку, она пошла проводить домой соседскую девочку. В какой-то момент на землю начали падать мины. Вика схватила на руки трехлетнюю сестру и, прикрывая своим телом, бросилась прочь из зоны обстрела. Осколки от разорвавшейся мины настигли ее неподалеку от дома. Инстинктивно закрывая младшую сестру, она подставила смертельному железу свою спину. Ноги отнялись сразу. Она, стараясь не травмировать сестренку, упала на землю, продолжая прикрывать ее своим телом.

По дороге в Докучаевск в машину скорой помощи, которая везла умирающую Вику в больницу, врезался старенький Москвич. Время шло на минуты. Любая задержка могла оказаться смертельной. Успели. В больнице девочку прооперировали и как только состояние стало стабильным – доставили в Донецкую областную детскую больницу. Диагноз не оставлял никаких шансов – множественные осколочные ранения позвоночника с повреждением спинного мозга. В течении месяца местные врачи боролись за здоровье девочки. Вердикт – жить будет, но инвалидность обеспеченна, в донецких реалиях поставить Вику на ноги не сможет никто.

&шансов поставить девочку на ноги усилиями местных врачей не было. Российский общественники приняли решение вывозить девочку в Россию. Родственники без колебания согласились на непростую поездку в Москву – появилась новая надежда. Поездка была тяжелой, девочке, обезболенной в донецкой больнице, с трудом давался каждый километр дороги. 24 сентября группа наших представителей вывезла девочку из Донецка, и уже 25 сентября ее разместили в «НИИ неотложной детской хирургии и травматологии», возглавляемом Леонидом Михайловичем Рошалем. В ближайшее время девочке предстоит несколько сложных операций – необходимо удалить оставшиеся осколки и произвести протезирование позвоночника. Леонид Михайлович сказал что шансы на возврат к нормальной жизни очень велики. Будем надеяться.

Полностью  здесь.

По Сети сейчас гуляет новая страшилка по вступлению Украины в ЕС

АПЛОДИРУЕМ ПУТИНУ СТОЯ !!! НОВОСТЬ СНОГСШИБАТЕЛЬНАЯ !!! Вот и всё)&

Ну что, майдауны, примите искренние наши поздравления, и не только наши ! Судя по вчерашней новости о том, что в ЕС отказали принять Украину в свой состав в связи с офигенной резолюцией ЕС  закон о реституции всех государств, которые входят в состав ЕС, пришёл полный пинзес Украины! Реституция  это закон о том, что каждое государство и каждый гражданин проживающий в ЕС имеет полное право вернуть любое имущество, которое принадлежало его предкам до начала первой мировой войны! И евросоюз поставил Украине ультиматум  Украина может войти в состав ЕС только после выполнения всех правил этой реституции! А это означает  пять западных областей Украины должны вернуться домой  в Польшу, Юго  Восток в состав России, остальное все пропади оно пропадом??? Теперь то надеюсь понятно почему Польша кричала и громче всех, и рвала свои интимные места за происходящее на майдане ! Результат налицо ! Львов, Закарпатье, Ивано-Франковск, Тернополь и Черновцы автоматически уходят в состав Польши, все остальное испокон веков принадлежало России ! Аплодирую стоя ! Украинская проституция стала жертвой реституции! Вы воистину Великий Политик  Владимир Владимирович!!!

Нашел,  здесь.

Понимаю, что у многих Путин стал уже& больше чем божеством, но.. При чем здесь Путин? У людей интернет под руками, можно было бы поинтересоваться, что такое реституция?

В международном праве — форма материального возмещения ущерба в результате неправомерного международного акта путём восстановления состояния, существовавшего до его совершения. Может осуществляться различными способами.

Если я правильно понимаю,  это возвращение ЧАСТНОЙ собственности ее прежним владельцам. Собственно говоря, вот:

Ровные ряды аккуратных папок, в каждой из которых — сотни исторических справок, фотографий, архитектурных планов. В Ассоциации еврейских общин Украины знают адрес каждого дома, который когда-то принадлежал их соотечественникам в этой стране.

После присоединения Западной Украины к УССР в результате пакта Молотова-Риббентропа у евреев экспроприировали школы, больницы, клубы, синагоги. Теперь они твердо намерены все вернуть. Председатель Ассоциации еврейских организаций и общин Украины Иосиф Зисельс поясняет: У нас есть 2500 объектов, и 800 –это бывшие синагоги. Это те здания, которые худо-бедно сохранились сегодня. Мы, конечно, ждем, когда будет закон о широкой реституции, и касается он не только еврейских общин, но и всех.

Историки полагают, что самые большие аппетиты — у поляков. В ходе реституции вполне могут объявиться наследники земель и усадеб с еще дореволюционных времен. Полякам – подданным Российской империи и австрийского цесаря, если брать Галицию – принадлежали и земельные наделы, и промышленные производства, и предприятия, а если брать западные области, то и местные нефтяные месторождения, — напоминает старший научный сотрудник института Российской истории РАН Андрей Марчуков.

По иронии судьбы, сильнее всего пострадают от реституции как раз жители Западной Украины, и их европейская мечта может обернуться юридическим капканом — придется отдавать имущество, изъятое меньше века назад. До 1939 года Волынская, Ровенская, Львовская и Ивано-Франковская области были частью Польши.

Полностью,  здесь.

Где-то я видел информацию, что даже неутомимый Владимир Вольфович готовит документы на владение чего-то там на территории Украины.

&Очень хорошо характеризует политику США на Ближнем Востоке, сейчас&

Отсюда.

Добавить нечего.

&Больше двадцати лет назад.

То не зелено-квитный, траченный изотопом,

— жовто-блакитный реет над Конотопом,

Скроенный из холста: знать, припасла Канада —

Даром, что без креста: но хохлам не надо.

Гой ты, рушник-карбованец, семечки в потной жмене!

Не нам, кацапам, их обвинять в измене.

Скажем им, звонкой матерью паузы метя, строго:

Скатертью вам, хохлы, и рушником дорога.

Ступайте от нас в жупане, не говоря в мундире,

По адресу на три буквы на все четыре…

Стороны. Пусть теперь в мазанке хором Гансы

С ляхами ставят вас на четыре кости, поганцы.

Прощевайте, хохлы! Пожили вместе, хватит.

Плюнуть, что ли, в Днипро: может, он вспять покатит…

Не поминайте лихом! Вашего неба, хлеба

нам — подавись мы жмыхом и колобом — не треба.

Нечего портить кровь, рвать на груди одежду.

Кончилась, знать, любовь, коли была промежду.

С Богом, орлы, казаки, гетманы, вертухаи!

Только когда придет и вам помирать, бугаи,

Будете вы хрипеть, царапая край матраса,

Строчки из Александра, а не брехню Тараса.

Дорогой Карл Двенадцатый, сражение под Полтавой,

Слава Богу, проиграно. Как говорил картавый,

Время покажет — кузькину мать, руины,

Кости посмертной радости с привкусом Украины.

1991

Нашел,  здесь.

&Глазами немцев..

Найдено, здесь.

The Article on RT.

Written few months ago by Britain Joutnalist Neil Clark.

Just imagine if the democratically-elected government of Canada had been toppled in a Russian-financed coup, in which far-right extremists and neo-Nazis played a prominent role.

That the new unelected government in Ottawa cancelled the law giving the French language official status, appointed a billionaire oligarch to run Quebec and signed an association agreement with a Russian-led trade bloc.

Just imagine…

If Russia had spent $5 billion on regime change in Canada and then a leading Canadian energy firm had appointed to its board of directors the son of a top Russian government politician.

Just imagine…

If the Syrian government had hosted a meeting in Damascus of the Friends of Britain- a group of countries who supported the violent overthrow of David Camerons government.

That the Syrian government and its allies gave the anti-government ‘rebels’ in Britain millions of pounds and other support, and failed to condemn ‘rebel’ groups when they killed British civilians and bombed schools, hospitals and universities.

That the Syrian Foreign Minister dismissed next year’s scheduled general election in the UK as a ‘parody of democracy’ and said that Cameron must stand down before any elections are held.

Just imagine…

If in 2003, Russia and its closest allies had launched a full-scale military invasion of an oil-rich country in the Middle East, having claimed that that country possessed WMDs which threatened the world and that afterwards no WMDs were ever found.

That up to 1 million people had been killed in the bloodshed that followed the invasion and that the country was still in turmoil over 10 years later.

That Russian companies had come in to benefit from the reconstruction and rebuilding work following the regime change.

Just imagine…

If the pro-Russian journalists who had faithfully parroted the claims that the Middle Eastern country that Russia had invaded in 2003 had WMDs did not apologise afterwards or show any contrition despite the enormous death toll; but instead carried on in their well-paid jobs to propagandize more illegal wars and ’interventions’ against other independent countries, and attacked those honest journalists who didnt peddle the war lies.

Just imagine…

If over forty people protesting against the central government had been burnt to death by pro-government extremists in Venezuela.

That the Venezuelan government had launched a military offensive against people protesting for greater autonomy/federalization following visits by the head of the Russian SVR and Dmitry Medvedev to Caracas.

Just imagine….

If last August over six hundred people protesting in camps against the government in Minsk in Belarus had been massacred by armed forces. That this spring, the courts in Belarus had handed out death sentences to over 600 supporters of opposition parties.

Just imagine….

If Russia had spent the years following the end of the old Cold War surrounding the US with military bases and pushing for Canada and Mexico to join a Russian military alliance. That earlier this month Russia carried out major military exercises in Mexico.

Just imagine….

If we had heard leaked telephone calls between a high ranking official from the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Russian Ambassador in Canada in which they discussed who should/shouldnt be in the Canadian government. That their approved candidate subsequently became the new, unelected Prime Minister following a Russian-financed regime change.

That the high ranking Russian official from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs also said : ‘Fxxx the EU’.

Just imagine&

If the Syrian air force had bombed a weapons depot in Israel and also bombed convoys which security officials said were carrying weapons to anti-government forces in Syria.

Just imagine&

If leading Russian politicians attended anti-austerity street protests in western Europe, handed out cookies to those protesting, and supported the protestors’ calls for the governments to step down.

Imagining what would happen if any of the above events occurred, and comparing it to what has happened in reality is highly instructive as it shows us what is wrong with the world today.

Actions have been taken by the US and its allies which would be considered totally outrageous if carried out by other countries. All we have to do is to switch the names of the countries concerned to see the double standards.

If Russia had attacked an oil-rich Middle Eastern nation in 2003, and pro-Russian journalists peddled the same sort of deceitful pro-war, WMD propaganda that neocons and faux-leftists did in the west when the US invaded Iraq, then we can be sure that Russia would have been regarded as an international pariah, and the journalists who acted as cheerleaders for the illegal invasion would be discredited for the rest of their lives. But the US is not subject to sanctions or treated as an outcast, its President in 2003, George W. Bush and his close ally Tony Blair, have yet to stand trial for war crimes, and the media pundits who supported the invasion of Iraq are still in place and now pushing for a new Cold war against Russia and new military intervention against Syria.

If Russia had spent $5bn on toppling the democratically-elected government of either Canada or Mexico, and installed a pro-Russian junta in its place, we can be sure that within hours, a full scale military invasion by the US would have taken place, in order to remove the new government from power. Western television news channels and elite pundits would be enthusiastically supporting the US action  declaring it to be a response to Russian aggression and saying it was totally justified. But when the regime changing was done by the US in Ukraine, and a pro-US junta installed in power in Kiev, it’s a very different story. The same people who would cry ‘foul’ at the top of their voices if Russia engineered a coup in Canada or Mexico, celebrate the unlawful toppling of the legitimate government of Ukraine.

We already know how the US would respond, if another country sought to put nuclear weapons close to its territory – in 1962 the world came to the brink of war in the Cuban missile crisis. But while a third world war would undoubtedly be threatened again if Russian forces held military exercises in Mexico, it’s not considered provocative for NATO to hold military exercises in Estonia.

If the governments of Belarus and Venezuela had responded as brutally towards anti-government protesters as the Egyptian military regime did last August, or sent in the tanks and used heavy weaponry against their own people as the western-backed Kiev junta has, then we can be sure that the great humanitarians of the faux-left would be screeching not just for punitive sanctions but for air strikes too and for Presidents Lukashenko and Maduro to be carted off to The Hague.

We all know too what would have followed if it had been the Syrian air force that had bombed a weapons depot and convoys in Israel and not the other way round. Why do we tolerate such brazen hypocrisy?

There is no legal or moral basis for saying that the US and its allies should be able to do things, which if done by other countries, would be condemned as wrong and punished with the imposition of sanctions and/or military attack or invasion. International law and the principles of non-interference in other nations should apply equally to all: regardless of the countrys political system or form of government. The British government has no more right to interfere in the internal affairs of Syria than the Syrian government has to interfere in the internal affairs of Great Britain. The US has no more right to regime change in countries bordering Russia, than Russia has to regime change in countries bordering the US.

We need a new international order based on the equality of all sovereign nations: a new World of Equals, as envisaged by this years Belgrade Forum, whose declaration can be read here. If we can imagine that and work to put it in place by exposing current western hypocrisy and double standards whenever they occur then the world would be a much safer place.

Full Article

Или,  необычный.

Просто бандит.

Или нет?

Я всегда думал о казаках, как о& клоунах. Когда-то, до прихода советской власти, казаки играли не последнюю роль в Государстве Российском, но.. после того, как развалился Советский Союз и по всей Руси начали появляться бравые парни на конях, с ног до головы обвешанные медальками и висюльками, непонятно откуда взятыми и непонятно кем награжденными, вот тогда и появилось у меня ощущение в сюрреалистичности проичходящего&

Откуда у него орден Красной Звезды и Звезда Героя?

Этапы большого пути



Изобретательности и живости воображения Николая Ивановича можно только позавидовать. Что там медали и ордена  даже место рождения казачьего генерала переписывалось как минимум дважды! Датируемый 1979 годом послужной лист сержанта Козицына гласит, что будущий герой появился на свет в г. Дзержинске Донецкой области. Позже, когда светлейший князь в очередной раз пытался избраться в органы государственной власти, Дзержинск был заменен на Донецк,  кандидат, очевидно, вообразил, что большим людям не пристало рождаться в крохотных городках… После непродолжительных метаний честь называться родиной человека-легенды досталась знаменитой Кривянке: где, как не в славной своей трехсотлетней историей станице мог родиться бравый атаман и потомственный казак? Кстати о потомственности. Хотя Николай Иванович с завидной регулярностью объявляет себя едва ли не единственным преемником дореволюционного казачества, о его родословной неизвестно практически ничего. На заре своего атаманства Козицын пару раз обмолвился, что по материнской линии его род восходит к дворянам Турчаниновым, однако, в скором будущем тема наследного дворянства была закрыта раз и навсегда. Скромность похвальная, но для нашего героя совершенно нетипичная. Зная неугомонного генерала, можно не сомневаться: будь в истории о дворянском роде хоть пара слов правды, предводитель общественников разукрасил бы этой информацией все газеты, листовки и заборы…

Вообще, несмотря на изрядный талант г-на атамана к сочинительству, в его лакированном жизнеописании встречается немало досадных пробелов. Скажем, о деятельности Козицына до 1990 года  то есть до начала его карьеры во Всевеликом войске  неизвестно практически ничего. Создается впечатление, что на протяжении тридцати четырех лет Николай Иванович практически не жил  в лучшем случае существовал, как инфузория-туфелька или простейшая амеба. “Служба в вооруженных силах” да “работа в “Ростов-энерго” мастером”  вот, в общем-то, и вся информация, которой делится с миром г-н Козицын. При каких обстоятельствах героический генерал успел-таки заиметь за это время кучку медалей СССР и ордена Красной звезды и Красного знамени,  загадка, достойная египетских пирамид. Между тем, Николай Иванович замалчивает свою “доатаманскую” жизнь совершенно напрасно: иные факты его биографии удались настолько, что их впору не скрывать, а расписывать в романах и повестях. Скажем, за шесть лет службы надзирателем-контролером в зоне УЧ-398/14 будущий “генерал армии” успел отличиться по полной  тут тебе и прогулы, и злоупотребление спиртным, и неслужебные контакты с заключенными. В 1980 году сержант Козицын был привлечен к дисциплинарной ответственности за грубое нарушение общественного порядка: двадцатичетырехлетний конвоир был задержан дружинниками за неудачную попытку завладеть сумочкой незнакомой ему дамы. Впрочем, сам дебошир свою вину, как водится, отрицал. Отрицал, надо сказать, весьма убедительно.

Командиру 10-й роты, капитану Кречкевичу от контролера сержанта Козицына

Объяснительная

(Имена и фамилии даются в сокращении. Стиль и орфография автора сохранены  “В”)

5.04.80 г., сменившись с работы, пришол в роту. Здав проверку по ТСП, поехал домой. Возле столовой “Дон” встретил одного своего товарища В. К. Постояли, поговорили, он предложил пойти посмотреть машину к нему в гараж. После чего, зайдя домой, переодевшись, я пошол к нему в гараж. У В. Б. заняли 10 рублей, купили бутылку водки. Выпив содержимое, посидев немного в гараже, мы пошли домой. К. пошол домой, я остался поседеть на площади, потом зашол в опорный пункт поговорил с мл. с-нтом О. Потом пошол в Ресторан отдать долг официантке. Прийдя в ресторан, отдав долг, я встретил В. В.: он предложил пойти к нему за столик, мы ещо там выпили. После чего, уже перед закрытием, пошол хотел сходить к одним знакомым, но их дома не было. Подойдя к ресторану там стояла толпа и милиция, сказали, что я оскорбил и ударил женщину. Меня забрали и отправили в милицию.

Козицын

16.04.80 г.

Отсюда.

На английском, конечно.

OBAMA: Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General, fellow delegates, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin today by telling you about an American named Chris Stevens. Chris was born in a town called Grass Valley, California, the son of a lawyer and a musician.

As a young man, Chris joined the Peace Corps and taught English in Morocco, and he came to love and respect the people of North Africa and the Middle East. He would carry that commitment throughout his life.

As a diplomat, he worked from Egypt to Syria, from Saudi Arabia to Libya. He was known for walking the streets of the cities where he worked, tasting the local food, meeting as many people as he could, speaking Arabic, listening with a broad smile.

Chris went to Benghazi in the early days of the Libyan revolution, arriving on a cargo ship. As Americas representative, he helped the Libyan people as they coped with violent conflict, cared for the wounded, and crafted a vision for the future in which the rights of all Libyans would be respected.

And after the revolution, he supported the birth of a new democracy, as Libyans held elections, and built new institutions, and began to move forward after decades of dictatorship.

Chris Stevens loved his work. He took pride in the country he served, and he saw dignity in the people that he met.

Two weeks ago, he travelled to Benghazi to review plans to establish a new cultural center and modernize a hospital. Thats when Americas compound came under attack. Along with three of his colleagues, Chris was killed in the city that he helped to save. He was 52 years old.

I tell you this story because Chris Stevens embodied the best of America. Like his fellow Foreign Service officers, he built bridges across oceans and cultures, and was deeply invested in the international cooperation that the United Nations represents.

He acted with humility, but he also stood up for a set of principles: a belief that individuals should be free to determine their own destiny, and live with liberty, dignity, justice and opportunity.

The attacks on the civilians in Benghazi were attacks on America. We are grateful for the assistance we received from the Libyan government and from the Libyan people.

There should be no doubt that we will be relentless in tracking down the killers and bringing them to justice.

And I also appreciate that in recent days the leaders of other countries in the region  including Egypt, Tunisia, and Yemen  have taken steps to secure our diplomatic facilities and called for calm, and so have religious authorities around the globe.

But understand, the attacks of the last two weeks are not simply an assault on America. Theyre also an assault on the very ideals upon which the United Nations was founded: the notion that people can resolve their differences peacefully, that diplomacy can take the place of war, that in an interdependent world all of us have a stake in working towards greater opportunity and security for our citizens.

If we are serious about upholding these ideals, it will not be enough to put more guards in front of an embassy or to put out statements of regret and wait for the outrage to pass. If we are serious about these ideals, we must speak honestly about the deeper causes of the crisis, because we face a choice between the forces that would drive us apart and the hopes that we hold in common.

Today we must reaffirm that our future will be determined by people like Chris Stevens, and not by his killers. Today we must declare that this violence and intolerance has no place among our united nations.

Its been less than two years since a vendor in Tunisia set himself on fire to protest the oppressive corruption in his country and sparked what became known as the Arab Spring. And since then, the world has been captivated by the transformation thats taken place, and the United  the United States has supported the forces of change.

We were inspired by the Tunisian protests that toppled a dictator because we recognized our own beliefs in the aspiration of men and women who took to the streets. We insisted on change in Egypt because our support for democracy ultimately put us on the side of the people. We supported a transition of leadership in Yemen because the interests of the people were no longer being served by a corrupt status quo.

We intervened in Libya alongside a broad coalition and with the mandate of the United Nations Security Council, because we had the ability to stop the slaughter of innocents and because we believed that the aspirations of the people were more powerful than a tyrant.

And as we meet here, we again declare that the regime of Bashar al-Assad must come to an end so that the suffering of the Syrian people can stop and a new dawn can begin.

We have taken these positions because we believe that freedom and self-determination are not unique to one culture.

These are not simply American values or Western values; they are universal values. And even as there will be huge challenges to come with the transition to democracy, I am convinced that ultimately government of the people, by the people, and for the people is more likely to bring about the stability, prosperity, and individual opportunity that serve as a basis for peace in our world.

So let us remember that this is a season of progress. For the first time in decades, Tunisians, Egyptians and Libyans voted for new leaders in elections that were credible, competitive and fair.

The democratic spirit has not been restricted to the Arab world. Over the past year, weve seen peaceful transitions of power in Malawi and Senegal and a new president in Somalia. In Burma, a president has freed political prisoners and opened a closed society. A courageous dissident has been elected to parliament, and people look forward to further reform.

Around the globe, people are making their voices heard, insisting on their innate dignity and the right to determine their future. And yet the turmoil of recent weeks reminds us that the path to democracy does not end with the casting of a ballot. Nelson Mandela once said, To be free is not merely to cast off ones chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.

(APPLAUSE)

True democracy demands that citizens cannot be thrown in jail because of what they believe, and that businesses can be open without paying a bribe. It depends on the freedom of citizens to speak their minds and assemble without fear, and on the rule of law and due process that guarantees the rights of all people.

In other words, true democracy, real freedom is hard work.

Those in power have to resist the temptation to crack down on dissidents. In hard economic times, countries must be tempted  may be tempted to rally the people around perceived enemies at home and abroad, rather than focusing on the painstaking work of reform.

Moreover, there will always be those that reject human progress, dictators who cling to power, corrupt interests that depend on the status quo, and extremists who fan the flames of hate and division. From Northern Ireland to South Asia, from Africa to the Americas, from the Balkans to the Pacific Rim, weve witnesses convulsions that can accompany transitions to a new political order.

At time, the conflicts arise along the fault lines of race or tribe, and often they arise from the difficulties of reconciling tradition and faith with the diversity and interdependence of the modern world. In every country, there are those who find different religious beliefs threatening. In every culture, those who love freedom for themselves must ask themselves how much theyre willing to tolerate freedom for others.

And that is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, where a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. Now, I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well.

For as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and every faith. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion, we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe.

We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them. I know there are some who ask why dont we just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws. Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.

Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. As president of our country, and commander in chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so.

(APPLAUSE)

Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views  even views that we profoundly disagree with. We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith may be threatened.

We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities. We do so because, given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech  the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

I know that not all countries in this body share this particular understanding of the protection of free speech. We recognize that. But in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete.

The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree: There is no speech that justifies mindless violence.

(APPLAUSE)

There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.

In this modern world, with modern technologies, for us to respond in that way to hateful speech empowers any individual who engages in such speech to create chaos around the world. We empower the worst of us if thats how we respond.

More broadly, the events of the last two weeks also speak to the need for all of us to honestly address the tensions between the West and the Arab world that is moving towards democracy.

Now let me be clear, just as we cannot solve every problem in the world, the United States has not, and will not, seek to dictate the outcome of democratic transitions abroad.

We do not expect other nations to agree with us on every issue. Nor do we assume that the violence of the past weeks or the hateful speech by some individuals represent the views of the overwhelming majority of Muslims any more than the views of the people who produced this video represents those of Americans.

However, I do believe that it is the obligation of all leaders in all countries to speak out forcefully against violence and extremism.

(APPLAUSE)

It is time to marginalize those who, even when not directly resorting to violence, use hatred of America or the West or Israel as the central organizing principle of politics, for that only gives cover and sometimes makes an excuse for those who do resort to violence. That brand of politics, one that pits East against West and South against North, Muslims against Christians and Hindu and Jews, cant deliver on the promise of freedom.

To the youth, it offers only false hope. Burning an American flag does nothing to provide a child an education. Smashing apart a restaurant does not fill an empty stomach. Attacking an embassy wont create a single job. That brand of politics only makes it harder to achieve what we must do together, educating our children and creating the opportunities that they deserve, protecting human rights and extending democracys promise.

Understand, America will never retreat from the world. We will bring justice to those who harm our citizens and our friends, and we will stand with our allies. We are willing to partner with countries around the world to deepen ties of trade and investment, and science and technology, energy and development, all efforts that can spark economic growth for all our people and stabilize democratic change.

But such efforts depend on a spirit of mutual interest and mutual respect. No government or company, no school or NGO will be confident working in a country where its people are endangered. For partnerships to be effective, our citizens must be secure and our efforts must be welcomed.

A politics based only on anger, one based on dividing the world between us and them not only sets back international cooperation, it ultimately undermines those who tolerate it. All of us have an interest in standing up to these forces.

Let us remember that Muslims have suffered the most at the hands of extremism. On the same day our civilians were killed in Benghazi, a Turkish police officer was murdered in Istanbul only days before his wedding, more than 10 Yemenis were killed in a car bomb in Sanaa, several Afghan children were mourned by their parents just days after they were killed by a suicide bomber in Kabul.

The impulse towards intolerance and violence may initially be focused on the West, but over time it cannot be contained. The same impulses towards extremism are used to justify war between Sunni and Shia, between tribes and clans. That leads not to strength and prosperity, but to chaos. In less than two years, we have seen largely peaceful protests bring more change to Muslim-majority countries than a decade of violence. And extremists understand this, because they have nothing to offer to improve the lives of people, violence is their only way to stay relevant. They dont build. They only destroy.

It is time to leave the call of violence and the politics of division behind. On so many issues, we face a choice between the promise of the future or the prisons of the past, and we cannot afford to get it wrong. We must seize this moment, and America stands ready to work with all who are willing to embrace a better future.

The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt. It must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted, Muslims, Christians, we are one. The future must not belong to those who bully women. It must be shaped by girls who go to school and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons.

(APPLAUSE)

The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a countrys resources. It must be won by the students and entrepreneurs, the workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people. Those are the women and men that America stands with. Theres is the vision we will support.

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.

(APPLAUSE)

Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims and Shia pilgrims. Its time to heed the words of Gandhi, Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.

(APPLAUSE)

Together, we must work towards a work where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them. That is what America embodies. Thats the vision we will support. Among Israelis and Palestinians, the future must not belong to those who turn their backs on the prospect of peace. Let us leave behind those who thrive on conflict, those who reject the right of Israel to exist.

The road is hard, but the destination is clear: a secure Jewish state of Israel and an independent, prosperous Palestine.

(APPLAUSE)

Understanding that such a peace must come through a just agreement between the parties, America will walk alongside all who are prepared to make that journey.

In Syria, the future must not belong to a dictator who massacres his people. If theres a cause that cries out for protests in the world today, peaceful protest, it is a regime that tortures children and shoots rockets in apartment buildings. And we must remain engaged to assure that what began with citizens demanding their rights does not end in a cycle of sectarian violence.

Together, we must stand with those Syrians who believe in a different vision, a Syria that is united and inclusive, where children dont need to fear their own government and all Syrians have a say in how theyre governed  Sunnis and Alawites, Kurds and Christians. Thats what America stands for. Thats is the outcome that we will work for, with sanctions and consequences for those who persecute and assistance and support for those who work for this common good.

Because we believe that the Syrians who embrace this vision will have the strength and legitimacy to lead.

In Iran, we see where the path of a violent and unaccountable ideology leads. The Iranian people have a remarkable and ancient history, and many Iranians wish to enjoy peace and prosperity alongside their neighbors. But just as it restricts the rights of its own people, the Iranian government continues to prop up a dictator in Damascus and supports terrorist groups abroad.

Time and again, it has failed to take the opportunity to demonstrate that its nuclear program is peaceful and to meet its obligations to the United Nations.

So let me be clear: America wants to resolve this issue through diplomacy, and we believe that there is still time and space to do so. But that time is not unlimited.

We respect the right of nations to access peaceful nuclear power, but one of the purposes of the United Nations is to see that we harness that power for peace.

Make no mistake: A nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained. It would threaten the elimination of Israel, the security of Gulf nations, and the stability of the global economy. It risks triggering a nuclear arms race in the region, and the unraveling of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Thats why a coalition of countries is holding the Iranian government accountable. And thats why the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. We know from painful experience that the path to security and prosperity does not lie outside the boundaries of international law and respect for human rights. Thats why this institution was established from the rubble of conflict; that is why liberty triumphed over tyranny in the Cold War; and that is the lesson of the last two decades as well.

History shows that peace and progress come to those who make the right choices. Nations in every part of the world have travelled this difficult path.

Europe  the bloodiest battlefield of the 20th century  is united, free and at peace. From Brazil to South Africa, from Turkey to South Korea, from India to Indonesia people of different races, religions and traditions have lifted millions out of poverty, while respecting the rights of their citizens and meeting their responsibilities as nations.

And it is because of the progress that Ive witnessed in my own lifetime, the progress that Ive witnessed after nearly four years as president, that I remain ever hopeful about the world that we live in.

The war in Iraq is over. American troops have come home.

Weve begun a transition in Afghanistan, and America and our allies will end our war on schedule in 2014.

Al Qaida has been weakened and Osama bin Laden is no more. Nations have come together to lock down nuclear materials, and America and Russia are reducing our arsenals.

We have seen hard choices made  from Naypyidaw to Cairo to Abidjan  to put more power in the hands of citizens.

At a time of economic challenge, the world has come together to broaden prosperity. Through the G-20, we have partnered with emerging countries to keep the world on the path of recovery.

America has pursued a development agenda that fuels growth and breaks dependency, and worked with African leaders to help them feed their nations.

New partnerships have been forged to combat corruption and promote government that is open and transparent. And new commitments have been made through the Equal Futures Partnership to ensure that women and girls can fully participate in politics and pursue opportunity.

And later today, I will discuss our efforts to combat the scourge of human trafficking.

All these things give me hope. But what gives me the most hope is not the actions of us, not the actions of leaders. It is the people that Ive seen. The American troops whove risked their lives and sacrificed their limbs for strangers half a world away. The students in Jakarta or Seoul who are eager to use their knowledge to benefit mankind. The faces in a square in Prague or a parliament in Ghana who see democracy giving voice to their aspirations. The young people in the favelas of Rio and the schools of Mumbai whose eyes shine with promise.

These men, women and children of every race and every faith remind me that for every angry mob that gets shown on television, there are billions around the world who share similar hopes and dreams. They tell us that there is a common heartbeat to humanity.

So much attention in our world turns to what divides us. Thats what we see on the news, thats what consumes our political debates. But when you strip all away, people everywhere long for the freedom to determine their destiny; the dignity that comes with work; the comfort that comes with faith; and the justice that exists when governments serve their people and not the other way around.

The United States of America will always stand up for these aspirations for our own people and for people all across the world. That was our founding purpose. That is what our history shows. That is what Chris Stevens worked for throughout his life.

And I promise you this: Long after the killers are brought to justice, Chris Stevens legacy will live on in the lives that he touched, in the tens of thousands who marched against violence through the streets of Benghazi, in the Libyans who changed their Facebook photo to one of Chris, in the signs that read simply, Chris Stevens was a Friend to all Libyans. They should give us hope. They should remind us that so long as we work for it, justice will be done, that history is on our side, and that a rising tide of liberty will never be reversed.

Thank you very much.

Отсюда.

Снова, об Обаме.

This is how a Nobel Peace Prize laureate goes to war.

He smiles warmly at the members of the U.N. General Assembly. He mentions his grandmother’s village in Kenya and notes that “Islam teaches peace.” He admits his country’s own flaws, praises “the path of diplomacy and peace,” and asserts that lasting gains cannot be “won at the barrel of a gun.”

Also, he wades a good 19 minutes into his 40-minute speech (the official time limit is 15 minutes) before getting to the nub of the matter: “The terrorist group known as ISIL must be degraded and ultimately destroyed.”

“In the most horrific crimes imaginable, innocent human beings have been beheaded, with videos of the atrocity distributed to shock the conscience of the world,” he says. “No god condones this terror. No grievance justifies these actions. There can be no reasoning, no negotiation, with this brand of evil. The only language understood by killers like this is the language of force. So the United States of America will work with a broad coalition to dismantle this network of death.”

Network of Death! A linguistic heir to George W. Bush’s Axis of Evil, perchance? “Those who have joined ISIL should leave the battlefield while they can,” the peacemaker threatens.

This is a different Obama from the one who spoke in Cairo five years ago, urging a new era in relations between America and the Muslim world. Though similar themes appeared in both addresses, the 2014 Obama was more demanding of the Muslim world — and less apologetic about America’s role — as he lectured Muslim leaders to make a serious fight against extremists.

In the 2009 speech, Obama invoked the “Holy Koran” five times and asserted that “any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail.” He spoke out against the U.S. use of torture and said he would close the Guantanamo Bay prison. (He didn’t.) He spoke of the “intolerable” situation faced by Palestinians and called for a stop to Israeli settlements.

“The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few,” the new president said. “Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism — it is an important part of promoting peace.”

On Wednesday, the second-term president went relatively easy on Israel, instead telling Arab countries to stop using the conflict “as an excuse to distract people from problems at home.”

Obama was stern in his instructions for the Muslims: “It is time for the world, especially in Muslim communities, to explicitly, forcefully and consistently reject the ideology of organizations like al-Qaeda and ISIL,” also known as the Islamic State. He went on at some length about the intolerance of clerics who preach hate and the “hypocrisy” of those who fund terrorism.

The president gave the world homework, instructing them to report back next year on “concrete steps that we have taken to counter extremist ideologies.” And he instructed Arab nations to “acknowledge the destruction wrought by proxy wars and terror campaigns between Sunni and Shia across the Middle East.”

Obama, against the familiar green-marble backdrop in midtown Manhattan, gave Russia a sharp but brief slap, decrying its “might makes right” invasion of Ukraine. He took the delegates on a brief world tour — across the Pacific, to Iran and into Africa’s Ebola crisis — before settling in the Middle East, where he used language similar to his predecessor’s.

“In this century, we have faced a more lethal and ideological brand of terrorists who have perverted one of the world’s great religions,” he said. “With access to technology that allows small groups to do great harm, they have embraced a nightmarish vision that would divide the world into adherents and infidels, killing as many innocent civilians as possible, employing the most brutal methods.”

In the end, he pulled back from his Bush imitation by mentioning this summer’s racial strife in Ferguson, Mo. “What you see in America is a country that has steadily worked to address our problems,” he told the world leaders. “. . . America is not the same as it was” even a decade ago, “because we address our differences in the open space of democracy with respect for the rule of law, with a place for people of every race and every religion.”

“After nearly six years as president,” Obama said, “I believe that this promise can help light the world.”

It was a powerful expression of American exceptionalism — rooted not in power but in justice — and an artful way for a man of peace to make the case for conflict.

Twitter: @Milbank

Взято,  отсюда.

Никак не могу выбросить из головы Оруэлла:

ВОЙНА — ЭТО МИР

СВОБОДА — ЭТО РАБСТВО

НЕЗНАНИЕ — СИЛА

Отсюда.

Сначала, создаем террористов, обучая их и подкармливая оружием. Потом,  с ними воюем. Впрочем, даже воюя, подкармливаем часть террористов оружием и обучая их. При этом, конечно, надеемся на то, что эта часть  наши ребята, и что эти самые наши ребята будут воевать с теми, плохими террористами.

Никак не могу определить эту политику как,  разумную.

Сумасшествие!

Все на английском.

Это все о климате. Факты и то, что есть на самом деле.

An Associated Press fact-check on President Obama’s climate change speech to the United Nations Tuesday accused the president of clearly spinning the facts and distorting the truth about America’s response to global warming.

The AP fact-checker faulted Obama “gloss[ing] over some inconvenient truths” in his global warming lecture Tuesday, particularly in regard to his claims about America’s attempts to clean up emissions at home and his insistence that emissions reductions do not have an impact on the economy.

The fact-check says that not only did Obama distort the numbers to claim that in the last eight years the U.S. reduced total carbon pollution “by more than any other nation on Earth”—Europe actually reducing theirs by a larger percentage in that time—Obama is hiding the fact that the U.S. has largely lowered those emissions by “sending dirty fuel abroad to pollute the same sky.”

THE FACTS: The U.S. is actually sending more dirty fuel abroad even as it takes steps to help other nations transition to cleaner energy. The U.S. has cuts its own coal consumption by 195 million tons in six years. But according to an AP analysis of Energy Department data, about 20 percent of that coal was shipped to power plants and other customers overseas. Emissions from that coal were not eliminated but rather moved to other countries. As well, the U.S. exported more products refined from oil — another dirty fuel — than it imported, starting in 2011.

Obama also tried to claim that we have been able to grow our economy while simultaneously cutting carbon emissions, “proving” there’s no conflict between combating global warming and growing the economy. The AP rips that claim apart, pointing to the Great Recession as the key factor in half of our so-called self-imposed reductions:

OBAMA: So, all told, these advances have helped create jobs, grow our economy, and drive our carbon pollution to its lowest levels in nearly two decades — proving that there does not have to be a conflict between a sound environment and strong economic growth.…

THE FACTS: About half of the 10 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions the U.S. has achieved in recent years can be attributed to the economic recession, not any specific actions from the Obama administration. Obamas comments also left out that U.S. carbon emissions rose 2.9 percent from 2012 to 2013, the first increase since 2007, because higher natural gas prices spurred more coal use.

Another verifiably false statement by the president was that the Climate Action Plan “was working,” helping lower greenhouse gas emissions in 2012. Major problem: the plan was not even announced until June 2013.

THE FACTS: That plan has nothing to do with reductions in emissions in 2012 because it was not announced until June 2013. Moreover, two of its cornerstone regulations — controls on new and existing coal-fired power plants — are at this point just proposals. The administration isnt expected to complete those rules until next year and some states may not submit plans until after Obama leaves office. The statement also leaves out the fact that in 2013, emissions in the U.S. rose for the first time since 2007.

Obama did invest in renewable energy and boost fuel economy before announcing the climate plan. But the plan cant be credited with improving anything before it came into existence.

Отсюда.

Информация от РБК

Ущерб для платежного баланса России из-за введения санкций и снижения цен на нефть составил 4 процентных пункта ВВП. Об этом глава департамента долгосрочного стратегического планирования Минфина Максим Орешкин сообщил на конференции Fitch, передает Интерфакс.

По оценкам Орешкина, рост геополитической напряженности стоил 2 п.п ВВП, еще около 2 п.п ВВП Россия потеряла на снижении цены на нефть марки Urals со $110 до $93 с начала второго квартала 2014 года. В годовом выражении такое снижение цены на нефть означает снижение экспорта на $55 млрд.

По его словам, нынешнее падение цен на нефть является структурным – оно связано с ростом производства нефти и восстановлением добычи в Ливии. По словам представителям Минфина, резкого падения цен на нефть, как и резкого роста, в ближайшее время ждать не стоит: топливо стабилизируется на отметке $90 за баррель.

Орешкин отметил, что реакция на шок оказалась довольно мягкой. По его мнению, если бы цена отсечения при формировании бюджета была установлена на уровне $80 за баррель, экономика не заметила бы шоков.

Всемирный банк выступил 24 сентября с прогнозом по поводу будущего российской экономики, согласно которому страну может ждать стагнация или даже рецессия, если власти не проведут структурные реформы. Базовый сценарий предполагает, что Россию ждет стагнация: прогнозируемый рост составляет 0,5% в 2014 году, 0,3% и 0,4% в 2015 и 2016 годах.

Пессимистичный сценарий предполагает нарастание напряженности, в результате чего в экономике наступит длительная рецессия. По сравнению с 2014 годом, когда рост составит 0,5%, экономика сократится на 0,9% в 2015 году и на 0,4% в 2016 году.

Оптимистичный сценарий Всемирного банка предполагает незначительное оживление экономики благодаря ослаблению геополитической напряженности и отмене всех санкций к концу 2014 года. Экономисты в таком случае прогнозируют повышение темпов роста ВВП с 0,5% в 2014 году до 0,9% в 2015 году и 1,3% в 2016 году.

Читать полностью, здесь

Вбросом занимаются солдатские матери.

От Анатолия Шария, отсюда.

Почему ее используют в качестве источника?

От Игоря Иртеньева

Монолог на выдохе

В. Долиной

Нет, мы империя добра!

А не империя мы зла,

Как мы тут слышали вчера

От одного тут мы козла.

Не будем называть страну,

Главой которой был козел,

Мечтавший развязать войну,

От наших городов и сел

Чтоб не осталось и следа,

Но мы ему сказали: „Нет!“

И он был вынужден тогда,

Чтоб свой спасти авторитет

Козлиный, с нами заключить

Один известный договор,

Который должен исключить

Саму возможность всякий спор

Решать насильственным путем,

А нам такой не нужен путь,

Поскольку к миру мы идем,

А если вдруг когда-нибудь

Другой козел захочет вдруг

С пути нас этого свернуть,

Ему мы скажем: „Знаешь, друг,

Вали, откудова пришел!“,

И он отвалит — тот козел.

1982

Отсюда.

..от уходящего Президента страны..

Outgoing Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai took one final swipe at the U.S. Tuesday, telling a gathering of Afghan government employees that the 13-year American-led military action had failed to bring peace to his country.

We dont have peace because the Americans didnt want peace, said Karzai, who will officially give way to President-elect Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai when the latter is sworn in Monday.

If America and Pakistan really want it, peace will come to Afghanistan, Karzai added, referring to his countrys eastern neighbor as well as the U.S. The war in Afghanistan is to the benefit of foreigners. But Afghans on both sides are the sacrificial lambs and victims of this war. Karzai also thanked a number of countries for their efforts in Afghanistan — India, Japan, China, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, South Korea and Germany — without thanking the U.S.

Karzais words were met with a furious response by the American ambassador to Afghanistan James Cunningham, who called the comments ungracious and ungrateful.

It makes me kind of sad. I think his remarks, which were uncalled for, do a disservice to the American people and dishonor the huge sacrifices Americans have made here and continue to make here, Cunningham told a gathering of journalists.

Karzais spokesman Aimal Faizi told The Washington Post that while the president appreciates the efforts of U.S. troops and taxpayers to rebuilt the war-torn country, he also believes that the U.S. did not do enough to confront Pakistan-backed militants in the country and that Washington and Islamabad sabotaged efforts to reach a peace deal with the Taliban.

Karzai is the only president Afghanistan has known since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion removed the Taliban from power. In the intervening years, The United States has spent more than $100 billion on aid in Afghanistan since 2001 to train and equip the countrys security forces, to pave crumbling dirt roads, to upgrade hospitals and to build schools. More than 2,200 U.S. forces have died in Afghanistan operations since 2001. Nearly 20,000 have been wounded.

Полностью,  здесь.

Печально. Многие американцы искренне не понимают, почему все так вот оборачивается.

Я  тоже.

Еще два дня назад у нас стояла сильная жара. Кондиционер работал без выключения.

Сегодня,  дождь. Прохладно. Короче,  Портланд, с его знаменитой погодой.

Спросите,  что изменилось?  Ничего.

На календаре  24-ое сентября. Осень!

Опять же, с Украины.

Признаюсь честно, я, до последнего не верил, что нацизм на Украине существует. Многие говорили, что это все выдумки российских СМИ и зомбирование ими же российского обывателя.

Но, снова, от Анатолия Шария.

Отсюда.

От Анатолия Шария.

Он нашел источники присутствия российских войск на Украине.

Все о том же, о западных СМИ.

(44) The Ukraine, Corrupted Journalism, and the Atlanticist Faith (9Aug 2014)

The European Union is not (anymore) guided by politicians with a grasp of history, a sober assesment of global reality, or simple common sense connected with the longterm interests of what they are guiding. If any more evidence was needed, it has certainly been supplied by the sanctions they have agreed on last week aimed at punishing Russia.

One way to fathom their foolishness is to start with the media, since whatever understanding or concern these politicians may have personally they must be seen to be doing the right thing, which is taken care of by TV and newspapers.

In much of the European Union the general understanding of global reality since the horrible fate of the people on board the Malaysian Airliner comes from mainstream newspapers and TV which have copied the approach of Anglo-American mainstream media, and have presented ‘news’ in which insinuation and villification substitute for proper reporting. Respected publications, like the Financial Times or the once respected NRC Handelsblad of The Netherlands for which I worked sixteen years as East Asia Correspondent, not only joined in with this corrupted journalism but helped guide it to mad conclusions. The punditry and editorials that have grown out of this have gone further than anything among earlier examples of sustained media hysteria stoked for political purposes that I can remember. The most flagrant example I have come across, an anti-Putin leader in the (July 26) Economist Magazine, had the tone of Shakespeare’s Henry V exhorting his troops before the battle of Agincourt as he invaded France.

One should keep in mind that there are no European-wide newspapers or publications to sustain a European public sphere, in the sense of a means for politically interested Europeans to ponder and debate with each other big international developments. Because those interested in world affairs usually read the international edition of the New York Times or the Financial Times, questions and answers on geopolitical matters are routinely shaped or strongly influenced by what editors in New York and London have determined as being important. Thinking that may deviate significantly as can now be found in Der Spiegel, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Die Zeit and Handelsblatt, does not travel across German borders. Hence we do not see anything like a European opinion evolving on global affairs, even when these have a direct impact on the interests of the European Union itself.

The Dutch population was rudely shaken out of a general complacency with respect to world events that could affect it, through the death of 193 fellow nationals (along with a 105 people of other nationalities) in the downed plane, and its media were hasty in following the American-initiated fingerpointing at Moscow. Explanations that did not in some way involve culpability of the Russian president seemed to be out of bounds. This was at odds right away with statements of a sober Dutch prime minister, who was under considerable pressure to join the fingerpointing but who insisted on waiting for a thorough examination of what precisely had happened.

The TV news programs I saw in the days immediately afterwards had invited, among other anti–Russian expositors, American neocon-linked talking heads to do the disclosing to a puzzled and truly shaken up audience. A Dutch foreign policy specialist explained that the foreign minister or his deputy could not go to the site of the crash (as Malaysian officials did) to recover the remains of Dutch citizens, because that would amount to an implicit recognition of diplomatic status for the “separatists”. When the European Union en bloc recognizes a regime that has come into existence through an American initiated coup d’'etat, you are diplomatically stuck with it.

The inhabitants and anti-Kiev fighters at the crash site were portrayed, with images from youtube, as uncooperative criminals, which for many viewers amounted to a confirmation of their guilt. This changed when later reports from actual journalists showed shocked and deeply concerned villagers, but the discrepancy was not explained, and earlier assumptions of villainy did not make way for any objective analysis of why these people might be fighting at all. Tendentious twitter and youtube ‘news’ had become the basis for official Dutch indignation with the East Ukrainians, and a general opinion arose that something had to be set straight, which was, again in general opinion, accomplished by a grand nationally televised reception of the human remains (released through Malaysian mediation) in a dignified sober martial ceremony.

Nothing that I have seen or read even intimated that the Ukraine crisis – which led to coup and civil war – was created by neoconservatives and a few R2P (“Responsibility to Protect”) fanatics in the State Department and the White House, apparently given a free hand by President Obama. The Dutch media also appeared unaware that the catastrophe was immediately turned into a political football for White House and State Department purposes. The likelihood that Putin was right when he said that the catastrophe would not have happened if his insistence on a cease-fire had been accepted, was not entertained.

As it was, Kiev broke the cease-fire – on the 10th of June – in its civil war against Russian speaking East Ukrainians who do not wish to be governed by a collection of thugs, progeny of Ukrainian nazis, and oligarchs enamored of the IMF and the European Union. The supposed ‘rebels’ have been responding to the beginnings of ethnic cleansing operations (systematic terror bombing and atrocities – 30 or more Ukrainians burned alive) committed by Kiev forces, of which little or nothing has penetrated into European news reports.

It is unlikely that the American NGOs, which by official admission spent 5 billion dollars in political destabilization efforts prior to the February putsch in Kiev, have suddenly disappeared from the Ukraine, or that America’s military advisors and specialized troops have sat idly by as Kiev’s military and militias mapped their civil war strategy; after all, the new thugs are as a regime on financial life-support provided by Washington, the European Union and IMF. What we know is that Washington is encouraging the ongoing killing in the civil war it helped trigger.

But Washington has constantly had the winning hand in a propaganda war against, entirely contrary to what mainstream media would have us believe, an essentially unwilling opponent. Waves of propaganda come from Washington and are made to fit assumptions of a Putin, driven and assisted by a nationalism heightened by the loss of the Soviet empire, who is trying to expand the Russian Federation up to the borders of that defunct empire. The more adventurous punditry, infected by neocon fever, has Russia threatening to envelop the West. Hence Europeans are made to believe that Putin refuses diplomacy, while he has been urging this all along. Hence prevailing propaganda has had the effect that not Washington’s but Putin’s actions are seen as dangerous and extreme. Anyone with a personal story that places Putin or Russia in a bad light must move right now; Dutch editors seem insatiable at the moment.

There is no doubt that the frequently referred to Moscow propaganda exists. But there are ways for serious journalists to weigh competing propaganda and discern how much veracity or lies and bullshit they contain. Within my field of vision this has only taken place a bit in Germany. For the rest we must piece political reality together relying on the now more than ever indispensable American websites hospitable to whistleblowers and old-fashioned investigative journalism, which especially since the onset of the ‘war on terrorism’ and the Iraq invasion have formed a steady form of samizdat publishing.

In The Netherlands almost anything that comes from the State Department is taken at face value. America’s history, since the demise of the Soviet Union, of truly breathtaking lies: on Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Venezuela, Libya and North Korea; its record of overthrown governments; its black-op and false flag operations; and its stealthily garrisoning of the planet with some thousand military bases, is conveniently left out of consideration. The near hysteria throughout a week following the downed airliner prevented people with some knowledge of relevant history from opening their mouths. Job security in the current world of journalism is quite shaky, and going against the tide would be almost akin to siding with the devil, as it would damage one’s journalistic ‘credibility’.

What strikes an older generation of serious journalists as questionable about the mainstream media’s credibility is editorial indifference to potential clues that would undermine or destroy the official story line; a story line that has already permeated popular culture as is evident in throwaway remarks embellishing book and film reviews along with much else. In The Netherlands the official story is already carved in stone, which is to be expected when it is repeated ten-thousand times. It cannot be discounted, of course, but it is based on not a shred of evidence.

The presence of two Ukrainian fighterplanes near the Malaysian airliner on Russian radar would be a potential clue I would be very interested in if I were investigating either as journalist or member of the investigation team that The Netherlands has officially been put in charge of. This appeared to be corroborated by a BBC Report with eyewitness accounts from the ground by villagers who clearly saw another plane, a fighter, close to the airliner, near the time of its crash, and heard explosions coming from the sky. This report has recently drawn attention because it was removed from the BBC’s archive. I would want to talk with Michael Bociurkiw, one of the first inspectors from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to reach the crash site who spent more than a week examining the wreckage and has described on CBC World News two or three “really pock-marked” pieces of fuselage. “It almost looks like machine gun fire; very, very strong machine gun fire that has left these unique marks that we haven’t seen anywhere else.”

I would certainly also want to have a look at the allegedly confiscated radar and voice records of the Kiev Air Control Tower to understand why the Malaysian pilot veered off course and rapidly descended shortly before his plane crashed, and find out whether foreign aircontrollers in Kiev were indeed sent packing immediately after the crash. Like the “Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity”, I would certainly urge the American authorities with access to satellite images to show the evidence they claim to have of BUK missile batteries in ‘rebel’ hands as well as of Russian involvement, and ask them why they have not done so already. Until now Washington has acted like a driver who refuses a breathalyzer test. Since intelligence officials have leaked to some American newspapers their lesser certainty about the American certainties as brought to the world by the Secretary of State, my curiosity would be unrelenting.

To place European media loyalty to Washington in the Ukraine case as well as the slavish conduct of European politicians in perspective, we must know about and understand Atlanticism. It is a European faith. It has not given rise to an official doctrine, of course, but it functions like one. It is well summed up by the Dutch slogan at the time of the Iraq invasion: “zonder Amerika gaat het niet” (without the United States [things] [it] won’t work). Needless to say, the Cold War gave birth to Atlanticism. Ironically, it gained strength as the threat from the Soviet Union became less persuasive for increasing numbers among European political elites. That probably was a matter of generational change: the farther away from World War II, the less European governments remembered what it means to have an independent foreign policy on global-sized issues. Current heads of government of the European Union are unfamiliar with practical strategic deliberations. Routine thought on international relations and global politics is deeply entrenched in Cold War epistemology.

This inevitably also informs ‘responsible’ editorial policies. Atlanticism is now a terrible affliction for Europe: it fosters historical amnesia, willful blindness and dangerously misconceived political anger. But it thrives on a mixture of lingering unquestioned Cold War era certainties about protection, Cold War loyalties embedded in popular culture, sheer European ignorance, and an understandable reluctance to concede that one has even for a little bit been brainwashed. Washington can do outrageous things while leaving Atlanticism intact because of everyone’s forgetfulness, which the media do little or nothing to cure. I know Dutch people who have become disgusted with the villification of Putin, but the idea that in the context of Ukraine the fingerpointing should be toward Washington is well-nigh unacceptable. Hence, Dutch publications, along with many others in Europe, cannot bring themselves to place the Ukraine crisis in proper perspective by acknowledging that Washington started it all, and that Washington rather than Putin has the key to its solution. It would impel a renunciation of Atlanticism.

Atlanticism derives much of its strength through NATO, its institutional embodiment. The reason for NATO’s existence, which disappeard with the demise of the Soviet Union, has been largely forgotten. Formed in 1949, it was based on the idea that transatlantic cooperation for security and defense had become necessary after World War II in the face of a communism, orchestrated by Moscow, intent on taking over the entire planet. Much less talked about was European internal distrust, as the Europeans set off on their first moves towards economic integration. NATO constituted a kind of American guarantee that no power in Europe would ever try to dominate the others.

NATO has for some time now been a liability for the European Union, as it prevents development of concerted European foreign and defense policies, and has forced the member states to become instruments serving American militarism.

It is also a moral liability because the governments participating in the ‘coalition of the willing’ have had to sell the lie to their citizens that European soldiers dying in Iraq and Afghanistan have been a necessary sacrifice to keep Europe safe from terrorists. Governments that have supplied troops to areas occupied by the United States have generally done this with considerable reluctance, earning the reproach from a succession of American officials that Europeans do too little for the collective purpose of defending democracy and freedom.

As is the mark of an ideology, Atlanticism is ahistorical. As horse medicine against the torment of fundamental political ambiguity it supplies its own history: one that may be rewritten by American mainstream media as they assist in spreading the word from Washington.

There could hardly be a better demonstration of this than the Dutch experience at the moment. In conversations these past three weeks I have encountered genuine surprise when reminding friends that the Cold War ended through diplomacy with a deal made on Malta between Gorbachev and the elder Bush in December 1989, in which James Baker got Gorbachev to accept the reunification of Germany and withdrawal of Warsaw Pact troops with a promise that NATO would not be extended even one inch to the East. Gorbachev pledged not to use force in Eastern Europe where the Russians had some 350,000 troops in East Germany alone, in return for Bush’s promise that Washington would not take advantage of a Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe. Bill Clinton reneged on those American promises when, for purely electoral reasons, he boasted about an enlargement of NATO and in 1999 made the Czech Republic and Hungary full members. Ten years later another nine countries became members, at which point the number of NATO countries was double the number during the Cold War. The famous American specialist on Russia, Ambassador George Kennan, originator of Cold War containment policy, called Clinton’s move “the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era.”

Historical ignorance abetted by Atlanticism is poignantly on display in the contention that the ultimate proof in the case against Vladimir Putin is his invasion of Crimea. Again, political reality here was created by America’s mainstream media. There was no invasion, as the Russian sailors and soldiers were already there since it is home to the ‘warm water’ Black Sea base for the Russian navy. Crimea has been a part of Russia for as long as the United States has existed. In 1954 Khrushchev, who himself came from the Ukraine, gave it to the Ukrainian Socialist Republic, which came down to moving a region to a different province, since Russia and Ukraine still belonged to the same country. The Russian speaking Crimean population was happy enough, as it voted in a referendum first for independence from the Kiev regime that resulted from the coup d’'etat, and subsequently for reunification with Russia.

Those who maintain that Putin had no right to do such a thing are unaware of another strand of history in which the United States has been moving (Star Wars) missile defense systems ever closer to Russian borders, supposedly to intercept hostile missiles from Iran, which do not exist. Sanctimonious talk about territorial integrity and sovereignty makes no sense under these circumstances, and coming from a Washington that has done away with the concept of sovereignty in its own foreign policy it is downright ludicrous.

A detestable Atlanticist move was the exclusion of Putin from the meetings and other events connected with the commemoration of the Normandy landings, for the first time in 17 years. The G8 became the G7 as a result. Amnesia and ignorance have made the Dutch blind to a history that directly concerned them, since the Soviet Union took the heart out of the Nazi war machine (that occupied The Netherlands) at a cost of incomparable and unimaginable mumbers of military dead; without that there would not have been a Normandy invasion.

Not so long ago, the complete military disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan appeared to be moving NATO to a point where its inevitable demise could not to be too far off. But the Ukraine crisis and Putin’s decisiveness in preventing the Crimea with its Russian Navy base from possibly falling into the hands of the American-owned alliance, has been a godsend to this earlier faltering institution.

NATO leadership has already been moving troops to strengthen their presence in the Baltic states, sending missiles and attack aircraft to Poland and Lithuania, and since the downing of the Malaysian airliner it has been preparing further military moves that may turn into dangerous provocations of Russia. It has become clear that the Polish foreign minister together with the Baltic countries, none of which partook in NATO when its reason for being could still be defended, have become a strong driving force behind it. A mood of mobilisation has spread in the past week. The ventriloquist dummies Anders Fogh Rasmussen and Jaap de Hoop Scheffer can be relied upon to take to TV screens inveighing against NATO memberstate backsliding. Rasmussen, the current Secretary General, declared on August 7 in Kiev that NATO’s “support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine is unwavering” and that he is looking to strengthen partnership with the country at the Alliance’s summit in Wales in September. That partnership is already strong, so he said, “and in response to Russia’s aggression, NATO is working even more closely with Ukraine to reform its armed forces and defence institutions.”

In the meantime, in the American Congress 23 Senate Republicans have sponsored legislation, the “Russian Aggression Prevention Act”, which is meant to allow Washington to make the Ukraine a non-NATO ally and could set the stage for a direct military conflict with Russia. We will probably have to wait until after America’s midterm elections to see what will become of it, but it already helps provide a political excuse for those in Washington who want to take next steps in the Ukraine.

In September last year Putin helped Obama by making it possible for him to stop a bombing campaign against Syria pushed by the neocons, and had also helped in defusing the nuclear dispute with Iran, another neocon project. This led to a neocon commitment to break the Putin-Obama link. It is hardly a secret that the neoconservatives desire the overthrow of Putin and eventual dismemberment of the Russian Federation. Less known in Europe is the existence of numerous NGO’s at work in Russia, which will help them with this. Vladimir Putin could strike now or soon, to preempt NATO and the American Congress, by taking Eastern Ukraine, something he probably should have done right after the Crimean referendum. That would, of course, be proof of his evil intentions in European editorial eyes.

In the light of all this, one of the most fateful questions to ask in current global affairs is: what has to happen for Europeans to wake up to the fact that Washington is playing with fire and has ceased being the protector they counted on, and is instead now endangering their security? Will the moment come when it becomes clear that the Ukraine crisis is, most of all, about placing Star Wars missile batteries along an extensive stretch of Russian border, which gives Washington – in the insane lingo of nuclear strategists – ‘first strike’ capacity?

It is beginning to sink in among older Europeans that the United States has enemies who are not Europe’s enemies because it needs them for domestic political reasons; to keep an economically hugely important war industry going and to test by shorthand the political bona fides of contenders for public office. But while using rogue states and terrorists as targets for ‘just wars’ has never been convincing, Putin’s Russia as demonized by a militaristic NATO could help prolong the transatlantic status quo. The truth behind the fate of the Malaysian airliner, I thought from the moment that I heard about it, would be politically determined. Its black boxes are in London. In NATO hands?

Other hindrances to an awakening remain huge; financialization and neoliberal policies have produced an intimate transatlantic entwining of plutocratic interests. Together with the Atlanticist faith these have helped stymie the political development of the European Union, and with that Europe’s ability to proceed with independent political decisions. Since Tony Blair, Great Britain has been in Washington’s pocket, and since Nicolas Sarkozy one can say more or less the same of France.

That leaves Germany. Angela Merkel was clearly unhappy with the sanctions, but in the end went along because she wants to remain on the good side of the American president, and the United States as the conqueror in World War II does still have leverage through a variety of agreements. Germany’s foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, quoted in newspapers and appearing on TV, repudiated the sanctions and points at Iraq and Libya as examples of the results brought by escalation and ultimatums, yet he too swings round and in the end goes along with them.

Der Spiegel is one of the German publications that offer hope. One of its columnists, Jakob Augstein, attacks the “sleepwalkers” who have agreed to sanctions, and censures his colleagues’ fingerpointing at Moscow. Gabor Steingart, who publishes Handelsblatt, inveighs against the “American tendency to verbal and then to military escalation, the isolation, demonization, and attacking of enemies” and concludes that also German journalism “has switched from level-headed to agitated in a matter of weeks. The spectrum of opinions has been narrowed to the field of vision of a sniper scope.” There must be more journalists in other parts of Europe who say things like this, but their voices do not carry through the din of villification.

History is being made, once again. What may well determine Europe’s fate is that also outside the defenders of the Atlanticist faith, decent Europeans cannot bring themselves to believe in the dysfunction and utter irresponsibility of the American state.

Отсюда.

Здесь,  не очень хороший перевод этой статьи на русский.

Одно из большого множества, стихотворений Высоцкого..

Я никогда не верил миражи,

В грядущий рай не ладил чемодана 

Учителей сожрало море лжи

И выплюнуло возле Магадана.

Но, свысока глазея на невежд,

От них я отличался очень мало 

Занозы не оставил Будапешт,

А Прага сердце мне не разорвала.

А мы шумели в жизни и на сцене:

Мы путаники, мальчики пока.

Но скоро нас заметят и оценят.

Эй! Против кто?

Намнём ему бока!

Но мы умели чувствовать опасность

Задолго до начала холодов.

С бесстыдством шлюхи приходила ясность

И души запирала на засов.

И нас хотя расстрелы не косили,

Но жили мы поднять не смея глаз 

Мы тоже дети страшных лет России,

Безвременье вливало водку в нас.

Источник

..Хорошая идея.

Размышления на эту тему привели нас к мысли, что нужно начать долгосрочную, до достижения прочного мира, акцию, мягко задействовав в ней тысячи и тысячи украинских детей.

Смысл акции заключается в следующем.

Украинские школьники в торжественной обстановке получают наклейки размером 150х15 мм со словами «НАМ потрібен/нужен МИР». Цветовая гамма – либо синие буквы на белом фоне, либо наоборот.

Наклеивают их на портфели и не сдирают до тех пор, пока не окончится война.

Наиболее активные из детей клеят их также на двери магазинов, подъездов и другие часто обозреваемые плоскости.

Изготовлены также ленты большого размера (430х50 мм) с тем же текстом для наклеивания на стёкла автомобилей, автобусов…

Сегодня «вышли в свет» первые тысячи малых наклеек для раздачи детям и первые сотни для раздачи автомобилистам

Полностью,  здесь.