LIFE ARMY

We won't pay

lesnoy — Thu, 19 Feb 2026 10:58:25 GMT

"Alms for the obvious candidate." AI-generated clones of Zelenskyy begging for money have taken over thousands of billboards across Hungary.
According to the Financial Times, ahead of the parliamentary elections scheduled for April 12, government-backed advertisement billboards generated by artificial intelligence have been put up on the streets of Hungary.
They depict a slyly smiling Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, holding out his hand in anticipation of another cash tranche, as well as European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Manfred Weber, the leader of the European People's Party, frowning as they demand that funds be allocated to the Ukrainian leader.
The caption on the billboard reads: "Let's tell Brussels [Europe's political center]: we won't pay [for Ukraine]!"

Coronavirus - Der Kreml greift durch

forester — Fri, 07 Feb 2020 17:48:56 GMT

https://www.mdr.de/nachrichten/osteuropa/politik/corona-russland-102.html
Coronavirus - Der Kreml greift durch
Ähnlich wie in Deutschland spielt sich die Corona-Epidemie in Russland bisher vor allem in den Medien ab. Doch die jüngste Rückführung russischer Staatsbürger via Flugzeug aus China und die dann folgende Zwangsquarantäne in Sibirien sorgen jetzt für mächtigen Ärger. Und stellt die Frage nach den Menschenrechten.
von Maxim Kireev
An diesen Flug will Polina Andanowa lieber nicht zurückdenken. Zwölf Stunden mit Holzbänken statt Sitzen, ohne Heizung und als Toilette diente ein Eimer mit einer Zeltplane als Sichtschutz. Eine Iljuschin-76, eine Militärmaschine für den Transport von Soldaten und schwerem Gerät gebaut, hat am Mittwoch mehr als 150 Russen und einige Staatsbürger anderer ehemaliger Sowjetrepubliken aus China ausgeflogen und ins sibirische Tjumen gebracht. "Die Reise war sehr beschwerlich, jetzt bin ich gesund und glücklich", schrieb die Russin in ihrem Instagram-Profil unter einem Selfie mit Atemschutzmaske.
Kreml feiert Evakuierung - Betroffene beschweren sich
Für den Kreml war die Operation ein voller Erfolg. "Wir lassen unsere Landsleute nicht im Stich", erklärte Russlands Vize-Regierungschefin Tatjana Golikowa. Es habe sich um eine humanitäre Aktion gehandelt. Organisiert wurde sie durch das Verteidigungsministerium. Doch nicht wenige der Evakuierten beschwerten sich bereits in sozialen Netzwerken und bei Journalisten über die Bedingungen. Viele der Betroffenen hätten nicht gewusst, wo sie in Russland landen und wie sie die nächsten Tage verbringen werden. Fast zwei Wochen müssen die ausgeflogenen Russen nun in einer Herberge ausharren, meist mit wildfremden Mitreisenden zu dritt oder zu viert auf einem Zimmer, das sie während der Quarantäne nicht verlassen dürfen. Die Herberge wird von Soldaten der Nationalgarde überwacht.

Zu den Kritikern gesellte sich ebenfalls der ehemalige oberste Amtsarzt Russlands, Gennadij Onischtschenko. "Es wäre besser, man hätte die Menschen nach Hause geschickt und regelmäßig medizinisch beobachtet", sagte er der Agentur Interfax. "Wo bleiben die Menschenrechte, warum sollte man einen Moskauer in ein Reservat nach Tjumen verfrachten", staunt der Experte.

Passagiere eines Flugzeuges
Zwölf Stunden mit Holzbänken statt Sitzen, ohne Heizung und als Toilette diente ein Eimer mit einer Zeltplane als Sichtschutz.
BILDRECHTE: IMAGO IMAGES/ITAR-TASS
Übertriebene Maßnahmen?
Die Maßnahmen der russischen Regierung wirken tatsächlich harsch. Zumal bisher nur zwei Fälle in Russland bestätigt worden sind. Dabei handelt es sich um zwei chinesische Staatsbürger, die derzeit in Krankenhäusern im fernöstlichen Tschita und im westsibirischen Tjumen behandelt werden. Trotzdem hat Russland bereits Anfang Februar die Zugverbindungen nach China gekappt. Zuvor hatte die Regierung bereits die Schließung der mehrere Tausend Kilometer langen Landesgrenze in Russlands Osten zu China veranlasst. Russlands Premier Michail Mischustin stellte zudem in Aussicht, dass ausländische Infizierte in ihre Heimat abgeschoben werden könnten. In Russland selbst kontrollieren beispielsweise Sanitäter die Körpertemperatur von Zugreisenden mit kontaktlosen Fieberthermometern in den Schnellzügen zwischen Moskau und Sankt-Petersburg.

Die Ansicht eines Gebäudes des Gradostroitel-Behandlungs- und Rehabilitationszentrums, in dem russische Staatsbürger untergebracht werden sollen, die aus China evakuiert wurden.
Fehlendes Vertrauen in staatliche Informationspolitik
Offenbar sollen die Maßnahmen des Kreml auch eine Massenpanik unter den Menschen in Russland verhindern. Nicht wenige Russen misstrauen den eigenen Behörden in Krisensituationen. Die angesehene Moskauer Zeitung Wedomosti warnte die Regierung bereits davor, das Ausmaß der Krise zu verschweigen und erinnerte an vergangene Katastrophen, etwa den Brand in einem Einkaufszentrum in der Großstadt Kemerowo, bei dem das lange Zurückhalten von offiziellen Informationen dazu führte, dass Gerüchte über massiv höhere Opferzahlen die Runde machten. Für Misstrauen sorgte diesmal bereits der erste bestätigte Fall einer Corona-Infektion in Russland. Der Infizierte, eine Mann mit chinesischer Staatsbürgerschaft, hatte gegenüber Journalisten darüber geklagt, dass ihn die Behörden nicht über seinen Zustand informiert hätten. Dass er tatsächlich infiziert sei, habe der Mann aus den Nachrichten erfahren.

Desinfektion einer Rolltreppe als Teil der vorbeugenden Maßnahmen gegen die Ausbreitung des neuartigen Coronavirus.

Mediale Aufregung um Coronavirus
Seitdem sind keine neuen Fälle hinzugekommen. Stattdessen spielt sich die Krise bisher vor allem in den Medien ab, die minutiös über Chinas Kampf gegen die Infektion berichten. Oder aber über gierige Apotheker in Russland, die die Preise für Atemschutzmasken um das fünf- bis zehnfache in die Höhe geschraubt haben. Auch wenn in der Öffentlichkeit bisher kaum jemand einen Atemschutz trägt, sind in vielen Versandapotheken und in Großstädten wie Sankt-Petersburg einfache Papiermasken und aufwendigere Atemschutzmasken ausverkauft. Ein Umstand, der sogar den russischen Präsidenten kürzlich alarmiert hat. "Man sollte solchen Apotheken ganz einfach ihre Lizenz entziehen", sagte Wladimir Putin. Diese kämen beim nächsten Mal bestimmt nicht mehr auf die Idee, sich bereichern zu wollen.

Selfie von Dr. Li Wenliang

Clinton Calls On Trump To Disclose Ties To 'Kremlin And Its Associates'

forester — Tue, 01 Nov 2016 14:20:53 GMT

http://www.rferl.org/a/clinton-calls-trump-disclose-kremlin-ties/28087132.html
RUSSIA
October 31, 2016 Carl Schreck
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton says Donald Trump should disclose any ties he may have to the Kremlin or its "associates," suggesting such links could be connected to what U.S. intelligence has called Russian meddling in American elections.
In her latest bid to portray her opponent as the Kremlin's choice for the White House, Clinton told a crowd in the key swing state of Ohio on October 31 that Russian President Vladimir Putin is "trying to get Donald Trump elected."
She alleged the Kremlin had ordered cyberattacks against U.S. targets to help Trump, suggesting it could be motivated by what she called Trump's "pro-Kremlin policies" or "maybe because of the extensive business dealings with Russian oligarchs with ties to Putin."

"Donald Trump should immediately disclose all of his ties and connections to the Kremlin and its associates," she told the crowd in Kent, Ohio. "The American people deserve to know the full extent of these links and how they relate to what the Russians are doing in our election."

U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton (file photo)

Clinton did not specify which "Russian oligarchs" she was referring to.

Trump has repeatedly rejected Clinton's accusations that the Kremlin sees him as a potential "puppet." Moscow has also dismissed allegations that it is trying to influence the election and accused Clinton of whipping up anti-Russian "hysteria" in her campaign.

Exactly what, if any, business dealings Trump has in Russia remains unclear. He has broken protocol dating back several decades in U.S. presidential elections by not yet releasing his tax returns, citing an audit by the Internal Revenue Service.

He said on Twitter in July that he has "zero investments" in Russia.

Trump has done business with Aras Agalarov, an Azerbaijan-born Russian real estate tycoon, who brought the Republican candidate's Miss Universe Pageant to Moscow in 2013.

That same year, Agalarov, whose Crocus Group has secured two government contracts to build stadiums for the 2018 World Cup in Russia, was decorated with a state award by Putin. Agalarov has also said he would like to see Putin rule the country "for life."

Trump also sold a Florida property to Russian billionaire Dmitry Rybolovlev for $95 million in 2008, though Rybolovlev is not seen as close to Putin and has had tense relations with the Kremlin in the past.

E-Mail Hacks

The U.S. government earlier this month publicly accused Russia of orchestrating a string of cyberattacks targeting U.S. political organizations and prominent current and former officials in what Washington called a bid "to interfere with the U.S. election process."

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Homeland Security said they are "confident" the Russian government "directed" the hacking of e-mails of individuals and groups, including the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

Leaked internal e-mails from the DNC and Clinton's campaign have embarrassed the Democratic candidate, though she continues to lead in most national polls.

Trump, who has advocated repairing ties with Moscow battered over the conflicts in Ukraine and Syria, has cast doubt on the U.S. intelligence community's allegation of Russia's complicity in the cyberattacks.

He has also spoken warmly of Putin, saying the Russian leader has been a better leader for his country than U.S. President Barack Obama has been for the United States.

Clinton seized on Trump's positive assessments of Putin in her October 31 speech in Ohio, saying the Russian president "knows he can use flattery to get into Donald's head to make Donald the Kremlin's puppet."

"And it seems to be working. Donald has signaled to Putin that he will let Russia do whatever it wants, from Ukraine to Syria and beyond," she said.

Putin last week dismissed allegations of trying to tilt the election in Trump's favor.

He told a group of foreign academics that Trump had behaved "extravagantly" during the campaign because he represented ordinary voters and wanted to get his message across.

"He has chosen a method to get through to voters' hearts," Putin said.

Clinton Says "No Case" In New FBI Review Of E-Mails

In her speech in Ohio, Clinton also took aim at a new federal review of her e-mails that the FBI director announced last week, saying said that there is "no case" to be found.

"I'm not making excuses. I've said it was a mistake and I regret it," she said of her decision to use a private e-mail server while secretary of state, which sparked a controversial FBI investigation.

It was the first time Clinton directly addressed the e-mail furor since she lashed out on October 29 at FBI director James Comey for announcing in a letter to lawmakers last week that his agents are reviewing a newly discovered trove of emails.

Clinton called the FBI director's decision to send a letter to lawmakers in the final days of presidential campaigning before the national election on November 8 as "deeply troubling.”

The letter resurrected an issue Clinton had thought was behind her after Comey in July accused Clinton of being "extremely careless" in the use of her private e-mail server but did not recommend that charges be brought against her.

The Democratic leader in the U.S. Senate says the head of the FBI "may have broken the law" by revealing the agency was investigating newly discovered e-mails.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (Democrat-Nevada) sent a letter to Comey on October 30 suggesting he had violated the Hatch Act, which bars officials from using their position to influence an election.

With reporting by The Washington Post, tvrain.ru, AFP, and Reuters

Could Hillary Clinton start a world war? Sure as hell she could – and here’s how

forester — Sat, 29 Oct 2016 01:30:10 GMT

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/could-hillary-start-a-world-war-sure-as-hell-she-could-and-here-s-how-a7379051.html
You can condemn that semi-isolationist ‘America First' mindset if you want, but the easiest way to prevent the next world war is simply to let the Russians have what they want, provided it makes no difference to you
Sean O'Grady @_seanogrady Tuesday 25 October
Like Donald Trump or not – and I like him no more than, well, Hillary Clinton – there is one thing he might be good for. Peace. A small matter, I know, when set against his serial (alleged) philandering and worse, but worth pondering for a moment. A hideous, but necessary thought experiment runs something like this.
What is the single most important relationship the United States of America could build to secure world peace? Why, the same one that, when it goes horribly wrong, leaves us all sliding towards testing the doctrine of mutually assured destruction in a nuclear age. Always a bit mad to end up there. Yes, that’s right, the most important relationship is with the Russians, or, as we once knew them, the Soviets. They’re the ones we need to get along with.

Now this is where The Donald scores above his sensible, sane, intelligent and diplomatic Democratic opponent. Donald gets it. He gets that if you decide to run your foreign policy devoid of moral content with the sole guiding principle that “my enemy’s enemy is my friend” (copyright Joseph Stalin), then peace, cooperation, even alliance with Russia is possible, indeed desirable.

Vladimir Putin meets Hillary Clinton, then US Secretary of State, during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit, Vladivostok, in 2012 Getty
The Russians, more than a little cynically, have asked the West for decades to join them in a war against “Islamist terrorism”, but which they principally mean the separatist movements in Chechnya and elsewhere. Donald Trump is the first presidential contender, more even than George W Bush, who looks like he’d actually want to take them up on the offer. Trump is fixated to the point of racism on the militant Islamist violence that he tells his fearful audience is “just around the corner”. It is all too easy to imagine a state visit by Vladimir Putin to Washington where he is feted and falls into the arms (we hope no more) of an affectionate President Trump. The US-Russia Strategic Partnership would be the fruit of that particular liaison, with secret provisions, no doubt, on assassinating terrorist leaders, and public pledges on intelligence sharing, with the whole relationship consummated by series of joint bombing raids in Syria. They would share a goal to destroy Isis, even though they have not been able to do so recently, because it would be part of a wider cooperation. Such would be the new world order.

I mean, let us be clear. This would not be a humanitarian approach, and it wouldn’t work either. You don’t beat terrorism that way, nor end civil wars through mass bombing. But the US-Russia alliance of 2017 is not supposed to, in that sense. It’s just supposed to make two testosterone-fuelled leaders of the planet’s superpowers feel good about themselves, and impress their constituents who yearn – on parallel – for their countries to be “great again”.

When that happens, they are much less inclined to start a war with one another. The rest of the world, or the parts of it fortunate enough not to be on the wrong side of either or, especially, both, can be assured that Russia and America have found a new future for us all. Only the Chinese would be unduly put out, and there wouldn’t be much they, or their wacky unreliable friends in North Korea, could do about it.

How about Hillary? Well, she is certainly needled by Trump’s laser-guided focus on the US national interest, accusing him of being a Russian puppet, joking that he reads his speeches translated from the original Russian. That’s why she doesn’t get it. She thinks, like President Obama, that her job is to stop Russian aggression in Ukraine, in the Baltic republics and elsewhere in eastern Europe, and around the world generally. She is right, in the sense that that is what America’s best traditions call for. She is wrong by the Kissingerite doctrine of placing the American national interest first and last in foreign policy. Sometimes, as in Nixon and Kissinger’s time, that means making overtures to unpleasant regimes and taking bold initiatives in the cause of a broader, wider peace. Even if that means sacrificing smaller nations and former allies (as with the expendable South Vietnamese). It is ugly, but it works, after a fashion.

Ronald Reagan, who Trump consciously tries to emulate, was a different case. He started as the coldest of Cold Warriors, outspent the USSR on defence, broke its will to win the arms race, and eventually made peace with an exhausted Mikhail Gorbachev. The option was not open to Reagan, for ideological and strategic reasons, to make an easy, early peace with the Soviet Union. That’s where Trump is different to his hero; Trump would make such a peace. He will define America’s interests in such a way as to suit Moscow. Reagan’s administration could not tolerate the Russians occupying, say, Afghanistan, and spent time and money trying to drive them out; Trump couldn’t give a trump about who’s in power in Kabul.

Donald Trump accuses Hillary Clinton of ‘playing chicken’ with Russia’s nuclear arsenal
You can condemn that semi-isolationist “America First” mindset if you want, but the easiest way to prevent the next world war is simply to let the Russians have what they want, provided it makes no difference to you. Trump has almost said as much about American intentions; smaller Nato allies, if they don’t pay their way, can go hang if they want American men and women to lay down their lives for them. The Russians can have Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania if they want. We’re not talking about giving them Rhode Island or Alaska, are we?

It’s a mistake to think that Democrats are always “soft on Russia” or, to put things more positively, that they want détente and peace and will take risks for them. Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter did: But some of the toughest of Cold Warriors came from Ms Clinton’s party – JFK, LBJ and Harry Truman gave the Russians hell for decades, partly because, as Democrats, they felt they had to demonstrate that they weren’t pushovers for the guys in the Kremlin. Maybe a bit like Hillary does now. The nearest the world has ever come to destruction been the 13 days the world held its breath during the Cuba missile crisis of 1962: climate change has nothing on that little episode for scariness.

Something like the Cuba crisis could happen again under President Hilary Clinton; one can see her issuing unenforceable ultimatums on Putin because his proxies have grabbed some bit of territory in the Caucasus most of us haven’t heard of. That is much, much less likely to occur under President Trump. That’s true whatever they say about his attitude to women – which is, I hasten to add, unhealthy, immoral, demeaning and wrong.

I agree that it is a false choice, and that it should be possible to have a civilised figure with a blameless private life running America and who will also pursue peace. That, though, is not the choice that presents itself on 8 November.

So Trump for Peace? Not as mad as it first appears, though the price would be heavy. Maybe his supporters – the unswayables, the deplorables, Trumpers – could start singing a new tune, one that John Lennon gave the world.

All together now: “All we are saying is Give Trump a Chance…”

ABD Suriye’de Rus istihbaratçıları mı vurdu

forester — Fri, 23 Sep 2016 23:00:29 GMT

http://www.milligazete.com.tr/abd_suriye’de_rus_istihbaratcilari_mi_vurdu/prof_dr_mehmet_seyfettin_erol/kose_yazisi/31151
Prof. Dr. Mehmet Seyfettin Erol
19.09.2016 mehmetseyfettinerol@milligazete.com.tr@RSS
Sesli Köşe Yazısı
İşler Suriye’de tam manasıyla “Arap saçına döndü”. Kimin eli kimin cebinde, kimin kimi vurduğu belli değil. Kör kurşunun yerini; “kusura bakmayın, yanlışlıkla oldu” türünden geçiştirmelerle ifade edilen “kazara bombalamalar” almış durumda.
Geçtiğimiz Cumartesi günü de böyle bir kazara bombalama yaşandı. Daha önceleri Afganistan’da ve Pakistan’da çok sayıda kazara bombalamalar yapan ABD güçleri, bu sefer Suriye’de bu “yanlışlığı” yaptı. Açıkçası ABD bunu da inkâr etmedi. ABD Merkez Komutanlığı (CENTCOM), ABD öncülüğündeki koalisyona ait jetlerin Deyr Ez Zor’da Suriye ordusu mevzilerini vurduklarını doğrulayan bir açıklama yayınladı. Söz konusu açıklamada, Suriye askerlerinin “yanlışlıkla” bombalandığı iddia edilerek, asıl hedefin IŞİD mevzileri olduğu ifade edildi. Tabi yerseniz!
Nitekim Rusya da “yemezler” dedi ve Birleşmiş Milletler Güvenlik Konseyi’ni olağanüstü toplantıya çağırdı. Her ne kadar mevzu medyada da yer aldığı üzere, uluslararası koalisyonun hava saldırılarında Suriyeli askerlerin ölmesi ve bunun Rusya ile ABD arasında gerginliğe yol açtığı şeklinde yer alsa da, krizin daha derin olduğu Rusya’nın verdiği ve vereceği olası tepkilerde saklı.
Çünkü mevzu sadece IŞİD ve Suriyeli askerler gibi görünmüyor. Sosyal medyayı yakından takip edenler bu saldırı sonrası “Yahya Kaptan”ın bir twitter hesabı üzerinden yaptığı paylaşımları muhtemelen görmüşlerdir. Yahya Kaptan’ın gerçekte kim olduğunu bilmiyoruz ama bugüne kadar ki paylaşımları açıkçası onu fazlasıyla dikkate almamızı gerektiriyor.
Yahya Kaptan olayın gerçekleştiği anlarda aynen şu bilgileri takipçileriyle paylaştı: “İşin sıkıntılı durumu; 3 Rus subayın ve istihbarat istasyonunun da vurulduğu, önemli bir Rus istihbaratçının öldüğü bilgisi geliyor. Rusların bu istasyonda önemli IŞİD’lileri yakalayıp sorguladığı ve ABD bağlantılarını çözdüğü bu yüzden bombalandığını söylüyor. En az 80 Esed rejimi askerinin öldüğü saldırıya İsrail uçaklarının da katıldığı iddialarını Rus ajanslar geçiyor.”
Eğer bu bilgiler doğru ise, o zaman oyun daha yeni başlıyor demektir, Rusya bunun altında sadece BM Güvenlik Konseyi’ni toplantıya çağırmakla kalmaz. Ve denildiği gibi işin içinde İsrail uçakları da var ise, o zaman her şey sil baştan!
“Halep-Rakka-Musul” Üçgeni’ne Dikkat!
Türkiye’nin oyuna girmesi ve yeni bir dengeye imza atmasıyla birlikte “Halep-Rakka-Musul” üçgenindeki tüm hesaplar da alt üst olmuş vaziyette. Bu üçgeni kontrol altında tutan güç ya da güçler asırlık projelerini uygulama imkânına kavuşacaklar. Projelerin çatıştığı bu üçgende çok daha kanlı savaş(lar) kaçınılmaz gibi. Dolayısıyla süreç yeni bir paylaşım savaşına gebe. Eğer taraflar bunu masa başında halledemezler ise, alanda örtülü bir şekilde yürütülen Üçüncü Dünya Savaşı aleniyet kazanacak ve deklare edilecek.
Bu noktada, ABD’nin “yanlışlıkla” Esad güçlerini vurması, krizde yeni bir “kırılma”ya işaret ediyor. Taraflar sahada “ucu açık” son kozlarını açıktan oynuyorlar. Düne kadar terör örgütleri üzerinden yürütülen güç mücadelesi (vekaleten savaş), yerini düzenli orduların da sürece doğrudan dahil olmaya başladığı, tam manasıyla bir hibrit savaşa dönüştüğünü gösteriyor.
Devletlerin pustukları yerlerden bir bir çıkmaya başlaması bu açıdan önemli. Son olarak ABD ve İsrail’in eş zamanlı ve muhtemelen eşgüdümlü gerçekleştirdikleri iki saldırı bunun en temel göstergesi. Ve bu saldırılarda Suriyeli güçler ile birlikte Rus güçlerin (istihbaratçıların) de hedef alındığına yönelik iddialar, kriz içerisinde kriz olarak karşımıza çıkıyor.
Türkiye-Rusya: ‘Kırmızı Çizgi’lerden ‘Kırmızı Hat’a...
ABD-Rusya arasındaki gerginliğin Türkiye’ye “tercih” boyutunda yansımaması kaçınılmaz. Bu husus en son olarak 24 Kasım 2015’te test edildi ve görüldü. 24 Kasım Krizi öncesi öngörülen bu husus, tarafların tedbir almakta gecikmesinden dolayı iki ülkeyi bir savaşın eşiğine kadar getirmişti.
Dolayısıyla, sınırlarımızdaki bu keşmekeşliğin Türkiye ve Rusya’yı bir kez daha oyuna getirmesi güçlü bir olasılık olarak mevcudiyetini koruyor. En azından her iki ülkenin silahlı kuvvetlerinin böyle bir değerlendirme yaptığı ortada ve bu kez ellerini çabuk tutmaya çalışıyorlar. Bu bağlamda hibrid savaşın önemli teorisyenlerinden biri olan ve kendi adıyla anılan teoriyi Gürcistan, Kırım-Ukrayna ve Suriye’de uygulamaya koyan Rus Genelkurmay Başkanı ValeriyGerasimov’un Ankara ziyareti dikkatlerden kaçmaması gereken oldukça önemli bir ayrıntı...
Her iki ülkenin askeri birlikleri arasında iletişim kanallarının (kırmızı hat) kurulması konusunda varılan anlaşma bu ziyaretin en önemli sonuçlarından birisi diyebiliriz.
Türkiye ve Rusya bu “kırmızı hat” üzerinden üçüncü taraf(lar)a şu mesajı veriyor:
1. Türkiye ve Rusya bir kez daha ortak tehdit-düşman emperyalizme karşı bir beka mücadelesi içerisindedir ve bunu bertaraf etmenin yolu ortak işbirliğinden geçmektedir; 2. Türkiye ve Rusya Genişletilmiş Ortadoğu-BOP’a, bir diğer ifadeyle “Avrasya Seddi Projesi”ne karşıdır ve bunun gerçekleşmemesi için sonuna kadar mücadele edecektir; 3. Hiç kimse Türkiye-Rusya arasında bir savaş beklemesin; 4. Türkiye ve Rusya çok kutuplu bir dünyadan yanadır; 5. Her iki ülke Avrasya’da İşbirliği Eylem Planı’nda ortaya konulan hedeflerin her ne pahasına olursa olsun sonuna kadar arkasındadır.
Tabi ki anlayana...

European Council president backs demands for EU military buildup

forester — Thu, 22 Sep 2016 20:58:57 GMT

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/09/14/tusk-s14.html
By Alex Lantier
14 September 2016
Yesterday evening, European Union (EU) Council President Donald Tusk addressed a letter to EU heads of state, formally inviting them to Friday’s summit in Bratislava. Summarizing talks he has held with officials across the continent, and painting a picture of escalating political disarray, Tusk declared that the British exit from the EU has unleashed a historic crisis of the entire Union.
“It would be a fatal error to assume that the negative result in the UK referendum represents a specifically British issue,” Tusk wrote. He added, “People in Europe want to know if the political elites are capable of restoring control over events and processes which overwhelm, disorientate, and sometimes terrify them. Today many people, not only in the UK, think that being part of the European Union stands in the way of stability and security.”
In the letter’s only reference of the economic distress and social anger of the European population amid the deepest crisis of world capitalism since the 1930s, Tusk briefly wrote: “Our citizens also expect the European Union to better protect their economic and social interests.”
Tusk went on to admit that the crisis of the EU is so deep that it threatens the survival of democracy in Europe: “History has taught us that this can lead to a massive turn away from freedom and the other fundamental values that the European Union is founded upon.” Tusk warned that, 15 years after the September 11 attacks, the “war on terror” has strengthened neo-fascistic forces. “The promise of a ruthless crackdown on terrorism,” he wrote, “has become one of the main slogans of right-wing extremists.”
Tusk’s response to his own assessment of the situation underscores the historic bankruptcy of the EU’s defenders. Having acknowledged that the European bourgeoisie’s law-and-order, anti-immigrant policies strengthen neo-fascistic forces and threaten a collapse into authoritarian forms of rule, Tusk called for continuing precisely these policies—that is, strengthening military and police forces and escalating the crackdown on refugees.
“In this context, the effective control of our external borders comes first, and has both practical and symbolic dimensions,” he declared. Attacking defenders of refugees’ right to asylum, he denounced “politically correct statements that Europe cannot become a fortress” and endorsed calls for blocking refugees from fleeing Syria and Iraq to Europe via the Balkans.
Tusk tacitly aligned himself on the consensus in the European ruling class in favour of the NATO war drive against Russia and of economically devastating social austerity policies. He was silent on the tens of millions of unemployed workers in Europe, and on the danger of a military clash between NATO and Russia, either on Russia’s borders or in Syria, as NATO escalates interventions in Eastern Europe and the Middle East.
With Tusk’s letter, the EU machine is backing proposals of Berlin and Paris, previewed in German and French papers, to reverse the break-up of the EU by turning it into a military alliance capable of waging major wars abroad and large-scale police operations at home.
Similarly, European Parliament Committee on Foreign Affairs chairman Elmar Brok called yesterday for escalating EU military capabilities and intervening in Syria.
Complaining that the EU is “too weak” and has “no political power,” Brok said, “I hope that [EU Commission president] Jean-Claude Juncker’s speech tomorrow to the European Parliament, and above all the heads of state and government meeting this week in Bratislava finally put a stop to this, build a European security and defence policy, and build common structures, so we play a role, also when our interests and values are at stake, if we can aid people. … I know the Syrian opposition is waiting for the Europeans finally to appear and not present this terrible spectacle.”
Such desperate attempts to recast the EU as a military-police regime testify to a historic breakdown of capitalism. Twenty-five years after the Stalinist bureaucracy dissolved the USSR in 1991, and the Maastricht Treaty founded the EU in 1992, pledging to safeguard peace, prosperity, and democracy, the European bourgeoisie has utterly repudiated these promises. Beset by economic crises for which it has no solutions, the escalating consequences of its own aggressive wars and rising social anger in the working class, it is staking everything on repression and war.
What dominates in European international relations is the failure of the EU to contain or address historically rooted conflicts between the European powers. Before the foundation of the EU, London and Paris were terrified by the implications of the reunification of Germany. French President François Mitterrand famously demanded that German Vice Chancellor Hans-Dietrich Genscher agree to a closer monetary union or face a possible alliance of France, Britain, and Russia against Germany, as on the eve of World War I.
Such economic and geostrategic conflicts are erupting again, with Britain facing years of bitter negotiations on the conditions of its exit from the EU, and conflicts rising between Germany, France and the southern and eastern European states that remain in the EU.
Yesterday, as the German press warned against the formation of a hostile southern European bloc including the eurozone’s number two and three economies, France and Italy, Luxembourg Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn flatly demanded the expulsion of Hungary from the EU. Asselborn warned that the reactionary, anti-immigrant policies of Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orbán were a danger to human rights.
Speaking to Germany’s Die Welt, Asselborn said that in Hungary, “people who are fleeing war are treated almost worse than wild animals.” He attacked the fence built around Hungary’s southern borders to stop Middle East refugees, warning that it is “always getting longer, higher, and more dangerous. Hungary is not far from opening fire on refugees.”
Complaining that the EU claimed to “defend certain values outside its borders, but it is no longer capable of advancing them at home,” he said: “It would be helpful if the rules were changed so that suspending the membership of an EU member state no longer required unanimity [among the other EU member states].”
Asselborn’s comments exemplify the hypocritical propaganda of different EU powers, as they jockey for geo-strategic advantage. While attacking Hungary’s anti-immigrant policies, he failed to explain why, for instance, he did not call for France to also be expelled from the EU—though it is ruthlessly dismantling refugee camps in Calais, building fences to prevent refugees from travelling on to Britain, and sending police to assault and detain those who try.
Der Spiegel, for its part, warned of the implications of Brexit and of the September 9 Athens summit between France, Italy, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Cyprus and Malta, in a piece titled “The New Strength of Club Med.” It pointed to calls from French President François Hollande for an “economic growth program,” and Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi for a €50 billion investment fund.
Berlin had, it concluded, “due to the Brexit lost a powerful ally, Britain,” strengthening calls from southern European countries for a loosening of EU austerity policies dictated from Berlin. “We represent more than half of the EU,” Renzi said, “and that gives us weight.”
In fact, Hollande, Renzi, and their host Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras all speak for deeply unpopular governments that have imposed austerity on the working class in an attempt to boost the profits of the banks, whose interests they represent. Amid the battle inside ruling circles for the division of these profits, however, their remarks drew a retort from German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble, who said, “When the social-democratic party leaders meet, nothing terribly clever tends to come of it.”

L’étude de l’islam de l’institut Montaigne est fracassante

forester — Wed, 21 Sep 2016 00:03:17 GMT

http://www.slate.fr/story/123677/islam-de-linstitut-montaigne-est-fracassante
Eric Le Boucher France 20.09.2016 - 12 h 51, mis à jour le 20.09.2016 à 13 h 33
JOEL SAGET / AFP
Ne va-t-on rien en tirer?
L’étude de l’islam en France conduite par l’Institut Montaigne n’aura-t-elle aucune suite? Les réactions ont été convenues, business as usual, les rassurés sont rassurés et les alarmés alarmés. Point final. Fermer ce rapport, classez-le dans un tiroir.
Cette étude inédite mérite beaucoup mieux. Ses résultats sont fracassants. Elle perce pour la première fois le brouillard. Comme les statistiques «ethniques» sont interdites en France, nous ne disposions d’aucune cartographie des musulmans. La science est évacuée, la connaissance nulle, on s’en remet à l’intuition et à l’idéologie. Ici, comme très souvent dans ces sujets polémiques, les carottes de la pensée sont précuites. Les optimistes pensent que l’intégration des musulmans est lente, certains admettent qu’elle est difficile, mais elle est en cours, soyez patients et tolérants. Les pessimistes pensent que c’est impossible, que le modèle français qui a intégré Bretons, Italiens et juifs, bute sur l’islam, une religion particulière. Soyez impatients et «identitaires».
Cette étude devrait au minimum conduire au lancement d’autres enquêtes du même type pour l’infirmer, la conforter, la préciser. Elle devrait aussi conduire à une révision considérable des politiques publiques.

Outil de rébellion
Son résultat fracassant est que l’islam est utilisé pour une large fraction de la population musulmane jeune, 28% ou 12% selon ce qu’on compte, «comme l’outil de rébellion contre la société française et l’occident en général», conclut l’auteur Hakim El Karoui.

Une femme devant la mosquée en construction de Grigny, le 3 août 2016. JOEL SAGET / AFP
Je souligne que 28% ou 12% ce n’est pas du tout pareil, il faudrait savoir! Mais dans les deux cas, c’est très grave pour les responsables de l’islam de voir leur religion utilisée comme un outil de révolte. C’est très grave pour les dirigeants politiques de voir que cette rébellion ne régresse pas, tout à l’inverse. Elle s’étend pour beaucoup de raisons fondamentales, économiques et géopolitiques (les conflits du Moyen-Orient), qui dépassent la France de loin.
Dire cela, est admettre la petitesse de la dispute des partis politiques français sur le nombre de flics, ou l’enfermement des fichés S. Est démontré que la seule réponse sécuritaire ne suffira pas et qu’elle est même peut être contre-productive puisque la répression provoque la radicalisation. L’interdiction du voile à l’école qui date d’il y a douze ans le montre. Aujourd’hui, explique l’étude, «environ 60% des 1029 enquêtés considèrent que les jeunes filles devraient pouvoir porter le voile au collège et au lycée». On a lu: 60%. Et il y a pire pour les tolérants: «Contrairement à l’opinion dominante qui voudrait que les hommes soient plus conservateurs que les femmes, le port du voile est rejeté par 26% des hommes mais seulement par 18% des femmes (…) Ces résultats témoignent d'une adhésion idéologique d'une part importante de la population féminine musulmane au port du voile, allant jusqu'à l'acceptation du voile intégral (pour 28 % des femmes)». Le voile est un outil de révolte ou, plus pacifiquement, l’affichage d’une «fierté islamiste». Dans ce cadre, on comprend pourquoi l’interdire renforce la volonté de le porter.

On va se rassurer. L’islam en France c’est, dit l’institut Montaigne «une majorité silencieuse, très souvent pratiquante mais sans conflit majeur avec les normes de la société française, d’une part; une minorité, attirée par le fondamentalisme, qui utilise l’islam pour dire sa révolte, d’autre part». La majorité des musulmans s’intègrent et respectent les valeurs de la République. Les jeunes des banlieues se révoltent? Mais ne le sait-on pas depuis le film La Haine de Kassovitz en 1995? Rien de neuf. Sauf que les comportements de radicalisation de ces jeunes musulmans démontrent que «ça ne va pas mieux» avec le temps. Les raisons extérieures, les pays arabes broyés par le jeu des grandes puissances occidentales, le conflit israélo-palestinien, comme les motifs intérieurs, les échecs scolaires, la faible qualification, les discriminations à l’embauche notamment, le chômage massif: tout agit dans le sens d’une aggravation.
Nous allons vers de plus en plus de difficultés d’intégration pas vers de moins en moins
L’étude ne dit que cela, mais c’est cela qui est fracassant. Nous allons vers de plus en plus de difficultés d’intégration pas vers de moins en moins. «On peut le déplorer, s’en féliciter, vouloir le combattre ou le respecter, ce fait social est bien réel. Il faut le traiter, dans le contexte qui est le nôtre -celui d’une violence terroriste et sans limite perpétrée au nom de l’islam, qui rend angoissant pour une majorité de Français le mouvement d’affirmation identitaro-religieux voire théologico- politique qui est à l’œuvre».
Que faire? D’abord prendre connaissance de ces comportements et de leurs explications. Il n’est que temps de rompre l’interdiction des statistiques ethniques. Ensuite, l’institut Montaigne fait des propositions pour que l’Etat aide les musulmans à se saisir enfin eux-mêmes de la lutte contre le fondamentalisme. Lever les ambiguïtés, assurer le financement, mettre fin à la tutelle des Etats étrangers, etc. Le gouvernement français a fait beaucoup de tentatives d’organisation de l’islam de France, aucune n’a réussi. Jean-Pierre Chevènement en est désormais la nouvelle cheville ouvrière. C’est, plus que la répression, le travail clé. Il en est un autre, autour des volets formation, travail, politique de la ville. L’échec est là plus que patent. Toutes les autorités, l’Ecole, le Medef, les ministères du travail, ont en vérité baissé les bras. L’institut Montaigne sonne l’urgence d’un réveil. Et on attend les propositions des candidats à la présidentielle.
Eric Le Boucher

How a Russian Fascist Is Meddling in America’s Election

forester — Tue, 20 Sep 2016 23:55:44 GMT

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/21/opinion/how-a-russian-fascist-is-meddling-in-americas-election.html
By TIMOTHY SNYDERSEPT. 20, 2016
Credit Dominic McKenzie
NEW HAVEN — The president of Russia, Vladimir V. Putin, once described the collapse of the Soviet Union as a “geopolitical catastrophe.” But the political thinker who today has the most influence on Mr. Putin’s Russia is not Vladimir Lenin, the founder of the Communist system, but rather Ivan Ilyin, a prophet of Russian fascism.
The brilliant political philosopher has been dead for more than 60 years, but his ideas have found new life in post-Soviet Russia. After 1991, his books were republished with long print runs. President Putin began to cite him in his annual speech to the Federal Assembly, the Russian equivalent of the State of the Union address.
To complete the rehabilitation, Mr. Putin saw to it that Ilyin’s corpse was repatriated from Switzerland, and that his archive was returned from Michigan. The Russian president has been seen laying flowers on Ilyin’s Moscow grave. And Mr. Putin is not the only disciple of Ilyin among the Kremlin elite.

Vladislav Y. Surkov, Moscow’s arch-propagandist, also sees Ilyin as an authority. Prime Minister Dmitri A. Medvedev, who served as president between 2008 and 2012, recommends Ilyin to Russian students. Ilyin figures in the speeches of the foreign minister, the head of the constitutional court and the patriarch of the Orthodox Church.

What are the ideas that have inspired such esteem?

Ilyin believed that individuality was evil. For him, the “variety of human beings” demonstrated the failure of God to complete the labor of creation and was therefore essentially satanic. By extension, the middle classes, political parties and civil society were also evil, because they encouraged the development of personalities beyond the single identity of the national community.

According to Ilyin, the purpose of politics is to overcome individuality, and establish a “living totality” of the nation. Writing in the 1920s and ’30s after his expulsion from the Soviet Union, when he became a leading emigré ideologue of the anti-Communist White Russians, Ilyin looked on Mussolini and Hitler as exemplary leaders who were saving Europe by dissolving democracy. His 1927 article “On Russian Fascism” was addressed to “My White brothers, the fascists.” Later, in the 1940s and ’50s, he provided the outlines for a constitution of a fascist Holy Russia governed by a “national dictator” who would be “inspired by the spirit of totality.”

This leader would be responsible for all functions of government in a completely centralized state. Elections would be held, with open voting and signed ballots, purely as a ritual of support of the leader. The reckoning of votes was irrelevant: “We must reject blind faith in the number of votes and its political significance.”

In the light of Ilyin’s rehabilitation as Russia’s leading ideologue, Moscow’s manipulations of elections should be seen not so much as a failure to implement democracy but as a subversion of the very concept of democracy. Neither the parliamentary elections of December 2011 nor the presidential elections of March 2012 produced a majority for Mr. Putin’s party or for Mr. Putin personally. Votes were therefore added to produce a decisive result.

Russians who protested the fixed elections were branded as national enemies. Nongovernmental organizations were forced to register as “foreign agents.” Mr. Putin even claimed that Hillary Clinton, then secretary of state, “gave the signal” to the Russian opposition to go on the streets. The notion that defending democracy meant betraying Russia was perfectly consistent with Ilyin’s view.

Since then, Mr. Putin has relied on Ilyin’s authority at every turning point in Russian politics — from his return to power in 2012 to the decision to intervene in Ukraine in 2013 and the annexation of Ukrainian territory in 2014. Last spring, he claimed that the American intelligence services would intervene in the Russian parliamentary elections held this past weekend and in the Russian presidential elections of 2018. The question of whether anyone in the Kremlin actually believes this is beside the point. These claims of constant American interference are intended to show that the democratic process is nothing more than a geopolitical game.

While Russian leaders consciously work to hollow out the idea of democracy in their own country, they also seek to discredit democracy abroad — including, this year, in the United States. Russia’s interventions in our presidential elections are not only the opportunistic support of a preferred candidate, Donald J. Trump, who backs Russian foreign policy. They are also the logical projection of the new ideology: Democracy is not a means of changing leadership at home, but a means of weakening enemies abroad. If we see politics as Ilyin did, Russia’s ritualization of elections becomes a virtue rather than a vice. Degrading democracy around the world would be a service to mankind.

If democracy is merely an invitation to foreign influence, then hacking a foreign political party’s email is the most natural thing in the world. If civil society is nothing but the decadent opening of a rotting society to foreign influence, then constant trolling of media is obviously appropriate. If, as Ilyin wrote, the “arithmetical understanding of politics” is harmful, then digital meddling in foreign elections would be just the thing.

For a decade, Russia has been sponsoring right-wing extremists as “election observers” — most recently, in the farcical referendums in the Crimea and in the Donbas region of Ukraine — in order to discredit both elections and their observation. Since democracy is a sham, as Ilyin believed, then it is right and good to imitate its language and procedures in order to discredit it. It is noteworthy that the Trump campaign has now imitated this very practice, supplying both its own private “observers” and the advance conclusion about the fraud they will find.

The technique of undermining democracy abroad is to generate doubt where there had been certainty. If democratic procedures start to seem shambolic, then democratic ideas will seem questionable as well. And so America would become more like Russia, which is the general idea. If Mr. Trump wins, Russia wins. But if Mr. Trump loses and people doubt the outcome, Russia also wins.

From Moscow’s point of view, it is easier to bring down democracy everywhere than it is to hold free, fair elections at home. Russia will seem stronger if other states follow its course of development toward a cynicism about democracy that allows authoritarianism to thrive. So we might as well get used to the interference, and take sensible precautions. It no longer makes sense to carry out elections and regulate campaign finance as if such matters were of no interest to hostile foreign powers.

Americans have plenty of other reasons to reform the democratic process, but protecting their integrity should take priority. Paper ballots for every voter and public financing of campaigns, to give two examples, would make sense both for citizens and for the electoral system. A simpler democracy would be a more secure one — and a more exemplary one.

Timothy Snyder, a professor of history at Yale, is the author, most recently, of “Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning.”

THIRD WORLD WAR HAS NEVER BEEN SO CLOSE

forester — Tue, 20 Sep 2016 23:15:10 GMT

http://katehon.com/article/third-world-war-has-never-been-so-close
20.09.2016 Russia
Alexander Dugin
As we have already said many times, the main aspect of this political season is not elections, but war. But if elections do have importance somewhere, then this is in the US where, once again, they are closely connected to war. Two days ago, on Saturday, September 17th, the likelihood of this war was breathtakingly high. As we know, American troops, who no one ever invited to Syria, bombed the positions of the Syrian army at Deir ez-Zor. As a result of the bombing, 60 Syrian soldiers were killed.
This strike was extremely important for ISIS militants, whom the US is informally advising and arming while supposedly fighting them. This crossed the line. Bombing Syrian soldiers is one thing, but this means declaring war not only against Syria, but also Russia, which is fighting in Syria on Assad’s side. And this means that we have reached a climax.

Sure, the US leadership immediately reported that the airstrike was a mistake and warned the Russian leadership not to express any emotions. But Americans can only be lying, as modern technology allows satellite objects to be seen from a desktop. Theoretically, American bombers could not have simply confused such a strike. And what’s most important: if they had told you that they were preparing to bomb you, and you said nothing, then does that mean you agree?

It is completely obvious that the US is preparing to start a war against Russia. Border incidents represent reconnaissance operations. But how will Moscow, Putin, and the Kremlin react? The point of no return has not yet been crossed, but did Moscow’s reaction not show just how many Russians are ready for a direct, frontal confrontation with the US and NATO? This was why the airstrike was launched against Syrian army positions.

The globalist US leadership obviously cannot rule the whole world and, what’s more, the threat posed by Trump puts their control over America itself into question. Now, while the puppet Barack Obama is still in office and the globalist candidate Hillary Clinton is falling apart in front of American voters’ very eyes, is the last chance to start a war. This would allow them to postpone elections or force Trump, if he were to win, to begin his presidency in catastrophic conditions. Thus, the US neoconservatives and globalists need war. And fast, before it’s too late. If Trump gets into the White House when there will be peace, then there will be no such war, at least for the foreseeable future. And this would spell the end of the omnipotence of the maniacal globalist elites.

Thus, everything at this point is very, very serious. NATO’s ideologues and the US globalists falling into the abyss need war right now - before the American elections. War against us. Not so much for victory, but for the process itself. This is the only way for them to prolong their dominance and divert the attention of Americans and the whole world from their endless series of failures and crimes. The globalists’ game has been revealed. Soon enough, they’ll have to step down from power and appear before court. Only war can save their situation.

But what about us? We don’t need war. Not now, now tomorrow, never. Never in history have we needed war. But we have constantly fought and, in fact, we have almost never lost. The cost entailed terrible losses and colossal efforts, but we won. And we will always win. If this were not so, then today we wouldn’t have such an enormous country free from foreign control.

But in this case, we need to buy as much time as possible. The Americans have essentially attacked our positions, like the Georgians in Tskhinvali in August 2008. Russians are under fire, and this cannot be ignored. Our reaction is extremely cautious and balanced. We have expressed what we think about this American act of aggression, but in very deliberate terms.

The fatality of the situation lies in that, if Washington decides to opt for war now, then we cannot avoid it. If they will insist and repeat the September 17th situation again and again, then we will have to either accept the challenge and go to war, or knowingly admit defeat.

In this situation, the outcome of the struggle for peace which is, as always, fully in our interests, does not depend on us. We really need peace, to buy time until November 8th, and then everything will be much easier. But will the collapsing colossus allow us this time?

God forbid that this happens. But those who could pray prayed on the eve of the First and Second World War. In any case, our goal is always and only victory. Our victory.

The Americans are bombing our guys. A Third World War has never been so close.

German left-wing politician gang-raped by immigrants is “unbelievably sorry” for being raped and for “racist society”

forester — Mon, 15 Feb 2016 21:53:27 GMT

http://whitegenocideproject.com/german-left-wing-politician-gang-raped-by-immigrants-is-unbelievably-sorry-for-being-raped-and-for-racist-society/
by Steve Goode • February 12, 2016
A 24-year-old woman, and speaker for the German “Left Youth” party was gang-raped by 3 immigrants on January the 27th, in the city of Mannheim.
German police are still carrying out their investigation, but on January the 30th, the woman, wrote an apology on Facebook, addressed to the immigrants who allegedly raped her. Here’s a few excerpts from the now-deleted post:
“Dear male Refugees, you are probably my age. Probably a few years younger. Maybe older. I am so terribly sorry! I did not see what happen before and I did not experience your grueling escape.”
“I am glad and happy that you made it here. That you have left the IS and its war behind and that you didn’t drown in the Mediterranean sea. But I fear that you are not safe here.”

“Burning refugee centers, violent attack on refugees on the street and a brown mob in the streets. I have always fought against this situation.”

“I wanted an open Europe, a friendly one. One in which I like to live, one in which both of us are safe. I am so sorry. For both of us I am so unbelievably sorry.”

“You, you are not safe because we live in a racist society. I am not safe, because we live in a sexist society.”

“But what I really feel sorry about is the case that the sexist and borderless acts that I suffered will lead to you being exposed to more and increasingly aggressive racism.”

“I promise you that I will scream. I will not let it happen anymore. I will not sit idle and let racists and concerned citizens turn you into a problem.”

“You are not the problem. You are no problem at all. You are a beautiful human being that deserves freedom and security as much as anyone. Thank you for your existence and nice to have you here.”

Wow! Ladies and gentlemen, I introduce to you: brainwashing. This is insanity! This is not the mind of a rational person..

Just recently, an Austrian woman’s 10 year-old son was raped by an Iraqi immigrant and she apologized to her children for telling them to “welcome refugees“ – she woke up and realized what’s going on.

But some people are just too far gone…

We will keep telling people that the establishment are committing White genocide by forcing “diversity” on White areas, and we hope this will wake up the majority. That’s all that we can do in this crazy world.

Saudi Arabia's Oil War With Russia

forester — Fri, 29 Jan 2016 13:16:29 GMT

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-10-16/saudi-arabia-s-oil-war-with-russia
833 Oct 16, 2015 1:22 PM EDT
By Leonid Bershidsky
As President Vladimir Putin tries to restore Russia as a major player in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia is starting to attack on Russia's traditional stomping ground by supplying lower-priced crude oil to Poland.
At a recent investment forum, Igor Sechin, chief executive of Rosneft, Russia's biggest oil company, complained about the Saudis' entry into the Polish market. "They're dumping actively," he said. Other Russian oil executives are worried, too. "Isn't this move a first step toward a redivision of Western markets?" Nikolai Rubchenkov, an executive at Tatneft, said at an oil roundtable Thursday. "Shouldn't the government's energy strategy contain some measures to safeguard Russia's interests in its existing Western markets?"
European traders and refiners confirm that Saudi Arabia has been offering its oil at significant discounts, making it more attractive than Russian crude. And, even though most eastern European refineries are now technologically dependent on the Russian crude mix, Russia's oilmen are right to be worried.

In the 1970s, Saudi Arabia sent half of its oil to Europe, but then the Soviet Union built export pipelines from its abundant West Siberian oil fields, and the Saudis switched to Asian markets, where demand was growing and better prices could be had. The Saudi share of the European crude market kept dropping; in 2009, it reached a nadir of 5.9 percent. Russia's share peaked at 34.8 percent in 2011. In recent years, Saudi Arabia slowly increased its presence, reaching a 8.6 percent share in 2013, but it had never tried its luck in Poland.

Like most of central and eastern Europe, Poland has long been a client of Russian oil companies. Last year, about three-quarters of its fuel imports came from Russia, with the rest from Kazakhstan and European countries. Poland, however, is at the center of efforts to reduce the European Union's dependence on Russian energy. Since Putin annexed Crimea from Ukraine last year, Poland, Ukraine's neighbor, has increased military expenditures and other efforts to shore up its security. It's working with its smaller neighbors, too. On Thursday, it announced an agreement with Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia to build a natural gas pipeline to and from the Baltic States, ensuring their future independence from Russian gas supplies.

In this context, a new and reliable supplier is a godsend. As for the Saudis, they need to expand outside Asia where demand is falling.

The Kremlin and Russian oilmen have long sensed Europe's appetite for energy diversification and have sought new markets. Until the 2000s, almost all Russian oil exports were to Europe. By last year, that share had shrunk to less than two-thirds:

In the Asian markets, Russia became a serious competitor to the Saudis. In May, Russian crude supplies to China even temporarily surpassed those of Saudi Arabia. Now that the Saudis are involved in a ruthless price war for market share -- not just with U.S. shale oil producers but with all suppliers who are not members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting countries -- they are moving into Russia's traditional market.

This could turn into a more active shoving match between the world's two biggest oil exporters, which already are at odds over the Syrian conflict. So far, OPEC and the International Energy Agency predict modest demand expansion next year, but if the Chinese economy continues performing worse than expected, that market may become too small for the Russians and the Saudis. Both economies are oil-dependent and retaining market share is a matter of survival.

Oil competition is a dangerous undercurrent in Putin's Middle Eastern policy. The Russian leader hopes that when its ally Iran re-enters the global oil and gas market, Russia will somehow share in the profits, perhaps through new pipelines across Syria. He also wants to stop the Saudis from establishing export routes in Syria. Now that Russian energy supremacy in Europe also is at stake, Putin's determination to resolve the Syrian conflict on his terms can only grow.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

To contact the author of this story:
Leonid Bershidsky at lbershidsky@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Max Berley at mberley@bloomberg.net

Saudi Arabia more of a threat to UK than Russia, says Ken Livingstone

forester — Fri, 29 Jan 2016 13:11:26 GMT

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/saudi-arabia-more-of-a-threat-to-britain-than-russia-says-ken-livingstone-a6768646.html
'We now face a threat from Muslim fundamentalism – most of which has been funded by Saudi Arabia, our principal ally'
    David Connett
    Thursday 10 December 2015
Russia is not as much a threat to Britain and the West as Saudi Arabia, Ken Livingstone has claimed at a conference in Moscow hosted by the pro-Kremlin television station Russia Today.
“The simple fact is, the West doesn’t face a threat from Russia,” the former Mayor of London said. “We now face a threat from Muslim fundamentalism. Most of which has been funded by Saudi Arabia, our principal ally, which has funded the most intolerant strand of Islam which bears no relation to the teaching of the Prophet Mohammed.”
Russia was getting a bad press and President Vladimir Putin was being demonised he also claimed. “In Britain no one is told about the discrimination against Russian-speaking people in the Baltic States, no one is told that it was actually pressure from the EU that insisted to the then Ukrainian president that they wouldn’t sign a trade deal unless they stopped negotiating a trade deal with Russia, and then when the president decided that he wouldn’t do that, oddly enough he was overthrown.”

Ken Livingstone, far left, at the Russia Today conference in Moscow on Thursday Corbis
During a panel discussion Mr Livingstone added that the “right things” were not being done to stop Islamic terrorism.

“The right thing isn’t being done, almost all Muslim fundamentalism has been funded by the Saudis and the Qataris, going back 70 years, spreading a particularly hate-filled Wahabi strand of Islam and Britain and America should be saying to them ‘You’ve got to stop funding this or you cannot be our ally’.”

Only now has Washington just begun to see that it needed to cooperate with Iran and Russia to combat Muslim terrorism, he said. “We need a broad coalition. The West is discredited after the fiasco over the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We need to bring in not just Russia and Iran but China, Nigeria and Brazil as well. It needs to be the world standing together. That’s what the UN was created for.”

Mr Livingstone warned the world was at a turning point. “I think if we don’t recognise the threat and if we don’t recognise our real allies then this could on for decades.”

    Ken Livingstone

El general Soleimani rescata al copiloto ruso del avión abatido por Turquía

forester — Fri, 25 Dec 2015 21:50:57 GMT

http://www.elmundo.es/internacional/2015/11/26/56573d4be2704e0e0a8b45d7.html
GUERRA CIVIL EN SIRIA
•El derribo del bombardero ruso
Según se informa desde Irán, el general iraní Qasem Soleimani, jefe de las fuerzas Quds, ha liderado la operación que ha permitido el rescate del copiloto del bombardero ruso
ZAHIDA MEMBRADO
- Teherán
Actualizado 26/11/201518:38
El general iraní Qasem Soleimani, jefe de las fuerzas Quds, la unidad de élite de la Guardia Revolucionaria en el exterior que combate desde hace meses al Estado Islámico en Irak y Siria, ha liderado la operación que ha permitido el rescate del copiloto del bombardero ruso que el pasado martes fue abatido por Turquía tras invadir supuestamente su espacio aéreo.

Según publica hoy FARS, la agencia de noticias iraní afiliada a la Guardia Revolucionaria, tras el derribo del avión de combate ruso, Turquía envió unidades militares especiales hasta el lugar "con la intención de tomar cautivo al copiloto para chantajear a Rusia después".

Alpaslan Celik, comandante de las brigadas turcomanas en Siria, muestra algunos restos del paracaidas del piloto ruso. REUTERS

Rusia, por su parte, envió varios helicópteros para intentar salvar a los ocupantes del bombardero, pero los militares rusos se encontraron con el fuego abierto de los combatientes del Ejército Libre Sirio, que les apuntaron con misiles y armas avanzadas, impidiéndoles ejecutar la operación de rescate de compatriota.

Rusia acordó entonces con el general Soleimani la liberación del copiloto atrapado, Konstantin Murahtin, quien logró salvar su vida en el accidente. Según indica FARS, que a su vez cita a la agencia rusa Sputnik, fue el propio general Soleimani quien propuso a Moscú liderar la operación de rescate para devolver sano y salvo al piloto a casa.

Una propuesta que fue aceptada por Rusia, que dio luz verde al general persa para actuar. De inmediato, Soleimani organizó una operación especial junto con fuerzas especiales de Hezbolá y comandos sirios entrenados por Irán para rescatar al copiloto ruso. Rusia, por su parte, protegió a la unidad militar con cobertura aérea y satélite.

Mistral Dispute With Russia Settled, France Eyes Exports

forester — Wed, 12 Aug 2015 00:32:52 GMT

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/ships/2015/08/09/mistral-dispute-russia-settled-france-eyes-exports/31278439/
By Pierre Tran 11 a.m. EDT August 9, 2015
PARIS — Russia provided €893 million (US $978 million) in advance payment for the two Mistral helicopter carriers, the core figure of the French repayment for a deal which Presidents François Hollande and Vladimir Putin have canceled, a French official said Aug. 7.
“The advance payment totaled €893 million,” while the widely reported figure of €785 million was incorrect, the official said.
Hollande’s office said Aug. 5 the Mistral deal was canceled and Russia would be refunded the advance payments.
Separately, Egypt, backed by Saudi Arabia, is interested in buying the two Mistrals as part of a plan to form a regional maritime force, afternoon daily Le Monde reported.
France also repays Moscow's costs, including training 400 sailors and stripping off equipment and shipping it back to Russia, the official said.

Mistral warship Sevastopol
(Photo: Georges Gobet/AFP)
The total repayment is “less than €1.2 billion,” François Hollande said Aug. 6, Agence France-Presse reported. The government will present the total repayment and details to parliament next month for ratification, the president told journalists in Egypt on Aug. 6.

Detailed technical negotiations on canceling the controversial deal took some 2-1/2 to three months, after starting around the end of February or early March, the official said.

“This is a balanced solution for France and Russia,” the official said.

France faced a long, costly legal wrangle if the two countries failed to reach an agreement, with Russia seeking penalty payments on top of repayment. An international arbitration might have taken two or three years with France facing a possible bill of €1.5 billion to €2 billion, the official said.

The Mistral sale contract is understood to have been written under Swiss law. Under the force majeure clause in a sales contract, there is generally a 180-day suspension until a decision to cancel is required.

Prime contractor DCNS had planned to hand over the first Mistral, the Vladivostok, Nov. 14.

“Egypt and Saudi Arabia are entirely ready to buy the two Mistrals,” said a French official in Egypt, Le Monde reported. Saudi Arabia wants Egypt to build a naval fleet that could project power regionally in the Red Sea and the Mediterranean.

“There is strong interest in the Mistrals from some countries in the region, to build a maritime capability,” said a diplomatic source, the report said.

Egypt could use the two warships to transport 1,000 troops, armored vehicles and helicopters to intervene in Yemen, Libya or other countries where a joint Arab force might become involved, the report said. Saudi Arabia and Egypt have close relations, with Riyadh providing US $4 billion of general funding to Cairo.

Separately, Saudi Arabia is also financing Lebanon’s €3 billion acquisition of French arms in a bid to modernize the armed forces.

The Mistral helicopter carrier has sparked interest in the export market so the French cancellation of the deal should not be a concern, said Hollande.

"These ships attract a certain amount of interest among many countries, and there will be no difficulty in finding a buyer for these ships, without extra cost for our country," Hollande told journalists in Egypt.

Conservative and far-right politicians have criticized the cancellation, which some see as undermining France's reliability as an arms exporter.

The deal covers the payments made by Russia and costs including training, without any penalties, Hollande said. The financial details will be sent to parliament in September for ratification.

Hollande made the remarks in Egypt, where he was attending the inauguration of a widening of the Suez Canal. France has sold the Rafale jet fighter, a DCNS multimission frigate and four Gowind corvettes to Egypt. Cairo is in negotiations to buy two more corvettes, which were options under the approximately €1 billion deal for the four Gowinds.

“The initial price for the two ships was around €1.2 billion. The price in the agreement, which is the best possible, will be less as Russia will be repaid to the nearest euro the advance payments that have been made,” Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said Aug. 6 on RTL radio.

Le Drian declined to say how much Russia would be paid, but said the government will inform parliament as there will be a ratification and parliament will be very quickly informed of the amount and the terms.

France had offered a settlement of €785 million, while Russia has asked for compensation of €1.163 billion, according to Russian daily Kommersant, Reuters reported.

There is worry over how the repayment might hurt the defense sector.

“How will the funds be found? Who will pay for the repayment?” said member of parliament François Cornut-Gentille. The cost should be shared fairly by the government rather than placed fully on the Defense Ministry as that would eat into equipment procurement, he said.

The Defense Ministry could argue that the cancellation and repayment were decisions taken at the highest level of state and the financing should be shared rather than loaded on the military, said a defense specialist.

France hopes the Mistrals will be sold to other navies.

“I am convinced there will be other clients,” Le Drian said. “It is desirable [to find buyers] as quickly as possible. There are presently a certain number of countries which have shown their interest in these two ships. There are many.”

Canada, Egypt, India and Singapore are among the countries interested in the Mistral, Les Echos and La Tribune website reported.

Le Drian dismissed concerns that the contract cancellation might hinder French exports, pointing out that France has sold €15 billion of arms so far this year.

The Mistral is a multimission ship that could serve as a civil-military vessel for humanitarian operations, said Sen. Jacques Gautier, deputy chairman of the Committee for Defense, Foreign Affairs and Armed Forces. The vessel is designed with a large hospital and command center, which could interest regional players such as Brazil and Indonesia.

The French Navy sails three Mistrals and does not wish to erode its tight budget by acquiring another two. The cost of maintenance of the two ships is at least €1 million a month, Hervé Guillou, chairman of DCNS, told journalists July 23. DCNS, the prime contractor, declined comment.

The maintenance costs include running the ships’ engines and keeping the rust at bay, an industry executive said.

Export prospects negotiate hard but foreign officials could look for a bargain as the Mistrals are already built to Russian technical requirements, the defense specialist said.

That goes against the practice of armed forces specifying their own needs when buying the weapons.

Foreign governments often ask for equipment to be assembled locally but the warships will already be built, the specialist said. The first ship, Vladivostok, was ready for delivery in November and the second, Sevastopol, had been due for handover later this year.

The Russians will strip off their equipment but the warships were adapted to sail in Arctic waters, with the helicopter deck capable of being heated. The hangers were built extra large to accommodate the Kamov attack helicopter. Those features make the ships highly specific.

These factors will make the Mistrals hard to sell and if a deal goes through, France will take a loss, the specialist said.

Hollande spoke with Putin on the afternoon of Aug. 5 to confirm the two countries had reached agreement on canceling the 2011 contract for the ships, the French president’s office said.

The agreement meant Russia will be fully repaid on the advance payments, Russian equipment fitted onboard will be returned, and France will have full ownership and use of the two ships, the Elyséé presidential office said.

“The president of the Republic and Vladimir Putin were pleased with the climate of friendly and open partnership seen in the negotiations,” the office said.

The Russian government said France has paid back the funds and the matter is closed, Reuters reported. “France has already transferred these funds and, after the return of equipment, will acquire ownership and be able to take charge of both ships,” the Kremlin said in a statement. "Moscow considers the Mistral issue completely resolved."

France had come under pressure from allies in the West, Eastern Europe and the Baltics to cancel the warship deal as the Ukraine crisis deepened and the Russian role in the breakaway of Crimea was highly suspect. But France also wanted to maintain good relations with Russia and there was domestic pressure to uphold the Mistral deal.

Email: ptran@defensenews.com

Spousta Rusů prožívá boj se Západem jako dobrodružný film

forester — Wed, 15 Jul 2015 01:39:25 GMT

http://nazory.aktualne.cz/rozhovory/spousta-rusu-proziva-boj-se-zapadem-jako-dobrodruzny-film/r~4cca351a248911e58a300025900fea04/
13. 7. 9:00
První část rozhovoru Karla Hvížďaly s českým rusistou Tomášem Glancem. V Rusku panuje „brutálně sešněrovaná konjunktura“, říká.
Zdá se, že prezident Vladimir Putin je posedlý myšlenkou sehrát klíčovou historickou roli a zachránit velmocenskou roli Ruska. To ale v ruské historii není nic nového, ne?
Současná ruská autokracie se ve svém antizápadním tažení rozhodně inspiruje některými tradičními kulturně-politickými stanovisky, která roztržku s Evropou legitimizují. Jejich zdroj je směsí různých konceptů. Najdeme tam prvky aktualizovaného — a nejednou pokrouceného — slavjanofilství, myšlenkového proudu, který od první poloviny 19. století hledal pro Rusko speciální duchovní a hodnotový program, jeho ojedinělou cestu dějinami. Dále se projevuje vliv geopolitiky, nauky o poměru území a moci či vlivu z přelomu 19. a 20. století, která se v Evropě zdiskreditovala tím, v jaké oblibě byla u nacistů, ale Rusko tato diskreditace moc nezasáhla. A samozřejmě eurasijství, učení o Rusku jako o specifické mnohonárodnostní euroasijské civilizaci, které mělo mimochodem významné centrum v meziválečné Praze.
Často se za jakousi ideologickou múzu nynějšího ruského establishmentu označuje například myslitel první poloviny 20. století Ivan Iljin, kterého Putin také někdy přímo cituje.

Rusista Tomáš Glanc: Ruské vedoucí kádry nemají žádný dlouhodobě ucelený pohled ani pevná stanoviska, kterých by se držely. Do roku 2003 byly Západ, ba i NATO vítanými partnery. | Foto: Karel Cudlín

O koho jde a čím je pro dnešní Rusy přitažlivý?

Ivan Iljin má v oblibě vágní a trochu pohádkové metafory jako “černý oheň” nebo “síly zla”. Uvažuje bipolárně - jeho svět je obklopen nebezpečím, imaginární ďábelská spiknutí ohrožují Rusko, které se musí bránit, nemá-li tomuto komplotu ďábelských sil podlehnout. Velmi konfrontačně pojímal vztahy Ruska s germánsko-románskou Evropou také třeba Vladimir Lamanskij, erudovaný archivář a slavista, který věřil na existenci řecko-slovanského světa a jeho boj se světovým germánstvem. Ačkoliv se nedožil ani první světové války, dnes se jeho učení v určitých kruzích považuje za naprosto současné.
Konzervativní proudy ruského myšlení jako by se ve svých dnešních aktualizacích prolínaly s poetikou postsovětských akčních filmů ve stylu Noční hlídky a Denní hlídky, blockbusterů podle scénáře autora dlouhé řady bestsellerů Sergeje Lukjaněnka (i česky vyšlo snad dvacet jeho knih).
Tato směs apokalyptického fantazírování s touhou po síle, která vyvolává respekt a strach, je v Rusku populární, spoustě lidem se toto dobrodružství a jeho jednoduchá hesla ohromně líbí. Západ v této pohádce hraje roli vnějšího nepřítele, což je velice vděčná konstelace. Vzniká dojem sdíleného nebezpečí, který lidi stmeluje kolem zjednodušujících sloganů a propůjčuje jim zážitek sounáležitosti.

Rok 1911. Poslední emír emirátu Buchara (na území dnešního Uzbekistánu), Muhammed Ali Khan (1880-1944). Slavnostní portrét je pořízený krátce poté, co se emír chopil moci. Jako vládce autonomního městského státu v islámské střední Asii rozhodoval o vnitřních záležitostech svého emirátu jako absolutní monarcha i přes to, že od poloviny 19. století byla Buchara vazalem ruské říše. Po revoluci a se zřízením sovětské moci v Buchaře v roce 1920 uprchl emír do Afghánistánu, kde v roce 1944 zemřel.
Někdy mezi 1907-1915. Na snímku je zachycena uzbecká žena stojící před vchodem do jurty, oděná do tradičních šatů a šperků. Přenosné jurty používaly k bydlení kočovné národy střední Asie. Po dobytí Turkistánu (historické oblasti v Asii rozprostírající se mezi Kaspickým mořem a čínskými hranicemi) v polovině 19. století vyvinula ruská vláda na kočovné národy silný tlak, aby se trvale usadily ve vesnicích a městech.
Rok 1911. Samarkand, starobylé obchodní, intelektuální a duchovní středisko na Hedvábné stezce z Evropy do Číny, zahrnovalo pozoruhodně různorodé obyvatelstvo, včetně Tádžiků, Peršanů, Uzbeků, Arabů, Židů a Rusů. Samarkand, a celý západní Turkistán, byl v polovině 19. století včleněn do Ruské říše a zachoval si svou etnickou rozmanitost. Na snímku židovští chlapci v tradičním oděvu studují se svým učitelem.
Rok 1911. Obchodník na tržišti v Samarkandu (v současnosti druhé největší město v Uzbekistánu) nabízí látky z hedvábí, bavlny a vlny a tradiční koberce. V horní části stánku visí zarámovaná strana koránu.
GALERIE (26)
Carské Rusko před sto lety. Unikátní barevné fotky

Byl podle vás antizápadní kurs od začátku Putinovým programem, který dlouho maskoval, anebo své postoje postupně přehodnotil?

Nemyslím, že existuje jakákoli konstantní ruská politická ideologie. Zpětně se samozřejmě vyjevují rysy, které svádějí k zobecňování. Nynější “upravlenci” neboli vedoucí kádry nemají zjevně žádný ucelený pohled ani pevná stanoviska, kterých by se drželi. Dobře je to vidět na vývoji Putinova vztahu k západním hodnotám a institucím. Detailně to popsal v červnu 2015 zkušený britský diplomat Roderic Lyne pro nezávislý londýnský think-tank Chatham House jako „cestu od konvergence ke konfrontaci“. První roky Putinova prezidentování byly nejen západoevropské státy, ale i NATO vítanými partnery, spolupráce sílila a rozšiřovala se. Východoevropské rozšíření NATO tehdy v Kremlu vyřídili pár poznámkami o poškozených strategických zájmech Ruska, ale celkově rétorika spolupráce jednoznačně převažovala.
Ruská zahraniční politika tehdy ještě odpovídala té koncepci Ruska, která se v západní Evropě pěstuje kontinuálně a kterou na přelomu 17. a 18. století vehementně prosazoval Leibniz: Rusko jako spojovník mezi východem a západem ve snaze o univerzalistický smír a celosvětovou kooperaci. Tento osvícenský sen ovšem permanentně prochází stadii krachu. A jednoho takového krachu jsme právě v posledních letech očitými svědky.
Výrazná proměna se datuje od roku 2003, tehdy mimochodem poprvé v postsovětských dějinách Ruska začal zmanipulovaný soudní proces proti organizátorům výstavy současného umění pod názvem “Pozor, náboženství” v moskevském Centru Andreje Sacharova. Také byl zatčen Chodorkovskij a postupně zlikvidován Jukos, jeden z nejsilnějších soukromých podniků v Rusku. Pak už začíná boj o Gruzii a o Ukrajinu po první oranžové revoluci. Pobaltské státy vstupují do NATO. Další vývoj je až dodnes sledem kroků, stupňujících konfrontaci a budujících ruskou propagandistickou mašinerii, démonizující konstrukt “Západu”.
Pozoruhodné a příznačné přitom je, že tato antizápadní ideologická platforma se velmi nákladnými způsoby šíří i do zahraničí. V roce 2005 byl založen televizní kanál RT, obsluhující Kreml — dnes vysílá i v angličtině, španělštině a arabštině a bojuje o přízeň stovek milionů diváků. Samozřejmě se najde dost vděčných recipientů - kritiků poměrů ve vlastních zemích. S těmito politickými silami ruský establishment udržuje vřelé vztahy a podporuje jejich bojovnost a jejich frustraci - dobře je to vidět na kontaktech s francouzskou Národní frontou a analogickými uskupeními v jiných zemích, zpravidla z krajně pravicového politického spektra. Zároveň s těmito spojenectvími se dokonce i v tak bezvýznamných zemích, jako je Česká nebo Slovenská republika, systematicky zavádí dojem, že část místního obyvatelstva navzdory tomu, co říkají jejich představitelé, s nynějšími ruskými poměry a úmysly sympatizuje. Popsala to například nedávná zpráva nazvaná The Pro-Russian Disinformation Campaign in the Czech Republic and Slovakia, kterou vydal pražský Prague Security Studies Institute.

Válečný veterán čeká na zahájení vojenské přehlídky v Moskvě.
Lidé se scházejí na Rudém náměstí v Moskvě, kde proběhne vojenská přehlídka.
Na Rudém náměstí se za jasného jarního počasí představilo kolem 16 000 ruských vojáků a veteránů, pochodovat do centra Moskvy přišli i příslušníci spřátelených armád z několika postsovětských zemí, a také vojáci ze Srbska, Mongolska, Indie a Číny.
Podle oficiálního sdělení Kremlu na moskevské oslavy dorazilo sedmadvacet státníků, největšímu zájmu místních médií se těší prezidenti Kuby, Číny a Indie a generální tajemník OSN Pan Ki-mun.

Ale v České republice mají zřetelné proruské postoje kromě jiných i oba poslední prezidenti. Naposled Václav Klaus na Petrohradském mezinárodním ekonomickém fóru v červnu 2015 tvrdil, že ne Rusko, ale Západ prožívá osudovou krizi...

Domnívám se, že servilní vztah k ruskému establishmentu je u jmenovaných osob směsí různých důvodů. Jednak je to ekonomický pragmatismus, který někomu může připadat cynický, ale jako součást politického postoje k Rusku je legitimní. To dilema řeší i Německo a další země vůči Rusku i Číně. Jenomže německá reprezentace je při všech vnitřních rozporech vysoce kultivovaná, konsensuální a strukturovaná: zatímco kancléřka předkládá základní přesně volené rétorické figury a praktické kroky, průmysloví kapitáni sledují svoje obchodní cíle. Český model, to je takové nekoordinované producírování prezidentské kanceláře, vytahování se na zaměstnance Černínského paláce a pokusy vyvyšovat se nad společné evropské postoje, nějak je česky přechytračit. Jako by tito lidé byli vedeni nutkáním dělat pubertální naschvály evropským institucím, které jim připomínají RVHP. Oni tehdy neměli odvahu se systému zřetelně postavit (což samo o sobě nevadí a nikdo, kdo nebyl na jejich místě, by to neměl kritizovat), a tak si to teď kompenzují svojí halasnou výjimečností a domnělou originalitou, která vesměs působí trapně, ale mnohým voličům to asi imponuje. V těch postojích také chybí politicko-etický vkus a politická mravnost.
A možná hraje roli i datum narození. Pro děti čtyřicátých let byla vesměs Mnichovská dohoda prostřednictvím názorů jejich rodičů a učitelů traumatem. Západ selhal a Beneš se Zdeňkem Nejedlým to napravovali koketerií se Stalinem a etnickými čistkami. Koneckonců ani pro reformní komunisty šedesátých let nebyly západoevropské poměry samozřejmou normou ani vzorem. Zatímco silácká gesta ruských samovládců a jejich vliv působí na tyto pány s přebujelým sebevědomím spíš impozantně. Bohužel.
Útěcha spočívá v tom, že všechna ta úporná snaha upozorňovat na svoji jedinečnost provokativními bonmoty je funkční jenom uvnitř české společnosti. V zahraničí občas sice média v rubrice kuriozit ocitují nějakou tu výstřednost českého mudrlanta, ale celkově je dopad tohoto názorového působení v podstatě nulový, což je jediné štěstí.

Tomáš Glanc

Přednáší na univerzitě v Curychu, byl hostujícím profesorem na univerzitách v Berlíně a v Basileji, působil jako ředitel Českého centra v Moskvě. Na Karlově univerzitě se věnoval literární vědě a ruské kultuře, byl ředitelem Ústavu východoevropských studií a slavistiky, pracoval v Centru audiovizuálních studií na FAMU. Ve své disertaci se věnoval ruským avantgardám, habilitoval se knihou Lexikon ruských avantgard, v Revolver Revue vyšla jeho monografie Souostroví Rusko. Ikony postsovětské kultury. Zabývá se metodologií humanitních věd, připravil k vydání texty Romana Jakobsona, Jurije Lotmana, Renate Lachmann. Badatelsky se věnuje také ideologii slovanství, samizdatu a žánru umělecké performance ve východní Evropě. V roli kurátora připravil několik výstav ruského umění.

INFO
Vladimír Putin dnes prohlašuje, že konfrontace se Západem byla nevyhnutelná. Myslíte, že má pravdu?

Výše zmíněný Ivan Iljin byl jedním z bezpočtu ruských myslitelů, kteří od 19. století ostře kritizovali západní pojetí demokracie a práva. O demokracii si i v západní společnosti leckdo otírá boty a všichni vědí, že nepředkládá žádný garantovaný model spravedlnosti, prosperity a společenského dobra. Ale v Rusku se názorně předvádí, jak lze politické zřízení, které je na papíře víceméně demokratické, zřídit tak, že z toho principy demokracie vycházejí opravdu žalostně zdeformované. A jestliže ústava přijatá Stalinem obsahovala některé body, které z euroamerického právního hlediska působily mírně řečeno exoticky, pak dnes má Rusko ústavu a zákony až na výjimky vcelku normální — ale jak vidíme, k ničemu to není. I sebelepší zákony lze uplatňovat “elasticky” a tím se z nich stanou bezvýznamné formulace nabízející libovolný výklad, přesněji řečeno výklad podle apriorního zadání, jak má soud dopadnout.
Nejrůznější myslitelé od romantismu až po Solženicyna v různých variantách zdůrazňovali, že západní demokracie a právo jsou formální, mechanické, “pozitivistické”. Z tohoto ruského hlediska jim chybí “duše”: telos, čili účel, vyšší smysl. Západ je na tom podle tohoto přístupu tak špatně a utápí se ve svém homosexuálním, pornografickém a migranty zaplaveném demoralizujícím úpadku, protože se řídí svou perverzní nominální demokracií a zákonností, takže mu zákonitě chybí smysl.
Není třeba zdůrazňovat, že prodchne-li se smysl demokracie a zákonů vyšším smyslem tohoto typu, skončí to dříve nebo později tou zvůlí a perfidním pronásledováním kritiků a oponentů, které dnes s hrůzou v Rusku pozorujeme.

I když Západ se přece s právním pozitivismem, nebo jak říkával profesor Cepl, s lingvistickými a normativními rozklady, již po druhé světové válce rozešel a dnes bazíruje na materiálním výkladu práva, který lpí na principech, tedy na tom "vyšším smyslu". Viz slavná kniha profesora Harta Pojem práva...

To máte pravdu. Skutečné evropské poměry nikdy nebyly identické s tím, jak je líčila antievropská ruská propaganda. Nehledě na to, že sama jednota těchto poměrů je ideologickým konstruktem, který se při bližším ohledání ihned rozpadne…

Vraťme se ještě k Vladimiru Putinovi: britský politolog Mark Galeotti za změnou ruské politiky vidí hlavně to, že Putin je dlouho u moci, patnáct let.

Galeotti je velice dobře informovaný komentátor, zabývá se děním v Rusku už od konce 80. let, absolvoval nejprestižnější britské školy a napsal fundované knížky o válkách v Čečensku, o sovětské invazi do Afghánistánu, o Gorbačovově perestrojce. Ale taky dost střílí od boku. Spekulace o vlivu doby, po kterou někdo vykonává nějakou funkci, na jeho postoje jsou myslím dost na vodě. Taky třeba v roce 2013 předpovídal, že se Rusko bude vzhledem k vnitrostátním problémům do budoucna chovat v zahraničněpolitickém ohledu vstřícně a kooperativně…

O demokracii si i v západní společnosti leckdo otírá boty a všichni vědí, že nepředkládá žádný garantovaný model spravedlnosti, prosperity a společenského dobra. Ale v Rusku se názorně předvádí, jak lze politické zřízení, které je na papíře víceméně demokratické, zřídit tak, že z toho principy demokracie vycházejí opravdu žalostně zdeformované.

A nemůže nějakou změnu v Rusku vyprovokovat snížená cena ropy? Průměrná cena za barel se v roce 2015 pohybuje okolo 64 dolarů (v roce 2008 stál barel 147 dolarů) a Rusko těží barel za cenu okolo 40 dolarů. Je možné za této situace dlouhodobě Rusko izolovat od zbytku světa? Vždyť nemá skoro žádné spojence...

Ekonomika může situaci ovlivnit, ale ne zásadně. V Rusku a na zahraničních kontech občanů Ruska leží nebo cirkuluje nepředstavitelné množství peněz. Dřív se to týkalo pouze Moskvy a jen úzké vrstvy zbohatlíků, ale to už je dávno pryč.
Spisovatel Vladimir Sorokin ve scénáři k filmu Moskva popisuje pro 90. léta výborně srozumitelnou realizaci metafory: zločinci ukládají balík s penězi v dutém prostoru písmene “M” ze slova Moskva na kraji města, kde stojí u silnice tyto obří nápisy na uvítanou. Takže “peníze jsou v Moskvě”. Postupem času se ale peníze rozšířily i do ostatních měst, dnes třeba v otlučeném domě na skromném prospektu v centru uralské metropole Jekatěrinburgu najdete obchody jako Max Mara a řadu podobných. Letiště a letoviska, města a městečka světa jsou přece plná občanů Ruska, to už dávno nejsou jen mafiáni a politické špičky.
Petrodolary a vývoz jiných surovin v kombinaci s režimem, který neumožňuje prostřednictvím peněz žádnou mocenskou decentralizaci a žádnou skutečnou ekonomickou a občanskou nezávislost firem a jednotlivců, způsobily takovou brutálně sešněrovanou konjunkturu. Výdaje na armádu už přes patnáct let nepřetržitě rostou, podle britského think-tanku International Institute for Strategic Studies se jen mezi lety 2008 a 2013 zvýšily náklady na zbrojení o více než 30 procent. Ale nejen to: i člověk bez ekonomických znalostí, jako jsem já, vidí všude v Rusku sice velkou bídu, ale také obrovské investice a relativně vysokou životní úroveň, aspoň v některých ohledech. Týká se to spousty lidí, kteří nepatří v žádném případě jen k nějakým zkorumpovaným kremelským či oligarchickým bandám ani nejsou zločinci — přesto jejich příjmy už dvacet let jen rostou. Celé vrstvy lidí žijí naopak téměř bez peněz, na venkově často opravdu ve středověkých podmínkách. Ti ale tradičně nemají žádný vliv na politické dění, jsou jen jeho obětí a tichou podporou.
Takže je z čeho slevovat a může to trvat dlouho. Nynější sankce jsou jistě nepříjemné, ale nikoliv fatální. Navíc ideologicky pomáhají vyvolat dojem společně sdíleného osudu, zvyšují moc nynějšího aparátu, ačkoliv jejich intence je opačná.

Domníváte se, že se ruské elity vlastních lidí bojí víc než sankcí Západu?

Co se týče vnitřní opozice na nejvyšších místech mocenského aparátu, je to asi jediná možnost, jak by se politické kontinuum posledních více než patnácti let mohlo přerušit. Jiná otázka je, co by tato změna přinesla… Ale k vaší otázce, čeho se bojí elity: já se o ně nijak detailně nezajímám, ale domnívám se, že vnitřní opozice ve vrchních patrech moci je zatím velice slabá a adepti na místo ruského prezidenta nejsou v podstatě žádní. V těchto typech režimů, jaké zavedli na různý způsob Castro, Ceaușescu, Chávez nebo Saddám Husajn, není místo nejvyššího představitele předmětem konkurence. Dokud se režim nezhroutí, zdá se věčný. Americký historik ruského původu Alexej Jurčak na toto téma napsal v roce 2005 knihu o konci SSSR s vtipným a trefným názvem: Everything Was Forever, Until It Was No More — všechno bylo navždycky, dokud to nepřestalo existovat…

Druhou část rozhovoru s Tomášem Glancem přineseme ve čtvrtek 16. července.

autor: Karel Hvížďala