Monday, July 21, 2014

363 Live: That's how you start a war.

This blog:

( I started this blog to explain why the Ukraïnian separatists have other worries than to prevent some looters from doing their petty crimes. They fight for survival.  I never got much further than the introduction, but I leave it at that. It gives a rough skecht of the historic situation, and about Putins catch 22 choices).

MH17 fell down in an area of 6 x 6 kilometer.
Only a few very small villages in the neighborhood: Torez and Szizhne ( they are 12 km apart)
Donetsk is 70 km to the east, which is a 90 minute drive. Average possible speed: 50 km per hour, according to google maps.
Luhansk is 90 km to the north: 100 mintes drive. ( Average of 65 km /hour)

In Donetsk and Lugansk there is a war going on.
Civilians are killed by the fascists which have our fulest support. In fact: Dutch, Belgian, Brittish and American politicins have encouraged the revolt of these fascists against the lawful president Yanukovich.
Nobody ever said this was  a good president, but he definitely took care much better of his people than the present one, who has our full support.
Poroshenko drops bombs in his  civilians. ( Ghadaffi was accused of eventually doing this, ans then we had him killed. We were proud of our succesfull R2P actions. )

So the rebels fight the government with all they can.
They lose friends, children and wives in the bombardments .

Our newspaper never bothered to tell it to the world.
Instead: Our media said that the Eastern Ukraïnians are fascists.
But never a reason is given for using this strong term.
Why would they be fascists? Because they do not want to live under leaders who w=ish them to be bombed by nucelar bombs? Who would?

They are ethnic Russians, and they were born there and their parents spoke Russian. Back during the days off the USSR all Ukraïnians were allowed to speak Ukraïnian.  Some of them even became presidents ( Chroestjow) .
Now the new government had forbidden them to speak their mothers language.

So finally a resistance group was formed and started fighting.

Of course their family and friends in Russia sympathise with them.
Of course Putin once said:  There is a red line: our relatives in Ukraïne should not be harmed.

But they were harmed. They were killed.
And Putin could do nothing.
He understood that this was exactly what America needs: Putin who invades Ukraïne.
It would mean that the USA will organise Nato to attack the Russians and drive them out.
It could mean nuclear war.
Itdefinitely will mean miuch more dead than the number of dead civilians that we have now in Ukraïne, civilians killed by their own government.

So Putin simply cannot help the separatists. At least not openly.

We do not know if he helps them 'under the radar'.
Nobody knows.
All  we know is that the borders are not closed completely, so weapons and combattants can go from Russia to Ukraïne.
But the USA is also not able to cloes the mexican border.
And Syria was invaded from all sides by weapons and soldiers, very much to the dislike of the Syrians.

The International Politicians are very angry at Putin:
He supports the rebels in Easter Ukraïne, and so he is responsable for the war to continue.

Lets have a look:
1. There was never a proof that the Kremlin supported the separatists. Not one!
2. Timoshenko wants to 'nuke'  these ethnic Russians.  'IF' Putin would help them, it could be done under R2P.  Why not?  Ghadaffi was destroyed.  It costed an extra 34000 lives, and it was also done under R2P.
3. It is very well possible that they were helped by individual russians, and there are Chechen warriors who went there to have a fight.  But Chechens is not Putin.
4. If a government is killing his own people, then other countries have the duty to protect the civilians.  In fact according to this preinciple, Putin more or less has the first responsability to help the Eastern Ukraïnian population.  So how can this be a crime if Putin did  it.
5. They say Putin is responsable for the continuation of the war, and so for the extra dead.
Fine. And who started the war?
The answer is very clear and simple: The USA started it.
In 2004 they created the orange revolution with their 'Otpor' friends.
George Soros used the billions of $$ that he stole from the brittish taxpayer  to create a lot of influence in the Ukraïne.
American NGO's made lots of publicity in the Ukraïne for the West.
They made every young Ukraïnioan dream of a western life-style.
Just in december 2013 the USA minister for European matters , Victoria Nuland ( Whose father in Law wrote the infamous  PNAC report : the recipe for an agressive USA that shoul be able to fight two wars at the same time, and should stay the hegemon in the world) .... htis Victoria Nuland stated thet the USA had invested $ for the regime change in the Ukraïne. ( She called it: democratisation, but that is a misnomer, as it is already a democracy.  And if she meant: no more Oligarchs, then how come she is happy with 'Yats', the banker, and with Poroshenk, the oligarch?

So the USA did everything to create a revolt in the Ukraïne. They even trained fascists in Poland, a few months before the so called 'spontaneous protests' began.

And now Putin is accused of prolonging the war !

Putin critics may say:  
The Ukraïne is an autonomous country. It schould be free to choose its own future.

Right, So what was Soros doing there? What did Otpor do, who payd them?
Why is NED in the Ukraïne ?
Why did the USA spend 5 billion $ of their taxpayers money to get the democratically chosen president out?  There was a deal on 21 febr: Yanukovich agreed to have early electiuons, so that the people could choose  his successor.
The USA demanded that he would also dismantle the hated police forde. Yanukovich agreed.
The next day there was athe take-over of power by the fascist groups, who weree now the only ones armed and oprganised.  Yanukovich had to fly for his life.
That is what happened.  That is what the USA did.
And now they say: Putin creates a revolt in Eastern Ukraïne ! And theyvillify himn for it !

Putin critics may say:  
"But wasn't he wrong when he invaded the Crimea? "

There are three different answer to that.

All of them are important.

First answer: : 
The Crimean people do not at all like the Western Ukraïnians, and they were very unhappy with the fascist take-over. A group of powerful men organised themselves and declared independence.
Then they put out a referendum to make legal what they did, and an overwhelming amount of the population agreed with the separation from Ukraïne.
Of course they had no military power, and Kiev would take the Crimea back, so the Crimeans asked Russia if they could join Russia.
Russia was very happy and accepted, of course.
Now, in how  far was this whole thing organisde by Moscow?
Ihave no idea, but it is very well possible that the two groups ( Russians and Crimeans ) both l;iked this solution, and cooperated together. After all, thy had always been in the same country, untill Chroestjow gave the Crimea from Russia to Ukraïna.
It was kind of com8ing home for the crimeans.

Note: not even 1 person was wounded in this whole change.
The only ones protesting where the ones who illegally took over the country.

Second answer: 
American bankers and Americans jews had financed and led the 1917 revolution.
The communists killed the leading class and burned the churches. This left the ordinary Russians  unguided and without any information that dcriticised communism.

Hitler needed 152 battalions to fight Russia, and 50 to fight the allies.  But the allies think that they beat Hitler!
After Stalin fought 3 years to beat Hitler and lost 27million people, he decided that he wanted a buffer zone between Mosow and Europe. After all: 4 times Moscow had to fight off the West-European agressors, at the cost of millions.
So Russia did not want to give back to the West the countries that they liberated from the nazies. Who could ever blames them?
At least not the Americans, who have a totally different record: in 200 years time they started about 200 fights all over the world: always to win, never out of self defense, like the Russians.)

Now Russia was officially considered an enemy.  But this was already so in 1919.
Then a USA Congress  Hearing asked the NY bankers: For Gods sake: Why did you help to create communism in Russia.
The bankers answered:  "We know that if we created a communist system, they would always struggle, and would never be able to compete on the markets with the USA."(Senator Woolcott.)

So do not forget it: The Americans created communism, to keep the Russians poor. And they killed their priests to keep them un-organised. 
Yet it was the Russians who defeated Hitler.  Not the allies!

Third answer: 
When communism ended, Germany wanted to re-unite.
As the germans attacked Moscow two times in the last 70 years and as millions of Russians lost their lives for that,  a deal was made:  Germany was allowed to re-unite if NATO would not expand towards the East.
Already under Clinton this gentlemens agreement was broken.
NATO has doubled: 12 new countries joined, all of them former Russian buffer states.

In the last months the Americans  attacked Ukraïne again, for the second time since 2004.
Now they succeded, because they use fascists as their allies.
( They  are not afraid of fascists or salafists of course. They are afraid of nobody: they can crush anybody if they want. All they do is use them to do the dirty work.  One of them, Nabil Naiim,  finally understood how it works: (Naiim)

Russia is a country with a lot of oil and gas. It has the right to defend itself from vul;tures that would like to take it over. To have a good defense , a harbor that is ice-free for 12 months a year is essential.
So Russia needs Sebastopol, the harbor on the Crimea.
Kiev in the hands of American minions ( US minister Nuland in a taped telephone call:  I want 'Yats' to become prime minister ) is a guarante that Sebastopol will be lost for Russia.

Putin was in a catch 22:  If he did nothing, his country was ready for take over. It would be defenseless.
If he acted as the leader of a country ( who has ro defend his people against unfriendly attacks) should act,  he would be accused of agression.

He did what he had to do,and took the Crimea back. Without one man hurt, and with full  consent of the huge majority of the Crimea: this was real democracy at work.  A Crimea under Kiev would be anti-democratic.
But the average people in the street believe anything, so this became another big part in the campaign to demonise Putin.

No comments:

Post a Comment