Civil War in Ukraine: Western Empire vs Russia

Status
Not open for further replies.
Avala said:
I lived some 100kms from the war, but is was very ordinary life. Like there is no war, everything works like normal. I was also at the times also some 10-20kms where war is, but people lived their lives normally, with everyday jobs and so on. And that is not normalcy bias, because their life didn't change, everything for them was as it was since ever. There wasn't problems on which they must adapt, they didn't need it. If you are not personally involved, if people where you live are not involved, if they are not interested, if you cant hear, see, or feel the war personally, it is irrelevant is it just 100km away or 10.000. You can feel empathy for the people in the war, but it is not the same as being in the war, you everyday life still remains the same and unchanged.

Yep, I can confirm this kind of "normalcy" effect, because it works perfectly in Israel. It's only 70 km between Gaza and Tel-Aviv, but if you live in Tel-Aviv you would never know (or care, when it comes to most of the people there) that there is something going on in Gaza, except for the news reports and occasional helicopter/airplanes flybys toward the region.
 
Avala said:
I think that I must write small explanation, so not be accused for the "normalcy bias". War don't looks how it is looking in the war movies. There are no groups of people running all over and screaming in panic. People are not in their basements and shelters all the time. There is no constant fear and panic, there IS constant worry, but the everyday life must go on. People must get their food, cook, eat, walk, talk. [..]
I lived some 100kms from the war, but is was very ordinary life. Like there is no war, everything works like normal. I was also at the times also some 10-20kms where war is, but people lived their lives normally, with everyday jobs and so on.

This is absolutely true. Moreover, in the beginning of a civil war, the areas of fighting and normal life still going on may only be separated by a few city blocks. During these initial stages, people are still sorting themselves out, finding out which side they are on; and the sides are still talking to each other through media or in personal conversations. This can go on for months. Then at some point, people stop talking and begin to shoot each other on sight, and that's when the war begins to look the way everyone imagines it. :(
 
It would be interesting to know what the people say themselves. Here is the interview with dozens of people of Severodonetsk dated June 3, after the mortar bombing. The interview is in Russian.

Though there are no victims among civilians there, the people are outraged by this attack. They are angry that they are called terrorists and also about the lies of Kiev junta. Mothers are very concerned about their kids. They are angry about the Lugansk bombing and junta's "explanation" of it - one of junta's versions of the accident was "air-conditioning explosion". The people ask: "Maybe 911 was also "air-conditioning explosion" then?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRaE5Ute86Q

The people indeed are very worried, only today 7,000 people crossed the Eastern border and came to Rostov, Russia (this number is for one day only). Seven thousand people just for one day and only in Rostov. There are smaller numbers reported in other Russian cities. It's now emergency in Rostov. Ordinary people invite the refugees to stay with them temporarily, monasteries and churches too.
 
This is a short video titled, "Slavyangrad was shelled with system Grad" which shows some of the affects of the bombing on buildings, etc.

_https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82ceTzUTjHE
 
During these initial stages, people are still sorting themselves out, finding out which side they are on; and the sides are still talking to each other through media or in personal conversations. This can go on for months. Then at some point, people stop talking and begin to shoot each other on sight, and that's when the war begins to look the way everyone imagines it. :(

That is the moment when their masks fall down and you can see what kind of "people" where your "friends". That is when you cut open them you find something missing which was acted well before.

Yep, I can confirm this kind of "normalcy" effect, because it works perfectly in Israel. It's only 70 km between Gaza and Tel-Aviv, but if you live in Tel-Aviv you would never know (or care, when it comes to most of the people there) that there is something going on in Gaza, except for the news reports and occasional helicopter/airplanes flybys toward the region.

Not so much normalacy-bias I think as much as lack of empathy, selfishness and fear in majority of people in that kind of situations that live as nothing happened until it happens to them.
 
Keit said:
Avala said:
I lived some 100kms from the war, but is was very ordinary life. Like there is no war, everything works like normal. I was also at the times also some 10-20kms where war is, but people lived their lives normally, with everyday jobs and so on. And that is not normalcy bias, because their life didn't change, everything for them was as it was since ever. There wasn't problems on which they must adapt, they didn't need it. If you are not personally involved, if people where you live are not involved, if they are not interested, if you cant hear, see, or feel the war personally, it is irrelevant is it just 100km away or 10.000. You can feel empathy for the people in the war, but it is not the same as being in the war, you everyday life still remains the same and unchanged.

Yep, I can confirm this kind of "normalcy" effect, because it works perfectly in Israel. It's only 70 km between Gaza and Tel-Aviv, but if you live in Tel-Aviv you would never know (or care, when it comes to most of the people there) that there is something going on in Gaza, except for the news reports and occasional helicopter/airplanes flybys toward the region.

When I read the last few posts on these thread the two things that came to mind were 'normalcy bias' and 'Israel'. I know a girl from my childhood who has now a family in Israel, and when I exchanged a couple of emails with her, I made a comment to test the waters about her opinion on the conflict in Palestine. She started talking about how wonderful life was in Tel Aviv, and what a modern and vibrant city it was, blah blah. I was shocked at the way she totally missed the point! Complete blindness and therefore lack of empathy, so I had nothing to counter that with. But it was an interesting insight for me. So the comments from people in Kiev don't surprise me at all; often the people who are closest to the events are the ones most ignorant about them, largely due to propaganda from their own governments. Many people in the US still think it's the beacon of freedom, prosperity and democracy!

Avala said:
I think that I must write small explanation, so not be accused for the "normalcy bias". War don't looks how it is looking in the war movies. There are no groups of people running all over and screaming in panic. People are not in their basements and shelters all the time. There is no constant fear and panic, there IS constant worry, but the everyday life must go on. People must get their food, cook, eat, walk, talk. They also got to be normalcy biased, because without it they wouldn't function. You cant scream in the horror all the time (I mean you can, but people like those end up dead very quick, because they cant function). People also tend to minimize their problems, for the relatives and friends: "No, its not so hard, we are alive, that's most important", for themselves: "It will be better tomorrow, I can feel it!". Without feeling and talking like that, they would be alive but essentially dead.

There is also geographic distance problem, which people who wasn't near real war usually cant understand. In reality (unlike war movies, again) you can live approximately very near the fighting, but if you are not personally involved and people around you, you really cant feel the war, it is really like there is no war very near. It is "some war over there somewhere".

Well, it's not an accusation against you or anyone, but I think what you are describing above is precisely the normalcy bias. Things are deteriorating fast but people try to stick to normal life, which is understandable and part of human psychology. But they would probably do better to worry about leaving the area asap if they can, because like Hildegarda says, at some point war will be 'like everyone imagines it' and there will be no more normality left. Unless you are like Eva Braun in that movie Downfall, organizing a party while Berlin is being bombed.
 
Hildegarda said:
Avala said:
I think that I must write small explanation, so not be accused for the "normalcy bias". War don't looks how it is looking in the war movies. There are no groups of people running all over and screaming in panic. People are not in their basements and shelters all the time. There is no constant fear and panic, there IS constant worry, but the everyday life must go on. People must get their food, cook, eat, walk, talk. [..]
I lived some 100kms from the war, but is was very ordinary life. Like there is no war, everything works like normal. I was also at the times also some 10-20kms where war is, but people lived their lives normally, with everyday jobs and so on.

This is absolutely true. Moreover, in the beginning of a civil war, the areas of fighting and normal life still going on may only be separated by a few city blocks. During these initial stages, people are still sorting themselves out, finding out which side they are on; and the sides are still talking to each other through media or in personal conversations. This can go on for months. Then at some point, people stop talking and begin to shoot each other on sight, and that's when the war begins to look the way everyone imagines it. :(

It is interesting process to watch, if you can detach from the situation, or maybe years later, when everything is just distant memory. I don't know is it ponerisation, I would say gradual De-humanization, where you accept abnormal for normal, in hope that you will survive. First only temporarily like: "it will be better when the war is over" and on the end you really don't know what is normal anymore (and some people never come back to normal again). Like gradual De-evolution really.

I think that is what psychopaths are doing these days in south east Ukraine, with this escalation of war. Pumping up the fear and negativity in hope that the people would start to bite each other soon. It was like that in former Yugoslavia for example. What is interesting, in Syria not so much, I guess that the psychos did show their real horror faces too soon, people just wasn't "enchanted" with them (or dehumanized in proper level). Or so I think . . .
 
When you went through a major lession you cannot not go back to the "place you were before". Your experiences hinder you as you are changed within and see things in another way. And you will know who is teally a friend and who not.

People in Ukraine could go through a griefing process I assume. The first step is 'shock and denial'. Maybe quite a lot of Ukrainians are in this step griefing the former times. They may just deny the crumbling of their world around them. 'Shock and denial' is followed by 'intense concern', 'despair and depression' and last but not least 'recovery'.
 
What is interesting, in Syria not so much, I guess that the psychos did show their real horror faces too soon, people just wasn't "enchanted" with them (or dehumanized in proper level). Or so I think . . .

I think there were several different factors like there not being nationalistic tendencies in Syria through different major ethnic groups like in Yugoslavia where there were Serbs and Croats, in Ukraine now those people in western part and eastern russian speaking people, that share different culture, religon and history like was the case in Yugoslavia(it is easy to bring discord based on that) plus hard economic situation in Ukraine and one organised by west in Yugoslavia that awaken that above mentioned factors. Where there is no bread it is always easier to manipulate people. And people in Syria were informed from their leaders (who are not so pathological) what western sponsored democracy brings where in Yugoslavia just before war and western Ukraine their nationalistic politicians were only interested in power and getting money in their pockets disinforming their people.
 
Laura said:
Interesting set of "predictions" posted by a FB friend:

http://www.znakovi-vremena.net/2014/lada-ray-01may2014.htm

I normally wouldn't introduce something like this in such a discussion, but this is a very rational piece of work and this lady makes a lot of good points and observations. One thing she does not do is discuss the biggest player of them all: Mother Nature.

I was just reading Lada Ray's latest, I find her predictions very sensible:

http://futuristrendcast.wordpress.com/

On June 6, leaders of various European countries met in France for the 70th anniversary of the 1944 Normandy landing during WWII. Among others present were Russian President Vladimir Putin, US president Barack Obama and president-elect of the Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko. In his usual diplomatic manner Russian President Vladimir Putin gave an interview to the French press at his Sochi residence before his visit to France.

Lada Ray’s geopolitical analysis and predictions

Overall, I believe the French President Francois Hollande has to be commended for inviting President Vladimir Putin. France in general often plays a role of a connector between Russia and the West, and it seems Hollande wants to continue in the footsteps of his predecessors. Even Sarkozy managed to play this role in 2008 during the Georgia crisis, although Francois Mitterrand and Charles De Gaulle were undeniably much better at this. But of course it was also during those times when France was still a sovereign and independent state that wasn’t a part of NATO. Very diplomatically, President Putin hints at that during the interview.

Hollande faced a logistical challenge during Putin’s and Obama’s visit, as the US president Obama seems to be unable to handle being in the same room with Putin. Can’t bear looking him in the eye after what US has done in Ukraine (like spending $5bln+ to destabilize Ukraine as publicly admitted by Victoria #Nuland)? Or resenting that Putin again outsmarted him (as in the case of Crimea, which US planned on turning into a massive US military base against Russia, but failed)? Most likely – both.

To keep Putin and Obama separate, Hollande was ready to eat two dinners. He hosted two dinners in one night – one for Obama, another for Putin, which for a French may not be a problem.

But jokes aside, as I predicted, EU finds itself on some serious crossroads of history. EU has massive past relations with the US – economically, politically and militarily. But more and more people in the EU are realizing that their future lies in distancing themselves from the US and getting closer to Russia and the East.

This appears to be the first time a Russian President is attending this event held each year in France. In diplomatic terms such invitation is a signal that, despite tough rhetoric and cancelling of the G8 meeting in Sochi due to events in Ukraine, the EU leaders want to continue talking to Russia.

This confirms what I’ve talked about from the very beginning of the Ukraine crisis. EU is realizing – very slowly and reluctantly – that it is facing a major historic choice. We are going through a tectonic shift of directions and priorities, and of course the EU doesn’t want to give up its cushy and stable past, which it believes, it has earned during the past 70 years of relative peace on the European continent. Europe sees the unfolding crisis of the Western world and fears what the future may bring. However, holding on to the past effectively means siding with the dying dollar and crumbling US Empire. This means that the EU would have to give up its cushy past no matter how hard they try to hang on to it.

This also means that the future for the EU lies in closer integration with Russia and the East. Despite the logic and necessity of such actions, the EU is agonizing over switching gears. It seems paralyzed at the moment due to the massive political, economic and military pressures from the US, and partially from the UK.

However, the UK is at its own crossroads. Britain faces its own economic crisis, Scotland secession, and rising euro-scepticism. Interestingly enough, some in the UK would like to distance themselves from the US even more so than the rest of Europe. Moreover, the win of the euro-skeptics in the euro-parliament elections, indicates that the UK is poised to distance itself from the EU as well.

Unfortunately, 2/3 of the European politicians and media side with the US, while the EU business prefers Russia. In fact, the EU business is screaming bloody murder as the threat of sanctions against Russia makes Russia turn more and more decisively towards Asia. As a consequence, EU companies may be squeezed out of the Russian market, losing billions in investment.

Russian rep to the EU, Vladimir Chizhov says that EU companies are begging Russia not to adopt return sanctions against the EU, motivating it this way: “we are already losing a lot of money from the EU sanctions against Russia, Russia’s return sanctions will be really bad for us.” Hmm… What Russia is losing is not their concern obviously. Sounds grotesque, right?

Make no mistake: the consequence of weakening of the European economy, along with Russian, is undoubtedly intended by the US.

Predictions

Eventually, the EU will have no choice but to get closer to Russia and Asia, and distance itself gradually from the US. This will be a very slow and reluctant process. EU will not want to do anything drastic that may lead to a confrontation with the US. Let’s remember, Europe is an occupied continent. There are 50,000 US troops in Germany alone. EU fears destabilization more than anything else, and it cannot afford any conflict with the US.

US knows that long-term the EU is poised to distance itself from its old Transatlantic ally. It’s a historic process, which cannot be avoided. US knows that it may be marginalized – and it fears being isolated. This is why US is desperate to delay the inevitable by binding EU to itself via the Transatlantic agreement; increasing US troop count in the EU; forcing on the EU its expensive shale gas, extracted via barbaric fracking, which harms the environment and decimates the American land; and by demanding from the EU more sanctions against Russia.

To get the US off its back, EU adopted some token sanctions against a number of Russian individuals. But the US keeps demanding economic sanctions, which are bound to harm the EU economy. Contrary to its usually politically meek and conciliatory position, the EU’s large business is sending SOS signals that by pressuring the EU into economic sanctions, the US companies are trying to weaken their European competitors.

Examples are the restrictions on the Russian gas supply to the EU, which, due to the Trojan horses of the US in Europe, such as Poland, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, have partially succeeded. One example is the constant turmoil with the Russian gas transit via Ukraine. The US deep interference in Ukraine and continuing prodding of the Kiev junta to act in an aggressive manner towards Donbass, Odessa and other Russian-speaking regions, is part of the US plan of destabilizing Ukraine and sabotaging Russian gas supply to Europe, thus damaging both Russian and European economies.

Another example is the EU insistence on minimizing the flow of gas though the Gazprom Opal pipeline designed to bypass Ukraine. To any independent observer it would seem logical that if the flow of gas to Europe through Ukraine is under constant threat, then it would be logical to bypass Ukraine. Despite that, Opal runs only at 50% capacity.

US insists that France must cancel the delivery of the two Mistral carriers they are supposed to deliver this year to Russia. They go as far as suggesting NATO should buy these carriers to partially cover France’s losses from the broken multibillion euro contract. What this will do to France-Russia relations, the potentiality of future contracts, and to France’s economy… this is not the concern of the US. Or rather, it is precisely the concern of the US – US would love to damage France-Russia relations!

As I said many times previously, driving a wedge between Western Europe and Russia, sabotaging Russian and EU relations and economies are very important goals of the US foreign policy.

Understanding all that, Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed to visit France, where during the Normandy event he had an opportunity to meet privately with various EU leaders. The true value of events such as these is that the country leaders can meet on the sidelines and discuss any important and pressing matters candidly and quietly. Without such meetings, there would be much less interaction, and hence understanding, between leaders. In order to foster understanding, constant communication and interaction is as necessary between states as it is necessary among ordinary people.

The fact that Putin has attended the event in France signals that the EU quietly wants to work with Russia, although overtly it is afraid to anger the big boss. Hence two different dinners.

Grotesque and sad, isn’t it? But to avoid international confrontation, it’s still better than the alternative.

Below are the best quotes of Putin’s interview, as well as the link to the video of the full interview.

[It's basically what SOTT posted here

http://www.sott.net/article/280038-Russian-troops-in-Ukraine-Got-any-proof-Full-Putin-interview-with-French-media-including-transcript

so I won't repeat it]


The French journos were rude and aggressive, attempting to trip Putin, which of course didn’t work. I would have liked to see them try talking like this to Obama or Merkel. The interview would have been cancelled in no time. Obama’s questions are always very carefully vetted ahead of time, and a journalist can’t deviate an inch from the script.

Putin looked relaxed, and at times amused, as the French journos kept interrupting himself and each other.


On that note, someone recently “accused” me of being a “Putin admirer.” I find that amusing. Some people’s tiny understanding of how the world works really amazes me. I’m not into “admiring” of any humans, although I respect some.

What I do admire is this: the natural beauty of our planet Earth and the Harmony, Beauty and Truth in general.

Putin is not my boyfriend to be in love with. When it comes to statesmen, I assess them according to the intention and results of their work. If they are doing what a statesman is supposed to do, then they earn my respect; if they fall short, I cannot respect them. Then for me, they are not “statesmen.” They become mere politicians, and that’s what most of them are.

After observing Putin’s actions for years, he has earned my respect of the highest order. He is the only leader of the modern world who makes perfect sense and who is not afraid to stand up to the Western aggression going hand in hand with the unreasonable and juvenile behavior. And he does it in such a way that the world keeps spinning, despite frantic attempts by certain powerful interests to start WWIII. Putin manages to pull wins out of the seemingly no-win situations, check-mating his opponents against all odds, and doing it without any bloodshed. Compare that to how USA acts!

This is because Putin is not only much more than a politician – he is also much more than a statesman. Of that I will talk in one of my future pieces.
 
Alana said:
Laura said:
Interesting set of "predictions" posted by a FB friend:

http://www.znakovi-vremena.net/2014/lada-ray-01may2014.htm

I normally wouldn't introduce something like this in such a discussion, but this is a very rational piece of work and this lady makes a lot of good points and observations. One thing she does not do is discuss the biggest player of them all: Mother Nature.

I was just reading Lada Ray's latest, I find her predictions very sensible:

http://futuristrendcast.wordpress.com/

On June 6, leaders of various European countries met in France for the 70th anniversary of the 1944 Normandy landing during WWII. Among others present were Russian President Vladimir Putin, US president Barack Obama and president-elect of the Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko. In his usual diplomatic manner Russian President Vladimir Putin gave an interview to the French press at his Sochi residence before his visit to France.

Lada Ray’s geopolitical analysis and predictions

Overall, I believe the French President Francois Hollande has to be commended for inviting President Vladimir Putin. France in general often plays a role of a connector between Russia and the West, and it seems Hollande wants to continue in the footsteps of his predecessors. Even Sarkozy managed to play this role in 2008 during the Georgia crisis, although Francois Mitterrand and Charles De Gaulle were undeniably much better at this. But of course it was also during those times when France was still a sovereign and independent state that wasn’t a part of NATO. Very diplomatically, President Putin hints at that during the interview.

Hollande faced a logistical challenge during Putin’s and Obama’s visit, as the US president Obama seems to be unable to handle being in the same room with Putin. Can’t bear looking him in the eye after what US has done in Ukraine (like spending $5bln+ to destabilize Ukraine as publicly admitted by Victoria #Nuland)? Or resenting that Putin again outsmarted him (as in the case of Crimea, which US planned on turning into a massive US military base against Russia, but failed)? Most likely – both.

To keep Putin and Obama separate, Hollande was ready to eat two dinners. He hosted two dinners in one night – one for Obama, another for Putin, which for a French may not be a problem.

But jokes aside, as I predicted, EU finds itself on some serious crossroads of history. EU has massive past relations with the US – economically, politically and militarily. But more and more people in the EU are realizing that their future lies in distancing themselves from the US and getting closer to Russia and the East.

This appears to be the first time a Russian President is attending this event held each year in France. In diplomatic terms such invitation is a signal that, despite tough rhetoric and cancelling of the G8 meeting in Sochi due to events in Ukraine, the EU leaders want to continue talking to Russia.

This confirms what I’ve talked about from the very beginning of the Ukraine crisis. EU is realizing – very slowly and reluctantly – that it is facing a major historic choice. We are going through a tectonic shift of directions and priorities, and of course the EU doesn’t want to give up its cushy and stable past, which it believes, it has earned during the past 70 years of relative peace on the European continent. Europe sees the unfolding crisis of the Western world and fears what the future may bring. However, holding on to the past effectively means siding with the dying dollar and crumbling US Empire. This means that the EU would have to give up its cushy past no matter how hard they try to hang on to it.

This also means that the future for the EU lies in closer integration with Russia and the East. Despite the logic and necessity of such actions, the EU is agonizing over switching gears. It seems paralyzed at the moment due to the massive political, economic and military pressures from the US, and partially from the UK.

However, the UK is at its own crossroads. Britain faces its own economic crisis, Scotland secession, and rising euro-scepticism. Interestingly enough, some in the UK would like to distance themselves from the US even more so than the rest of Europe. Moreover, the win of the euro-skeptics in the euro-parliament elections, indicates that the UK is poised to distance itself from the EU as well.

Unfortunately, 2/3 of the European politicians and media side with the US, while the EU business prefers Russia. In fact, the EU business is screaming bloody murder as the threat of sanctions against Russia makes Russia turn more and more decisively towards Asia. As a consequence, EU companies may be squeezed out of the Russian market, losing billions in investment.

Russian rep to the EU, Vladimir Chizhov says that EU companies are begging Russia not to adopt return sanctions against the EU, motivating it this way: “we are already losing a lot of money from the EU sanctions against Russia, Russia’s return sanctions will be really bad for us.” Hmm… What Russia is losing is not their concern obviously. Sounds grotesque, right?

Make no mistake: the consequence of weakening of the European economy, along with Russian, is undoubtedly intended by the US.

Predictions

Eventually, the EU will have no choice but to get closer to Russia and Asia, and distance itself gradually from the US. This will be a very slow and reluctant process. EU will not want to do anything drastic that may lead to a confrontation with the US. Let’s remember, Europe is an occupied continent. There are 50,000 US troops in Germany alone. EU fears destabilization more than anything else, and it cannot afford any conflict with the US.

US knows that long-term the EU is poised to distance itself from its old Transatlantic ally. It’s a historic process, which cannot be avoided. US knows that it may be marginalized – and it fears being isolated. This is why US is desperate to delay the inevitable by binding EU to itself via the Transatlantic agreement; increasing US troop count in the EU; forcing on the EU its expensive shale gas, extracted via barbaric fracking, which harms the environment and decimates the American land; and by demanding from the EU more sanctions against Russia.

To get the US off its back, EU adopted some token sanctions against a number of Russian individuals. But the US keeps demanding economic sanctions, which are bound to harm the EU economy. Contrary to its usually politically meek and conciliatory position, the EU’s large business is sending SOS signals that by pressuring the EU into economic sanctions, the US companies are trying to weaken their European competitors.

Examples are the restrictions on the Russian gas supply to the EU, which, due to the Trojan horses of the US in Europe, such as Poland, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, have partially succeeded. One example is the constant turmoil with the Russian gas transit via Ukraine. The US deep interference in Ukraine and continuing prodding of the Kiev junta to act in an aggressive manner towards Donbass, Odessa and other Russian-speaking regions, is part of the US plan of destabilizing Ukraine and sabotaging Russian gas supply to Europe, thus damaging both Russian and European economies.

Another example is the EU insistence on minimizing the flow of gas though the Gazprom Opal pipeline designed to bypass Ukraine. To any independent observer it would seem logical that if the flow of gas to Europe through Ukraine is under constant threat, then it would be logical to bypass Ukraine. Despite that, Opal runs only at 50% capacity.

US insists that France must cancel the delivery of the two Mistral carriers they are supposed to deliver this year to Russia. They go as far as suggesting NATO should buy these carriers to partially cover France’s losses from the broken multibillion euro contract. What this will do to France-Russia relations, the potentiality of future contracts, and to France’s economy… this is not the concern of the US. Or rather, it is precisely the concern of the US – US would love to damage France-Russia relations!

As I said many times previously, driving a wedge between Western Europe and Russia, sabotaging Russian and EU relations and economies are very important goals of the US foreign policy.

Understanding all that, Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed to visit France, where during the Normandy event he had an opportunity to meet privately with various EU leaders. The true value of events such as these is that the country leaders can meet on the sidelines and discuss any important and pressing matters candidly and quietly. Without such meetings, there would be much less interaction, and hence understanding, between leaders. In order to foster understanding, constant communication and interaction is as necessary between states as it is necessary among ordinary people.

The fact that Putin has attended the event in France signals that the EU quietly wants to work with Russia, although overtly it is afraid to anger the big boss. Hence two different dinners.

Grotesque and sad, isn’t it? But to avoid international confrontation, it’s still better than the alternative.

Below are the best quotes of Putin’s interview, as well as the link to the video of the full interview.

[It's basically what SOTT posted here

http://www.sott.net/article/280038-Russian-troops-in-Ukraine-Got-any-proof-Full-Putin-interview-with-French-media-including-transcript

so I won't repeat it]


The French journos were rude and aggressive, attempting to trip Putin, which of course didn’t work. I would have liked to see them try talking like this to Obama or Merkel. The interview would have been cancelled in no time. Obama’s questions are always very carefully vetted ahead of time, and a journalist can’t deviate an inch from the script.

Putin looked relaxed, and at times amused, as the French journos kept interrupting himself and each other.


On that note, someone recently “accused” me of being a “Putin admirer.” I find that amusing. Some people’s tiny understanding of how the world works really amazes me. I’m not into “admiring” of any humans, although I respect some.

What I do admire is this: the natural beauty of our planet Earth and the Harmony, Beauty and Truth in general.

Putin is not my boyfriend to be in love with. When it comes to statesmen, I assess them according to the intention and results of their work. If they are doing what a statesman is supposed to do, then they earn my respect; if they fall short, I cannot respect them. Then for me, they are not “statesmen.” They become mere politicians, and that’s what most of them are.

After observing Putin’s actions for years, he has earned my respect of the highest order. He is the only leader of the modern world who makes perfect sense and who is not afraid to stand up to the Western aggression going hand in hand with the unreasonable and juvenile behavior. And he does it in such a way that the world keeps spinning, despite frantic attempts by certain powerful interests to start WWIII. Putin manages to pull wins out of the seemingly no-win situations, check-mating his opponents against all odds, and doing it without any bloodshed. Compare that to how USA acts!

This is because Putin is not only much more than a politician – he is also much more than a statesman. Of that I will talk in one of my future pieces.

Again a great article from Lada Ray :thup:
 
The invitation to the inauguration of the newly elected president of Ukraine came up with a surprising title of the Russian Empire.

deputies Alexander Brygynets and Leonid Emetc have posted photos of their personal social networks invitations to celebrate the inauguration day Poroshenko.

"On the occasion of the introduction on a post His Excellency the President of Ukraine P. Poroshenko has honor to invite mister [...] on Reception "a la a buffet reception" which will take place on Saturday, June 7, 2014, at 17 o'clock", - it is spoken in the invitation.

1439250.jpg
 
Lumiere_du_Code said:
The invitation to the inauguration of the newly elected president of Ukraine came up with a surprising title of the Russian Empire.

deputies Alexander Brygynets and Leonid Emetc have posted photos of their personal social networks invitations to celebrate the inauguration day Poroshenko.

"On the occasion of the introduction on a post His Excellency the President of Ukraine P. Poroshenko has honor to invite mister [...] on Reception "a la a buffet reception" which will take place on Saturday, June 7, 2014, at 17 o'clock", - it is spoken in the invitation.

1439250.jpg

A buffet for a buffoon. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Pashalis said:
Alana said:
Laura said:
Interesting set of "predictions" posted by a FB friend:

http://www.znakovi-vremena.net/2014/lada-ray-01may2014.htm

I normally wouldn't introduce something like this in such a discussion, but this is a very rational piece of work and this lady makes a lot of good points and observations. One thing she does not do is discuss the biggest player of them all: Mother Nature.

I was just reading Lada Ray's latest, I find her predictions very sensible:

http://futuristrendcast.wordpress.com/

On June 6, leaders of various European countries met in France for the 70th anniversary of the 1944 Normandy landing during WWII. Among others present were Russian President Vladimir Putin, US president Barack Obama and president-elect of the Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko. In his usual diplomatic manner Russian President Vladimir Putin gave an interview to the French press at his Sochi residence before his visit to France.

Lada Ray’s geopolitical analysis and predictions

Overall, I believe the French President Francois Hollande has to be commended for inviting President Vladimir Putin. France in general often plays a role of a connector between Russia and the West, and it seems Hollande wants to continue in the footsteps of his predecessors. Even Sarkozy managed to play this role in 2008 during the Georgia crisis, although Francois Mitterrand and Charles De Gaulle were undeniably much better at this. But of course it was also during those times when France was still a sovereign and independent state that wasn’t a part of NATO. Very diplomatically, President Putin hints at that during the interview.

Hollande faced a logistical challenge during Putin’s and Obama’s visit, as the US president Obama seems to be unable to handle being in the same room with Putin. Can’t bear looking him in the eye after what US has done in Ukraine (like spending $5bln+ to destabilize Ukraine as publicly admitted by Victoria #Nuland)? Or resenting that Putin again outsmarted him (as in the case of Crimea, which US planned on turning into a massive US military base against Russia, but failed)? Most likely – both.

To keep Putin and Obama separate, Hollande was ready to eat two dinners. He hosted two dinners in one night – one for Obama, another for Putin, which for a French may not be a problem.

But jokes aside, as I predicted, EU finds itself on some serious crossroads of history. EU has massive past relations with the US – economically, politically and militarily. But more and more people in the EU are realizing that their future lies in distancing themselves from the US and getting closer to Russia and the East.

This appears to be the first time a Russian President is attending this event held each year in France. In diplomatic terms such invitation is a signal that, despite tough rhetoric and cancelling of the G8 meeting in Sochi due to events in Ukraine, the EU leaders want to continue talking to Russia.

This confirms what I’ve talked about from the very beginning of the Ukraine crisis. EU is realizing – very slowly and reluctantly – that it is facing a major historic choice. We are going through a tectonic shift of directions and priorities, and of course the EU doesn’t want to give up its cushy and stable past, which it believes, it has earned during the past 70 years of relative peace on the European continent. Europe sees the unfolding crisis of the Western world and fears what the future may bring. However, holding on to the past effectively means siding with the dying dollar and crumbling US Empire. This means that the EU would have to give up its cushy past no matter how hard they try to hang on to it.

This also means that the future for the EU lies in closer integration with Russia and the East. Despite the logic and necessity of such actions, the EU is agonizing over switching gears. It seems paralyzed at the moment due to the massive political, economic and military pressures from the US, and partially from the UK.

However, the UK is at its own crossroads. Britain faces its own economic crisis, Scotland secession, and rising euro-scepticism. Interestingly enough, some in the UK would like to distance themselves from the US even more so than the rest of Europe. Moreover, the win of the euro-skeptics in the euro-parliament elections, indicates that the UK is poised to distance itself from the EU as well.

Unfortunately, 2/3 of the European politicians and media side with the US, while the EU business prefers Russia. In fact, the EU business is screaming bloody murder as the threat of sanctions against Russia makes Russia turn more and more decisively towards Asia. As a consequence, EU companies may be squeezed out of the Russian market, losing billions in investment.

Russian rep to the EU, Vladimir Chizhov says that EU companies are begging Russia not to adopt return sanctions against the EU, motivating it this way: “we are already losing a lot of money from the EU sanctions against Russia, Russia’s return sanctions will be really bad for us.” Hmm… What Russia is losing is not their concern obviously. Sounds grotesque, right?

Make no mistake: the consequence of weakening of the European economy, along with Russian, is undoubtedly intended by the US.

Predictions

Eventually, the EU will have no choice but to get closer to Russia and Asia, and distance itself gradually from the US. This will be a very slow and reluctant process. EU will not want to do anything drastic that may lead to a confrontation with the US. Let’s remember, Europe is an occupied continent. There are 50,000 US troops in Germany alone. EU fears destabilization more than anything else, and it cannot afford any conflict with the US.

US knows that long-term the EU is poised to distance itself from its old Transatlantic ally. It’s a historic process, which cannot be avoided. US knows that it may be marginalized – and it fears being isolated. This is why US is desperate to delay the inevitable by binding EU to itself via the Transatlantic agreement; increasing US troop count in the EU; forcing on the EU its expensive shale gas, extracted via barbaric fracking, which harms the environment and decimates the American land; and by demanding from the EU more sanctions against Russia.

To get the US off its back, EU adopted some token sanctions against a number of Russian individuals. But the US keeps demanding economic sanctions, which are bound to harm the EU economy. Contrary to its usually politically meek and conciliatory position, the EU’s large business is sending SOS signals that by pressuring the EU into economic sanctions, the US companies are trying to weaken their European competitors.

Examples are the restrictions on the Russian gas supply to the EU, which, due to the Trojan horses of the US in Europe, such as Poland, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, have partially succeeded. One example is the constant turmoil with the Russian gas transit via Ukraine. The US deep interference in Ukraine and continuing prodding of the Kiev junta to act in an aggressive manner towards Donbass, Odessa and other Russian-speaking regions, is part of the US plan of destabilizing Ukraine and sabotaging Russian gas supply to Europe, thus damaging both Russian and European economies.

Another example is the EU insistence on minimizing the flow of gas though the Gazprom Opal pipeline designed to bypass Ukraine. To any independent observer it would seem logical that if the flow of gas to Europe through Ukraine is under constant threat, then it would be logical to bypass Ukraine. Despite that, Opal runs only at 50% capacity.

US insists that France must cancel the delivery of the two Mistral carriers they are supposed to deliver this year to Russia. They go as far as suggesting NATO should buy these carriers to partially cover France’s losses from the broken multibillion euro contract. What this will do to France-Russia relations, the potentiality of future contracts, and to France’s economy… this is not the concern of the US. Or rather, it is precisely the concern of the US – US would love to damage France-Russia relations!

As I said many times previously, driving a wedge between Western Europe and Russia, sabotaging Russian and EU relations and economies are very important goals of the US foreign policy.

Understanding all that, Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed to visit France, where during the Normandy event he had an opportunity to meet privately with various EU leaders. The true value of events such as these is that the country leaders can meet on the sidelines and discuss any important and pressing matters candidly and quietly. Without such meetings, there would be much less interaction, and hence understanding, between leaders. In order to foster understanding, constant communication and interaction is as necessary between states as it is necessary among ordinary people.

The fact that Putin has attended the event in France signals that the EU quietly wants to work with Russia, although overtly it is afraid to anger the big boss. Hence two different dinners.

Grotesque and sad, isn’t it? But to avoid international confrontation, it’s still better than the alternative.

Below are the best quotes of Putin’s interview, as well as the link to the video of the full interview.

[It's basically what SOTT posted here

http://www.sott.net/article/280038-Russian-troops-in-Ukraine-Got-any-proof-Full-Putin-interview-with-French-media-including-transcript

so I won't repeat it]


The French journos were rude and aggressive, attempting to trip Putin, which of course didn’t work. I would have liked to see them try talking like this to Obama or Merkel. The interview would have been cancelled in no time. Obama’s questions are always very carefully vetted ahead of time, and a journalist can’t deviate an inch from the script.

Putin looked relaxed, and at times amused, as the French journos kept interrupting himself and each other.


On that note, someone recently “accused” me of being a “Putin admirer.” I find that amusing. Some people’s tiny understanding of how the world works really amazes me. I’m not into “admiring” of any humans, although I respect some.

What I do admire is this: the natural beauty of our planet Earth and the Harmony, Beauty and Truth in general.

Putin is not my boyfriend to be in love with. When it comes to statesmen, I assess them according to the intention and results of their work. If they are doing what a statesman is supposed to do, then they earn my respect; if they fall short, I cannot respect them. Then for me, they are not “statesmen.” They become mere politicians, and that’s what most of them are.

After observing Putin’s actions for years, he has earned my respect of the highest order. He is the only leader of the modern world who makes perfect sense and who is not afraid to stand up to the Western aggression going hand in hand with the unreasonable and juvenile behavior. And he does it in such a way that the world keeps spinning, despite frantic attempts by certain powerful interests to start WWIII. Putin manages to pull wins out of the seemingly no-win situations, check-mating his opponents against all odds, and doing it without any bloodshed. Compare that to how USA acts!

This is because Putin is not only much more than a politician – he is also much more than a statesman. Of that I will talk in one of my future pieces.

Again a great article from Lada Ray

Agreed Pashalis. She really nailed the whole Ukraine scenario to a T.
Excellent reporting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom