EP: the Residence of Hypocrites

Here's what they say (and do):

Scottish MEP's standing ovation in European Parliament

28 June 2016 Last updated at 12:14 BST

A Scottish MEP has received a standing ovation in the European Parliament.
SNP MEP Alyn Smith had asked members to back Scotland's position in the EU.
The response was a standing ovation by many in the chamber.

What do we see here? In plain words we do see a standing ovation, a storm of applause to a separatist claim.

In favour of the supernational state-like structure which the EU is, Mr. Smith stands for a separation of a UK part from the United Kingdom, and the idea is warmly welcomed by the vast majority of the EP members.

Well, I can understand the intention of the EU to have at least a part of the UK as a member, somehow softening the Brexit shock.

I just would like to get a clear answer: does that mean there is a good and acceptable separatism that's worth a standing ovation?

How comes that Scotland coming to (or, for the matter, staying in) the EU is good and deserves a standing ovation of the EP members, and the Crimea and Donbass region coming to Russia is bad and deserves anti-Russian sanctions and Russophobic rhetorics in favour of an openly Banderite (=Nazi) regime of Kiev?

Such a hypocrisy surely can lead to some short-term benefit and profit. But strategically it cannot; and the problem of refugees is just one fair compensation Western Europe is getting for its political approach of the last 25 years, and quite a logical fruit thereof.

Looks like the big West desided to go to hell by all means.

The only problem is our Earth is too small, and if a part of it goes to hell, no other part survives.

On Freedom of Speech

In my opinion, it's a pure fun and a brilliant, exemplary sample of hypocrisy of some politicians of the post-Soviet political scene.

Inese Vaidere, a member of the European Parliament for Latvia, has written a letter to Martin Schulz, the President of the EP requesting to prohibit entry to all the EU countries to Alexander Dyukov, a Russian historian.

Yes, Dyukov expresses viewpoints that the current political beau-monde of the Baltic countries and now Ukraine generally dislike. He digs deep into the bloody cooperation of Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonian Nazis and volunteers with Hitler Nazis during the WW2. He does so good that in Latvian media they always call him 'a pseudo historian', and the Latvian foreign ministry announced him a persona non grata. What a nice and logic way of a scientific dispute with someone with an unwelcome point of view, isn't it?

Recently he presented to the European Parliament his book devoted to human rights violations in Ukraine since February, 22 to May 22, 2014, that is during the events that were hypocritically called the 'Revolution of Dignity'. So Mrs Vaidere, being — quite traditionally for new political elites of Baltic countries — ultra-patriotic and russophobic, raged upon the fact that such a person was permitted to the EP.

Freedom of speech, you say? Do you know what that is? It's not only about your possibility to say how bad the USSR (or Russia, or Putin for that matter) is; it is also about the very same possibility for us to openly say things, some of which you definitely might dislike. Yet none of us lives in paradise, and there can be lots of criticism in all directions. But any argument or dispute should be logic to be positive.

And now back to the funny side of the story.

Alexander Dyukov was born in 1978. A year after Inese Vaidere, an economist, became a member of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Isn't it hilarious?

In fact, in all post-Soviet countries many people whose current wealth is based upon a firm Soviet background are now acting as if willing to be more Catholic than the Pope. Sometimes it means to be more anti-Soviet than, say, Sir Winston Chirchill, and more russophobic than Adolf Hitler.

To be trendy.