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.

Look Who's Talking (About Rules)

The last day of March was undoubtedly done (well, at least for me) by Reuters. That is, by Britain's foreign secretary Philip Hammond, with Reuters being just the media that spreads his words around the globe.

Just enjoy what this British politician said recently in Tbilisi, Georgia.

If Russia wants the sanctions lifted, then its course of actions is very clear. It has to comply completely with its obligations under the Minsk agreements.

Such claims always make me to wonder if the claimer needs an urgent assistant of a decent mental specialist. Is it Russia that is responsible for internal political changes in Ukraine, according to the Minsk agreements? If so, you just confirm and approve the fact that Ukraine IS Russia (and it really is, to a very very large extent, though it's a topic of another discussion).

We must not forget that this was an incursion into the sovereign territory of Ukraine, Russia annexed Crimea illegally in international law. Of course, reforms and steps are needed on the Ukrainian side as well. But we should never equate the two. Russia is the aggressor in this conflict.

Philip Hammond is a liar and provocateur in these words of him. And the reason for my straightforward statement is pretty simple: just because the Crimea was reincorporated to Russia in an absolutely legal and UN-confirmed way, the next day it declared independence of the mainland Ukraine. And the autonomous region was fully entitled to do that according to the international law.

And the one and only aggressor in this conflict, skillfully orchestrated by the US-lead forces and being a severe civil conflict, virtually a full-scale civil war by its nature, is West-supported Kiev government that came to power as a result of the US- and EU-supported coup d'état. It was Kiev regime that unleashed a campaign of state terrorism hypocritically called 'Anti-Terrorist Operation' against those Ukrainian people who opposed the coup based on openly Nazi, Banderite ideology.

Just like it was in the bloody history of the 20th century, Nazism does not bother Europe and the US so far it is directed against Russia. Some stupid people in some high armchairs love playing with fire pretending to be omnipotent political gods. Unfortunately, these games are always paid by lives, lives of common people, and not by those of black-tied high-ranked scum that forgets pride is a deadly sin.

Russia ignores the norms of international conduct and breaks the rules of the international system. That represents a challenge and a threat to all of us.

Should Rhodes Stay?

The BBC informs, Oriel College at Oxford University for some reasons decided to keep the statue of Cecil Rhodes on its building.

Reuters image from the BBC publication.

This decision is strongly opposed by "Rodes Must Fall" campaigners. THis campaign succeeded in South Africa, where a Rhodes statue was removed. The idea was adopted in Oxford by activists students insisting that Rhodes' views were incompatible with the modern 'inclusive culture'.

I have no doubt his views are incompatible. How could we expect it other way, talking about a British imperialistic (and as such, surely white) politician of 19th century?

The matter is that history was just the way it was. One can remove a statue, but no one can change history. History is to be studied, its lessons are to help us here, today, avoid mistakes of the past, and find better ways to future that is supposed to be better than the present and way better than the past.

History Repeats Itself

The UK government says they are going on providing assisiatnce to the Ukrainian army.

Defence Secretary Michael Fallon today (19 November) informed Parliament that the UK will provide a £971,000 gifting package as part of our non-lethal support being provided to the UAF.
The equipment being gifted includes 170 large tents, 170 heating units and 600 sets of cold weather clothing...

Well, I am a bit surprised 170 tents + 170 heaters + 600 sets of winter clothes make almost one million pounds. It smells like some guys are making good business. Anyhow, that's what Capitalism is all about; this is nit the point I am going to discuss.

Having read this piece of news, I remembered a story that took place almost exactly a century ago, in 1919. And it was also about the British military assistance to a fighting side in Russia (which Ukraine is just a part of; maybe except for its Western part).

Here is how Major General W.S.Graves of the US Army told that story in his book "America's Siberian Adventure (1918—1920)":

Most of the uniforms for the mobilized Russians were supplied by the British. General Knox stated that one hundred thousand uniforms had been supplied by the British for Kolchak forces. This was partially substantiated by the number of men in the Red Army wearing British uniforms. General Knox was disgusted at the Reds wearing British uniforms and later is re-ported to have said that the British would supply nothing more to Kolchak because everything they supplied reached the Bolsheviks. The men found in the Red Army wearing the British uniforms were the same men, generally speaking, to whom these uniforms were issued when they were with the Kolchak forces. The great mass of these men had no heart for fighting for Kolchak.

The methods used by the Kolchak people to mobilize these Siberians created a resentment not easily removed. They went into the service embittered by fear, not of the enemy, but of their own forces. The result was, as soon as they were armed and equipped they deserted by regiments, battalions, and individually to the Bolsheviks.

We will see how many of the stuff Fallon says about will make its unsurprising way to Novorossia.

UK at OSCE, Who's Your Pusher?

Crazy claims of Ukrainian politicians of "Russian aggression" do not surprise us any more. A circus is a circus. But the international league of their supporters sometimes does.

Here is the image that accompanied a tweet of the UK delegation to the OSCE.

This is a heavy multiple thermobaric rocket launch system TOS-1 called Buratino (our military designers are people with a decent sense of humour: this deadly weapon is named after the Soviet version of Pinocchio), and Russia is accused of giving it to militia of DNR (Donetsk People Republic) opposing Kiev quasi-Nazi regime.

A Thought of Philip Hammond

The Guardian quotes today the British Foreign secretary.

Quite a reading, should I say. But one paragraph is a true gem.

Asked if there could be a case for Britain to publicise some of the “very interesting financial” information about members of Vladimir Putin’s regime outside Russia, he replied: “There might be. When we talk about having further steps that we can take in increasing the pressure on Russia, one of the headings that we regularly review is strategic communication, how can we [send a] message to the Russian people ... about what’s really going on. And it’s a very interesting thought. I will certainly make sure that the strat-comms [strategic communications] people are thinking precisely about that.

Come on, Mr. Hammond, show us your message about what's really going on.

I don't know who are you to lecture us, but, anyhow, let us Russians know what you understand about it.

We need more fun in life.