A Doping Question

Doping is an evident evil that spoils the very idea of the Olympic movement, sport and fair play.

No doubt.

But.

Here's the recent announcement on the matter.

Can anyone explain in plain words: how comes that Olympic tests of 2012 show doping only on 2016?

Four years is WAY more than enough to add any shit into vials. And we know that any vial can contain any kind of bullshit, Colin Powell is a great proof of that.

Some questions arise.

How can one trust those slowpokes in the 21st century?

How comes that Olympic results of 1896 are still undisputed?

For how long is the world going to get along with this shit?

Russophobia Kills

So do (sometimes) human rights activists.

When they become liberal idiots (and as such, surely Russophobic).

6 years ago the Amnesty Int'l reached their purpose: Ahmed 'One-Arm' Chataev was released, he escaped "an unfair trial" and "risk of torture and other ill-treatment" in that Evil Empire. FSB (or KGB, who cares) controlled Russia was shown her place once again. Interestingly enough, then in Ukraine the man was supported also by Stepan Bandera's Trizub ("trident") — the Banderite (=Nazi) movement that later became the core of the so called Right Sector uniting ultra radical Nazis of Ukraine.

Later this Chechen man was arrested in Bulgaria, and released again. Just to be later arrested in Georgia — though, with the very same result. Initially, it was Austria that awarded him with a refugee status back in 2003, when he made it to escape from Russia. He was caught in Sweden with some illegal handguns in 2008 and was even imprisoned for a year; but kept his respected anti-Russian refugee status.

But when you are playing with matches, a fire and burns shouldn't surprise you.

The thread has come to its end; Ahmed Chataev thankfully to his right defenders arranged the terroristic attack in Istanbul airport that took lives of dozens.

They are killed by Russophobia, so readily supported by the Amnesty Int'l.

They would be alive and kicking, if that FSB request was duly executed years ago.

Russophobia kills.


PS: Thanks to historian Alexander Dyukov for the idea.

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.

Save Breedlove

The Independent has offered quite a piece of reading: "Nato commander calls for return to service of U-2 spy plane to help conduct surveillance on a resurgent Russia".

Well, I am not going to discuss the evident fact of Russia being resurgent; I'm rather into another evident fact: this is an insufferable event for some of the big guys around there, and Philip Breedlove is not an exception.

The very idea of bringing back U-2 for surveillance over Russia sounds as kind of a mental diagnosis to a formerly brave US fighter pilot and presently NATO supreme allied commander, who is to step down this spring.

56 year ago, on May 1, 1960 a U-2 did a great service in breaking US-USSR relations; Gary Powers did not commit suicide... Surely, for the US military those were good old times and bright hopes; a great war seemed to be round the corner. Luckily, then, in the sixties, big guys succeeded to overcome all crises and kept the strategic peace till now (I am not talking about local wars; those bloodsheds did not threaten the very existence of life on Earth).

Now, in 2016, the Breedlove's idea is not only desperately outdated; it puts under question the very ability of the high-ranked military to perceive reality adequately.

Mogherini’s Tear and Milica Rakić

The following text wrote recently my Facebook friend Eva Merkuryeva (link below). I couldn't write it better, so my conribution is translation.


It was exactly 17 years ago that 14 NATO countries brought democracy and freedom to the country of this little girl. 78 days of democratization…

And when splinters of a democratic shell hit the house of this girl — Milica Rakić — none of European officials in Brussels cried.

Milica Rakić (1996—1999), one of the victims of the NATO aggression against Yugoslavia.

The democratic air force included 10 planes from Belgium; 42 airplanes from Italy (the homeland of crying Federica Mogherini) brought to Yugoslavia democratic bombs as well, and the total of 559 airplanes participating in the operation “Allied Force” used Italian air bases.

To celebrate freedom and democracy, the American and European “democratizers” decided to destroy the country of this child and to kill her personally.

Fighting back tears following the Brussels terrorist attacks, Europe's foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini abruptly walked out of a news conference in Jordan saying 'today is a difficult day'. Image source.

Therefore the tears of the EU High Representative for foreign affairs and a security policy are those of a crocodile. You should cry when Yugoslavia was bombed. Now, after those terroristic attacks in Brussels, Mogherini’s tears are tears for the security policy which does not exist in Europe any more. And the European officials do not see or rather pretend they do not see the direct cause-effect relationship between local wars and colour revolutions supported warmly by Europe, and the present lack of European security.

All those common people drawing hearts on asphalt of European squares are hostages of that “security policy”. Nobody guarantees them safety. The only thing guaranteed is crocodile tears.

Mogherini considers it is necessary to stop the war in Syria for security. However, she hasn’t spelled a word they shouldn’t even start “democratizing” Syria in 2011.

The terroristic attacks are a direct consequence of that “democratization”; interventions in life of other people; transformation of other countries into ruins and destruction of histories that differ.

If Yugoslavia existed today on the map, if peaceful cities of Syria shone with evening lights, the people who died in Brussels would safely reach their homes, offices, friends...

And three-year-old Milica Rakić, killed with a splinter of a NATO shell, would be twenty now.

Live twenty-year-old Milica would be a guarantee of European security policy.

But when Milica was three, Europe killed its security; and went on killing it in the following 17 years.


The original Russian text.

Will Europe Stop It? Or What?

Having read first coverages of the terroristic attack in Brussels (I love this city; I was thereto about 30 years ago, in 1985 and 1986. I undertsand the city has surely changed meanwhile, yet I do love the you know sweet remembrances of youth) in major media, I remembered an old piece from the Washington Post. It's rather small; I quote it in full.

Why Russia can't stop terrorists
Thursday, January 27, 2011; 8:04 PM
THE HORRIFIC suicide bombing at Moscow's Domodedovo Airport on Monday underlined a couple of sad conclusions about Russia's battle against terrorism. One is that the country's security services, unlike their counterparts in Europe and North America, have failed to develop the means to uncover terrorist networks, prevent attacks or protect public spaces such as airports and subway systems. No country's police can guarantee security. But in Russia over the past decade, as Vladimir Putin has cited the threat of terrorism in consolidating a domestic police state, Moscow alone has suffered eight major attacks, along with the destruction of two airplanes that took off from Domodedovo. Casualties have been heavy: At least 35 died and more than 200 were injured in the latest strike.
Second, Mr. Putin's autocratic form of rule and imperialist policy toward non-Russian nations has made it impossible for him to resolve - or even seriously address - the underlying problem that fuels most of the attacks. That is the restiveness of the mostly Muslim republics of the North Caucasus, including Chechnya, Ingushetia and Dagestan, which for the past two decades have been seeking more autonomy from Moscow. Russia's brutal response, including Mr. Putin's scorched-earth campaign in Chechnya, fueled the rise of Muslim extremist groups that have been growing steadily stronger despite nonstop counterterrorism operations. According to official Russian reports, the number of terrorist attacks in the Caucasus doubled in 2010 - though the bloodshed gets little attention when it occurs outside Moscow or other Russian cities.
Mr. Putin and President Dmitry Medvedev sometimes seem to recognize that sweeps by security forces will never stop the terrorists. Mr. Medvedev has blamed the "economic backwardness" of the Caucasus, and Mr. Putin has promoted a development plan under which the central government will invest $13 billion in the region over the next decade. That could do some good if the programs don't fall victim to Russia's endemic corruption. But the Kremlin leaders won't seriously address the issue of self-rule for the republics. Nor are they willing to take on the federal secret police and other security services, which are more skilled at protection rackets and the persecution of political dissidents than in detecting terrorist plots. It was telling that in the aftermath of the bombing, Mr. Medvedev blamed the management of the privately operated airport rather than federal officials responsible for counterterrorism.
What's particularly worrying about the regime's failures is that Russia is due to host the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, on the edge of the Caucasus. The International Olympic Committee's unwise decision to accept Russia's bid means that athletes and governments around the world have to depend on the Putin-Medvedev regime to prevent terrorist disruption of the Games. Monday's attack was a reminder of how risky a bet that is.

It's an unsigned editorial piece; I take it for, say, an official position and viewpoint of the editorial office.


Having the recent events in Brussels on mind, I dare to put up some notes and questions, going backwards through the text above.

Thinking of Responsibility

About 10 days ago, at the conclusion of the ASEAN summit in California Barack Obama said, in particular:

Russia is a major military. Obviously a bunch of rebels are not going to be able to compete with the hardware of the second-most powerful military in the world.

Surely, sounds not that bad for Russia. Furthermore, in fact, it sounds like Mr. President talks about a kind of counterweight to the first-most powerful military that helps the world to balance on a thin edge of peace (I mean the absence of a world war; unfortunately, all we know there are many local hot and bloody spots in the world).

But just 23 months ago we heard him describing Russia using quite a different wording, the US News and World Report reminded in the same publication. He said then Russia was "a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors, not out of strength but out of weakness".

However, Russia is simply tooooo huge to be able to change itself in the course of just two years. There were no revolutions in Moscow; the Western world conducted just the very same, old as mammoth shit, politics of trying to squeeze Russia out of her spheres of interests. Russia has been remaining just the same, and in more or less the same geopolitical circumstances that some powers always try to make unfavourable.

Thus, a question rises.

There are lots of campaigns for  responsible doing this or that: responsible driving, responsible caring of pets and bringing up children, responsible using natural resources, etc, etc.

And all that responsibility stuff is very important for human beings dwelling on our little Earth, indeed. But there are things that are even more important. Do people care of a responsible presidency in the most powerful military? Do people prefer responsible cooperation to confrontation?

And if they do, why it seems they do not?

Revolution of Looting

That's how the Daily Mail describes the ill fate of the mansion of Viktor Pshonka, the Yanukovich's time General Prosecutor of Ukraine:

Revolutionaries wasted no time, and broke into his mansion for the first time immediately after he fled in 2014.
Inside, they discovered an orgy of kitsch - velvet curtains with gilded stripes, chaise-longues in a faux aquarium, marble busts, four-poster beds and what appeared to be a Faberge egg.
What followed was a free for all, with some individuals walking out with whatever they could carry.
Activists then pleaded with new President Petro Poroshenko to seize Pshonka's opulent home and recover its valuable assets for the impoverished state.
Instead, the country's current pro-EU government did nothing to stop the thieves.
Last October plunderers were able to live for a month and half in Pshonka's luxury home while they tore apart its interior.

 

There's a whole set of such pairs of images, taken from the same spots with a two years interval between.

The DM continuously call the Maidaners 'revolutionaries', following the officially adopted by the West version of 'Revolution of Dignity'.
However, what happened in Ukraine two years ago in no case was a revolution. A revolution leads to a change of social formation: so, the Great French Revolution washed away monarchy (with a true flood of blood, I have to add); two consecutive revolutions in Russia did same things in 1917.

However, the only result of Maidan was a change of political elite; the Yanukovich-supported oligarchy (quite mistakenly considered pro-Russian) was changed with that of Poroshenko, an oligarch himself. So it was just a coup d'état, whatever the mainstream media say.

And now we come to the second part of the definition, 'dignity'. The images in the DM show the exact amount on dignity in that Ukrainian pseudo-revolution.

Just because those 'revolutionaries' the DM is speaking of, calling them also 'all', 'individuals' and 'activists', are just the very same people later called 'thieves', 'looters' and 'plunderers'.

Do you see any unmasked face in the pictures published by the DM?

True revolutionaries do not mask their faces.

Period.

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.

What They Say Putin Said

The current year started with a prominent interview of Vladimir Putin to the German Bild. He spoke to German journalists on January 5.

Here goes the "original" German version. Why did I put the word 'original' in the quotation marks? The answer is pretty simple: it is a German text; that means, a translation of the words our president said to the interviewing staff in Russian.

For those of you, who do not speak or even understand German, the title goes: "Why Did Putin Frighten Merkel With His Dog". And the subtitle below: "Vladimir Putin explains his world: the NATO is agressive, Merkel is earnest, and the Russian Crimea is a God's justice".

You like it or not, that's what the Bild wrote in German.

Being a major German paper, they published the English translation of the interview as well. Here it is.

Totalitarianism Now

For many years all those 'political' words like 'democracy', 'communism', 'totalitarianism', 'dictatorship', etc., are just a matter of verbal play. Those who act in favor of the so called 'Western values' are good guys, 'democracies'. Those who dare to play against or at least their own games, are bad ones, 'totalitarian regimes', 'communists' or 'tyrannies'.

Henceforth, the world has, e.g., Saudi Arabia presiding the UN Human Rights Council. Unfortunately, this is not a circus; this is the Orwellian world we live in.

A gem news came from Denmark. One of the best foreign undergraduates at the Aarhus University Marius Youbi was expelled from Denmark back to his native Cameroon for... working too hard.

His crime was from time to time exceeding by 1.5 hours the weekly limit established for part-time jobs done by foreign students.

Nice. Wasn't that one of the basic values of that 'capitalism dream': work harder to achieve more?

Now they play some more 'democracy' in the form of the 'freedom of speech' and sign a petition to let Youbi stay in the country and finish his education — well, he has just two semesters left on his way to his diploma in electrical engineering.

However, the world will undoubtedly go on calling Denmark a 'democracy', and calling Russia kind of 'resurrecting totalitarianism', and calling Saudi Arabia... oops, you'd better don't give names to this honorable country presiding the UN Human Rights Council.

Facebook and the Freedom of Speech

Yesterday I posted in my Facebook account the following message:


It's bilingual; the English part reads:

Things are even worse than I thought. Recently, Facebook banned quite a number of respected personalities, including:
Dmitry Puchkov
Zakhar Prilepin
Ruslan Karmanov
Ivan Rakhmetov
Lev Shyaransky
SHAME ON FACEBOOK'S POLITICAL CENSORSHIP!
GET THE UKRAINIAN NAZIS OFF THE RUSSIAN FACEBOOK MANAGEMENT!

At present, this post of me, being far from any 'top-bloggership', has 244 'likes' and 41 'shares', and the count is still going on. That means, not only I see the problem, and do it this way.

Pro-Ukrainian activists seem to completely win the management over the Russian language segment of the social network.

Any possible kind of Russophobic, anti-Russian, anti-Putin propaganda is allowed, including posts that contain all obscenities the russian language is so rich of, including those based on racial or ethnic hatred. However, even the most innocent traces of dislike regarding the sutiation in Ukraine, its foreign and internal policies are usually punished with temporary bans. The five popular accounts I name as examples, are banned for a month now, and these are 'heavy bans', preventing the people even from private messages.

I see the situation as totally intolerable. Instead of uniting people, the Zuckerberg's invention has become a place for political trolling and spreading international hatred; one the basic democratic rights, namely the freedom of speech, is openly biased and suppressed.

Any Facebook user can see it with his or her own eyes: there are many ways to complain for the acivity he or she considers unappropriate. However, it's almost impossible to complain over these complains, to complain over unfair actions of Facebook's authorities.

The top managenet of Facebook, apparently, is not aware of the situation, because such awareness requires good knowledge of Russian. Thus,

Shame on Facebook!
Shame on Zuckerberg!
Stop political censorship in Facebook now!
Get the supporters of Ukrainian Nazis off the Russian Facebook management!

RT Celebrates 10 Years on Air

My sincere congratulations to the people behind the project.

You've done great job, you are alive and kicking'em all, and you still have a lot to do in the future.

Watch RT and think different, people!

Is Erdoğan a Man of His Word?

Yesterday Al-Jazeera quoted Recep Tayyip Erdoğan:

I will say something very strong here. If such a thing is proven, the nobility of our nation would require that I would not stay in office.

So he commented recent Vladimir Putin's accusations that Turkey had shot down the Russian Su-24 to protect oil supplies from ISIL.

Meanwhile, earlier today Elissa Smith of Pentagon told RIA Novosti:

We reject the assumption that the Turkish government is in arrangement to IS for oil smuggling. We didn't see any proofs in support of such charges.

Come on, people, here are the proofs as presented today by the Russian Ministry of Defense.

Cameron's 70,000 Moderate Fighters and Freedom of Speech

Sometimes reading Western media reveils true gems of journalism (albeit seldom without some specific Western taste).

Now it's Independent and an article of Robert Fisk titled "David Cameron, there aren't 70,000 moderate fighters in Syria - and whoever heard of a moderate with a Kalashnikov, anyway?". You are very welcome to follow the link and read it yourself, it well worth it.

However, the author cannot just pass by, leaving Russia untouched.

Vladimir Putin comprehends this. He knows that Turkey is helping Isis – this is why he is going to destroy the Isis oil smuggling route to Turkey – and, as a former serving KGB officer, he understands the cynicism of any crisis. If an American aircraft had strayed into Turkish airspace, he asked at his Kremlin press conference with François Hollande last week, does anyone believe that Turkey would have shot down the US pilots? We all know the answer to that. If Turkey wished to destroy Isis, why does it bombard Isis’ Kurdish enemies? Why does it imprison two of Turkey’s top journalists for reporting how the Turkish intelligence service smuggled weapons to Islamist fighters in Syria? And Putin is hardly going to object if the EU is bent on suicide-through-fear.

You know what?

The EU members do remember, I hope, advantages of unification and joining forces. So do we, former citizens of the Soviet Union. It's just natural, for people to unite. And unnatural — to disintegrate. The USSR fell apart due to problems carefully fed up by external forces using hot and cold warfare; and it became a geopolitical tragedy that cost tens millions of lives; at least 13 millions for Russia alone; quite close to losses in the WW2.

Now some external forces are striving to blast the EU from inside. And it looks like some people see some profit Russia could get of it. I would greatly appreciate if you explain me the reasons of such thoughts; I just do not see any advantages for Russia from Europe in flames.

It looks like authors are just obliged to bite Russia and/or Putin at least once. In the "world of democratical rights and freedoms" only that speech is free, which is politically correct and meets some "corporate standards", isn't it?

Daily Routine of Russophobia

You might well hear accusations of the Western media in Russophobia. Yet it's not just some propaganda rhetorics of the Kremlin; it's just the daily routine the Western media follow. A bright example of that has recently appeared in the Huffington Post.

Let's follow the statements of some blonde "world reporter" Charlotte Alfred.

It was the worst aviation disaster in Russian history and the deadliest terrorist attack targeting Russians in over a decade. Yet many Russians know little about the victims of Metrojet Flight 9268.

Russian authorities released the passenger manifest -- which included 209 Russian citizens and at least 25 children -- but their personal stories have not been widely covered in the Russian press.

“It’s shocking in comparison to when tragedies happen in Western countries, when there are photos of the victims and comments on social media,” said Tonia Samsonova. Samsonova is a founder of Russian-language social network The Question and a U.K.-based correspondent for the Echo of Moscow, regarded as Russia's most liberal radio station.

The lack of coverage has repercussions on public perceptions of the tragedy, said Valery Nechay, a Russia-based journalist for the station.

“People become more involved in the story when they know the images and stories, and not just a number -- 224 victims,” he told The WorldPost.

There are just two statements that are 100% correct: it indeed was the worst aviation disaster in the the Soviet and Russian history, and that a passenger manifest was released.

All the other stuff is lies, pure or covered, arrogant or ignorant, does not matter.

Why Does NATO Fight for ISIS?

Here is how it happened when the Turks (?) shot down our plane.

It was a thoroughly planned ambush; they knew perfectly what they were doing; for more than an hour (that day only) they waited in the air for an optimal moment to hit and hide.

A Good Question

... Vladimir Pution asked at the UN General Assembly:

As for me, I am sure they do; equally sure am I they will never admit it.

Image source

Putin's Direct Speech on ISIS & Other Matters

Vladimir Putin is one of those whose opinion well deserves being listened to.

It's a real pity when those who are obliged to do so and act correspondingly, do not listen to the voice of reason.

Sometimes it looks like the Americans do not need a lasting peace and fruitfull cooperation of nations worldwide.

Well, in fact we do know the difference between Washington and the Americans. But for how long it will be allowed to lead its crazy policies?