EDITORIAL: The Obamination in Kyrgyzstan


The Obamination in Kyrgyzstan

With the announcement from rebel leaders in Kyrgyzstan that they were assisted by Russia in their coup d’etat which left blood flowing in rivers through the streets of the capital city, Bishkek, last week, our very worst fears about the abomination known as Barack Obama were realized.

Obama claimed to be “resetting” relations with Russia from the Bush years, and he sure has done so.  Russia has ousted the pro-U.S. regime in Bishkek that had thumbed its nose at Russia and insisted on preserving the U.S. military base just outside the capital city.  It has reached out to the maniacal Venezuelan ruler Hugo Chavez, promising him nuclear and rocket technology as well as billions in weapons. And it goes on shamelessly providing that same type of technology to Iran.  Obama has even gone so far as to authorize U.S. soldiers to march through Red Square saluting Putin on V-E day.  Rumors are beginning to fly, and we report some in today’s issue, that Russian troops will march into Georgia once again this summer.  The new ruler of Ukraine has just repudiated NATO membership for his country.

Welcome to the Obamination. To put it mildly, we are appalled.

Thanks to Obama, not only does the U.S. now face threats all throughout post-Soviet space, in the Middle East and in its own hemisphere, but it has all but abandoned the defense of American values within Russia itself. America has given the neo-Soviet Putin regime a blank check on aggression both at home and abroad, and for what?  For a nuclear weapons reduction treaty that is of far more value to Russia than to America (because it frees limited Russian resources from useless nukes to useful blunt trauma against the domestic population and in post-Soviet space) and vague promises about imposing sanctions on Iran, sanctions that would not be necessary but for Russia assistance to that rogue state.  That Putin lied shamelessly and publicly when asked whether Russia had supported the Kyrgyz coup, and moved forward with it even as Obama was meeting with Dima Medvedev in Prague to sign the nuclear accord, shows the naked contempt he has for the neophyte Obama and his pathetic policies of appeasement.

Just as we feared he might, Obama has proven to be the worst manager of America’s Russia policy in more than three decades. Not since the imbecile peanut farmer James Earl “Just call me Jimmy” Carter has American policy been so benighted and dangerous.

It was for this very reason that we endorsed John McCain for president against Obama, and we were heartened by McCain’s impassioned speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate calling for solidarity against neo-Soviet aggression.  it is time now for all patriotic Americans to join McCain and stand up against the betrayal of American values and security by the unqualified ignoramus who now governs from Washington DC.  Those who support Obama now are culpable in perpetuating Russian aggression and dictatorship, and condemning yet another generation of Americans to wallow in the blight of cold war.

174 responses to “EDITORIAL: The Obamination in Kyrgyzstan

  1. You sound very muck like the idiotic Russians who said the Orange Revolution was a U.S. plot. Anyone with a smidgen of knowledge about Kyrgyzstan knows that the situation has been boiling for some time and Bakiyev’s days were numbered. Also, simply wrong on the facts. The interim government has no plans to close Manas and are going enter into talks with us about it:



    You sound very much like the blindly pro-Obama, Kool-Aid drinking fanatic that you are.

    You choose to ignore, and certainly do not refute, the reports that Russia sponsored this coup. You choose to ignore our link, which is in no way inferior to your own, regarding the intentions of the rebels, and LOTS of others, like this one:


    How DARE you call us “simply wrong” when all you are doing is DISAGREEING with us? You Obamania is truly embarrassing.

    Instead, you babble pro-Obama propaganda, ignoring the recent anti-American orgy in Venezuela, seemingly unable to admit that you were wrong about Obama no matter what atrocity he might commit.

    We have absolutely no doubt that if/when the rebels kick out the Americans and bring in the Russians, you will return with more ludicrous rationalizations exculpating Obama from any blame. He could hand over the reins of U.S. government to Putin, and you’d only stand and cheer.

    Shame on you.

  2. I love this post.

    @not only does the U.S. now face threats all throughout post-Soviet space, in the Middle East and in its own hemisphere, but it has all but abandoned the defense of American values within Russia itself.

    Not only do the writers assume that its is the United States that gets to determine the course of events in Russia’s near-abroad. They also reveal their supreme arrogance in thinking that the US has the capability or the responsibility to force “american values” on a sovereign country.
    Judging by the fact that the writers are running amok with the notion that Obama is betraying “american values,” we know exactly what values are adressed here, namely, extreme disrespect for international law, provocation of illegal wars and arrogant attempts to force oneself upon other nations. If these are the “american values” that we are discussing, then may Obama betray, again and again, until the Unites States finally becomes a responsible and trustworthy member of the international system.

    By the way, in a detail that LR has quite obviously neglected to mention, the US spent the last several years propping up Bakievs regime during its worst crimes. But that doesn’t concern LR, since the good people of Faux News have told her that America is a shining paragon of democracy that showers freedom and goodness upon the world.


    We congratulate you on your conclusion that a nation must sacrifice its national security in the name of human rights. Therefore, we’re sure you’ll agree that Vladimir Putin must be arrested and jailed for his crimes, formally adjudicated in the ECHR, in Chechnya, and that the entire Caucasus region must be given its freedom immediately.


    As for your apparent suggestion that Russia acted in defense of human rights, it is a laughable and despicable LIE. Had the regime been pro-Kremlin, Russia would have fully supported any level of atrocity. Russia’s action was a naked aggressive attack just like its move against Georgia. If America acted this way, Russians would scream to high heaven. How would you like it if America deposed Yanukovich in Ukraine the same way, ape?

    • What can one say? The Yanks are fully convinced that God gave them the right to police the world.

      But what have we seen since 1991?

      Endless, perpetual war, endless, perpetual threats of war.

      All made in the USA.

      If the world does not stop the US, they will turn this world into a gigantic lunatic asylum.


      Your remark is truly psychotic, given that Russia is the one “policing” Kyrgzystan, and claiming the right to do so, just as it did in Ossetia. Your obliviousness to your own idiocy is fully neo-Soviet in character.

      • No need for ad hominem attacks, woman.

      • owl281
        You said: ‘But what have we seen since 1991?

        Endless, perpetual war, endless, perpetual threats of war.

        All made in the USA.

        If the world does not stop the US, they will turn this world into a gigantic lunatic asylum.’

        There are some inaccuracies in this statement – what have we seen since 1991 – there was one thing that comes to mind – THE STARVATION OF POOR RUSSIANS – who saved you??? AMERICANS BY SENDING MILLIONS OF TONNES OF FOOD – remember Bush’s wings?? it was simple food, I admit, but beggars cannot be choosy, if it wasn’t for this another
        holodomor would take place thanks to Russian barbarity. – Remember owl 288888123??

  3. Is Obama guilty that some Kyrgyz governement is retarded? Not to improve relations with your fellow CA countries, which are top energy exporters, so when Russia rises energy prices over military base deal and citizens go nuts? Bakyev, seriously?


    No, he’s guilty of allowing Russia to provoke a coup, eject a key US military base and, of course, of failing to speak up for human rights in Kyrgyzstan, thereby defusing the ability of Russians to manipulate the situation. That’s to say nothing of giving Russia the impression it can do what it likes in post-Soviet space.

    You’d have known all that if you actually read our editorial before commenting on it like a meathead.

    • Woman,

      You wrote,

      “He’s guilty of allowing Russia to provoke a coup, eject a key US military base.”

      You just revealed to all of us what you really are: a fanatical worshiper of the criminal US state.

      This “key” US military base is also a launchpad for the mass murderers of Afghan children.

      • And why do label your detractors “meatheads”, “apes”, “fanatic”?

        Would you like it if people called you c–t, t–t, ho, skank, b—-h?

      • like you care much about Afghan children. They all are just “chiurki” and “chiornazhopy” for you anyway, you racist scum.

        • How do you know?

          Why are you assuming I’m racist when I have olive skin and dark hair myself?

          Any normal, sane human being, regardless of his attitudes to people of different ethnic stock, would unhesitatingly condemn mass murder of any people, particularly poor Afghans.

          And the same goes for Soviet crimes against the Afghans.

          • don’t pretend, you liar. I remember your racist comments about Chinese and Chechens from previous LR issues.

            like that from

            https://larussophobe.wordpress.com/2010/04/03/russia-is-doomed-in-the-caucasus/#comments :

            “Black “chiurka” islamist
            Beat him faster, hey racist
            All covered in beard
            He’s black, dirt and silly

            • Dorogoi drug,

              That was a piece of irony, if you didn’t understand.

              I’m a Russian Jew myself, and I posted an anti-Semitic poem in Russian written by the same racist author, to satirize my own people — I’m sure you could find a poem attacking stupid Russians like the gopniki and bidlo that roam the streets of Moscow.

              • Hold on, I thought you said you were a Christianized Russian Jew?

                As for “Irony”, well you have posted plenty of racist comments here.

                Once a Russian racist, always a Russian racist…..

              • Dorogoi yevrey,

                what makes a statement ironic, it’s witty mockery and relation to context, which is mocked by that statement. Your comments sounds just like insults. If there is text about China, you post insulting poems about Chinese, there’s text about Caucasus, you post insulting poems about Chechens. Where’s wittiness and relation to those particular situantions for those comments to be ironic?
                Are you suggesting that all Russians are racists and any dealing with people of other races is made from racist viewpoint? But you post comments in Russian without translation to English. So that means you want speak tongue-in-cheek to Russians, accusing them of racism, and not to inform Western readers about Russian racism, which would be point of “irony”?

                So following logical conclusions, I assume that:
                a) either your understanding of irony is very poor;
                b) either your irony is directed towards Russians, in which case you dont’ undersstand that this ENGLISH speaking blog. Go ironizing Russians in Russian sites.
                c) either you’re Russian racist, now pretending to be not.

          • owl281 wrote: “How do you know? Why are you assuming I’m racist when I have olive skin and dark hair myself?

            You are right: we can’t know what you look like in real life. If you claim to be an “olive skinned and dark haired” Chinese Jews from Chechnya – we can’t disprove it. But what is clear is that you post hatred towards Chechens, Jews, Chinese and pretty much everybody else.

            • again, it’s not hatred, it’s satire

              I hate people for their actions, and not the color of their skin

              • What is the purpose of your “satire”? For the readers to think that you are a bigoted racist? You should ask yourself what effect your posts have on your readers.

      • owl281 , your quote:

        ‘You just revealed to all of us what you really are: a fanatical worshiper of the criminal US state.

        This “key” US military base is also a launchpad for the mass murderers of Afghan children’.

        Here is the answer: Afghans have nothing against the Americans but ‘the Afghan children’ are paying back Russia for the attrocities committed during the Russian war against Afghanistan in the most perfect – by sending drugs to Russia and totally destroying the whole population of Russia. This genocide against Russians is unstoppable and inevitable – picture this – the future russian army – all HIV positive attacking NATO forces…

        • you’re a demented psychopath to write such nonsense;

          in that case Yanks deserved 9/11

          • owl281

            he said ‘you’re a demented psychopath to write such nonsense;

            in that case Yanks deserved 9/11

            I know, I know the truth hurts, hence your reaction of a retard – if we deserve 9/11 you deserve another 80 years of communism – in case you don’t know it is coming back with dear volodia in 2012 you will be marching back to the gulags where you all russians belong – got the idea??

  4. “of failing to speak up for human rights in Kyrgyzstan”

    Well, when USA spoke about human rights in Uzbekistan, their military base base was evicted right away, so that argument is not working.

  5. “Russia has ousted the pro-U.S. regime in Bishkek”

    No they simply decided that Joe Biden was right…apply pressure and let nature take its course. Turns out the the U.S. isn’t really the beacon of freedom and democracy for the CIS after all.

    • Don,
      You got it totally wrong, Russia by instigating the coupe d’etat in Kyrgyzstan created another Chechnya only on an inimaginable scale. So Russia is, in reality, fighting three wars already in Georgia, North Causasis and Kyrgysistan. The consequencies for Russia will be deadly. It seems to me the Mr. Putin is god-sent for the West he is trying to restore 18-century imperial Russia with almost non-existant military forces and aging nukes – it is extremely dangerous, and doomed to fail.

  6. Russia has ousted the pro-U.S. regime in Bishkek that had thumbed its nose at Russia and insisted on preserving the U.S. military base just outside the capital city.

    I agree with Kim. It is a sad day when a brutal pro-American dictator is replaced by opposition. Who needs human rights when the American control over Central Asian oil is in danger?! I hope Senator McCain makes yet another speech denouncing the human rights in Kyrgyzstan and demanding that the brutal pro-US dictatorship be restored!

    • http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/kyrgyzstan-tightening-screws-human-rights-activities-20090226

      Kyrgyzstan: Tightening the screws on human rights activities?

      26 February 2009

      Kyrgyzstan may be joining the list of countries that seriously restrict the space for human rights activities, Amnesty International warned today.

      Vitali Ponomarev, the director of the Central Asia programme of the Russian human rights organization Memorial, a long standing expert on the region and an outspoken advocate for human rights in Central Asia, was denied entry to Kyrgyzstan in the morning of 26 February 2009.

      According to local journalists, the deportation from the airport near the capital Bishkek, follows on from a decision to ban the human rights defender from Kyrgyzstan for five years taken by the National Security Service two days prior to Vitali Ponomarev’s arrival.

      In January 2009 Memorial published a report on the detention, subsequent trial and conviction of 32 people, including two women and a 17-year-old boy, accused of having orchestrated and participated in violent protests in October 2008 in the town of Nookat in southern Kyrgyzstan. Scores of villagers had reportedly clashed with police when traditional celebrations of Eid-al-fitr were cancelled.

      The Memorial report, researched by Vitali Ponomarev in Kyrgyzstan in December 2008, cast serious doubts on the safety of the convictions of the 32 people and was critical of the official version of events. The report pointed to allegations of torture of the defendants in pre-trial detention, including of the women, in order to force confessions. The trial itself and the subsequent appeal hearing were described as falling far short of international fair trial standards.

      In October 2008 authorities in Kyrgyzstan banned the representative of an international human rights organization for 10 years.

    • Now RTR, when did a dyed in the wool Russian such as yourself care about human rights?

      As for Russia caring about human rights, well we have the wonderful example of Russian troops engaging in mass murder in Chechnya, and leading the ethnic cleansing of Georgians from Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

      • The most wonderful is that GeorgianSS were many times engaged in mass murder and ethnic cleansing in Abkhazia and South Ossetia and now accuse in that Russians. “Georgia for GeorgianSS” — that is your racist slogan. Ask any Ossetian and Abkhas who is their enemy — the answer will be “georgian scum”.

        • Well, thats not what Memorial, Human Rights Watch, the UN etc all say.

          By the way, I know quite a few Ossetians, in Tbilisi, and they all say Russia is the real enemy.

          BTW “Georgia for Georgians” was done away with a long time ago, around 2 decades actually.

          However the RuSSian racist slogan “Russia for Russians” is very popular amongst the Putler youth of Nashi…

          “Racism, a growing problem in Russian society
          Hostilities against foreigners, especially those from the neighbouring Caucasus and Central Asia, are rising. Faced with attacks and discrimination, some foreign migrants are organising themselves and getting involved in virtual private fights, especially in southern Russia.

          Moscow (AsiaNews/Agencies) – Some 20 people stormed a Moscow construction site where they brutally beat 15 Tajik workers in an early morning attack. In Russia today that is an almost everyday occurrence. Increasingly, xenophobia is a Russian problem; so is the growing number of migrant workers from former Soviet republics and Asia.
          Attacks of this type are not unusual, especially in Moscow. Research by the Centre for Eastern Studies shows that ethnically-motivated violence and xenophobia are way up.

          According to official data, 267 people were attacked in 2004 in racist incidents with 49 deaths. In 2006 that number rose to 552 (56 dead) and in 2007 the figure was 634 (68 dead).

          Big cities like Moscow and St Petersburg are especially affected.

          The main victims are people from the Caucasus and Central Asia, followed by migrants from the rest of Asia (in particular Chinese and Vietnamese).

          However, the figures are thought to be much higher because many attacks are not reported if the victim does not end up in hospital.

          A survey by the Levada Center, a private public opinion institute, showed that in 1995 a majority of the Russians (nearly 57 per cent) were opposed to the slogan of ‘Russia for the Russians’.

          Since 2000 the trend has changed with a majority of Russians backing that idea. Less than 30 per cent were firmly opposed to it.

          In 2006 the idea of Russia for Russians was particularly appealing among the 16-28 year old (53 per cent), lower-income respondents (53 per cent) and people living in small towns and villages (53 per cent). In big cities 47 per cent agreed with the idea; in Moscow, only 43 per cent did.

          Another survey by Levada found that the military, police and Interior Ministry personnel are the professional group with the highest level of negative attitudes towards immigrants.

          People from Russia’s closest neighbours, migrants from former Soviet republics, especially those from the Caucasus, are the most disliked even if they have Russian citizenship. As a group they are referred to as ‘Kavkaztsy’ in everyday language, or derisively called ‘blacks’, despite their diverse ethnic and national background.

          At the start of the millennium less than half of the Russian population favoured restrictions on Caucasians. In 2005 more than 70 per cent of the Russian public did. In 2006, nearly one Russian in four was in favour of prohibiting access to some restaurants for members of these groups.

          Why these trends? Recent national conflicts in the Caucasus are an important reason. Few in Russian have forgotten terrorism by Chechen groups.

          The rise of ultranationalist movements inside the country and the ambiguities of Russia’s leadership are other factors. Leaders in the Kremlin have in fact not shied away from playing the nationalist card.


          • “Well, thats not what Memorial, Human Rights Watch, the UN etc all say”

            The detailed report of EU clearly says that Georgia is the aggressor who started the war. Human Rights Watch, Memorial is sponsored by the US Dept. of State, what can they say? And UN said nothing yet.

            “BTW “Georgia for Georgians” was done away with a long time ago, around 2 decades actually.”

            Abkhasians who were killed by zvadists do not think it was long time ago, they remember this time very well. And the generation of racists were in their teenage 20 years ago (and who learned at that time that Georgia is for Georgians only) are currently in the Georgian government. Also, “Russia for Russians” was never the official slogan, as in Georgia.

            “In 2006 the idea of Russia for Russians was particularly appealing among the 16-28 year old (53 per cent), lower-income respondents (53 per cent) and people living in small towns and villages (53 per cent). In big cities 47 per cent agreed with the idea; in Moscow, only 43 per cent did.”

            I’m bothered with your russophobe “statistics” which you suck out of your finger.

            “By the way, I know quite a few Ossetians, in Tbilisi, and they all say Russia is the real enemy.”

            That is why they are in Tbilisi. I also know quite a few of Georgians in Russia who say Georgia and its government are their enemies.

            • @Abkhasians who were killed by zvadists do not think it was long time ago, they remember this time very well.

              They remember they were killed?

              Btw, Abkhazian separatrists actually supported the Zvadists (and vice-versa) during the war in 1993. Oops. Maybe try again.

            • @The detailed report of EU clearly says that Georgia is the aggressor who started the war.

              Oh really? You know, I did read it – did you?

              And here’s for you in short if you’re too lazy:


              But maybe you’re too lazy do this too.

              Or maybe you already know all this, but you just pretend.

            • I also wonder if you can provide me the number of the page where the “clearly says that Georgia is the aggressor who started the war”. Please do this, I still have the pdf file so I can check your lie right away.

              • Robert,

                why answering by 10 posts to one message? Are you an idiot or do you have some kind of incontinence?

                To be short: read BBC news “Georgia started unjustified war”: “The war in Georgia last year was started by a Georgian attack that was not justified by international law, an EU-sponsored report has concluded. ” See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8281990.stm

                I don’t have the report, but obviously, the same thing is stated there (I red it and I remember). You, Georgians are funny — try to argue on obvious things; that is also what your idiot “president” Sasukashwili does. If Georgians would be as brave in real war as in the propaganda one, they would win. Unfortunately, this is not the case — all Georgians are cowards who can only yell (not fight).

                • @To be short:

                  Read the report. And not the press misinterpation.

                  @I don’t have the report

                  Too bad it’s not an excuse:


                  Now you can find me this page where the report “clearly says that Georgia is the aggressor who started the war”.

                  @but obviously, the same thing is stated there (I red it and I remember).

                  Oh, look. I caught you lying.

                  • Robert wrote: “Read the report. And not the press misinterpation….And here’s for you in short if you’re too lazy: http://www.henryjacksonsociety.org/stories.asp?pageid=49&id=1290

                    Let me understand. You don’t want the people to read the “misinterpretations” by the Western mass media. Instead, you want them to read the misinterpretations by some private political organization? Why? Because this private political organization gives a more pro-Georgian view of events than the report does?

                    • Try again RTR, you have been caught lying as usual.

                      But of course we are used to that.

                      Did you actually read the report, where it states that ALL of Russia’s actions were illegal.

                      ALL OF THEM.

                      Some quotes:

                      “Still, doubts remain whether the Russian peacekeepers were attacked in the first place.”

                      “d) Conclusions: Lack of necessity and proportionality

                      As an act of self-defence against the attack on the Russian military bases, the only admissible objective of the Russian reaction was to eliminate the Georgian threat for its own peacekeepers.

                      The expulsion of the Georgian forces from South Ossetia, and the defence of
                      South Ossetia as a whole was not a legitimate objective for Russia, because Russia could not rely on collective self-defence in favour of South Ossetia, as will be shown below. The admissible Russian objective was therefore limited.

                      The military reaction of Russia went beyond the repulsion of the Georgian armed attack on the Russian bases and was thus not necessary. Russia mainly targeted military objectives, and at least some of the targeted military objectives were related to the Georgian attack in South Ossetia. Nevertheless, Russian military support for the use of force by Abkhazia against Georgia cannot be justified in this context. The bombing of large parts of the upper Kodori Valley was in no relation to any potential threat for the Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia (see below). The same applies to the posting of the ships in the Black Sea. An impartial observer, putting himself in the place of Russia, would not have qualified the Russian reaction as reasonably related to the objective of halting the Georgian attack on the Russian peacekeepers stationed in South Ossetia.

                      The means employed by Russia were not in a reasonable relationship to the only permissible objective, which was to eliminate the threat for Russian peacekeepers. In any case, much of the destruction (see Chapter 5 “Military Events in 2008”) after the conclusion of the ceasefire agreement is not justifiable by any means. According to international law, the Russian military action taken as a whole was therefore neither necessary nor proportionate to protect Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia.”

                      “IV. No justification of Russian use of force as fulfilment of the peacekeeping mission
                      Russia claimed that both the peacekeeping units and the further reinforcing units “continued to carry out their peacekeeping mission until the European Union Monitoring Mission was deployed in accordance with the “Medvedev-Sarkozy” agreements (…).”173
                      As explained above, peacekeeping units are defensive in nature. They have to be neutral and must not take sides with either of the conflicting parties. They are normally equipped only with light weapons for self-defence; their number is clearly limited.

                      According to the 1992 Sochi Agreement, the Russian peacekeepers were a part of joint forces “under” the Control Commission (Art. 3(3)). The Joint Control Commission’s task was “to exercise control over the implementation of ceasefire, withdrawal of armed formations, disbanding of forces of self-defence and to maintain the regime of security in the region.” (Art. 3 (1) of the Sochi Agreement). “In case of violation of provisions of this Agreement, the Control Commission shall carry out investigation of relevant circumstances and undertake urgent measures aimed at restoration of peace and order and non-admission of similar violations in the future.” (Art. 5).

                      These provisions show that any unilateral support for one of the conflicting parties cannot be justified as a peacekeeping mission. Furthermore, it is not possible to combine a peacekeeping task and a military action based on self-defence. The status of a victim of an armed attack is incompatible with the neutral status of a peacekeeper. Whoever is drawn into a conflict can no longer act as peacekeeper.174
                      The peacekeeping mission was limited to a small number of lightly armed troops which could not be reinforced or replaced by heavily armed “fresh reinforcement units”. Greater use of force was not only against the spirit of the Sochi Agreement, but also against the very idea of peacekeeping.

                      Conclusion: Russia could not justify its use of force as a mere reinforcement and fulfilment of its peacekeeping mission.”

                      “4. Conclusions
                      Russian military activities against the Georgian military forces were not justified as collective self-defence under international law.”

                      “In conclusion, the Russian intervention in Georgia cannot be justified as a rescue operation for Russian nationals in Georgia.”

                      “II. Legal qualification of the Abkhaz and Russian offensive: violation of the prohibition
                      of the use of force and armed attack on Georgia

                      As explained in Chapter 3, Abkhazia is a state-like entity. The prohibition of the use of force is applicable. This is also explicitly confirmed by the 1994 Moscow Agreement (Agreement on a ceasefire and separation of forces) which states: “The parties shall scrupulously observe the ceasefire on land, at sea and in the air and shall refrain from all military operations against each other.“219

                      Although there was no clear ceasefire line in the Kodori Valley, the upper Kodori Valley did not belong to Abkhaz-controlled territory under the provisions of the Moscow Agreement.

                      The attack on the upper Kodori Valley by Abkhaz troops supported by paratroopers must
                      therefore be qualified as use of force prohibited by Art. 2(4) of the Charter and moreover as an “armed attack” on Georgia in the sense of Art. 51 of the UN Charter.220

                      III. Legal qualification of the Georgian operation: self-defence
                      The military operation in the upper Kodori Valley was, for the reasons just explained, an
                      armed attack on Georgia. The use of force by Georgia was justified as self-defence.

                      IV. No justification of the Abkhaz and Russian use of force against Georgia”

                      “Russian involvement could not be justified as collective self-defence in favour of Abkhazia, because third-party involvement in an internal military conflict in support of the seceding party is not allowed for the reasons explained above.

                      2. No previous “armed attack” by Georgia
                      a) No Georgian military operation in the Kodori Valley by Georgia
                      Abkhazia argues that it had to “liberate” the Kodori Valley. This refers to a Georgian operation or military occupation of Abkhaz territory. Such action might qualify as “aggression” in the sense of Art. 3(a) Resolution 3314, and therefore also as an armed attack in the sense of Art. 51 of the UN Charter.
                      Yet, even if Abkhazia shows all characteristics of a state-like entity, it had no right to
                      secession under international law (see Chapter 3 “Related Legal Issues”). Abkhazia had no legal title to that territory. This also follows from the Moscow Agreement under which the Kodori Valley falls outside the jurisdiction of Abkhazia.

                      Conclusions: For these reasons, the presence of Georgian police or military in the Kodori
                      Valley cannot be considered as an armed attack on Abkhazia.

                      b) No preceding terrorist attacks sponsored by Georgia
                      The Abkhaz military operation cannot be justified by alleged earlier terrorist attacks
                      attributable to Georgia either. The involvement of Georgia could not be confirmed by

                      c) No imminent armed attack on Abkhazia as a whole by Georgia
                      As explained above, it is very controversial whether an imminent attack confers the right to
                      self-defence. In any case, Abkhazia cannot claim that a Georgian attack on Abkhazia as a whole was imminent. When the Abkhaz operation in the Kodori Valley started with Russian support, the Georgian troops were already “on the run”. Even if there had been a Georgian plan to attack Abkhazia, it was evident that on 9 August 2008 no such attack was “imminent” or even feasible. International law does not allow self-defence against putative attacks or attacks that might have been planned, but were never carried out.

                      3. Military support by Abkhazia for South Ossetia

                      As explained above, neither collective defence nor the principle of intervention upon
                      invitation legally justified the Russian military support of South Ossetia. Abkhazia’s military actions were not even supportive of South Ossetia, but aimed at conquering additional territory. Therefore they cannot be justified as collective self-defence in support of South Ossetia.

                      4. Conclusion
                      The use of force by Abkhazia was not justified under international law and was thus illegal.
                      The same applies to the Russian support for Abkhaz use of force.”

                    • @You don’t want the people to read the “misinterpretations” by the Western mass media. Instead, you want them to read the misinterpretations by some private political organization?

                      No. I want them to read the report.

                      And if you’re too lazy to read everything, you can just check the pages listed above.

                      No one survived in the Smolensk crash. Aboard there was also the last president of the Polish government-in-exile in London (Poland was occupied by the Soviet Army for half century).

                    • If people are too lazy to read the report, they should read reports by legitimate news agencies like Reuters, AP and AFP, not the drivel written by secretive warmongering British neo-con spooks from the “Henry Jackson Society” who don’t even believe in the United Nations.

                      And as far as your “Smolensk crash” comment goes, I have no idea what you are replying to. Is it too in the EU Report on the Ossetian War? :-)

                    • Unfortunately RTR, slimeballs such as yourself are too lazy and stupid to read the report, or understand it in context.

                      Never mind.

                  • “Oh, look. I caught you lying.”

                    Here you go, idiot. Citations from the report:

                    “On the night of 7 to 8 August 2008, a sustained Georgian artillery attack struck the
                    town of Tskhinvali. Other movements of the Georgian armed forces targeting Tskhinvali
                    and the surrounding areas were under way, and soon the fighting involved Russian, South
                    Ossetian and Abkhaz military units and armed elements.” (page 10)

                    “Open hostilities began with a large-scale Georgian military operation against the
                    town of Tskhinvali and the surrounding areas, launched in the night of 7 to 8 August 2008.
                    Operations started with a massive Georgian artillery attack.” (page 19)

                    “There is the question of whether the use of force by Georgia in South Ossetia,
                    beginning with the shelling of Tskhinvali during the night of 7/8 August 2008, was
                    justifiable under international law. It was not.” (page 22).

                    “It follows from the illegal character of the Georgian military assault that South Ossetian defensive action in response did conform to international law in terms of legitimate self-defence.” (page 23).

                    “At least as far as the initial phase of the conflict is concerned, an additional legal
                    question is whether the Georgian use of force against Russian peacekeeping forces on
                    Georgian territory, i.e. in South Ossetia, might have been justified. Again the answer is in
                    the negative. There was no ongoing armed attack by Russia before the start of the
                    Georgian operation. Georgian claims of a large-scale presence of Russian armed forces in
                    South Ossetia prior to the Georgian offensive on 7/8 August could not be substantiated by
                    the Mission. It could also not be verified that Russia was on the verge of such a major
                    attack, in spite of certain elements and equipment having been made readily available.
                    There is also no evidence to support any claims that Russian peacekeeping units in South
                    Ossetia were in flagrant breach of their obligations under relevant international agreements such as the Sochi Agreement and thus may have forfeited their international legal status. Consequently, the use of force by Georgia against Russian peacekeeping forces in
                    Tskhinvali in the night of 7/8 August 2008 was contrary to international law.” (page 23).


                    • Well Balloun, what the report says about Russia is far more damning.

                      See above your post moron.

                      Russian actions in South Ossetia – Illegal
                      Russian actions after the ceasefire – Illegal
                      Russian actions in west Georgia – Illegal

                      In addition, the report also states that Georgia was subject to years of repeated violations of it’s sovereignty at the hands of Russia.

                      I mean you are obviously pretty stupid, possibly an Armenian etc, but really, try reading the report.

                • Well, they won more medals per head of population in WW2 for bravery than any other soviet republic.

                  The Armenians and Russians were well known for running away, especially earlier in the war…..

                  • “Well Balloun, what the report says about Russia is far more damning.”

                    The report clearly says that GEORGIA STARTED THE WAR, dolgonosik. And it is wonderful that Russia has kicked your ass well in response. Its a real pity that Russia didn’t go further to arrest georgian criminal leaders.

                    • Generally, the beginning of the armed conflict between Georgia and South Ossetia is dated at
                      7 August 2008 at 23.35, the open hostilities between Georgia and Russia are considered to
                      have started on 8 August 20082, and the bombardment of the upper Kodori Valley by Abkhaz forces started on 9 August3. In fact, however, a violent conflict had already been going on before in South Ossetia. In previous years, tensions had been constantly rising, involving more and more open clashes between Georgian security forces and the militia of the
                      breakaway territories.4 Already in spring 2008, military incidents also occurred involving
                      Georgia and Russia, such as the downing of a Georgian unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) by
                      the Russian air force over Abkhazia on 20 April 2008.5 Bombing raids and military clashes
                      were reported both in Abkhazia and in South Ossetia throughout the first half of 2008. The
                      military escalation first concentrated more over Abkhazia, but the focus later shifted to South
                      Ossetia. The tensions intensified in the beginning of July when three improvised explosive
                      devices killing Nodar Bibilov, the local chief of the South Ossetian militia in Dmenisi, and
                      another bombing raid allegedly targeted Dimitri Sanakoyev, Head of the Georgian Temporary
                      Administration of South Ossetia. Russia was directly involved in the conflict, sending four
                      combat aircraft across the international border into the conflict zone. Fighting intensified in
                      the first days of August. There is sufficient evidence to support the finding that all the
                      conflicting parties – Georgia, Russia, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia – prepared for armed
                      confrontation in the summer of 2008, with preparations being intensified and concentrated at
                      the beginning of August.
                      President Saakashvili’s order on 7 August 2008 at 23.35 and the ensuing military attack on
                      Tskhinvali turned a low-intensity military conflict into a full-scale armed conflict. Therefore this action justifiably serves as the starting point for the legal analysis of this conflict.

                      Nevertheless, it has to be seen as but one element in an on-going chain of events for military violence had also been reported before the outbreak of the open hostilities on 7 August 2008.

                      In addition little one, remember that the report describes EVERY SINGLE ONE of Russia’s activities as being in direct breach of international law, from the handing out of passports, all its military actions, and its subsequent recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as illegal.

                      As for “Georgian criminal leaders”, well the real (war) criminals are the South Ossetian and Abkhazian separatists and their Russian allies who conducted a well prepared campaign of ethnic cleansing.

                      So where are you from anyway?

                      Not one of these Armenians are you?

                    • Baslloun,

                      Don’t admit you are an Armenian: Andrew hates Armenians almost as much as he hates Russians, Ossetians, Abkhazians, Ajaris and all others who endanger the “purity of the ancient Georgian race”

                      Already in spring 2008, military incidents also occurred involving
                      Georgia and Russia, such as the downing of a Georgian unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) by the Russian air force over Abkhazia on 20 April 2008.

                      So, you admit that the Georgians were violating the ceasefire, flying their weapons of war over Abkhazia, and provoking war long before they attacked Tskhinval on August 8 2oo8?

                      But why are you bringing this up anyway? What does Abkhazia have to do with Ossetia? Trying to pretend that the Ossetian War started not on August 8 2008 but many months/years/decades earlier? That’s like Arabs saying that their attack on Israel in 1973 was started by Israel back in 1967, isn’t it? Pure demagoguery.

                    • Actually, I have no problem with Adjarians, but I can tell you now RTR, telling an Adjarian or Mingrelian that they are “not pure Georgians” is likely to have them kick your arse.

                      I also have no problem with Apsu or Ossetians, I have both as nieghbors.

                      BTW, those were quotes from the IFFC report about prior provocations against Georgia, once again, pity you never read it Retard Trolling Russian.

                      Really you are a stain upon humanity…..

                    • Yes, these are indeed quotes from the Report showing that Georgia was engaged in illegal military actions against Abkhazia long before it attacked S. Ossetia in August 2008. Read again:

                      downing of a Georgian unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) by the Russian air force over Abkhazia on 20 April 2008.

                      What was Georgia doing by flying its UAV over Abkhazia on 20 April 2008, if not committing naked aggression, in flagrant violation of the ceasefire agreement? Did Georgia ever apologize?

                    • BTW RTR, Armenians are the most racist people in the entire Caucasus, they have “successfully cleansed” Armenia of pretty much all ethnic minorities, be they Georgians, Azeri’s, Persians, Turks etc.

                      After all, “Armenia for Armenians” was a successful policy of both Armenia and Russia:

                      “Following the establishment of Soviet rule in Armenia in late 1920, the Armenians were presented with a real opportunity to fulfill their age-old dream of creating an Armenian State and making territorial claims on neighbouring States. Over the 70-years of Soviet rule, the Armenians conducted a policy of building an “Armenia for Armenians only”, expanding their territory at the expense of Azerbijani lands and using every possible means to expel Azerbijanis from their historical and ethnic lands. During this period, the aforementioned policy was implemented systematically and methodically, regardless of who headed the organs of State in Armenia.

                      The greatest achievement of the Armenian nationalists nestling in the leadership of the USSR was the implementation at the State level, with J. Stalin’s blessing, of repressive measures against Azerbaijanis on the pretext of resettling Armenians coming from abroad.

                      Having taken possession of the rich territories of Zangezur in 1920, the Armenians sought in 1921 to annex the Nagorny Karabakh region of Azerbaijan to the territory of Armenia. In July 1923 they managed to secure autonomous status for the Nagorny Karabakh region. However, the Armenian nationalists never gave up the idea of appropriating that territory, and raised this issue on many occasions. Following the war, in November 1945 the Armenian leadership wrote to Stalin to ask about the unification of the Nagorny Karabakh region of Azerbaijan with the Armenian SSR, arguing for this purpose that Nagorny Karabakh bordered on the Armenian SSR and that its economy was closely linked to that of Armenia. When they failed to achieve their ends, the Armenians and their stooges in Moscow began to resort to various subterfuges in order to remove from Armenia Azerbaijanis who were mainly living in areas adjacent to the border with Azerbaijan. On the pretext of providing a labour force for the cotton-growing regions of the Mugan-Milsk steppe in the Azerbaijani SSR, they proposed the resettlement of Azerbaijanis from the territory of the Armenian SSR in order to settle the vacated lands with Armenians coming from abroad, and here they achieved their purpose.

                      Consequently, on 23 December 1947, the Council of Ministers of the USSR adopted Decision No. 4083 on resettling collective farm workers and other members of the Azerbaijani population from the Armenian SSR to the Kura-Araks lowlands of the Azerbaijani SSR. It is obvious from the content of this completely unsound document, which bears Stalin’s signature, dispenses with a preamble and launches straight into the operative section, that it was drawn up in haste. It is no coincidence that the Council of Ministers of the USSR was subsequently obliged to supplement its first decision with decision No. 754 on 10 March 1947. This second decision, adopted “further to the decision of 23 December 1947” and again signed by Stalin, outlines the planned measures to resettle Azerbaijanis.

                      The first section of the decision of 23 December 1947 indicates that between 1948 and 1950, “on the basis of the voluntary principle”, 100,000 collective farm workers and other members of the Azerbaijani population living in the Armenian SSR were to be resettled in the Kura-Araks lowlands of the Azerbaijani SSR. Of this total, 10,000 were to be resettled in 1948, 40,000 in 1949 and 50,000 in 1950.

                      The reason for the haste in drawing up this decision is abundantly clear from one particular section of the decision, namely “to authorize the Council of Ministers of the Armenian SSR to use buildings and living accommodation vacated as a result of the resettlement of the Azerbaijani population to the Kura-Araks lowlands for the installation of Armenians coming from abroad”.

                      Numerous documents attest to the implementation at the State level of forcible resettlement of Azerbaijanis from their historical and ethnic territories, where they had been living for centuries, and to the hardships and torments which they experienced during this period. For the Azerbaijanis sent off to the Kura-Araks lowlands on special trains there were not even the most basic of amenities. They were a burden on the local population, in whose homes they were lodged, and consequently a certain tension grew up between the newcomers and the locals. They were housed in stables and tumbledown buildings which failed to meet the most elementary standards of habitation. Nevertheless, all the necessary measures were taken to enforce the decision to drive Azerbaijanis from Armenia.

                      In 1948 a total of 10,584 Azerbaijanis were resettled from Armenia in various regions of Azerbaijan. The resettlement of 40,000 people due to take place in 1949 proved impossible to implement owing to a lack of space to house them. In that year plans were made to resettle 15,731 people. However, the Council of Ministers of the USSR had called for the resettlement of 40,000 people. In response to this instruction, the Council of Ministers of the Azerbaijani SSR sent a letter to the Government of the USSR stating that at least 20,000 dwellings would be required to accommodate the 90,000 people scheduled for resettlement in 1949-1950. That would necessitate expenditure of 400 million roubles for construction and installation work. The Azerbaijani SSR could not on its own carry out such a large volume of work within two years. It therefore requested that the planned number of resettlers be reduced to 15,000.

                      In December 1949 the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Azerbaijani SSR again wrote to the Soviet Government requesting that changes be made in the resettlement plan to take account of the Republic’s available resources. Thus a request was made for 15,000 people to be resettled in 1950, 10,000 in 1951, 20,000 per year in 1952 and 1953, and 15,000 in 1954. Between 1948 and 1950, only 34,383 people were resettled from the Armenian SSR. Large-scale resettlement continued right up to Stalin’s death in 1953, and only then did the numbers begin to decrease. According to official records, 53,000 Azerbaijanis were resettled in the Kura-Araks lowlands region alone. However, this is not a complete list of the people who were resettled or forced to migrate from Armenia. There are official documents which show that the leadership of the Armenian SSR endeavoured to exploit every opportunity and used a variety of means to drive many more Azerbijanis from Armenia than the original decision had provided for. Consequently, thousands of Azerbaijani families were forced to flee not just to various regions of Azerbaijan, but also to other republics of the USSR. Evidence of the policy of genocide waged by the Armenian leadership against Azerbaijanis is provided by the outrage perpetrated against the Azerbaijani population of the village of Lambeli in Alaverdi district on the personal instructions of S. Karapetyan, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Armenian SSR. There can be no doubt, therefore, that between 1948 and 1953 many more Azerbaijanis were actually resettled or forced to migrate than the original decision had called for. However, most of the people resettled from mountain pasture in Armenia were unable to adapt to the environment of the Mugan-Milsk steppe and either died or were forced to move on to other regions of Azerbaijan.

                      From the information above it is clear that the plan finally implemented in the late 1980s to drive all Azerbaijanis from their native lands and historical and ethnic territories which are now called “Armenia” was drawn up after the war. The Armenian nationalists had been waiting for a suitable opportunity. This was presented to them by M. Gorbachev’s sinister policy of “perestroika”.

                      On 18 December 1997, the President of the Azerbaijan Republic, Mr. Heydar Aliyev, promulgated a decree concerning the mass deportation of Azerbaijanis from their historical and ethnic lands in the territory of the Armenian SSR between 1948 and 1953. Pursuant to this decree, a State Commission has been established under the chairmanship of the Head of State to make a comprehensive study of the mass deportation of Azerbaijanis from their historical and ethnic lands in the territory of the Armenian SSR between 1948 and 1953, and to give a political and legal assessment of the State-sanctioned historical crime against the Azerbaijani people and make this known to the international community.”

                      They are also universally mistrusted by their neighbors due to their collaboration with Russia.

                    • BTW Armenians are the most racist people in the entire Caucasus

                      Oh yes, poor Georgians: they are swamped by Armenains, Russians, Ossetians, Abkhazians and other horrible ethnic minorites! No wonder Georgians had no choice but to elect a vicious racist fascist Gamsakhrdia and his slogan: “Georgia for Georgians!”

                      Armenians have been such racists! Georgia has never elected racist fascists like Gamsakhurdia!… No wait: it did.

                    • Sorry RTR, but your defense of Armenian ethnic cleansing against ethnic minorities is a bit sad.

                      Once again, you forget the fact that the Georgians fought a civil war to oust Gamsakhurdia nearly 20 years ago.

                      Russian and Armenian racist policies continue to this day.

                      Try again RTR, your arguments are poor as usual.

          Posted: Friday, March 23, 2007 1:47 PM
          Filed Under: Moscow, Russia
          By Yonatan Pomrenze, NBC News Producer

          During my recent hunt for a new apartment in Moscow’s astronomically-priced real estate market, I came across postings like this one all the time.

          “2 room apt. Newly refurbished. All appliances, high-speed internet, quiet courtyard. Central Asians need not apply.” (Or, “No Tajiks.” “No Georgians, No Uzbeks, No one from the Caucasus, Slavic family only, etc.”)

          But what actually surprised me was the conversation I had with an agent over the phone:

          “What nationality are you?” she asked.


          “No, no. Not your citizenship – what is your nationality? You know, the landlords will want to know.”

          Regardless of my being American, if my “nationality” (the Russian term for ethnicity) wasn’t a desirable one – say if I was African-American or Asian-American – the landlords may decide not to rent their apartment to me.

          Rise in crimes against foreigners
          Racism and discrimination are not unique to Russia, but the level at which it is acceptably expressed in society is.

          Russia’s Day of National Solidarity last November saw nationalist rallies in a number of Russian cities, under slogans like “Russia for Russians” organized by the Movement Against Illegal Immigration. Political parties (such as the misnamed Liberal Democratic Party of Russia) openly campaign under promises to give Moscow its “Russian face” back.

          And as the push for greater nationalism grows, the Russian Interior Ministry recently released figures showing that crimes against foreigners since the beginning of 2007 are already up 22 percent compared to last year.

          And while Russia has hate-crime laws on the books, people who attack African students or Uzbek laborers are often charged with “hooliganism,” which carries a more lenient sentence than the mandatory ones accompanying hate crimes. I have African friends who have been attacked in the past, and simply won’t set foot on the largely unmonitored metro system.

          Even steps taken to fight the problem seem to have the opposite effect. The Duma (Russian parliament) is considering a law now that would ban media outlets from mentioning the race, ethnicity, or religion of a suspected criminal or victim in their reporting.

          The bureaucrats’ logic is that this will fight racism by keeping reports unbiased. But as analysts, journalists, and human-rights activists across the board have pointed out: How can you raise awareness of hate crimes if you can’t even report on the fact that they are taking place?

          For Russian leaders, cracking down on racism and hate crimes is a balancing act. If they come out defending minorities too strongly, they risk alienating an electorate that clearly leans to the right.


          • “Regardless of my being American, if my “nationality” (the Russian term for ethnicity) wasn’t a desirable one – say if I was African-American or Asian-American – the landlords may decide not to rent their apartment to me.”

            Well, of course, cause typically 20 ” Asian-Americans” tend to occupy one 2-room apartment. The neighbors cannot survive.

            • baloun’
              How the Russians live – in zemlyankas the holes in the ground eating grass and drinking contaminated vodka so Asian Americans doing well, thank you btw what is your ethnicity – Baloun????

              • aaa, russians are not living in zemlyankas, and there are no bears walking in Moscow. Rather, georgians live in an absolute poverty, drinking contaminated chacha and raping own children.

                “thank you btw what is your ethnicity – Baloun????”

                Not your business gruzinskaja suchka, but I’m not Russian, even though I know this country and language very well.

        • Russia for Racists
          Suzanne Scholl

          MOSCOW – In Russia, if you have dark hair and a slightly swarthy complexion, you are likely to be in danger. Sadly, Russia’s leaders have tolerated, if not encouraged, fear of foreigners and assaults on those whose appearance differs from the average Russian.

          In a residential area of Moscow, a group of adolescents, many with shaven heads and wearing combat boots, marches and shouts Russian nationalist slogans. When they come across three Azerbaijani boys, they don’t hesitate. Soon, one of the boys – only 13 years old – lies severely injured; he will have to be hospitalized. The other two are injured as well. The perpetrators are never caught.

          Bashir Osiev, 24, an Ingushetian-born clerk in a Moscow bank, is assaulted by a group of skinheads while walking home with a friend. The friend is badly wounded but manages to escape; Osiev dies after being stabbed in the back. Two of the assailants are injured in the course of the fight and arrested after seeking medical assistance at a hospital. The others are never caught.

          Two men from the Caucasus are on their way to the metro, and are attacked by a group of adolescents with knives. Both are treated in hospital, the perpetrators escape unrecognized.

          In a small town in central Russia, two Uzbeks are viciously beaten up by a group of teenagers.

          All of these incidents occurred within just one week. They are picked at random from an endless series of similar assaults, many of which end fatally.

          Russian authorities tend to play down these attacks as the acts of rowdies – even when the perpetrators are caught and can be prosecuted. This is because charging someone with racism and xenophobia is more complicated and the process more drawn out than winning a conviction for simple thuggery.

          Indeed, Russia’s racists can be assured of considerable sympathy from the security forces and the public. After all, these attacks generally don’t occur in some dark alleyway. In most instances, they take place in crowded markets, metro stations, or simply in busy streets. Passersby look the other way – even if the victims are women and children.

          A Chechen friend of mine and her 14-year-old son were attacked in the street by three drunken skinheads. The skinheads began to push them around and harass them, as people in the street looked away and kept moving. My friend managed to talk insistently to the three until eventually they left her and her son alone, only to pounce on a married couple that happened to be passing by. The man looked like a Jew, they insisted loudly, and started to push him around. But he’s Russian, his frightened wife insisted, whereupon the three – apparently mellowed by drink – apologized and let him go.

          Neither husband nor wife were alarmed that the three drunks were chasing Caucasians and Jews, but pressed charges because they, as Russian citizens, had been harassed. My friend didn’t. It would not do any good, she said resignedly, and then spoke of how her 12-year-old daughter is repeatedly told at school that all Chechens are criminals and that nobody likes them.

          Since the day Vladimir Putin spoke on TV of flushing all Chechen terrorists down the toilet, hatred of Caucasians has become all but socially acceptable. Once again, a subgroup of the population has been declared bandits and potential terrorists, satisfying people’s urge to find a clearly identifiable enemy who can be blamed for all that is wrong in today’s Russia. While there has been no lack of speeches calling for tolerance and condemning racist and anti-Semitic attacks, the situation barely changes.

          The old USSR was anything but tolerant. But since its collapse, a gnawing feeling of inferiority has crept into Russian society. Once “we were somebody”; today “nobody takes us seriously, so we have to defend ourselves against anything that comes from outside and holds us down.”

          Both the state and openly racist, xenophobic and anti-Semitic groups – of which there are dozens, as well as more than 100 clearly xenophobic publications – increasingly ignore Russia’s multi-ethnic character. In an everyday context, this is reflected in slogans like “Russia for Russians,” which really means white European Russians.

          The attacks therefore are directed in equal measure against people from the Asian former Soviet republics, Africa, and the Far East, as well as Russian citizens from the Caucasus or who belong to one of Russia’s more than 90 national minorities. The state hypocritically expresses its concern while doing nothing to oppose it, because too many officials are only too willing to exploit such sentiments.


  7. I’d be very skeptical to the comments that Russia is behind the coup in Kyrgyzstan; nor to the comments that new Kyrgyz government is adamantly anti-American. In fact, if the new government is able to maintain power (and it’s a big if!) – I highly doubt that Manas will be closed. The new government is going to be very unstable, and they need all the friends in the world that they can get – Russia, US, Israel, Turkey.

    True, old Kyrgyz president pissed off Putin by taking money and not closing American base; but Belorussia and Turkmenia are doing the same on a monthly basis.

    So, Daily Mail article notwithstanding, I beg to differ with LR here. I highly recommend ferghana.ru for reports and commentary – for many years a voice of reason in Central Asia.

  8. “Michael McFaul, a senior White House adviser on Russian affairs told journalists in Prague on April 8, that what had happened in Kyrgyzstan was not a Russian-sponsored coup.

    “The people that are allegedly running Kyrgyzstan – and I’m emphasizing that word because it’s not clear exactly who’s in charge right now – these are all people we’ve had contact with for many years. This is not some anti-American coup. That we know for sure. And this is not a sponsored-by-the-Russian coup. I’ve heard some reports of that. There’s just no evidence of that as yet,” McFaul said”




  9. my theory is that Putin was not lying when he said that “events in Kyrgyzstan caught him off guard” and that some not very pro-Russian Kyrgyzian oposition leaders (Otunbayeva maybe) foresaw pro-Russian coup coming, so they decided to act before time, taking advantage of Russian induced circumstances, but not letting power slip into pro-Russian camp hands.

  10. Kremlin can’t influence what happens in Dagestan and Kalinigrad – let alone remote places like Bishkek or Tbilisi. So, while I am sure there are Russian charge-d’affair that is trying to steer Kyrgyz politicians to do Putin’s bidding – internal dynamics (rigged elections; Bakiev losing his Southern base; ill-timed arrests) lead to the riots and the coup.

    Obviously, it’s all speculations – we will all see how the events develop. But for now I’ll take McFaul words over Globe and Mail…

  11. Pingback: InI » Kyrgyzstan Newslinks 9 April, 2010


    “How would you like it if America deposed Yanukovich in Ukraine the same way, ape” – Just one question: WHEN? I don’tcare how’d Nikita react though it’s totally predictable, but 51% of Ukrainian population who voted AGAINST this brain-dead Russian puppet would meet American militaries with flowers if youguys decided to saddam this stupid treasonous boar and the rest would just keep silence minding their own business, because Russians (and it’s mostly ethnic Russians who make the bulk of his constituents) are cowards, being neither Arabs nor Chechens, they can be loud and blustering while dealing with the weak but whenever confronted by the strong opponent they just grovel.
    So go ahead guys, oust Obama ASAP and come here to kick our Ukrainian swine’s fat a*s))))

    • So, you can’t wait to be turned into another Iraq or Afghanistan, transhumanistua? Can’t stand independence? Want to have a new master?

      I bet you are from the Western provinces. Why don’t you just do what the Iraqi Kurds did in 1990 or so: separate from the rest of Ukraine and have the Americans occupy you. No, wait. We, Americans, are tired of occupying. Instead, get the Georigains or Moldovans to occupy you. You will do well as their colony. Or better yet: become the slaves to Poland again.

      • @So, you can’t wait to be turned into another Iraq or Afghanistan, transhumanistua? Can’t stand independence? Want to have a new master?

        I think you need to read something about the history of Afghanistan. Check out the period of 1978-1991.

        (Oh, I know. It was not REALLY Moscow. The Georgians occupied it and all that.)

        @Why don’t you just do what the Iraqi Kurds did in 1990 or so: separate from the rest of Ukraine and have the Americans occupy you.

        Oh, and also learn something (anything) about the history of Iraqi Kurdistan.

        For starters: http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/1993/iraqanfal/

        Happy reading!

      • @Or better yet: become the slaves to Poland again.

        What I learnt today from RTR:

        Poland has slaves.

        • You are a very stupid man with no knowledge of European history. And you learn nothing. You just have a real problem with reading comprehension.

          • Actually I’m a history student, but anyway,

            Please tell me more about the slaves of Poland. Who are they and who and where is keeping them? Are they household slaves, serfs, or maybe do you mean just some labour camps, like the Russian Gulag-leftover “penal colonies”?

            • Robert,

              Your reading comprehension problems are notorious, like when you interpreted the phrase “USA will leave Iraq when the Iraqi oil is depleted” to mean that US soldiers are employed in actual oil extraction, and wasted tons of everybody’s time:

              Robert wrote: “Please enlighten me regarding the interaction between the US troops in Iraq and the Iraqi oil. Do they even have any unit for whatever they do with this oil there, like for example Kadyrov has the Oil Regiment?

              Similarly, the sarcastic phrase “Or better yet: become the slaves to Poland again.” does not mean that modern “Poland has slaves“.

              If don’t understand this, I am not going to waste my time on you.

              • Well RTR, you do write a lot of retarded trash (maybe one of the R’s in your moniker stands for retard? Maybe Retarded Typical Russian?)

                However, being “slaves” to Poland, a progressive European democracy, is far better than being real slaves to an expansionist, authoritarian, and genocidal bunch of scum like Russia.

              • @”USA will leave Iraq when the Iraqi oil is depleted”

                OK! So let’s back to this:

                1. Why do you think they’re there “until Iraqi oil is depleted”?

                2. As they’re leaving Iraq now, do you think the Iraqi oil is being depleted?

                aaaaaand as you did not like this for some rason:

                “Please enlighten me regarding the interaction between the US troops in Iraq and the Iraqi oil. Do they even have any unit for whatever they do with this oil there, like for example Kadyrov has the Oil Regiment?”

                I’ll ask you now differently:

                3. Or maybe are they just there “until Iraqi oil is depleted”, but there is no really correlation between them in Iraq and this Iraqi oil being not depleted, and this whole “until Iraqi oil is depleted” was meant to be something more mystical, like until “when the stars are right”?

                Please answe me now, o the wise one!

                • 1. Why do you think they’re there “until Iraqi oil is depleted”?

                  To protect the oil supply from terrorists and other anti-American groups.

                  2. As they’re leaving Iraq now, do you think the Iraqi oil is being depleted?

                  How many have left so far? I recall there have been a lot of silly laughable promises to withdraw US troops, like this one:


                  Feb 27 2009

                  President Obama Sets Iraq withdrawal Timetable.

                  Withdrawal of U.S. Combat Troops by Aug 31, 2010

                  Let me say this as plainly as I can: by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.

                  It has been almost 14 months since that solemn promise was made. There are only 4.5 months left to withdraw. So how many have been withdrawn so far?

                  This reminds me of Khruschev’s notorious laughable promise:


                  Khrushchev’s relative political insecurity probably accounted for some of his grandiose pronouncements, for example his 1961 promise that the Soviet Union would attain communism by 1980.

                  • @To protect the oil supply from terrorists and other anti-American groups.

                    So no, this is the work of Iraqis and private contractors.

                    @How many have left so far?

                    More than one-third (more in combat troops).

  13. Nikita:

    “we know exactly what values are adressed here, namely, extreme disrespect for international law, provocation of illegal wars and arrogant attempts to force oneself upon other nations” – what a brilliant characteristic of your own country’s foreign policy)))
    Whenever I was reading about the so called Russian idea I just wondered what it was and what was so special about it but thanx a lot for your own insights in it cuz now i know at least some of the values which constitute it)))

    • Your logic is fundamentally flawed. Since my country doesn’t pursue any of these values, they could hardly characterize our foreign policy, could they ? Our friends in Washington, who prop up corrupt and brutal regimes for the sake of political expediency…..well, suffice it to say, they are beyond redemption.

      • Ok, Nikita)

        So Russian foreign policy is a paragon of respect of international law and other nations’ independence, not to tell about Russia’s role in promoting democracy and human rights throughout the World.
        And sure, Russia’s above such base things as propping up corrupt and brutal regimes for the sake of political expediency/
        I’m not telling about your guys game with Hugo, Hamas etc. I will say nothing about your support of Transnisrian, Abkhazian, Ossetian separatists.
        Because those are just trifles, indeed redeemed with your selfless support of Iranian government, a true haven of liberal democracy, one of the few countries in the World where it’s ok to execute children

        You even supply nuclear technologies to them so they’ll be able to defend such an enlightened and humane regime from the brutal American cowboys.
        Really I admire you Russians
        What our World would become like if there were no you guys!!!

        • Your efforts to try and paint us with the same brush as the good ole’ US of A have crashed and burned, but that’s ok. That the least I would expect from a pathological Russia-basher like you. Hugo’s governement, as you very well know, is a democratically elected one which has vast, and I mean vast, public support, and has done great things for the majority that were long oppressed by US-sponsored thugs. It’s funny how the only people you hear demonizing Chavez are American cold warriors, who hated losing control of Venezuala to it’s people. It is the nation’s people who get to elect the leaders they see fit, not the state department (Isn’t that a novel idea !). Hamas, too, is a government elected by an overwhelming majority of the Palestinian people and has a long record of at the very least, fighting heinous Israeli war crimes. First and formost, Russia and myself personally accept the pluralistic decisions of the Palestinian people on who is most suited for driving the Israelis out of the land they occupy. As for our support for Abkhazia, Ossetia and Transdnistria, you argument has already fallen apart, since these nations were never part of whichever larger nation has tried to claim them for its own. There was never a republic of Georgia that included South Ossetia. There was, however, a referendum that was held upon the disentigration of the Soviet Union, in which the overwhelming majority voted to not be a part of Georgia, after which the criminal Zviad Gamsahurdia invaded a piece of land that had no intention of joining Georgia in the first place. Get used to the fact that neither of the states you mention were ever “separatist.” They were free to chart their own course, despite attempts by Saka and his thugs to crush their sovereignty.

          As for our “selfless support” for the Iranian government, that simply doesn’t exist. I have neither heard or read any statements, not seen any actions, that suggest any support for the regime is Tehran. That we have a working business relationship is true, but who doesn’t do business ?
          As for supplying nuclear technology to them, I think that when we peel back the veil of your paranoia and simple ignorance, we all understand that Iran is basically a Third World country that could never hope to build, let alone launch, a nuclear weapon of any sort with the sort of money and resources it has. It recently launcher a Mouse and a worm into space on a pocket sized rocket, for goodness sake, something that we Russians did 45 years ago. You probably believe in the complete infallibility of Faux News, but trust me, sometimes it just blows stuff out of proportion to make a cheaop buck and get higher ratings. Get your information from more reliable sources. For example the US Central Intelligence estimate, that was quoted as saying that the Iranians abandoned any serious efforts at offensive nuclear technology way back in 2001. They could no more defend their nation from the cowboys barbed lasso then that could build a space laser.
          As for what the world would become like without us, I too shudder to think of what would happen if Russia were to stop balancing out the US. The leaders of the free world might finally lose all semblance of sanity and bury all of us in a holocaust of nuclear democracy and freedom.

          • Let me fix this for you.


            The Chechen Republic of Ichkeria is a government elected by an overwhelming majority of the Chechen people and has a long record of at the very least, fighting heinous Russian war crimes. First and formost, I myself personally accept the pluralistic decisions of the Chechen people on who is most suited for driving the Russians out of the land they occupy. As for your hostility for Chechnya, you[r] argument has already fallen apart, since there was never a republic of Russia that included Chechnya. There was, however, a referendum that was held upon the disentigration of the Soviet Union, in which the overwhelming majority voted to not be a part of Russia, after which the criminal Boris Yeltsin invaded a piece of land that had no intention of joining Russia in the first place. Get used to the fact that this state was never “separatist.” They were free to chart their own course, despite attempts by Putin and his thugs to crush their sovereignty.

            Oh, and I mean really. They just did not join the Russian Federation, until they were annexed after the fake “referendum” of 2003, that is 9 years after the start of the war to “restore” the “constitutional order”, and after the 3 years of illegal occupation by the neighbouring country (Russia) in the repeated aggression (extremely brutal, including the greatest urban destruction in the world enywhere ever since WWII, which is quite an accomplishement if you think about it).

            That’s by your own definition.

            And the Russians were not even a majority in Chechnya (see Georgians in Abkhazia). Just a tiny colony, where the Russian residents even now are only less than 1 per cent of the population.

            Btw, could you tell me about the alleged “heinous Israeli war crimes” worse than what the Russians did in Chechnya? I’m really curious, because in my humble opinion the Israelis never even came close to the Russian level of brutality. For starters, they did NOT level Jerusalem. They also did not “disappear” (kidnapped and then murdered) 5,000 Palestinians in the last decade, or ever. There are also no dozens of known yet not exhumed mass graves littering Palestine, and did not even kill Arafat. So, what are you (allegedly) so appalled by? Because I really wonder.

            Oh, and Hamas was elected only in Gaza (after the Israeli forces and settlers withdrew on their own, not because they were kicked out like the Russians from Chechnya) and not in the whole Palestinian National Authority (which was also estabilished by an Israeli good-will agreement, and not because they lost any war – that’s how “heinous” they are). Also unlike Hamas, Maskhadov was not exactly elected on a program of “death to Russia” or “death to” any other country for that matter:

  14. It was a civilian uprising rather than a coup. (I wonder how much support the ousted president has in the south, and would this evolve into a civil war or at least some kind of an insurgency, like in Georgia and Tajikistan in the 1990s?)

    I think Obama is to blame here to blame rather for not criticising the Bakiyev regime at all (RFE/RL did this a lot, but they’re independent of the administration) and for thinking just bribing the leadership by passively over-bidding Russians would be enough. And for doing-nothing right now too, just as the Russians are taking initiative. They simply did not care for human rights in Kyrgyzstan, only for their precios base, and they’re just bending backwards to not to antagonize the Kremlin mafiosi in any way anywhere. Now you can see the effects.

    Btw, the way the Russians handled an anti-Russian uprising there:

    By some accounts nearly half the Kyrgyz from the northern part of the country died during Urkun. Even the lowest estimates put the death toll at more than 100,000 people.


    1731-42 – The Khans of the three Zhuzes formally join Russia in pursuit of protection from invasions from the east by the Mongols.

    1822-68 – Despite many uprisings, Tsarist Russia retains control over the Kazakh tribes, deposing the Khans.

    1868-1916 – Thousands of Russian and Ukrainian peasants are brought in to settle Kazakh lands; first industrial enterprises set up.

    1916 – A major anti-Russian rebellion is repressed, with about 150,000 people killed and more than 300,000 fleeing abroad.


    So I don’t think Russia is particularly liked there (no, there were never any apologies or anything like that, and the ethnic Kazakhs in Russia are treated badly and often are also among the victims of racist violence).

  15. FUN FACTS:

    Did you know that US makes up 4% of the world’s population, yet produces 80% of the world’s serial killers?

    Could there be a connection between serial killing at home and serial killing abroad?

    Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm ….

    • Oh, look. You “FACTS” is just one “fact” and it’s still bullsh*t.

      Btw the biggest single serial killer in the whole history of humanity(?) was a Russian (Vasiliy Mikhailovich Blokhin, tens of thosaunds victims killed personally by him during the killing spree between 1921 and 1953).

      • Well, Blokhin worked as an official government executioner during the Georgian rule over Russia. He went insane after Russians and Ukrainians returned to power and stopped persecutions:


        Vasili Mikhailovich Blokhin (1895 – February 1955) was a Soviet Major-General who served as the chief executioner of the Stalinist NKVD… Hand-picked for the position by Joseph Stalin in 1926, Blokhin led a company of executioners that performed the majority of executions carried out during Stalin’s reign (most during the Great Purge). Claims by the Soviet government put the number of NKVD official executions at 828,000 during Stalin’s reign[1]

        Blokhin was forcibly retired following Stalin’s death, although his “irreproachable service” was publicly noted by Lavrenty Beria at the time of his departure.[6] After Beria’s fall from power (June 1953), Blokhin’s rank was eventually stripped from him in the de-Stalinization campaigns of Nikita Khrushchev. He reportedly sank into alcoholism, went insane, and died in February 1955 with the official cause of death listed as “suicide”.[7]

        • @during the Georgian rule over Russia.

          :D Oh god. Is this what you actually believe?

          Anyway, majority of Russians AND the Russian government (and the Georgian government) do not agree with your opinion somehow.

          Try rather the Russian (Moscow) rule over Georgia. Following the brutal conquest by Bolshevik Russia, spearheaded by the Russian Communist leader Stalin (Georgian-Ossetian by ethnicity). Before this Stalin was a leader in the Russian Civil War. There was no Georgian Civil War, there was only an invasion of Menshevik Georgia by Bolshevik Russia, just like the Soviet Russians also invaded the socialist republic of Poland which too was a former Russian Empire territory (but got their asses kicked near Warsaw).

          [Blah blah, Wikipedia.] I wonder what your Neo-Bible says about the “the Georgian rule over Russia”? (That is, before you go and edit.)

          And just what if it was the “Ossetian rule over Russia”?

          Is the “Russian-citizien rule over Russia” cool now?

  16. Pingback: Kyrgyz: New government to shut US base? (U)

  17. hey la russophobe,would you like to suck long russian cock and lick filthy russian ass?

    • I tried to keep control, but I had to laugh.

      • Nikita,

        You meant you tried to keep control, but suddenly you were overhelmed by the desire to “lick filthy russian ass”.

        • Robert, why does the word “to laugh” mean “to lick filthy russian ass” to you?

          I assure you that if you ever got yourself some sense of humor, your posts would benefit greatly.

    • Yes, she would be soooo excited, but she’s soooo ugly and soooo oppressed that she never got any chance for any cock, even a short american one…

  18. Sheriff Pat Garrett

    Sergey is a typical communist scumbag…

    And Hussein “Melon Head” Obama,
    the grandson of a Mau Mau cannibal is a
    typical monkey just off his tree…

    • Awww…..it’s a ignorant, neo-conservative chicken hawk who hates Obama becuse Faux News told him to, no doubt. How cute. Now stop trying to force your racism and bigotry on the educated and open-minded.

    • Nikita – self-described educated and open-minded. I tried to keep control but I had to laugh! This utter lack of self-awareness betrays the state of mind more than anything else… Why won’t you worry about something benign – say, whether Guam will tile and capsize or the Himalayan glaciers will melt!

      What is most fascinating to me, is the more you go to the unhinged left (and I mean really unhinged like Nikita and Michael Moore) – the more love you get towards terrorists (e.g., Hamas). Is it coincidental?

      • ** whether Guam will tilt and capsize **

      • Nikita is such a cool guy. I wonder what RTR, the guy who hates Islam so much and right here on this blog repeatedly accused the “Islamists” (really Arab Socialists) of the 1972 massacre in Munich, thinks about him now?

        In RTR world, the Black October terrorists were uncool because they were “Islamists” (they were not) and an example of “Muslim terrorism” (actually it was leftist-nationalist terrorism, and they were closely in league with the West German communist group RAF), while in Nikita’s world the actually Islamist terrorists of Hamas are totally cool because… uh… I don’t know, something about “fighting heinous Israeli war crimes” and “the pluralistic decisions of the Palestinian people on who is most suited for driving the Israelis out of the land they occupy” (translation: hopefully providing the “death to Israel”, and then “to America”, followed by the conquest of the European Union and eventually the whole world, according to the Hamas’ own and very public speeches, including “even the Eastern Europe” which is where Moscow is located too of course).

        I think I especially liked the “heinous Israeli war crimes” thing. It’s like when putin said this: “Russia, hopefully, will not have a Guantanamo. The world community is marking five years since this camp was formed, where people are held without trial or investigation. It is a lamentable situation” ( http://www.siberianlight.net/putin-blasts-us-over-guantanamo/ ).

        • RTR, the guy who hates Islam so much and right here on this blog repeatedly accused the “Islamists” (really Arab Socialists) of the 1972 massacre in Munich… In RTR world, the Black October terrorists were uncool because they were “Islamists”

          That’s a slanderous lie. The reason why the Black October terrorists were “uncool” is because they are terrorists.

          The fact that most terrorists come from Islamic societies is a different matter. If the Black October terrorists came from, say, a Buddhist or Protestant society, they would be just as horrible. But I am not aware of too many Protestant or Buddhist terrorists. And even Catholic terrorism is no longer as prominent a sit was during the IRA bombings in the 1970s.

          • If you accept the definition of terrorist and terrorism as outline in the US Army code manual, then the US is by far the worst terrorist in the world.

          • Well, funnily enough, during the period 1945-1991 the vast overwhelming majority of terrorists, from the IRA to PFLP/PLO, RAF, Shining Path etc were supported by Russia.

            • You’re missing the point. The worst terrorism committed during the same period of 1945-1991 was either US or US-sponsored.

              For example:

              1. US bombing of Korea
              2. US overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran
              3. US overthrow of Arbenz in Guatemala
              4. US invasion of the Dominican Republic
              5. US bombing of Indochina
              6. US invasion of Grenada
              7. US arming and training the Contras
              8. US invasion of Panama
              9. US invasion of Iraq (1991)
              10. US sanctions imposed on Iraq

              The list goes on and on, and the terrorists that you mention (correctly) are small fries compared to the much worse right-wing terrorism committed by US clients in places like South and Central America.

              • Well Dima, the US bombing of NORTH Korea was in direct response to Communist North Korea invading South Korea at the instruction of Russia.

                Communist (and Russian backed) North Vietnam would never have been bombed if it had not invaded South Vietnam.

                The USA would not have invaded Iraq in 1991 if Iraq had not first invaded Kuwait, and so on.

                Really you are a moron.

                • First, spare me the ad hominem attacks. This is a grown folks’ blog.

                  Second, you are operating under a premise that the US has the divine right to bomb other nations at will and with virtual impunity, regardless of the actual circumstances present at the time.

                  The claim that Stalin enticed the North to invade the South can be argued hotly, yet that does not justify US bombing of the nation back into the Stone Age.

                  The same for Vietnam. You are operating under the typically American bizarre premise that N. Vietnam somehow deserved bombing back into the Stone Age because it had the audacity to reunite with its equally Vietnamese south, the very same South, that if you recall, was invaded by the US in 1962 under JFK, before there was any Russian or Chinese influence, and before the N. incursion into the South.

                  And you are probably well aware that the US forced the South to cancel its elections because Uncle Ho would have easily won.

                  As for Iraq, well the US has been torturing that poor land since 1990, almost unabated, and as the former US ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie relayed to Hussein in 1990: “We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.”

                  Her statement speaks for itself.

                  The history of US terrorism since 1991 is also consistent and proves my point further.

                  • @US bombing of the nation back into the Stone Age

                    Stone Age looks like this:

                    Oh wait, you meant NORTH Korea.

                    Yes, certainly they’re being constantly bombed by the USAF and this is because they eat grass (and sometimes human flesh too). That MUST be the reason!

                    And the evil American imperialists did not let the opressed Southerners to live just like their happy brothers in the north.

                  • Actually Stalin ordered the North to invade the south.

                    Meanwhile, supporter of Stalinism, RTR, really old boy, any sane person would rather live in the South Bronx than in North Korea.

              • I guess you meant:

                9. UN invasion of Iraq (1991)
                10. UN sanctions imposed on Iraq

                I know, it’s just a one-letter mistake.

                So once again,

                what is this “definition of terrorist and terrorism as outline in the US Army code manual”?

                I’d like to check if this really apply to the US invasion of Grenada.

                • 1. UN bombing of Korea


                  (That is except by the Soviet aircraft, as the Soviets fought the UN forces there.)

                • Incorrect.

                  It was a US invasion with US pilots deliberately bombing Iraqi infrastructure

                  I posted the definition below.

                  • the sanctions were unilaterally pushed by the US, as the wonderful Madeleine Albright aptly stated in 1995 in response to a question about the death of half a million Iraqi children due to US sanctions:

                    “We think the price is worth it.”

                  • I see. You’re living in a parallel universe.

                    Click to access NR057510.pdf

                    • Sorry, wrong link. (This was just one of the initial resolutions, condamning the Iraq aggession.)

                      Here you go:

                      Click to access NR057510.pdf

                      See the points 2 and 3.

                      But maybe you meant the fact of the UN headquarters being in NYC, USA.

                      And here’s a UN medal for the Korean War (called “Korean Operation” by the United Nations):


                      “The following countries provided troops to this Mission: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Columbia, Denmark, Ethiopia, France, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, the Philippines, South Africa, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America.”

              • Dima,

                well done — you also forgot US arming and training of Taliban in Afganistan; US training of Osama Bin Laden, and early support (and bringing to the power) of Saddam Hussein against Iran.

                God blame America, the most terrorist country of the world!

                • @well done — you also forgot US arming and training of Taliban in Afganistan;


                  @US training of Osama Bin Laden,

                  Nope. (What”training”? Teaching him to write his speeches?)

                  @and early support (and bringing to the power) of Saddam Hussein against Iran.

                  There was more support to Iran against Saddam Hussein.


                  In case you didn’t hear, President of Poland and a lot of other Polish officials just died in a Tupolev catastrophe in Russia.

                  They flew there for Katyn Massacre anniversary.

                  They apparently directed them to a too small military airfield near Smolensk with a lot of fog.

                  OMON cordoned-off the whole are is not letting any journalists to come nearby.

                  • Robert wrote: “@well done — you also forgot US arming and training of Taliban in Afganistan; Nope.
                    @US training of Osama Bin Laden,
                    Nope. (What”training”? Teaching him to write his speeches?)

                    Robert, you are lying. If you claim to be a student of history”, you surely are aware of the secret US support for the Mujahideen and various groups that became Taliban and the secret US-organized operation to lured the Russians into the Afghan trap, started by USA back in the summer of 1979.

                    And surely you are aware that during the anti-Soviet jihad, Osama Bin Laden had been meeting with top US officials, Bin Laden and his fighters received American and Saudi funding, and received training from the CIA.

                    The people that USA is fighting today, were funded by USA in the 1980s for their anti-Russian jihad.

                    • Wrong moron, the Mujihadeen were in turn attacked by the Taleban, who were created by the Pakistani intelligence services.

                      The people who the US trained were those who later became groups such as the Northern Alliance (an anti Taleban grouping).

                      The majority of Afghan politicians and military leaders that fight alongside the ISAF, NATO, & US forces in Afghanistan are those who were trained by the US in the 1980’s.

                      “There was no such thing as a Taliban until the Afghanistan’s civil war in the wake of Soviet troops’ withdrawal in 1989, after a decade-long occupation. But by the time their last troops withdrew in February 1989, they’d left a nation in social and economic shards, 1.5 million dead, millions of refugees and orphans in Iran and Pakistan, and gaping political vacuum that warlords attempted to fill. Afghan mujahideen warlords replaced their war with the Soviets with a civil war.
                      Thousands of Afghan orphans grew up never knowing Afghanistan or their parents, especially their mothers. They were schooled in Pakistan’s madrassas, religious schools which, in this case, were encouraged and financed by Pakistani and Saudi authorities to develop militantly inclined Islamists. Pakistan nurtured that corps of militants as proxy fighters in Pakistan’s ongoing conflict with over Muslim-dominated (and disputed) Kashmir. But Pakistan consciously intended to use the madrassas’ militants as leverage in its attempt to control Afghanistan as well.

                      As Jeri Laber of Human Rights Watch wrote in the New York Review of Books of the origins of the Taliban in refugee camps (recalling an article he’d written in 1986),

                      Hundreds of thousands of youths, who knew nothing of life but the bombings that destroyed their homes and drove them to seek refuge over the border, were being raised to hate and to fight, “in the spirit of Jihad,” a “holy war” that would restore Afghanistan to its people. “New kinds of Afghans are being born in the struggle,” I reported. “Caught in the midst of a grownups’ war, the young Afghans are under intense political pressure from one side or another, almost from birth.” […] The children that I interviewed and wrote about in 1986 are now young adults. Many are now with the Taliban.”


                    • Andrew wrote: “Wrong moron, the Mujihadeen were in turn attacked by the Taleban, who were created by the Pakistani intelligence services.

                      Exactly. And guess who has been behind the Pakistani intelligence services:


                      The Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence (also Inter-Services Intelligence or ISI) is the largest intelligence service in Pakistan. It is one of the three main branches of Pakistan’s intelligence agencies.

                      The Soviet-Afghan war of the 1980s saw the enhancement of the covert action capabilities of the ISI by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). A special Afghan Section was created under the command of colonel Mohammed Yousaf to oversee the coordination of the war. A number of officers from the ISI’s Covert Action Division received training in the US and many covert action experts of the CIA were attached to the ISI to guide it in its operations against the Soviet troops by using the Afghan Mujahideen.

                      # (1982–1997) ISI are considered Godfathers of the Taliban and believed to have access to Osama bin Laden in the past.[8] ISI played a central role in the U.S.-backed guerrilla war to oust the Soviet Army from Afghanistan in the 1980s. That Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)-backed effort flooded Pakistan with weapons and with Afghan, Pakistani and Arab “mujahideen”, who were motivated to fight as a united force protecting fellow Muslims in Soviet occupied Afghanistan. The CIA relied on the ISI to train fighters, distribute arms, and channel money. The ISI trained about 83,000 Afghan mujahideen between 1983 and 1997, and dispatched them to Afghanistan. B. Raman of the South Asia Analysis Group, an Indian think-tank, claims that the Central Intelligence Agency through the ISI promoted the smuggling of heroin into Afghanistan in order to turn the Soviet troops into heroin addicts and thus greatly reducing their fighting potential.[9]

                  • Oh, now I read about the Polish catastrophe a couple of hours ago:


                    The Polish president, Lech Kaczynski, and his wife were among 132 people killed when their plane crashed in thick fog on its approach to a regional airport in Russia early this morning.

                    “The plane caught fire after the crash,” said a Polish foreign ministry spokesman in Warsaw. Teams began attempting to pull out passengers from the badly damaged airplane.”

                    The pilot was told Smolensk airport was closed because of thick fog, according to the news agency Interfax. He was offered a choice of landing instead in either Moscow or Minsk, the capital of Belarus. But he decided to continue with the original flight plan and land at Smolensk.

                    The pilot made three unsuccessful attempts to land before the crash. On the fourth try and plane fell apart, Interfax said, citing officials at Smolensk’s interior ministry.

                    It may very well be the case that when the Russian air traffic controllers told Kaczynski that it was too foggy to land in Smolensk, Kaczynski decided that they were trying to prevent him from coming to Katyn and insisted that the plane be landed in Smolensk against the air traffic controllers’ orders:

                    What the Russian papers say


                    Unlike Prime Minister Tusk, no one invited Polish President Lech Kaczynski to Katyn, although he had publicly stated his desire to go.


                    Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is scheduled to take part in a ceremony on April 7 in Katyn with his Polish counterpart Donald Tusk. Tusk’s visit will include talks with Putin on current political matters, while the ceremony will include the laying of wreaths and speeches from both leaders.

                    Kaczynski could travel to Katyn, but nobody will meet him, an anonymous source from Russia’s foreign ministry told the Russian edition of Newsweek. The source added that Russian President Dmitry Medvedev was not intending to invite Kaczynski either.

                    Kaczynski said he would be going to Katyn anyway.

                    The two separate dates do not mean the ceremonies have been split into two, said the head of Tusk’s chancellery Tomasz Arabski, but that there will be one ceremony lead by Kaczynski and another bilateral visit between Tusk and Putin.

                    • I’m afraid that after the death of Kaczynski there will be an anti-Russian hysteria. He died when visiting Katun (damn Russians) at Russian airplane (damn wild Russians again and their airplanes) and in Russia, near Smolensk (damn, damn, damn Russia). NYT already published an article “President of Poland KILLED in Plane Crash in Russia” (damn Russia hundred times more).

                  • @They apparently directed them to a too small military airfield near Smolensk with a lot of fog.

                    OMON cordoned-off the whole are is not letting any journalists to come nearby.

                    I love dear little Robbie. He persist with his conspiracies as they get more and more far-fetched, despite that fact that there are more that 50 Polish officials at the site carrying out a joint investigation with Russian Emergency Services.

                    A casual reading of any story in the global press, Russian, or any other, will tell him that ground control officials in Smolensk warned the plane to reroute to Moscow or Minsk.

                    All of this information, of course, is known due to the several hundered journalists who have converged on the scene.

                    None of this is important to Robbie, however, since he deal in the business of hysteria rather than the business of truth.

                  • @OMON cordoned-off the whole are is not letting any journalists to come nearby

                    Super phrase! Mega LOL! Bu-ga-ga!!! May be doctor help you?

          • Ah. Let’s see you what you really wrote:


            You specifically called them: “Muslim terrorists”, and the incident “Muslim hostage-taking” and “Muslim terrorism” (not just terrorism, as you claim now). In the other comment, you called them “Islamists”.

            And no, not “are”. Were. The current terrorist wing of Fatah is Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades (which is actually quite Islamist, just as their name indicates, and not leftist at all, because Fatah evolved just as the rest of Palestinian militant movement, you might recall there was no Hamas in the 1970s and no mujahideen but just fedayeen).

            I also liked your outrage at me calling you out, yet none at all to your buddy’s mental masturbation to his Hamas idols. Rock on!

            @But I am not aware of too many Protestant or Buddhist terrorists. And even Catholic terrorism is no longer as prominent a sit was during the IRA bombings in the 1970s.

            There were many (as in tens of thousands) Protestant terrorists in North Ireland too. They called themselves “loyalist volunteers” (or “freedom fighters”), killing suspected IRA members and civilians (many civilians).

            You know, kind of the pro-Moscow Chechen groups in Chechnya, only Britain is not a criminal state Russia is, and so the loyalist militias were given the same “illegal paramilitary group” designation as the IRA. They’re also designated as terrorist groups by the United States.

            Let’s see:

            Have the loyalist groups targeted civilians?

            Yes—and more frequently than the IRA. Between 1968 and 1998, loyalist paramilitaries killed an estimated 864 civilians (most of them Catholic), compared with an estimated 728 civilians (most of them Protestant) killed by the IRA. Experts say loyalist groups have often acted out of religious hatred, while the IRA has more often targeted British security officers—killing more than 1,000 of them—in an effort to further its political goal of ejecting the British from Northern Ireland .

            At its peak in the 1970s, the UDA had some 40,000 members, but the UVF and the UDA today are thought to be only several hundred strong. The LVF, the Red Hand Defenders, and the Orange Volunteers count only dozens of members each, possibly with a great deal of overlap.


            There are also other Protestant terrorists, of course. For example, the infamous Ku-Klux-Klan (KKK), and the current racist Protestant groups in the States (Christian Identity for example), as well as the abortion-clinic bombers and such.

            And that’s only some for the last half century.

            But you know, I’m “very stupid”, “with no knowledge of European history”, I “learn nothing”, and “just have a real problem with reading comprehension”. When such a genius like you says there never any Protestant terrorists, it must be true. Otherwise, it’s “a slanderous lie”.

            Dima boy, and what is this “definition of terrorist and terrorism as outline in the US Army code manual”?

            • Robert wrote: “When such a genius like you says there never any Protestant terrorists

              What I said was: “But I am not aware of too many Protestant or Buddhist terrorists.

              This is just another illustration of your inability to comprehend the most basic sentences.

              • I’m sorry, o Wise One. Let me try again.

                Are the tens of thousands in North Ireland alone, and once millions of the KKK members, are being “too many Protestant terroristst” yet?

                Btw, and what ammount of terrorists is “too many”, and what is “just enough”, because I think you forgot to precise this?

                Btw, maybe the craziest Christian terrorist group is Uganda’s Lord’s Resistance Army.

                Buddhist terrorists: also a plenty. From the violent Vietnamese sects of the 1940s-60s, to the Liberation Tigers (not religious terrorism but the Tamils are majority Buddhist), to Aum Shinrikyo of the Japanese subway gas attack fame (which was the only WMD attack by a non-state terrorist group to date).

                What now?

            • definition of terrorism in the US Army manual:

              “the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature. This is done through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear.”

              US goals are exactly the same, with the obvious exception of the religious one

              • and the calculated use of US violence or threat of violence is also ever-present, albeit one hundred times worse

  19. I think it’s too eraly to judge changes in Kyrgyzstan.

  20. I think it’s too early to judge changes in Kyrgyzstan.

  21. It’s a relief to finally see the power dynamic in Central Asia shift back towards Russia. In the aftermath of the signing of the new START treaty, the threat of shutting down Manas will prove ever so useful as leverage should the Americans start playing around with missile “defense” on our borders again.

    • “It’s time we at long last brought things home, dealing with root causes rather than an unending series of grotesque symptoms.

      Let’s not allow ourselves to become bogged down in some sort of “US out of the Middle East Campaign,” just as we bogged ourselves down in “US out of Vietnam” a quarter-century ago, and “US out of Central America” during the 80s. The only meaningful thing we can pursue is getting the US out of North America. Better yet, WE SHOULD PUSH IT OFF THE PLANET. And the hour is growing late.”

      — Ward Churchill, 1991

      • @– Ward Churchill, 1991


        I wonder. Are you also a loony fraud faux-Cherokee Marxist, only Russian, or just a more typical “Red” Russian?

        • Enough of your glaring generalizations and American-style assumptions.

          • Let’s cut Robert some slack. After all, in his simple mind, the world is simply a collection of Red Russians and white-as-can-be Americans. At the same time, we cannot assume that his glaring generalizations and American-style assumptions are of his own making. In fact, it may just be that he has had a little to much Faux News for one day. You can only get so much information from American corporate media before your brain turns to mush. In the spirit of forgiveness, let’s just assume that Robert simply is not armed with the intellectual or the informational tools to occupy a fixed, realistic point in the space/time continium. But we can always hope that he finds a way out of the limbo within which he is suspended. As we say in Russia ” Hope dies last.”

            • That’s just not true. Robert’s main concern is the Muslim cause.

            • On a related note, the fact that dear Robert has dismissed a public intellectual and free thinker from one of the most well-known and long suffering Indian tribes to be massacred by the US as a marxist fraud tells us all we need to know about the content of his character and diseased mind. No doubt, of course, Robert is unanware of the heinous crimes that his nation has perpetrated against the indigenous population, but that is hardly surprising.

              • Robert simply recognizes the US government as the most powerful entity on Earth and thus wants to suck up to it to win support for Muslim causes in general and the Chechen cause in particular.

                • Except the US government is already “the most powerful entity on Earth” and “supports Muslim causes in general” often when they’re opressed or otherwise threatened (from the Afghan mujahideen, to Kuwaiti and Bosnian governments, to Kosovar Albanians, to Iraqi Kurds and the Shia majority, to the post-tsunami aid to Aceh, to the Palestinians living mostly on the US humanitarian aid even as they hate America, and many more in between).

                  Often they just don’t do enough, such as in the case of Darfur. And yes, also Chechnya, where they “suck up to” Moscow for the current geopolitical reasons. But you must be REALLY stupid if you think one can change the US policies by simply conversing with a Retarded Typical Russian on the Internet.

              • :D

                OK. Since now I’m a Cherokee too. After all, I’m just as Indian as Churchill is!

                So don’t you dare criticize me, because now I’m a “free thinker from one of the most well-known and long suffering Indian tribes”.

                Oh, and I’m not an American. But nice try.

            • @not armed with the intellectual or the informational tools to occupy a fixed, realistic point in the space/time continium.


  22. What I learnt from RTR today:

    Not only Poland has “slaves” (and wants the Ukrainians as slaves), but Japan was turned by the USA into “stone age”.

    Stone Age:

    Such an oppression. If only they were rescued and freed like the North Koreans…

    Btw, because you’re retarded, you don’t understand it was WWII, a total war, and the Axis powers set the rules of conduct and the Allies (“United Nations Armed Forces” by 1945) only followed. The Japanese setting the WMD-use rules:


    The difference is the Americans did not follow their rules of conduct once the enemy is defeated (see the Rape of Nanking).

    And unlike the Soviets in Berlin, one would add too. (And later also compare the East Berlin and West Berlin.)

    • Irrespective of the progress and modernity of today’s Japan, the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is the apotheosis of American cowardice.

      • What, because the bombing saved millions of lives, US, Commonwealth, Chinese, Indonesian, Polynesian, and even Japanese by shortening the war?

        After all Japan, like Russia, ran slave labor and death camps all over it’s empire, much of it in China, which killed thousands every day.

        In addition, due to the fierce resistance on Peliliu, Saipan, Okinawa, and in Burma, projections of the losses that would result from a direct invasion of the Japanese home islands ran into the millions.

        Just because Russia preferred (as they do now) to fight stupid and use mens bodies to make up for their incompetence does not mean that the US bombing was cowardice.

        • Oh yes, it’s fine to sacrifice a few million innocent civilians, making them endure one of the worst deaths possible ( skin melting off, cancer, etc), in order to safe the lives of a few thousand US soldiers?
          You do know that Japan had one battleship left in all its ports by the end of the war, and it was damaged irreparably.
          The US couldn’t wait to test out their new little creation – the atomic bomb could’ve potentially allowed them to access unlimited resources, had the Soviets not developed a bomb of their own.
          All Americans have ever done is pillaged and exploited. The native indians were massacred ( a seldom remembered fact ) and the survivors now live in third world countries.
          The US has been spreading democracy for over a century now, and all it has done is create instability, indivision and hatred all over the world.
          By the way, the Soviet Union did more than any other country to fight in that war, if it capitulated, you would be speaking German now. Please, learn some history.

          • First of all, less than a quarter of a million people died in both atomic bombings combined, not “a few million”, as you maliciously and dishonestly claim, and Japan at the time was preparing to have millions of its civilians resist an American invasion by any means necessary, all the way down to training them to engage American soldiers with sharpened-down bamboo sticks. Want to guess how many American casualties that would have led to, having to literally fight an entire population? (Hint: It’s over “a few thousand”) I’m sure that even then, you would condemn America for indiscriminately massacring civilians, since you want to believe that American can never do anything right.

            “All Americans have ever done is pillaged and exploited.”

            “all it has done is create instability, indivision and hatred all over the world.”

            That’s all that we have done? Seriously, like we haven’t done anything of any good for the world? What you mentioned there sounds like a sundry list of what Russia has done, since before America even existed, and continuing to this day.

            And, while you have a point that the Soviet Union did more than any other single country to fight the Germans in World War II, they also did more than any other single country (save for Germany) to precipitate the war in the first place. You should follow your own advice.

        • Here you coincide with the jewish-american neocon Jeffrey Kuhner who said “Contrary to liberal myth, the use of the bombs not only effectively ended the war but saved countless American and Japanese lives. It was an act of military humanitarianism. ” It would be interesting to see how you’d react when your and Kuhner’s closest relatives would be killed by such an act of humanitarianism. Perhaps, you’d change your sick mind.

          • Maybe bombing Tbilisi and Kutaisi in 2008 would save millions of lives of Russian soldiers and will be an act of humanitarianism to georgian population. OK, next time you have a chance…

      • OK. Is the looting and rape of the German cities the apotheosis of Soviet bravery? Or is it rather their systematic extermination of the Allied (Polish) prisoners of war?

        • German cities? Do you mean Dresden? That was not Soviet, that was the typical English and American “bravery”: exterminating tens of thousands of civilians from the air, by means of bombs, so that not to suffer any losses yourself. The same “bravery” as exhibited later in Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Belgrade/Yugoslavia:


          Bombing of Dresden in World War II

          The Bombing of Dresden was a military bombing by the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and the United States Army Air Force (USAAF) as part of the allied forces between 13 February and 15 February 1945 in the Second World War. In four raids, 1,300 heavy bombers dropped more than 3,900 tons of high-explosive bombs and incendiary devices on the city, the Baroque capital of the German state of Saxony. The resulting firestorm destroyed 39 square kilometres (15 sq mi) of the city centre.[1] In the first few decades after the war, some death toll estimates were as high as 250,000. However, figures in the hundreds of thousands are now considered unreasonable.[6] Today’s historians estimate a death toll between 24,000 and 40,000,

          • @German cities? Do you mean Dresden? That was not Soviet, that was the typical English and American “bravery”: exterminating tens of thousands of civilians from the air, by means of bombs, so that not to suffer any losses yourself.

            Uh, what? First of all, Dresden was a Soviet request and it was located near the Soviet frontline. Why “typical English” and not “typical Scottish” or “typical Welsh”? Of course there were heavy losses from the bombing raids. Tens of thousands pilots died, and at least hundreds of them were even murdered by the Germans after being captured. And the rules of war were set by the German side first (for “no rules”, and this war officially declared a “total war”).

            Anyway, what I wrote was “the looting and rape of the German cities”. And yes, Dresden has been looted by the Soviets, too, as even shown in the famous film and novel Slaughterhouse Five. If the Soviets had strategic air forces, they would carpet-bomb the German cities too. They had few heavy bombers, but they had lots of artillery, so they used their artillery to ruin the Germans cities (and actually even the cities in Russia and everywhere else, from Wroclaw to Budapest).

  23. @And here is stone age without any help from an atomic bomb:

    South Bronx, 1975, from Mel Rosenthal’s exhibit

    What is this? A site of a demolished building? Why do you even bring this, what for?

    You know,
    Grozny, 2000, Eric Bouvet’s photo essay.

    “In February when I entered Grozny, it was as if I was hit by an apocalyptic vision. In 20 years of covering wars I never had the occasion to feel like a astronaut landing on another planet. I had visited Grozny four times in the last war, but this time I couldn’t even be sure where I was. Where Minutka Square — with it imposing buildings that lead to Lenin Avenue — once was nothing remained, just a huge, imposing void.”

    • Why do you even bring this, what for?

      Don’t get hysterical when something you don’t like appears. Why do you bring up your stuff all the time, like the “Grozny, 2000, Eric Bouvet’s photo essay” here?

      What is this? A site of a demolished building?

      Bo, this is what some people in USA do to their own home, just for fun:


      1970s: “The Bronx is burning”

      The phrase “The Bronx is burning” uttered by Howard Cosell during a Yankees World Series game in 1977, refers to the arson epidemic caused by the total economic collapse of the South Bronx during the 1970s. During the game, as ABC switched to a generic helicopter shot of the exterior of Yankee Stadium, an uncontrolled fire could clearly be seen burning in the ravaged South Bronx surrounding the park, leading to Cosell’s surprised quip.

      In the early 1970s, with property values continuing to plummet, property owners who tried to sell off their assets and escape the area found that much of the property in the South Bronx was unmarketable at any price. As burglary and robbery rose to national record levels, insurance companies began refusing to issue new policies to South Bronx businesses and massively increased the premiums on existing policies. Desperate landlords and business owners began burning their buildings down for the insurance premiums. Often, prior to being set on fire, the building would be sold off to a “finisher” who would strip the buildings of wiring, plumbing, metal fixtures, and anything else of value so as to retain some of the owner’s investments.

      The arson epidemic accelerated throughout the 1970s as crime intensified and residents continued to flee the area; by the time of Cosell’s 1977 commentary, dozens of buildings were being burnt in the South Bronx every day, sometimes whole blocks at a time and usually far more than the fire department could keep up with, leaving the area perpetually blanketed in a pall of smoke. By the end, over 40% of the South Bronx’s buildings had been burned or abandoned, giving it the appearance of a bombed-out and evacuated European city during the Blitz.[14] During this period, the NYPD’s 41st Precinct Station House at 1086 Simpson Street became famously known as “Fort Apache, The Bronx” as it struggled to deal with the overwhelming surge of crime. By 1980, the 41st’s station had been renamed “The Little House on the Prairie”, as fully 2/3rds of the precinct’s 94,000 residents had fled and left the station house as the only building on the block that had not been abandoned, burnt by arson, or both.[15]

  24. The more Obama is able to harm American interests the greater will the reaction be against the lefties.

    America will be transformed by the christian right to the benefit of all. FDR always knew how far he could proceed ahead of the people. Obama has no grasp of his real power which is draining away by the minute.

  25. Fourteen characteristics of US civilization — the roots of US terrorism:

    1. It is exterritorial, knows no borders and able to attack and devour from Iraq to China, from Russia to Nicaragua. It has no natural habitat and able of endless expansion. Wherever there is a man to enslave, a house to bomb, a tree to fell, it is ready to come.

    2. Its main occupation is usury. They provide loans to states, ensnare them with impossible conditions and ruin them.

    3. It considers human solidarity and brotherhood – ‘totalitarianism’.

    4. It rejects Spirit and considers it ‘fanaticism and fundamentalism’.

    5. It equally abhors Apostolic Christianity and Islam; but it loves to set the Christians upon the Muslims, and vice versa.

    6. Its devotion is given to the Jewish State. Not only the JINSA Cabal is ethnically faithful to Israel; the US National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said that the security of Israel is the key to security of the world. Rice added that she feels a deep affinity with Israel.

    7. It is heavily engaged in drugs. Wherever they win, heroin has its field day. London’s The Independent newspaper, reported from Baghdad: The city, which had never seen heroin, is now flooded with narcotics. It is not unusual that where the Americans go, the narcotics flourish. The Taliban had successfully eliminated the drugs from Afghanistan but since the US forces took over control, Afghanistan has become the largest producer of heroin. Some reports suggest that the drug and arms trafficking is patronized by the CIA to finance its covert operations worldwide.

    8. It exalts vengeance. The war against Afghanistan was promoted as ‘vengeance for 9/11’.

    9. It has a soul of a dastardly knave, in its narrow meaning of ‘opposite of noble’. They did not dare to attack Iraq until it was fully disarmed by the UN. (Also, after twelve years of the most comprehensive sanctions in probably all of history.)

    10. It produces no art. In vain archaeologists of Fourth Millennium will search for their Venus. The rusty American Venus a.k.a opus 5327 exhibited in the Guggenheim is identical to any heap of scrap metal. There are no glorious temples, no exciting architecture, absolutely nothing to miss if the gods would pour sulfur and brimstone on its cities.

    11. It is obsessed with paranoid fear. It is not enough that America spends on weapons ten times more money than the rest of the world. They want to disarm everybody. The war in Iraq was caused by the desire to remove its weapons. Now they want to disarm Iran, Syria, Korea, and Ukraine and Russia just wait for its turn.

    12. Fear of weapons is not aimed exclusively outside: the proponents of US civilization try their best to disarm the American people as well. For this reason they committed the mass murder at Waco and implicated militias in the Oklahoma bombing.

    13. It despises labor and laborers. American cinema, the only existing quasi-art output of US civilization, depicts millionaires and whores, gamblers and brokers, bums and gangsters, but its last worker was depicted in the pre-war Grapes of Wrath.

    14. It loves the rich. They believe the rich are virtuous, for they are blessed with wealth, while the poor are evil and damned just because they are poor.

  26. La Russophobe, a Berezovski outlet (a jew who made fortune on Russian citizen’s back), happens to be racist against blacks aswell.

  27. Seems to me the antiamerican scum have invaded the site. The same morons who would sell us all, one by one, to the Tyrant in the Kremlin protest against “american imperialism”. Useful idiots, such a lovely bunch.

    Keep up the good work, fellows. The Obamessiah fanatics hate that.

  28. Why blame Obama? What can he do if the vast majority of Kyrgyz people value Russia much more than they value USA?


    Kyrgyzstanis Favor Russia Over U.S.
    Majority say Russian relations more important, even if it hurts those with U.S.
    by Julie Ray

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — As the U.S. and Russia vie for influence in Kyrgyzstan after last week’s uprising, the future of a key U.S. transit hub to Afghanistan is at stake. A Gallup poll in July 2008 showed Kyrgyzstanis giving Russia the edge: Nearly two-thirds (63%) said it is more important for their country to have relations with Russia, even at the expense of relations with the United States.

    More important for their country to have a close relationship with Russia, even if it might hurt the relationship with USA – 63%

    Important to have close relationships with both USA and Russia – 22%

    More important for their country to have a close relationship with USA, even if it might hurt the relationship with Russia – 3%

    Kyrgyzstanis, like most of their counterparts in the former Soviet nations surveyed, favored a closer relationship with Russia over one with the United States. But they were more likely than most to favor this relationship; only Armenians were more likely to say Russian relations were more important.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s