Russland kommer ikke til å invadere Norge

Skal det skremmes har frykten i dag et ansikt – det til Vladimir Putin. Foto: WIkimedia Commons

Pust kontrollert og gå rolig ut av kaldkrigståka. Det blir ikke noe nytt 9. april, og Russland har ikke startet hybridkrigføring mot Norge. 

Joakim Møllersen
Om Joakim Møllersen (110 artikler)
Joakim Møllersen er redaktør for Radikal Portal og nestleder i Attac.

Russofobien har nådd høyder en ikke har sett siden den kalde krigen. Om det ikke var klart før vet vi det nå, er det noe som er galt i verden kan fingeren pekes mot Moskva. Skal det skremmes har frykten i dag et ansikt – det til Vladimir Putin. Men jeg kan berolige alle og enhver: vår store nabo i øst kommer ikke til å starte en krig mot Norge.

Putin er ikke den nye Hitler, Russland er ikke i en hybridkrig mot Norge og vil ikke sende nazister for å drive terrorisme på norsk jord ei heller utføre attentater mot norsk ledelse eller sabotasje mot nøkkelinstallasjoner. Denne beskjeden går i hovedsak til norske redaktører og journalister, men også alle som har latt seg skremme.

LES OGSÅ: Stopp den jævla kriginga – så enkel er løsninga på flyktningkatastrofen

To sett med regler
Generelt sett er ikke norsk utenriksjournalistikk mye å rope hurra for. Maktkritikk skal være et grunnleggende prinsipp for journalistikk, men i denne sjangeren er det i hovedsak makter langt borte som skal kritiseres og helst de som vår egen statsmakt har utropt til sine fiender. Vi kan si at det er to sett med regler: ett for oss og et annet for dem. Inkludert i oss er, i noe variert grad, våre allierte.

«Hvorfor har Putin plutselig bestemt seg for å bombe i Syria?» skreiv Aftenposten for kort tid tilbake da også Russland ble direkte involvert i krigshelvetet som har blitt skapt i det som nå er Midtøstens mest herjede land. Spørsmålet er godt og et som bør reises i enhver krigssammenheng. Som utgangspunkt tar artikkelen at vi ikke nødvendigvis kan stole på forklaringene vi blir servert av den russiske presidenten, Vladimir Putin, men at vi må se på hvilke interesser landet har i området og hvilke bånd de har til regimer og hvilke næringsinteresser som er involvert. Selv om forklaringene i artikkelen ikke holder mål er dette et godt utgangspunkt.

Vi spoler tilbake til Norges bombing av Libya i 2011. «Hvorfor bomber Norge Libya?». Mulig det ble skrevet en slik artikkel som gikk meg hus forbi, men sikkert er det i alle fall at et nært samlet norsk pressekorps, med Klassekampen som hederlig unntak, kastet alle prinsipper om maktkritikk over bord hva de enn ble servert av forklaringer. Norge bombet Libya fordi landets diktator Muhammar Gaddafi truet med å sette i gang et folkemord. Vel, det var i alle fall det Jens Stoltenberg og Norges politiske ledelse fortelle oss. Media fulgte lydig opp.

Vi som fulgte situasjonen med et kritisk blikk den gang visste at det aldri hadde kommet en slik uttalelse. Utslettingstrusselen ble rettet mot opprørerne, ikke sivilbefolkninga. På samme måte fikk vi vite at Gaddafi bombet egen befolkning. Beviser? Det trengs ikke så lenge media servilt trykker falske påstander uten å undersøke.

LES OGSÅ: Våre venner de islamistiske fundamentalistene

De kritiske spørsmålene
Under deler av Norges angrepskrig mot Libya jobbet jeg i utenriksredaksjonen til Klassekampen. Jeg var på to pressekonferanser som omhandlet bombinga, verken mer eller mindre. Den ene fant sted i en svær sal på Akershus festning hvor forsvarsminister Grete Faremo og generalmajor Morten Haga Lunde skulle briefe et knippe journalister om hvor bra det var at vi bombet et annet land sønder og sammen.

Som før konferansen syntes hovedbudskapet å være at ikke noe tydet på at Norge hadde drept noen sivile, og at dette var bortimot ensbetydende med at hvis krigføringa vår hadde tatt livet av noen, så var de garantert slemme Gadaffi-krigere. Dette skrytebudskapet hadde velvillig blitt delt av landets største medier uten at noen så behov for å stille spørsmål ved nøyaktigheten av påstanden – ganske spesielt med tanke på de åpenbare interessemotsetningene.
Min tid og mine spørsmål på pressekonferansen rettet seg i hovedsak mot å undersøke hva forsvarsdepartementet og medsammensvorne la i disse påstandene. De to representantene for bombetoktene likte ikke spørsmålene mine spesielt godt så repetisjoner, presiseringer, insisteringer og tværing måtte til. To ting kom fram av dette:

1) at forsvarsdepartementets definisjon av sivile var så snever at vaskedamer og resepsjonister fint kunne anses som militære og dermed helt greit å drepe.

2) at man ikke hadde gjort noe som helst for å undersøke om man hadde drept sivile. Påstanden var altså tatt ut av løse lufta og var uansett innholdsløs.

Den andre var et foredrag ved Guma El-Gamaty fra det libyske overgangsrådet på Norsk Utenrikspolitisk Institutt, denne selvoppnevnte organisasjonen av libyere bosatt i utlandet som så på seg selv som landets talsmenn. El-Gamaty hadde fortalt at det var lite sannsynlig at for eksempel Kina kom til å få lukrative oljekontrakter når krigen var over siden de ikke gjorde noe for å velte Muammar Gaddafi (her er det verdt å nevne at norske politiske ledere hele veien til i dag har benektet at de hadde som mål å fjerne Gaddafi fra makta). Da monologen var over var det tid for noen få spørsmål fra salen. Jeg rakk og handa og viftet som en førsteklassing som vet hva 5+7 er lik. Lykken sto meg bi og jeg var blant de få som ble pekt ut. Ett spørsmål fikk jeg. Jeg spurte om det var noen muligheter for at Norge ville bli forfordelt oljekontrakter med tanke på vår iherdige bombeinnsats og de tidligere uttalelsene om at for eksempel Kina ville få negativ prioritet.

Spørsmålet mitt ble møtt med latter – hånlatter faktisk – av anslagsvis drøyt halvparten av de om lag 80 frammøtte, i hovedsak folk fra presse og profesjonelle miljøer som jobber med utenriks og internasjonale relasjoner. At noen ikke bare kunne tenke seg at Norge hadde noe å tjene på krigen, men i tillegg fikk seg selv til å si det høyt i slik en forsamling var mer enn de hadde kunnet forestille seg. Folk lente seg fram og snudde seg i min retning for å få et glimt av denne originalen som hadde gitt et fortreffelig bidrag for å løfte opp stemninga i salen, om enn ufrivillig.

El-Gamaty svarte med ord i stedet for skratt. Han kunne fortelle at de definitivt hadde bitt seg merke i at Norge, tross sin beskjedne størrelse, hadde bombet villig vei. Og joda, han var klar over at vi var store på olje så her kunne man regne med avkastning. Det var ingen flere som lo av meg på NUPI den dagen og da klokka slo 19 viste det seg at saken var blitt hovedoppslag på Dagsrevyen.

Det er bare å gjøre jobben sin
Poenget med disse anekdotene er ikke å fortelle verden om min journalistiske brillianse. Selv om den den store majoriteten av den norske presse trampet til rytmen fra trommene som det norske forsvarsdepartement hamret løs på – for krig og for enhet – krevde det ofte ganske lite av oss som stakk nesa vår i saker de helst ville holde oss unna, og slik brøyt marsjtakten. Det var bare å etterleve det journalistiske idealet om maktkritikk, i tillegg til en slump sunn fornuft som sier at man ikke blindt skal stole på noen som har sterke interesser i en sak. Mot kreves det naturligvis for å gå i mot et samlet etablissement, men historier hvor journalister forteller om langt modigere ting enn å sette spørsmålstegn ved krigføring mangler det ikke på, så det bør de klare.

Selv har jeg blitt utpekt som en av flere blant «Kremls klakkører» i Norge. Grunnen til dette er at jeg har skrevet kritisk om hva myndighetene i Kiev har foretatt seg i borgerkrigen i Ukraina. At et parti med nazistisk historie har vært i regjering, at frivillige nazibataljoner har blitt tatt opp som en del av den ukrainske hæren og at Norge har gitt økonomisk og militær hjelp til dette regimet er visst ensbetydende med at jeg er Putins sendebud i her til lands da jeg har vært frekk nok til å omtale hendelsene. Da får det være likegyldig at jeg hele veien har kritisert Russland for deres rolle Ukraina.

Nå skal det sies at den samme journalisten har skrevet ei bok om Ukraina hvor omtalen av Putin starter med spørsmålet om han er den nye Hitler. Denne demoniseringen er så patetisk at man kan jo begynne å le, men faktum er at vedkommende bare er én i horden, hvor han er blant de som går lengst.

Disse absurde sammenligningene med Hitler er riktignok noe vi har en lang tradisjon for. Saddam Hussein var så Hitler at det knapt var tvil. Da han startet krigen mot Iran – denne tok livet av over én million mennesker – fikk han penger, våpen og etterretning av USA, ble æresborger av Detroit og fikk besøk i Bagdad av Donald Rumsfeld. Da var han naturligvis ikke Hitler. Men seinere, etter at regimet hans prøvde å ta Kuwait var det soleklart. Da var plutselig gassmassakrene på kurderne et tegn på hans ondskap i langt større grad enn mens han var venner med våre venner. Mahmoud Ahmedinejad var også Hitler. Han var jo ingen enkel kar å like, med sine jevnlige antisemittiske utspill (inkludert arrangering av en beryktet konferanse om holocaust hvor også nazister deltok) og undertrykking av iransk opposisjon. Likevel viste det seg at hans planer om invadere og atombombe Israel og alle andre bare eksisterte inne i hodene på de som sammenlignet ham med nazismens far. Libyas diktator Muammar Gaddafi har vi allerede nevnt. Tross at han etter sigende var å regne som likeverdig med mannen som satte holocaust ut i live er det først etter at vi har bombet ham fra makten og landet han regjerte til ruiner at Libya har blitt et ulevelig kaos og en yngleplass for Islamsk Stat og andre grupperinger av samme kaliber.

Seinest i gårsdagens Klassekampen kom det fram at krigshisseren og filosofen, Bernard-Henri Levy, hadde sammenlignet Hitler og Putin to ganger under sitt foredrag på Litteraturhuset i Oslo på onsdag. Utenriksminister Børge Brende satt i diskusjon med franskmannen uten å ha noen innvendinger.

Der tåka er tjukkest
Journalist Kjetil Stormark tar likevel skremselspropagandaen til nye høyder. Han er så dypt inne i kaldkrigståka at gangsynet åpenbart er sterkt påvirket. I en artikkel på Politiforum, skrevet av redaktør Ole Martin Mortvedt, hevder han at flyktningstrømmen fra Russland til Norge er en russisk hevnaksjon. Det har han sannsynligvis rett i. Norge er ett av flere land som har gått til handelssanksjoner mot Russland på grunn av den ulovlige anneksjonen av Krim. Det ville vært underlig om bjørnen i øst skulle toe sine hender i møte med en fiendtlig handling.

Men Stormark stopper ikke. I kaldkrigståka finnes det også lag av paranoia og konspirasjonstankegang som både han og Mortvedt tydeligvis har inhalert i store mengder.

«Vi hører mange betaler 500 dollar for drosje og kjøp av sykkel som så behendig er å få kjøpt nær norskegrensa, sier vår politikilde. (…) Han [Stormark] mener når det på russisk side av grensen gjøres så mange sykler tilgjengelig vedvarende over lang tid, tyder det på et profesjonelt samlebåndsopplegg. I tillegg er det løpende tilgang på transport fram til grensen.

− Bak dette står det et svært profesjonelt transportapparat som er godt organisert. Det virker som det er forskjellige aktører som koordinerer mennesker, transport og sykler, sier Stormark.»

Det har seg ofte slik at selgere oppsøker steder hvor etterspørselen er høy. Dette spesielt i fattigere land hvor den svarte eller såkalt uformelle økonomien er større. At det finnes sykler å få kjøpt i Nikel, en by på 12.000 innbyggere, i Zapoljarnyj, litt større, eller at slike kan fraktes ganske enkelt på veiene som leder til Murmansk, en by på over 300.000, henholdsvis 160 og 186 kilometer unna, er visst ikke noe Stormark klarte å forestille seg. At markedet er profesjonelt er åpenbart, men slik bruker det altså å være med både sykkelforhandlere og transportselskaper. At slike markeder som oppstår plutselig kan utnyttes enda mer effektivt når aktørene får signaler fra myndighetene om at de gjerne vil at denne jobbens skal gjøres kan også legges til. Til slutt er det greit å nevne at de høye prisene på menneskesmugling oppstår fordi det er et ulovlig marked, hvor straffene kan være høye og risikoen for å bli tatt like så. At kriminelle får monopol i et marked bidrar naturligvis til prisøkning. Disse faktorene er det rimelig å anta at eksisterer i mindre grad når det kommer til syrere og afghanere som vil ta seg over norskegrensa, da både sykkelsalg og offentlig transport mellom Murmansk og Nikel er lovlig.

Disse punktene er i seg selv ikke viktige, men illustrerer poenget at når man har funnet seg sin demon og skal legitimere hvilken handling man enn ser nødvendig for å knuse denne så blir så enkle ting som sykkelsalg og persontransport noe som umulig kan skje uten en konspirasjon hvor Putin er involvert.

At Norge rekkes tunge og påføres utgifter av Russland som hevn for den siste tids fiendskap er ikke nok for Stormark. Han mener det er med på å svekke forsvarsviljen til Norge uten at han forklarer det nærmere.

Videre makter Stormark å lire av seg en utenrikspolitisk analyse som inkluderer at Russland bomber Syria fordi de vil øke flyktningstrømmen til Europa og slik skape «uro og destabilitet i de europeiske landene». Han klarer ikke å få med at Assad-regimet har vært en alliert av Russland i lang tid og at Russland kan ha interesser av at makten forblir hos de som allerede har den i Damaskus. «Vladimir Putins store prosjekt er å svekke vesentlig og aller helst ødelegge NATO», får vi vite og flyktningsstrømmen er bare en del av en russisk hybridkrig.

Norske politikere som russiske agenter
— I Finland har enkelte russiskkritiske stemmer forstummet, kan Stormark fortelle, men en kjapp sjekkde største svenskskriftlige nyhetskildene i Finland gir ingen indikasjoner på at beskrivelsen om kneblet finsk presse stemmer.

Barents Observer var en nettavis som inntil nylig dekket Nordvest-Russland, eid av de tre nordligste fylkeskommunene, men finansiert i stor grad av utenriksdepartementet. Norske politikere i nord tålte ikke at det ble stilt kritiske spørsmål til russiske makthavere, i frykt for forverring av forholdene og dermed at næringsinteresser kunne bli stilt i fare. En slik åpenbar forklaring holder imidlertid ikke for Stormark som går langt i å antyde at norske politikere har opptrådt som russiske agenter:

— Jeg har imidlertid intet grunnlag for å hevde at nordnorske politikere har latt seg påvirke og at noen har opptrådt på vegne av russiske interesser. Men det jeg har grunnlag for å si noe om, er at FSB har forsøkt å presse norske myndighetspersoner for å få det samme utfallet som saken har fått nå, sier han til Politiforum.

Russiske spøkelser
At Stormark ser russiske spøkelser på høylys dag er en sak. Han tar den imidlertid mye lengre.

− Uten mer åpenhet, fakta og debatt kan det også bli for lav kriseforståelse. Det gjør at Norge kan ende opp med å begå den samme tabben som vi gjorde i forkant av krigsutbruddet i 1940.

Han setter seg så i en offerrolle fordi noen etter sigende ser på ham som en klovn for skremselspropagandaen hans (selv ser jeg på det som farlig, ikke lattervekkende), men den staute Stormark har høyere mål:

— Slik latterliggjøring fant sted også før 9. april 1940, overfor de få som forsøkte å rope varsku den gangen. En slik debatteknikk sier mer om de som latterliggjør, enn de som forsøker å frembringe flere fakta om de meget urovekkende tingene som skjer i vårt nærområde. Det er direkte uansvarlig å ikke ta denne debatten, sier Stormark.

Selv om han ikke selv nevner Hitler kan vi altså stå overfor en invasjon og påfølgende okkupasjon. Først mener han russerne vil «ta ut VIP-personell og nøkkelinstallasjoner», deretter la nazister terrorisere Norge.

− Det vil ikke ligne et tradisjonelt krigsutbrudd. Det kan eksempelvis være høyreekstrem terror, for å skape mest mulig forvirring. I neste bølge rykker Spetsnaz inn, for å ta ut beslutningsnivået og lamme landets ledelse og nøkkelinstallasjoner. Slike gråsonescenarier vil sette store krav til samhandling, og det krever at både politi og Forsvar har potente enheter som har trent mye og godt sammen.

Nå bør det tas med i betraktning at Kjetil Stormark for tida jobber med prosjektet aldrimer.no (med henvisning til den tyske invasjonen 9. april), som etter alle solemerker resulterer i en serie kortfilmer som har som formål å skremme politikere til å vedta og folk til å akseptere en ytterligere militarisering av Norge. Dette bør ikke være videre overraskende med tanke på at prosjektet er finansiert av konservative norske militarister, i hovedsak skipsredere, med alt for mye penger. For øvrig vil trolig skipsbyggerbransjen tjene godt på en norsk militæropprustning. Men dette ser ikke ut til å påvirke andre medier som ukritisk bruker den tidligere PR-rågiveren som ekspert.

Absurd
Hva gjelder Russlands krigføring og andre militære operasjoner utenfor egne landegrenser skjer disse utelukkende i områder som har vært i Russlands interessesfære og som landet har hatt tette bånd til eller kontroll over gjennom lengre tid. Nesten bestandig i områder hvor de har mistet innflytelse de siste årene. Tanken på at Russland skulle invadere et NATO-land er fullstendig absurd. Russland sliter økonomisk og er svært underlegen militært sett. Mye kan sies om Putin, men jeg tror alle kan være enige i at fyren glad i makt. Hvorfor han skulle risikere makten han har, og sitt eget liv, ved å invadere Norge finnes det ingen grunn til. Og dum er han nok ikke. I alle fall ikke så dum at han ikke forstår at ingen i Norge ville akseptert en slik okkupasjon, noe som ville gjort den enda mer umulig enn det den allerede er.

At norske medier er kritiske mot Russlands framferd er bra. Det er mye regimet i Moskva holder på med, både i eget land og utenfor dets grenser, som er i strid med menneskerettigheter, internasjonale lover og regler.

Det hadde imidlertid vært greit om vi kunne holdt forskjellige land og ledere til omtrent samme standard. Selv har vi hatt en statsminister som ble sykmeldt grunnet psykiske problemer. Heldigvis holdt media seg for god til å skrive at Bondevik var gal eller om mulige etterreaksjoner fra hans depressive periode kan ha vært årsaken til at han bestemte at Norge skulle bombe Kosovo i 1999. Da er det også greit om vi ikke fjerndiagnostiserer og analyserer andre lands politikk basert på psykologisk synsing.

Selv er Norge nå i Irak hvor vi etter sigende hjelper irakisk militære til å bekjempe Islamsk Stat. Det kritiske søkelyset på dette har vært omtrent null fra norsk presse. Dette til tross for at vi er i allianse med Saudi-Arabia, som anses som aktøren som har støttet IS mer enn noen andre. NATO-landet Tyrkia bomber IS verste fiender i de kurdiske militsene og alliansens leder, USA, er ikke akkurat kjent som noen fredsdue.

Det er fint med kritisk journalistiskk om Putin, men det er greit om vi også kan ha et kritisk blikk på hva vi selv holder på med. Det er faktisk mye viktigere også.

Liker du det du leser?

VIPPS noen kroner til 137267
eller betal direkte til konto 1254.05.88617
Støtt oss med fast bidrag hver måned

Diskusjon

DEBATTREGLER:

  • - Respekter dine meddebattanter og utøv normal folkeskikk
  • - Vær saklig og hold deg til tema
  • - Ta ballen – ikke spilleren!

Vi fjerner innlegg som er diskriminerende, hetsende og usaklige, spam og identiske kommentarer.

  • Lab Roy

    Norge har levd i fred med Russland i over 1000 år. Til og med under den kalde krigen da Stalin satt ved makten var det fred mellom Norge og Russland. Det kan se ut som en del mennesker faktisk frykter Putin mer enn Stalin. Russland er i dag et mye mindre land enn hva Sovjet i sin tid var. NATO er i dag 10-12 ganger sterkere militært enn Russland. Russland er selvforsynt med olje og gass og andre naturressurser. Likevel frykter altså en del mennesker militært angrep eller militært press fra Russland. Hadde Russland feks ønsket å okkupere hele Øst-Ukraina hadde dette blitt gjort for mange måneder siden. Krigen i Øst-Ukraina belaster også Russland som bla har tatt i mot rundt 1 million flyktninger fra Ukraina.

    Derimot se det ut som om mange i Vesten har mye større tillit til USA. Det ser ut som mange tror at USA kriger sammen med Saudi Arabia i Syria for å innføre demokrati i landet (hvor naiv går det egentlig an å bli?). Dessuten støtter USA Saudi Arabias brutale krigføring i Jemen. Det ser ut som norske myndigheter er helt ukritiske til Saudi Arabia så lenge USA støtter Saudi Arabia, og dette til tross for at dagens lave oljepriser i regi av Saudi Arabia er i ferd med å undergrave norsk økonomi.

    • TIM TOMSEN

      RUSSIAN MYTHS AND PROPAGANDA ABOUT CRIMEA AND UKRAINE..Crimea has never really been Russian.

      Any more than Norway is Danish just because Norway was forcefully taking into an union with Sweden and Denmark for some time under occupation and rule does not make Norway into Danish lands … Norway like Ukraine was just a politically and military occupied nation for some time in history of its history that’s all..

      Norway has been from time to time under Swedish and Danish occupation and even some Norwegian city’s was built by the occupier’s But that doesn’t mean that Danmak and /or Sweden owns Norway or the Norwegians are Danish or Swedish ANY MORE THEN Russia owns Ukraine and Ukrainians are Russians ….!!!

      The Russian public has long been encouraged to view Crimea as native Russian land.

      The 2014 annexation of Crimea was actually the fourth Russian attempt to claim the peninsula in the past 250 years. On each occasion, these efforts have ultimately failed. This video is history of Russian deception about the Crimea.

      THE LEGAL FACTS

      The earlier published documents, and materials that have emerged more recently, make clear that the transfer of Crimea from the RSFSR to the UkrSSR was carried out in accordance with the 1936 Soviet constitution, which in Article 18 stipulated that “the territory of a Union Republic may not be altered without its consent.” The proceedings of the USSR Supreme Soviet Presidium meeting indicate that both the RSFSR and the UkrSSR had given their consent via their republic parliaments.

      One of the officials present at the 19 February session, Otto Kuusinen, even boasted that “only in our country [the USSR] is it possible that issues of the utmost importance such as the territorial transfer of individual oblasts to a particular republic can be decided without any difficulties.” One might argue that the process in 1954 would have been a lot better if it had been complicated and difficult, but no matter how one judges the expeditiousness of the territorial reconfiguration, the main point to stress here is that it is incorrect to say (as some Russian commentators and government officials recently have) that Crimea was transferred unconstitutionally or illegally. The legal system in the Soviet Union was mostly a fiction, but the transfer did occur in accordance with the rules in effect at the time.

      Moreover, regardless of how the transfer was carried out, the Russian Federation expressly accepted Ukraine’s 1991 borders both in the December 1991 Belovezhskaya Pushcha accords (the agreements that precipitated and codified the dissolution of the Soviet Union) and in the December 1994 Budapest Memorandum that finalized Ukraine’s status as a non-nuclear weapons state.

      THE HISTORY FACTS

      There are many regions of the world which, if given the choice would vote to separate. but guess what? THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT OR LEGAL Crimea was annexed by Russia in 1783, by Catherine the great so Russia got free access to warm water ports and the black sea…Russia then started deporting its original Ukrainian and Tatar population and then after that claimed Crimea was Russian. In 1944 Stalin accelerate the process kicking out 200,000 Tatars in just 3 days and filled Crimea with even more Russians, that does not make it Russia either. THAT IS WHY THEY VOTE TO JOIN RUSSIA TODAY BECAUSE THEY ARE RUSSIANS that is descendants of Russian occupied kremlin policy. Crimea is Ukrainian and the whole World see it that way, that is why Russia has sanctions right now; END OF STORY

      The underlying premise of Vladimir Putin’s seizure of Crimea is false: Crimea has not been part of Russia from time immemorial. Instead, it has had a complex history, one in which Russia’s role has been remarkably brief. As a result, it is important that the future of the peninsula be decided by the people of Crimea itself rather than by Moscow.

      That logic, widely recognized by many but unfortunately not by all in the West, has now been presented by Andrey Zubov in today’s “Vedomosti” newspaper in an article entitled “Is Crimea Ours? Just How Weighty are the Arguments that Crimea Historically Belongs to Russia”

      Zubov, who was a professor at Moscow State Institute for International Relations (MGIMO) until he lost his position there because of his pro-Ukrainian positions, uses this article to lay out for Russian readers just how tendentious and wrong are the Kremlin’s arguments at a time when few in that country or elsewhere are willing to challenge them.

      The beginning of the tragedy that is Russia’s current one in Ukraine was Ukraine which Moscow seized on the basis of Vladimir Putin’s claim that “Crimea always was and again has become Russian,” a claim that many have accepted without challenge and without reflecting that absorbing the lands of others “never will occur quietly and peacefully.”

      If Crimea was “always” Russian as Putin insists, such an “injustice should have been corrected,” Zubov says, but it should have been done via referendum without the introduction of Russian military force as in the case of Scotland in Great Britain or Catalonia in Spain. That is not what happened because Crimea wasn’t.

      And if it had been true that there was a genocide of ethnic Russians there, then United Nations rules about the right of peoples to self-determination under threat of disappearance might have been applied, the Moscow historian says. “But there was no genocide in Crimea while it was part of Ukraine.”

      That has forced the Russian side to rely on three other arguments: that “Crimea was always Russian,” that “Crimea has been covered with Russian blood in many wars,” and that “Crimea was handed over to Ukraine illegally.” All of those, Zubov argues, collapse upon even the most superficial examination.

      In antiquity and the medieval period, the Crimean peninsula was controlled by many states and populated by many peoples. Russia and Russians weren’t among them because neither a Russian state nor a Russian nation existed, the Russian historian points out. It only became part of the Russian world in April 1783 when it was seized in a bloody war.

      As a result of that occupation, the population of the peninsula declined by a factor of five, and many of the Muslims who remained were forcibly converted to Christianity. Indeed, Zubov says, until the 1930s, many Muslims urged their children to protect Christian cemeteries there because their own ancestors had been buried in them.

      Over the course of the century of Russian rule from Catherine II to Alexander II, about 900,000 Muslims left Crimea. In their place arrived Christians from the Ottoman Empire – Greeks, Bulgarians and Armenians and Germans from Russia, Germany and Austro-Hungary, Zubov continues.

      As a result, the share of Tatars in the Crimean population fell dramatically: from 87.6 percent in 1795 to 35.6 percent in 1897 and to 19.4 percent in 1939.

      But even if Crimea was absorbed by the Russian Empire, one must keep in mind, Zubov says, that “the Russian Empire of the 17th to 19th centuries and present-day Russia are not one and the same state.” The former included many peoples, “and present-day Russia can hardly pretend to any lands only on the basis that sometime they were part of the Romanov empire.”

      The Bolsheviks rejected the notion that they were the successors of the Russian Empire. They insisted that “they were building a new state of workers and peasants,” and once in power, “they changed the borders among these states many times,” taking land from one and giving it to another, including the transfer of Crimea from the RSFSR to Ukraine in 1954.

      But what is important, Zubov argues, is this: “however conditional [these administrative borders] were in the USSR, after the disintegration of the USSR, they were confirmed by international agreements” and by the declarations of the countries which emerged, including the Russian Federation.

      As far as time of control is concerned, the Ottoman Empire controlled Crimea for three centuries, the Russian Empire for 134 years, the RSFSR and the Russian Federation which has declared itself that entity’s successor 34 years, and “the Ukrainian SSR and present-day Ukraine 60 years (from 1954 to 2014).”

      Moreover, the Russian historian points out, during the Soviet period, “a multitude of crimes were committed against the indigenous Crimean Tatar and all other peoples of the peninsula including Russians.” Some 60,000 died in battles at the end of the Russian Civil War, and another 80,000 died in the succeeding famine.

      Collectivization and forced deportation had an additional and horrific impact. In August 1941, 63,000 Germans were expelled, in January-February 1942 700 Italians, and in 1944, 191,000 Crimean Tatars, 15,040 Greeks, 12,242 Bulgarians, 9600 Armenians, and 3650 Turks and Persians were deported. Many died in the process.

      That reduced the population of Crimea by two-thirds, Zubov says, and the places left vacant were then filled by Soviet war veterans, NKVD officers, and political workers. As a result, “the composition of the population of Crimea was dramatically changed.” Only in the 1980s did the Crimean Tatars have a chance to begin to return.

      “And now,” Zubov concludes, “’Crimea is ours,’” a declaration that not only is without historical justification but one that has led to the horrific war in Ukraine and the international isolation of Russia. “Is there a way out? Yes,” he says.” But that will requires giving up claims to this land and returning the question of its fate to the people who live there.

      Let’s look at Ukraine’s disgraced former president, the legitimately elected Victor Yanukovych. After he fled to Russia the idea that he remained the legitimate head of state, and therefore the manner in which he was replaced was automatically illegitimate, was commonplace. This line of thinking was heavily promulgated by his new host country for reasons that are self-evident. But was it right, or even logical, to claim this?

      The legitimacy of the Yanukovych regime indeed began with a fair election, albeit an election in which the Ukrainian people had no good choices. But could that legitimacy go on unquestioned despite the blatant grand scale theft of state resources? No. Of course it could not.

      Common hooligans and thugs were brought to Kyiv by the Yanukovych authorities (first recorded on Nov. 29, 2013 when the revolution was just a few days old) to terrorize the residents of the capital. This actwas completely in contradiction to Article 3 of the constitution that Yanukovych was elected to uphold. It was right to question Yanukovych’s legitimacy after this.

      Can the legitimacy of a ruling authority survive past the blatantly illegal adoption of laws designed to end democracy and create a dictatorship? No. Of course it cannot. Yet, this is what the Yanukovych controlled Party of Regions attempted to do on Jan. 16, 2014. Later analysis of images taken in parliament that while 235 MPs were declared to have voted for these “dictatorship” laws, only about half of this number of MPs were actually in the session hall when the vote was taken (by a show of hands – also illegal.)

      After such clearly anti-democratic and dishonest actions, can anyone consider that authority to be legitimate? The actions were a breach of Article 5 of Ukraine’s constitution – something that Yanukovych was under oath to protect and uphold. But he failed to keep his word.

      There were more violations of the constitution by Yanukovych, its supposed protector.

      Article 27 of Ukraine’s constitution says that “Every person shall have the inalienable right to life. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of life.” Yet Yuri Verbitsky, a 42 year old geologist from Lviv, was kidnapped, tortured, and murdered by forces belonging to the Yanukovych regime between Jan. 22 and Jan. 25 of 2014.

      That Yanukovych had already lost any legitimacy by this point should be beyond question. Later, of course, came the deaths of many more people on Jan. 18 and then Jan. 20, after which Yanukovych fled to Russia, insisting his authority and position were still legitimate. Define legitimate.

      The idea that legitimacy carries on from appointment without further question is a complete fallacy. It is something that we should refuse to accept. An elected leader most certainly can lose their legitimacy through illegal and/or unconstitutional, actions. The most recent public attempt at increasing the fog blurring the distinction between legitimately elected and legitimate comes from Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. Bottom line, they are not the same, although it is easy to see why Russia’s ruling clan would seek to pretend that they are.

    • TIM TOMSEN

      THE WEST AND THE US. IS OBLIGATED TO GIVE UKRAINE WEAPONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances agreement…

      Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange for the grantee from the USA and and the United Kingdom that they will protect the Ukrainian nation from invasion…

      The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances is a political agreement signed in Budapest, Hungary on 5 December 1994, providing security assurances by its signatories relating to Ukraine’s accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The Memorandum was originally signed by three nuclear powers, the Russian Federation, the United States of America, and the United Kingdom. China and France gave somewhat weaker individual assurances in separate documents.

      The memorandum included security assurances against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine as well as those of Belarus and Kazakhstan. As a result, Ukraine gave up the world’s third largest nuclear weapons stockpile between 1994 and 1996, of which Ukraine had physical though not operational control.[citation needed] The use of the weapons was dependent on Russian-controlled electronic Permissive Action Links and the Russian command and control system

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances

      Claim: The Ukrainian authorities are illegitimate

      Fact: Ukraine’s President Poroshenko was elected on 25 May with a clear majority in a vote which the OSCE characterized (report here http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/ukraine/119078?download=true ) as showing the «clear resolve of the authorities to hold what was a genuine election largely in line with international commitments and with a respect for fundamental freedoms.» The only areas where serious restrictions were reported were those controlled by separatists, who undertook «increasing attempts to derail the process.»

      The current parliament was elected on 26 October in a vote which the OSCE characterized (report here http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/ukraine/126043 ) as «an amply contested election that offered voters real choice, and a general respect for fundamental freedoms». It again pointed out that «Electoral authorities made resolute efforts to organize elections throughout the country, but they could not be held in parts of the regions (oblasts) of Donetsk and Luhansk or on the Crimean peninsula».

      Finally, Russian officials continue to allege that the Ukrainian parliament and government are dominated by «neonazis» and «fascists.» However, in the parliamentary elections, the parties whom Russia labelled as «fascists» fell far short of the threshold of 5% needed to enter parliament. Ukraine’s electorate clearly voted for unity and moderation, not separatism or extremism, and the composition of the parliament reflects that.

      In short, the President and parliament are legitimate, the actions of the separatists were not.

      Claim: NATO provoked the «Maidan» protests in Ukraine

      Fact: The demonstrations which began in Kiev in November 2013 were born out of Ukrainians’ desire for a closer relationship with the European Union, and their frustration when former President Yanukovych halted progress toward that goal as a result of Russian pressure.

      The protesters’ demands included constitutional reform, see here http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26289318 and a stronger role for the parliament, the formation of a government of national unity, an end to the pervasive and endemic corruption, early presidential elections and an end to violence. There was no mention of NATO.

      Ukraine began discussing the idea of abandoning its non-bloc status in September 2014, six months after the illegal and illegitimate Russian «annexation» of Crimea and the start of Russia’s aggressive actions in Eastern Ukraine. The final decision by Ukraine’s Verkhovna Rada to abandon the non bloc status was taken in December 2014, over a year after the pro-EU demonstrations began.

      Claim: The cases of Kosovo and Crimea are identical

      Fact: The Kosovo operation was conducted following exhaustive discussion involving the whole international community dealing with a long-running crisis that was recognized by the UN Security Council as a threat to international peace and security.

      Following the operation, the international community engaged in nearly ten years of diplomacy, under UN authority, to find a political solution and to settle Kosovo’s final status, as prescribed by UNSCR 1244.

      In Crimea, there was no pre-existing crisis, no attempt to discuss the situation with the Ukrainian government, no involvement of the United Nations, and no attempt at a negotiated solution.

      In Kosovo, international attempts to find a solution took over 3,000 days. In Crimea, Russia annexed part of Ukraine’s territory in less than 30 days. It has sought to justify its illegal and illegitimate annexation, in part, by pointing to a «referendum» that was inconsistent with Ukrainian law, held under conditions of illegal armed occupation with no freedom of expression or media access for the opposition, and without any credible international monitoring.

      Claim: Russia’s annexation of Crimea was justified by the opinion of the International Court of Justice on the independence of Kosovo

      (online herehttp://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_111767.htm#cl506 ).

      Fact: The court stated that their opinion was not a precedent. The court said they had been given a «narrow and specific» question about Kosovo’s independence which would not cover the broader legal consequences of that decision.

      Claim: NATO’s operation over Kosovo was illegitimate

      Fact: The NATO operation for Kosovo followed over a year of intense efforts by the UN and the Contact Group, of which Russia was a member, to bring about a peaceful solution. The UN Security Council on several occasions branded the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and the mounting number of refugees driven from their homes as a threat to international peace and security. NATO’s Operation Allied Force was launched to prevent the large-scale and sustained violations of human rights and the killing of civilians.

      Following the air campaign, the subsequent NATO-led peacekeeping operation, KFOR, which initially included Russia, has been under UN mandate (UNSCR 1244) see here http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/1244%281999%29 , with the aim of providing a safe and secure environment in Kosovo.

      Claim: Russia has the right to demand a «100% guarantee» that Ukraine will not join NATO

      Fact: According to Article I of the Helsinki Final Act (here http://www.osce.org/mc/39501) which established the

      Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in 1975, every country has the right «to belong or not to belong to international organizations, to be or not to be a party to bilateral or multilateral treaties including the right to be or not to be a party to treaties of alliance.» All the OSCE member states, including Russia, have sworn to uphold those principles.

      In line with those principles, Ukraine has the right to choose for itself whether it joins any treaty of alliance, including NATO’s founding treaty.

      Moreover, when Russia signed the Founding Act, it pledged to uphold «respect for sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all states and their inherent right to choose the means to ensure their own security».

      Thus Ukraine has the right to choose its own alliances, and Russia has, by its own repeated agreement, no right to dictate that choice.

      Claim: NATO tried to «drag» Ukraine into the Alliance

      Fact: When the administrations of President Kuchma and President Yushchenko made clear their aspiration to NATO membership, the Alliance worked with them to encourage the reforms which would be needed to make that aspiration a reality.

      When the administration of President Yanukovych opted for a non-bloc status, NATO respected that decision and continued to work with Ukraine on reforms, at the government’s request.

      NATO respects the right of every country to choose its own security arrangements. In fact, Article 13 of the Washington Treaty specifically gives Allies the right to leave.

      Over the past 65 years, 28 countries have chosen freely, and in accordance with their domestic democratic processes, to join NATO. Not one has asked to leave. This is their sovereign choice.

      Claim: NATO’s response to Russia’s illegal actions in Ukraine violates the Founding Act

      Fact: NATO has responded to the new strategic reality caused by Russia’s illegitimate and illegal actions in Ukraine by reinforcing the defence of Allies in Central and Eastern Europe, and by ensuring the ability to increase those reinforcements if necessary, including by upgrading infrastructure.

      All this is consistent with the Founding Act, quoted above.

      In the Founding Act, all signatories, including Russia, agreed on principles which include «refraining from the threat or use of force against each other as well as against any other state, its sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence in any manner inconsistent with the United Nations Charter and with the Declaration of Principles Guiding Relations Between Participating States contained in the Helsinki Final Act» and the «respect for sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all states and their inherent right to choose the means to ensure their own security, the inviolability of borders and peoples’ right of self-determination as enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act and other OSCE documents.»

      NATO has respected those commitments faithfully. Russia, on the other hand, has declared the annexation of Crimea, supported violent separatists in the east of the country, and insisted that Ukraine be barred from joining NATO.

      Claim: Russia has the right to oppose NATO-supported infrastructure on the territory of member states in Central and Eastern Europe

      Fact: The relationship between NATO and Russia is governed by the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security, agreed by NATO Allies and Russia in 1997 and reaffirmed at NATO-Russia summits in Rome in 2002, and in Lisbon in 2010.

      (The Founding Act can be read here http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_25468.htm.)

      In the Founding Act, the two sides agreed that: «in the current and foreseeable security environment, the Alliance will carry out its collective defence and other missions by ensuring the necessary interoperability, integration, and capability for reinforcement rather than by additional permanent stationing of substantial combat forces. Accordingly, it will have to rely on adequate infrastructure commensurate with the above tasks. In this context, reinforcement may take place, when necessary, in the event of defence against a threat of aggression and missions in support of peace consistent with the United Nations Charter and the OSCE governing principles, as well as for exercises consistent with the adapted CFE Treaty, the provisions of the Vienna Document 1994 and mutually agreed transparency measures. Russia will exercise similar restraint in its conventional force deployments in Europe.»

      Therefore, both infrastructure and reinforcements are explicitly permitted by the Founding Act and therefore by Russia.

      Let’s look at Ukraine’s disgraced former president, the legitimately elected Victor Yanukovych. After he fled to Russia the idea that he remained the legitimate head of state, and therefore the manner in which he was replaced was automatically illegitimate, was commonplace. This line of thinking was heavily promulgated by his new host country for reasons that are self-evident. But was it right, or even logical, to claim this?

      The legitimacy of the Yanukovych regime indeed began with a fair election, albeit an election in which the Ukrainian people had no good choices. But could that legitimacy go on unquestioned despite the blatant grand scale theft of state resources? No. Of course it could not.

      Common hooligans and thugs were brought to Kyiv by the Yanukovych authorities (first recorded on Nov. 29, 2013 when the revolution was just a few days old) to terrorize the residents of the capital. This act was completely in contradiction to Article 3 of the constitution that Yanukovych was elected to uphold. It was right to question Yanukovych’s legitimacy after this.

      Can the legitimacy of a ruling authority survive past the blatantly illegal adoption of laws designed to end democracy and create a dictatorship? No. Of course it cannot. Yet, this is what the Yanukovych controlled Party of Regions attempted to do on Jan. 16, 2014. Later analysis of images taken in parliament that while 235 MPs were declared to have voted for these “dictatorship” laws, only about half of this number of MPs were actually in the session hall when the vote was taken (by a show of hands – also illegal.)

      After such clearly anti-democratic and dishonest actions, can anyone consider that authority to be legitimate? The actions were a breach of Article 5 of Ukraine’s constitution – something that Yanukovych was under oath to protect and uphold. But he failed to keep his word.

      There were more violations of the constitution by Yanukovych, its supposed protector.

      Article 27 of Ukraine’s constitution says that “Every person shall have the inalienable right to life. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of life.” Yet Yuri Verbitsky, a 42 year old geologist from Lviv, was kidnapped, tortured, and murdered by forces belonging to the Yanukovych regime between Jan. 22 and Jan. 25 of 2014.

      That Yanukovych had already lost any legitimacy by this point should be beyond question. Later, of course, came the deaths of many more people on Jan. 18 and then Jan. 20, after which Yanukovych fled to Russia, insisting his authority and position were still legitimate. Define legitimate.

      The idea that legitimacy carries on from appointment without further question is a complete fallacy. It is something that we should refuse to accept. An elected leader most certainly can lose their legitimacy through illegal and/or unconstitutional, actions. The most recent public attempt at increasing the fog blurring the distinction between legitimately elected and legitimate comes from Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. Bottom line, they are not the same, although it is easy to see why Russia’s ruling clan would seek to pretend that they are.

  • Lab Roy

    Er derimot USA en trussel mot Europa?

    Først nå har USA for aller første gang gått til det skritt å angripe oljeeksporten til IS fra Syria.
    IS har hatt veldig store inntekter fra salg av olje fra Syria og Irak.
    Dette har medvirket til at IS har blitt verdens største terror-organisasjon.
    I et bombetokt nå nylig bombet USA 116 tankbiler tilhørende IS.
    http://e24.no/utenriks/usa-angrep-mot-oljetransport-i-syria/23562163
    http://e24.no/energi/is-skal-ha-tjent-milliarder-paa-salg-av-raaolje-aa-stanse-denne-virksomheten-vil-ramme-dem-hardt/23562388

    Det gode spørsmålet er hvorfor USA ikke har gjort noe slikt mye tidligere?
    Svaret er nok at USA har ønsket å bygge opp IS for derigjennom å få til regimeskifte i Syria. Hvis IS derimot blir svekket (feks gjennom reduserte inntekter) så vil det bare styrke posisjonen til Assad, Iran og kurderne i Midt-Østen. Og noe slikt ønsker hverken USA, Tyrkia, Saudi Arabia eller Qatar. Dermed har USA & Co bare latt IS vokse til IS nå også truer Europa i form av terror handlinger og en stor flyktningestrøm til Europa.

  • TIM TOMSEN

    Russian noe – Stalinist Hypocrites like Putin and YOU groom the world with RuSSian Kremlin Propaganda about how bad everyone else is..

    And why does Putin’s propaganda machine do this you ask…

    Well it makes perfect sense it is so the rest of the world the EU, USA, UN and all others becomes hyper-aware of their own minor (or non-existent) wrongdoings, while actively dismissing anything that ruSSia themselves are doing wrong..

    This KGB tactic of propaganda and blame game, would have even made propaganda German Minister Goebbels blue in the face of envy, First thing Russia does is relocate blame—then, our western conscience and PC. liberal mind, does the rest of the work for them.

    Russian Hypocrites spend their lives cheating, betraying, conning, and deceiving. But despite this disgusting pattern of behavior, RuSSians still feel entitled to point out (or invent) the most minor mistakes in others—and they’ll point them out repeatedly, to negate & excuse all of their own horrible actions.

    This should not surprise: Russia is immune to breaking whatever is needed to achieve its Machiavellian ends of global expansionism.

    Recall, that by invading Ukraine’s Crimea it broke international law and continues to do so by holding it and presently escalating the war in the Donbas. Putin’s Russia disregarded the Budapest Memorandum in which it promised to “protect” Ukraine against invasions and in so doing seduced it into giving up its nuclear capability to—who else– Russia.

    Presently, its violations of the Minsk peace agreements are the stuff of daily news. It shells Ukraine with illegal military hardware, kills over 2,000, maims, rapes and abducts into the sex trade, destroys most of the infrastructure —roads, airports, water, electricity supplies—in Ukraine’s territory that it holds illegally. Clearly, Russia deserves the criticism it gets and the mistrust.

    There were years of discussion with Russia on the Budapest Memorandum. Ukraine gave up its nukes; now Russia is threating the entire world.

    There is endless discussion regarding Russia’s need to withdraw from Ukraine. More. Each time Ukraine was winning militarily, “diplomatic” Minsk cease-fire talks were offered only to be broken by Russia. The massacre at Dobaltsevo and the purposeful destruction of the Donbas airport illustrate sufficiently that Russia talks to gain advantage rather than settle an issue.

    This applies not only to Ukraine. Russia habitually makes promises only to break them. Among the most recent is its hoodwinking in Syria where Russia promised to be part of the effort to deal with President Assad’s autocratic regime.

    Yet with its first foray Russia bombed the very people it promised to protect –the anti-presidential rebels- and unleashed a tsunami of refugees, a disaster for Syria and as it is turning out, for Europe too. Meanwhile, it is saving the president’s regime and making further gains for itself in the Middle East and destabilizing Europe; all self-serving goals.

    Any evidence coming out of Moscow is as far as i CAN SEE Lies..

    Just like the was lying about that their pro- Russians terrorist did not shooting down MH17 over Ukraine with the Russians army BUK system.. Just like they was lying about that is was not Russian army in Crimea Just like they was lying about not have any GRU and FSB and special forces in East Ukraine just like they was lying about a CIA , neo-nazi EU takeover of Ukraine and lying about so called food / aid trucks going into Ukraine when it had weapons coming into and Russian dead soldiers going out..

    Russism [Rus: Рашизм] – variety of totalitarian, fascist ideology, symbiosis of principal doctrines of Nazism and Stalinism.

    The Russian Orthodox Church theological theory on Russians being the Chosen People serves as one of the bases of Russism.

    Russism has turned into ideology and practice of Russian authorities being based on the idea of superiority of “Russian Compatriots” and neocolonialism of soviet-imperial type as well as application of Russian Orthodoxy as moral doctrine.

    Russism uses an aggressive military and economic doctrine, an idea of preventive usage of nuclear weapons and many other instruments to archive a revenge in Cold War. Emphasis is also made on geo-economical instruments – primarily energy resources.

    Russism widely uses the propaganda myths of the `Great Patriotic War` [Rus: `Великая Отечественная Война`] as a moral right to further violence in XXI century and denies responsibility for crimes against humanity during imperial and USSR times.

    Russism represents the mixture of imperialism, great power chauvinism, nostalgia for soviet past and religious traditionalism.

    Russism has much in common with fascist Nazism in terms of principles while speeches and politics of Putin are much similar to Hitler’s ideas.

    Russism ideology is based on illusions grounding acceptability of arbitrariness for the sake of fallaciously perceived interests of Russian society.

    Russism violates principles of international law and imposes on the world its own version of historical truth guided by perspectives and interests of Russia.

    The term has been used since 1990s, but it gained wide spread in 2008, after the Russian aggression on Georgia.

    Anywhere you have ruSSians living you have corruption and problems and civil unrest the funny thing is that in nations that have some size of ethnic Russians living there you get problems..and the population of Russians does not need to be that big either..

    Ukraine only 17,3% are ethnic Russian of the nation.

    Latvia only 26% are ethnic Russian of the nation

    Lithuania only 2,5% are ethnic Russian of the nation

    Estonia only 25,2 % are ethnic Russian of the nation

    Moldova only 5.8% are ethnic Russian of the nation

    Georgia only 1,5 %are ethnic Russian of the nation

    The % is not big in most of the nation’s above but when it comes to how much this Russian scum demand of influence and how much they are screaming if you did not know the facts you will think they are almost the majority of the populations.

    Take Lithuania in that country the 2,5% represents only 50,460 people that are ethnic Russians and Russians are not the biggest ethnic group infact after Lithuanians it is jews that take 2nd place as the biggest ethnic group in Lithuania with 7,6% of the population that represents 153,743 that is 3 times bigger than Russians… SO THE QUESTION must be this why is there a problem with ethnic Russians all the time and why do they think they can demand special status for themselves and special status for Russian language who do they think they are ???

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Lithuania

    The only thing one can take out of this and the only conclusion is once you have this scum in your nation you have got prob. as they think they own they place the master race mentality form the sovieticus attitude is the prob..

    Lets look at the facts BUT NOT the so called facts that according to Russian TV and Putin supporting Propaganda is the facts but lets look at the real facts..

    RUSSIA DID INVADE UKRAINE AND STEAL CRIMEA.

    RUSSIA DID INVADE GEORGIA AND STEAL ABKHAZIA AND south OSSETIA.

    RUSSIA INVADED MOLDOVA AND TOOK TRANISNISTRIA.

    RUSSIA INVADED AFGHANISTAN AND LOST EVERY BATTLE IT FOUGHT WITH THE AFGHANI’S

    RUSSIA KILLED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF CHECHENS.

    RUSSIA SUPPORTS SYRIA’S ASSAD WHO HAS MURDERED AND TORTURED 500,000 SYRIAN CIVILIANS

    Any evidence coming out of Moscow is as fare as i CAN SEE Lies..

    Just like the was lying about that their pro- Russians terrorist did not shooting down MH17 over Ukraine with the Russians army BUK system Just like they was lying about that is was not Russian army in crimea Just like they was lying about not have any GRU and FSB and special forces in East Ukraine just like they was lying about a CIA , neonazi EU takeover of Ukraine and lying about so called food / aid trucks going into Ukraine when it had weapons coming into and Russian dead soldiers going out..

    Todays Russia

    1992 invasion and occupation Moldovan (Transnistria War)

    1994 invasion and occupation Nagorno Karabakh

    1994 First Chechen War

    1999 Second Chechen War

    2000 Second Chechen War part 2

    2008 invasion and occupation Georgia

    2014 invasion, occupation and annexation of CRIMEA

    2015 invasion and occupation East Ukraine

    Russians that support Putin historical glory version of facts are nothing but stupid an have not historical knowledge

    RUSSIA WORLD EVIL DOMINATION TOUR

    Todays Russia

    1992 invasion and occupation Moldovan (Transnistria War)

    1994 invasion and occupation Nagorno Karabakh

    1994 First Chechen War

    1999 Second Chechen War

    2000 Second Chechen War part 2

    2008 invasion and occupation Georgia

    2014 invasion, occupation and annexation of CRIMEA

    2015 invasion and occupation East Ukraine

    Russians that support Putin historical glory version of facts are nothing but stupid an have not historical knowledge

    Soviet’s Crimes Against Humanity

    RUSSIA HAS TH WORLD RECORD OF GENOCIDE

    List of evil genocide done by Russia to other nations that Russians / Russia never

    have admitted or apologized or taken any responsibility for..

    Genocide Circassian 1817

    Genocide Circassian 1867

    Genocide called the man made famine in Ukraine of 1918

    Genocide Decossackization 1919

    Genocide Don Cossacks 1919

    Genocide know as the Ukrainian Famine of 1921-1923

    Genocide Holodomor of 10 mill Ukrainians this is almost 50% of the nation at the time in 1932–1933

    Genocide and Massacres of Polish people 1937

    Genocide known as the Great purge in Mongolia 1937

    Genocide known as the Great Purge (Yezhovshchina) 1937–38

    Genocide done to the Koreans in the USSR, 1937–1949

    Genocide of the Crimean Tatars genocide 1944

    Genocide and massive deportations East Germany Genocide 1945

    Genocide and massive deportations of Germans living in Königsberg Genocide 1945

    Genocide Chechnya 1990s.

    Genocide of Georgians in South Ossetia 1991

    Genocide Russia help with the Nagorno Karabakh 1991

    Genocide of Georgians in Abkhaz conflict of 1992

    Purges done by Russia

    Moldovan (Transnistria) purging moldovans 1992

    Genocide Abkhaz–Georgian conflict purge and genocide of Georgians 2008

    Georgian– east Ossetian conflict purge and genocide of Georgians 2008

    Georgian– south Ossetian conflict purge and genocide of Georgians 2008

    AND NOW TODAY IT continues with the Crimean Tatars genocide 2015+++

    Russian controlled soviet union former satellite states like Poland, Romania, and Czech the Baltic states, Slovakia ect ect ect …couldn’t wait to join NATO and the EU to get as fare away from Russian hegemony control as fast as the possibly can at the time .

    “Putin bases his policies on Lenin’s principle: probe with bayonets; if you encounter must, proceed; if you encounter steel, withdraw,” the aide said. “With Obama, Putin has encountered mush for nearly seven years, never steel, and that’s why he continues to challenge the United States time after time.”

    If the Russians weren’t such malignant, belligerent a**holes, they wouldn’t have to worry about EU NATO and former satellite states like Poland, Romania, and Czech the Baltic states, Slovakia ect ect ect running too the front door of EU and NATO .

    Her is a thought if every one thinks you are a bunch of malignant, belligerent a**holes and you think you are the the greatest thing since sliced bread and you are the only one that thinks that maybe you need a reality check and just maybe just maybe you are a bunch of malignant, belligerent a**holes and not the greatest thing since sliced bread

    The Ukrainians are living all over Ukraine the myth of just Russian live in east Ukraine is a myth and that’s all it is…. To day only 17,3% of ethnic Russian live in Ukraine they only are 17,3% of the nation BUT ARE SHOUTING like they was 96%

    In the 2001 Ukrainian census, only 17,3% of people identified themselves as ethnic Russians. 17.3% of all the population of Ukraine

    Also out of that 17,3% 70% of them live in Crimea and according to Putin and you that is now part of Russia that gives us only 5% living in what now is Ukraine without Crimea … there are now only left 1416705 ethnic Russians and in the land the total population in Ukraine is estimated to be 44,840,743 in 2014

    Ukraine Demographics

    Ukrainians make up almost 77.8% of the total population, while Russians take the second spot with almost 17% of the population. Other minorities include Bella Russians 0.6%, Bulgarians 0.4%, Hungarians 0.3%, Crimean Tatars 0.5%, while Romanians and Poles both are 0.3% and Jewish residents make up 0.2% of the total population. Other minorities present are 1.8%.

    The major language is Ukrainian, spoken by 67% of the population, while the second most common language is Russian, spoken by 24% of the total population. The remaining 9% is comprised of various other languages.

    http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/ukraine-population/

    Let us take a look at RuSSia…and the evil-of-RuSSia

    Meanwhile, we are waiting for the USA EU and the west to start helping Ukraine perpetrators of genocide like Stalin are glorified in Russia

    Sometimes I wonder if the west knows about the 10mill Ukrainians that was killed in the genocide in 1932-1933 called the HOLODOMOR : The famine-genocide of Ukraine, 1932-1933. www. holodomorct.org/

    And what does Putin’s Russia do well the west drink coffee and talk talk talk and Putin’s Russia makes makes a despot like Stalin a folk hero in Russia and rewrites history books and glorify s the USSR too schoolchildren and do this after they have already made Stalin the 3rd greatest Russian in Russian history

    Stalin is voted third greatest Russian in TV poll Brutal Soviet dictator Josef Stalin was voted Russia’s third most popular historical figure in a nationwide TV poll – despite the famine and purges that marked his rule.

    The despot, who executed and imprisoned millions of people, narrowly missed the top spot by 5,500 votes More than a third of the country’s 143million population voted in the Name of Russia series, which crowned medieval war hero Alexander Nevsky

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1102508/Stalin-voted-greatest-Russian-TV-poll-modelled-BBC-contest.html

    Russian fascist Aleksandr Dugin Vladimir Putin’s ideological prophet is preaching fascist imperialism of Eastern Europe and Ukraine Putins Aide Aleksandr Dugin Visits Neo-Nazis in Romania, While the Far Right Forms an International Alliance

    see link http://www.revolution-news.com/putins-aide-visits-neo-nazis-romania-far-right-forms-international-alliance

    The leader of Ukraine’s Jewish communities has warned that Russian neo-Nazi organisations are increasingly active with the pro-Russian insurgency in east Ukraine see link Neo-Nazi Groups Fighting with Separatists.

    http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ukraine-crisis-who-are-russian-neo-nazi-groups-fighting-separatists-1463489

    The Association of Jewish Organisations and Communities (VAAD) responded with an open letter saying that President Putin’s assertions about the rise of anti-Semitism in Ukraine country «did not match reality».

    The Association of Jewish Organisations says «Mr Putin’s advisers «might have confused Ukraine with Russia where Jewish organisations registered a rise of anti-Semitism last year»

    Shmuel Kaminetsky, a rabbi in Dnipropetrovsk, home to one of the country’s largest Jewish communities, also rejects the idea that Ukraine is anti-Semitic and says that this is nothing more than propaganda from the Kremlin to smoke screen the real issue of Russia invasion of Ukraine

    see link

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29991777

    89 % voted for Putin regime and 89 % support his actions in Ukraine and now the truth of their actions and support of the depot Putin will be coming home I have no sympathy for Russians let them rot with their beloved Putin …. Their is no such thing as a open free minded liberal Russian.. A liberal Russian makes a fare-right thug in the west look liberal..

    RUSSIAN FAMILIES TAKES MONEY TO DISHONOR THEIR CHILDREN’S MEMORY !

    Families of Russian soldiers killed in Donbas ‘got 3 million ruble for silence’ «At the end of January the relatives of dead soldiers informally asked Nemtsov to put pressure on the Ministry of Defense to help them get the payments,» he said.

    Read more on UNIAN:

    http://www.unian.info/war/1061523-families-of-russian-soldiers-killed-in-donbas-get-rub-3-mln-for-silence.html

    NOTICE The Families of Russian soldiers killed in Putins undercover war in the Donbas wanted to know why they did not get their judas money from the government they did not care that their sons was sent to an illegal undercover war and now is dyed in other words murdered by the very government that they want silence’ money from only when the money did not come did they run to informally asked Nemtsov to put pressure on the Ministry of Defense to help them get the payments they did not run to Nemtsov to put pressure on the Ministry of Defense to help them find out where their sons was and where their sons are NOW DID THAY _??? ..

    Russians are like vulchers they have no moral scruples at all when it comes to grabbing the money and feeding of the dead it is in their cannibalistic nature ..!

    Yes sick greedy-evil-little-Russians will sell their sons and daughters for some Rubles yes eat their children before giving up an opportunity to get their greedy hands on some cash …..They will eat their children and sell their children legacy for some gold coins true Judas mentality in Putin s Russian dog eat dog nation Is that why the Russians love Putin?..

    I ask …

    What type of mother or father will take Judas money over getting justice for their so called love once?? What type of mother or father will take Judas money and not tell who killed their baby child and make sure to get some justice for their child ? …

    What a sick twisted people Russians are just the worst type of humans in the universe ! And taking this Judas money and NOT seek justice just proves this facts

    Russia is worse then North Korea…a true-evil-nation by any standard !!!

    Why you ask ??

    Well in North Korea the People give there support to the regime because they don’t have any contact with the outside world and therefor have no access to information and only get the regimes so called truth from the regimes propaganda spin doctors..

    But in RuSSia all the people have access to information from anywhere they wish at any time they wish… But still they believe and support-the-evil-of the regime of Putin…

    Russians mindset is all about what they thinks makes them as a nation look big and if that means they need to support evil regimes like Putin’s Russia then that is what they do freely and willingly …

    Look at it this way…

    Today in Russia ALL THE PEOPLE Yes all of them…. have access to more information within a minute at any time day or night then you will find in ALL OF THE WORLDS libraries all put together…

    And how do they have that you ask??

    Well its called the internet and all you need is a Phone to accesses it… And a phone is something ALL RUSSIANS HAVE with them 24 hours of every day 365 days of every year…

    … BUT THAT IS NOT THE CASE in North Korea for North Koreans ..most of them don’t even have a phone in their homes and free access to internet in North Korea is not an option …

    RuSSia is a nation full of freewill brainwashed evil people called Russians…and like to swallow Moscow propaganda

    The Putin apologist will say that WE ARE ALL really missing the point Most of this Russians don’t read English and get only the Russian info and they can somewhat be excused for their fanatic attitudes..

    But I say to the Putin apologist …. That they can believe it or not the biggest support for Putins-evil-regime are in the big city’s and and most of them read English and understand English websites they also have accesses to the internet whenever they want ..

    Just look at the support Putin has with Russians living in the west take a look at western media blogs and comments done be Russians living outside of Russia and from 2nd and 3rd generation Russians that in most cases never has even been to Russia and lived in the west all their lives THEY ARE THE BIGGEST supporters of Putin ..

    Russians have a mentality like fanatic religious jihadist Muslims.. NO MATTER where they live or where they was born they are fanatical about staying Muslim and promoting their fanatical jihadist action and ideology and will don anything and believe anything if they think it helps in the ideological fight and if it can help them take over control of that nation they live inn no mater if it is their native land or not… They will work hard to implement that end game that is to take over of any land and nation they can..

    Just like most fanatic religious jihadist Muslims being Russian for Russians and promoting and exporting their culture,language and dominance and trying to enforce Russafacation over other nations is almost a religion for them to ..and Russinas have been doing that for centuries with nations that are next door too them..

    Why you ask well ….This has to do with Russian mentality ..and how Russians see things..\

    AND THEY SEE THINGS LIKE THIS

    1. Ukraine belongs to Moscow and Russia and so does the Baltic stats and Poland along with all other Slavic lands ..

    2. Ukrainian’s are under Russians in the pecking order just like all other Slavic nations and anyone else for that mater are and they must all understand their place in the world …

    3 Any Ukrainian that say otherwise is a noenazis supporter and must be put in their place..

    4 If they don’t understand their place in the world Russia will make them understand by any main’s necessary..

    Silencing Dissent in Russia: Putin’s Propaganda Machine (Full Length)

    http://www.news.vice.com/video/silencing-dissent-in-russia-putins-propaganda-machine-full-length

    The true Soviet Story very shocking do not click if you are not ready to be totally shocked by the truth (2008)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVZjyyAE-78&feature=youtu.be&t=6m55s

    Stalin’s Birthday-Nostalgia for USSR – Communists on Red Square

    http://www.moscowdriver.com//photos/picture_of_day/stalins_birthday_nostalgia_fo_ussr

  • TIM TOMSEN

    Russia is worse then North Korea…a true evil nation by any standard !!!

    Why you ask ??

    Well in North Korea the People give there support to the regime because they don’t have any contact with the outside world and therefor have no access to information and only get the regimes so called truth from the regimes propaganda spin doctors..

    But in RuSSia all the people have access to information from anywhere they wish at any time they wish… But still they believe and support the evil of the regime of Putin…

    Russians mindset is all about what they thinks makes them as a nation look big and if that means they need to support evil regimes like Putin’s Russia then that is what they do freely and willingly …

    Look at it this way…

    Today in Russia ALL THE PEOPLE Yes all of them…. have access to more information within a minute at any time day or night then you will find in ALL OF THE WORLDS libraries all put together…

    And how do they have that you ask??

    Well its called the internet and all you need is a Phone to accesses it… And a phone is something ALL RUSSIANS HAVE with them 24 hours of every day 365 days of every year…

    … BUT THAT IS NOT THE CASE in North Korea for North Koreans ..most of them don’t even have a phone in their homes and free access to internet in North Korea is not an option …

    RuSSia is a nation full of freewill brainwashed evil people called Russians…and like to swallow Moscow propaganda

    The Putin apologist will say that WE ARE ALL really missing the point Most of this Russians don’t read English and get only the Russian info and they can somewhat be excused for their fanatic attitudes..

    But I say to the Putin apologist …. That they can believe it or not the biggest support for Putin s evil regime are in the big city’s and and most of them read English and understand English websites they also have accesses to the internet when ever they want ..

    Just look at the support Putin has with Russians living in the west take a look at western media blogs and comments done be Russians living outside of Russia and from 2nd and 3rd generation Russians that in most cases never has even been to Russia and lived in the west all their lives THEY ARE THE BIGGEST supporters of Putin ..

    Russians have a mentality like fanatic religious jihadist Muslims.. NO MATTER where they live or where they was born they are fanatical about staying Muslim and promoting their fanatical jihadist action and ideology and will don anything and believe anything if they think it helps in the ideological fight and if it can help them take over control of that nation they live inn no mater if it is their native land or not… They will work hard to implement that end game that is to take over of any land and nation they can..

    Just like most fanatic religious jihadist Muslims being Russian for Russians and promoting and exporting their culture,language and dominance and trying to enforce Russafacation over other nations is almost a religion for them to ..and Russinas have been doing that for centuries with nations that are next door too them..

    Why you ask well ….This has to do with Russian mentality ..and how Russians see things..\

    AND THEY SEE THINGS LIKE THIS

    1. Ukraine belongs to Moscow and Russia and so does the Baltic stats and Poland along with all other Slavic lands ..

    2. Ukrainian’s are under Russians in the pecking order just like all other Slavic nations and anyone else for that mater are and they must all understand their place in the world …

    3 Any Ukrainian that say otherwise is a noenazis supporter and must be put in their place..

    4 If they don’t understand their place in the world Russia will make them understand by any main’s necessary..