Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old September 10th, 2014 #2521
Robbie Key
Senior Member
 
Robbie Key's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,399
Blog Entries: 8
jewsign

[they also met another 'american' kike, Carl Levin. although Klimkin is not a WN, it is curious how silent the 'nazis' in Ukraine has been on matters like these. i haven't seen a single statement about these kind of things.]

Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Pavlo Klimkin met with Chairman of United States Senate Committee on Armed Services Carl Levin

02 September, 18:38

The Foreign Minister informed the Senator about the recent developments in the Donbas region and expressed his gratitude to the United States for consistent support of territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine.

The parties agreed on the importance of increasing pressure on Russian Federation in close coordination with European partners.

Senator Levin assured that the United States will continue provide comprehensive support to Ukraine in its resistance to aggression both bilaterally and within international organizations.

http://mfa.gov.ua/en/press-center/ne...a-karla-levina
 
Old September 10th, 2014 #2522
Robbie Key
Senior Member
 
Robbie Key's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,399
Blog Entries: 8
jewsign

[nasty jew Robert Kagan, married to the infamous diplomat Victoria Nudelman who bragged about 5 billion dollars being invested in Ukraine since 1991, screams for more american wars in foreign countries]

Robert Kagan: America's Dangerous Aversion to Conflict

The U.S. increasingly yearns to escape the harsh realities of war, but as recent events make clear, raw force remains a key element in international politics

By ROBERT KAGAN
Updated Sept. 5, 2014 3:03 p.m. ET

First it was the Europeans who sought an escape from the tragic realities of power that had bloodied their 20th century. At the end of the Cold War, they began to disarm themselves in the hopeful belief that arms and traditional measures of power no longer mattered. A new international system of laws and institutions would replace the old system of power; the world would model itself on the European Union—and if not, the U.S. would still be there to provide security the old-fashioned way.

But now, in the wake of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is the U.S. that seems to be yearning for an escape from the burdens of power and a reprieve from the tragic realities of human existence.

Until recent events at least, a majority of Americans (and of the American political and intellectual classes) seem to have come close to concluding not only that war is horrible but also that it is ineffective in our modern, globalized world. "There is an evolving international order with new global norms making war and conquest increasingly rare," wrote Fareed Zakaria of CNN, borrowing from Steven Pinker of Harvard, practically on the eve of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the Islamic State's march across Syria and Iraq. Best-selling histories of World War I teach that nations don't willingly go to war but only "sleepwalk" into them due to tragic miscalculations or downright silliness.

For a quarter-century, Americans have been told that at the end of history lies boredom rather than great conflict, that nations with McDonald's MCD +2.10% never fight one another, that economic interdependence and nuclear weapons make war among great powers unlikely if not impossible. Recently added to these nostrums has been the mantra of futility. "There is no military solution" is the constant refrain of Western statesmen regarding conflicts from Syria to Ukraine; indeed, military action only makes problems worse. Power itself isn't even what it used to be, argued the columnist Moisés Naím in a widely praised recent book.

History has a way of answering such claims. The desire to escape from power is certainly not new; it has been the constant aspiration of Enlightenment liberalism for more than two centuries.

The impossibility of war was conventional wisdom in the years before World War I, and it became conventional wisdom again—at least in Britain and the U.S.—practically the day after the war ended. Then as now, Americans and Britons solipsistically believed that everyone shared their disillusionment with war. They imagined that because war was horrible and irrational, as the Great War had surely demonstrated, no sane people would choose it.

What happened next, as the peaceful 1920s descended into the violent and savage 1930s, may be instructive for our own time. Back then, the desire to avoid war—combined with the surety that no nation could rationally seek it—led logically and naturally to policies of appeasement.

The countries threatening aggression, after all, had grievances, as most countries almost always do. They were "have-not" powers in a world dominated by the rich and powerful Anglo-Saxon nations, and they demanded a fairer distribution of the goods. In the case of Germany, resentment over the Versailles peace settlement smoldered because territories and populations once under Germany's control had been taken away to provide security for Germany's neighbors. In the case of Japan, the island power with the overflowing population needed control of the Asian mainland to survive and prosper in competition with the other great powers.

So the liberal powers tried to reason with them, to understand and even accept their grievances and seek to assuage them, even if this meant sacrificing others—the Chinese and the Czechs, for instance—to their rule. It seemed a reasonable price, unfortunate though it might be, to avoid another catastrophic war. This was the realism of the 1930s.

Eventually, however, the liberal powers discovered that the grievances of the "have-not" powers went beyond what even the most generous and conflict-averse could satisfy. The most fundamental grievance, it turned out, was that of being forced to live in a world shaped by others—to be German or Japanese in a world dominated by Anglo-Saxons.

To satisfy this grievance would require more than marginal territorial or economic adjustments or even the sacrifice of a small and weak state here or there. It would require allowing the "have-not" powers to reshape the international political and economic order to suit their needs. More than that, it would require letting those powers become strong enough to dictate the terms of international order—for how else could they emerge from their unjust oppression?

Finally, it became clear that more was going on than rational demands for justice, at least as the Enlightenment mind understood the term. It turned out that the aggressors' policies were the product not only of material grievances but of desires that transcended mere materialism and rationality.



German dictator Adolf Hitler and British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain at Munich in 1938 Print Collector/Getty Images


Their leaders, and to a great extent their publics, rejected liberal notions of progress and reason. They were moved instead by romantic yearnings for past glories or past orders and rejected Enlightenment notions of modernity. Their predatory or paranoid rulers either fatalistically accepted (in the case of Japan) or positively welcomed (in the case of Germany) armed conflict as the natural state of human affairs.

By the time all this became unmistakably obvious to the liberal powers, by the time they realized that they were dealing with people who didn't think as they did, by the time they grasped that nothing short of surrender would avoid conflict and that giving the aggressors even part of what they demanded—Manchuria, Indochina, Czechoslovakia—only strengthened them without satisfying them, it was too late to avoid precisely the world war that Britain, France, the U.S. and others had desperately tried to prevent.

This searing experience—not just World War II but also the failed effort to satisfy those who couldn't be satisfied—shaped U.S. policy in the postwar era. For the generations that shared this experience, it imposed a new and different sense of realism about the nature of humankind and the international system. Hopes for a new era of peace were tempered.

American leaders and the American public generally if regretfully accepted the inescapable and tragic reality of power. They adopted the posture of armed liberalism. They built unimaginably destructive weapons by the thousands. They deployed hundreds of thousands of troops overseas, in the heart of Europe and along the rim of East Asia, to serve as forward deterrents to aggression. They fought wars in distant and largely unknown lands, sometimes foolishly and sometimes ineffectively but always with the idea—almost certainly correct—that failure to act against aggressors would only invite further aggression.

In general, except for a brief bout of fatalism under President Richard Nixon and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, they were disinclined to assuage or even acknowledge the grievances of those who opposed them. (President Harry Truman and Secretary of State Dean Acheson, the architects of armed liberalism, never had much interest in bargaining with the Soviets, while President Ronald Reagan was interested chiefly in bargaining over the terms of their surrender.)

Behind the actions of the U.S. architects of containment lay the belief, based on hard experience, that other peoples couldn't always be counted on to value what the liberal world valued—prosperity, human rights or even peace—and therefore the liberal world had to be constantly on its guard, well-armed and well-prepared against the next stirring of the non-liberal, atavistic urges that were a permanent feature of humankind.

How much easier it was to maintain this tragic vigilance while the illiberal, conflict-based ideology of communism reigned across more than half of the Eurasian continent—and how much harder has it been to sustain that vigilance since the fall of communism seemingly ushered in a new era of universal liberalism, and with it the prospect, finally, of a Kantian peace in a world dominated by democracy.

For a time in the 1990s, while the generations of World War II and the early Cold War survived, the old lessons still guided policy. President George H.W. Bush and his national security adviser, Brent Scowcroft, sent half a million American troops to fight thousands of miles away for no other reason than to thwart aggression and restore a desert kingdom that had been invaded by its tyrant neighbor. Kuwait enjoyed no security guarantee with the U.S.; the oil wells on its lands would have been equally available to the West if operated by Iraq; and the 30-year-old emirate ruled by the al-Sabah family had less claim to sovereign nationhood than Ukraine has today. Nevertheless, as Mr. Bush later recalled, "I wanted no appeasement."

A little more than a decade later, however, the U.S. is a changed country. Because of the experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, to suggest sending even a few thousand troops to fight anywhere for any reason is almost unthinkable. The most hawkish members of Congress don't think it safe to argue for a ground attack on the Islamic State or for a NATO troop presence in Ukraine. There is no serious discussion of reversing the cuts in the defense budget, even though the strategic requirements of defending U.S. allies in Europe, Asia and the Middle East have rarely been more manifest while America's ability to do so has rarely been more in doubt.

But Americans, their president and their elected representatives have accepted this gap between strategy and capability with little comment—except by those who would abandon the strategy. It is as if, once again, Americans believe their disillusionment with the use of force somehow means that force is no longer a factor in international affairs.

In the 1930s, this illusion was dispelled by Germany and Japan, whose leaders and publics very much believed in the utility of military power. Today, as the U.S. seems to seek its escape from power, others are stepping forward, as if on cue, to demonstrate just how effective raw power really can be.

Once again, they are people who never accepted the liberal world's definition of progress and modernity and who don't share its hierarchy of values. They are not driven primarily by economic considerations. They have never put their faith in the power of soft power, never believed that world opinion (no matter how outraged) could prevent successful conquest by a determined military. They are undeterred by their McDonald's. They still believe in the old-fashioned verities of hard power, at home and abroad. And if they are not met by a sufficient hard-power response, they will prove that, yes, there is such a thing as a military solution.

This lesson won't be lost on others who wield increasing power in other parts of the world and who, like Vladimir Putin's autocratic Russia and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's fanatical Islamic State, have grievances of their own. In the 1930s, when things began to go bad, they went very bad very quickly. Japan's invasion of Manchuria in 1931 exposed the hollow shell that was the League of Nations—a lesson acted upon by Hitler and Mussolini in the four years that followed. Then Germany's military successes in Europe emboldened Japan to make its move in East Asia on the not unreasonable assumption that Britain and the U.S. would be too distracted and overstretched to respond. The successive assaults of the illiberal aggressors, and the successive failures of the liberal powers, thus led to a cascade of disasters.

The wise men and women of our own time insist that this history is irrelevant. They tell us, when they are not announcing America's irrevocable decline, that our adversaries are too weak to pose a real threat, even as they pile victory upon victory. Russia is a declining power, they argue. But then, Russia has been declining for 400 years. Can declining powers not wreak havoc? Does it help us to know that, in retrospect, Japan lacked the wealth and power to win the war it started in 1941?

Let us hope that those who urge calm are right, but it is hard to avoid the impression that we have already had our 1931. As we head deeper into our version of the 1930s, we may be quite shocked, just as our forebears were, at how quickly things fall apart.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/rober...ict-1409942201

[the jews has decided to destroy the Putin Russia, I don't give a shit what you may think about Putin's alleged connections to jewry. this is mere reality. it's not a joke. revolutions are not staged as some part of a play for fun.]
 
Old September 10th, 2014 #2523
Robbie Key
Senior Member
 
Robbie Key's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,399
Blog Entries: 8
Default

AJC Concludes Visit to Ukraine

September 9, 2014 -- Kiev -- An AJC senior leadership delegation has concluded a three-day visit to Ukraine's capital.

The group, led by AJC President Stanley Bergman and Executive Director David Harris, and including several members of the AJC Board of Governors, met with Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin, top representatives of the National Security Services, and the American, German, and Israeli ambassadors to Ukraine.

“We visited Ukraine to express our solidarity with the Ukrainian people, as well as our strong support for their clearly-expressed aspirations for an ever closer association with the EU and the transatlantic community,” said AJC Executive Director David Harris.

During the visit, the delegation discussed the conflict in eastern Ukraine and its regional implications, the state of the Jewish community, and recent developments in Ukrainian-U.S., Ukrainian-EU, and Ukrainian-Israeli relations.

“We commend the Ukrainian government's determination and courage in recent months, especially in light of the daunting challenges facing the country,” said Harris. “It is critically important that the world, particularly the U.S. and EU, continue to support Ukrainian independence and territorial integrity. This is truly a defining moment in global affairs.”

The trip also included meetings with Ukrainian Jewish leaders, with whom AJC has long maintained close, cooperative ties. The visit was the third such mission in the past six months alone.

Since 1991, AJC has staunchly supported an independent Ukraine aligned with democratic values and free to chart its own destiny. just like kike nudelman has bragged about, 5 billion dollars you remember In May 2014, AJC's Director of Russian Affairs, Sam Kliger, relocated to Kiev to serve as AJC's representative in Ukraine.

http://www.ajc.org/site/apps/nlnet/c....5GDarW6u.dpuf
 
Old September 10th, 2014 #2524
ohgolly
Senior Member
 
ohgolly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Florida CSA
Posts: 1,904
Default George Will vs Vladimir Putin

Great, funny and long hit piece on Will and the usual nauseatingly repeated warnings about the new..... Hitler.

I wonder what old Greg Johnson would make of it.

Quote:
GEORGE WILL vs VLADIMIR PUTIN

Before we dive into the stinking cesspool that is George Will’s recent and vicious attack piece on Vladimir Putin, a few words on the topic of ‘sophistry’ are in order.

-snip-
Quote:
But if there is a ‘poster boy’ for American sophistry, it would have to be the smug bow tie-wearing mega nerd of ‘This Week’ fame, syndicated columnist George Will. Often referred to as one of the “smartest men in America”, the highly articulate Will, depending on what day it is, will vacillate between sublime brilliance and stupendous sophistry. As an Establishment-approved ‘conservative’, this is not surprising. The Leftist-Globalist PRC (Predatory Ruling Class) will allow Will to shine ‘from the Right’ from time to time; but when it comes time for all hands (Left and Right) to come on deck in service of a major Globalist agenda battle, count on Boy Georgie to slather on the seditious sophistry.

And at this point in history, there is no agenda item more pressing than the vilification of Vladimir Putin. Enter, from stage Right: Vladimir Putin’s Hitlerian Mind, by George Will, with line-by-line block rebuttal by your logically sound intrepid reporter.

-snip
http://truthmachine2014.wordpress.co...ladimir-putin/

The whole thing's worth the read.
__________________
With Jews, We Lose.
 
Old September 11th, 2014 #2525
Serbian
Senior Member
 
Serbian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 21,679
Default

A little bit of song to break the seriousness of the topic. Local Donetsk Deep Purple cover band. 2.36 a groupie?

__________________
Christianity and Feminism, the two deadliest poisons jews gave to the White Race


''Screw your optics, I'm going in'', American hero Robert Gregory Bowers
 
Old September 11th, 2014 #2526
Serbian
Senior Member
 
Serbian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 21,679
Default

German woman Margarita Zaidler who converted to Orthodox Christianity and went to East Ukraine to fight with the resistance, she was together with Strelkov at Slavyansk. She also speaks Russian.

Margaret Seidler, "The West is actively implementing provocateurs into the territory of the Russian Federation." first part

Volunteer from Germany described how Europe is becoming a modern Sodom, the methods Psy in the Ukrainian media and on the militias who are fighting for Christ.





__________________
Christianity and Feminism, the two deadliest poisons jews gave to the White Race


''Screw your optics, I'm going in'', American hero Robert Gregory Bowers

Last edited by Serbian; September 11th, 2014 at 12:33 AM.
 
Old September 11th, 2014 #2527
Serbian
Senior Member
 
Serbian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 21,679
Default

Globalist Greg Johnson will be happy to hear

Ukraine President Poroshenko invited to address U.S. Congress

WASHINGTON Wed Sep 10, 2014 11:55am EDT




(Reuters) - Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko has been invited to address a joint meeting of the U.S. Congress, congressional leaders said on Wednesday, an honor intended to underscore Washington's commitment to his country as it battles separatist pro-Russian rebels.

Republican John Boehner, the speaker of the House of Representatives, invited Poroshenko to address a meeting of the House and U.S. Senate on Sept. 18.

"Having President Poroshenko address Congress is another signal of our steadfast commitment to the aspirations of his people," Boehner said in a statement. "It will be an honor and a privilege to welcome him to the United States Capitol."

Foreign heads of states and heads of government have been invited to address joint meetings of Congress since the early 1800s, normally to underscore their countries' close allegiance with the United States.

The last such address by a foreign leader was South Korean President Park Geun-hye's more than a year ago, on May 8, 2013.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0H51TI20140910
__________________
Christianity and Feminism, the two deadliest poisons jews gave to the White Race


''Screw your optics, I'm going in'', American hero Robert Gregory Bowers
 
Old September 11th, 2014 #2528
StanSikorski
Mechanic
 
StanSikorski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: On a darkening planet
Posts: 1,469
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Serbian View Post
A little bit of song to break the seriousness of the topic. Local Donetsk Deep Purple cover band. 2.36 a groupie?
RAWK! \m/(><)\m/
 
Old September 11th, 2014 #2529
Serbian
Senior Member
 
Serbian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 21,679
jewsign

Kike Krauthammer would make a good addition to Counter-Currents, as would other chosenite Washington Post Russia/Ukraine 'truth tellers' Anne Applebaum Jennifer Rubin and Marc Thiessen.


Ukraine abandoned

By Charles Krauthammer Opinion writer September 4

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...d02_story.html

__________________
Christianity and Feminism, the two deadliest poisons jews gave to the White Race


''Screw your optics, I'm going in'', American hero Robert Gregory Bowers

Last edited by Serbian; September 11th, 2014 at 02:31 AM.
 
Old September 11th, 2014 #2530
Robbie Key
Senior Member
 
Robbie Key's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,399
Blog Entries: 8
Default

[article on neo-nazi batallion Azov, claims they are financed by oligarch Taruta]

Quote:
Despite the desire of many in the Azov to bring violence to Kiev when the war in the east is over, the battalion receives funding and assistance from the governor of Donetsk region, the oligarch Serhiy Taruta. An aide to Taruta, Alex Kovzhun, said the political views of individual members of Azov were not an issue, and denied that the battalion's symbol had Nazi undertones.

"The views of some of them is their own affair as long as they do not break the law," said Kovzhun in written answers to questions. "And the symbol is not Nazi. Trust me – some of my family died in concentration camps, so I have a well-developed nose for Nazi shit."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...aine-neo-nazis

Taruta is a jew according to this article:

Quote:
Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, Jews in Ukraine say discrimination has decreased, at least officially: Quotas are gone, and passports no longer list "nationality." And in Ukraine's heavily industrialized eastern Donbas region (which includes Donetsk), they have mixed into the diverse population of laborers coming from across the vast Soviet Union to work in the mines and factories.

As a result, the population became mixed ethnically, too. Statistics are inexact, but it’s extremely common to hear a Ukrainian describe themselves as “Ukrainian, Russian, and some Jewish.” As in Russia, many of Ukraine’s prominent oligarchs are Jewish, including Sergei Taruta and Igor Kolomoisky, the newly appointed governors of Donetsk and Dnipropetrovsk, respectively. Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk also has a mixed background of Ukrainian and Jewish.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europ...e-us-out-of-it
 
Old September 11th, 2014 #2531
Robbie Key
Senior Member
 
Robbie Key's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,399
Blog Entries: 8
Red face

[Brown Johnson's friends in kike sector at it again]

STATEMENT "LEGAL SECTOR" ON REGULAR LIE HEAD THE RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTRY

SEPTEMBER 4TH, 18:24

Today at a press briefing Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov made a false statement about another internal Ukrainian affairs.
In particular, he said that the leader of "the right sector" Dmitry Jarosz "questions the legitimacy" of President Poroshenko.
In addition, Lavrov said that Dmitry Jarosz "spoke against any steps to stop the violence."

"Right sector" claims that these statements are cynical attempt Mr. Lavrov throw a stone of contention between the president and the leader of Ukraine "Legal sector" during the height of Russian aggression.
"Right sector" has repeatedly stated its support for the actions of the President to establish constitutional order and protection of the sovereignty of Ukraine. repeated support for kike Valtzman serving the neocon-jews. territorial integrity for what? what's the point of it if you're being run by jews anyway?

However, "Right sector" consistently defends stance on the territorial integrity of Ukraine and is ready to defend it with arms.
We remind you that the leader of "the right sector," Dmitri Yarosh, clearly stated that "you can not shake the situation in the country. Demolish the existing power during the war until it goes to outright treason, in any case impossible. For Putin will come to Kyiv. "

"Right sector" believes that these issues are generally not the subject of discussion for Mr Lavrov. He and his mad Fuhrer better focus on defense tactics during a Nuremberg Trials. greggy's 'jew-wise' racial nationalists. the fuck are they even going on about.

https://translate.google.se/translat...%2F&edit-text=

[I don't understand what kind of nationalism these guys represent, they seem like some sort of neocons clothed in ethnic chauvinism. very weird, I can't think of any parties like these (Svoboda and Right Sector) in western Europe.]

Last edited by Robbie Key; September 11th, 2014 at 09:40 AM.
 
Old September 11th, 2014 #2532
M. Issig
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 459
Default

They appear almost human.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Serbian View Post
....
 
Old September 11th, 2014 #2533
zoomcopter
Senior Member
 
zoomcopter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: The goyim reservation
Posts: 5,944
Blog Entries: 4
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Serbian View Post
Yes Cohen is really the only one who is currently putting out what seems as a calm reasonable and balanced view with regards to Russia/Putin/Ukraine . He is alone in an ocean of anti Putin hysteria currently engulfing US media and politics. From what I hear he has been attacked for this and even blocked from being invited again onto news shows.

As with jews like Gilad Atzmon Norman Finkelstein and other 'black sheep' I have to quetion the motives.

As we can see Cohen has the same final goal in mind as his fellow jews but just wants to go about it in a different more diplomatic way, as he probably thinks that this way will bring better results.
Cohen
Yes, the Jewish hive mentality has room for honey bees as well as killer bees, as long as both groups have the same end goal which is to weaken Russia and strengthen the Jews.
__________________
Vladimir Putin's Russia is being attacked by the very same forces that attacked Hitler's Germany, namely the Jews. The fate of the world hangs on Putin defeating the Jews.
 
Old September 11th, 2014 #2534
ohgolly
Senior Member
 
ohgolly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Florida CSA
Posts: 1,904
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M. Issig View Post
They appear almost human.
Not really. More like snakes.
__________________
With Jews, We Lose.
 
Old September 11th, 2014 #2535
Jimmy Marr
Moderator
 
Jimmy Marr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Jew S. A.
Posts: 3,679
Default

Just started listening. Sounds as though this could be important:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0-j...ature=youtu.be
 
Old September 11th, 2014 #2536
Robbie Key
Senior Member
 
Robbie Key's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,399
Blog Entries: 8
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Marr View Post
Just started listening. Sounds as though this could be important:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0-j...ature=youtu.be
According to Vineyard Saker it seems like this is a huge thing:

Quote:
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2014

BREAKING NEWS - Strelkov makes a historical press conference!
Dear friends,

I just wanted to share with you the news that Igor Strelkov has made a truly historical press conference. For those understanding Russian, please see here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUQeJHqNZFs

As soon as I get a translation or, better, a subtitled video I will post it here.

At this point I will only say that his statements are both very powerful and very subtle and a very careful analysis of his statements needs to be made. What is certain is that this will rock the Russian political scene in a most positive way. Great news!!

Stay tuned and kind regards,

The Saker
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.se/201...istorical.html
 
Old September 11th, 2014 #2537
ohgolly
Senior Member
 
ohgolly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Florida CSA
Posts: 1,904
Default

Strelkov merely observes reality. Everything is earth-shattering to the effeminate Saker.
__________________
With Jews, We Lose.
 
Old September 11th, 2014 #2538
Robbie Key
Senior Member
 
Robbie Key's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,399
Blog Entries: 8
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ohgolly View Post
Strelkov merely observes reality. Everything is earth-shattering to the effeminate Saker.
I agree that Saker gets overly fired up about things sometimes, but it sounded on Strelkov that something big was going to happen in the near future. I'm not sure exactly what kind of event though.

Anyway, that man is a true Russian patriot and worthy of respect. Note that he also fought with the Serbs back in the 90's. He knows what's going on.

Last edited by Robbie Key; September 11th, 2014 at 01:57 PM.
 
Old September 11th, 2014 #2539
ohgolly
Senior Member
 
ohgolly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Florida CSA
Posts: 1,904
Default

Oh yes, I admire Strelkov, although I have no idea of the military politics he's involved in. it's obvious who the good guys are in this thing. Except to Greg Johnson.
__________________
With Jews, We Lose.
 
Old September 11th, 2014 #2540
Dawn Cannon
Senior Member
 
Dawn Cannon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: The Vampire Ball
Posts: 6,409
Default West's attempts to provoke tensions futile

West's attempts to provoke tensions futile: Lavrov

MOSCOW, Sept. 11 (Xinhua) -- Periodical tension in international relations is inevitable, but those who provoke it must understand the attempts to impose their will on the changing world are futile, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Thursday.

The difficult periods are inevitable in international relations but they will end sooner or later, including the current tensions. Everyone must understand that the world would never be unipolar anymore (fuck globalism), Lavrov said in an interview published at the ministry's website.

The West has been at the crossroads now: whether it wants to preserve global domination or to negotiate with emerging powers, the minister said.


To isolate Russia has always been the task of Washington and some European countries.

This is why Russia cannot turn a blind eye to the West's punishment, he said, adding that Russia is only responding to those sanctions.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/wo..._133636514.htm
__________________
The Bloodbath is Coming
7.6 billion savages multiplying and running wild over the earth, devouring everything in sight, trampling over every other lifeform without mercy or compassion.
 
Reply

Tags
#1

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:14 PM.
Page generated in 0.79296 seconds.