Civil war in Ukraine
- Thread starter pmaitra
- Start date
- Status
sorcerer
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2013
- Messages
- 26,919
- Likes
- 98,473
Czech and Slovak Reservists Memorandum against NATO. "We Reject Fighting in NATO Ranks against Russia"
On January 19th 2015 the facebook group, which combines all members of the CSLA, PS, VMV, SNB in reserve or decommissioned, issued an important memorandum, which has become even more urgent in light of the situation today. A defensive back up location in the event that the group gets "ždisappeared" from Facebook, the group of the same name exists on VK.com. as well.
For the first time since the end of the 2nd World War we see a genuine threat of war yet again. Consequently, we consider it necessary to issue the following statement.
We, the Czechoslovak soldiers in reserve, unanimously reject any participation in battles that are geopolitical acts of aggression of the global elite by way of NATO and the support of our governments.
We swore to defend our homeland the Czech and Slovak Republics. We swore to protect the freedom and independence of our proud and sovereign nations, for which our ancestors laid down their lives in the world wars. We are guided by this oath in a civilian initiative to deal with a crisis situation. Freedom and independence is being jeopardized long time by a system of representative pseudo-democracy, where an elected representative does not have the obligation to advance the interests of voters and in practice, laws represent but the personal interests of the legislators, the interests of political parties and economic interest groups. Our homeland is under the pressure of global elites and economic interest groups, who are doing away with the power of citizens through a system of representative democracy.
Our deliberately flawed constitution and charter of rights and freedoms is being perverted and constitutional laws are violated by legislators themselves. Legislative power is being privatized, executive power is being politicized and judicial power corrupted by lobbying laws and pressure from our governments. The results are an unplayable public deficit, deindustrialization, the privatization of the republic's property and defrauded budgets, food and energy dependence, the privatization of natural resources, pensions and the health of citizens. Our country has been unlawfully divided, looted, indebted, people enslaved and their families liquidated by repossession genocide, national infrastructure transferred into the hands of western corporations. Destructive chaos and despair dominates in the community.
For this reason, we the Czechoslovak soldiers in reserve recognize our military oath and together we come with a vision for the defense of our nations. We unequivocally reject fighting in the ranks of NATO against the Russian federation or other Slavic nations and we likewise intend to stand up firmly through organized civilian pressure against the further liquidation of our democracy, freedom and independence. We are uniting in a crisis situation and by utilizing our civilian and military skills and expertise we intend to create sufficiently strong, organized civil pressure for the period of time necessary to assert our patriotic goals.
We swore allegiance to our homeland, the Czech and Slovak Republics.
We, the Czechoslovak reserve soldiers,
will fulfill this oath!
Czech and Slovak Reservists Memorandum against NATO. “We Reject Fighting in NATO Ranks against Russia” | Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization
===
On January 19th 2015 the facebook group, which combines all members of the CSLA, PS, VMV, SNB in reserve or decommissioned, issued an important memorandum, which has become even more urgent in light of the situation today. A defensive back up location in the event that the group gets "ždisappeared" from Facebook, the group of the same name exists on VK.com. as well.
For the first time since the end of the 2nd World War we see a genuine threat of war yet again. Consequently, we consider it necessary to issue the following statement.
We, the Czechoslovak soldiers in reserve, unanimously reject any participation in battles that are geopolitical acts of aggression of the global elite by way of NATO and the support of our governments.
We swore to defend our homeland the Czech and Slovak Republics. We swore to protect the freedom and independence of our proud and sovereign nations, for which our ancestors laid down their lives in the world wars. We are guided by this oath in a civilian initiative to deal with a crisis situation. Freedom and independence is being jeopardized long time by a system of representative pseudo-democracy, where an elected representative does not have the obligation to advance the interests of voters and in practice, laws represent but the personal interests of the legislators, the interests of political parties and economic interest groups. Our homeland is under the pressure of global elites and economic interest groups, who are doing away with the power of citizens through a system of representative democracy.
Our deliberately flawed constitution and charter of rights and freedoms is being perverted and constitutional laws are violated by legislators themselves. Legislative power is being privatized, executive power is being politicized and judicial power corrupted by lobbying laws and pressure from our governments. The results are an unplayable public deficit, deindustrialization, the privatization of the republic's property and defrauded budgets, food and energy dependence, the privatization of natural resources, pensions and the health of citizens. Our country has been unlawfully divided, looted, indebted, people enslaved and their families liquidated by repossession genocide, national infrastructure transferred into the hands of western corporations. Destructive chaos and despair dominates in the community.
For this reason, we the Czechoslovak soldiers in reserve recognize our military oath and together we come with a vision for the defense of our nations. We unequivocally reject fighting in the ranks of NATO against the Russian federation or other Slavic nations and we likewise intend to stand up firmly through organized civilian pressure against the further liquidation of our democracy, freedom and independence. We are uniting in a crisis situation and by utilizing our civilian and military skills and expertise we intend to create sufficiently strong, organized civil pressure for the period of time necessary to assert our patriotic goals.
We swore allegiance to our homeland, the Czech and Slovak Republics.
We, the Czechoslovak reserve soldiers,
will fulfill this oath!
Czech and Slovak Reservists Memorandum against NATO. “We Reject Fighting in NATO Ranks against Russia” | Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization
===
sorcerer
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2013
- Messages
- 26,919
- Likes
- 98,473
U.S. Propaganda 101: Illegally Invade Countries, Fund the Media, Call it "Independent"
Foreign Policy Magazine recently had a column called Cranks, Trolls, and Useful Idiots, in which the author, Dalibor Rohac, hunts down "Russia's information warriors" who, he claims, have infested the web with their lies and propaganda on websites potentially paid for by the Russian government.
Rohac writes:
"Throughout the conflict in eastern Ukraine, these sites have systematically regurgitated Russian propaganda, spreading lies, half-truths, and conspiracy theories, often directly translated from Russian sources"¦
The Czech weekly Respekt published a feature article about the mysterious "news" site Aeronet (also known as AENews). Started in 2001 by aviation fans, the domain has changed ownership several times. Since the summer of 2014 it has regularly published articles accusing the new Ukrainian government of fascism and claiming that American and British mercenaries were fighting in eastern Ukraine. (Dalibor Rohac, Cranks, Trolls, and Useful Idiots, Foreign Policy, March 12, 2015)
First let's look at the weakness of the claims in the article.
The author accuses news outlets of doing exactly what he himself and the US mainstream media in general does when reporting about foreign policy issues such as Ukraine: they "systematically [regurgitate US propaganda, spread] lies, half-truths, and conspiracy theories." The advantage they have is that they don't need to translate anything. Apparently for Rohac an article written in Russian has to be Russian propaganda. It's that simple: Russians are just not producing any honest journalistic content. This argument about texts being "directly translated from Russian sources" is not only weak, it is xenophobic.
In addition the author's examples to prove his points are unsound. Aeronet is not the only website to have not only accused but also proven the fascistic nature of the Ukrainian government. Numerous independent media outlets have published countless articles to that effect, demonstrating that several key figures within the unelected government were neo-Nazis and that the Azov Battalion was filled with members linked to neo-Nazi groups:
The Cabinet is not only integrated by the Svoboda and Right Sector (not to mention former members of defunct fascist UNA-UNSO), the two main Neo-Nazi entities have been entrusted with key positions which grant them de facto control over the Armed Forces, Police, Justice and National Security.
While Yatsenuyk's Fatherland Party controls the majority of portfolios and Svoboda Neo-Nazi leader Oleh Tyahnybok was not granted a major cabinet post (apparently at the request of assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland), members of Svoboda and the Right Sector occupy key positions in the areas of Defense, Law Enforcement, Education and Economic Affairs. (Michel Chossudovsky, The U.S. has Installed a Neo-Nazi Government in Ukraine, Global Resarch, March 2014)
Even mainstream media like The Guardian and the BBC admitted that "many members [of the Azov Battalion] have links with neo-Nazi groups", although they downplay their own claims saying that it's "overblown":
"I have nothing against Russian nationalists, or a great Russia," said Dmitry, [a member of the Azov battalion,]"¦ "But Putin's not even a Russian. Putin's a Jew."
The battalion's symbol is reminiscent of the Nazi Wolfsangel, though the battalion claims it is in fact meant to be the letters N and I crossed over each other, standing for "national idea". Many of its members have links with neo-Nazi groups, and even those who laughed off the idea that they are neo-Nazis did not give the most convincing denials. (Shaun Walker, Azov fighters are Ukraine's greatest weapon and may be its greatest threat, The Guardian, September 10, 2014)
Mikael Skillt is a Swedish sniper, with seven years' experience in the Swedish Army and the Swedish National Guard. He is currently fighting with the Azov Battalion, a pro-Ukrainian volunteer armed group in eastern Ukraine"¦. As to his political views, Mr Skillt prefers to call himself a nationalist, but in fact his views are typical of a neo-Nazi"¦
Mr Skillt believes races should not mix. He says the Jews are not white and should not mix with white people. His next project is to go fight for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad because he believes Mr Assad is standing up to "international Zionism". (Dina Newman , Ukraine conflict: 'White power' warrior from Sweden, BBC News, July 16 2014)
As for Rohac's second argument regarding Western mercenaries fighting in Urkaine, in May last year several media reported that mercenaries from the private military company Blackwater now called Academi, were operating in Ukraine. The information came not from the Kremlin but rather from a German news source and was published by the German mainstream newspaper Bild am Sonntag.
About 400 elite mercenaries from the notorious US private security firm Academi (formerly Blackwater) are taking part in the Ukrainian military operation against anti-government protesters in southeastern regions of the country, German media reports.
The Bild am Sonntag newspaper, citing a source in intelligence circles, wrote Sunday that Academi employees are involved in the Kiev military crackdown on pro-autonomy activists in near the town of Slavyansk, in the Donetsk region. (400 US mercenaries 'deployed on ground' in Ukraine military op, RT.com, May 11, 2014)
A few days after the German revelations, the mainstream French Magazine Paris Match published an article including witnesses saying they saw foreign mercenaries on the ground in Ukraine:
Several witness (sic) also said they heard some of the gunmen speaking with strong western Ukraine accents. They also noticed that some of the gunmen appeared to come from the Caucasus area, possibly mercenaries from Chechnya. Other gunmen never spoke a word and seemed foreign to the region. French war photographer Jerome Sessini spent about an hour face to face with the gunmen before they opened fire. « I found that their general attitude and their very precise techniques gave off the impression that they were American mercenaries, or people trained by American mercenaries » said Sessini.
« I can't guarantee this for sure, but I'd give it a 95 per cent, » added the photographer, who frequently interacted with various U.S. security contractors during his years covering the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In Krasnoarmeysk, several of the gunmen were masked or wearing keffieh-style cloaks, which made it difficult to pinpoint whom among them had fired the lethal shots. Alfred De Montesquiou, Revelations on the Krasnoarmeysk Killing, Paris Match, May 15 2014)
In late January this year, an armed man in uniform clearly speaking with an English accent has also been caught on camera by a Ukrainian local news channel. He was later identified as Christopher Garrett aka Leon Swampy. According to RT, he was not the only one:
"Armed people in uniform speaking fluent English with no accent have been spotted in Mariupol in the aftermath of the rocket hit, fuelling allegations that foreign private military contractors are serving among Ukrainian troops. (RT, Ukraine: Military-Clad English-speakers Caught on Camera in Mariupol Shelling Aftermath. Who Are They?, January 26, 2015)
It is also well-documented that the French have been recruiting fighters for Ukraine. Former member of the French Foreign Legion Gaston Besson was a recruiter for the Azov Battalion. More on NATO legions here.
So, as we can see, what the Foreign Policy writer calls "accusations" and "claims" are actually verified and easily verifiable facts for anyone who knows how to use a computer.
He admits "there is no direct evidence linking the Aeronet site to Russia", while suggesting that "it is run by an individual or organization whose motives are closely aligned with those of the Kremlin".
The reasons he invokes to justify the possible link are flimsy at best: "the politics of the site's content, the secrecy surrounding it, and its relatively professional appearance". In addition, Rohac stresses, the Aeronet editor says "he sometimes travels to Moscow for business, adding that he has 'friends in Russia.'" That does not prove anything and would not hold in front of a judge.
The Areonet website is clearly critical of the U.S. and of the anti-Russian propaganda, but that doesn't systematically imply Russian funding. There are numerous Western independent news outlets, including this one, which express a similar view and have no links to the Russian government.
This Foreign Policy piece is typical of the post-9/11 Western mainstream media witch hunt. In today's world, if you publish articles that criticize Western policies and contradict the one-sided Western media narratice, you are either a "conspiracy website" or a shadow propaganda outlet of the Kremlin or whoever is the enemy du jour. What has become obvious to many Western citizens, is that those who are making accusations are committing the misdemeanor. The Western mainstream media has been engaged in war propaganda for Washington for a very long time and has spread numerous conspiracy theories (Iraq's WMDs, the Syrian government using chemical weapons on civilians, Gaddafi forces raping Libyan women on Viagra, among many others).
US-funded "independent" media abroad
While accusations against Russia's "shadow funding" of state-controlled news outlets abound in the Western mainstream media, we hardly, if ever, hear about the U.S. funding of foreign media.
The U.S. government funds media abroad and, most of the time, covers its tracks by giving money to so-called non-governmental organizations (NGOs), which in turn give grants to foreign news outlets aligned with the Western mainstream media narrative.
When Russia does it, the media on the receiving end is described as a state-controlled media. When the U.S engages in this kind of endeavour, however, it is presented in its very own Orwellian way as an effort to "develop an independent media sector abroad". State-funded "independent media?" That sure sounds like an oxymoron.
Since 2007, the US government has directly given at least $25.5 million dollars in grants to various US non-profit organizations for media projects in Ukraine only. On 18 grants, 14 went to Internews Network. A quick look at its website shows it is aligned with the Western mainstream media narrative, thus, with the White House's foreign policy agenda. Among Internews Network's donors are numerous Western governmental agencies and well-known "democracy makers", namely organizations committed to furthering US interests abroad under the guise of defending democracy and human rights. Here are some of them:
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Rockefeller Family & Associates
Rockefeller Foundation John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
John S. and James L Knight Foundation
Google
Open Society Foundations
Omidyar Network
European Commission
Various Ministries of Foreign Affairs and International development Agencies (Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, UK, U.S.)
World Bank Group
Freedom House
National Democratic Institute (NDI) (Demorats' non-profit organization)
National Endowment for Democracy (NED)
Freedom House and the National Endowment for Democracy have proven to be CIA partners in the past. As Robert Parry explained, "Freedom House and the National Endowment for Democracy stress their commitment to freedom of thought and democracy, but both cooperated with a CIA-organized propaganda operation in the 1980s, according to documents released by Ronald Reagan's presidential library."
NED has been connected countless times to "activists" in foreign countries who are opposing governments which do not submit to Washington. In a way, NED has replaced the CIA. On its about page it states that after WWII, "U.S. policy makers resorted to covert means, secretly sending advisers, equipment, and funds to support newspapers and parties under siege in Europe. When it was revealed in the late 1960"²s that some American PVO's were receiving covert funding from the CIA to wage the battle of ideas at international forums, the Johnson Administration concluded that such funding should cease, recommending establishment of "a public-private mechanism" to fund overseas activities openly."
And NED was born. It describes itself as non-governmental even though it is "funded largely by the U.S. Congress"¦ distributing funds to private organizations for the purpose of promoting democracy abroad." Since it is well known and documented that the U.S. has a long history of overthrowing democratically elected left-wing governments and supporting dictatorships around the world, such as Saudi Arabia, NED's "purpose of promoting democracy abroad" is preposterous.
As we can see in these articles from the 70"²s and 80"²s, Johnson's establishment of "a public-private mechanism" to fund overseas activities openly" did not stop CIA media propaganda.
The Center for International Media Assistance (CIMA), a project of the National Endowment for Democracy, published several yearly reports on media development around the world.
The first report was called U.S. Public and Private Funding of Independent Media Development Abroad.
The report's stated goal is to "learn who are the major donors, on what part of the sector they focus (direct assistance to media outlets, journalism training, public information campaigns, improving the legal environment for media, and media management) and what opportunities exist to educate potential donors about the importance of developing independent media as an essential component of democratic societies."
Some of the key findings of the 2007 report were:
- U.S. funding for international media development in 2006—public and private—exceeded $142 million;
- U.S. government funding totaled nearly $69 million;
- Funding from government-supported nonprofit organizations—the National Endowment for Democracy and U.S. Institute of Peace—totaled $13 million
The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Department of State/Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor were the most important governmental donors, respectively giving $ 49,684,000 and $ 11,800,000 in 2006 alone. The number one private donor that same year was the Open Society Institute with $40 million, followed by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, with $7 million.
Particularly of interest is the government's strategy for 2007-2012 outlaid in the report. According to the State Department-U.S. Agency for International Development's Strategic Plan Fiscal Years 2007-2012, the government will "advance media freedom by helping to create and develop independent media outlets"¦"
USAID plays a key role in funding "independent" media overseas, especially in the former Soviet Union:
"As a result of efforts in post-Soviet states to transform state-controlled media into independent media, Europe and Eurasia is the only one of USAID's four geographic bureaus with a designated media development expert." (Ibid.)
The rhetoric used in this report is pure propaganda and does not even bother being logical. It clearly says that the U.S. state is investing money and resources "to transform state-controlled media into independent media". If it is funded by the U.S. state, how can it be labeled independent? What we are led to believe is that Russian-funded media is state-controlled whereas U.S.-funded media is "independent".
For some reason, maybe reason itself, in the 2010 report called U.S. Government Funding for Media Development, the word "independent" has been removed. It states that U.S. funding for foreign media rose "dramatically" between 2005-2010:
"Over the past five years, the U.S. Department of State and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) have spent more than a half billion dollars to support international media development"¦ The State Department and USAID budgets for fiscal year 2010 totaled more than $47.9 billion. Of this sum, less than .3 percent—or $140.7 million—was spent on media development efforts. Still, this represents a 36 percent—or $37.3 million—increase from media development spending in the previous fiscal year and an even more dramatic rise when compared with the $68.9 million spent five years earlier."
The US government even directly funds Russian media. For example, in 2011-2012 USAID gave $2 540 000 in grants for a program called "Independent print media in Russia". The top recipients are Russian organizations FNE and Foundation Finformpolicy Dvl.
It sounds very little but, as we saw earlier, most of the state funding for "media development", in other words for propaganda and political subversion, is channeled through government-funded "non-governmental" organizations such as NED and Freedom House to obscure the origins of the funding. These organizations will surely not give grants to news outlets which oppose the Western mainstream media narrative.
NED's 2012 annual report, for example, shows over $4,6 million in funding for various "freedom of information" programs in Russia alone, including but not limited to: $74,730 "To continue developing an environmental investigative journalism network in Russia" and $80,000 to an organization which "will monitor the use of torture by law enforcement officials through reports in the regional press and consultations offered at its local headquarters. The organization will publicize the results of its monitoring on its website, through partner NGOs, and in local and national media outlets."
If the amount spent by the U.S. government on "independent" media has decreased in recent years, CIMA explains in its 2013 report U.S. Government Funding for Media: Trends and Strategies that it is due to "the cutbacks in media development funding associated with the U.S. drawdowns in Iraq and especially Afghanistan, a drop of $28 million from 2010 to 2012 in South and Central Asia and $17.7 million in the Near East."
Two spikes in U.S. government funding occurred since CIMA started reporting: "The data showed a spike in funding in 2008 as part a major investment in democracy and governance– including media–in Iraq and another in 2010 due to a similar investment in Afghanistan."
This is very telling and completely destroys the "independent media" idea being promoted by the U.S. government and NED. It clearly shows that in the last decade the US government has substantially increased its funding of "independent media" in countries it has illegally invaded and militarily occupied.
How can the U.S. claim to be funding media development to "advance freedom" as claimed in the 2007 report, when the money comes after it has waged illegal wars against countries, killed millions of their citizens, destroyed their infrastructures and militarily occupied them?
If that's not the essence of propaganda and state-controlled media, what is?
About the author:
Julie Lévesque is a journalist and researcher with the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal. She was among the first independent journalists to visit Haiti in the wake of the January 2010 earthquake. In 2011, she was on board "The Spirit of Rachel Corrie", the only humanitarian vessel which penetrated Gaza territorial waters before being shot at by the Israeli Navy.
U.S. Propaganda 101: Illegally Invade Countries, Fund the Media, Call it "Independent" | Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization
Foreign Policy Magazine recently had a column called Cranks, Trolls, and Useful Idiots, in which the author, Dalibor Rohac, hunts down "Russia's information warriors" who, he claims, have infested the web with their lies and propaganda on websites potentially paid for by the Russian government.
Rohac writes:
"Throughout the conflict in eastern Ukraine, these sites have systematically regurgitated Russian propaganda, spreading lies, half-truths, and conspiracy theories, often directly translated from Russian sources"¦
The Czech weekly Respekt published a feature article about the mysterious "news" site Aeronet (also known as AENews). Started in 2001 by aviation fans, the domain has changed ownership several times. Since the summer of 2014 it has regularly published articles accusing the new Ukrainian government of fascism and claiming that American and British mercenaries were fighting in eastern Ukraine. (Dalibor Rohac, Cranks, Trolls, and Useful Idiots, Foreign Policy, March 12, 2015)
First let's look at the weakness of the claims in the article.
The author accuses news outlets of doing exactly what he himself and the US mainstream media in general does when reporting about foreign policy issues such as Ukraine: they "systematically [regurgitate US propaganda, spread] lies, half-truths, and conspiracy theories." The advantage they have is that they don't need to translate anything. Apparently for Rohac an article written in Russian has to be Russian propaganda. It's that simple: Russians are just not producing any honest journalistic content. This argument about texts being "directly translated from Russian sources" is not only weak, it is xenophobic.
In addition the author's examples to prove his points are unsound. Aeronet is not the only website to have not only accused but also proven the fascistic nature of the Ukrainian government. Numerous independent media outlets have published countless articles to that effect, demonstrating that several key figures within the unelected government were neo-Nazis and that the Azov Battalion was filled with members linked to neo-Nazi groups:
The Cabinet is not only integrated by the Svoboda and Right Sector (not to mention former members of defunct fascist UNA-UNSO), the two main Neo-Nazi entities have been entrusted with key positions which grant them de facto control over the Armed Forces, Police, Justice and National Security.
While Yatsenuyk's Fatherland Party controls the majority of portfolios and Svoboda Neo-Nazi leader Oleh Tyahnybok was not granted a major cabinet post (apparently at the request of assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland), members of Svoboda and the Right Sector occupy key positions in the areas of Defense, Law Enforcement, Education and Economic Affairs. (Michel Chossudovsky, The U.S. has Installed a Neo-Nazi Government in Ukraine, Global Resarch, March 2014)
Even mainstream media like The Guardian and the BBC admitted that "many members [of the Azov Battalion] have links with neo-Nazi groups", although they downplay their own claims saying that it's "overblown":
"I have nothing against Russian nationalists, or a great Russia," said Dmitry, [a member of the Azov battalion,]"¦ "But Putin's not even a Russian. Putin's a Jew."
The battalion's symbol is reminiscent of the Nazi Wolfsangel, though the battalion claims it is in fact meant to be the letters N and I crossed over each other, standing for "national idea". Many of its members have links with neo-Nazi groups, and even those who laughed off the idea that they are neo-Nazis did not give the most convincing denials. (Shaun Walker, Azov fighters are Ukraine's greatest weapon and may be its greatest threat, The Guardian, September 10, 2014)
Mikael Skillt is a Swedish sniper, with seven years' experience in the Swedish Army and the Swedish National Guard. He is currently fighting with the Azov Battalion, a pro-Ukrainian volunteer armed group in eastern Ukraine"¦. As to his political views, Mr Skillt prefers to call himself a nationalist, but in fact his views are typical of a neo-Nazi"¦
Mr Skillt believes races should not mix. He says the Jews are not white and should not mix with white people. His next project is to go fight for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad because he believes Mr Assad is standing up to "international Zionism". (Dina Newman , Ukraine conflict: 'White power' warrior from Sweden, BBC News, July 16 2014)
As for Rohac's second argument regarding Western mercenaries fighting in Urkaine, in May last year several media reported that mercenaries from the private military company Blackwater now called Academi, were operating in Ukraine. The information came not from the Kremlin but rather from a German news source and was published by the German mainstream newspaper Bild am Sonntag.
About 400 elite mercenaries from the notorious US private security firm Academi (formerly Blackwater) are taking part in the Ukrainian military operation against anti-government protesters in southeastern regions of the country, German media reports.
The Bild am Sonntag newspaper, citing a source in intelligence circles, wrote Sunday that Academi employees are involved in the Kiev military crackdown on pro-autonomy activists in near the town of Slavyansk, in the Donetsk region. (400 US mercenaries 'deployed on ground' in Ukraine military op, RT.com, May 11, 2014)
A few days after the German revelations, the mainstream French Magazine Paris Match published an article including witnesses saying they saw foreign mercenaries on the ground in Ukraine:
Several witness (sic) also said they heard some of the gunmen speaking with strong western Ukraine accents. They also noticed that some of the gunmen appeared to come from the Caucasus area, possibly mercenaries from Chechnya. Other gunmen never spoke a word and seemed foreign to the region. French war photographer Jerome Sessini spent about an hour face to face with the gunmen before they opened fire. « I found that their general attitude and their very precise techniques gave off the impression that they were American mercenaries, or people trained by American mercenaries » said Sessini.
« I can't guarantee this for sure, but I'd give it a 95 per cent, » added the photographer, who frequently interacted with various U.S. security contractors during his years covering the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In Krasnoarmeysk, several of the gunmen were masked or wearing keffieh-style cloaks, which made it difficult to pinpoint whom among them had fired the lethal shots. Alfred De Montesquiou, Revelations on the Krasnoarmeysk Killing, Paris Match, May 15 2014)
In late January this year, an armed man in uniform clearly speaking with an English accent has also been caught on camera by a Ukrainian local news channel. He was later identified as Christopher Garrett aka Leon Swampy. According to RT, he was not the only one:
"Armed people in uniform speaking fluent English with no accent have been spotted in Mariupol in the aftermath of the rocket hit, fuelling allegations that foreign private military contractors are serving among Ukrainian troops. (RT, Ukraine: Military-Clad English-speakers Caught on Camera in Mariupol Shelling Aftermath. Who Are They?, January 26, 2015)
It is also well-documented that the French have been recruiting fighters for Ukraine. Former member of the French Foreign Legion Gaston Besson was a recruiter for the Azov Battalion. More on NATO legions here.
So, as we can see, what the Foreign Policy writer calls "accusations" and "claims" are actually verified and easily verifiable facts for anyone who knows how to use a computer.
He admits "there is no direct evidence linking the Aeronet site to Russia", while suggesting that "it is run by an individual or organization whose motives are closely aligned with those of the Kremlin".
The reasons he invokes to justify the possible link are flimsy at best: "the politics of the site's content, the secrecy surrounding it, and its relatively professional appearance". In addition, Rohac stresses, the Aeronet editor says "he sometimes travels to Moscow for business, adding that he has 'friends in Russia.'" That does not prove anything and would not hold in front of a judge.
The Areonet website is clearly critical of the U.S. and of the anti-Russian propaganda, but that doesn't systematically imply Russian funding. There are numerous Western independent news outlets, including this one, which express a similar view and have no links to the Russian government.
This Foreign Policy piece is typical of the post-9/11 Western mainstream media witch hunt. In today's world, if you publish articles that criticize Western policies and contradict the one-sided Western media narratice, you are either a "conspiracy website" or a shadow propaganda outlet of the Kremlin or whoever is the enemy du jour. What has become obvious to many Western citizens, is that those who are making accusations are committing the misdemeanor. The Western mainstream media has been engaged in war propaganda for Washington for a very long time and has spread numerous conspiracy theories (Iraq's WMDs, the Syrian government using chemical weapons on civilians, Gaddafi forces raping Libyan women on Viagra, among many others).
US-funded "independent" media abroad
While accusations against Russia's "shadow funding" of state-controlled news outlets abound in the Western mainstream media, we hardly, if ever, hear about the U.S. funding of foreign media.
The U.S. government funds media abroad and, most of the time, covers its tracks by giving money to so-called non-governmental organizations (NGOs), which in turn give grants to foreign news outlets aligned with the Western mainstream media narrative.
When Russia does it, the media on the receiving end is described as a state-controlled media. When the U.S engages in this kind of endeavour, however, it is presented in its very own Orwellian way as an effort to "develop an independent media sector abroad". State-funded "independent media?" That sure sounds like an oxymoron.
Since 2007, the US government has directly given at least $25.5 million dollars in grants to various US non-profit organizations for media projects in Ukraine only. On 18 grants, 14 went to Internews Network. A quick look at its website shows it is aligned with the Western mainstream media narrative, thus, with the White House's foreign policy agenda. Among Internews Network's donors are numerous Western governmental agencies and well-known "democracy makers", namely organizations committed to furthering US interests abroad under the guise of defending democracy and human rights. Here are some of them:
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Rockefeller Family & Associates
Rockefeller Foundation John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
John S. and James L Knight Foundation
Open Society Foundations
Omidyar Network
European Commission
Various Ministries of Foreign Affairs and International development Agencies (Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, UK, U.S.)
World Bank Group
Freedom House
National Democratic Institute (NDI) (Demorats' non-profit organization)
National Endowment for Democracy (NED)
Freedom House and the National Endowment for Democracy have proven to be CIA partners in the past. As Robert Parry explained, "Freedom House and the National Endowment for Democracy stress their commitment to freedom of thought and democracy, but both cooperated with a CIA-organized propaganda operation in the 1980s, according to documents released by Ronald Reagan's presidential library."
NED has been connected countless times to "activists" in foreign countries who are opposing governments which do not submit to Washington. In a way, NED has replaced the CIA. On its about page it states that after WWII, "U.S. policy makers resorted to covert means, secretly sending advisers, equipment, and funds to support newspapers and parties under siege in Europe. When it was revealed in the late 1960"²s that some American PVO's were receiving covert funding from the CIA to wage the battle of ideas at international forums, the Johnson Administration concluded that such funding should cease, recommending establishment of "a public-private mechanism" to fund overseas activities openly."
And NED was born. It describes itself as non-governmental even though it is "funded largely by the U.S. Congress"¦ distributing funds to private organizations for the purpose of promoting democracy abroad." Since it is well known and documented that the U.S. has a long history of overthrowing democratically elected left-wing governments and supporting dictatorships around the world, such as Saudi Arabia, NED's "purpose of promoting democracy abroad" is preposterous.
As we can see in these articles from the 70"²s and 80"²s, Johnson's establishment of "a public-private mechanism" to fund overseas activities openly" did not stop CIA media propaganda.
The Center for International Media Assistance (CIMA), a project of the National Endowment for Democracy, published several yearly reports on media development around the world.
The first report was called U.S. Public and Private Funding of Independent Media Development Abroad.
The report's stated goal is to "learn who are the major donors, on what part of the sector they focus (direct assistance to media outlets, journalism training, public information campaigns, improving the legal environment for media, and media management) and what opportunities exist to educate potential donors about the importance of developing independent media as an essential component of democratic societies."
Some of the key findings of the 2007 report were:
- U.S. funding for international media development in 2006—public and private—exceeded $142 million;
- U.S. government funding totaled nearly $69 million;
- Funding from government-supported nonprofit organizations—the National Endowment for Democracy and U.S. Institute of Peace—totaled $13 million
The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Department of State/Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor were the most important governmental donors, respectively giving $ 49,684,000 and $ 11,800,000 in 2006 alone. The number one private donor that same year was the Open Society Institute with $40 million, followed by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, with $7 million.
Particularly of interest is the government's strategy for 2007-2012 outlaid in the report. According to the State Department-U.S. Agency for International Development's Strategic Plan Fiscal Years 2007-2012, the government will "advance media freedom by helping to create and develop independent media outlets"¦"
USAID plays a key role in funding "independent" media overseas, especially in the former Soviet Union:
"As a result of efforts in post-Soviet states to transform state-controlled media into independent media, Europe and Eurasia is the only one of USAID's four geographic bureaus with a designated media development expert." (Ibid.)
The rhetoric used in this report is pure propaganda and does not even bother being logical. It clearly says that the U.S. state is investing money and resources "to transform state-controlled media into independent media". If it is funded by the U.S. state, how can it be labeled independent? What we are led to believe is that Russian-funded media is state-controlled whereas U.S.-funded media is "independent".
For some reason, maybe reason itself, in the 2010 report called U.S. Government Funding for Media Development, the word "independent" has been removed. It states that U.S. funding for foreign media rose "dramatically" between 2005-2010:
"Over the past five years, the U.S. Department of State and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) have spent more than a half billion dollars to support international media development"¦ The State Department and USAID budgets for fiscal year 2010 totaled more than $47.9 billion. Of this sum, less than .3 percent—or $140.7 million—was spent on media development efforts. Still, this represents a 36 percent—or $37.3 million—increase from media development spending in the previous fiscal year and an even more dramatic rise when compared with the $68.9 million spent five years earlier."
The US government even directly funds Russian media. For example, in 2011-2012 USAID gave $2 540 000 in grants for a program called "Independent print media in Russia". The top recipients are Russian organizations FNE and Foundation Finformpolicy Dvl.
It sounds very little but, as we saw earlier, most of the state funding for "media development", in other words for propaganda and political subversion, is channeled through government-funded "non-governmental" organizations such as NED and Freedom House to obscure the origins of the funding. These organizations will surely not give grants to news outlets which oppose the Western mainstream media narrative.
NED's 2012 annual report, for example, shows over $4,6 million in funding for various "freedom of information" programs in Russia alone, including but not limited to: $74,730 "To continue developing an environmental investigative journalism network in Russia" and $80,000 to an organization which "will monitor the use of torture by law enforcement officials through reports in the regional press and consultations offered at its local headquarters. The organization will publicize the results of its monitoring on its website, through partner NGOs, and in local and national media outlets."
If the amount spent by the U.S. government on "independent" media has decreased in recent years, CIMA explains in its 2013 report U.S. Government Funding for Media: Trends and Strategies that it is due to "the cutbacks in media development funding associated with the U.S. drawdowns in Iraq and especially Afghanistan, a drop of $28 million from 2010 to 2012 in South and Central Asia and $17.7 million in the Near East."
Two spikes in U.S. government funding occurred since CIMA started reporting: "The data showed a spike in funding in 2008 as part a major investment in democracy and governance– including media–in Iraq and another in 2010 due to a similar investment in Afghanistan."
This is very telling and completely destroys the "independent media" idea being promoted by the U.S. government and NED. It clearly shows that in the last decade the US government has substantially increased its funding of "independent media" in countries it has illegally invaded and militarily occupied.
How can the U.S. claim to be funding media development to "advance freedom" as claimed in the 2007 report, when the money comes after it has waged illegal wars against countries, killed millions of their citizens, destroyed their infrastructures and militarily occupied them?
If that's not the essence of propaganda and state-controlled media, what is?
About the author:
Julie Lévesque is a journalist and researcher with the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal. She was among the first independent journalists to visit Haiti in the wake of the January 2010 earthquake. In 2011, she was on board "The Spirit of Rachel Corrie", the only humanitarian vessel which penetrated Gaza territorial waters before being shot at by the Israeli Navy.
U.S. Propaganda 101: Illegally Invade Countries, Fund the Media, Call it "Independent" | Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization
So,will Greece "ally" with Russia for some $$ ?
hellooo
who wants to speak for more sunctions..?
I guess yes.
pmaitra
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2009
- Messages
- 33,262
- Likes
- 19,598
Did MoD say anything contrary to what was reported? Did MoD confirm that those 5 planes are with Antonov? Did the MoD know the whereabouts of those planes as of 28th of April? Do you have any better information to present? Obviously not. Why don't you ask the MoD representative?
Regarding Ukrainian Ministry, not interested, because the people who seized power after the coup are not reliable, and corrupt to the core. They have not bothered to issue proper equipment to their own soldiers, so what are the chances they will bother about doing everything properly with those Indian planes?
Sorry, unlike you, I don't have much faith in a bunch of neo-Nazis in control in Kiev.
pmaitra
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2009
- Messages
- 33,262
- Likes
- 19,598
The Guardian has become totally retarded lately, hasn't it? The person who authored the title, aptly named "Ash," seems to have expertise in writing inflammatory comments on YouTube.
An interesting video:
LiveLeak.com - 08.04.2015 Ukraine Crisis News
Posting this due to interesting information about accident of a British SSN.
LiveLeak.com - 08.04.2015 Ukraine Crisis News
Posting this due to interesting information about accident of a British SSN.
Trench warfare circa 2015 showing supposedly "Crotian volunteers":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbQaqfZ3TfQ
Interesting video. Military minds can comment on the military effectiveness of these trenches.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbQaqfZ3TfQ
Interesting video. Military minds can comment on the military effectiveness of these trenches.
I had to take help of Al-Jajeera to present an alternate view of Putin's Russia - a view drastically different from Guardian and CNN.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbN6RzOlrD0
The world changed around 1990. The world is changing again around 2015.
These are dangerous but interesting times. The fact remains that the currency of Putin is GAINING GROUND in the world as USA's policy creates wreckage in one country after another.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbN6RzOlrD0
The world changed around 1990. The world is changing again around 2015.
These are dangerous but interesting times. The fact remains that the currency of Putin is GAINING GROUND in the world as USA's policy creates wreckage in one country after another.
jouni
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2014
- Messages
- 3,900
- Likes
- 1,138
Here is a guide for anybody interested in how to make trenches that will stop even the strongest armies in th world. Guaranteed. Actually these are tested on the Russians, @Akim you are welcommed to use these in you regions.
Last edited by a moderator:
jouni
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2014
- Messages
- 3,900
- Likes
- 1,138
Al Jazeera is actually quite good channel!
pmaitra
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2009
- Messages
- 33,262
- Likes
- 19,598
And the test results were territorial loss leading to loss of the war. If the Kiev regime adopts this strategy, that will guarantee that the Kiev regime will lose more territory.
The US foreign policy has managed to kill millions and wreck havoc all across the Arab world. Is it any surprise that Al-Jazeera will not toe the US line. All said, Al-Jazeera still represents the Sunni side of the argument.
Last edited by a moderator:
jouni
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2014
- Messages
- 3,900
- Likes
- 1,138
It is better to loose 10% of your land and then develop to one of the greatest countries in the world, than to gain a small piece of land, neglect it and develop to a pariah poverished autoritarian kleptocracy. ( no reference to any country particular, just example of possible development )
Good argument. You should deliver this message personally to Poroshenko. It seems there is again massing of military equipment near the line of contact, and a preparation for next stage of war is on.
Prometheus
Regular Member
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 400
- Likes
- 344
This article is more related to Russia than Ukraine and/or if the @Mods think it requires another thread, please do as you wish.
ECONOMIC TERRORISM:
Crimean gamers were locked out of playing popular online multiplayer games World of Warcraft and Diablo III on Tuesday, as the games' publisher was forced to suspend the accounts in compliance with Western sanctions.
Major U.S Internet and tech companies such as Apple, Google and PayPal have suspended services to Crimean users over the last year. The United States in December barred U.S.-registered companies from investing in Crimea or providing services to companies there.
Video game developer Blizzard, renowned worldwide for smash-hit titles such as World of Warcraft and the Diablo series of video games joined the chorus on Tuesday, Russian game news site Geektimes.ru reported, citing a copy of the company's notice.
"In accordance with current trade regulations relating to the region of Crimea, we are legally required to suspend access to your Battle.net account," the company's notice read, Geektimes.ru reported.
Blizzard's World of Warcraft is a massive online multiplayer game that has become a global phenomenon, with millions of players subscribed to the game around the world.
Another title published by Blizzard, Diablo III, is no less popular, with 15 million copies sold gaming news site IGN.com reported in February, citing data provided by Blizzard's parent company, Activision.
U.S. Sanctions Block Crimeans From World of Warcraft, Diablo III | Business | The Moscow Times
ECONOMIC TERRORISM:
Crimean gamers were locked out of playing popular online multiplayer games World of Warcraft and Diablo III on Tuesday, as the games' publisher was forced to suspend the accounts in compliance with Western sanctions.
Major U.S Internet and tech companies such as Apple, Google and PayPal have suspended services to Crimean users over the last year. The United States in December barred U.S.-registered companies from investing in Crimea or providing services to companies there.
Video game developer Blizzard, renowned worldwide for smash-hit titles such as World of Warcraft and the Diablo series of video games joined the chorus on Tuesday, Russian game news site Geektimes.ru reported, citing a copy of the company's notice.
"In accordance with current trade regulations relating to the region of Crimea, we are legally required to suspend access to your Battle.net account," the company's notice read, Geektimes.ru reported.
Blizzard's World of Warcraft is a massive online multiplayer game that has become a global phenomenon, with millions of players subscribed to the game around the world.
Another title published by Blizzard, Diablo III, is no less popular, with 15 million copies sold gaming news site IGN.com reported in February, citing data provided by Blizzard's parent company, Activision.
U.S. Sanctions Block Crimeans From World of Warcraft, Diablo III | Business | The Moscow Times
Yep, they are Croats. Hes walking around showcasing various parts of trenches, nothing interesting, it looks more like a facebook video than actual military report. I won't translate anything, there really is nothing interesting he says, just talking talking around randomly like he sees the guy with binoculars and says hes observing (no s**t Sherlock).
@Pmiatra
No, there is no new battlefield for us.
You have to understand, most Serbian "plebs" view Russia and its people as (big) brothers, that respect has built up over centuries and is deeply embedded in national identity and is more often than not, a defining reason of being a Serb. So when Serbian volunteer goes out in Ukraine he has no other reason to be there but defend interests of a brotherly nation. These guys couldn't care less about Ukraine as a nation, Croatia never had any kind of "special" relations or interests in Ukraine, they are out for some deluded reason they have to be men and kill Serbs because of some fictional hatred. Mostly those kind of people are outcast of their own community they have no reason for being there other than being a moron or a mercenary.
But yea, there is a paradox: radical Bosnians mostly run to fight with ISIL, Croats for western world, Serbs for Russians and we all used to live in same prosperous state. Its like a show: put a coin in, place your bets, grab a popcorn and watch it go down.
jouni
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2014
- Messages
- 3,900
- Likes
- 1,138
Last edited by a moderator:
jouni
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2014
- Messages
- 3,900
- Likes
- 1,138
Russians Begin to Count the Cost of Crimea
By Alexei MalashenkoApr. 08 2015 17:43 Last edited 17:44
Maxim Shemetov / Reuters
On March 18, Russia celebrated the first anniversary of its reunification with (or the annexation of) Crimea. The previously jubilant Russian media is now more concerned with Crimean problems and focuses on the difficulties the peninsula faces as a result of joining the Russian Federation. So what conclusions can we draw a year after the annexation of Crimea?
The peninsula has joined the Russian Federation for good. Whoever becomes Russia's next president will not relinquish Crimea. If Crimea became a part of Ukraine again, the next logical steps would be returning Abkhazia and South Ossetia to Georgia and giving the self-proclaimed republic of Transdnestr back to Moldova.
This seems like an impossible scenario. Therefore, Russia's adversaries will be forced to recognize the de facto annexation of Crimea.
From an economic standpoint, Russia gained nothing by annexing Crimea. Russia does not need Crimea. Russia did not even need the city of Sevastopol since a new naval base is already being built in Novorossiysk. Acquiring Crimea has put an additional strain on the modest government budget. It will take a while to integrate Crimea with mainland Russia.
New transportation, utility, and financial infrastructure has to be developed at a cost of trillions of rubles. In a similar fashion, Moscow has now been paying for Chechen stability and reconstruction for more than a decade.
As the post-annexation euphoria dies down, Crimean residents will start feeling the full brunt of Russia's problems — the inflation, the unstoppable corruption, the abuse of power, etc. Crimea cannot remain an oasis of contentment in the midst of the country's stagnation. It will be impossible to modernize the region's vitally important tourism industry within a short period of time. And even if it were, the industry will have to compete with resorts in Egypt, Turkey and, to an extent, Sochi.
Therefore, the elation about joining Russia will soon be tinged with disappointment. Dashed hopes are bound to engender social and political discontent. On top of that, ethnic relations on the peninsula remain tense: 70 to 90 percent of Crimean Tatars (230,000 people or 12 percent of the population) voted against joining Russia.
There is an obvious political impact of the Crimean annexation. The move brought Russia international sanctions and increasing isolation, which have had an increasingly negative effect on its economy in the last 12 months. It appears that the Russian ruling class did not expect the consequences to be so serious.
The ruling class has used Crimea as a tool for consolidating the people around the Kremlin. However, the "Crimea factor" is not likely to play this role for long. Public opinion polls already indicate that Crimea is losing its exceptionalism in the eyes of most Russians.
Russians are just now beginning to realize that the annexation of Crimea has brought them no benefits apart from the pride of living in a country that the rest of the world fears.
Despite the propaganda offensive, the Ukraine conflict no longer attracts as much support as it did before. Sympathy for Ukrainian refugees has also diminished — local authorities proved unprepared for the influx of newcomers, and the local residents have not been eager to welcome them either.
Russia's problems with Crimea and Crimea's problems with Russia will only continue to grow. We will see the effects of this in a year during the celebration of the second anniversary of the reunification. But next time, we can definitely expect less fanfare.
By Alexei MalashenkoApr. 08 2015 17:43 Last edited 17:44
Maxim Shemetov / Reuters
On March 18, Russia celebrated the first anniversary of its reunification with (or the annexation of) Crimea. The previously jubilant Russian media is now more concerned with Crimean problems and focuses on the difficulties the peninsula faces as a result of joining the Russian Federation. So what conclusions can we draw a year after the annexation of Crimea?
The peninsula has joined the Russian Federation for good. Whoever becomes Russia's next president will not relinquish Crimea. If Crimea became a part of Ukraine again, the next logical steps would be returning Abkhazia and South Ossetia to Georgia and giving the self-proclaimed republic of Transdnestr back to Moldova.
This seems like an impossible scenario. Therefore, Russia's adversaries will be forced to recognize the de facto annexation of Crimea.
From an economic standpoint, Russia gained nothing by annexing Crimea. Russia does not need Crimea. Russia did not even need the city of Sevastopol since a new naval base is already being built in Novorossiysk. Acquiring Crimea has put an additional strain on the modest government budget. It will take a while to integrate Crimea with mainland Russia.
New transportation, utility, and financial infrastructure has to be developed at a cost of trillions of rubles. In a similar fashion, Moscow has now been paying for Chechen stability and reconstruction for more than a decade.
As the post-annexation euphoria dies down, Crimean residents will start feeling the full brunt of Russia's problems — the inflation, the unstoppable corruption, the abuse of power, etc. Crimea cannot remain an oasis of contentment in the midst of the country's stagnation. It will be impossible to modernize the region's vitally important tourism industry within a short period of time. And even if it were, the industry will have to compete with resorts in Egypt, Turkey and, to an extent, Sochi.
Therefore, the elation about joining Russia will soon be tinged with disappointment. Dashed hopes are bound to engender social and political discontent. On top of that, ethnic relations on the peninsula remain tense: 70 to 90 percent of Crimean Tatars (230,000 people or 12 percent of the population) voted against joining Russia.
There is an obvious political impact of the Crimean annexation. The move brought Russia international sanctions and increasing isolation, which have had an increasingly negative effect on its economy in the last 12 months. It appears that the Russian ruling class did not expect the consequences to be so serious.
The ruling class has used Crimea as a tool for consolidating the people around the Kremlin. However, the "Crimea factor" is not likely to play this role for long. Public opinion polls already indicate that Crimea is losing its exceptionalism in the eyes of most Russians.
Russians are just now beginning to realize that the annexation of Crimea has brought them no benefits apart from the pride of living in a country that the rest of the world fears.
Despite the propaganda offensive, the Ukraine conflict no longer attracts as much support as it did before. Sympathy for Ukrainian refugees has also diminished — local authorities proved unprepared for the influx of newcomers, and the local residents have not been eager to welcome them either.
Russia's problems with Crimea and Crimea's problems with Russia will only continue to grow. We will see the effects of this in a year during the celebration of the second anniversary of the reunification. But next time, we can definitely expect less fanfare.
- Status
