Voices from Russia

Sunday, 20 January 2013

Do Traditional Values Have a Future?


My Family from Age to Age

Tatiana Mikhedova



On 27 September 2012, the UN Human Rights Council adopted a resolution submitted by Russia on “Promoting Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms through a Better Understanding of Traditional Values of Mankind: Best Practises”. More than 60 states sponsored this initiative, including, collectively, members of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and the League of Arab States. The resolution reiterates the idea that understanding of and respect for traditional values both encourage and facilitate the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

We strongly believe that all cultures and civilisations, in their traditions, religions, and beliefs, share a common set of values that belong to mankind in its entirety, and that those values have made an important contribution to the development of human rights, norms, and standards. The family, society, and educational institutions all play key roles in asserting these values. In a broader sense, traditions underpin national identity. It’s widely-recognised that manifestations and symbols of national identity unite people and underpin their sense of national pride, community, and continuity. It’d be no exaggeration to say that traditional values are the backbone of every society and define its existence. By protecting traditional values, we protect our societies from destabilisation, the erosion of fundamental moral principles, loss of national identity, and basic cultural codes. It’s clear that safeguarding human rights goes hand in hand with preserving traditional values.

The resolution that Russia initiated calls on UN member states to recognise and reaffirm the vital role of traditional values in promoting human rights. This is the third resolution in this vein adopted by the Human Rights Council since 2009. However, a few states, namely the USA and some EU members, voted against it. Their position is quite clear… they see traditional values as a way of justifying human rights abuses, particularly against those considered the most vulnerable members of society. Such arguments and unwillingness to collaborate on the draft are regrettable. Russia is open to dialogue and cooperation in this sphere, but we think that no state or group of states has the right to speak on human rights in the name of the entire international community. After all, we have universal instruments, such as the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, amongst others. However, in some regions, the concept of human rights evolved considerably beyond that common denominator. Imposing that outcome on others isn’t an option. What, then, can we do?

I’m convinced that human rights issues should draw nations together, and that the Human Rights Council should focus on finding ways to accentuate the fact that human rights don’t exist in a societal vacuum. They didn’t emerge from nowhere. If traditional values crumble, so will human rights, since that would destroy the moral fabric that holds society together. It isn’t about which come first. There’s a real need to promote the understanding that human rights and traditional values are interconnected. To this end, it’s important to take into account the cultural, civilisational, historical, and religious heritage of all communities and nations. The concept of traditional values will only benefit from absorbing elements of different cultures. This is even more important now, when this period of global economic crisis puts the very foundations of social cohesion to the test.

17 January 2013

Aleksandr Yakovenko



Editor’s Note:

Let’s keep it simple and focused. The thesis of this essay is that the USA has no right to impose its idiosyncratic notions on the rest of the world under the guise of “human rights” and “traditional values”. This is especially true considering that the USA believes that it has the “right” to “impose” such notions using military force and violence against leaders and/or countries that it doesn’t care for (in addition, “traditional values” is used by the same lot to justify brutality and discrimination against individuals and groups that they don’t like). We, as Orthodox believers, follow the moral ethos and civilisational values of the Orthosphere… not the depraved moneygrubbing “values” and the twisted “morals” of the American élite (we have nothing in common with the crackbrained “Evangelicalsectarianism that cheerleads such rubbish). Note well that some of our clergy and laity have sold out to the American apparat… these people are Sergianists of the worst possible sort. Remember the definition of a “Sergianist”:

One who sells out to the godless powers-that-be for personal power and/or personal gain.

That definition fits Paffhausen, Potapov, Alexander Webster, Lyonyo, Jillions, Dreher, Mattingly, Freddie M-G, and Reardon, amongst others (sorts such as Whiteford and Trenham are simply uninformed louts… they’re not sell-outs… neither are Lebedeff, Roman Krassovsky, Behr, and Bobby K… they’re just First Family apparatchiki). Have a care… there ARE “Chekists in riassas”… and you can find them all on the Right, sucking up to the most extreme and irrational elements in the Republican Party (for instance, Paffhausen, Dreher, Mattingly, and Webster have sold out to the K Street stink-tankers). The worm does turn, doesn’t it?



Saturday, 20 October 2012

MID Slams American Human Rights Record


On Friday, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MID) denounced the human rights record of the USA, citing such problems as the maltreatment of children, breach of privacy, police brutality, secret jails and freedom of expression. The MID presented its report to the lower house of the Federal Assembly of Russia (Russian parliament), the RF Gosduma, which will hold hearings on human rights questions this coming Monday. In a sneak preview for RIA-Novosti, a Gosduma source privy to the document quoted it as saying that hundreds of thousands of children in the USA are mistreated, which resulted in 1,600 deaths in 2010 alone. It made special mention of maltreatment of children adopted from Russia.

Citing American NGOs, the MID noted, “About one police officer in 100 has been involved in criminal abuse, including sexual harassment, indecent behaviour, or rape”. On prisons, it observed, “The USA remains the country with the largest prison population in the world… 2.2 million”. Another concern was secret CIA prisons, in particular, in Poland, Afghanistan, Iraq, Thailand, Morocco, Romania, and Lithuania. The report also criticised American legislation permitting the special services {intelligence and police investigatory agencies: editor} to monitor all private electronic correspondence without a court order. In 2011, they filed more than 1.3 million requests for information on mobile users. The MID pointed up, “Between 2004 and 2007, the number of electronic messages monitored by the American special services rose by 3,000 percent”.

19 October 2012



Editor’s Note:

If you vote for Willard Romney, you vote for someone whose advisors want to bring back the practise of torture at secret sites abroad, without ANY legal oversight. That is, they’re worse than Stalin was… the Stalinists always convened a “troika“, at the least. The American rightwing is so evil that they believe that they’re above all law, human and divine. Here’s what makes it even worse… most of those endorsing torture or carrying it out are “Evangelicals” and “Mormons“… people who are supposedly religious. Such sects aren’t religions in the strict sense, they’re only the religious expression of  the lowest forms of American Exceptionalism.

THIS is why our Church can have nothing to do with Evangelicals or Mormons… they’re enablers of the most vicious and nasty cabal in the world. If you vote for Willard Romney, you vote for a torturer to kick someone in the face, full-force. When that happens, all those who voted for such evil shall have it on their souls. I, for one, shall not. Ponder that well before 6 November…


Monday, 28 May 2012

RF MID Slams US State Department Report On Human Rights in Russia as Non-Objective


On Monday, Konstantin Dolgov, the RF Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MID) Commissioner for Human Rights, Democracy, and the Rule of Law, said that the section of the annual US State Department report States on human rights in the world dealing with Russia wasn’t objective, and he hoped that the US side would use a more balanced approach in future. Last week, the USA presented its annual report on human rights in the world. The report called Iran, North Korea, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Syria, Belarus, and China the worst violators of human rights. It slammed Russia, Egypt, Ethiopia, Malaysia, Algeria, and Cambodia for restricting the activities of NGOs and prohibiting foreign funding for their work.

In comments posted on the official MID website, Dolgov said, “The section on Russia isn’t objective. Unfortunately, our American partners don’t want to notice the major work carried out by the Russian leadership in improving the political and judicial system, the reform of law enforcement and correctional institutions, and in combating corruption. As you must realise, no country is entirely immune from problems in human rights”. Dolgov thinks that Russia expects that the American side will show a more balanced and objective approach to the sphere of human rights, saying, “We reaffirm our openness to the development of constructive and equal dialogue and cooperation with the USA in this area”.

Speaking about the report, Dolgov pointed up that Russia considers the most serious shortcoming of the report was “the overly-used theme of humanitarian and human rights abuse to suit the political interests of the USA and domestic election campaign rhetoric, using an active application of double standards. It’s significant that, once again, the report didn’t provide an analysis of the human rights situation in the USA, whose track record in the human rights field is far from perfect. If the authors of the report claim that it covers all regions of the world equally, it must be consistent”.

In addition, he said, “There’s a one-sided presentation of the material on the human rights situation in the Middle East and North Africa based solely in the context of the so-called ‘Arab Spring’. So, with regard to Libya, as a matter of fact, the main focus of the report tried to justify the violations of international humanitarian law and human rights committed by NATO forces in the military campaign there”.

According to Dolgov, “What’s particularly amazing is the fact that the State Department experts continued to ignore the numerous recommendations of international human rights organisations that Latvia and Estonia do away with the ‘non-citizen’ status of many of their residents, which is a disgrace in modern Europe. The report presents matters in such a way that it blames the hundreds of thousands of Russian-speaking inhabitants of those countries who are victims of discriminatory government policies for their lack of citizenship. This approach on the part of the authors of the report can’t be called anything other than a cynical fraud”.

28 May 2012



Editor’s Note:

NO country has the right to sit in judgement on others, especially not the USA, which is almost the world’s champion in imprisonment (that dubious honour goes to the fanatically pro-US junta in Georgia). Indeed, the US imprisonment rate is far higher than that in Belarus, Russia, and China, for instance. When one considers the brutality and inhumanity of the Texas Department of Corrections, the State Department’s utter cynicism and hypocrisy becomes evident. The smarmy pietism shown by American pols does NOT disguise the horrid reality… the civilians killed in indiscriminate drone strikes, the years-long extralegal detention of “terrorists” in Guantánamo, the torture facilities operated secretly in American client states, or the bullying of weaker states for the benefit of Western oligarchs. I note that the State Department is silent concerning that. Who appointed the USA the moral guardian of the world? Hmm… yes, who? Do note the utter silence following that question, kids…

Yes… the American and NATO bombing of Libya was a naked and brutal act of aggression without any grounding in self-defence (Libya was a socialist state and that TERRIFIES the affluent effluent). I think that there’s a rogue state in the world at the head of an “axis of evil”… and it ISN’T Iran (it’s biggest cheerleader is Wafflin’ Willy, by the way)…


Monday, 30 April 2012

A Tale of Two Britains… The Censorious and Hypocritical Pro-“Democracy” Prig in Russia… The Smirky and Unrepentant Colonialist in the Malvinas… Will the Real Britain Please Stand Up?

A monument to those killed in the RAF terror raids on Hamburg… trust me, the West’s hands are NOT clean…

“On the night of 29 July 1943, 370 persons perished in the air-raid shelter on the Hamburgerstrasse in a bombing raid. Remember these dead. Never again fascism. Never again war”.


THIS is your tax dollars at work in Afghanistan… just think, this little girl suffered from an indiscriminate American air attack so that a fat bastard in a McMansion could get a bigger dividend cheque… fancy that… it’s only “collateral damage“, and they’re only wogs (don’t you want your betters to afford their wetback nannies and buy another piece of bling, you Hard Left ingrate?).


According to the Human Rights and Democracy Report, published on Monday, in 2011, Britain spent 1.25 million UK Pounds (59.6 million Roubles. 2.03 million USD. 1.53 million Euros) to promote human rights and democracy in Russia. The report noted, “The human rights situation in Russia continued to be of concern in 2011. Although President Medvedev emphasised the importance of the rule of law, the Russian government’s support for human rights often appeared ambivalent”. The document, prepared by the British Foreign Office, states that human rights issues remains a top priority in Russian-UK bilateral relations, observing, “Our work with Russian human rights organisations complemented this bilateral engagement, including through funding for projects supporting human rights and democracy, on which we spent 1.25 million pounds in the 2011–12 financial year”.

Amongst the major fields of concern in Russia, British human rights advocates name human rights abuses in the North Caucasus, journalists’ security, women’s and minority rights. According to the report, in 2011, Britain spent 900,000 UK Pounds (42.9 million Roubles. 1.46 million USD. 1.1 million Euros) to fight violations in the North Caucasus via the UK government-backed Conflict Prevention Pool. Britain also funded several Russian non-government organisations, working to ensure journalists’ rights, freedom of expression and assembly, as well as women’s and gay rights. Reporters Without Borders ranked Russia 142 out of 179 countries in their 2011 Press Freedom Index.

30 April 2012




On Monday, Argentina’s new ambassador to London ambushed the British foreign minister over the disputed Malvinas Islands, asking him at a public meeting whether he was ready to “give peace a chance” by opening talks on the islands’ future. Alicia Amalia Castro, formerly the Argentine Ambassador to Venezuela, took up her post in London in March, just as tensions escalated between Britain and Argentina 30 years after they went to war over the South Atlantic islands, known in Spanish as Las Malvinas. Castro’s appointment to a post left vacant since 2008 is part of a drive by Buenos Aires to push the Malvinas issue back up the international agenda.

Setting aside diplomatic niceties, Castro tackled British Foreign Secretary William Hague on the subject as he launched Britain’s annual world review of human rights at a ceremony attended by diplomats, journalists, and rights activists in the opulent surroundings of Lancaster House in London. as Hague took questions from the audience, she asked him, “Seeing that the United Nations and the international community and a large group of Nobel Prize winners urge both countries to (start) negotiations in order to find a pacific and permanent resolution, my question is, ‘Are you ready for dialogue? Are we going to give peace a chance?’” A flustered Hague, sensing that Castro was about to make a long statement, interrupted her several times, pressing her to ask a question before cutting her short with, “Thank you. That’s enough. Stop”. Argentine President Cristina Elisabet Fernández de Kirchner launched a wide-ranging diplomatic offensive to assert Argentina’s claims to the islands, accusing Britain of maintaining “colonial enclaves” and calling on London to open sovereignty talks.


Britain says it’ll agree to talks only if the 3,000 islanders want them… something they show no sign of doing. Answering Castro, Hague said, “Self-determination is a basic political right of the people of the Falkland (sic) Islands … You can count on us always, permanently, to stand by that right”. After Argentina invaded on 2 April 1982, Britain sent a naval task force and recaptured the islands after a 10-week war, with the loss of 255 British and 650 Argentine lives. In the run-up to this year’s 30th anniversary of the war, Argentina protested to the United Nations over British “militarisation” of the South Atlantic and threatened to sue companies involved in oil exploration off the Malvinas. Last month, Argentine sculptor Adolfo Perez Esquivel and six other Nobel Prize peace laureates signed a letter urging Britain to negotiate on the sovereignty of the Malvinas.

Castro told reporters later that Hague hadn’t answered her question, saying, “You can’t say that you’re so good at human rights and democracy if you aren’t open for dialogue”. She said that self-determination doesn’t apply to the islanders in the Malvinas, observing, “Self-determination isn’t a right that every country has or every population has. A province in my country can’t decide if they want to belong to China”. Asked if she intended to make a habit of appearing at Hague’s public events to ask him about the Malvinas, Castro laughed, and she said, “You wait and see”.

Last week, Castro met a junior British foreign minister, Jeremy Browne, handing over notes requesting talks with Britain on air links with the Malvinas and South Atlantic fisheries. Britain maintains that the Malvinas are self-governing and that Argentina must talk to the islanders about such matters. London has controlled the islands since 1833. Argentina claimed the territory since that date, saying it inherited it from Spain on independence, and that Britain expelled an Argentine population from the islands.

30 April 2012

Adrian Croft


As quoted in Yahoo News



The Malvinas… Thirty Years Later

Carlos Latuff



A Mexican view of it all from 2010…

Left-hand Mexican: “The presidents at the Río Summit in Cancun will ask England to return the Malvinas to Argentina”. Right-hand Mexican: “Whilst they’re at it, they also ought to ask the gringos to return Texas and California to us!”


Editor’s Note:

Britain sanctimoniously lectures Russia whilst it occupies the Malvinas by virtue of “Might makes Right” at the same time! What 3,000 kelpers want is of no moment. The territory’s Argentine by right and it only became British by virtue of a 19th century seizure. That does sound like Texas and the American Southwest, doesn’t it? Those areas were Mexican by population, heritage, and culture. Then, Anglo interlopers came in with their slaves in the early 1820s, but they revolted when Mexico abolished slavery (Mexico followed the example of Lord Palmerston). The rebels severed Texas from Mexico, which led to the American seizure of the Southwest in the Mexican-American War (or, “The First North American Incursion”, as the Mexicans call it) a decade later (it was similar to the Nazi plan for Lebensraum in Eastern Europe, only, this time, the black hats won… it explains a lot about the crook political culture behind scummers such as Joe Arpaio and Rick Perry). As US President Ulysses S Grant said later, “The occupation, separation, and annexation of Texas was a conspiracy to acquire territory to bring more slave states into the American Union. … The Southern Rebellion was largely the outgrowth of the Mexican War. Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions. We got our punishment in the most sanguinary and expensive war of modern times. … Generally, the officers of the army were indifferent whether the annexation was consummated or not; but not so all of them. For myself, I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day regard the war, which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory”.

Just as the Malvinas are Argentine by right… Texas and Arizona are Mexican by right… that DOES put a new face on smug Anglo-Saxon holier-than-thou posturing, doesn’t it? I’m not saying that the USA should hand back these territories… I’m just sayin’ that the Anglo-Saxon countries are no better (and no worse) than the rest of mankind. They have NO Manifest Destiny… they have NO “exceptionalism“… they are NOT a “City on a Hill“. Their hands are as bloody as everyone’s else’s are (which makes their posturing absolutely ludicrous and obscene). They have NO right to lecture others… remember the firebombing of Hamburg and the massacre at Wounded Knee… ’nuff said.

Madame… your slip is showing…


Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.