Voices from Russia

Monday, 8 April 2013

Maggie Thatcher Dies at 87

00 Martin Rowson. She Vanquished the Miners. 2009

She Vanquished the Miners

Martin Rowson



On Monday, Lord Bell, Mrs Thatcher’s spokesman, announced that former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher died at the age of 87 following a stroke, saying, “It’s with great sadness that Mark and Carol Thatcher announced that their mother, Baroness Thatcher, died peacefully following a stroke this morning”. British Prime Minister David Cameron called her a “great Briton”, whilst the Queen expressed her sadness. US President Barack Obama issued a statement, “The world has lost one of the great champions of freedom and liberty, and America has lost a true friend”.

Thatcher was Britain’s first female prime minister, a post she held from 1979 until 1990, when a Conservative Party coup forced her out, following rioting in Trafalgar Square over her unpopular poll tax. Perhaps the most controversial figure in modern British politics, a grocer’s daughter, Thatcher was a committed believer in the free market and an opponent of the culture of a welfare state… or the “nanny state”, as she called it. In 1987, she said, “There’s no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families”.

She took Britain to war in 1982, after Argentina took back the Malvinas Islands, located just off the coast of Argentina. “Rejoice! Rejoice!” she cried after British Marines took a key island, the triumph carrying her to an easy victory in the 1983 national election. Thatcher also famously took on Britain’s once-powerful trades unions, labelling striking miners the “enemy within” during their 1984-85 walkout. Her eventual defeat of the miners’ union changed Britain’s political landscape and made her a hated figure on the left.

A firm ally of US President Ronald Reagan during the Cold War, nevertheless, Thatcher hailed future Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachyov during a 1984 meeting in Britain. Three months later, Gorbachyov became the leader of the USSR. On Monday, Gorbachyov said in a statement, “Margaret Thatcher was a great politician and a striking person”.

Thatcher was nicknamed the “Iron Lady” for her perceived toughness, a moniker that was then picked up by her supporters and critics at home. She also survived an IRA attack on the Brighton hotel she was staying at ahead of a Conservative Party conference. Thatcher’s time in power transformed Britain both politically and culturally, seeing the rise of what critics labelled the “me” culture. Former Cabinet Secretary Lord Butler of Brockwell, who served as Thatcher’s principal private secretary from 1982 to 1985, told RIA-Novosti that Margaret Thatcher was “above all a conviction politician. She had her own principles, whatever trial she faced, be it in the Falklands {i.e., the Malvinas: editor}, the miners’ strike, or the Cold War. She believed in freedom and justice under the law … these were such clear principles that she always knew what direction to take”. Her funeral, with full military honours, will be at London‘s St Paul’s Cathedral.

8 April 2013



Editor’s Note:

Margaret Thatcher, along with Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachyov were amongst the most evil people of the Twentieth Century. They enabled the massively-corrupt and greedy “New World Order” that plundered the world in the nineties and aughts. Their legacy is thousands of shattered lives… but that didn’t matter to them… they were just little people… they weren’t “productive”… they weren’t “successful”… they weren’t “focused on goals and objectives”. The Unholy Trinity brought us the Economic Meltdown of ’07 by dismantling government regulation or by destroying a non-capitalist society. Truly, there’s little to choose between Reagan, Thatcher, and Gorbachyov. All three were anti-Christian destroyers. Again, take note of Mrs Thatcher’s quote:

“There’s no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families”.

That’s utterly repulsive and disgusting. It says that we needn’t take a care for our society or environment, for it isn’t our concern. We need only enrich our families, or ourselves, and to hell with the consequences to society, for “there’s no such thing as society”. That remark reveals the inner character of Mrs Thatcher. Scary, isn’t it? Remember, evil doesn’t wear red tights, carry a pitchfork, or have horns and hooves. It doesn’t raise its voice, it dresses neatly, it’s polite, it “goes along to get along”, and, above all, “Greed is GOOD”.

I hope that Maggie repented of her godless actions, but I fear that she didn’t. Crank world, isn’t it?



Wednesday, 6 June 2012

The Malvinas: Is a Compromise Possible?

Argentine vet José Bratulich in front of the Argentine War Cemetery in Darwin ISLAS MALVINAS (currently under British occupation). About half of the crosses bear the inscription, “Soldado Argentino Solo Conocido Por Dios” (An Argentine Soldier Known Only Unto God)… they “stand vigil” until the day when the islands will bear their proper name, yet again.


It’s highly unlikely that the UK will ever comply with Argentina’s demands for the return of the Malvinas. This territory is a most important strategic point, giving access to Antarctica, with reserves of oil, gas, and other minerals. Juan Recce, Director of the Argentine Centre for International Studies, and founder of the movement “For the Malvinas” expressed his point of view in an exclusive VOR interview.


Maria Dunayeva

This year, the problem of the Malvinas has once again become topical. How does Argentine society perceive the war with the UK today?

Juan Recce

The war over the Malvinas has had an influence on Argentine foreign policy. In 1982, when the war began, it became a turning point. During the last 30 years, a process of acknowledging this event and turning our foreign policy in the direction of peaceful initiatives in Latin America was under way in Argentina. The war over the Malvinas is still a hot topic, because it concerns the strategic agenda of the future of the real economy of Great Britain and the real economies of Argentina and South America. The Malvinas consist of only two main islands, but they are part of the larger system of the South Atlantic, which gives access to Antarctica.

Today, the British prefer not to talk about this, but the Malvinas are their logistic centre for access to Antarctica and the basis of their claims to part of the continent. The Malvinas as part of a single Antarctic system provide access to significant (according to preliminary estimates) oil and gas reserves. Although they’re hard to produce under such severe conditions, they have a sufficient value, taking into account the overall situation with oil and gas reserves in South America. There are also significant deposits of minerals. In the southern part of the Atlantic Ocean, there are complex ore deposits, containing manganese, cobalt ore, and other ore-bearing minerals that one can mine. In fact, the UK and the USA are already mining minerals at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. Of course, when they have the technical and economic facilities, they’ll also start in the southern part of the Atlantic Ocean.

A third very important aspect is the patenting of biological diversity, which is of great importance for pharmaceutical industry. This aspect includes biological diversity, not only of the ocean, but also of Antarctica as a whole. This, too, is connected with the Malvinas, as all British ships sail to Antarctica from there. These issues are of great importance in the long-term strategic agenda and give sense to political conjuncture, leading to verbal arguments between Argentina and the UK.

Maria Dunayeva

Under what conditions could Argentina and the UK agree to a compromise? For example, they could come to an agreement about the joint use of resources.

Juan Recce

I think that the UK isn’t going to return the islands. The UK, and the West in general, headed by UK and the USA, lost the race for control over the real global economy many years ago. Now, they don’t have control over resources, which are in the possession of developing countries… China, India, Brazil, and Russia… and they don’t control the industrial processes, because those have moved to south-east Asia or to South America. This leaves the Western powers with very little space for manoeuvre. Therefore, they need access to resources and control over them. From this point of view, the UK can easily control the Malvinas, which doesn’t entail a large logistic and military cost.

Most likely, I believe that they aren’t going to return the islands. On the other hand, they invented a humanitarian cover for the conflict, that is, the “kelpers”. This is an English-speaking community, of a very small population, that came to live on the islands. Most of them were born in the UK or one of the British overseas territories. From the UN legal criteria standpoint, they aren’t considered a nation, and, therefore, don’t represent a side of the conflict.

Argentina believes that, according to UN General Assembly resolution 2065, the negotiations between Argentina and the UK should be bilateral. However, Great Britain insists that three parties must take part in the talks… the UK, Argentina, and the inhabitants of the islands. That’s why I think that it’s very difficult to achieve something by means of dialogue. It seems to me that there’s a scenario, according to which the inhabitants of the islands (that is, the same third party not included by Argentina in the negotiation process) could appreciate the advantages of joining us under the Argentine Constitution.

In our country, strategic oil, gas, and other mineral resources don’t belong to the central government; they belong to provinces that make up the country. That is, if the inhabitants of the islands choose to join the Argentine Constitution in the capacity of a province, the oil and gas reserves would belong to them. Of course, Argentina would have a significant incidental benefit through a huge expansion of its continental shelf, which would include mineral reserves, biological diversity, and access to Antarctica. Namely, all these things are the basis of the calculations for the UK today.

2 April 2012

Voice of Russia World Service



“To the Heroes of the Malvinas”


Editor’s Note:

Slobberin’ Ronnie shat all over the Monroe Doctrine when he aided the European aggressors in the Malvinas War of 1982. That tells you how far the Republican Party has fallen. They aided the European aggressors in a conflict where an American nation-state simply took back what a European imperialist seized in the 19th century. Under the Rio Pact, the USA had the obligation to come to the aid of an American nation-state under attack from an overseas aggressor. Its central premise is that an attack against one is an attack against all.

Interesting detail, that, isn’t it? However… the leadership element in the Anglosphere view themselves as Übermenschtumen (the concept of the Master Race actually arose in the slave-holding American South… fancy that, the Nazis only copied what the Anglo-Saxons invented), and all others must acknowledge this, or else. There’s an unmentioned codicil to the Rio Pact. That is, the USA would aid an American nation-state invaded by a third party, except when it’s the UK. The English-speaking world is superior to all others and it can attack whom it pleases without any damage to its pristine public image. That’s what they believe; I kid you not. These people brought us the Trail of Tears and the fire-bombing of Hamburg… but that doesn’t count… the Anglo-Saxons are the crème de la crème, dontcha know. No… the Anglo-Saxons are NOT the worst of the worst… but they’re not exemplars, either. They’re sinful-ginfuls, just like the rest of us.

However, the point stands… the USA had an obligation under treaty to have halted the British aggressors, but it didn’t. Let’s put it this way, if the “kelpers” were Italians, the Argentine flag would still fly over the Malvinas. Ponder that. None dare call it racism.


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…


Thursday, 5 April 2012

Lest We Forget… It’s Been 30 Years Since the War for the Malvinas…

Argentine Malvinas War vet José Bratulich in front of the Argentine War Cemetery in Darwin in the Malvinas Islands (presently under British occupation).


Thirty years ago, on 2 April 1982, Argentine forces landed in the Malvinas Islands, which were under British occupation. Britain launched a counter-attack with the full cooperation and support of the USA. Even though the Argentine position was correct, US influence saw to it that it was portrayed in the West as a cruel aggressor (even though Thatcher was the real warmonger in this instance). Ronald Reagan threw his full weight of support to Maggie, in one of the most shameful episodes in American history (it annulled the so-called Monroe Doctrine, as the USA aided a European aggressor in a strike at a country in the Americas). 624 Argentine soldiers, 255 British servicemen, and 3 civilians in the Malvinas died in the ensuing conflict. Their blood is on Slobberin’ Ronnie’s and Maggie Thatcher‘s hands… and neither one was ashamed of it.

The Malvinas remain under the British boot. They’re Argentine territory… always were… always will be… no matter how many “kelpers” squat there.


Blog at WordPress.com.