Voices from Russia

Tuesday, 13 January 2015

The Guardian Finally Starts to Report the Truth about the War in the Ukraine

00 Novorossiya OPPOSES the Junta! 22.08.14



As you read this, dear Russian Orthodox reader, reflect on the fact that S A Schmemann, S L Kishkovskaya, Rod Dreher, Victor Potapov, and Freddie M-G are all willing and eager whores for the Western media disinformation machine. Jonas Paffhausen willingly hangs around and collaborates with the American Enterprise Institute… one of the foremost stink-tank manufacturers of lies about the Rodina (besides being one of the most strident supporters of neoliberal Affluent Effluent greed and theft). These people are stinking traitors to Orthodoxy and godless blaspheming advocates of ravening Mammon… we should treat them accordingly.



On 7 January, Britain’s Guardian, which used to be a fine newspaper, but isn’t now, started what’ll necessarily be a long road back to reality, after nearly a year of their intermittent inattention and Western propaganda on the Ukraine. Finally, it realistically reported the war there as being what it is and always was… an attempt by the post-coup Ukrainian junta to destroy an area where residents gave 90 percent of their votes to President V F Yanukovichoverthrown in the February 2014 coup. Oleg Orlov headlined “Ukraine’s Forgotten City Destroyed by War”; he described a city in ruins from the intensive bombings during July and August. Although most of his article avoided the key question about which side was to blame for this, no one can deny that the invaders here were the Ukrainian forces, and that the defenders were local volunteer troops. So, anyone with an IQ above 50 would have no difficulty figuring out that the Ukrainian forces were to blame for bombing this city… that the junta was bombing and trying to exterminate the residents there whilst claiming to be their rightful government (and which still remains supported by the West in their war against the former “Ukrainians” who live, and have always lived, there). Here’s the way that Orlov reported it:

Towards the end of July, Ukrainian troops approached Pervomaisk but ran into stiff resistance and could not take it. A massive artillery bombardment began that would continue into August. Most people fled.

He described the damage he viewed:

Ukrainian artillery barrages practically wiped Some blocks of this city, situated 50 kilometres west of Lugansk, off the face of the earth. Hardly any houses have escaped unscathed. We had seen such complete devastation in [Novorossiya] only [once before], in Khryashchuvate and Novosvitlivka, a few kilometres southeast of Lugansk. On that occasion, though, LNR (Lugansk People’s Republic) and possibly Russian artillery opened fire in August to dislodge Ukrainian troops from the villages.

Ultimately, he acknowledged that the junta was the invader:

The Commandant of Pervomaisk (the mayor, appointed by the armed men who control the city) has a grisly collection of photos on his computer taken at that time. The [local patriots], though, had set up camp not only on the outskirts of the city but also smack in the centre, goading the Ukrainian forces into firing on Pervomaisk. However, that in no way justifies strikes against populated areas by multiple launch rocket systems.

However, again, only a fool would think otherwise. The situation is hard for propagandists in the Obama Administration to mention. We should also point up out that when Orlov asserted, “the [local patriots] having set up camp not only on the outskirts of the city but also smack in the centre” was “goading the Ukrainian forces into firing on Pervomaisk”, he said that even merely defending the city constituted shared responsibility, along with the attackers, for the city’s destruction. This is like saying that a woman’s attractiveness constitutes her shared responsibility for her rape by her attacker. Then, Orlov goes on to say:

In November, strikes on the city resumed, although they were less intense than in the summer. We talked to the staff of a maternity hospital hit by a bomb on 15 November, with a further five bombs exploding next to the building. A baby girl born two months premature was in the hospital at the time… it was a miracle that she survived, the doctors say.


When, the following morning, a repair brigade went to [clear away the rubble], a new barrage began, killing one worker. They showed us some one-storey houses destroyed on 23 November by strikes from a Grad rocket launcher. People crowded tightly into the bomb shelters when they are under fire, [but] there were no bombardments during our visit and the huddled figures were those of permanent residents who no longer have anywhere else to live.

He describes how the Ukrainian junta bombings (financed by the West) produced desperate condition amongst the people:

The worst thing is the acute shortage of food in Pervomaisk. Although there are several shops in town, many people have no money left to buy anything. The city authorities… the Commandant, mayor and Cossack, Yevgeni Ishchenko and his comrades-in-arms… are trying to keep people alive somehow.

Perhaps because of the requirement in the West to blame Russia for these things, the article closes:

When we were in Pervomaisk, an eighth humanitarian aid convoy crossed over from Russia into [Novorossiya]. On our way back to Moscow, we discovered that no [food or supplies] from this convoy found their way to Pervomaisk. We appealed to the Commissioner for Human Rights and the Presidential Human Rights Council. We hope that the Russian government will wield its influence and convince the LNR authorities to send some of the humanitarian aid they receive from Russia to those who need it most… the people of Pervomaisk.

He ignores this reality… the Ukrainian junta blocks aid convoys. The junta is trying to starve the residents to death. To blame Russia for any of that failure of food to reach the starving is obscene. However, at least, this article by Orlov is a start. That’s more than one can yet say for such newspapers as The New York Times, and Washington Post… or any in America. After all… Obama installed the current Ukrainian junta, David Cameron didn’t. If the business of journalism is to cover-up for their government’s international crimes, then, newspapers such as The New York Times and Washington Post are authentic journalistic institutions, not mere propaganda-organs. However, the Guardian is stepping away from that type of “journalism’”… at least, to the extent that Britain is partly responsible for the February 2014 Ukrainian coup, which is a very small extent. Perhaps, that’s why the “news” media in Britain are a bit freer to report the truth of that war than ours are. Only in America is the lying by media about the war in the Ukraine so pervasive. That’s because it’s America’s war, even though the American public is overwhelmingly opposed to it. The American Government serves the American aristocracy… it no longer serves the public. Maybe, the British aristocracy don’t hate Russians as much as America’s do; but, for whatever reason, they’re not as committed to destroying Russia as Obama and the American aristocracy that he represents are. That American aristocracy control America’s “news” media, but they fortunately don’t also control Britain’s. If one reads the American press about the Ukraine now, after the coup, then, one is reading lies, distortions, and propaganda… myths, not history.

9 January 2015

Eric Zuesse

Global Research



Sunday, 26 January 2014

Myths about Russia: Can One Believe Western Media “Translations” of Putin?

00 USA Russia flags. Putin quote. 27.09.12


The ancient Greek philosopher Socrates, when arguing with Sophists, the PR managers of his time, tried to persuade them that BEING is more important than SEEMING. Why? Because, Socrates believed, the fallacious nature of “seeming wise whilst not being wise” would sooner or later show itself. His opponents, the Sophists, retorted by saying that words were always subject to interpretation, so, someone controlling interpretation would sooner or later control reality. In our times, Sophists would probably find their golden age, as people twist words and images in unimaginable ways. However, two stories do stand out. One is the story of the Western media’s interpretation of Putin’s comments on gays in Russia. The second one is the same media’s interpretation of the events in Kiev (instead of a neo-Nazi pogrom, we get “a government crackdown on peaceful demonstrators”).

Here is the Moscow Times former editor-in-chief Lynn Berry charging on Putin’s answer to the question on the law against gay propaganda among minors. As one may see from this recording of Putin’s speech, President Putin went out of his way to show the most open attitude possible:

We have no prohibition of non-traditional forms of sexual interaction between people, we only prohibit propaganda of homosexuality and paedophilia, I’d stress it, among minors. These are two absolutely different things. Absolutely different things… prohibition of certain relationships, and prohibition of propaganda of these relationships. We don’t prohibit anything, we don’t arrest anyone, you can’t be made responsible for these relationships. This makes us different from many countries in the world, including the USA, where some states still list non-traditional sexual orientation formally as a crime. We don’t have anything like that, that’s why everyone can feel himself or herself free and unrestrained, just leave the children in peace, please.

So, what does Berry write for the AP, for lots of newspapers which consider this agency’s information objective? Right, she makes the headline “Russian President Putin Links Gays to Paedophiles“. Then, just two lines down the text, Berry heaps one more lie on top of the first one… “He defended Russia’s anti-gay law by equating gays with paedophiles and said Russia needs to ‘cleanse’ itself of homosexuality if it wants to increase its birth rate”. This is a classical case of sophistical manipulation, even if a very crude one. The two verbs “to link” and “to equate”… are they synonyms? No. If you link one thing to another one, that doesn’t mean you equate these two things. If some twisted mind could still see a “linkage” between paedophilia and homosexuality in what Putin said, then, that same twisted mind shouldn’t see an “equation” here, unless that mind is completely dishonest… even with itself. Of course, seeing an “anti-gay law” in a law that speaks about a fine for “propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations to minors”… this is a manipulation, a dishonest and arbitrary interpretation of a text. However, this manipulation is already so “mainstream”, so ingrained in the reader’s conscience, that Berry doesn’t even bother to give any proof for it, besides citing some “international outcry”, obviously provoked by articles with an equally neoliberal attitude to their subject.

Of course, Putin never suggested “cleansing” the country of homosexuality… but hey, this is Russia; you can say whatever you want about it with complete impunity. Berry seized the opportunity, writing that Putin suggested that gays were more likely to abuse children (there are no quotation marks… for the simple reason that Putin never made such a suggestion). This isn’t the first case when the Western media get the wrong end of the stick on Putin’s words (or those of Slobodan Milošević or Vladimír Mečiar, for instance), for it ascribes to itself the right to be the “translator” of things the leaders of other countries say. These “translators” follow a principle… if reality doesn’t correspond to Western stereotypes (which we, the media, formed)… then, so much worse for the reality.

From dishonest media handling there is just one small step to crude political mistakes. Everyone must have forgotten how columnists from the Washington Post or the New York Times were discussing the amounts of weapons of mass destruction at Saddam Hussein’s disposal before the USA invaded Iraq in 2003. Similarly respected publications were counting the months (if not days) which were left to Assad’s power just before the Syrian Civil War started in 2011. Now, the war has been on for almost three years; none of these so-called “experts” resigned or got the boot for these miscalculations.

A reader can look at video of Ukrainian policemen being burnt alive by people the Western media calls “peaceful protesters”, who happened to have a strange peaceful taste for Molotov cocktails. However, in the mainstream Western media, you’ll only read about the “draconian laws” of the Ukrainian government, which doesn’t allow arsonists and other “protesters” to wear masks at their rallies. Worse, the Washington Post calls these pogrom-makers “opposition militants bolstered by government-sponsored provocateurs” and bemoaned the fact that these over-emotional youngsters “tarnished the previously peaceful character of the protest movement” (for those interested in the “previously peaceful” beatings of policemen and destruction of statues, it’s enough to watch video of the Euromaidan activities in December 2013… especially, the shots of the storming of the presidential administration).

Hence, the US State Department’s grotesque reaction to events in Kiev, blaming the violence on the government’s failure to “acknowledge legitimate grievances of the people” and praising the opposition. Of course, the Washington Post knows everything about other countries; it describes Belarus as “an autocratic Kremlin colony” (the problem with Belarus President Aleksandr Lukashenko is that he seems to be no one’s viceroy). The WP is never too shy to draw conclusions from its omniscience; calling for sanctions against Yanukovich if he “uses violence against the protesters” (I wonder if people burning policemen in Washington DC would get bouquets of flowers) {BTW… Molotov cocktails are ILLEGAL in the USA, which makes the Kiev rioters mere CRIMINALS… just sayin’: editor}. A long time ago, the Founding Fathers called on America to lead other countries by example. It’s a pity that this example is getting more and more “lost in translation”… translation that we get from the likes of Lynn Berry. This translation of reality looks more and more like manipulation.

23 January 2014

Dmitri Babich

Voice of Russia World Service


Editor’s Note:

What more need I add? Both sides of the American political spectrum engage in the same sort of lies… both the Washington Post and Washington Examiner lie about the Ukrainian situation, as do Fox News and MSNBC/CNN. You’d think that the country’s in flames. The rioting remains limited, it’s in a small area in central Kiev and in certain perpetually gnarly areas in the Western Ukraine. The only area to have unrest outside of the Far West was something in Sumy, and that’s all. That is, most of the country (and Kiev) is going about its normal business. The Supreme Soviet of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea resolved:

We propose halting government outlays in regions that waive the rule of law, until we restore constitutional order there. The very basis of a constitutional state and the system of state power is under threat. The rioters claim that they’re “taking power into their own hands”. They obey the decisions of a self-proclaimed “People’s Rada”; they’ve already started forming illegitimate bodies of public authority.

This is truth. The rioters are criminal elements intent on overthrowing the legitimate government. That is, the USA WANTS chaos and bloodshed, if it results in more profits for American crapitalists. When you tune into the Fox News/CNN duopoly, when you listen to the rubbish spouted by ignorant, ridiculous, and self-serving ranters such as Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin (“Rush stuck in his thumb, pulled out 400 million plums, ‘Gee, what a good boy am I'”), that’s what you advocate, too. There’s no getting away from it. The sheer stupidity and evil of it all reeks to high heaven (do note that it doesn’t deter the American Hard Right from embracing it though… it speaks volumes as to their intelligence and character, doesn’t it?).

What’s sad is that’s no real spectrum amongst the media in the USA. It’s all either Hard Right neoliberalism (“conservatism”) or Centrist neoliberalism (“liberalism”). There’s no Conservatism (in the legitimist Burkean/Bismarckian sense); there’s no Leftism (in the socialist Marxist/Fabian sense). That is, neither the “Right” or the “Left” of this supposed dichotomy are really in opposition… both are in favour of a neoliberal society, the only disagreement is over how much of a role Multinational Corporations will play in decision-making. That’s why “Progressivism” fails on all counts… it’s a non-answer to made-up “problems”. For instance, look at the inane proposals for “income redistribution” from upper-middle class “Progressives”… all they do is to take from the middle to give to the lower. They don’t touch the rich or upper-middles… “Why, that’d be unfair! We EARNED it”. Of course, most decent folk reject such nonsense (as do I and most Leftists). We need a REAL Left solution… which would target the REAL exploiters, not poor sods making a living. However, with the media the way it is, it leaves people uninformed, ergo, they’re unarmed and helpless.

Much the same is occurring with the Seraphim Storheim  affair. The OCA apparat lies by omission and by lawyerly parsing. Indeed, notice what the judge said about Storheim:

I don’t believe the testimony of the accused. The accused wasn’t credible about his behaviour. He … provided nonsensical answers and wasn’t consistent in his version of events. … He loves to parse words and concepts. Other times, he’d provide nonsensical answers. I reject his evidence entirely.

This wasn’t a journalist writing an article. This was a judge, in a court of law, speaking on the record. In short, Mr Justice Mainella called Seraphim Storheim a liar… and by extension, he also implied that it meant those who supported him in the OCA apparat. We all know how the First Families denied many the Mysteries under suspicious circumstances (quite often, the pious explanation is that the person involved wasn’t “repentant”, they wouldn’t “take responsibility” for their actions). Do note how that’s flipped on its head for the First Families and those they favour. “Ignore the court! Ignore the judge! Ignore the verdict! You must love the sinner, forgive them, and accept the fact that they’ll suffer no consequence at all for their actions”. I’ll be frank… such a construct is evil and beyond the pale… I’m NOT alone in thinking that way. There’ll be “interesting times” ahead…


Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, 6 October 2013

McCain’s World: Goodbye, Reason

00 John McCain and Sarah Palin. USA. political cartoon. 06.10.13


In which world does Senator John McCain (R-AZ) live in? I’ll bet you that it’s the one where an old East German woman named Kristiana (from the hilarious movie Good Bye, Lenin!) lived. Kristiana, a strong believer in communist ideals, survived a heart attack and a brief coma in 1989, on the eve of the collapse of the German Democratic Republic (DDR, the communist part of postwar Germany). She can’t leave her bed now, so her son, in order to save her from depression and death, creates an fictive DDR around her, with fake shows of the DDR state-controlled television on her TV set, West German “defectors” staying at her home, etc.

Just like Kristiana, Senator McCain lives in a world where Pravda is still a communist daily and a must-read publication for the majority of Russians, where a Russian citizen “can’t publish a testament like the one I (McCain) just offered”. In this world, the Russian authorities control all the Russian media and where Americans live in a country “governed by the rule of law that is clear consistently and impartially enforced”. The obvious conclusion would be that the oppressed Russian masses could only hope for an American intervention to liberate them, just as it was the case with Iraq, Afghanistan, and so many others. It’s useless and, in fact, cruel to awaken McCain from his prolonged dream. How shall he survive in a different world? What’ll he say when he learns that Soviet Pravda was bought by a Greek millionaire soon after the end of the USSR and that there are several Pravdas now, mostly marginal publications, some of them present only on the internet? Won’t he go mad when he learns that America’s prison population is much bigger than Russia’s?

Well, after all, Mr McCain may not go mad. Several days before the murder of the American ambassador in Libya, McCain encouraged US President Obama to intervene militarily in Syria, so that in future the relations between Syria and the USA would be as excellent as the relations between post-Qaddafi Libya and Washington are. This idea surfaced in the Washington Post in the form of a letter to the editor. Even a person with John McCain’s heated imagination could hardly see the murder of the American ambassador in the course of a violent attack as a sign of the excellence of bilateral relations. Therefore, McCain and his two “amigos”, US Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), directed their ire against Susan Rice, the American representative at the UN, who had the stupidity to call the attack against an American consulate a legitimate protest.

In fact, Susan Rice didn’t say anything different from what the three “amigos” wrote in their letter to the Washington Post. In fact, she was more moderate in her misconception of reality than Mr McCain, who presented American-Libyan relations as a paradigm of excellence. However, somehow, she bore all the blame, while McCain played the role of a strict “government inspector”. After that, there’s no point in expecting Mr McCain to faint upon learning that the US economy is “in the possession of the corrupt and powerful few” (just like the Russia of Mr McCain’s nightmares). Or that Russia has gay clubs and a gay theatre scene… that same Russia which he accuses of “codifying bigotry” against homosexuals.

Interestingly, some of Mr McCain’s accusations against Russia can be turned against the USA, or, rather, against the policy which the USA carries out thanks to people like McCain. Here are some examples. McCain wrote, “How has he (Putin) strengthened Russia’s international stature? By allying Russia with some of the world’s most offensive and threatening tyrannies”. One might reply that the USA allies itself with such impeccable democrats as the King of Saudi Arabia and the Emir of Qatar. One might say that the rebels whom the USA supports in Syria are leading that country to a junta enforcing sharia law in its most medieval form. Maybe, Mr McCain would wake up to reality when he learns that out of 19 terrorists involved in the 9/11 terrorist act of 2001 15 were Saudis and not a single one was from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria… the countries destroyed by the USA in the course of the so-called “War on Terror”. Oh, no, don’t tell that to Mr McCain. That’d be too cruel. Let him live with his dreams.

19 September 2013

Dmitri Babich

Voice of Russia World Service


Editor’s Note:

It’s not just John McCain. The American media in general doesn’t know shit from shinola about Russia, but that doesn’t stop them from lecturing and hectoring. Anglo Americans spring from colonies settled by slave-drivers, religious nutters, and grasping land thieves. You’d think that they’d get off their moral high horse… it’s not only ridiculous, it’d be rolling on the floor funny if these self-preening and hypocritical charlatans didn’t have nuclear weapons.

To think that they scream about the sanity of the Kim régime in the DPRK… do remember Nat Turner, the Trail of Tears, the Texas Revolt, Wounded Knee, Hiroshima, and Guantánamo… reality’s a bitch, ain’t it?


Wednesday, 18 September 2013

Russians Feeling Increasingly Negative Toward USA… Americans’ Distrust of Russia Grows

00 Carlos Latuff. Russia and China Veto against US Intervention in Syria. 2012

Russia and China Veto against US Intervention in Syria

Carlos Latuff



On Tuesday, a new survey showed that, over the past few months, Russians felt more negative towards the USA, and they now view it more pessimistically than at any other point in more than four years. The state-run all-Russian Public Opinion Research Centre (VTsIOM) said in an online statement that 35 percent of respondents to the poll, conducted on 24-25 August, said that  they felt “generally poor” or “very poor” about America, compared with 30 percent who felt that way in February. Overall, currently, Russians feel the most negative about America since September 2008, a month after Russia fought a short war against Georgia, whose president had close ties with the USA. The current overall sentiment, though, is more comparable to that of 2009, when the USA and Russia marked a “reset” in bilateral relations. Still, at present, 46 percent of Russians hold a positive view of America, adding that the figure comprised mostly young adults and residents of big cities. The people with the most negative perception of the USA were respondents from small towns or those over the age of 45.

Whilst attitudes toward the USA generally soured, perceptions of bilateral relations stayed relatively the same over the course of this year. The August poll questioned 1,600 Russian residents across 42 regions. Criticism of the USA increased in Russia following America’s push last month to carry out a military strike on Syria in response to allegations that the Syrian government used chemical weapons on civilians during its civil war. The US House of Representatives was days away from voting on whether to approve a strike on Syria… a measure that had already been green-lighted by the US Senate… when Russia backed a deal to put Syria’s chemical weapons under international control. After the Syrian government formally agreed to the handover, US President Barack Obama asked Congress to delay its vote to allow time for the transfer to be complete. Officially, the transfer has a November deadline.


A poll published this week shows that Americans’ distrust of Russia increased over the past year, and their confidence in Syria is almost nonexistent, which means few Americans expect the deal hammered out by American and Russian diplomats to get Damascus to give up its chemical weapons will amount to much. the poll conducted by the Pew Research Center found that the number of Americans expressing a fair amount to a great deal of trust in Russia fell from 33 percent in 2012 to 24 percent this year, whilst more than two-thirds of Americans… 68 percent… said that they have little if any trust in Russia. Last year, 60 percent of Americans told Pew pollsters they didn’t trust Russia. According to the poll, Americans have the same level of distrust for Russia as they have for Saudi Arabia, and they trust Russia slightly less than they do China. Syria wasn’t included in last year’s Pew poll, but Americans responded in the single digits when asked this year if they trusted the Middle Eastern country… just 8 percent said that they had a fair amount or great deal of trust for Syria, while 85 percent said that they had little confidence in Damascus.

However, when asked if they approved of President Obama’s decision to hold off on military strikes against Syria and seek a diplomatic solution instead, two-thirds of Americans… 67 percent… said yes and 23 percent said no. A majority of Americans (57 percent) were doubtful that Syria would actually give up control of its chemical weapons in response to the diplomatic efforts that culminated in a deal struck in Genève last week after tense negotiations between US Secretary of State John Kerry and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Syria’s chemical arsenal. The deal sets a tough timeline for Syria to submit to the international community an inventory of its chemical weapons and details on where they’re stored, and calls for international inspectors to be on the ground in Syria by November, when the first phase of destruction of components used to make Syria’s chemical weapons is set to begin. The agreement stipulated that Syria must remove or destroy all chemical weapons components by the middle of next year, which also calls for tough penalties if Syrian President Bashar al-Assad fails to comply with it. Obama said that the USA “remains prepared to act” militarily in the event that diplomacy should fail, but 37 percent of Americans told Pew that they’d back military intervention if the deal fell apart, and 49 percent said that they were against a possible American strike on Syria.

A separate poll conducted by The Washington Post and ABC News came up with similar results, with 48 percent of Americans saying that they’d be against American military intervention in Syria if the deal reached by Kerry and Lavrov were to fall apart, and 44 percent saying that the US Congress had to approve the use of military force against Syria if diplomacy fails. Meanwhile, only 4 percent of respondents to The PostABC poll said that they were “very confident” that Syria would give up all of its chemical weapons, while 68 percent were “not at all” or “not so” confident, and 26 percent were only somewhat confident that Damascus would comply with the deal. Both polls were conducted by telephone from 12-15 September, with Pew interviewing 1,002 American adults and the Washington Post-ABC poll surveying 1,004. The polls came out at the same time as a survey in Russia found that Russians feel more negative about the USA following Washington’s push last month to launch a military strike on Syria in response to allegations that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons on civilians during its civil war. The state-run all-Russian Public Opinion Research Centre (VTsIOM) said in an online statement that 35 percent of respondents to the Russian poll, conducted on 24-25 August, said that they felt “generally poor” or “very poor” about America, compared with 30 percent who felt that way in February.

17 September 2013




Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.