The following are points:
Oksana Boyko barely addressed the issue of snipers. However, Yevhen Fedchenko later states that shooting protesters was/is designed to draw attention. Well in that case, if the "Russian side" was responsible for the shootings, as alleged by the Western media and politicians, the question would be why, since the Russians would not have wanted the West (Europe and the US in particular) to be given propaganda ammunition against them, those Russians. It makes no sense.
It's pretty clear that Western operatives were sniping at the protesters and that the West was then falsely claiming the snipers were Russian or pro-Russia. The snipers were shooting both sides: police and protesters/rioters/violent revolutionaries. We heard the phone conversation between EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton and Estonian foreign minister Urmas Paet.
Neither Russia nor the Ukrainian government at the time would have benefited at all by such shootings. Those seeking to overthrow the government would and did.
The Baltic and other European states that were once part of the USSR were not supposed to become members of NATO. In order to encourage the Soviet Union to allow the reunification of Germany, the West (the US) promised that NATO would not be expanded. The Soviet Union (Russian led) agreed. The US had blatantly lied and then reneged.
The US backed the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia, which necessitated Russia rolling in to protect the ethnic Russians there.
The US had already broken the anti-ABM treaty and planned to install anti-missile systems right on Russia's border, something the US couldn't tolerate in Cuba by the Russians (who agreed to withdraw its missiles once the US carried through with a prior agreement to pull its missiles from Turkey).
Russia has backed Assad in Syria, and Russia has not agreed with the US-neocon line against the Iranians (which line the US has gradually toned way down). The US wants Russia to be severely weakened and to be opened wide for total economic and financial domination by the US.
In Ukraine, the Russian language was planned to be dumped, even though a large percentage of Ukrainians are Russian speakers first.
Crimea held a referendum. Russia did not "invade." It was already there and very welcome by the vast majority of citizens there in Crimea. Kosovo was allowed to leave Yugoslavia, which was broken up by the West. Why the hypocrisy?
Odessa's trade-unions building was savagely attacked, and people were burned alive by obvious Ukrainian-nationalist fascists.
Lies were spread about the Russians seeking autonomy from Kiev. The false anti-Semitism card was pulled out. False fliers were held up by Western operatives trying to portray the people seeking to establish Novorossiya as somehow being anti-Jew. The fliers were proven to be a fabrication.
Western Ukraine attacked the predominantly Russian-speaking far-Eastern Ukraine, not the other way around. It did send clearly fascist groups there, many of them.
The separatists withdrew from population centers. Nevertheless, Western troops still directly attacked civilian populations, bombing civilian targets: apartment houses, schools, etc.
Yet, Russia did not invade. It allowed any Russian citizens who wanted to, to go fight with the ethnic-Russian Ukrainians in Eastern Ukraine. They beat back what they call the "Punitive Army."
The ethnic Russians in Eastern Ukraine fighting against a regime the members of which have referred to those Russians as lesser than human beings (and I'm putting it mildly) are not terrorists. To characterized them as terrorists is utterly ridiculous. It is total nonsense and show the one calling them such to be engaging in pure false propaganda deliberately to deceive those who don't know much about the region, its politics, and what has been happening on the ground and still is. That is not to say that as things have dragged on and the West has attacked the East and literally slaughtered many hundreds of civilians including many children, there haven't been people who would engage in terrorist acts. To characterize the whole people, to characterized them wholesale, as terrorists is asinine, no better than calling all ethnic Ukrainians fascists, which they clearly are not. The government in Kiev calls all the fighters for the East "the terrorists." It's a fact. I've heard them do it over and over and over.
Furthermore, the jetliner that was downed over Eastern Ukraine was apparently the object of a cover-up. An air-traffic controller in Western Ukraine went public with information indicating that the downing was something sought by the West. His story was quashed by the Western media. The Russians also released Russian military and intelligence data and imagery showing a fighter jet firing a missile at the jetliner. Oddly (or perhaps more so tellingly), the West remained silent on it.
Now there's this:
Published on Dec 23, 2014
Russia’s Investigative Committee is investigating a Russian newspaper report alleging that a Ukrainian military jet shot down Malaysian Airlines passenger plane MH17 over the rebel-held eastern part of the country last summer.
Here's a fuller version of the interview.
It's now being reported that the whistleblower has passed a lie-detector examination.
Other stories circulated in the West included that Vladimir Putin wants to reconstitute the Soviet Union. That story is based upon Putin statement that the demise of the USSR was a tragedy. However, Mr. Putin was speaking of the humanitarian catastrophe that resulted from the demise and the US rather than aiding the Russians, sending in the experts in shock-doctrine economics. Russia was sent instantly into a deep economic depression and then summarily raped by oligarchs buying nationalized enterprises for pennies on the dollar. Of course it was a tragedy, and Putin took the reins away from those hyper-greedy, selfish oligarchs and restored things at least to where there exists a welfare state, a safety net, pensions, etc.
To listen to the Western Ukrainians, you'd think that Ukraine has been some fixed thing for millennia. The fact is that Ukraine's borders have been moved all over the place many, many times. Not only that but Nikita Khrushchev, who was from Ukraine, gave Ukraine a higher degree of autonomy as a member state of the USSR. He didn't have to do that. From the looks of things, he probably shouldn't have. Ukraine was absolutely a part of Russia proper before that. I grew up with the understanding that "the Ukraine" was part of Russia and not just a part of the USSR. It was commonly understood. The West has been attempting to flush that down the memory hole. Russia was actually born in Kiev.
We hear how free everyone is in Western Ukraine. Why then was the Communist Party there outlawed after the coup? That's not freedom of thought. That's not democracy. There are Social Democrats. They believe in democracy. Where's the line drawn? Why is neoliberalism, which is bringing in severe austerity under IMF deals, the only acceptable position in Ukraine now?
If Ukraine's press is so free, why has RT been refused in Western Ukraine?
Also, election results in Ukraine do not reflect the percentage of fighters on the front line during the street revolution in Kiev. Nor do they reflect the number of ministerial positions granted to Svoboda and Right Sector, which number was disproportionately high. Nor do they reflect the fact that those groups, under the Western Ukrainian government, sent military groups to the East to fight against the Novorossiyans.
Russia isn't stupid. It knows that a highly active minority can have a very outsized impact leading to catastrophe. Nazi Germany is a case in point that is very important in Russian history, as the Russians lost some 20 million in WWII and there were many Nazis sympathizers in Ukraine and still are. I've seen their torchlight and daytime marches consisting of many thousands, which Yevhen Fedchenko would have you falsely believe don't apparently exist in such numbers in Western Ukraine.
We also heard Yulia Tymoshenko talking about nuking the Russians, and we heard the Prime Minister referring to the Russians as subhuman.
When a US State Department press spokesperson can't say that calling the Russians in Eastern Ukraine "subhuman" is wrong, the US looks pathetic to that part of the world that stands opposed to racism.
By the way, Yevhen Fedchenko has no credible source for the statement he attributed to Vladimir Putin threatening Petro Poroshenko with invading and taking over the whole of Ukraine.
Please see this very highly related, recent post (more points): "Crazy US 'Group Think' on Russia," by Robert Parry
Mr Poroshenko is the only alleged source for Mr Putin's latest threat, and there will be concerns he might be motivated to exaggerate in order to strengthen EU and Nato support for Ukraine.
The European Commission refused to confirm or deny whether Mr Barroso had held such a conversation with Mr Poroshenko.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)