Win some, lose more…

The Economist For all the celebrations in Kiev over ratifying the trade deal with Europe, it is the Russians who got most of what they wanted HISTORIANS will struggle to put dates on Russia's murky war against Ukraine

Здесь можно оставить свои комментарии. Выпуск подготовленплагином wordpress для subscribe.ru

The False Promise of Petro Poroshenko

The National Interest. The habit of inviting foreign dignitaries to address Joint Meetings of Congress is one of the more longstanding, as well as dubious, American political traditions

Здесь можно оставить свои комментарии. Выпуск подготовленплагином wordpress для subscribe.ru

Такая вот, орегонская история…

Не очень счастливая, на мой взгляд.

В двух словах и без комментариев. Супруги, работающие и владеющие пекарней, исповедующие Христианство, отказали печь торт для женщин с нетрадиционной сексуальной ориентацией. Что произошло после этого?

Они потеряли бизнес.

A Christian baker who faced virulent protest and eventually lost her shop after refusing to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple took to her Facebook page Monday to reveal what she says are the "two huge lies" contemporary culture has embraced.

"Our culture has accepted 2 huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone's lifestyle, you must fear or hate them," wrote Melissa Klein, owner of the embattled Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery. "Second is that to love someone means that you must agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense."

She concluded, "You don't have to compromise convictions to be compassionate."

Klein and her husband, Aaron, have been at the forefront of the debate surrounding whether Christian business owners who provide wedding services should be forced to serve gay and lesbian clients.

Problems for the Klein family began in January 2013 when they declined to make a wedding cake for Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman, a lesbian couple who promptly responded by filing a civil rights complaint against Sweet Cakes by Melissa.

Officials in Oregon subsequently ruled that the bakery violated Cryer's and Bowman's civil rights.

The Bureau of Labor and Industries released a statement on the matter, noting that the couple had filed an official complaint with the government under the Oregon Equality Act of 2007 — a law that protects gays and lesbians using public venues.

"Under Oregon law, Oregonians may not be denied service based on sexual orientation or gender identity," read the release. "The law provides an exemption for religious organizations and schools, but does not allow private business owners to discriminate based on sexual orientation, just as they cannot legally deny service based on race, sex, age, disability or religion."

In addition to potentially facing monumental fines, Melissa and Aaron Klein have also weathered some serious personal and businesses challenges as a result of their stance against gay marriage.

The Kleins appeared Friday on a panel at the Values Voter Summit, a conservative religious and political gathering, where they defended their right to decline service based on their religious objections and said that they fully operated within the bounds of the U.S. Constitution.

"To be told they're going to force me to convey a message other than what I want to convey — it flies in the face of the Constitution," said Aaron Klein, according to the Oregonian. "It's a violation of my conscience. It's a violation of my religious freedom. It's horrible to see your own government doing this to you."

Melissa Klein broke out into tears during the panel discussion while commenting on the situation:

As TheBlaze reported in September 2013, the Kleins were forced to close their Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery following intense scrutiny and furor among gay rights advocates that inevitably impacted business; they're now operating out of their family home.

Additionally, the Kleins have reportedly being harassed by those opposed to their stance on the cake matter, fielding virulent emails and phone calls.

And Melissa Klein previously told TheBlaze that someone broke into the Sweet Cakes truck last September — a vehicle the family uses to advance its business.

The truck was parked in the Kleins' driveway, which was particularly nerve-wrecking for the family, as their home is in a highly secluded area — one that is nowhere near where their former shop.

"Somebody came up into our driveway and rummaged through our truck and took stuff out," she told TheBlaze. "The really strange thing is, they didn't steal anything, they just made a mess. It kind of was a little creepy."

The legal battle over the cake refusal continues, as it will soon come before an administrative law judge.

Отсюда.

После произошедшего в обществе началась дискуссия.

Дело в суде…

Здесь можно оставить свои комментарии. Выпуск подготовленплагином wordpress для subscribe.ru

Совсем немного о выборах…

Этим летом, когда я куда-либо ездил, несколько раз я встречал в трамваях или на остановках, людей со списками, собирающих подписи

Здесь можно оставить свои комментарии. Выпуск подготовленплагином wordpress для subscribe.ru

Моника не пройдет в Сенат…

Это я про Монику Веби (Monica Wehby) которая баллотируется в Сенат от нашего Штата от Республиканцев

Здесь можно оставить свои комментарии. Выпуск подготовленплагином wordpress для subscribe.ru

И вот, казалось бы…

В продолжение к этому. Люди, долгое время выращивающие и продающие марихуану, (в Орегоне разрешена продажа марихуаны в медицинских целях, по рецепту от врача) не уверены, нужно ли легализовать марихуану в Орегоне

Здесь можно оставить свои комментарии. Выпуск подготовленплагином wordpress для subscribe.ru

Марихуана…

На моей памяти, это уже третий раз, если я не ошибаюсь, когда любители “курнуть” травки, пытаются “протолкнуть” закон о легализации марихуаны

Здесь можно оставить свои комментарии. Выпуск подготовленплагином wordpress для subscribe.ru

“Мы ж не звери…” — ©

..Так говорит кто-то.. Вот только, как это все назвать?

Здесь можно оставить свои комментарии. Выпуск подготовленплагином wordpress для subscribe.ru

Что-то, до боли знакомое…

..Вспомнилось, прочитав это… Тела, обнаруженные на Востоке в массовых захоронениях, могли остаться без внутренних органов из-за торговли людьми

Здесь можно оставить свои комментарии. Выпуск подготовленплагином wordpress для subscribe.ru

Анатолий Шарий о “плане” Путина…

По-моему, теория интересная… С января я твержу о плане Путина. Я упорно и настойчиво говорил о плане Кремля, когда мне пытались заткнуть рот и оскорбляли

Здесь можно оставить свои комментарии. Выпуск подготовленплагином wordpress для subscribe.ru

Письмо российского оппозиционера…

…О том, что сейчас происходит на Украине.

После 9-ти дневной поездки по Украине российский оппозиционер Алексей Сахнин поделился своими впечатлениями в письме к Алексею Гаскарову: "Ты как знаешь, Леша, но это реальный фашизм"
Начинает автор с того, что довольно благородно признаёт тот факт, что все либеральные мантры о "демократичности" новой украинской власти есть ложь. А российские средства массовой информации, в целом, верно передают картину и атмосферу того, что сейчас творится на Украине. Говоря о "марше либералов" автор не стесняясь обвиняет их в откровенной предвзятости и "превращении из сторонников мира в сторонников победы одной из сторон".

“Леша, привет дружище. Знаешь, с тех пор как я получил твое последнее письмо, я сам съездил в Украину. Провел там 9 дней. И теперь у меня много живых впечатлений, как там все устроено. Попробую их рассказать без лишних эмоций, хотя это и трудно.
Во-первых, наверное, путинская пропаганда в деле борьбы с Украиной совершает ежедневный самострел. Она настолько дискредитирована, что многими воспринимается от обратного. Конечно, это не мешает ей создавать атмосферу истерики среди большинства, но очень многие активисты и в России, и на Украине, и на Западе воспринимают это точно также как ты. «Раз они говорят, значит точно, все наоборот». К сожалению, это не правильный подход.

Во-вторых, знаешь, украинская пропаганда это тоже сильное впечатление. После многих лет, когда в стране был относительный плюрализм, наблюдать то, что творится сейчас очень странно. Ну понятно, все каналы, газеты и сайты разжигают дикую национал-патриотическую истерию. Ну, допустим, это война, издержки и т. д. Но как быть с фактами? Мы побывали в редакции одного из самых умеренных сайтов. Типа люди из Луганска в Киеве делают, некоторые бывшие левые там участвуют. Они типа против пыток, похищений и т. д. Но на стене висит большой ватмановский лист на котором написаны цели и принципы редакционной политики. Первая среди них «Создавать атмосферу, благоприятную проведению АТО». Т. е. разжигать войну. Исходя из этого, отбираются факты для публикации. Все что такой «атмосфере» соответствует — публикуется без проверки достоверности. Что нет — просто не публикуется. Про ящик я не говорю. НТВ и Лайфньюз могли бы поучиться.

Ну ладно, пропаганда — дело военное. Теперь давай про оккупацию. Я в зоне АТО не был. Есть ли там русские войска, не знаю. Мы были в глубоком тылу. В Киеве, в Одессе, в Харькове. Леша, я тебе клянусь, что-то что там происходит — это гражданская война. Без всякой интервенции. Внутренняя война. Самое страшное — в Одессе.
7 из 10 «простых людей», т. е. таксистов, пенсионерок, которые сдают комнаты приезжим, официанток, пассажиров маршрутов называют пароли: «хунта», «фашисты». Никакой социологии у меня нет, да ее в этой ситуации и быть не может, но по ощущениям — таких большинство в городе. И ты себе не представляешь градус напряжения. Типичные слова одного таксиста: «мы просто ждем, когда можно будет мстить».
А с другой стороны еще интереснее. Мы брали интервью у Правого сектора (я туда в качестве шведского журналиста ездил). Там чуваки — 18-летние энтузиасты. Полная копия тех, кто приходил в ЛФ в 2011–2012 гг. Такие же наивные и неопытные романтики. Только читать им дают не Кагарлицкого, а Яроша. И им кажется, что политические образцы это Муссолини и Франко. Они говорят «кому не нравится новая Украина — чемодан, вокзал, Россия». Это без дураков фашистская организация, в которую валом валит зеленая молодежь. Но это не самое страшное. Самое страшное — люди умеренных взглядов.
Я без имен здесь пишу, но у меня все записи интервью есть. Вот представь: отличный офис в центре города. У ворот броневик. Во дворе куча качков с автоматами. И карта Украины. Это — «общественники». Чувачки из бизнеса собирают деньги на патриотические нужды. Наладили большую систему. Денег хватает и на амуницию и на собственный батальон территориальной обороны и на кучу вооруженных ребят дома. Ты вдумайся — они никто, официального статуса у них нет. Но они — реальная власть: деньги, оружие, организация. И никакие официальные власти против них ничего сделать не могут. По взглядам они — сама умеренность. Типа «мы ненавидим украинских националистов, они провокаторы». Но я их спрашиваю, мол, у вас полгорода несогласных, как в с ними дальше жить будете? А он мне говорит, дословно: «Для них у нас есть компромисс. Они тихо сидят дома. Если им хочется поговорить про „хунту", они шепотом говорят с унитазом. Если они выходят на улицу, мы начинаем стрелять».
Ты как знаешь, Леша, но это реальный фашим. Без опереточных клоунов со свастиками. И таких ребят и в Одессе и в других городах — тьма.
И потенциал гражданского диалога ограничен вот этим «мы будем стрелять». А у них оружие, деньги, организация. И это не пустые угрозы. Они уже стреляли. И это все видели.
Мне там один журналист рассказывал, что такое был Антимайдан в Одессе. Типа толпа народа, из них 10% реально пророссийские. Остальные против Майдана, но не против Украины. Лидеры этого антимайдана очковали идти на радикальные меры, были против захвата зданий и т. п. Этот журик говорит «власть на них молиться должна была». А она устроила им 2 мая. И 2 мая готовилось заранее. Наверное, никто не планировал таких жертв, но установка разогнать лагерь оппозиции была спущена сверху и операция тщательно готовилась. И это не путинская пропаганда.
Теперь про репрессии. В Одессе в тюрьмах 78 «политических». Только в Крыму около 30 активных политэмигрантов. И репрессии продолжаются. Типа чувака, у которого мы брали интервью — со стороны бывшего Антимайдана — арестовали через 12 часов после того как мы расстались. Он приехал на старой пятерке, сидел в кафе, ругал «хунту», ничего не опасался. Потом возил нас смотреть на закрашенный свастиками памятник Ленину. Потом мы сели в харьковский поезд, а он поехал домой. Ночью его взяли. В аресте участвовали нацики. Те самые, которые его избивали 2 мая. Снова били железными палками. Подбросили взрывчатку. Теперь шьют терроризм. От 8 до 15. И это — тоже не путинская пропаганда. Это у меня на глазах все было. Я с его девушкой сейчас по телефону говорил, пытался успокоить…
Я проверил по Яндексу. Да, харьковский губернатор в июле официально заявил, что в Харьковской области за апрель-июнь арестовано 314 «сепаратистов». У меня открыта страница корреспондент. нет, я б тебе ссылку вставил… Просто рядовая новость, уже устаревшая. Леша, я понимаю, что от русского ТВ хочется думать, что все с точностью до наоборот, но это правда. Черт возьми, это просто какая-то запредельная офигевшая правда.
Насчет людей с украинскими флагами в Мариуполе, ты писал… Ну не знаю, может и есть эти люди в Мариуполе. А может их там национальная гвардия автоматами мобилизует. Или Ахметов. Я вот в поезде ехал из Харькова с семейством из Донбасса. Поезд шел с Ясиноватой — ближайшей к Донецку работающей станции. Они говорить боятся. Но клещами из них вытаскиваешь. Говорят, что армия каждый день расстреливает из артиллерии и какими-то ракетами мирные кварталы (даром что перемирие). Молодой парень, посмелее, говорит, мол, я украинец. Но теперь решил то Украины для меня не существует. Там жесть, Леш. Вопросы спрашивать страшно. У людей за спиной такое, что плакать хочется.
А вот в Киеве, там да. Там патриотический консенсус. Там каждый третий гоняет в вышиванке или в майке «Смерть ворогам». На каждой стене «Украина понад усе» и даже пьяные, которые ссорятся из-за такси кричат «Слава Украине». Там точно все с национальным сознанием в порядке. А заодно работают все кабаки, дискотеки, клубы. Там ужас ощущается меньше.
Короче, подводя итог. Во-первых, Украина расколота. Это совершенно точно, без всякой российской пропаганды. Во всяком случае, юго-восток. Накал такой, что любая вспышка обернется гражданской войной везде. Без всякой российской интервенции. И это еще я за скобки вынес противоречия между разными флангами в лагере «победителей». Во-вторых, по своей жесткости и отмороженности украинский режим запросто даст Кремлю форы. По лживости пропаганды, по нетерпимости, по репрессиям. По националистическому популизму. При этом это очень слабый режим, он слабо контролирует свою территорию, его раздирают противоречия. Но страшно подумать, что будет, если он усилится. И третье, самое страшное, что массовое движение не противостоит насилию, произволу, национализму, а усиливает их всех. Не несет большую демократию и плюрализм, а сводит общественную повестку к националистической истерике. Массовое движение находится под влиянием радикалов и тех, для кого война стала бизнесом. В силу своей инфантильности и неопытности оно почти полностью под контролем самых мрачных сил, которые только можно себе представить. Вот ровно то, от чего мы в свое время уберегли российское движение, сохранив его демократический потенциал (и в то же время лишили его поддержки олигархов и обрекли на поражение), все это с украинским движением случилось.
Вот такая мрачная картина. Все оказалось гораздо хуже и ярче, чем я предполагал. Я не знаю, что там происходит в «народных республиках». Допускаю, что там тоже много чего стремного. Но по поводу ситуации в самой Украине у меня больше нет никаких иллюзий.
То, что на России и российском обществе вся эта история с Украиной сказывается самым печальным образом, я согласен. И с тем, что пропаганда играет в этом свою роль — тоже. И что с этим делать до конца не понимаю. Но вот взять тему антивоенной кампании. Наши либералы как будто делают все специально, чтобы превратить это в провал. Типа выносят флаги Правого сектора. Или запрещают критиковать киевский режим. В итоге они просто превращаются из сторонников мира в сторонников победы одной из сторон. И поэтому к ним придет очень мало народа. И уж точно авторитет оппозиции не вырастет.
С другой стороны, знаешь, если верить Леваде, то с марта вдвое снизилось число людей, которые поддерживают идею ввода войск в Украину. Т. е. пропагандистская истерика теряет эффективность. Но вместо того, чтобы обсуждать с людьми правду, частью которой является абсолютно отмороженный характер украинского режима, наши либералы полностью переходят на сторону Киева, сводя повестку «мирного движения» к своим вечным заклинаниям про «эту страну».
Мне кажется, мы не должны поддаваться искушению дружить со всеми «врагами наших врагов». Мы не можем занимать никакой так называемой «проукраинской» позиции. В действительности это не проукраинская, а профашистская позиция. Я думаю, что все-таки, как ни трудно, мы должны быть «третьей силой». Я понимаю, что тебе это еще гораздо труднее чем мне. Но не могу же я этого не сказать)
Я желаю тебе, как всегда, мужества и душевных сил. Напиши, как идут дела по апелляции. Есть ли какая-то надежда по этой теме? Что говорят адвокаты? Могу ли я чем-то помочь?
В общем, держись!”

Взято — отсюда.

Не знаю, реальное ли это письмо, но то, что оно сейчас используется в пропагандистких целях, никаких сомнений.

Кто-то говорит о том, что на Украине нет фашизма?

Здесь можно оставить свои комментарии. Выпуск подготовленплагином wordpress для subscribe.ru

Про девочку одиннадцати лет…

Комментировать здесь даже и смысла не вижу. Виктория Магер, маленькая одиннадцатилетняя девочка из поселка городского типа Еленовка, что расположился неподалеку от Донецка, знает что такое гражданская война не понаслышке

Здесь можно оставить свои комментарии. Выпуск подготовленплагином wordpress для subscribe.ru

Невежество и лень, или о… — реституции

По Сети сейчас “гуляет” новая “страшилка” по вступлению Украины в ЕС АПЛОДИРУЕМ ПУТИНУ СТОЯ

Здесь можно оставить свои комментарии. Выпуск подготовленплагином wordpress для subscribe.ru

Оставили в комментариях…

…Очень хорошо характеризует политику США на Ближнем Востоке, сейчас… Отсюда

Здесь можно оставить свои комментарии. Выпуск подготовленплагином wordpress для subscribe.ru

Иосиф Бродский…

…Больше двадцати лет назад. То не зелено-квитный, траченный изотопом, — жовто-блакитный реет над Конотопом, Скроенный из холста: знать, припасла Канада — Даром, что без креста: но хохлам не надо

Здесь можно оставить свои комментарии. Выпуск подготовленплагином wordpress для subscribe.ru

Информационная война…

…Глазами немцев.. Найдено, здесь.

Здесь можно оставить свои комментарии. Выпуск подготовленплагином wordpress для subscribe.ru

“Только представьте себе…” — ©

Нашел неновую статью.

Просто, любопытно..

О “двойных стандартах”, которых сейчас… немало..

Известный британский колумнист и блогер Нил Кларк в своей статье для RT представил мир, в котором привычные и, казалось бы, нормальные недавние политические события совершались бы другими государствами.

МОСКВА, 21 мая — РИА Новости. “Только представьте…”, — так начинается каждый подзаголовок статьи известного британского колумниста Нила Кларка (Neil Clark), опубликованной на сайте телеканал Russia Today.

“Только представьте, если бы демократически избранное правительство Канады было бы свергнуто в ходе финансируемого Россией переворота, в котором важную роль играли бы ультраправые экстремисты и неонацисты. Если бы новое неизбранное “правительство” Оттавы отменило закон о признании французского языка официальным. Если бы олигарха с миллиардным состоянием назначили главой Оттавы и правительство подписало бы соглашение об ассоциации с торговым блоком, возглавляемым Россией», — пишет журналист.

Нил Кларк предлагает читателям задуматься, как отреагировал бы мир, если бы Россия потратила $5 млрд на смену режима в Канаде, а затем ведущая канадская энергетическая компания приняла бы в совет директоров сына высокопоставленного российского политика.

“Только представьте, если бы сирийское правительство провело бы встречу “Друзей Великобритании” — группы государств, поддержавших насильственное свержение правительства Дэвида Кэмерона. Если бы сирийское правительство с союзниками оказывало бы британским антиправительственным “повстанцам” многомиллионную помощь. Если бы они не осудили действия “повстанцев”, убивших британских граждан, разбомбивших школы, больницы и университеты. Если бы министр иностранных дел Сирии осудил бы проведение всеобщих выборов в Великобритании, назвав их «пародией на демократию», и заявил бы, что Кэмерон должен уйти в отставку до проведения выборов.

Если бы в 2003 году Россия и ее ближайшие союзники начали бы полномасштабное вторжение в богатую нефтью ближневосточную страну, утверждая, что это государство обладает оружием массового поражения (ОМУ), угрожающим всему миру, а впоследствии никакого ОМУ не найдут. Если бы около 1 миллиона человек было бы убито вследствие кровопролития, начавшегося после интервенции. Если бы спустя 10 лет страна до сих пор пребывала бы в хаосе. Если бы российские компании нажились на реконструкционных и восстановительных работах после “смены режима”.

Только представьте, если бы пророссийские журналисты, все как один твердившие, что ближневосточная страна, в которую Россия вторглась в 2003 году, обладала ОМУ, потом не принесли свои извинения и не выразили раскаяние в связи с огромным числом погибших граждан в результате аннексии. Если бы они, наоборот, сохранили за собой хорошо оплачиваемые должности и продолжили бы пропагандировать нелегальные войны и интервенции в другие независимые государства, а также совершали бы нападки на честных журналистов, которые предпочитают не врать.

Если бы около 40 человек, протестующих против центрального правительства, были бы сожжены заживо проправительственными экстремистами в Венесуэле. Если бы после визита Дмитрия Медведева и главы российской Службы внешней разведки в Каракас правительство Венесуэлы провело бы военную операцию против демонстрантов, требующих автономии или федерализации.

Если бы после окончания холодной войны Россия годами окружала бы США военными базами и настаивала на присоединении Канады и Мексики к российскому военному альянсу. Если бы ранее в этом месяце Россия провела крупные военные учения в Мексике.

Если бы в интернет “утек” телефонный разговор между высокопоставленным представителем российского МИДа и послом РФ в Канаде, обсуждающих, кто должен или не должен быть в составе канадского правительства. В дальнейшем они утвердили бы кандидата на пост нового премьер-министра после “смены режима”, профинансированного Россией. И что если высокопоставленный представитель российского МИДа во время телефонного разговора в нецензурной форме высказался о Евросоюзе, как это сделала в феврале 2014 года помощник госсекретаря США по делам Европы и Евразии Виктория Нуланд в телефонном разговоре с американским послом в Киеве Джеффри Пайатом.

Только представьте, если бы ведущие российские политики посетили бы уличные протесты против мер жесткой экономии в западной Европе, раздавали бы печенье протестующим и поддерживали призывы к правительству уйти в отставку”.

Нил Кларк предлагает представить, что могло бы быть, если бы любое из описанных событий произошло бы на самом деле. По мнению журналиста, их сравнение с текущими событиями было бы очень поучительным, поскольку оно ясно дает понять: с миром что-то не так.

“Действия, совершенные США и их союзниками, вызвали бы всеобщее возмущение, рискни любая другая страна проделать то же самое. Необходимо просто поменять местами названия государств, чтобы увидеть наличие двойных стандартов”, — отмечает в статье Нил Кларк.

“Если бы Россия вторглась в богатую нефтью ближневосточную страну в 2003 году, как США вторглись в Ирак, можно быть уверенным, что Россию посчитали бы международным изгоем, а журналисты, освещавшие эту лживую войну, пожизненно бы себя дискредитировали. Но против США не применяли санкции. Президент США Джордж Буш и его ближайший союзник премьер-министр Великобритании Тони Блэр до сих пор так и не предстали перед судом за военные преступления”, — задается вопросом журналист.

По мнению Кларка, если бы Россия потратила $5 млрд на свержение демократически избранного правительства Канады или Мексики и привела к власти пророссийскую хунту, за считанные часы началось бы полномасштабное военное вторжение США. Западные СМИ оправдывали бы действия Америки, характеризуя их “ответом на российскую агрессию”. Но когда подобное совершили США на Украине, те же самые люди, которые бы осуждали действия России, праздновали незаконное свержение легитимного правительства Украины”.

“Мы отлично знаем, как отреагировали бы США, если бы другое государство разместило ядерное оружие близко к американской территории: в 1962 году в период Карибского кризиса мир находился на грани третьей мировой войны. Однако проведение военных учений НАТО в Эстонии, граничащей с Россией, не считается провокационным”, — отмечает Кларк.

В конце статьи Кларк делает вывод, что нет никаких законных или моральных оснований утверждать, что США и их союзникам можно совершать действия, за которые другие государства были бы осуждены и наказаны введением санкций и/или военной интервенцией. Международный закон и принципы невмешательства во внутренние дела государства должны применяться одинаково ко всем, независимо от политической системы государства или его формы правления. Британское правительство имеет не больше прав вмешиваться во внутренние дела Сирии, чем сирийское правительство – вмешиваться в дела Великобритании. США не имеет прав, чтобы “менять режимы” в странах, граничащих с Россией. В свою очередь, пишет Кларк, Россия не может “менять режимы” в странах, граничащих с США.

В своей статье Нил Кларк призвал сформировать новую форму международную права, основанную на принципе равенства всех суверенных наций. “Если мы поймем, как сделать так, чтобы эта система заменила западное лицемерие и политику двойных стандартов, мир может стать гораздо более безопасным местом”, — заключил репортер.

РИА Новости

Здесь можно оставить свои комментарии. Выпуск подготовленплагином wordpress для subscribe.ru

Just Imagine

The Article on RT.

Written few months ago by Britain Joutnalist Neil Clark.

Just imagine if the democratically-elected government of Canada had been toppled in a Russian-financed coup, in which far-right extremists and neo-Nazis played a prominent role.

That the new unelected ‘government’ in Ottawa cancelled the law giving the French language official status, appointed a billionaire oligarch to run Quebec and signed an association agreement with a Russian-led trade bloc.

Just imagine…

If Russia had spent $5 billion on regime change in Canada and then a leading Canadian energy firm had appointed to its board of directors the son of a top Russian government politician.

Just imagine…

If the Syrian government had hosted a meeting in Damascus of the ‘Friends of Britain’- a group of countries who supported the violent overthrow of David Cameron’s government.

That the Syrian government and its allies gave the anti-government 'rebels' in Britain millions of pounds and other support, and failed to condemn 'rebel' groups when they killed British civilians and bombed schools, hospitals and universities.

That the Syrian Foreign Minister dismissed next year's scheduled general election in the UK as a 'parody of democracy' and said that Cameron must stand down before any elections are held.

Just imagine…

If in 2003, Russia and its closest allies had launched a full-scale military invasion of an oil-rich country in the Middle East, having claimed that that country possessed WMDs which threatened the world and that afterwards no WMDs were ever found.

That up to 1 million people had been killed in the bloodshed that followed the invasion and that the country was still in turmoil over 10 years later.

That Russian companies had come in to benefit from the reconstruction and rebuilding work following the ‘regime change’.

Just imagine…

If the pro-Russian journalists who had faithfully parroted the claims that the Middle Eastern country that Russia had invaded in 2003 had WMDs did not apologise afterwards or show any contrition despite the enormous death toll; but instead carried on in their well-paid jobs to propagandize more illegal wars and 'interventions' against other independent countries, and attacked those honest journalists who didn’t peddle the war lies.

Just imagine…

If over forty people protesting against the central government had been burnt to death by pro-government extremists in Venezuela.

That the Venezuelan government had launched a military offensive against people protesting for greater autonomy/federalization following visits by the head of the Russian SVR and Dmitry Medvedev to Caracas.

Just imagine….

If last August over six hundred people protesting in camps against the government in Minsk in Belarus had been massacred by armed forces. That this spring, the courts in Belarus had handed out death sentences to over 600 supporters of opposition parties.

Just imagine….

If Russia had spent the years following the end of the old ‘Cold War’ surrounding the US with military bases and pushing for Canada and Mexico to join a Russian military alliance. That earlier this month Russia carried out major military exercises in Mexico.

Just imagine….

If we had heard leaked telephone calls between a high ranking official from the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Russian Ambassador in Canada in which they discussed who should/shouldn’t be in the Canadian government. That their approved candidate subsequently became the new, unelected Prime Minister following a Russian-financed ‘regime change’.

That the high ranking Russian official from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs also said : 'Fxxx the EU'.

Just imagine…

If the Syrian air force had bombed a weapons depot in Israel and also bombed convoys which security officials said were carrying weapons to anti-government forces in Syria.

Just imagine…

If leading Russian politicians attended anti-austerity street protests in western Europe, handed out cookies to those protesting, and supported the protestors' calls for the governments to step down.

Imagining what would happen if any of the above events occurred, and comparing it to what has happened in reality is highly instructive as it shows us what is wrong with the world today.

Actions have been taken by the US and its allies which would be considered totally outrageous if carried out by other countries. All we have to do is to switch the names of the countries concerned to see the double standards.

If Russia had attacked an oil-rich Middle Eastern nation in 2003, and pro-Russian journalists peddled the same sort of deceitful pro-war, WMD propaganda that neocons and faux-leftists did in the west when the US invaded Iraq, then we can be sure that Russia would have been regarded as an international pariah, and the journalists who acted as cheerleaders for the illegal invasion would be discredited for the rest of their lives. But the US is not subject to sanctions or treated as an outcast, its President in 2003, George W. Bush and his close ally Tony Blair, have yet to stand trial for war crimes, and the media ‘pundits’ who supported the invasion of Iraq are still in place and now pushing for a new Cold war against Russia and new military ‘intervention’ against Syria.

If Russia had spent $5bn on toppling the democratically-elected government of either Canada or Mexico, and installed a pro-Russian junta in its place, we can be sure that within hours, a full scale military invasion by the US would have taken place, in order to remove the new ‘government’ from power. Western television news channels and elite pundits would be enthusiastically supporting the US action – declaring it to be a ‘response to Russian aggression’ and saying it was totally justified. But when the regime changing was done by the US in Ukraine, and a pro-US junta installed in power in Kiev, it's a very different story. The same people who would cry 'foul' at the top of their voices if Russia engineered a coup in Canada or Mexico, celebrate the unlawful toppling of the legitimate government of Ukraine.

We already know how the US would respond, if another country sought to put nuclear weapons close to its territory – in 1962 the world came to the brink of war in the Cuban missile crisis. But while a third world war would undoubtedly be threatened again if Russian forces held military exercises in Mexico, it's not considered provocative for NATO to hold military exercises in Estonia.

If the governments of Belarus and Venezuela had responded as brutally towards anti-government protesters as the Egyptian military regime did last August, or sent in the tanks and used heavy weaponry against their own people as the western-backed Kiev junta has, then we can be sure that the great ‘humanitarians’ of the faux-left would be screeching not just for punitive sanctions but for air strikes too and for Presidents Lukashenko and Maduro to be carted off to The Hague.

We all know too what would have followed if it had been the Syrian air force that had bombed a weapons depot and convoys in Israel and not the other way round. Why do we tolerate such brazen hypocrisy?

There is no legal or moral basis for saying that the US and its allies should be able to do things, which if done by other countries, would be condemned as wrong and punished with the imposition of sanctions and/or military attack or invasion. International law and the principles of non-interference in other nations should apply equally to all: regardless of the country’s political system or form of government. The British government has no more right to interfere in the internal affairs of Syria than the Syrian government has to interfere in the internal affairs of Great Britain. The US has no more right to ‘regime change’ in countries bordering Russia, than Russia has to ‘regime change’ in countries bordering the US.

We need a new international order based on the equality of all sovereign nations: a new “World of Equals”, as envisaged by this year’s Belgrade Forum, whose declaration can be read here. If we can imagine that and work to put it in place by exposing current western hypocrisy and double standards whenever they occur then the world would be a much safer place.

Full Article

Здесь можно оставить свои комментарии. Выпуск подготовленплагином wordpress для subscribe.ru

Бандит обыкновенный…

Или, — необычный. Просто бандит. Или нет? Я всегда думал о казаках, как о… клоунах

Здесь можно оставить свои комментарии. Выпуск подготовленплагином wordpress для subscribe.ru

Полный текст речи Обамы в ООН…

На английском, конечно.

OBAMA: Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General, fellow delegates, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin today by telling you about an American named Chris Stevens. Chris was born in a town called Grass Valley, California, the son of a lawyer and a musician.

As a young man, Chris joined the Peace Corps and taught English in Morocco, and he came to love and respect the people of North Africa and the Middle East. He would carry that commitment throughout his life.

As a diplomat, he worked from Egypt to Syria, from Saudi Arabia to Libya. He was known for walking the streets of the cities where he worked, tasting the local food, meeting as many people as he could, speaking Arabic, listening with a broad smile.

Chris went to Benghazi in the early days of the Libyan revolution, arriving on a cargo ship. As America’s representative, he helped the Libyan people as they coped with violent conflict, cared for the wounded, and crafted a vision for the future in which the rights of all Libyans would be respected.

And after the revolution, he supported the birth of a new democracy, as Libyans held elections, and built new institutions, and began to move forward after decades of dictatorship.

Chris Stevens loved his work. He took pride in the country he served, and he saw dignity in the people that he met.

Two weeks ago, he travelled to Benghazi to review plans to establish a new cultural center and modernize a hospital. That’s when America’s compound came under attack. Along with three of his colleagues, Chris was killed in the city that he helped to save. He was 52 years old.

I tell you this story because Chris Stevens embodied the best of America. Like his fellow Foreign Service officers, he built bridges across oceans and cultures, and was deeply invested in the international cooperation that the United Nations represents.

He acted with humility, but he also stood up for a set of principles: a belief that individuals should be free to determine their own destiny, and live with liberty, dignity, justice and opportunity.

The attacks on the civilians in Benghazi were attacks on America. We are grateful for the assistance we received from the Libyan government and from the Libyan people.

There should be no doubt that we will be relentless in tracking down the killers and bringing them to justice.

And I also appreciate that in recent days the leaders of other countries in the region — including Egypt, Tunisia, and Yemen — have taken steps to secure our diplomatic facilities and called for calm, and so have religious authorities around the globe.

But understand, the attacks of the last two weeks are not simply an assault on America. They’re also an assault on the very ideals upon which the United Nations was founded: the notion that people can resolve their differences peacefully, that diplomacy can take the place of war, that in an interdependent world all of us have a stake in working towards greater opportunity and security for our citizens.

If we are serious about upholding these ideals, it will not be enough to put more guards in front of an embassy or to put out statements of regret and wait for the outrage to pass. If we are serious about these ideals, we must speak honestly about the deeper causes of the crisis, because we face a choice between the forces that would drive us apart and the hopes that we hold in common.

Today we must reaffirm that our future will be determined by people like Chris Stevens, and not by his killers. Today we must declare that this violence and intolerance has no place among our united nations.

It’s been less than two years since a vendor in Tunisia set himself on fire to protest the oppressive corruption in his country and sparked what became known as the Arab Spring. And since then, the world has been captivated by the transformation that’s taken place, and the United — the United States has supported the forces of change.

We were inspired by the Tunisian protests that toppled a dictator because we recognized our own beliefs in the aspiration of men and women who took to the streets. We insisted on change in Egypt because our support for democracy ultimately put us on the side of the people. We supported a transition of leadership in Yemen because the interests of the people were no longer being served by a corrupt status quo.

We intervened in Libya alongside a broad coalition and with the mandate of the United Nations Security Council, because we had the ability to stop the slaughter of innocents and because we believed that the aspirations of the people were more powerful than a tyrant.

And as we meet here, we again declare that the regime of Bashar al-Assad must come to an end so that the suffering of the Syrian people can stop and a new dawn can begin.

We have taken these positions because we believe that freedom and self-determination are not unique to one culture.

These are not simply American values or Western values; they are universal values. And even as there will be huge challenges to come with the transition to democracy, I am convinced that ultimately government of the people, by the people, and for the people is more likely to bring about the stability, prosperity, and individual opportunity that serve as a basis for peace in our world.

So let us remember that this is a season of progress. For the first time in decades, Tunisians, Egyptians and Libyans voted for new leaders in elections that were credible, competitive and fair.

The democratic spirit has not been restricted to the Arab world. Over the past year, we’ve seen peaceful transitions of power in Malawi and Senegal and a new president in Somalia. In Burma, a president has freed political prisoners and opened a closed society. A courageous dissident has been elected to parliament, and people look forward to further reform.

Around the globe, people are making their voices heard, insisting on their innate dignity and the right to determine their future. And yet the turmoil of recent weeks reminds us that the path to democracy does not end with the casting of a ballot. Nelson Mandela once said, “To be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”
(APPLAUSE)

True democracy demands that citizens cannot be thrown in jail because of what they believe, and that businesses can be open without paying a bribe. It depends on the freedom of citizens to speak their minds and assemble without fear, and on the rule of law and due process that guarantees the rights of all people.

In other words, true democracy, real freedom is hard work.

Those in power have to resist the temptation to crack down on dissidents. In hard economic times, countries must be tempted — may be tempted to rally the people around perceived enemies at home and abroad, rather than focusing on the painstaking work of reform.

Moreover, there will always be those that reject human progress, dictators who cling to power, corrupt interests that depend on the status quo, and extremists who fan the flames of hate and division. From Northern Ireland to South Asia, from Africa to the Americas, from the Balkans to the Pacific Rim, we’ve witnesses convulsions that can accompany transitions to a new political order.

At time, the conflicts arise along the fault lines of race or tribe, and often they arise from the difficulties of reconciling tradition and faith with the diversity and interdependence of the modern world. In every country, there are those who find different religious beliefs threatening. In every culture, those who love freedom for themselves must ask themselves how much they’re willing to tolerate freedom for others.

And that is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, where a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. Now, I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well.

For as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and every faith. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion, we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe.

We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them. I know there are some who ask why don’t we just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws. Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.

Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. As president of our country, and commander in chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so.

(APPLAUSE)

Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views — even views that we profoundly disagree with. We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith may be threatened.

We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities. We do so because, given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech — the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

I know that not all countries in this body share this particular understanding of the protection of free speech. We recognize that. But in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete.

The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree: There is no speech that justifies mindless violence.

(APPLAUSE)

There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.

In this modern world, with modern technologies, for us to respond in that way to hateful speech empowers any individual who engages in such speech to create chaos around the world. We empower the worst of us if that’s how we respond.

More broadly, the events of the last two weeks also speak to the need for all of us to honestly address the tensions between the West and the Arab world that is moving towards democracy.

Now let me be clear, just as we cannot solve every problem in the world, the United States has not, and will not, seek to dictate the outcome of democratic transitions abroad.

We do not expect other nations to agree with us on every issue. Nor do we assume that the violence of the past weeks or the hateful speech by some individuals represent the views of the overwhelming majority of Muslims any more than the views of the people who produced this video represents those of Americans.

However, I do believe that it is the obligation of all leaders in all countries to speak out forcefully against violence and extremism.

(APPLAUSE)

It is time to marginalize those who, even when not directly resorting to violence, use hatred of America or the West or Israel as the central organizing principle of politics, for that only gives cover and sometimes makes an excuse for those who do resort to violence. That brand of politics, one that pits East against West and South against North, Muslims against Christians and Hindu and Jews, can’t deliver on the promise of freedom.

To the youth, it offers only false hope. Burning an American flag does nothing to provide a child an education. Smashing apart a restaurant does not fill an empty stomach. Attacking an embassy won’t create a single job. That brand of politics only makes it harder to achieve what we must do together, educating our children and creating the opportunities that they deserve, protecting human rights and extending democracy’s promise.

Understand, America will never retreat from the world. We will bring justice to those who harm our citizens and our friends, and we will stand with our allies. We are willing to partner with countries around the world to deepen ties of trade and investment, and science and technology, energy and development, all efforts that can spark economic growth for all our people and stabilize democratic change.

But such efforts depend on a spirit of mutual interest and mutual respect. No government or company, no school or NGO will be confident working in a country where its people are endangered. For partnerships to be effective, our citizens must be secure and our efforts must be welcomed.

A politics based only on anger, one based on dividing the world between us and them not only sets back international cooperation, it ultimately undermines those who tolerate it. All of us have an interest in standing up to these forces.

Let us remember that Muslims have suffered the most at the hands of extremism. On the same day our civilians were killed in Benghazi, a Turkish police officer was murdered in Istanbul only days before his wedding, more than 10 Yemenis were killed in a car bomb in Sana’a, several Afghan children were mourned by their parents just days after they were killed by a suicide bomber in Kabul.

The impulse towards intolerance and violence may initially be focused on the West, but over time it cannot be contained. The same impulses towards extremism are used to justify war between Sunni and Shia, between tribes and clans. That leads not to strength and prosperity, but to chaos. In less than two years, we have seen largely peaceful protests bring more change to Muslim-majority countries than a decade of violence. And extremists understand this, because they have nothing to offer to improve the lives of people, violence is their only way to stay relevant. They don’t build. They only destroy.

It is time to leave the call of violence and the politics of division behind. On so many issues, we face a choice between the promise of the future or the prisons of the past, and we cannot afford to get it wrong. We must seize this moment, and America stands ready to work with all who are willing to embrace a better future.

The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt. It must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted, “Muslims, Christians, we are one.” The future must not belong to those who bully women. It must be shaped by girls who go to school and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons.

(APPLAUSE)

The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country’s resources. It must be won by the students and entrepreneurs, the workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people. Those are the women and men that America stands with. There’s is the vision we will support.

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.

(APPLAUSE)

Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims and Shia pilgrims. It’s time to heed the words of Gandhi, “Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.”

(APPLAUSE)
Together, we must work towards a work where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them. That is what America embodies. That’s the vision we will support. Among Israelis and Palestinians, the future must not belong to those who turn their backs on the prospect of peace. Let us leave behind those who thrive on conflict, those who reject the right of Israel to exist.

The road is hard, but the destination is clear: a secure Jewish state of Israel and an independent, prosperous Palestine.

(APPLAUSE)

Understanding that such a peace must come through a just agreement between the parties, America will walk alongside all who are prepared to make that journey.

In Syria, the future must not belong to a dictator who massacres his people. If there’s a cause that cries out for protests in the world today, peaceful protest, it is a regime that tortures children and shoots rockets in apartment buildings. And we must remain engaged to assure that what began with citizens demanding their rights does not end in a cycle of sectarian violence.

Together, we must stand with those Syrians who believe in a different vision, a Syria that is united and inclusive, where children don’t need to fear their own government and all Syrians have a say in how they’re governed — Sunnis and Alawites, Kurds and Christians. That’s what America stands for. That’s is the outcome that we will work for, with sanctions and consequences for those who persecute and assistance and support for those who work for this common good.

Because we believe that the Syrians who embrace this vision will have the strength and legitimacy to lead.

In Iran, we see where the path of a violent and unaccountable ideology leads. The Iranian people have a remarkable and ancient history, and many Iranians wish to enjoy peace and prosperity alongside their neighbors. But just as it restricts the rights of its own people, the Iranian government continues to prop up a dictator in Damascus and supports terrorist groups abroad.

Time and again, it has failed to take the opportunity to demonstrate that its nuclear program is peaceful and to meet its obligations to the United Nations.

So let me be clear: America wants to resolve this issue through diplomacy, and we believe that there is still time and space to do so. But that time is not unlimited.

We respect the right of nations to access peaceful nuclear power, but one of the purposes of the United Nations is to see that we harness that power for peace.

Make no mistake: A nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained. It would threaten the elimination of Israel, the security of Gulf nations, and the stability of the global economy. It risks triggering a nuclear arms race in the region, and the unraveling of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

That’s why a coalition of countries is holding the Iranian government accountable. And that’s why the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. We know from painful experience that the path to security and prosperity does not lie outside the boundaries of international law and respect for human rights. That’s why this institution was established from the rubble of conflict; that is why liberty triumphed over tyranny in the Cold War; and that is the lesson of the last two decades as well.

History shows that peace and progress come to those who make the right choices. Nations in every part of the world have travelled this difficult path.

Europe — the bloodiest battlefield of the 20th century — is united, free and at peace. From Brazil to South Africa, from Turkey to South Korea, from India to Indonesia people of different races, religions and traditions have lifted millions out of poverty, while respecting the rights of their citizens and meeting their responsibilities as nations.

And it is because of the progress that I’ve witnessed in my own lifetime, the progress that I’ve witnessed after nearly four years as president, that I remain ever hopeful about the world that we live in.

The war in Iraq is over. American troops have come home.

We’ve begun a transition in Afghanistan, and America and our allies will end our war on schedule in 2014.

Al Qaida has been weakened and Osama bin Laden is no more. Nations have come together to lock down nuclear materials, and America and Russia are reducing our arsenals.

We have seen hard choices made — from Naypyidaw to Cairo to Abidjan — to put more power in the hands of citizens.

At a time of economic challenge, the world has come together to broaden prosperity. Through the G-20, we have partnered with emerging countries to keep the world on the path of recovery.

America has pursued a development agenda that fuels growth and breaks dependency, and worked with African leaders to help them feed their nations.

New partnerships have been forged to combat corruption and promote government that is open and transparent. And new commitments have been made through the Equal Futures Partnership to ensure that women and girls can fully participate in politics and pursue opportunity.
And later today, I will discuss our efforts to combat the scourge of human trafficking.

All these things give me hope. But what gives me the most hope is not the actions of us, not the actions of leaders. It is the people that I’ve seen. The American troops who’ve risked their lives and sacrificed their limbs for strangers half a world away. The students in Jakarta or Seoul who are eager to use their knowledge to benefit mankind. The faces in a square in Prague or a parliament in Ghana who see democracy giving voice to their aspirations. The young people in the favelas of Rio and the schools of Mumbai whose eyes shine with promise.

These men, women and children of every race and every faith remind me that for every angry mob that gets shown on television, there are billions around the world who share similar hopes and dreams. They tell us that there is a common heartbeat to humanity.

So much attention in our world turns to what divides us. That’s what we see on the news, that’s what consumes our political debates. But when you strip all away, people everywhere long for the freedom to determine their destiny; the dignity that comes with work; the comfort that comes with faith; and the justice that exists when governments serve their people and not the other way around.

The United States of America will always stand up for these aspirations for our own people and for people all across the world. That was our founding purpose. That is what our history shows. That is what Chris Stevens worked for throughout his life.

And I promise you this: Long after the killers are brought to justice, Chris Stevens’ legacy will live on in the lives that he touched, in the tens of thousands who marched against violence through the streets of Benghazi, in the Libyans who changed their Facebook photo to one of Chris, in the signs that read simply, “Chris Stevens was a Friend to all Libyans.” They should give us hope. They should remind us that so long as we work for it, justice will be done, that history is on our side, and that a rising tide of liberty will never be reversed.
Thank you very much.

Отсюда.

Здесь можно оставить свои комментарии. Выпуск подготовленплагином wordpress для subscribe.ru

Лауреат премии Мира идет на войну…

Снова, об Обаме. This is how a Nobel Peace Prize laureate goes to war. He smiles warmly at the members of the U.N. General Assembly

Здесь можно оставить свои комментарии. Выпуск подготовленплагином wordpress для subscribe.ru

Про речь Обамы в ООН

Все на английском. Это все о климате. Факты и то, что есть на самом деле. An Associated Press fact-check on President Obama's climate change speech to the United Nations Tuesday accused the president of clearly spinning the facts and distorting the truth about America's response to global warming

Здесь можно оставить свои комментарии. Выпуск подготовленплагином wordpress для subscribe.ru

Санкции работают…

Информация от РБК Ущерб для платежного баланса России из-за введения санкций и снижения цен на нефть составил 4 процентных пункта ВВП

Здесь можно оставить свои комментарии. Выпуск подготовленплагином wordpress для subscribe.ru

Опять “убивают” российских солдат

Вбросом занимаются “солдатские матери”. От Анатолия Шария, отсюда. По�

Здесь можно оставить свои комментарии. Выпуск подготовленплагином wordpress для subscribe.ru

Вспомнилось… Актуальное и сейчас…

От Игоря Иртеньева Монолог на выдохе В. Долиной Нет, мы империя добра! А не империя мы зла, Как мы тут слышали вчера От одного тут мы козла

Здесь можно оставить свои комментарии. Выпуск подготовленплагином wordpress для subscribe.ru

Такая, вот, благодарность…

..от уходящего Президента страны.. Outgoing Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai took one final swipe at the U.S. Tuesday, telling a gathering of Afghan government employees that the 13-year American-led military action had failed to bring peace to his country

Здесь можно оставить свои комментарии. Выпуск подготовленплагином wordpress для subscribe.ru

Не перестаю удивляться…

Еще два дня назад у нас стояла сильная жара. Кондиционер работал без выключения

Здесь можно оставить свои комментарии. Выпуск подготовленплагином wordpress для subscribe.ru

То, чего никак не видят многие….

Опять же, с Украины. Признаюсь честно, я, до последнего не верил, что нацизм на Украине существует

Здесь можно оставить свои комментарии. Выпуск подготовленплагином wordpress для subscribe.ru

“Доказательства” присутствия российских войск на Донбассе

От Анатолия Шария. Он нашел “источники” присутствия российских войск на Украине

Здесь можно оставить свои комментарии. Выпуск подготовленплагином wordpress для subscribe.ru

Совсем не новая статья…

Все о том же, о западных СМИ.

(44) The Ukraine, Corrupted Journalism, and the Atlanticist Faith (9Aug 2014)
The European Union is not (anymore) guided by politicians with a grasp of history, a sober assesment of global reality, or simple common sense connected with the longterm interests of what they are guiding. If any more evidence was needed, it has certainly been supplied by the sanctions they have agreed on last week aimed at punishing Russia.
One way to fathom their foolishness is to start with the media, since whatever understanding or concern these politicians may have personally they must be seen to be doing the right thing, which is taken care of by TV and newspapers.
In much of the European Union the general understanding of global reality since the horrible fate of the people on board the Malaysian Airliner comes from mainstream newspapers and TV which have copied the approach of Anglo-American mainstream media, and have presented 'news' in which insinuation and villification substitute for proper reporting. Respected publications, like the Financial Times or the once respected NRC Handelsblad of The Netherlands for which I worked sixteen years as East Asia Correspondent, not only joined in with this corrupted journalism but helped guide it to mad conclusions. The punditry and editorials that have grown out of this have gone further than anything among earlier examples of sustained media hysteria stoked for political purposes that I can remember. The most flagrant example I have come across, an anti-Putin leader in the (July 26) Economist Magazine, had the tone of Shakespeare's Henry V exhorting his troops before the battle of Agincourt as he invaded France.
One should keep in mind that there are no European-wide newspapers or publications to sustain a European public sphere, in the sense of a means for politically interested Europeans to ponder and debate with each other big international developments. Because those interested in world affairs usually read the international edition of the New York Times or the Financial Times, questions and answers on geopolitical matters are routinely shaped or strongly influenced by what editors in New York and London have determined as being important. Thinking that may deviate significantly as can now be found in Der Spiegel, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Die Zeit and Handelsblatt, does not travel across German borders. Hence we do not see anything like a European opinion evolving on global affairs, even when these have a direct impact on the interests of the European Union itself.

The Dutch population was rudely shaken out of a general complacency with respect to world events that could affect it, through the death of 193 fellow nationals (along with a 105 people of other nationalities) in the downed plane, and its media were hasty in following the American-initiated fingerpointing at Moscow. Explanations that did not in some way involve culpability of the Russian president seemed to be out of bounds. This was at odds right away with statements of a sober Dutch prime minister, who was under considerable pressure to join the fingerpointing but who insisted on waiting for a thorough examination of what precisely had happened.
The TV news programs I saw in the days immediately afterwards had invited, among other anti–Russian expositors, American neocon-linked talking heads to do the disclosing to a puzzled and truly shaken up audience. A Dutch foreign policy specialist explained that the foreign minister or his deputy could not go to the site of the crash (as Malaysian officials did) to recover the remains of Dutch citizens, because that would amount to an implicit recognition of diplomatic status for the "separatists". When the European Union en bloc recognizes a regime that has come into existence through an American initiated coup d'état, you are diplomatically stuck with it.
The inhabitants and anti-Kiev fighters at the crash site were portrayed, with images from youtube, as uncooperative criminals, which for many viewers amounted to a confirmation of their guilt. This changed when later reports from actual journalists showed shocked and deeply concerned villagers, but the discrepancy was not explained, and earlier assumptions of villainy did not make way for any objective analysis of why these people might be fighting at all. Tendentious twitter and youtube 'news' had become the basis for official Dutch indignation with the East Ukrainians, and a general opinion arose that something had to be set straight, which was, again in general opinion, accomplished by a grand nationally televised reception of the human remains (released through Malaysian mediation) in a dignified sober martial ceremony.
Nothing that I have seen or read even intimated that the Ukraine crisis – which led to coup and civil war – was created by neoconservatives and a few R2P ("Responsibility to Protect") fanatics in the State Department and the White House, apparently given a free hand by President Obama. The Dutch media also appeared unaware that the catastrophe was immediately turned into a political football for White House and State Department purposes. The likelihood that Putin was right when he said that the catastrophe would not have happened if his insistence on a cease-fire had been accepted, was not entertained.
As it was, Kiev broke the cease-fire – on the 10th of June – in its civil war against Russian speaking East Ukrainians who do not wish to be governed by a collection of thugs, progeny of Ukrainian nazis, and oligarchs enamored of the IMF and the European Union. The supposed 'rebels' have been responding to the beginnings of ethnic cleansing operations (systematic terror bombing and atrocities – 30 or more Ukrainians burned alive) committed by Kiev forces, of which little or nothing has penetrated into European news reports.
It is unlikely that the American NGOs, which by official admission spent 5 billion dollars in political destabilization efforts prior to the February putsch in Kiev, have suddenly disappeared from the Ukraine, or that America's military advisors and specialized troops have sat idly by as Kiev's military and militias mapped their civil war strategy; after all, the new thugs are as a regime on financial life-support provided by Washington, the European Union and IMF. What we know is that Washington is encouraging the ongoing killing in the civil war it helped trigger.
But Washington has constantly had the winning hand in a propaganda war against, entirely contrary to what mainstream media would have us believe, an essentially unwilling opponent. Waves of propaganda come from Washington and are made to fit assumptions of a Putin, driven and assisted by a nationalism heightened by the loss of the Soviet empire, who is trying to expand the Russian Federation up to the borders of that defunct empire. The more adventurous punditry, infected by neocon fever, has Russia threatening to envelop the West. Hence Europeans are made to believe that Putin refuses diplomacy, while he has been urging this all along. Hence prevailing propaganda has had the effect that not Washington's but Putin's actions are seen as dangerous and extreme. Anyone with a personal story that places Putin or Russia in a bad light must move right now; Dutch editors seem insatiable at the moment.
There is no doubt that the frequently referred to Moscow propaganda exists. But there are ways for serious journalists to weigh competing propaganda and discern how much veracity or lies and bullshit they contain. Within my field of vision this has only taken place a bit in Germany. For the rest we must piece political reality together relying on the now more than ever indispensable American websites hospitable to whistleblowers and old-fashioned investigative journalism, which especially since the onset of the 'war on terrorism' and the Iraq invasion have formed a steady form of samizdat publishing.
In The Netherlands almost anything that comes from the State Department is taken at face value. America's history, since the demise of the Soviet Union, of truly breathtaking lies: on Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Venezuela, Libya and North Korea; its record of overthrown governments; its black-op and false flag operations; and its stealthily garrisoning of the planet with some thousand military bases, is conveniently left out of consideration. The near hysteria throughout a week following the downed airliner prevented people with some knowledge of relevant history from opening their mouths. Job security in the current world of journalism is quite shaky, and going against the tide would be almost akin to siding with the devil, as it would damage one's journalistic 'credibility'.
What strikes an older generation of serious journalists as questionable about the mainstream media's credibility is editorial indifference to potential clues that would undermine or destroy the official story line; a story line that has already permeated popular culture as is evident in throwaway remarks embellishing book and film reviews along with much else. In The Netherlands the official story is already carved in stone, which is to be expected when it is repeated ten-thousand times. It cannot be discounted, of course, but it is based on not a shred of evidence.
The presence of two Ukrainian fighterplanes near the Malaysian airliner on Russian radar would be a potential clue I would be very interested in if I were investigating either as journalist or member of the investigation team that The Netherlands has officially been put in charge of. This appeared to be corroborated by a BBC Report with eyewitness accounts from the ground by villagers who clearly saw another plane, a fighter, close to the airliner, near the time of its crash, and heard explosions coming from the sky. This report has recently drawn attention because it was removed from the BBC's archive. I would want to talk with Michael Bociurkiw, one of the first inspectors from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to reach the crash site who spent more than a week examining the wreckage and has described on CBC World News two or three "really pock-marked" pieces of fuselage. "It almost looks like machine gun fire; very, very strong machine gun fire that has left these unique marks that we haven't seen anywhere else."
I would certainly also want to have a look at the allegedly confiscated radar and voice records of the Kiev Air Control Tower to understand why the Malaysian pilot veered off course and rapidly descended shortly before his plane crashed, and find out whether foreign aircontrollers in Kiev were indeed sent packing immediately after the crash. Like the "Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity", I would certainly urge the American authorities with access to satellite images to show the evidence they claim to have of BUK missile batteries in 'rebel' hands as well as of Russian involvement, and ask them why they have not done so already. Until now Washington has acted like a driver who refuses a breathalyzer test. Since intelligence officials have leaked to some American newspapers their lesser certainty about the American certainties as brought to the world by the Secretary of State, my curiosity would be unrelenting.
To place European media loyalty to Washington in the Ukraine case as well as the slavish conduct of European politicians in perspective, we must know about and understand Atlanticism. It is a European faith. It has not given rise to an official doctrine, of course, but it functions like one. It is well summed up by the Dutch slogan at the time of the Iraq invasion: "zonder Amerika gaat het niet" (without the United States [things] [it] won't work). Needless to say, the Cold War gave birth to Atlanticism. Ironically, it gained strength as the threat from the Soviet Union became less persuasive for increasing numbers among European political elites. That probably was a matter of generational change: the farther away from World War II, the less European governments remembered what it means to have an independent foreign policy on global-sized issues. Current heads of government of the European Union are unfamiliar with practical strategic deliberations. Routine thought on international relations and global politics is deeply entrenched in Cold War epistemology.
This inevitably also informs 'responsible' editorial policies. Atlanticism is now a terrible affliction for Europe: it fosters historical amnesia, willful blindness and dangerously misconceived political anger. But it thrives on a mixture of lingering unquestioned Cold War era certainties about protection, Cold War loyalties embedded in popular culture, sheer European ignorance, and an understandable reluctance to concede that one has even for a little bit been brainwashed. Washington can do outrageous things while leaving Atlanticism intact because of everyone's forgetfulness, which the media do little or nothing to cure. I know Dutch people who have become disgusted with the villification of Putin, but the idea that in the context of Ukraine the fingerpointing should be toward Washington is well-nigh unacceptable. Hence, Dutch publications, along with many others in Europe, cannot bring themselves to place the Ukraine crisis in proper perspective by acknowledging that Washington started it all, and that Washington rather than Putin has the key to its solution. It would impel a renunciation of Atlanticism.
Atlanticism derives much of its strength through NATO, its institutional embodiment. The reason for NATO's existence, which disappeard with the demise of the Soviet Union, has been largely forgotten. Formed in 1949, it was based on the idea that transatlantic cooperation for security and defense had become necessary after World War II in the face of a communism, orchestrated by Moscow, intent on taking over the entire planet. Much less talked about was European internal distrust, as the Europeans set off on their first moves towards economic integration. NATO constituted a kind of American guarantee that no power in Europe would ever try to dominate the others.
NATO has for some time now been a liability for the European Union, as it prevents development of concerted European foreign and defense policies, and has forced the member states to become instruments serving American militarism.
It is also a moral liability because the governments participating in the 'coalition of the willing' have had to sell the lie to their citizens that European soldiers dying in Iraq and Afghanistan have been a necessary sacrifice to keep Europe safe from terrorists. Governments that have supplied troops to areas occupied by the United States have generally done this with considerable reluctance, earning the reproach from a succession of American officials that Europeans do too little for the collective purpose of defending democracy and freedom.
As is the mark of an ideology, Atlanticism is ahistorical. As horse medicine against the torment of fundamental political ambiguity it supplies its own history: one that may be rewritten by American mainstream media as they assist in spreading the word from Washington.
There could hardly be a better demonstration of this than the Dutch experience at the moment. In conversations these past three weeks I have encountered genuine surprise when reminding friends that the Cold War ended through diplomacy with a deal made on Malta between Gorbachev and the elder Bush in December 1989, in which James Baker got Gorbachev to accept the reunification of Germany and withdrawal of Warsaw Pact troops with a promise that NATO would not be extended even one inch to the East. Gorbachev pledged not to use force in Eastern Europe where the Russians had some 350,000 troops in East Germany alone, in return for Bush's promise that Washington would not take advantage of a Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe. Bill Clinton reneged on those American promises when, for purely electoral reasons, he boasted about an enlargement of NATO and in 1999 made the Czech Republic and Hungary full members. Ten years later another nine countries became members, at which point the number of NATO countries was double the number during the Cold War. The famous American specialist on Russia, Ambassador George Kennan, originator of Cold War containment policy, called Clinton's move "the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era."
Historical ignorance abetted by Atlanticism is poignantly on display in the contention that the ultimate proof in the case against Vladimir Putin is his invasion of Crimea. Again, political reality here was created by America's mainstream media. There was no invasion, as the Russian sailors and soldiers were already there since it is home to the 'warm water' Black Sea base for the Russian navy. Crimea has been a part of Russia for as long as the United States has existed. In 1954 Khrushchev, who himself came from the Ukraine, gave it to the Ukrainian Socialist Republic, which came down to moving a region to a different province, since Russia and Ukraine still belonged to the same country. The Russian speaking Crimean population was happy enough, as it voted in a referendum first for independence from the Kiev regime that resulted from the coup d'état, and subsequently for reunification with Russia.
Those who maintain that Putin had no right to do such a thing are unaware of another strand of history in which the United States has been moving (Star Wars) missile defense systems ever closer to Russian borders, supposedly to intercept hostile missiles from Iran, which do not exist. Sanctimonious talk about territorial integrity and sovereignty makes no sense under these circumstances, and coming from a Washington that has done away with the concept of sovereignty in its own foreign policy it is downright ludicrous.
A detestable Atlanticist move was the exclusion of Putin from the meetings and other events connected with the commemoration of the Normandy landings, for the first time in 17 years. The G8 became the G7 as a result. Amnesia and ignorance have made the Dutch blind to a history that directly concerned them, since the Soviet Union took the heart out of the Nazi war machine (that occupied The Netherlands) at a cost of incomparable and unimaginable mumbers of military dead; without that there would not have been a Normandy invasion.
Not so long ago, the complete military disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan appeared to be moving NATO to a point where its inevitable demise could not to be too far off. But the Ukraine crisis and Putin's decisiveness in preventing the Crimea with its Russian Navy base from possibly falling into the hands of the American-owned alliance, has been a godsend to this earlier faltering institution.
NATO leadership has already been moving troops to strengthen their presence in the Baltic states, sending missiles and attack aircraft to Poland and Lithuania, and since the downing of the Malaysian airliner it has been preparing further military moves that may turn into dangerous provocations of Russia. It has become clear that the Polish foreign minister together with the Baltic countries, none of which partook in NATO when its reason for being could still be defended, have become a strong driving force behind it. A mood of mobilisation has spread in the past week. The ventriloquist dummies Anders Fogh Rasmussen and Jaap de Hoop Scheffer can be relied upon to take to TV screens inveighing against NATO memberstate backsliding. Rasmussen, the current Secretary General, declared on August 7 in Kiev that NATO's "support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine is unwavering" and that he is looking to strengthen partnership with the country at the Alliance's summit in Wales in September. That partnership is already strong, so he said, "and in response to Russia's aggression, NATO is working even more closely with Ukraine to reform its armed forces and defence institutions."
In the meantime, in the American Congress 23 Senate Republicans have sponsored legislation, the "Russian Aggression Prevention Act", which is meant to allow Washington to make the Ukraine a non-NATO ally and could set the stage for a direct military conflict with Russia. We will probably have to wait until after America's midterm elections to see what will become of it, but it already helps provide a political excuse for those in Washington who want to take next steps in the Ukraine.
In September last year Putin helped Obama by making it possible for him to stop a bombing campaign against Syria pushed by the neocons, and had also helped in defusing the nuclear dispute with Iran, another neocon project. This led to a neocon commitment to break the Putin-Obama link. It is hardly a secret that the neoconservatives desire the overthrow of Putin and eventual dismemberment of the Russian Federation. Less known in Europe is the existence of numerous NGO's at work in Russia, which will help them with this. Vladimir Putin could strike now or soon, to preempt NATO and the American Congress, by taking Eastern Ukraine, something he probably should have done right after the Crimean referendum. That would, of course, be proof of his evil intentions in European editorial eyes.
In the light of all this, one of the most fateful questions to ask in current global affairs is: what has to happen for Europeans to wake up to the fact that Washington is playing with fire and has ceased being the protector they counted on, and is instead now endangering their security? Will the moment come when it becomes clear that the Ukraine crisis is, most of all, about placing Star Wars missile batteries along an extensive stretch of Russian border, which gives Washington – in the insane lingo of nuclear strategists – 'first strike' capacity?
It is beginning to sink in among older Europeans that the United States has enemies who are not Europe's enemies because it needs them for domestic political reasons; to keep an economically hugely important war industry going and to test by shorthand the political bona fides of contenders for public office. But while using rogue states and terrorists as targets for 'just wars' has never been convincing, Putin's Russia as demonized by a militaristic NATO could help prolong the transatlantic status quo. The truth behind the fate of the Malaysian airliner, I thought from the moment that I heard about it, would be politically determined. Its black boxes are in London. In NATO hands?
Other hindrances to an awakening remain huge; financialization and neoliberal policies have produced an intimate transatlantic entwining of plutocratic interests. Together with the Atlanticist faith these have helped stymie the political development of the European Union, and with that Europe's ability to proceed with independent political decisions. Since Tony Blair, Great Britain has been in Washington's pocket, and since Nicolas Sarkozy one can say more or less the same of France.
That leaves Germany. Angela Merkel was clearly unhappy with the sanctions, but in the end went along because she wants to remain on the good side of the American president, and the United States as the conqueror in World War II does still have leverage through a variety of agreements. Germany's foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, quoted in newspapers and appearing on TV, repudiated the sanctions and points at Iraq and Libya as examples of the results brought by escalation and ultimatums, yet he too swings round and in the end goes along with them.
Der Spiegel is one of the German publications that offer hope. One of its columnists, Jakob Augstein, attacks the "sleepwalkers" who have agreed to sanctions, and censures his colleagues' fingerpointing at Moscow. Gabor Steingart, who publishes Handelsblatt, inveighs against the "American tendency to verbal and then to military escalation, the isolation, demonization, and attacking of enemies" and concludes that also German journalism "has switched from level-headed to agitated in a matter of weeks. The spectrum of opinions has been narrowed to the field of vision of a sniper scope." There must be more journalists in other parts of Europe who say things like this, but their voices do not carry through the din of villification.
History is being made, once again. What may well determine Europe's fate is that also outside the defenders of the Atlanticist faith, decent Europeans cannot bring themselves to believe in the dysfunction and utter irresponsibility of the American state.

Отсюда.

Здесь, — не очень хороший перевод этой статьи на русский.

Здесь можно оставить свои комментарии. Выпуск подготовленплагином wordpress для subscribe.ru

Высоцкий…

Одно из большого множества, стихотворений Высоцкого.. Я никогда не верил миражи, В грядущий рай не ладил чемодана – Учителей сожрало море лжи И выплюнуло возле Магадана

Здесь можно оставить свои комментарии. Выпуск подготовленплагином wordpress для subscribe.ru

К Маршу Мира…

..Хорошая идея. Размышления на эту тему привели нас к мысли, что нужно начать долгосрочную, до достижения прочного мира, акцию, мягко задействовав в ней тысячи и тысячи украинских детей

Здесь можно оставить свои комментарии. Выпуск подготовленплагином wordpress для subscribe.ru

Отношение к бизнесу…

Как Государство относится к бизнесу Но главное отличие — это все-таки отношение чиновников, которое предполагает сотрудничество, а не противостояние

Здесь можно оставить свои комментарии. Выпуск подготовленплагином wordpress для subscribe.ru

Написал когда-то…

…это Сейчас прочитал и понял, не получилось у меня. Нужно останавливаться… Ух

Здесь можно оставить свои комментарии. Выпуск подготовленплагином wordpress для subscribe.ru

Альфред Кох об экономике на Украине…

…Многие сейчас, особенно “демократы”, любят ссылаться на Коха. Из разговоров со многими специалистами по экономике и вообще по ситуации в Украине: к осени (ноябрь) Украина станет банкротом

Здесь можно оставить свои комментарии. Выпуск подготовленплагином wordpress для subscribe.ru

Новые подходы в работе с журналистами…

..Ну, и, конечно же, вполне “демократично”..

Здесь можно оставить свои комментарии. Выпуск подготовленплагином wordpress для subscribe.ru

И еще, какая-то жуткая история…

…С какими-то запредельными суммами денег… Взятка на… 30 000 000 000$ (тридцать миллиардов(

Здесь можно оставить свои комментарии. Выпуск подготовленплагином wordpress для subscribe.ru

“Демократический” референдум в Шотландии…

Честно говоря, я продолжаю удивляться разнообразным “демократическим” инструментам

Здесь можно оставить свои комментарии. Выпуск подготовленплагином wordpress для subscribe.ru

Америка сильно изменилась…

С того самого момента, когда была проведена атака на World Trade Center в Нью-Йорке. Получилось вот что

Здесь можно оставить свои комментарии. Выпуск подготовленплагином wordpress для subscribe.ru

Фотографии северного сияния

По-моему, — потрясающе. A bright green aurora reflects off a glacial lake against the backdrop of a snow-covered mountain range in an incredible photo that took home first prize in an astrophotography competition

Здесь можно оставить свои комментарии. Выпуск подготовленплагином wordpress для subscribe.ru

А, вот это, уже интересно…

..Особенно, то что подчеркнуто..

На этой неделе американский бизнесмен Джим Роджерс, которого принято считать одним из гуру инвестиционного мира, впервые вошел в совет директоров российской компании. В 1973 году Роджерс вместе с Джорджем Соросом основал хедж-фонд Quantum, сейчас ему 71 год, он живет в Сингапуре и управляет собственным инвестиционным фондом Rogers Holdings. Раньше финансист не редко критиковал Россию. В разгар финансового кризиса 2009 года он предупреждал, что инвестировать в российские бумаги рискованно – слишком высоки политические риски. Но сейчас, как ни странно, кажется, передумал.

У вас репутация инвестора-«еретика», часто идущего вопреки рыночным тенденциям. В марте, когда разразился конфликт вокруг Украины, вы заявили, что самое время покупать российские акции. А сейчас вы посоветовали бы вкладываться в российские активы? И как обстоят дела с вашими инвестициями в Россию?

Я покупаю некоторые российские бумаги. У меня есть акции «Фосагро», Московской биржи и «Аэрофлота», ориентированных на Россию фондов ETF. Полагаю, что сейчас акции многих российских компаний очень дешевы, при этом фундаментальные факторы не изменились – в долгосрочной перспективе они будут работать на создание стоимости. Если вы рассматриваете Россию в длительной перспективе, как я, то сейчас самое время покупать.

Как вы относитесь к западным санкциям в отношении России? Нет ли риска того, что санкции будут расширяться и затронут другие сектора экономики?

Без комментариев.

В 2012 году вы стали советником ВТБ. Вы бы порекомендовали покупать акции банка сейчас, на фоне санкций?

Я был назначен советником «ВТБ Капитала» по инвестициям в сельское хозяйство. Рекомендации по покупке акций банка лежат вне моей компетенции.

Поговорим про ваше кредо как инвестора. В свое время вы ставили КНДР в число самых привлекательных мест для инвестиций, учитывая, что северокорейский рынок рано или поздно откроется, – и даже хотели вложиться в этот потенциал через инвестиции в китайские компании, уже работающие в КНДР. Ваша точка зрения не изменилась?

Потенциально я очень заинтересован в инвестировании в Северную Корею, но в настоящее время это невозможно из-за ограничений, накладываемых американским законодательством.

У вас есть опыт инвестиций в другие страны, которые не пользовались доверием международного сообщества и были непривлекательны для большинства инвесторов?

Важно не только соблюдать требования законодательства, но и рассчитывать на ликвидные активы, которые будут потенциально интересны и другим инвесторам. В противном случае, боюсь, это будет не самая хорошая инвестиционная стратегия… Я был одним из первых инвесторов в Китай задолго до того, как стало известно, как на самом деле развивается страна. То же самое с Мьянмой.

Читать полностью:

Здесь можно оставить свои комментарии. Выпуск подготовленплагином wordpress для subscribe.ru