Russische leiders in hun eigen woorden

[brother paul]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Bach

Ik vind dat zo kinderachtig myoptisch om te denken dat iemand die niet meegaat in het westers oorlogsnaratief een Russische agent of iets dergelijks is.Tegelijk is het de prelude van een fascistische mentaliteit met zware gevolgen voor 'gedachtenmisdaden'.

hoe kan enige transparantie fascistisch zijn ?

[brother paul]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Nr.10

² Nota bene: dat 'het Zwanenmeer' bestaat bewijst dat de Russen zich niet onbetuigd hebben gelaten in het creëren van een Europese cultuur.

wacht NR10

de russen hebben onlangs bewezen dat de egyptenaren eigenlijk Russen waren...

https://euvsdisinfo.eu/report/egypti...rue-history-of

[brother paul]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Erw

Precies.
Kijk naar de posts van kelt.
We lezen dit.
We lezen dat.
We vernemen dat.
We horen dat...
Het blijkt dat...
Met 0 bronvermeldingen.
Dat is als in een cafe voorlezen al wegstekende je gazet.

als hij het gelezen heeft in skynews en dat erbijzet lijkt mij dat voldoende als bronvermelding, maar idd een link copieren en plakken zou nog beter zijn.

laat niet weg dat de bronnen uit telegram,sputnik natuurlijk helemaal hilarisch zijn omdat die bronnen echt uit het trollenhol komen

hetis niet zo moeilijk: als je een bericht hebt die gewogen door ground dan weet je wat het waard is...

https://ground.news/article/rss_5245_1690051177327_10

dus laten we de methode eens samenvatten

1/ de bron vermelden URL is een goeie netetikette
2/ de bron alternatief eens wegen met ground weten we hoe populair het bericht is, wat de bron waard is en of de bron verdacht kan genoemd worden
en niet zoals Tommeke beweert dat alle pravda.ukr berichten propaganda zijn
3/ de bron wegen versus EUdysinfo is een nog betere netetikette


deze netetikette regels worden jammergenoeg discriminerend maar een kwestie an hun vertrouwen in de politics gemeenschap wat op te bouwen, toegepast door Tomm, NR10, Bach, Erw, en al wie teveel rusland beschouwt als een superieure kwalitatitieve bron van informatie

[Nr.10]

Een stukje uitleg bij het waarom van het einde van de graan-overeenkomst, Valentina Matvienko, met Engelstalige ondertiteling:

VIDEO
_{25 jul 2023}

The Chairwoman of the Federation Council, Valentina Matvienko, explained that
the purpose of the so-called Grain corridor in the now expired Grain Deal was
not seen as a means of exporting grain, but as a corridor for weapons
smuggling and terrorism.

[Voltian]

https://twitter.com/k_sonin/status/1699089739356266749

Putin: "The Western masters placed an ethnic Jew, a person with Jewish roots, at the head of Ukraine and this is how, in my opinion, they cover up the anti-human essence that is the foundation of the modern Ukrainian state."

Wat is dit ineens? zowaar een antisemitistische opmerking van Putin? Maar ik dacht dat de Oekrainers de nazi's waren?.......


(...of misschien is het een slechte vertaling van een biased persoon; dat kan ook. Of dit is niet Putin, of zoiets...)

Benieuwd wat Bach, nr.10, erw, R. Kipling en tomm hiervan vinden...

[patrickve]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Voltian

Putin: "The Western masters placed an ethnic Jew, a person with Jewish roots, at the head of Ukraine and this is how, in my opinion, they cover up the anti-human essence that is the foundation of the modern Ukrainian state."

Wat is dit ineens? zowaar een antisemitistische opmerking van Putin? Maar ik dacht dat de Oekrainers de nazi's waren?.......

Ah, ik begrijp die zin anders dan jij. Ik denk dat Poetin bedoelt: GEZIEN men in Oekraine een afschuwelijk anti-humaan regime wilde stichten heeft men om dat te VERDOEZELEN hiervoor het heiligste aller heiligheden gebruikt: een etnische Jood, omdat dat iets is dat van niks mag beschuldigd worden.

[Voltian]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door patrickve

Ah, ik begrijp die zin anders dan jij. Ik denk dat Poetin bedoelt: GEZIEN men in Oekraine een afschuwelijk anti-humaan regime wilde stichten heeft men om dat te VERDOEZELEN hiervoor het heiligste aller heiligheden gebruikt: een etnische Jood, omdat dat iets is dat van niks mag beschuldigd worden.

Aja, dat kan ook natuurlijk.

[kelt]

Operator Starsky was er gsteren ook al over aan het grappen...

In de "bevrijde gebieden" zijn er democratische en eerlijke verkizingen bezig,erkend door alle andere naties op de planeet ...

Daar stemt een ruime meerderheid van de kiezers en zal de partij van de Russische President ,zoals reeds vooraf aangekondigd,70 a 80% van de stemmen,mogelijk meer, halen..

Goe bezig dus!

[Bach]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door patrickve

Ah, ik begrijp die zin anders dan jij. Ik denk dat Poetin bedoelt: GEZIEN men in Oekraine een afschuwelijk anti-humaan regime wilde stichten heeft men om dat te VERDOEZELEN hiervoor het heiligste aller heiligheden gebruikt: een etnische Jood, omdat dat iets is dat van niks mag beschuldigd worden.

Lijkt me logischer. Probleem is dat cherry picking uit wat Russische leiders zeggen de context zo doet vervagen dat het publiek gemakkelijk op het verkeerd been gezet kan worden. Zeker als je er al op uit zijt iets negatiefs te zoeken in de woorden van Russische leiders en niet zo geïnteresseerd zijt in wat ze feitelijk bedoelen te zeggen.

[Nr.10]

Risk of Global Conflict Increasing - Lavrov at UN Security Council Meeting

LINK
_{20 sep 2023}

= = =

Een rapport van deze vergadering d.d. 20 september 2023,
met een voorlopige korte inhoud van alle tussenkomsten,
vindt u hier:
https://press.un.org/en/2023/sc15416.doc.htm

Er wordt gewerkt aan een meer volledig rapport,
meldt de site.

= = =

Dezer dagen vindt ook de 78ste jaarlijkse 'Algemene Vergadering' van de VN plaats in de gebouwen van de VN in New York: 18-22 september 2023.

[Erw]

MAar Het Westblok wil deze oorlog natuurlijk lang genoeg aan de gang houden als gelegenheid / uitleg om andermans afgepakt geld te kunnen spenderen.
Kijk naar hun reageren op de aanslagen op WTC en Pentagon, een paar decennia lang spenderen in hun eigen cohorten, in Irak, in Afghanistan, enz. Totaalplaatje zowat 8000 miljard, duizenden keer de kost van de aanslagen.
De oorlog in Oekraine mag niet snel stoppen, ze gaan er alles aan doen oim die te rekken, vandaar ook die insuline achtige wapentuig leveringen.

[Bach]

Mr. Chairman,

Mr. Secretary General,

Colleagues

The existing international order was built on ruins and following the colossal tragedy of World War II. It was based on the UN Charter, a key source of modern international law. Largely thanks to the UN, it was possible to prevent a new world war, fraught with a nuclear catastrophe.

Unfortunately, after the end of the Cold War, the "collective West", led by the United States, arbitrarily arrogated to itself the rank of arbiter of the destinies of all mankind and, overwhelmed by an exclusivity complex, began to ignore the legacy of the founding fathers of the UN more and more widely.

Today, the West refers to the statutory norms and principles selectively, from time to time, exclusively in accordance with its selfish geopolitical needs. This inevitably leads to the undermining of global stability, the exacerbation of existing and the incitement of new hotbeds of tension. The risks of global conflict are also growing. It is precisely in order to stop them, to direct events in a peaceful direction, that Russia insisted and insists that all provisions of the UN Charter be respected and applied not selectively, but in their entirety and interconnection, including the principles of sovereign equality of states, non-interference in their internal affairs, respect for territorial integrity and the right of peoples to self-determination. The actions of the United States and its allies indicate a systematic imbalance of the requirements enshrined in the Charter.

Since the collapse of the USSR and the formation of independent states in its place, the United States and its allies have grossly and openly interfered in the internal affairs of Ukraine. As US Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland publicly and even proudly admitted at the end of 2013, Washington spent $5 billion on nurturing politicians obedient to the West in Kiev.

All the facts of the "engineering" of the Ukrainian crisis have long been known, but they are trying in every possible way to silence, to "cancel" the entire history until 2014. Therefore, the topic of today's meeting, proposed by the Albanian presidency, is very opportune and allows us to restore the chronological chain of events, and it is in the context of the attitude of the main actors to the implementation of the principles and goals of the UN Charter.

In 2004-2005, the West, in order to bring a pro-American candidate to power, sanctioned the first coup d'état in Kiev, forcing the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to make an illegal decision to hold a third round of elections not provided for by the country's Constitution. Even more unceremonious interference in internal affairs manifested itself during the second Maidan in 2013-2014, when a whole series of Western voyageurs directly encouraged participants in anti-government demonstrations to violent actions. The same V. Nuland discussed with the US ambassador in Kiev the composition of the future government, which will be formed by the putschists. At the same time, she pointed out to the European Union its real place in world politics from the point of view of Washington. We all remember her scabrous two-word phrase. It is significant that the European Union "swallowed" it.

In February 2014, the characters selected by the Americans became key participants in the bloody seizure of power, organized, I recall, a day after the agreement reached between the legitimately elected President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych and opposition leaders under the guarantees of Germany, Poland and France. The principle of non-interference in internal affairs has been repeatedly trampled.

Immediately after the coup, the putschists declared that their absolute priority was to curtail the rights of Russian-speaking citizens of Ukraine. And the inhabitants of Crimea and the south-east of the country, who refused to come to terms with the results of the unconstitutional seizure of power, were declared terrorists, launching a punitive operation against them. In response, Crimea and Donbass held referendums in full compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, enshrined in paragraph 2 of Article 1 of the UN Charter.

Western diplomats and politicians, in relation to Ukraine, turn a blind eye to this most important norm of international law in an effort to reduce the entire background and essence of what is happening to the inadmissibility of violating territorial integrity. In this regard, I would like to remind you that the 1970 UN Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the UN Charter, adopted unanimously, stipulates that the principle of respect for territorial integrity is applicable to "states that observe in their actions the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples (...) and, consequently, having governments representing (...) all the people living in the territory." The fact that the Ukrainian neo-Nazis who seized power in Kiev did not represent the population of Crimea and Donbass does not require proof. And the unconditional support by Western capitals for the actions of the criminal Kiev regime is nothing more than a violation of the principle of self-determination following gross interference in internal affairs.

Following the coup d'état during the reign of Petr Poroshenko and then Vladimir Zelensky, the adoption of racist laws banning everything Russian – education, media, culture, the destruction of books and monuments, the ban on the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and the seizure of its property – was a defiant violation of paragraph 3 of Article 1 of the UN Charter on respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all – without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion. Not to mention the fact that these actions directly contradicted the Constitution of Ukraine, which enshrines the obligation of the state to respect the rights of Russians and other national minorities.

When we hear calls to implement the "peace formula" and return Ukraine to the 1991 borders, the question arises: are those who call for this familiar with the statements of the Ukrainian leadership about what they are going to do with the inhabitants of the respective territories? Threats of legal or physical extermination are repeatedly addressed to them publicly, at the official level. The West not only does not restrain its protégés in Kiev, but also enthusiastically encourages their racist policies.

By the way, in a similar way, EU and NATO members have been encouraging the actions of Latvia and Estonia for decades to defeat the rights of hundreds of thousands of Russian-speaking residents who have been called "non-citizens". Now they are seriously discussing the introduction of criminal liability for the use of the native language. High-ranking officials officially declare that the dissemination of information about the possibility of local students passing Russian distance school programs should be considered almost as a threat to national security and requires the attention of law enforcement agencies.

Returning to Ukraine. The conclusion of the Minsk agreements in February 2015 was approved by a special resolution of the Security Council – in full compliance with Article 36 of the Charter, which supports "any procedure for resolving a dispute that has been accepted by the parties." In this case, Kiev, the DPR and LPR. However, last year, all the signatories of the Minsk Agreements, except Vladimir Putin (Angela Merkel, Francois Hollande and Petr Poroshenko), publicly and even gladly admitted that when they signed this document, they had no intention of fulfilling it. They only sought to gain time to strengthen Ukraine's military potential and pump it up with weapons against Russia. All these years, the EU and NATO have directly supported the sabotage of the Minsk agreements, pushing the Kiev regime to resolve the "Donbass problem" by force. This was done in violation of Article 25 of the Charter, according to which all UN members are obliged to "obey the decisions of the Security Council and carry them out."

Let me remind you that in the package with the Minsk agreements, the leaders of Russia, Germany, France and Ukraine signed a declaration in which Berlin and Paris pledged to do a lot, including helping to restore the banking system in Donbass. But they didn't lift a finger. We just watched how, contrary to all these obligations, Pavel Poroshenko announced a trade, economic and transport blockade of Donbass. In the same declaration, Berlin and Paris pledged to promote the strengthening of trilateral cooperation in the EU-Russia-Ukraine format for a practical solution to Russia's trade concerns, as well as to promote "the creation of a common humanitarian and economic space from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean." This declaration was also approved by the Security Council and was subject to implementation in accordance with the aforementioned Article 25 of the UN Charter. But this commitment of the leaders of Germany and France turned out to be a "dummy", another violation of the statutory principles.

The legendary Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR A.A. Gromyko has rightly noted more than once: "ten years of negotiations are better than one day of war." Following this precept, we have been negotiating for many years, seeking agreements in the field of European security, approved the NATO-Russia Founding Act, adopted OSCE declarations on the indivisibility of security at the highest level in 1999 and 2010, and since 2015 have insisted on the unconditional implementation of the Minsk agreements resulting from the negotiations. Everything is in full compliance with the UN Charter, which requires "to provide conditions for justice and respect for obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law." Our Western colleagues trampled on this principle when they signed all these documents, knowing in advance that they would not comply with them.

Speaking of negotiations. We are still not abandoning them. President of Russia Vladimir Putin has spoken about this many times, including quite recently. I would like to remind the distinguished Secretary of State that President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky signed a decree prohibiting negotiations with the government of Vladimir Putin. If the United States is so interested in them, I think it will not be difficult to "give the command" that Vladimir Zelensky's executive order be canceled.

Today, in the rhetoric of our opponents, we hear only slogans: "invasion, aggression, annexation." Not a word about the root causes of the problem, about how for many years they nurtured the openly Nazi regime, openly rewriting the results of World War II and the history of their own people. The West avoids a substantive conversation based on facts and respect for all the requirements of the UN Charter. Apparently, he has no arguments for an honest dialogue.

There is a strong impression that Western representatives are afraid of professional discussions that expose their demagoguery. Uttering incantations about the territorial integrity of Ukraine, the former colonial metropolises are silent about the UN decisions on the need for Paris to return the "French" Mayotte to the Union of the Comoros, and for London to leave the Chagos archipelago and begin negotiations with Buenos Aires on the Malvinas Islands. These "champions" of the territorial integrity of Ukraine now pretend that they do not remember the meaning of the Minsk agreements, which consisted in the reunification of Donbass with Ukraine with guarantees of respect for fundamental human rights, primarily the right to their native language. The West, which thwarted their implementation, is directly responsible for the collapse of Ukraine and the incitement of civil war there.

Among other principles of the UN Charter, respect for which could prevent a security crisis in Europe and help harmonize confidence-building measures based on a balance of interests, I would like to note Article 2 of Chapter VIII of the Charter. It enshrines the need to develop the practice of peaceful settlement of disputes with the help of regional organizations.

In accordance with this principle, Russia, together with its allies, has consistently advocated the establishment of contacts between the CSTO and NATO in order to facilitate the practical implementation of the above-mentioned decisions of the OSCE summits of 1999 and 2010 on the indivisibility of security, which stipulate, in particular, that "no state, group of states, or organization can be given primary responsibility for maintaining peace and stability in the OSCE area or consider any part of this region as its sphere of influence." Everyone knows that this is exactly what NATO was doing - trying to create its full advantage in Europe, and now in the Asia-Pacific region. However, numerous appeals of the highest bodies of the CSTO to the North Atlantic Alliance were ignored. The reason for such an arrogant position of the United States and its allies, as everyone can see today, is the unwillingness to conduct any equal dialogue with anyone. If NATO had not rejected the CSTO's proposals for cooperation, then perhaps this would have avoided many of the negative processes that led to the current European crisis due to the fact that Russia has been refused to listen to or deceived for decades.

Today, when we are discussing "effective multilateralism" at the suggestion of the presidency, we should not forget about the numerous facts of the West's genetic rejection of any form of equal cooperation. What is the pearl of Josep Borrell that Europe is "a blooming garden surrounded by jungle". This is a purely neocolonial syndrome that despises the sovereign equality of states and the tasks of "strengthening the principles of the UN Charter through effective multilateralism" that are on display in our discussion today.

In an effort to prevent the democratization of interstate relations, the United States and its allies are increasingly openly and unceremoniously privatizing the secretariats of international organizations, bypassing the established procedures for decisions on the creation of subordinate mechanisms with non-consensus mandates, but with a claim to the right to blame those who, for some reason, are not pleasing to Washington.

In this regard, I would like to remind you of the need for strict implementation of the UN Charter not only by member states, but also by the Secretariat of our organization. Under Article 100 of the Charter, the Secretariat is required to act impartially and must not receive instructions from any Government.

We have already talked about Article 2 of the Charter. I wish to draw attention to its key point 1: "The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of the States of all its Members". Developing this principle, the UN General Assembly, in the Declaration of October 24, 1970 I mentioned, reaffirmed "the inalienable right of every state to choose its own political, economic, social and cultural system without interference from any side." In this regard, we have serious questions about Secretary General Antonio Guterres' statements of March 29 that "autocratic rule does not guarantee stability, it is a catalyst for chaos and conflict," but "strong democratic societies are capable of self-correction and self-improvement. They can spur change, even radical change, without bloodshed or violence." One involuntarily recalls the "changes" brought about by the aggressive adventures of the "strong democracies" in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and many other countries.

Further, the esteemed Antonio Guterres said: "They (democracies) are centers of broad cooperation rooted in the principles of equality, participation and solidarity." It is noteworthy that all these speeches were delivered at the "summit for democracy" convened by President Joe Biden outside the UN, the participants of which were selected by the US administration on the basis of loyalty – and not so much to Washington as to the ruling Democratic Party in the United States. Attempts to use such get-togethers forums to discuss issues of a global nature directly contradict paragraph 4 of Article 1 of the UN Charter, which states the need to "ensure the role of the Organization as a center for coordinating actions in achieving common goals."

Contrary to this principle, a few years ago, France and Germany proclaimed an "alliance of multilateralists", to which they also invited only those who are obedient, which in itself reaffirms the inevitability of the colonial mentality and the attitude of the initiators to the principle of "effective multilateralism" on our agenda today. At the same time, a "narrative" about the European Union as the ideal of that very "multilateralism" was implanted. There are now calls from Brussels to expand the EU's membership as soon as possible, including, in particular, the Balkan countries. But the main pathos is not about Serbia, not about Turkey, which has been conducting hopeless accession negotiations for decades, but about Ukraine. Claiming to be the ideologist of European integration, Josep Borrell recently did not hesitate to speak out in the sense that the Kiev regime should be admitted to the European Union as soon as possible. Say, if it were not for the war, it would have taken years, and so - it is possible and necessary without any criteria. Serbia, Turkey and others will wait. But the Nazis are accepted into the ranks of the EU out of turn.

By the way, at the same "summit for democracy", the Secretary-General proclaimed: "Democracy stems from the UN Charter. The first words of the Charter – 'We the peoples' – reflect a fundamental source of legitimacy: the consent of those who are governed. It is useful to correlate this thesis with the "track record" of the Kiev regime, which unleashed a war against a huge part of its own people - against those millions of people who did not agree to control themselves to neo-Nazis and Russophobes who illegally seized power in the country and buried the Minsk agreements approved by the UN Security Council, thereby undermining the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

Those who, contrary to the UN Charter, divide humanity into "democracies" and "autocracies", would do well to answer the question of what category do they attribute the Ukrainian regime to? I don't expect an answer.

Speaking about the principles of the Charter, the question arises about the relationship between the Security Council and the General Assembly. The "Western collective" has been aggressively and for a long time pedaling the topic of "abuse of the right of veto" and has achieved – through not quite correct pressure on other UN members – a decision to consider the relevant topic at the General Assembly after each application of this right, which the West is increasingly deliberately provoking. This is not a problem for us. Russia's approaches to all issues on the agenda are open, we have nothing to hide and it is not difficult to state this position again. In addition, the use of the veto is an absolutely legitimate tool provided for in the Charter in order to prevent the adoption of decisions that would be fraught with a split in the Organization. But since the procedure for discussing the use of the veto at the General Assembly has been approved, why not think about the Security Council resolutions that were not vetoed, were adopted, including many years ago, but have not been implemented, despite the provisions of Article 25 of the Charter. Why doesn't the General Assembly consider the reasons for this state of affairs – for example, with regard to the Security Council resolutions on Palestine and on the entire range of MENA problems, on the JCPOA, as well as Resolution 2202, which approved the Minsk agreements on Ukraine.

The problem associated with sanctions regimes also requires attention. It has already become the norm: the Security Council, after lengthy negotiations - in strict accordance with the Charter - approves sanctions against a specific country, and then the United States and its allies impose "additional" unilateral restrictions against the same state that have not been approved by the Security Council and are not included in its resolution as part of the agreed "package". In the same series, another egregious example is the decision just taken by Berlin, Paris and London through their national legislation to "extend" the restrictions on Iran expiring in October, which are subject to legal termination in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 2231. That is, European countries and the United Kingdom declare that the decision of the Security Council has expired, but they do not care about this, they have their own "rules".

All this makes it all the more urgent to consider the issue that after the adoption by the Council of any sanctions resolution, none of the UN members would have the right to devalue it by imposing their own illegitimate restrictions against the same country.

It is also important that all Security Council sanctions regimes be limited in time, since their indefinite nature deprives the Council of flexibility in terms of influencing the policies of "sanctioned governments".

The topic of "humanitarian limits of sanctions" also requires attention. It would be right for any sanctions to be submitted to the Security Council to be accompanied by assessments of their consequences for citizens through UN humanitarian agencies, rather than demagogic exhortations from our Western colleagues that "ordinary people will not suffer."

Dear colleagues,

The facts speak of the deepest crisis in international relations and the lack of desire and will on the part of the West to overcome this crisis.

I hope that a way out of this situation still exists and will be found. To begin with, everyone needs to realize the responsibility for the fate of our Organization and the world - in a historical context, and not from the point of view of opportunistic electoral and momentary alignments in the next national elections of a member state. Let me remind you once again: almost 80 years ago, by signing the UN Charter, world leaders agreed to respect the sovereign equality of all states – large and small, rich and poor, monarchies and republics. In other words, even then, humanity recognized the need for an equal, polycentric world order as a guarantee of the stability and security of its development.

Therefore, today it is not a question of submitting to some kind of "rules-based world order", but of fulfilling by all the obligations assumed when signing and ratifying the Charter in their entirety and interconnection.

[Boduo]

Een Rus aan het werk in Brugge.
Alexander B. is herhaaldelijk veroordeeld voor diefstallen & geweld tegen de politie. In 2022 had hij in 2 weken tijd de poltie 4X aangevallen. De 4de X belde hij zélf de politie op: hij viel de politie aan omdat ze hem wilden oppakken wegens dronkenschap...OP SOC. MEDIA ZONG HIJ DE LOF VAN RUSLAND.
"Wij staan aan de kant van de waarheid én van God"
Alstublieft !

[brother paul]

russen komen zenuwchtig,

'hysterische orders'

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nat...279587884.html

[Boduo]

Het is vandaag WERELDVREDEDAG !!!

[Bach]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Boduo

Het is vandaag WERELDVREDEDAG !!!

Goed moment om niet blind te blijven voor hoe we gemanipuleerd worden door oorlogszoekers.

Governments and Media roles in War Propaganda | THE WAR YOU DON'T SEE | John Pilger Documentary

[brother paul]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Bach

Goed moment om niet blind te blijven voor hoe we gemanipuleerd worden door oorlogszoekers.

Governments and Media roles in War Propaganda | THE WAR YOU DON'T SEE | John Pilger Documentary

ah die oorlog in UKR is gewoon mediamannipulatie...

[Bach]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door brother paul

ah die oorlog in UKR is gewoon mediamannipulatie...

Het ergens horen luiden maar niet weten waar de klepel hangt.

[Bach]

Volledige speech video:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iQsj2iHhYQA

samenvatting speech en daaropvolgende persconferentie 1:

???? ‘New world order’ vs ‘empire of lies’: key takeaways from Lavrov’s UN speech
The US and its allies instigate new conflicts to prevent the emergence of a multipolar world, Russia’s foreign minister believes

???????????? West is the ‘empire of lies’

The US and its allies still reject the principle of equality in international relations, Lavrov said. Americans and Europeans keep looking down on the rest of the world and that leads to their “total intractability” in any negotiations. Washington and its allies “keep making promises left and right” that end up being reneged-on, the Russian minister added.

“As Russian President Vladimir Putin put it, the West is now the real ‘empire of lies’,” he said.

???????????? ‘Reckless’ Western politicians have forgotten about self-preservation

NATO activities have reached “unprecedented” levels since the end of the Cold War, the top Russian diplomat believes. The US-led forces of the bloc have conducted drills that involved simulating nuclear strikes against Russia, he claimed, adding that Washington is also actively seeking to project its military might in the Asia-Pacific through establishing military-political “alliances” with nations like Australia, South Korea or Japan and pushing them towards closer cooperation with NATO.

Such actions “risk creating a new explosive geopolitical hotspot in addition to the … European one,” Lavrov warned, adding that Western politicians have been so blinded by a feeling of impunity that they’ve lost “the sense of self-preservation.”

???????????? True democracy in international relations is within reach

For the first time since 1945, when the United Nations was established, the world has a chance to establish a truly democratic world order, the Russian foreign minister said. The “global majority” – ie the nations of Asia, Africa and Latin America – are increasingly seeking independence and equality, as well as respect for their sovereignty in international relations.

“It is obvious for Russia that there is no other way,” Lavrov told the UNGA, adding that this fact “encourages optimism in those believing in the rule of international law and wishing to see the UN restored to its role of a central coordinating body of world politics.”

???????????? West stands in the way of a just world order

The US and its allies seek to stall the onset of a multipolar world order, in particular by “stirring up conflicts that artificially divide humanity into hostile blocs and prevent it from achieving common goals,” the Russian minister pointed out. The West wants the world to “play by its infamous and self-serving rules,” he said, adding that the international community should instead strive for a world where everyone “agrees on how to solve issues together, on the basis of a fair balance of interests.”

???????????? Western sanctions hurt the world

Russia is calling for “an immediate and full” lifting of sanctions imposed against such nations as Cuba, Venezuela and Syria, Lavrov said, adding that such unilateral punitive measures “blatantly violate the principle of sovereign equality of nations” and interfere with these countries’ rights to development.

“One should put an end to any coercive measures imposed in circumvention of the UN Security Council as well as to the West’s … practice of manipulating its sanctions policies to exert pressure on those deemed undesirable,” he added.

Russia’s top diplomat also blasted the US over what he called threats against nations willing to work with Moscow.

“It is shameful for a great power to run around like this and threaten everyone and only demonstrating its obsession with domination,” he told journalists after the UNGA session.

???????????? Russia’s stance on conflict in Ukraine

Moscow is ready for talks on its ongoing conflict with Kiev at any time, Lavrov told a press conference on the sidelines of the UN assembly. However, Russia will not consider any deals involving a ceasefire, he said, adding that Moscow and Kiev had supposedly almost reached an agreement in the first months of the conflict following a series of talks in Belarus and Türkiye only for this process to be disrupted, supposedly by Ukraine’s Western backers.

“Putin said it very clearly: yes, we are ready for talks but we will not consider any ceasefire proposals because we did so once and were deceived.”

Russia also respects Ukraine’s sovereignty in accordance with the Ukrainian declaration of independence and its constitution, Lavrov said, adding that both documents also declare the non-aligned status of Ukraine and respect for the Russian language and Russian-speaking minorities.

Ukraine’s sovereignty “was destroyed by those who staged and supported a coup, the leaders of which then declared a war on their own people,” Lavrov said, referring to the 2014 Maidan coup.

???????????? West is ‘de-facto’ waging war on Russia

The US and its allies are de-facto engaged in a conflict with Russia, Lavrov told the press conference. “We call it a hybrid war but it does not change things,” he said. Western nations are sending arms to Kiev and training its troops, he explained, so “They are de-facto fighting against us with the hands and bodies of Ukrainians.”

Western nations also openly say that “Russia should be defeated on the battlefield,” Moscow’s top diplomat said, adding that Moscow is ready for such a development. “Under such circumstances, [if they want it] to be on the battlefield, let it be on the battlefield,” he said.

https://swentr.site/russia/583450-lavrov…

samenvatting 2:

Sergey Lavrov's statementsat the general political discussion of the 78th session of the UN General Assembly

??The United States of America and European countries often assume obligations but do not fulfill them; the West is an "empire of lies."
??Acts such as burning the Koran, insulting the Torah, and persecuting Orthodox Christians in the European Union are happening on a significant scale.
??Russia is alarmed by the escalating military tension generated by the United States and its allies around Korea, where they are amassing strategic resources.
??The European Union is currently imposing its mediation services on Azerbaijan and Armenia, which is causing destabilization in the South Caucasus region, in partnership with the United States.
??The Russian peacekeeping contingent will do everything possible to promote peace in Nagorno-Karabakh.
??Russia demands that Western countries immediately lift economic sanctions against Cuba, Venezuela, and Syria.
??Germany, Italy, and Japan voting against the resolution on the inadmissibility of glorifying Nazism is a regrettable fact that contradicts the conditions under which these countries were admitted to the UN.

Sergey Lavrov's statements at a press conference after his speech at the UN General Assembly

??Russia has participated in more than 30 meetings at the UN, and there are promising projects.
??The so-called Zelensky peace formula is unworkable, and this is common knowledge.
??If the West suggests that the conflict in Ukraine should be resolved through military means, it implies a military solution.
??During a Security Council meeting on Ukraine, the UN Secretary-General made several untrue statements, which surprised many.
??Lavrov asked Guterres to provide an explanation regarding the source of his claims about the "thefts" of Ukrainian children mentioned in his speech.
??The UN Secretary-General has not presented any evidence regarding the Bucha.
??Anti-Russian sentiments in Armenia are being artificially fueled by the pro-Western lobby, which aims to undermine Russia's influence.
??Russia has no intention of making any concessions to Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky to lift the ban on negotiations between Kiev and Moscow.

@Slavyangrad

Artikel Al Jazeera: ‘Empire of lies’: Russia’s Lavrov slams West in UN speech

Artikel AP: Russian foreign minister lambastes the West but barely mentions Ukraine in UN speech (meer bedoeld voor mensen die enkel titels van westerse pers lezen)

[Erw]

De leugens van de Westblok propaganda gaan blijken he, altijd blijken ze, als er beelden opduiken die onmogelijk gefingeerd kunnen zijn, zoals die van dat eskadron Leopards en Bradleys aan het begin van de OEK aanval op de RU verdediging in hun veroverd gebied in Oekraine.

Merk daarbij op, de OEK's startten die aanval, net na "Bakhmoet" of hoe noemde die stad weer in dat achtergat Oekraine, te hebben gedeserteerd, intussen 4 maanden geleden, ze hebben zelfs dat nog niet heroverd, terwijl de Westblok propaganda al 4 maanden enorme verliezen door de Russen kraait. Die moeten 9 levens hebben, opzij opzij opzij maak plaats maak plaats maak plaats we hebben ongelofelijke haast, we moeten blijven doodgaan doodgaan doooooodgaaaaaan!