Thursday, December 22, 2016
Here is a set of question no reporter will ask me and expect to live.
1). On the 17th of October 2014 you said oil prices would not remain low for long. They have remained below those levels ever since then. Why was your prediction so wrong?
2). You once publicly accused Hilary Clinton of orchestrating the Bolotnya protests to overthrow you. Do you have any proof (bank transfers to protesters, intercepted emails & phone calls and so forth) that support this contentious claim which could be given to the world’s journalists, or were you lying?
3) At the Valdai Forum in 2014 you said that the US electoral college system is not democratic. As this system produced a man who has consistently praised you as the next US President, were you wrong about US democracy all along?
4) When Obama leaves and is replaced by the in-coming US President who wants to have better relations with Russia and has praised you, who will you blame for the next political murder in Russia?
5) On April 16th 2015 you said "I will say this clearly: There are no Russian troops in Ukraine'. On 17 December 2015 you said there were Russian troops in Ukraine. Why did you lie?
6) The "separatists" and "rebels", accompanied by regular Russian troops you have admitted are there, occupy a part of eastern Ukraine that shares a border with Russia. If Russia is not supplying them with anything, how come after more than 2.5 years of fighting, they never run out of parts, fuel, weapons, ammunition or bodies?
7) When you admitted the presence of Russian troops in the Donbass (that you had originally denied), you said that the presence of Russian troops in Eastern Ukraine is not the same thing as the presence of Russian troops in Eastern Ukraine. What is the word used to describe the presence of an foreign army's troops carrying out hostile operations on a country's soil without permission of that country's legitimate government?
8) On the 4th of March 2014 you specifically denied the so-called little green men were Russian soldiers. On the 10th of March 2015 you admitted they were. Why did you lie?
9). If, in answering the above question, you claim the US also lied about WMD in Iraq, why is your only defense to say that the US lies so it's ok for Russia to lie?
10) On 2nd September 2015 your personal spokesman denied Russia was sending aircraft to Syria. On the 30th of September your aircraft started bombing Syria. Did Peskov lie or was he just wrong?
11) On 18 February MSF stated they will no longer share the locations of their hospitals with the Russian military as they believe you deliberately attack them. Why have so many hospitals been placed underneath Russian bombs?
12) On March 21 2016 you said you had "achieved your objectives" and were withdrawing the main part of your forces from Syria. Your forces still there in the same, if not greater, numbers. Were you lying?
13) In September, your forces (which had achieved their mission and been withdrawn in March) were accused of bombing a humanitarian aid convoy. Russian forces claimed it may have spontaneously combusted or been bombed by the USA. In an apparent coincidence, your forces were filming the event but suddenly stopped filming just after the bombing/spontaneous combustion. Why?
14) You have often mentioned that Russia needs to improve it's corruption level & ease of doing business to reverse capital flight. Russia is currently the 119th most corrupt country in the world & capital flight since this article is hundreds of billions. Why have you failed?
15) Why is there such a strong correlation between journalists who annoy you and them ending up dead of unnatural causes?
16) On 22 April 2014 Prime Minister Medvedev said sanctions will make Russia stronger. On the 3rd of October 2016 Russia demanded compensation from the US for these sanctions that were supposed to make the country stronger. Why was the head of your government wrong about something so obvious?
17) You have said that Russia will never recognize Kosovo as an independent state but that Crimea was also like Kosovo. Why should the west recognize something you argue is just as illegal?
18) It is often said by Kremlin funded media that the US is encircling Russia. Why is having a US base so popular around the world?
19) Why are there not large, sustained protests aimed at preventing a US-inspired color revolution, outside US bases frequently, demanding their removal, especially in Europe?
20) You have accused NATO of breaking a promise not to expand east. If Russia is so sure of this why are Gorbachev's notes from the time a state secret?
21) Such a promise would override a country's right conduct its foreign policy as it sees fit & join what international groups it wants to and would thus require a treaty. Why was no treaty signed?
22) Do you accept a country's right under treaties & agreements Russia has signed to join such institutions is lawful or will Russian withdraw from the Paris Charter (this is a yes or no question)?
23) Do you accept this right trumps any alleged promise you are unable to provide any evidence for (this is also a yes or no question)?
24) Why do the countries in question consistently state that NATO didn't ask them to join but instead the reverse?
25) Why should we not see demanding a veto over a country's right to act in accordance with international law as a form of imperialist colonialism?
26) You have accused the US of funding color revolutions with the aim of breaking Russia, with Euromaidan an especially obvious example. These are clearly, large, expensive and complex operations. Exposing these outrageous plans and having your accusations accepted by western governments would damage the US greatly & reduce US influence enormously. Is it not in Russia's interests to have this become the accepted version events, especially in western capitals, or do you think Russia's interests are best served by this opinion only being shared by people with no credibility?
27) Without the proof of these massive CIA undertakings (bank transfers, chat records, weapon purchases, dozens of phone calls, hundreds of e-mails etc.), why should we believe you not are you just lying yet again?
28) If you are not lying, are Russian intelligence agencies too incompetent to find the find the proof of these massive US intelligence operations that your own security council believe to be threat to the existence of the Russian state?
29) Would releasing this proof of the US engineering revolutions cause populations who have had US bases on their territory for up to 60 years without any violent events (such as Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland) to rise up and demand their removal?
30) Given you demand the US proves that Russia hacked the DNC mails and had Wikileaks release the info, why do you not live up to your own standards and release the proof of US involvement in these revolutions? Do you have more proof tooffer than Nyland's hacked phone call you do not even admit to hacking?
31) Your government once denied any sports doping. Kremlin owned news has since reported that criminal investigations have been opened into sports doping in Russia. Who lied and why?
32) Will I shoot myself several times as a result of this interview?
Wednesday, November 23, 2016
Did we hack the US elections?Don't ever believe anything until the Kremlin denies it.
As I have discussed here, it is a sincere belief of the Kremlin that grass roots revolutions against massive corruption and state brutality are not possible in the post soviet space - it always has to be the CIA. We never provide any compelling evidence of this mortal threat to the Russian state cos if we did we'd eventually have to fix the roads but that's another issue.
We are also on the record as saying that the US conducts these as a form of warfare aimed at overthrowing us as they see the Kremlin as a challenge to their global hegemony.
So, given we were expecting a Clinton win and we wanted to undermine her, we certainly had no motive to discredit the US electoral process. None at all ;)
So now we are faced with the situation of 2 competing US cyber security companies saying we hacked Hillary's mails, the FBI saying we did, the eventual winner asking us to do it and, mostly damningly of all, us denying we did it.
And that's just the DNC. We have US intelligence saying we stole electoral records, a group of lawyers and data analysts saying the results are odd and even Kremlin useful idiot Jill Stein thinks there should be a recount. And you have us denying we did it.
In a tight election we only needed to swing it a few percent. Just enough to give RT and Sputnik an alternative point of view.
So, given we think the US does it to us, a whole load of folks say we did it to the US and us denying it, you can make up your own minds.
Wednesday, September 28, 2016
The Official unbiased investigation into the downing of MH17 which proves that it was CIA plot to discredit Russia
Bellow is the Kremlin’s official version of events leading up to the downing of MH17, taken from open sources, conspiracy theorists, flat earthers and assorted fringe lunatics.
The story of MH17 starts not when it was shot down in July but some weeks before on 8 March 2014 when the CIA began an operation to hijack flight MH370 which departed from Kuala Lumpur for Beijing.
Without anyone’s knowledge, this massive, complex operation went off without a hitch and the entire load of passengers, after being killed, were successfully moved into a large aircraft fitted with freezers big enough to hold 239 bodies before being flown to a secret location. The MH370 Boeing 777 aircraft was disposed of and the navies of several countries were either in on the plan to not find the wreck or too stupid to locate it.
During this period, the bodies from MH370 were genetically altered using as yet unexplained scientific methods to change those from that crash (mostly Chinese) to match the ethnicities required for the passengers of MH17 (mostly Dutch) so that it was obvious they came from different aircraft.
From 9 March 2014 until shortly before 17 July 2014, these now genetically altered bodies were stored without anyone knowing about this secret operation in an undisclosed location.
The bodies were then thawed out, dressed appropriately, given the needed personal effects and placed inside MH17 ready for the when the CIA would shoot down this aircraft to discredit Russia. The CIA were also able to find over 200 hundred people who would be prepared to board MH17 in Amsterdam so there would be no suspicion of an empty aircraft taking off. These people were also prepared to then, in full view of the public, somehow get off MH17 so its load of dead bodies could take off. The CIA has been able to keep this aspect of the operation totally secret as part of its plan to discredit Russia.
It was during this time that the “rebels” would start to admit having a BUK system so that they could later deny having one to point out Ukraine’s plan to discredit Russia.
Shortly after the crew of MH17 took off on their suicide mission, a Spanish air traffic controller whom no one has been able to identify or locate started speaking to a Ukrainian air force pilot of similar mystery.
“This was done to discredit Russia”
Ukraine cunningly shot down MH17 with a type of air to air missile that it doesn’t have,
In parallel to this, the CIA were able to procure a BUK missile launcher, crew it with Moscow accented Russian speaking men who knew how to operate it, cross “rebel” lines during a war undetected so as to appear to all that they were in fact from Russia with Moscow accents. As the BUK system requires targeting info from a command vehicle, they were able hack into this system to receive the needed data and pose on the radio system as a “rebel” unit to avoid suspicion. They then appeared to deliberately use it to shoot down MH17 and not the cargo plane that was also in the area. All this was done cunningly to discredit Russia to make to seem as if a SU25/27 shot down MH17 to discredit Russia.
After pretending to shoot down MH17, this CIA unit were able to then travel with this BUK back through “rebel” lines to remove the evidence and also arrange for the field to be ploughed in the middle of a war-zone so there were no track or burn marks. The entire of the Ukraine army in the area knew of this plan and knew not to shoot at this particular BUK vehicle, now carrying one missile less. The CIA we able to convince the “rebels” to place a vehicle the same size as a BUK under a cover and send it back to Russia on a truck. This was to make it look like Russia had sent the BUK into “rebel” territory so as to discredit Russia.
"The CIA we able to convince the “rebels” to place a vehicle the same size as a BUK under a cover and send it back to Russia on a truck. This was to make it look like Russia had sent the BUK into “rebel” territory so as to discredit Russia."
Meanwhile, the crew of MH17, knowing that the aircraft was full of dead bodies and was going to be shot down, had no way of escaping during flight were, nonetheless, were prepared to die in this operation to discredit Russia.
They were also very busy changing the paint scheme on the outside of MH17 while inside and in flight so that was different from when the flight took off. They did this as they were aware that a Russian satellite would capture, in real time, (and with what were deliberate, massive scale errors of a plane flying at over 30,000 feet) the instant the SU25 / SU27 fired the missile that is too large for it to carry. This be a double bluff designed to make it look like we were deliberately discrediting Russia by showing what appears to be a crude photoshop of an aircraft whose paint scheme had in fact changed mid flight but is fact the best “evidence” we have.
It is thought by some that MH17 was NOT shot down by an aircraft that cannot fly as high as a 777 but in fact was shot down by a 23mm radar guided gun that cannot shoot as high as 777 was. This radar guided system, with an operational range of 2500 meters was able to shoot an aircraft flying at 10,000 meters after it crossed through “rebel” lines & integrated into the “rebel” command & control net in a similar manner to that described above. This explains the obvious damage to the front pieces of MH17.
Whether shot down by an aircraft that can’t fly that high or fast, or by a morphing aircraft with a missile it can’t carry, or by a radar guided gun that cannot shoot that high, the fact remains that on the ground shortly after MH17 fell to earth with the genetically modified, three month old corpses in it, a “rebel” would double bluff the CIA’s attempt to discredit Russia by claiming in a tweet that they shot down MH17. This would be an extended part of a double bluff beginning 4 months previous when there was strong suspicion that Ukraine would undertake an operation like this with the CIA. In such an operation it was feared Ukraine would, as its part of the effort to discredit Russia, work to deny itself a major battlefield advantage against the “rebels” by shooting down its own aircraft from May (see picture below), whilst the genetically modified bodies from MH370 were being stored. The “rebels” would continue to double bluff the Ukrainians by claiming they were shooting down aircraft with man-pads “bought from a shop” whereas in fact it is clear that Ukraine was shooting its own aircraft down.
"Ukraine would, as its part of the effort to discredit Russia, work to deny itself a major battlefield advantage against the “rebels”"
Immediately after MH17 crashed, several phone calls would take place by men with Russian accents discussing that “rebels” had in fact shot down the aircraft with the BUK they lied about having. These calls were released by the CIA to make it look like Russian backed “rebels” were involved. Despite Russia’s massive intelligence penetration of Ukraine and our proclivity for releasing hacked phones calls that make the USA look bad, we have decided not to release the phone records we have which show this was in fact a Ukrainian operation to discredit Russia. It is absolutely NOT because such calls do not exist.
The culmination of this double bluff was to ensure the integrity of the evidence of the MH17 crash site by preventing international observers from viewing the site for weeks and allowing locals to loot the wreckage for anything of value. This was not being done to remove any parts of the crash or to plant missile components with “property of the CIA” stamped on them.
So you see, there is no evidence it was Russia or the “rebels” at all.
Stop the Press
We just found the radar evidence we said we didn't have cos we weren't required to keep it and we didn't it as we had the satellite pictures of the SU25/27 with the Israeli missile. Turns out you need to forget about that and also Carlos the Air Traffic Controller who has never been seen or the Ukrainian ground crew who reported an aircraft minus 1 air-to-air missile. It turns out it WAS a BUK.
Wednesday, August 3, 2016
Whataboutsim is a favorite tactic of trolls and my ambassadors & politicians (sorry for repeating myself)
Allow me to begin with a joke from the good old days of the Soviet Union.
A Soviet car salesman and an American argue which country makes better cars. After some back and forth the American asks: "How many decades does it take an average Soviet man to earn enough money to buy a Soviet car?" After a thoughtful pause, the Soviet replies: "But you are lynching black people!"
You see, the original argument (that US cars are better) is left unaddressed. You cannot critisize us as you are not perfect yourself.
It also has a much more sinister aspect to it if you look carefully to the argument, as the BBC recently found out. When a Russian general was asked about civilain casulaties resulting from the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (of which there were around a million), he responded that the British could not critisize Russia as people (around 3000) had been killed in Ireland. So it is the the position of a general in the Russian army that a million Afghan deaths is the same as the deaths of 3,000 white people.
And you'll note the BBC never challenged him on this. Russian atrocities in Afghanistan neatly deflected.
A proper definition of "Whataboutism" is therefore in order, so, lifted directly from Wikipedia, here it is.
It represents a case of tu quoque or the appeal to hypocrisy, a logical fallacy which attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position, without directly refuting or disproving the opponent's initial argument.
In more recent times your Prez sees arguments that go a lot like this.
Troll: "The USA cannot critisize Russia for invading Ukraine as it invaded Iraq"
Sane Person: "So you're saying Russia is at best only doing the same evil as the USA?"
Troll: "......fuck...." (they'll get mad and call you names at this point)
So, the troll's logic is as follows
If the US does something wrong it allows Russia to do the same thing while, strangely, not also being wrong. It should be noted that the start date for the USA's misdeeds is in the 1600s whereas Russia's is tomorrow. For example, the US can't criticize Russia for Crimea cos it took land from native Americans. Our annexation of Crimea is not the same even though we've just implied it is.
By now you are used to it. There'll be more of it as we don't have much else. So, what do you do about it?
t really helps the troll if you try to engage with them on their terms. They would like you to forget the original point, for example that you (who might or not be an American) cannot criticise the fact that Russian troops are in Ukraine (hint: they often forget that there are not any there) because the US invaded Iraq. They want to argue about Iraq and not about our invasion of Ukraine.