Saturday 21st of May 2022

truss's hypocrisy is breath-taking...


Foreign Secretary Liz Truss gave a statement on the Kremlin plan to install pro-Russian leadership in Ukraine.

We have information that indicates the Russian Government is looking to install a pro-Russian leader in Kyiv as it considers whether to invade and occupy Ukraine. The former Ukrainian MP Yevhen Murayev is being considered as a potential candidate.

We have information that the Russian intelligence services maintain links with numerous former Ukrainian politicians including:

 Serhiy Arbuzov, First Deputy Prime Minister of Ukraine from 2012 to 2014, and acting Prime Minister in 2014 
 Andriy Kluyev, First Deputy Prime Minister from 2010 to 2012 and Chief of Staff to former Ukrainian President Yanukovich 
 Vladimir Sivkovich, former Deputy Head of the Ukrainian National Security and Defence Council (RNBO) 
 Mykola Azarov, Prime Minister of Ukraine from 2010 to 2014

Some of these have contact with Russian intelligence officers currently involved in the planning for an attack on Ukraine.

Foreign Secretary Liz Truss said:

The information being released today shines a light on the extent of Russian activity designed to subvert Ukraine, and is an insight into Kremlin thinking.

Russia must de-escalate, end its campaigns of aggression and disinformation, and pursue a path of diplomacy. As the UK and our partners have said repeatedly, any Russian military incursion into Ukraine would be a massive strategic mistake with severe costs.

The UK’s position on Ukraine is also clear. We unequivocally support its sovereignty and territorial integrity within its internationally recognised borders, including Crimea. Ukraine is an independent, sovereign country.

 Liz Truss

---------------------- Of course Liz forgets (I am generous, I could say she's dumb, selectively) the history of the planet...  


Here are just two examples:


In 1922, after the Irish War of Independence most of Ireland seceded from the United Kingdom to become the independent Irish Free State but under the Anglo-Irish Treaty the six northeastern counties, known as Northern Ireland, remained within the United Kingdom, creating the partition of Ireland.



And more recently:


Yugoslavia—the land of South (i.e. Yugo) Slavs—was created at the end of World War I when Croat, Slovenian, and Bosnian territories that had been part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire united with the Serbian Kingdom. The country broke up under Nazi occupation during World War II with the creation of a Nazi-allied independent Croat state, but was reunified at the end of the war when the communist-dominated partisan force of Josip Broz Tito liberated the country. Following the end of World War II, Yugoslavian unity was a top priority for the U.S. Government. While ostensibly a communist state, Yugoslavia broke away from the Soviet sphere of influence in 1948, became a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement in 1961, and adopted a more decentralised and less repressive form of government as compared with other East European communist states during the Cold War.

The varied reasons for the country’s breakup ranged from the cultural and religious divisions between the ethnic groups making up the nation, to the memories of WWII atrocities committed by all sides, to centrifugal nationalist forces. However, a series of major political events served as the catalyst for exacerbating inherent tensions in the Yugoslav republic. Following the death of Tito in 1980, provisions of the 1974 constitution provided for the effective devolution of all real power away from the federal government to the republics and autonomous provinces in Serbia by establishing a collective presidency of the eight provincial representatives and a federal government with little control over economic, cultural, and political policy. External factors also had a significant impact. The collapse of communism in Eastern Europe in 1989, the unification of Germany one year later, and the imminent collapse of the Soviet Union all served to erode Yugoslavia’s political stability. As Eastern European states moved away from communist government and toward free elections and market economies, the West’s attention focused away from Yugoslavia and undermined the extensive economic and financial support necessary to preserve a Yugoslav economy already close to collapse. The absence of a Soviet threat to the integrity and unity of Yugoslavia and its constituent parts meant that a powerful incentive for unity and cooperation was removed.


Read more:




The bombing by the NATO nations did precipitate this break-up further...


Now Crimea has always been Russian until it was "gifted" to Ukraine in the 1960s "for being a good communist citizen of the USSR". BUT RUSSIA STILL CONTROLLED SEVASTOPOL (and Crimea by default). After the Ukraine 2014 revolution by the Nazis, inspired by the US cash (Nuland), the gift had lost its meaning, considering that more than 90 per cent of people living in Crimea ARE Russians. SAME WITH THE DONBASS REGION in Ukraine. So go and take a cold shower Ms Liz Truss and become an ice-cream seller at the north pole.


Truss is an idiot.

ugly: USA supporting Nazis...

US gives Neo-Nazis ‘carte blanche’ in Ukraine – Russia


Weapons sent by America to Kiev may end up in the hands of “militants and terrorists,” Russia claims



Neo-Nazis have essentially been given free rein to do what they please in east Ukraine, all with political and material support from Washington, which is “well aware” of the threat, the Russian Embassy in the US has claimed.

The embassy’s statement, posted to Facebook on Wednesday, said that Washington is continuously bragging about efforts “to build up military assistance to the Kiev regime” while ignoring the political stance of those it is helping out.

“The US authorities do this being aware that American lethal weapons will end up in the hands of militants and terrorists in Ukraine,”the embassy said. “Together with the political and material support of Washington, the neo-Nazis, in fact, receive a 'carte blanche' for provocations and carrying out military actions in the Donbass.”

By “militants and terrorists,” the statement could have been referring to the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, which is part of the National Guard of Ukraine.


Read more:



FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

stay out...

Mr. President, Stay Out Of Ukraine

Instead of flirting with a proxy war strategy to torment Russia, the United States should be making a concerted effort to repair bilateral relations.



BY Ted Galen Carpenter


The onset of a belated bout of common sense in Joe Biden’s administration has reduced the danger that the United States would intervene with its own military forces if war broke out between Russia and Ukraine. At one time, Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and other officials were adamant about Washington’s “unwavering support” for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Such statements, along with new arms shipments to Kyiv, at least implied that the United States and NATO would come to Ukraine’s rescue militarily if Russia invaded.

However, when Russia initiated a military buildup along its borders with Ukraine in late 2021 and then demanded that the alliance offer specific security guarantees, the Biden administration’s rhetoric shifted noticeably. Although its rhetorical pledges of support for Kyiv remained intact, and administration officials reiterated warnings to the Kremlin of “harsh” and even “massive consequences” if Russia invaded its neighbor, the “consequences” mentioned were confined to heightened economic sanctions. Increasingly, Washington and other key NATO capitals indicated that the Western response would not be a military one. Negotiations between the United States and Russia about Moscow’s demands for security guarantees, including a ban on NATO membership for Ukraine, also continue.


A sense of relief is warranted, since the possibility of outright war between NATO and Russia has diminished substantially. Such a war would be catastrophic, both for peace in Europe and the health of the global economy. Worst of all would be the serious risk that even a limited conflict with conventional weapons could spiral out of control and lead to a nuclear war. 

However, any sense of relief about an apparent reduction in tensions should be cautious and muted. Multiple press reports indicate that the administration is searching for a “middle option” that would avoid the extremes of going to war or limiting a response to diplomatic protests and (likely ineffectual) new economic sanctions. The most frequently mentioned option is to fund, train, and arm“resistance forces” that would likely emerge if Russia invaded and occupied Ukraine. Indeed, there are reports that the CIA already is secretly training Ukrainian paramilitaries for such a mission

There are several things wrong with that approach. First, the size and dedication of any guerrilla force would depend heavily on how much territory Russia seized. If Russian forces took over the entire country and established a puppet regime—as British sources contendis Russia’s goal—a sizable armed resistance is probable. The population in western Ukraine is generally anti-Russian and strongly nationalist. However, if the Kremlin’s offensive merely seized additional territory adjacent to the Donbas, which already is controlled by Moscow-aided separatist forces, and new territory near Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014, there might not be much of a resistance for Washington to sponsor. Ties to Russia based on language, religion, and economic factors are quite strongin those portions of Ukraine. 

Second, U.S. assistance to anti-Russian guerrillas would further poison bilateral relations. Moscow’s principal grievance against the West is that U.S.-NATO policies—especially the attempt to turn Ukraine into a military client and make its territory a forward staging area for NATO military power—threaten Russia’s core security interests. Supporting a Ukrainian guerrilla army to wage a proxy war would intensify that grievance. It would also create an incentive for the Kremlin to respond in kind.


Third, Moscow has abundant opportunities to retaliate. U.S. troops are still present in Iraq and Syria, and they are extremely vulnerable. Among other dangers, those troops continue to come under fire from pro-Iranian militias. Russia has an ongoing military presence in Syria supporting the government of Bashar al-Assad, who also receives important backing from Iran in his effort to remain in power. The Kremlin is growing ever closer with Tehran. It wouldn’t require a great effort to encourage, assist, or bribe Iran and its clients in Syria to turn some of the firepower currently directed at Saudi-sponsored Sunni insurgents on U.S. troops in northeastern Syria. Pursuing a similar strategy in Iraq could get pro-Iranian militias to make the U.S. mission there more bloody and frustrating. Moscow also could stir up trouble in America’s backyard, especially in troubled states like Colombia and several countries in Central America. Before they launch a proxy war in Ukraine, U.S. leaders need to remember that the United States is not the only country that can pursue such a strategy.

Finally, actively assisting Ukrainian resistance forces could prove embarrassing and discrediting for professed U.S. commitments to liberty and democracy. The 2014 Maidan revolution, in which U.S.-supported demonstrators overthrew Ukraine’s elected, pro-Russia president, included more than a small number of ultra-nationalist and even outright fascist elements. The current government in Kyiv also has embraced a troubling number of authoritarian policies. Freedom House, an organization generally quite friendly to governments that Washington supports, rates Ukraine as only “partly free”—a rating similar to the one given to Rodrigo Duterte’s clearly authoritarian regime in the Philippines. Kyiv’s apologists in the West give every excuse imaginable to whitewash such autocratic behavior, but the reality is that democracy has very shallow, weak roots in Ukraine. A resistance drawn from the same factions supporting the current illiberal government would likely become even more authoritarian as time passed and moderate elements were displaced.

Over the decades, the United States has embarrassed itself and thoroughly compromised American values by supporting unworthy, even odious, foreign clients in proxy wars against regimes that U.S. policymakers designated as adversaries. Backing the likes of the Nicaraguan Contras and Jonas Savimbi’s authoritarian (and left leaning) UNITA organization in Angola during the 1980s did not reflect well on the United States. Even worse was the Obama administration’s decision to support anti-Assad insurgents in Syria. Most of those factions proved to be radical Islamists, not advocates of Western democratic values. We shouldn’t make any such embarrassing associations in Ukraine. 

Instead of flirting with a proxy war strategy to torment Russia, the United States should be making a concerted effort to repair bilateral relations. Russian and U.S. interests are not inherently at odds. If Washington had not foolishly pushed the expansion of NATO to Russia’s borders and interfered in Ukraine’s internal affairs, turning the nation into a Western political and military client, Moscow would have few reasons to make trouble for the United States. Indeed, a more enlightened U.S. policy would have made it possible for U.S. leaders to approach Vladimir Putin’s government about mutual efforts to contain China’s growing power. Instead, Washington has driven Putin into the waiting arms of Xi Jinping. Waging a proxy war in Ukraine would be yet another provocation, and it likely would destroy what is left of the U.S. relationship with Russia. The Biden administration should repudiate that myopic, counterproductive scheme.


Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute and a contributing editor at The American Conservative, is the author of 12 books and more than 950 articles on international affairs.




Yes Blinken is an idiot who plays the guitar like a left-footed clever monkey...






READ FROM TOP. See also:

supporting the nazis...

former US nutcases...

The US Joint Chiefs of Staff have posted online a conference featuring military historian David B. Crist, which took place on 18 September 2020. Therein, the expert reveals a nuclear war plan drawn up by the Pentagon in the 1980s.

At the time, the United States was convinced that not content with having deployed its troops in Afghanistan at the request of the autochthonous Communist government, the Soviet Union was getting ready to invade the Iranian monarchy in order to seize the oil reserves, which were of vital importance to NATO. Then, after the Islamic Revolution led by Ayatollah Khomeini, the USSR was again suspected to wanting to invade Iran, this time to keep in check Shia influence in Central Asia.

Please note that no Soviet document or testimony has ever emerged to corroborate the paranoid fantasies of the Pentagon.

Even so, Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan authorized the planning of a nuclear war against the Soviets in Iran, with the support of the Israelis in particular.

It should further be noted that the Pentagon’s delusions about an alleged Iranian military nuclear program started precisely when Imam Khomeini ordered it to be dismantled,

The publication of these Pentagon fantasies takes place in the context of a serious crisis between the United States and Russia. ‎


Read more/see the documents:



Read from top. NOTE: President CARTER WAS UNDER THE THUMB OF (warmonger) Zbigniew Brzezinski...





an important week...

UK Foreign Secretary Liz Truss has announced that she has caught Covid and will be self-isolating ahead of “an important week for diplomacy.”

“I tested positive for Covid this evening. Thankfully I’ve had my three jabs and will be working from home while I isolate,” she wrote on Twitter on Monday evening.


I tested positive for Covid this evening.Thankfully I’ve had my three jabs and will be working from home while I isolate.

— Liz Truss (@trussliz) January 31, 2022


The announcement came just hours after Truss had given a statement on toughening sanctions against Russia in a packed House of Commons and attended a meeting with Prime Minister Boris Johnson, government officials and MPs, at which she did not wear a mask, according to the British media.


The foreign secretary has fallen sick at a time when her boss is battling the ‘Partygate’ scandal, which might prompt a leadership challenge, and at the beginning of what the prime minister’s office called “an important week for diplomacy.”


Read more:


The world is lucky that this woman is "away" for this "important week"... This is the week when the West's fiddles about Ukraine become exposed as stupid and dangerous... Volodymyr exposed this with clarity, but the West is going to ignore Volodymyr... because the game is to capture Ukraine for the West, not make the Ukrainians and their president happy...


So, Ms Truss, become as sick as possible, with delirious fever and coughing fits, until you realise that your little games are pitifully contrary to decency... 




ignorant idiotic truss....


British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss has been slammed by Russia’s Foreign Ministry after a geography error confusing two different bodies of water in Europe, over 1,000km away from each other.

In an interview with the BBC, Truss explained that London is “supplying and offering additional support into our Baltic allies across the Black Sea,” despite the fact that Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are located nowhere near the southeast European body of water.

“Mrs. Truss, your knowledge of history is nothing compared to your knowledge of geography,”Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova wrote on her Telegram channel.

“To ‘defend the Baltics,’ you don’t go through the Black Sea, but through the Baltic Sea. The Baltic states are so called because they are located on the shores of this sea. And not the Black Sea,” she continued.

According to Zakharova, Truss’ lack of geography chops is evidence that the world needs to be saved from the “stupidity and uneducatedness of Anglo-Saxon politicians,” noting that the head of the Foreign Office probably should know a thing or two about where countries are.

“This is not even because she is the British foreign secretary. What criteria are used to assign ministerial portfolios in developed monarchical democracies are none of our business. But it is because England used to be a great maritime power – and still is,” she explained.

The criticism of Truss follows an accusation by Dmitry Polyansky, Russia’s deputy ambassador at the United Nations, that the British government is untrustworthy.



Read more:



Yes, the idiots rule the world... and we, the intelligent people, elect them... What's wrong with us????







truss is an incompetent imbecile...

As Western diplomats scramble to resolve growing tensions with Moscow, the UK’s top diplomat has reportedly made a major error during crunch talks, allegedly proclaiming that London would never recognize the sovereignty of two regions universally considered to be part of Russia.

In an article published by Moscow daily Kommersant on Thursday, two Russian diplomatic sources claimed that British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss made the faux-pas while speaking in head-to-head discussions with her Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov.

According to the outlet, London’s top diplomat stressed that Moscow must withdraw its armed forces from the frontier with Ukraine, at which Lavrov reiterated that the Russian military is stationed in its own territory and has the right to conduct maneuvers within its borders.

The veteran Russian official is said to have turned to Truss and asked whether London recognizes Moscow’s sovereignty over the regions of Rostov and Voronezh, where large troop movements are said to have taken place in recent days, close to the Ukrainian border.


After a moment’s contemplation, the British diplomat reportedly replied that the UK “will never recognize Russia’s sovereignty over these regions.” The interaction is said to have spurred Deborah Bronnert, the UK’s ambassador to Moscow, to swoop in and quietly remind her colleague that the two are actually considered Russian territory even by her own government.

Later in the day, Truss explained that she initially thought Lavrov was talking about a part of Ukraine and that she had subsequently made it clear that these regions are in fact part of Russia.

Kommersant’s report follows shortly after Lavrov and Truss held high-stakes discussions in the Russian capital. Moscow's top diplomat expressed his dismay at the outcome of their exchange.

“Nobody is hearing each other, and unfortunately our efforts to explain ourselves have not been heard,” Lavrov said.


London has issued several warnings in recent weeks, claiming that a buildup of Russian troops along the demarcation line with Ukraine could be a precursor to an offensive, accusations which the Kremlin has repeatedly denied. Truss has previously threatened harsh sanctions, insisting that if Moscow were to wage an incursion, embargoes that would damage the country’s economy would ensue.

Earlier in February, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova slammed Truss for confusing two different parts of Europe when she proclaimed that London was “supplying and offering additional support into our Baltic allies across the Black Sea” – despite the fact that Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are located over 1,000km away from the southeast European body of water.

“Mrs. Truss, your knowledge of history is nothing compared to your knowledge of geography,”Zakharova wrote on her Telegram channel. She added that the world needs to be saved from the “stupidity and uneducatedness of Anglo-Saxon politicians.”



Read more:


GUS: In the past, such imbecility from a foreign minister would immediately lead to their sacking... Now they get medals from the chief party-party-party officer, Boris...




STOP PRESS: RUSSIA DOES NOT RECOGNISE THE SOVEREIGNTY OF ENGLAND OVER WALES, NORTHERN IRELAND AND SCOTLAND... Just joking... (actually the Scots regret having voted in favour of staying in the "onion"...)