What’s next?

Disregarding what country or people or leader someone decided to hate and boycott;
Is it suddenly considered acceptable behavior to then be completely banning all media coming from such a country, without even asking for a vote from any of us here in The Netherlands? How is this even remotely possible in 2022? I vividly remember how, only 2 decades ago, we were all strongly fighting, even with lawsuits, against censoring/blocking internet access to scientology websites, bittorrent sites, hacker manuals online, ISIS beheading websites, Islam hating movies and comics etc. You just do not mess with the freedom of expression online. That was the credo everywhere.
The excuse I hear and read is that this country and its leader have done such horrible things that this alone warrants everything someone in some powerful position decides to do against this country and its people. Are you kidding me? Who are these people in powerful positions to decide any of this? Without even asking us, the population, about any of this? Without even PROVING any of their claims against this nation, its people, its leader?

Just an FYI about the claim that Russia ‘wants to be a new empire’ and how ‘we’ need to be scared of Putin (even though they have never even remotely expressed any desire to expand or become some kind of world-power):

USA: 85 foreign military bases (some of its larger allies, the UK has 17, and France: 13!)
China: 4
Russia: 8

Ooh, we must be so scared of Russia and China!
Besides, if China or Russia did not have nuclear weapons, the US/NATO would have Yugoslavianized it a long time ago. Let’s not forget that *the reason* the USSR started making nuclear weapons in the late 1950s was solely because of the US having dropped nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 without proper (military) motive.

I used to believe we, as a species, were progressing, slowly evolving towards smarter, healthier, more sane, less violent, less aggressive decision making processes, considering human rights etc. Apparently I was wrong. We’re back in the dark ages, where ‘kings’ of the ‘free West’ decide what its people are allowed to hear or read, where Russians are the new black sheep, the new jews, the lesser humans, who we can treat like animals without ever listening to what they have to say, or worse, who are not allowed to participate in our meetings or discussions, and not allowed to travel around. Their bank-accounts may be plundered for our king’s benefit. Have you all gone insane?

What is a dictator, by the way? Ursula Von Der Lying sure behaves like one, as far as I can tell. We haven’t voted for her, and she explains why she thinks Putin is evil, completely disregarding the opinion of the people. Isn’t she responsible for illegally sanctioning Russia, censoring our free internet access to hear/read/see what the other side has to say about the so-called unprovoked aggression, ruining our twitter, YouTube, facebook, experiences, cancelling Russian art, tourism, stealing their bank-deposits? Seriously, WHO is behaving like an actual dictator here? Not Putin, that’s for sure. Nordstream was a good energy solution/deal between Germany (Europe, essentially) and Russia. Europe together with Russia and Asia would thrive. We wouldn’t need that annoying island of insane warmongering politicians across the Atlantic at all. THAT is what the US is afraid of, Europe agreeing with Russia, Asia and Africa, and losing its world domination over resources we ALL have a right to be using!

The US tells us we’re so free and we have all these press freedoms and journalists don’t get killed etc. How ‘free’ are you when you incarcerate the most humans per capita? The most of the world, even. Who are these prisoners? Journalists? ‘Dictators’ of ‘bad actor’ nations? Dissident voices? Protestors? Activists?;


YouTube (of all) accidentally(?) proposed this video to me and I do agree with what Caleb Maupin is saying here;
Where’s the outrage over this WW3 attempt in Poland? And no research into the supposed Russian missile that caused the Ukrainians to make a mistake? If you look at the map, there’s not even a way to fire at a Russian air-missile and then mistakenly have the response end up in that spot in Poland. Even military experts will tell you that. I give up. It’s your funeral.

What actually happened in Ukraine prior to 2022?

What have the USA/UK/Canada/NATO or ‘the collective West’ been doing, seeding weapons to war-criminals? Why? Where was the HumanRightsWatch the past decade, to not prosecute the constant war-crimes that Ukraine/Kiev had been committing before 2022? Oh wait, the Ukraine Armed Forces were sponsored by the US, who turn out being the biggest war-criminals that ever walked the earth. We all know Nordstream, Kramatorsk, Bucha, the two murders in Poland, it’s all been foolish reckless NATO-sponsored/Kiev regime behavior. Because they think they can do whatever they want to whomever they want and not face consequences. Russia clearly does not have that option.. If they even so much as cough in the wrong direction, it warrants nuclear annihilation of the human species.

The President of Ukraine, from 2014 to 2019;

and some still wonder why they, the ethnic Russian population of the Donbass, wanted to become part of Russia again? Sham-elections my ass.
Lots of Western Ukrainians actually spoke up against the ridiculously fascist government, but they were never heard, it seems..

The OSCE and UN are the biggest bastards of this entire story, because they deliberately kept their findings about war-crimes hidden everywhere they could. So that the US/UK/NATO could invent the “unprovoked aggression” and “unprovoked invasion” narrative. That’s ALL we need to know, really. THEY REALLY LIED TO ALL OF US. All the way to the bank, for the entire last decade. And what the collective West keeps calling ‘Russian separatists’ in Ukraine had no link with or support from Russia whatsoever, as research has proven. Most of them were deflected Ukrainian Armed personnel (they called their own Ukraine army ‘a mess’, badly managed, agressive reckless fascists, and angry towards Russian culture), and the rest of them were simply Donbass volunteers, who are ethnic Russian and fed up with the constant shelling of their friends and families.

The main point of contention seems to be the concept of the ‘indivisibility of security’ in Europe. Russia often points to the 1999 OSCE Charter for European Security, which says that each country “has an equal right to security,” and countries “will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other states.” This formula was affirmed in the OSCE’s declaration at the 2010 summit in Astana (now Nur-Sultan), Kazakhstan. Russia says that this means NATO and the US cannot expand their military infrastructure eastward without Russia’s consent. Which, in handshakes, was also promised to Gorbachev way back in the 90s.

Washington said it was ready to discuss “Russia’s interpretations” of indivisibility of security. This caveat stems from NATO’s insistence that it is a purely defensive alliance that does not pose any threat to Russia, contrary to what Russia itself says.
In a letter to the US and its allies, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused Western countries of ignoring the concept of indivisibility of security altogether in favor of cherry-picking “elements that suit them” from international documents, namely those guaranteeing the freedom of individual states to choose their alliances. He highlighted that the West’s written responses demonstrated “serious differences” in the understanding of the issue. Speaking on Russian TV, Lavrov argued that it was “difficult” to view NATO as a defensive alliance, considering its interventions in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Libya.

NATO presented a laundry list of demands, including the withdrawal of Russian forces from Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine, which implies that Moscow must return Crimea to Kiev. The citizen of Crimea, like those in the DonBass region, and in Odessa, who are majority Russian speaking, by a huge majority voted to be(come) Russian, rather than Ukrainian. Russia therefore repeatedly stated that Crimea’s reunification with the country in 2014 is irreversible.

It is unlikely that Russia will remove its peacekeepers from Moldova’s breakaway Transnistria region, where they have been stationed since the early 1990s, until the frozen conflict there is resolved. It is similarly hard to see Russian peacekeepers being removed from Abkhazia and South Ossetia, whose independence from Georgia was recognized by Russia in 2008. The US has allegedly written it stands ready to talk about “reciprocal commitments” not to deploy offensive ground-launched missile systems and permanent combat troops in Ukraine, which also implies that Russia must abandon Crimea. Which is constitutionally impossible, under amendments voted on in 2020.

Russia’s demand for NATO to publicly abandon its so-called ‘open-door policy’ of accepting new member states seems equally unrealistic at this point, after the US and NATO reaffirmed the right of any country to seek membership in the bloc.

As early as February 16 2022, Joe Biden knew that the Ukrainians had begun firing more shells (containers full of explosives) at the civilian population of Donbass, putting Vladimir Putin in front of a difficult choice: Help Donbass militarily and create an international problem, or stand by and watch the Russian-speaking people of Donbass being crushed (as they had been the preceding 8 years..). The OSCE has monitored the bombing (and thus ceasefire violations) by Ukraine carefully;
If Putin would decide to intervene, Putin could invoke the international obligation of “Responsibility To Protect” (R2P). But he knew that whatever its nature or scale, the intervention would trigger a storm of sanctions. Therefore, whether Russian intervention was limited to the Donbass or went further to put pressure on the West for the status of Ukraine, the price to pay would be the same. This is what he explained in his speech on February 21. On that day, he agreed to the request of the Duma and recognized the independence of the two Donbass Republics and, at the same time, he signed friendship and assistance treaties with them.

The illegal Ukrainian artillery bombardment of the Donbass population continued, and, on February 23, the two Republics asked for military assistance from Russia. On February 24, Putin invoked Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which provides for mutual military assistance in the framework of a defensive alliance.

In order to make the Russian intervention illegal in the eyes of the public, NATO deliberately hid the fact that this war actually started on February 16. The Ukrainian army was preparing to attack the Donbass (once more) as early as 2021, as Russian and European intelligence services were well aware. All this is documented by these intelligence services and factually irrefutable. Time will tell, but I think future jurists will judge this military operation to have been a fully legal undertaking..

Still, one wonders what changed in the media’s eyes from before 2022:

* Note that all info provided above can be found on the websites, reports and press memo’s of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission, the UN, NATO, Whitehouse/Pentagon and the Russian Federation’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Either side has confirmed validity of the other side’s statements. It’s not ‘propaganda’. Just sayin’..

Twitter is banning the following URLs (shadow-banning):
https://www.brighteon.com/channels/pursuitoftruth
https://journal-neo.org/2020/09/18/natos-slow-motion-blitzkrieg-eastward/
https://ukr-leaks.org/en/News
https://unz.com/
If you try post them anyway, twitter/facebook make it look like a technical problem; you get to see bullshit like “too many failed login attempts” or “spam is not allowed” or similar fake reasons. All lies of course, twitter is clearly #censoring and #banning information the US State affiliated media does not want you to know about.. Note that inside Russia, you can still freely access ALL Western media, unlike what many Western media try to make of press freedoms in Russia.

Russia has no intentions of using nuclear weapons

For some strange reason, nobody ever reads or listens to what the president, the leader, of their (fictitious) enemy has to say about stuff. Below is a copy-paste from what Putin most recently had to say about the nuke threats, which, I would reckon, is of value to our survival on this planet, no? So by all means, read the important clip from the translation here;

Mr President, could you please comment, is it true that the world is on the verge of the possible use of nuclear weapons? How will Russia act in these circumstances, given that it is a responsible nuclear state? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin:
Look, as long as nuclear weapons exist, there will always be a danger that they could be used. This is the first thing.
Second, the goal of the current fuss around such threats and the potential use of nuclear weapons is very primitive, and I would probably be not mistaken when I explain what this is about;
I already said that the dictate of the Western countries and their attempts to apply pressure on all the participants of international communication, including countries that are neutral or friendly to us, are achieving nothing, and they are looking for additional arguments to convince our friends or neutral states that they all need to confront Russia collectively.
Nuclear provocation and the inflaming of the possibility that Russia might theoretically use nuclear weapons are being used to reach these goals: to influence our friends, our allies, and neutral states by telling them, look whom you support; Russia is such a scary country, do not support it, do not cooperate with it, do not trade with it. This is, in fact, a primitive goal.
What is happening in reality? After all, we have never said anything proactively about Russia potentially using nuclear weapons. All we did was hint in response to statements made by Western leaders.
Ms Liz Truss, the recent Prime Minister of Great Britain, directly stated in a conversation with a media representative that Great Britain is a nuclear power and the Prime Minister’s duty is to possibly use nuclear weapons, and she will do so. It’s not a quote, but close to the original wording. “I’m ready to do that.”
You see, no one responded to that in any way. Suppose she just spaced out and let it slip. How can you say such things publicly? She did, though.
They should have set her straight, or Washington could have publicly stated that it has nothing to do with this. We have no idea what she is talking about, they could have said. There was no need to hurt anyone’s feelings; all they had to do was dissociate themselves from what she said. But everyone was silent. What are we supposed to think? We thought it was a coordinated position and that we were being blackmailed. What are we supposed to do? Remain silent and pretend that we did not hear anything, or what?
There are several other statements about this matter. Kiev never stops talking about its desire to possess nuclear weapons. This is the first part of the Ballet de la Merlaison. So?
They keep talking about our outrageous actions at the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant. What is so outrageous about it? That is how they word it sometimes. They are constantly insinuating that we are firing missiles at the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant. Have they lost it altogether, or what? We are in control of this nuclear power plant. Our troops are stationed there.
A couple of months ago, I talked with a Western leader. I asked him what we should do. He told me we needed to remove heavy weapons from the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant. I agreed and said that we had already done so and there were no heavy weapons there. “You did? Well, then remove the other ones.” (Laughter.)
It is nonsense, you see? You are laughing, it is funny, indeed. But it is almost verbatim what he said. I told him, listen, you wanted the IAEA representatives to be present at the station. We agreed, and they are there.
They live right on the grounds of the nuclear power plant. They see with their own eyes what is going on, who is shooting and where the shells are coming from. After all, no one is saying that Ukrainian troops are shelling the nuclear power plant. And they are stirring things up and blaming Russia for this. That is delusional. It looks like a delusion, but it is actually happening.
I think I have already publicly said that the Kiev regime’s sabotage groups had destroyed three or four high-voltage overhead power lines outside the Kursk Nuclear Power Plant. Unfortunately, the FSB was unable to catch them. Hopefully, it will someday. They escaped. But they were the ones who did it. We let all Western partners know about the incident. Silence was all we got in response, as if nothing happened. That is, they are seeking to stage some kind of a nuclear incident in order to lay responsibility on Russia and stir up a new round of their battle against Russia, sanctions against Russia, and so on. I just do not see any other point in doing so. This is what is happening.

Now they have invented something new. It was no accident that we went public about the information from our security services that they are preparing an incident with the so-called dirty bomb. Such a bomb is easy to make, and we even know its approximate location. Slightly modified remains of nuclear fuel – Ukraine has the technologies needed to do that – are loaded into the Tochka-U, it blows up and they say that it was Russia that made a nuclear strike. But we have no need to do so; there is no sense in it for us, neither political nor military. But they are going to do it, nevertheless. It was me who instructed Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu to call all his colleagues and inform them about it. We cannot disregard such things.
Now they say that the IAEA wants to come and inspect Ukraine’s nuclear facilities. We encourage this, and we believe that it should be done as soon as possible and the inspections should be at all such facilities, because we know that the Kiev authorities are doing their best to cover their tracks. They are working on it.
Finally, about using or not using [nuclear weapons]. The only country in the world which has used nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state was the United States of America; they used it twice against Japan. What was the goal? There was no military need for it at all. What was the military practicability to use nuclear weapons against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, against civilians? Had there been a threat to the US territorial integrity? Of course not. It was not practical from the military point of view either, because Japan’s war machine had already been destroyed, it was not able to resist, so what was the point in dealing the final blow with nuclear weapons?
By the way, Japanese textbooks usually say that it was the Allies that struck a nuclear blow at Japan. They have such a firm grip over Japan that the Japanese cannot even write the truth in their school textbooks. Even though they commemorate this tragedy every year. Good for the Americans, we should all probably follow their example. Great job. But such things happen, this is life. So, the US is the only country that has done it because it believed it was in its interests.
As for Russia… We have the Military Doctrine, and they should read it. One of its articles explains the cases when, why, in relation to what and how Russia considers it possible to use weapons of mass destruction in the form of nuclear weapons to protect its sovereignty, territorial integrity and to ensure the safety of the Russian people.

Also, let’s not forget that *the reason* the Soviet Union started making nuclear weapons in the late 1950s was solely because of the US having dropped nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 without proper motive. The thought process was: “How do you deter a military power when they have nuke WMD’s? By owning the same, better or more of them.” It is in fact even how the nuclear arms treaties came about. Same as with much of what is happening in the world today; The USA behaves like a stupid bully on the schoolyard, not thinking of consequences before acting or speaking out, ruining relationships, wasting resources, polluting the planet, enslaving the poorest, all under the pretense of being morally superior, being the best student, the only one we should trust on that schoolyard, which are continuously proven to be invalid presumptions.