"The right to vote", the West and Russia
Watch the program "The Right to Vote" is still interesting: it happens, you will hear some numbers and beautiful pearls. Especially from our Polish, Baltic and other Western "partners", as in the transfer from 04.05.2017. Moreover, they do not notice how they are substituted at the same time, and our solidly scientific experts can never really use this, something is stopping them or something is missing. Our experts always look like cats Leopolds, appealing to the conscience of insolent and provocateurs.
Take, for example, the “political break-up” used by the political scientists-limitritos of the “occupation” of their countries by Soviet Russia. Here you can see that their "occupation" occurred simultaneously with the defeat of Nazi Germany and the liberation of its occupied territories. But if they consider themselves "occupied", then they recognize their countries as satellites of Nazi Germany, and then Russia really occupied them by right of victory, especially since the military forces of the Baltic states participated in the war on the side of Nazi Germany and in punitive operations against the peaceful Russian population . And Poland as a country did not exist, it was a German province.
Then the "occupation" is the result of the Second World War, in which Russia won and had the right to deal with the territories occupied as a result of the fighting with the enemy as it considered necessary.
And how was Russia-the USSR supposed to do, according to limitrofs? Give the territory watered abundantly soldier's blood, under the control of the United States? By the way, this happened as soon as they got rid of the “Russian occupation”. Russian experts confine themselves to mentioning that during the liberation of Poland, for example, hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers were killed. On what limitrofy humanely smiling and silent.
For some reason, our professors are embarrassed to say about the disintegration of the anti-Hitler coalition and the beginning of the confrontation between the USSR and the USA, the nuclear arms race, which excluded the abstract independence of the limiting countries, and today the opposition of the US and the whole West with Russia, China, and the non-Western world in general, excludes the abstract independence almost all countries of the world.
By the way, today the West, the United States and NATO, are also occupying the former countries of the Soviet bloc, with the incorporation of weapons into their economic and military structures. The independence of the countries-limitrofov is a dependence on the USA. Freedom limitrofov - it is the freedom to fall to the American trough. Freedom to sell to someone who is richer and seems stronger. The United States was richer than the USSR, and it was not possible to get at once to them, there was no independence, that’s what seems to be the unspoken reason for the Limitrophes Russophobia ... But today they miscalculated: Western occupation turned out to be worse than the Russian one.
If Russia invested in the Soviet republics, then the West is economically depleting its new-found colonies: Western occupation is not Russian charity. The industry is almost destroyed, and the population so quickly leaves the "independent" countries-limitrofy that already extinction loomed.
Another pearl that is constantly used: the “annexation of the Crimea”, and the “aggression” of Russia in Ukraine in general, changed the situation in Europe, the Baltic countries and Poland, and Romania felt a threat to their independence, and therefore they are deploying NATO and US weapons on their territory. This is despite the fact that the military budget of Russia in 12 is less than the budget of NATO, and by itself says who claims to be the aggressor in Europe.
Our experts, in response, sometimes recall the annexation of Kosovo by the West, however, they forget to say why the West took Kosovo? The United States immediately built the region’s largest military base there.
Bandera Ukraine is, in fact, the second Kosovo, only the United States annexed a coup, tearing it away from Russia, and in the Crimea they also intended to deploy a military base: US Vice President Joe Biden publicly cried that Russia had thwarted such an excellent plan to create an American base in Crimea. Our experts do not know this, or feel free to say? Talking about the "annexation of the Crimea" is still an attempt to create a US and NATO base in the Crimea, after handing it over to Bandera Ukraine. Russia has the right to consider these plans as aggression, and the coup in Kiev is an annexation by the West of Ukraine.
On the other hand, the limitrophe justify the Bandera regime, the genocide of the Russian-speaking population in Ukraine, Odessa Khatyn, and become his accomplices, join his anti-Russian policy. And they become unfriendly to Russia countries, with all the ensuing economic consequences. However, the marches of the Waffen SS in Riga say that they are most likely from a single berry field.
For some reason, it does not take into account that limitrofy are not only members of the NATO bloc, but also minor vassals of the USA Will the United States defend such vassals in the event of a conflict with Russia? Not a fact, but these conflicts themselves are unlikely, since Russia is opposed to the whole West.
However, in the event of a conflict between the US and Russia, NATO and US military facilities in the border countries of Russia will be subjected to a primary strike from Russia. In fact, the countries of the limitrofy are US military outposts, countries-military bases, military facilities on their territory will be destroyed by Russia, primarily in the event of a global conflict. Given the size of these countries, this will have irreparable consequences for their existence. They will become a battlefield ... The United States is profitable, since they themselves, as it were, are insured against the first strike, but for limitroffs this is a complete disaster.
Limitrophs have a probability of a conflict with Russia - 1%, and the probability that they will become the object of a Russian strike in a global conflict is 99%. And who after this their elite? Either traitors of the interests of their countries, or American managers, who are preparing the countries of limitation for slaughter in the first days of the war.
Some hope to survive in possible world shocks to limiting countries could be given a neutral status, a policy pursued by Switzerland, Finland, Sweden. But, since in reality limitrofy are colonies, they have no right to influence their fate by definition.
American strategists say periodically about a preventive disarming global strike, but much worse, that these plans are confirmed by the creation of a missile defense system around the perimeter of Russia and China. If the US missile defense system presents a real danger to Russia and China, then a global disarming strike will become possible, Russia and China will have no choice but to deliver a preventive disarming attack on the US missile defense, and other US attack potential, which is partially located in limitrofs.
An alternative would be to raise the issue of dismantling the missile defense system by the Americans. By analogy with the Caribbean crisis, when Russia-USSR removed missiles from Cuba. But will the missile defense system remove Washington? If not, then a new Caribbean crisis with unpredictable development and an end is guaranteed.
At the VO forum, the question was: what is the point of Western and pro-Western political scientists on the Russian central channels? He probably is. It is useful for our viewer to personally see Russophobes, it is useful to know what they look like. How they hide their nature behind false compliments, because of which the “red fascists” still look out, no matter how they hide them.
On the other hand, these russophobes become part of the “Russian propaganda” alongside Roman Babayan. And for “Russian propaganda” they become evidence that it is in fact a free press. While the Western media are free to write only on a given topic, and you will not see Russian political analysts there.
Take, for example, the “political break-up” used by the political scientists-limitritos of the “occupation” of their countries by Soviet Russia. Here you can see that their "occupation" occurred simultaneously with the defeat of Nazi Germany and the liberation of its occupied territories. But if they consider themselves "occupied", then they recognize their countries as satellites of Nazi Germany, and then Russia really occupied them by right of victory, especially since the military forces of the Baltic states participated in the war on the side of Nazi Germany and in punitive operations against the peaceful Russian population . And Poland as a country did not exist, it was a German province.
Then the "occupation" is the result of the Second World War, in which Russia won and had the right to deal with the territories occupied as a result of the fighting with the enemy as it considered necessary.
And how was Russia-the USSR supposed to do, according to limitrofs? Give the territory watered abundantly soldier's blood, under the control of the United States? By the way, this happened as soon as they got rid of the “Russian occupation”. Russian experts confine themselves to mentioning that during the liberation of Poland, for example, hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers were killed. On what limitrofy humanely smiling and silent.
For some reason, our professors are embarrassed to say about the disintegration of the anti-Hitler coalition and the beginning of the confrontation between the USSR and the USA, the nuclear arms race, which excluded the abstract independence of the limiting countries, and today the opposition of the US and the whole West with Russia, China, and the non-Western world in general, excludes the abstract independence almost all countries of the world.
By the way, today the West, the United States and NATO, are also occupying the former countries of the Soviet bloc, with the incorporation of weapons into their economic and military structures. The independence of the countries-limitrofov is a dependence on the USA. Freedom limitrofov - it is the freedom to fall to the American trough. Freedom to sell to someone who is richer and seems stronger. The United States was richer than the USSR, and it was not possible to get at once to them, there was no independence, that’s what seems to be the unspoken reason for the Limitrophes Russophobia ... But today they miscalculated: Western occupation turned out to be worse than the Russian one.
If Russia invested in the Soviet republics, then the West is economically depleting its new-found colonies: Western occupation is not Russian charity. The industry is almost destroyed, and the population so quickly leaves the "independent" countries-limitrofy that already extinction loomed.
Another pearl that is constantly used: the “annexation of the Crimea”, and the “aggression” of Russia in Ukraine in general, changed the situation in Europe, the Baltic countries and Poland, and Romania felt a threat to their independence, and therefore they are deploying NATO and US weapons on their territory. This is despite the fact that the military budget of Russia in 12 is less than the budget of NATO, and by itself says who claims to be the aggressor in Europe.
Our experts, in response, sometimes recall the annexation of Kosovo by the West, however, they forget to say why the West took Kosovo? The United States immediately built the region’s largest military base there.
Bandera Ukraine is, in fact, the second Kosovo, only the United States annexed a coup, tearing it away from Russia, and in the Crimea they also intended to deploy a military base: US Vice President Joe Biden publicly cried that Russia had thwarted such an excellent plan to create an American base in Crimea. Our experts do not know this, or feel free to say? Talking about the "annexation of the Crimea" is still an attempt to create a US and NATO base in the Crimea, after handing it over to Bandera Ukraine. Russia has the right to consider these plans as aggression, and the coup in Kiev is an annexation by the West of Ukraine.
On the other hand, the limitrophe justify the Bandera regime, the genocide of the Russian-speaking population in Ukraine, Odessa Khatyn, and become his accomplices, join his anti-Russian policy. And they become unfriendly to Russia countries, with all the ensuing economic consequences. However, the marches of the Waffen SS in Riga say that they are most likely from a single berry field.
For some reason, it does not take into account that limitrofy are not only members of the NATO bloc, but also minor vassals of the USA Will the United States defend such vassals in the event of a conflict with Russia? Not a fact, but these conflicts themselves are unlikely, since Russia is opposed to the whole West.
However, in the event of a conflict between the US and Russia, NATO and US military facilities in the border countries of Russia will be subjected to a primary strike from Russia. In fact, the countries of the limitrofy are US military outposts, countries-military bases, military facilities on their territory will be destroyed by Russia, primarily in the event of a global conflict. Given the size of these countries, this will have irreparable consequences for their existence. They will become a battlefield ... The United States is profitable, since they themselves, as it were, are insured against the first strike, but for limitroffs this is a complete disaster.
Limitrophs have a probability of a conflict with Russia - 1%, and the probability that they will become the object of a Russian strike in a global conflict is 99%. And who after this their elite? Either traitors of the interests of their countries, or American managers, who are preparing the countries of limitation for slaughter in the first days of the war.
Some hope to survive in possible world shocks to limiting countries could be given a neutral status, a policy pursued by Switzerland, Finland, Sweden. But, since in reality limitrofy are colonies, they have no right to influence their fate by definition.
American strategists say periodically about a preventive disarming global strike, but much worse, that these plans are confirmed by the creation of a missile defense system around the perimeter of Russia and China. If the US missile defense system presents a real danger to Russia and China, then a global disarming strike will become possible, Russia and China will have no choice but to deliver a preventive disarming attack on the US missile defense, and other US attack potential, which is partially located in limitrofs.
An alternative would be to raise the issue of dismantling the missile defense system by the Americans. By analogy with the Caribbean crisis, when Russia-USSR removed missiles from Cuba. But will the missile defense system remove Washington? If not, then a new Caribbean crisis with unpredictable development and an end is guaranteed.
At the VO forum, the question was: what is the point of Western and pro-Western political scientists on the Russian central channels? He probably is. It is useful for our viewer to personally see Russophobes, it is useful to know what they look like. How they hide their nature behind false compliments, because of which the “red fascists” still look out, no matter how they hide them.
On the other hand, these russophobes become part of the “Russian propaganda” alongside Roman Babayan. And for “Russian propaganda” they become evidence that it is in fact a free press. While the Western media are free to write only on a given topic, and you will not see Russian political analysts there.
Information