Rendezvous on the net
Good afternoon, dear colleagues and especially like-minded people. As we see, the most lively interest and participation is caused by events in Ukraine, and very many events occurring in the world are tied precisely to the vicissitudes that occur there. Therefore, the word “Rendezvous” I used here in the meaning of the interaction in parallel with the processes taking place (see “Vic”).
FACTS - A STRONGTHING THING. A few days ago, an article “Secrets and secrets of the propaganda machine of Vladimir Putin". Quite an emotional article, distributing flops to the right and left and urging the reader to make sure that Russia is absolutely doing nothing in Ukraine. I liked the article with the syllable and intensity of emotions with which it is filled, but after reading it does not leave astonishment and the question arises: “And what did the author want to say in the end?” Who is the correct one - “white” or “red”? Or to convince that Putin is “not in the works” at all, that he has merged the nenk, long-suffering and lost in his desires, or that he is not capable of anything at all?
It seems that the author tried to convey to us the only true HIS idea: “Everything is around in guan, and he is alone in a dress coat and is not understood. It's a shame, you know.
But, if you say that everything is fools around, then offer a wise recipe-panacea, and you will be happy. Emotions are good and there will be a splash of them too, there will be less gray hair on the head. But if we look at the facts and try to find a “trace” of Russian participation in the events in Ukraine?
On the Internet resource “Sputnik-Pogrom”, from where the repost of the mentioned article occurred, there is an article “Akhmetov will come, bring order! (not really)". So, there are some materials that shed light on the mysterious attempt on Bolotov (even the hypothesis was advanced that this attempt was organized by Akhmetov and was made by the hands of his bandits) and why this attempt was unsuccessful. Without retelling everything, I will give only a few lines from that “interview”:
“LR, I report.
They were shooting around noon, two hours before the meeting with Pushilin. Valera is slightly injured. It could have been worse, but the ambush did not think that Valera was better guarded than Yanukovych, and the lads ran into them. Now Valera is completely safe, the air has been delivered to (shaded), the doctors say that they will quickly come back and return.
Officially, nothing is reported, but I can report that one dead came to life for a while, sang a song and died again. At the most general level, the song that the order came from Petit's headquarters, the specialists worked, they thought that they were going to run into Lugansk mouflons, and they themselves came across who you knew.
The million dollar question is: who exactly did the killers run into, who thought that there was still no 98 around and more terrible than the “Lux” grouping? And even more interesting question: what do the killer survivors feel after this small but significant incident? Are any of them willing to repeat the experience?
While Ukrainian analysts are thinking about the answer, and the terrible gangsters of Akhmetov write applications for dismissal with the wording “Go and fight with the army special forces”, we allow ourselves to summarize briefly ... ”
Colleagues, did you have some guesswork? Do you think it is possible to call an “army special forces” any structure other than the army special forces itself? And do you think that Bolotov is carefully guarded by the Ukrainian army special forces?
Another material. We all know who Igor Strelkov is (Girkin, Shooter). Here are some excerpts from his biography. Especially I take those who shed some light on his "affiliation".
But little is known about Strelkov, although some detailed publications about him continue to appear. For example, an article by the famous Moscow journalist Oleg Kashin on "Elephant". According to this, Girkin and Boroday began to cooperate in the Crimea at the end of February. Moreover, the whole Crimean project in general was a kind of "private-state" partnership between the Kremlin and the famous Orthodox oligarch Malofeev (Marshal Capital). Boroday collaborated with him.
It was the latter who “led” Prime Minister Crimea Aksyonov to the referendum and, in general, supervised him. Shooters at that time was also on the peninsula and engaged in local self-defense. After success in the Crimea, the same group took up the Donbas. True, according to Kashin, there she acts at her own risk without any real help from the Kremlin. And, they say, the position of this group is so awful that the Shooter even wrote down a special appeal to the residents of Donbass, where he shamed them that they were reluctant to sign up for self-defense units.
At the same time, according to the "Reporter", everything is not so simple. Indeed, both Malofeyev, and Borodai, and Strelkov act with a large degree of independence. At the same time, according to some data, Aksenov coordinates their activities (as well as work throughout the Southeast). And all this is strictly supervised by the Kremlin, where all major decisions are made. But, what is really true, in the case of Donbas, Russia does not want to shine much of its activity. Therefore, there are publications that show that “we have nothing to do with it” (and Strelkov’s appeal may have the same task).
In fact, the tactics of Moscow, as far as can be judged, is to provide unofficial support to the protesters in the Donbas (weapons and volunteers) so that they could take control of the entire region, and then spread the protest to the rest of the Southeast, and then, possibly, go to Kiev. At the same time, there is a hard casting among local leaders - who will show himself best. So in the near future, many of them can be replaced ...
Well, and so on. Interested and doubtful, I offer a summary line from this article: “The SBU says that he is a colonel of the GRU of the Russian Defense Ministry, however, according to our data, as reported above, he had nothing to do with the GRU, but worked in the FSB,” and also recall the saying “There are no former special agents” and a reference where you can fully satisfy your interest regarding Girkin (Arrow): http://novorus.info/news/interesno/16484-kto-ty-strelok.html.
SUMMARY, dear colleagues: emotions are beautiful, but it is desirable to support them with facts. We read, compare, analyze, draw a conclusion.
SHOWING HYDRA DEZA. And one more aspect I would like to touch on, guys and girls, is the processing of the mind in the conditions of the infovey. Of course, everyone has the right to choose the side of the confrontation - either jumping and demanding lard to the Heroes, or becoming one of the supporters of the great Russia. Depending on this, you give preference to one or another source, not forgetting to look into less preferred ones - you need to know the enemy by sight.
The enemy becomes more sophisticated, playing subtly, uncompromising and angry (something Garry Kasparov came to mind ...). And therefore, often articles that seem to be placed in pro-Russian sources slowly introduce completely anti-Russian ideas and thoughts into our consciousness.
The article “Fashization of Ukraine and the separation of Novorossia with the Crimea” caught my eye. Good article, competent and, it would seem, completely pro-Russian. But - this aspect is alarming: The article considers two options for the separation of Ukraine - one catastrophic (this is when Russia washes its hands, and the West is scooping up everything that it wishes, and Russia looks after Ukraine leaving for the EU with sadness and sadness), other (attention):
- “Acceptable option.
Ukrainian New Russia with an autonomous Crimea and Western Ukraine (Little Russia, Galicia) - this option of dividing Ukraine can be considered satisfactory. At least, it excludes the formation of fragments in the form of Donbass and Crimea - a tragic variant. Obviously, only a large republic, including the regions of Ukrainian New Russia and an autonomous Crimea, only such a large, unified state, with equal rights for Ukrainians and Russians, will be able to protect the residents of the south-east of present-day Ukraine and prevent a bloody fire on the borders of Russia.
And here, it’s important historical the idea of Ukrainian New Russia, so that an amorphous-geographical neoplasm like Transnistria does not arise. We need the Republic of Ukraine Novorossiya, rooted in historical roots during the time of Catherine the Great.
Ukraine is Russia's southern front in its struggle with the world capitalist system for its existence. Here the Kremlin needs a new Zhukov, and we have Zurabov. ”
Surprising position of the author. And outraged! As if the Crimeans were undecided for themselves - with whom they should be and, as if, there were not those tears of joy and words: “We returned home!” In my opinion, it is even hypothetically impossible to consider options with the inclusion of Crimea in any other country , as soon as Russia, and not some kind of “big republic, including Novorossia and the autonomous Crimea”. So you think - whether the author of the article mentioned is an intelligent and hidden nationalist who has a sight to some kind of "nezalezhno" from Russia, the future and who wants to return the Crimea to the bosom of the Great Ukraine, or something "does not catch up with." In what such theories degenerate, we are lucky to see by the results of the rule the descendants of the "great ukrov" for two decades.
I will not load your attention further, dear colleagues, I will be bold. In the coming days, I plan to publish a publication with the tentative title “Attention, ideological helminthiasis!” And I hope that the editors will not conceal it, as happened with the article “This is LJ - for good reason!”, Sent by 4 in May.
FACTS - A STRONGTHING THING. A few days ago, an article “Secrets and secrets of the propaganda machine of Vladimir Putin". Quite an emotional article, distributing flops to the right and left and urging the reader to make sure that Russia is absolutely doing nothing in Ukraine. I liked the article with the syllable and intensity of emotions with which it is filled, but after reading it does not leave astonishment and the question arises: “And what did the author want to say in the end?” Who is the correct one - “white” or “red”? Or to convince that Putin is “not in the works” at all, that he has merged the nenk, long-suffering and lost in his desires, or that he is not capable of anything at all?
It seems that the author tried to convey to us the only true HIS idea: “Everything is around in guan, and he is alone in a dress coat and is not understood. It's a shame, you know.
But, if you say that everything is fools around, then offer a wise recipe-panacea, and you will be happy. Emotions are good and there will be a splash of them too, there will be less gray hair on the head. But if we look at the facts and try to find a “trace” of Russian participation in the events in Ukraine?
On the Internet resource “Sputnik-Pogrom”, from where the repost of the mentioned article occurred, there is an article “Akhmetov will come, bring order! (not really)". So, there are some materials that shed light on the mysterious attempt on Bolotov (even the hypothesis was advanced that this attempt was organized by Akhmetov and was made by the hands of his bandits) and why this attempt was unsuccessful. Without retelling everything, I will give only a few lines from that “interview”:
“LR, I report.
They were shooting around noon, two hours before the meeting with Pushilin. Valera is slightly injured. It could have been worse, but the ambush did not think that Valera was better guarded than Yanukovych, and the lads ran into them. Now Valera is completely safe, the air has been delivered to (shaded), the doctors say that they will quickly come back and return.
Officially, nothing is reported, but I can report that one dead came to life for a while, sang a song and died again. At the most general level, the song that the order came from Petit's headquarters, the specialists worked, they thought that they were going to run into Lugansk mouflons, and they themselves came across who you knew.
The million dollar question is: who exactly did the killers run into, who thought that there was still no 98 around and more terrible than the “Lux” grouping? And even more interesting question: what do the killer survivors feel after this small but significant incident? Are any of them willing to repeat the experience?
While Ukrainian analysts are thinking about the answer, and the terrible gangsters of Akhmetov write applications for dismissal with the wording “Go and fight with the army special forces”, we allow ourselves to summarize briefly ... ”
Colleagues, did you have some guesswork? Do you think it is possible to call an “army special forces” any structure other than the army special forces itself? And do you think that Bolotov is carefully guarded by the Ukrainian army special forces?
Another material. We all know who Igor Strelkov is (Girkin, Shooter). Here are some excerpts from his biography. Especially I take those who shed some light on his "affiliation".
But little is known about Strelkov, although some detailed publications about him continue to appear. For example, an article by the famous Moscow journalist Oleg Kashin on "Elephant". According to this, Girkin and Boroday began to cooperate in the Crimea at the end of February. Moreover, the whole Crimean project in general was a kind of "private-state" partnership between the Kremlin and the famous Orthodox oligarch Malofeev (Marshal Capital). Boroday collaborated with him.
It was the latter who “led” Prime Minister Crimea Aksyonov to the referendum and, in general, supervised him. Shooters at that time was also on the peninsula and engaged in local self-defense. After success in the Crimea, the same group took up the Donbas. True, according to Kashin, there she acts at her own risk without any real help from the Kremlin. And, they say, the position of this group is so awful that the Shooter even wrote down a special appeal to the residents of Donbass, where he shamed them that they were reluctant to sign up for self-defense units.
At the same time, according to the "Reporter", everything is not so simple. Indeed, both Malofeyev, and Borodai, and Strelkov act with a large degree of independence. At the same time, according to some data, Aksenov coordinates their activities (as well as work throughout the Southeast). And all this is strictly supervised by the Kremlin, where all major decisions are made. But, what is really true, in the case of Donbas, Russia does not want to shine much of its activity. Therefore, there are publications that show that “we have nothing to do with it” (and Strelkov’s appeal may have the same task).
In fact, the tactics of Moscow, as far as can be judged, is to provide unofficial support to the protesters in the Donbas (weapons and volunteers) so that they could take control of the entire region, and then spread the protest to the rest of the Southeast, and then, possibly, go to Kiev. At the same time, there is a hard casting among local leaders - who will show himself best. So in the near future, many of them can be replaced ...
Well, and so on. Interested and doubtful, I offer a summary line from this article: “The SBU says that he is a colonel of the GRU of the Russian Defense Ministry, however, according to our data, as reported above, he had nothing to do with the GRU, but worked in the FSB,” and also recall the saying “There are no former special agents” and a reference where you can fully satisfy your interest regarding Girkin (Arrow): http://novorus.info/news/interesno/16484-kto-ty-strelok.html.
SUMMARY, dear colleagues: emotions are beautiful, but it is desirable to support them with facts. We read, compare, analyze, draw a conclusion.
SHOWING HYDRA DEZA. And one more aspect I would like to touch on, guys and girls, is the processing of the mind in the conditions of the infovey. Of course, everyone has the right to choose the side of the confrontation - either jumping and demanding lard to the Heroes, or becoming one of the supporters of the great Russia. Depending on this, you give preference to one or another source, not forgetting to look into less preferred ones - you need to know the enemy by sight.
The enemy becomes more sophisticated, playing subtly, uncompromising and angry (something Garry Kasparov came to mind ...). And therefore, often articles that seem to be placed in pro-Russian sources slowly introduce completely anti-Russian ideas and thoughts into our consciousness.
The article “Fashization of Ukraine and the separation of Novorossia with the Crimea” caught my eye. Good article, competent and, it would seem, completely pro-Russian. But - this aspect is alarming: The article considers two options for the separation of Ukraine - one catastrophic (this is when Russia washes its hands, and the West is scooping up everything that it wishes, and Russia looks after Ukraine leaving for the EU with sadness and sadness), other (attention):
- “Acceptable option.
Ukrainian New Russia with an autonomous Crimea and Western Ukraine (Little Russia, Galicia) - this option of dividing Ukraine can be considered satisfactory. At least, it excludes the formation of fragments in the form of Donbass and Crimea - a tragic variant. Obviously, only a large republic, including the regions of Ukrainian New Russia and an autonomous Crimea, only such a large, unified state, with equal rights for Ukrainians and Russians, will be able to protect the residents of the south-east of present-day Ukraine and prevent a bloody fire on the borders of Russia.
And here, it’s important historical the idea of Ukrainian New Russia, so that an amorphous-geographical neoplasm like Transnistria does not arise. We need the Republic of Ukraine Novorossiya, rooted in historical roots during the time of Catherine the Great.
Ukraine is Russia's southern front in its struggle with the world capitalist system for its existence. Here the Kremlin needs a new Zhukov, and we have Zurabov. ”
Surprising position of the author. And outraged! As if the Crimeans were undecided for themselves - with whom they should be and, as if, there were not those tears of joy and words: “We returned home!” In my opinion, it is even hypothetically impossible to consider options with the inclusion of Crimea in any other country , as soon as Russia, and not some kind of “big republic, including Novorossia and the autonomous Crimea”. So you think - whether the author of the article mentioned is an intelligent and hidden nationalist who has a sight to some kind of "nezalezhno" from Russia, the future and who wants to return the Crimea to the bosom of the Great Ukraine, or something "does not catch up with." In what such theories degenerate, we are lucky to see by the results of the rule the descendants of the "great ukrov" for two decades.
I will not load your attention further, dear colleagues, I will be bold. In the coming days, I plan to publish a publication with the tentative title “Attention, ideological helminthiasis!” And I hope that the editors will not conceal it, as happened with the article “This is LJ - for good reason!”, Sent by 4 in May.
Sincerely - Esaul
Information