Connect with us
//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

RussiaFeed

Bloody Monday: Grandnephew of GULAG organizer stabbed Moscow radio station editor

The attacker was a grandnephew of an inventor and first commissar of the death camps in Russia.

Avatar

Published

on

(The Saker) – On November 23, 2002, fifty armed jihadi terrorists, or “freedom fighters” as they were called by the West, seized the Dubrovka Theater in Moscow taking 850 hostages. The liberal radio station Echo of Moscow immediately declared this to be Putin’s government fault, the government couldn’t be trusted, and unless it guaranteed safety to all of Russia’s citizens, Putin should resign.

The mastermind behind the attack was arrested in 2014, when he tried to get to Crimea from the territory of Ukraine.

Fifteen years later, on Monday October 23, 2017, a man entered a high-rise building in center Moscow, pepper sprayed the security guard on duty, got into an elevator, stopped on the 14th floor occupied by the radio Echo of Moscow offices, entered the offices of Tanya Fengelgauer, the Deputy Chief Editor, stabbed her, and ran away.

Before I proceed telling you what happened next, I want to give you an illustration of a simple formula which has been used in multiple black anti-government psy ops known as “color revolutions” during the last hundred years.

A new documentary Revolution: a trap for Russia made by the Culture Foundation of Russia reveals details of one of those psy ops.

My translation is from minute 19 to 35 of the video.

“At the Paris Inter revolutionary parties Conference in September 1904, Lenin, who found out about the Japanese government financing this conference, preferred not to attend. His choice was to work with the Europeans. At this conference sponsored with Japanese money, came together the leaders of the entire anti-government opposition: from separatists of Georgia, Finland and Poland, to the Liberals. The Russian liberals were also attending with Struve, as their leader. They supported the course of the armed uprising, which surprised the Colonel Akashi.

Pavel Milyukov, professor of history, future leader of the Constitutional Democratic or the CaDet party, one of the most active participants of the February Revolution in 1917.

Peter (or Pyotr or Petr) Berngardovich Struve, a Marxist, who lived in Germany and published a revolutionary magazine Liberation (Osvobojdenie), one of the organizer and ideologists of R.S.D.R.P. or Russian Social Democratic Labour Party.

“Milyukov wasn’t a revolutionary, per se. He was a liberal who influenced and had contacts with an American millionaire Charles Richard Crane, one of the founders of the Chicago University. “Milyukov fundraised some sum of money from him.

Charles Richard Crane was a rich industrialist, a founder of the Slavic Center of the Chicago University, a shadow political activist who took part in Russian Revolution.

From the classified report of the Colonel Akashi: 

“The Conference decided that each party will use their own methods of fighting: the Liberals will fight through the local government and media, the revolutionary parties will use “emergency measures”, the representatives of Caucasus will organize murders, Polls – demonstrations.”

The Liberals’ job was to critique Russia’s government for its cruelty, and to use the acts of violence, real and fake, as facts of the state’s failure and the country being in “ruins.”

At the Paris Conference adopted a resolution about the toppling of the monarchy and division of Russia on ethnic autonomies. A possible defeat in the war with Japan was considered to be a desired outcome for future advancement of the revolution.

By that time Lenin broke up with the Menshevik (minority) party. He was expelled from the editorial team of the Iskra newspaper, and was almost expelled from the Central Apparatus of R.S.D.R.P.

There were two leaders at that time, Lenin and Plekhanoff.

The Japanese didn’t like Plekhanoff, and instead chose Lenin and gave him money to publish the gazette Vpered (Forward).

In its first issue on December 22, 1904, Lenin made a prediction:

“Military defeat is unavoidable, and it will increase dissatisfaction with the government by ten times. At this moment, the proletariat will rise at the head of the uprising.”

Only 18 days remained until “Bloody Sunday.”

From the classified report to the General Shtab of Japan from the Colonel Akashi:

“In November-December a decision was made to stage multiple demonstrations in Russia.”

The beginning of the first Russian revolution we should count not from the January 9, 1905, but from the fall 1904, when the plan of this revolution was developed and adopted and the work started including the stimulation of Gapon’s activity.

Georgy Apollonovich Gapon was an Orthodox priest and a talented man who could influence large audiences and who felt at ease in the Police headquarters, at high society gatherings, and in workmen’s groups. During his childhood he read a story of Joan of Belgorod’s flight to Jerusalem on a back of the Satan. In his memoirs he wrote:

“First I cried in fear, because Satan was frightening, but on the other hand I wanted to saddle the satan and to fly to Jerusalem like Joan of Belgorod.”

In 1903, Gapon founded the Assembly of Russian Factory and Plant Workers at the Putilov plant, the largest Petersburg industry.

When we look carefully at the events, we can see that this sort of “satan” was present there. He worked on the Putilov manufacturing plant. Nothing was accidental there. Everything was well planned. Peter or Pinhas Rutenberg, was a member of the Social-Revolution party or the S.R. party, an activist of the revolution of 1905-1907. He graduated from the St. Petersburg Technological Institute, and until February 1917 he lived in Europa and America. After the revolution of 1917, he was a deputy head of Petrograd. Later he created an electric company, which still exists in Israel.

At the end of 1904, an ordinary event took place: three workers were fired from the Putilovsky plant. All three of them were members of the Gapon’s organization of manufacturing workers. He demanded them to be put back on the payroll. The director didn’t want to take them back because they missed too many work days.

The Putilovsky plant was a defense contractor and produced weapons and military hardware. During the war with Japan, government banned all the protests and job walkouts. That’s why when in January 1905 the Putilovsky plant stopped its work, it was seen as the crime. The demonstrations and job walkouts of thousands of worker needed lots of money. By that time, percentage wise the proletariat wasn’t that big. They were first-second generation and didn’t form their ideology and their own place in the structure of the Russian society. That’s why it was so easy to influence them ideologically. Especially considering that during the war, economic difficulties were elevated in the country.

When someone shows up and claims that he knows what to do, like the revolutionaries did, the proletariat are easily entrapped by them.

In the night of January 8-9, Gapon locked himself up with Rutenberg and armed fighters from the Esser party. They were working on the last draft of the Petition to the Czar, as if it was from the Putilovsky plant workers.

First economic demands were switched to the radical demands, that were rocking the Russia during this wartime period. They included the demands of separation of the Church and state. At that time, every workman and every peasant were Christians. They didn’t understand the idea of separation of church and state, and if they understood, they would never accepted and supported it.

Since, the demonstration was authorized, the organizers decided to bring the church symbols, and when they were turned down by the local church, the organizers simply forced themselves in and took the icons and other church symbols by force.

Gapon was wearying the civilian clothes, and put on the priest’s garments only inside this church.

Rutenberg kept close to Gapon the entire time.

Gapon called for the Czar to come out and to meet the “Russian people to restore morality.” In other words, the revolutionaries manipulated the images of the “kind czar” and “czar the daddy,” who will bless everyone and give everyone good life without wars, taxes and work.

It was the canning vicious manipulation of the deepest archetypes of the Russian worldview.

[These were people the “revolutionaries” were fleecing.

The history speaks about these people and how easy it was for an international maniacal gang to fool them.

People whom the Russian elite didn’t bother to teach or inform the true nature of the “revolutionary” movement. No matter how much fur and diamonds so called “Russia’s elite” would put on themselves, they still were looked down by their counterparts somewhere in Paris. It goes without saying that Europeans were brought up to see Russians as white Africans. That they managed to flee us Russians twice for more than they ever fleeced Africans and Native Americans speaks volumes about us and we have to come to terms with it, and learn to do better next time. S.H. ]

Despite of the calls for the czar to come out and to meet them, they were armed. That’s why they weren’t allowed to go forwards, and that why they were stopped. The Police did their job and they knew that the crowd was armed. It’s hard to imagine that an armed crowd would be allowed to enter a residence of the head of state.

The organizers of the demonstration directed people to the Winter Palace fully aware that the Czar wasn’t there. He was in Tsarskoye Selo at the time.

Add to this fact that this demonstration wasn’t authorized and it was taken place in the city under declared martial law because of the war. According to this law, no one could approach military unites closer than fifty meters.

The organizers of this demonstration wanted blood, and they got it. It’s hard to establish now, but people could be killed and injured by the troops and also by those armed fighters in the crowd.

The military got order to stop the procession and not to let them to the Palace Square. When they reached the troops, Rutenberg grabbed Gapon and they both fell. That’s how they survived. After that Rutenberg and Gapon went behind a nearest building, where Rutenberg cut Gapon’s hair and beard, which meant that Gapon wasn’t going to continue as a priest and tried to change his appearance. They both took a refuge inside Maxim Gorky’s apartment and started to write proclamations there.

“Brothers, united in blood, we have no Czar.”

They also wrote

“be damn the Czar with all his offspring,”

“people believed in Czar and this faith was destroyed”

“now, this czar has to be destroyed.”

It was a very extremist proclamation. Maxim Gorky wrote this proclamation to the citizens of Russia and to the entire European society.

The same day M. Gorky sent to the New York Times telegraph with the following text:

“The massacre as I saw it. The Russian Revolution has commenced.”

Interesting, that the New York Times published a large article about the demonstration a day before with a big photo of Nicolay II titled “Revolution is at hand in desperate Russia!” [30:34].

New York Times articles in 1905 – 1906 concerning the “Bloody Sunday,” the first attempt of a color revolution, and calls for sanctions against Russia.

Gorky was arrested on the January 9 for writing this proclamation, but due to public outcry around the world about the violation of his human rights, he was released.

The “Bloody Sunday” touched many Americans, and it was used to show the bloody despotism of the Russian monarchy that shoots “unarmed demonstration.”

From the classified report of the Colonel Akashi:

“That the priest was able to lead thousands of workmen, and unite members of different parties, and to stage a demonstration that shook entire Russia, it was far exceeding my expectations.”

Surprisingly, the Liberal Pavel Milyukov being in Chicago knew what was about to happen in Russia. In his interview to an American newspaper:

“In the next two days there will be blood spilled in Russia. It’s impossible to stop the standoff. The revolution is developing.”

The question is was it a lucky guess, or Milyukov knew what was planned?

There was nothing accidental about so called Bloody Sunday. Interesting, that even Lenin sitting in Geneva knew about the Akashi plan. He wrote:

“An uprising has began. The street fights are everywhere. Barricades are rising. Rivers of blood are streaming. The civil war for freedom is burning wider. Moscow, Caucasus and Poland is ready to follow the proletariat of Petersburg.” 

In reality there was no uprising at that time. It will be organized later. It will be staged using the same scenario.

After the staging the demonstration, Gapon went to Switzerland to join Lenin there.

The anti-Russia movement “Free Russia” promote him as a face of the “Russian revolution.” An editor of the “Free Russia” David Soskis or SOSKICE, became the author of the PR campaign around Gapon. Gapon lived in his London apartment, and Soskis authorized and published Gapon biography title “History of my life.” The book was published in English and French.

[A brief biography of David Soskis, including his family and education, and his connections to Maxim Peshkov-Gorky, see a the book of Lev Gunin, Another Holocaust. Based on the book of G. H. PERRIS, RUSSIA IN REVOLUTION, LONDON,CHAPMAN & HALL, LTD., 1905.]

Using Gapon’s name, the Geneva conference was organized. The Liberals weren’t invited, and the conference served to the consolidation of the extremists. The plan of the Geneva Conference was to stage an armed revolt, and after the government foils it to talk about the “horrors of the Russian life.”

The Colonel Akashi wrote to the Marshal Yamagata of Japan:

Geneva conference decided to place the blame for past and future bloodshed on the Russian czar.” [35]

That’s how this staged provocation was created and served as the “Bloody Sunday” to the world public as an excuse for Russophobia, foreign invasions and wars on Russia, revolutions and Russia bashing for the next 100 years.

Gapon was found brutally tortured and killed in April 1906 in Russia. Rutenberg was suspected, but he escaped the Police and left Russia.

One of the leaders of the socialist-revolutionary party B. Savinkov wrote:

“Our brilliant leader Chernov entrusted him (Rutenberg) to be a “shepherd” of the priest, to be able to weave his name into the crown of thorns of glory of our suffering party.”

Latter, Lenin called the 1905 events – “a general rehearsal.”

——–

Now, going back to the stabbing of the Echo of Moscow editor.

Following the stabbing, the liberals in Russia used the Social media to express their outrage with the government of Russia and blaming the government for the “murder of a journalist” Tanya Fengelgauer, a Deputy Chief Editor of the radio Echo of Moscow.

In the long tradition of organized psy ops, five hours prior to the attack an anonymous account posted a picture of Fengelgauer saying

“I liked video of the program “Morning with Sasha Plushev and Tanya Fengelgauer/ Alive.”

They leave these “bread crumbs” for us to find and to be at awe at their omnipotence and omnipresence, just like Milyukov knew two day before the demonstration that it would have victims. Because he and others had planted armed people in the crowd to shoot at the demonstrators.

Other, not injured in the attack, journalists of the Echo of Moscow, made multiple statements that this was the “Kristallnacht” event and compared Russia with Germany at the beginning of 30s and The Soviet Russia in 36-37s.

“It was the attack of the Russian Nazis,” it was “pogrom.”

They claimed.

The body of a journalist was more alive than dead, but liberals rushed each with 2c.

“Will we forgive Putin for Tanechka, or will we betray her, as always?”

they asked each other.

Artem Torchinskiy, who works for the Twitter Anti-corruption Foundation donate.fbk.info  wrote:

“This is an attempt on the life of the public figure, terrorism sponsored by the state.”

He didn’t specify what state was sponsoring terrorism in this case.

An online project zona.media reported:

“The Journalists Labor Union places part of the responsibility for the attack on Fengelgauer on Russia24 channel.”

For your information, the Russia24 broadcasted a TV show “The Sleepers” about the liberal journalists working with the US Embassy and the CIA to destabilize the country.

The plan was simple:

  1. To kill Tanya and to call this the “Bloody Monday”;
  2. To blame in her death the President, the “regime,” the law enforcement and other power structures;
  3. To start a media hysteria;
  4. To call “everyone” on the street on November 7th, to protest the” bloody regime”;
  5. To organize shooting during the demonstration. See the plan illustrated above.
  6. In case the murderer is captured, they prepared his “blog” with notes to show that he was “crazy.”

Judging by the figures participating in the RP, this event was planned to become huge.

Igor Chubais, jumped out of the bushes in Germany with his ready-to-serve petition:

“PETITION!

Another attack. Knife against the freedom! Nightmare on the Echo of Moscow!

A wonderful, fearless anchor woman stabbed by a knife in a throat.

New Stalin terror continues!

Say “No” to presidential election until an investigation is completed.

We demand explanation and guarantees of safety for citizens from the president.

We demand public investigation and harsh punishment of the guilty, starting with those who ordered this attack.

Tanya, get well as soon as possible.

Sign my petition”

———————————————–

Liberal media immediately found who was to blame for the attack. They blamed the state media like RT Russia Today and TASS for an “atmosphere of hatred, including towards those (liberal) journalists, nudging, fingering them.”

Timur Shafir, a Secretary of the Union of Journalists of Russia, called the knife fight between Grits and Felgengauer an “attack on the freedom of speech.”

———————————————————————–

However, something went terribly wrong for them.

The attacker was captured by the Police and apprehended. He was a citizen of Israel Boris Grits, a grandnephew of an inventor and first commissar of the death camps in Russia called GULAG, Naftaly Aronovich Frenkel.

It’s was actually very revealing how after all of them saying something about “Russian Nazis,” “pogroms” and “state sponsored terrorism” they suddenly shut up when the attacker turned out to be a Jew from Israel.

Then an excuse was immediately found. He is mentally ill, they said.

No medical records of Grits mental illness was presented, so far. His so called “Diary” sounds like a typical test-book case of being written by a schizophrenic, so Israel, the Jerusalem University and the University of California, where Grits studied, all have to demonstrate that this man was in psychiatric treatment and on anti-psychotic medications, otherwise, claims of him being that severely mentally ill are without merit.

One of the first order of business for Mossad should be to figure out and to report to the world community, why a citizen of Israel, attacked another citizen of Israel, on the territory of a foreign country.

The media in Russia is very careful not to reveal an identity of the attacker and calls him a “foreigner.” Read the TASS article and see for yourself.

Now on, a “foreigner” will be our code word for a traveling band of Israeli assassins.

——————————

P.S.: Tatiana was actually the most normal in comparison with others.

As reported by her doctors she was transferred from an intensive care unit into a general recovery unit on Tuesday.

She even was able to write a note thanking everyone for their concern.

I wish her speedy recovery, but that might be really hard with the colleagues like she has. They reported her to be in induced coma, lied again for their own benefits.

Another issue, it’s her state of mind. She tweets about how much she wants to die and asks to kill her brutally.

================================================================

The following material was collected by people in a few hours after the attack. People combed through accounts of the liberal journalists, they found a copy of Grits’ ID, his complain to the UN, and his correspondence with the journalists of the Echo of Moscow that revealed his personal connection to some of them.

People knew exactly what to look for and where to look. The amount of material that was collected and shared is huge. This is one of the most brilliant research operations that Russian community has conducted, and this is the reason why this attack was a failure of its organizers. They are not able to use their psy op against us. You won’t see the portraits of Fengelgauer, like they managed to do with a former Russia Liquidation team member Nemtsov. The children of those who fleece us twice won’t be coming out on November 7th with solemn faces of professional con artists, holding some red rags with the name of Fengelgauer written on them.

I am certain that next week they will make another attempt of a life of some liberal. They are expendable, after all.

But today, I congratulate all of us with this victory.

————————————————————————

More details

Turns out, that Boris Grits has been connected to the Echo of Moscow in many real ways, rather than telepathically, as he claims pretending to be “crazy.”

Video released by the Press service of the Moscow Police department on 23 October 2017 as posted by the NEWSru.co.il

https://youtu.be/evG_sDvGdoc

Below is a screenshot of a conversation on twitter between Boris Grits @bgrits68, and a journalist N. Barshevskaya @nbarshevskaya and

Boris Grits: I was giving you a bath in the Black Sea when you were 5 or 6, by the way.

Barshevskaya:

“Hello, Glad to hear from you. Write me a personal message.”

Below she posted a picture of the radio co-owner Venedictov,

“I have a romantic date with @aavstll on Friday night :-)”

His twitter account was created on April 1, a Fool’s Day.

Barshevskaya lives with her family in London, and her father is already went on the Solovyev’s talk show to say that his daughter cut communications with Grits after she realized that he was “crazy.”


Boris Grits had hard time of getting job in Israel after he returned from the US.

He filed a complaint with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights at OHCHR.OR

That’s might explain how he was recruited for this psy op. This also explains why he came to Russia and why he posted a couple of notes in 2015 on his blog that he didn’t maintain. His twitter account had only 6 followers, one of which was  Barshevskaya from the Echo of Moscow.


More news in brief

The “Bloody Monday” the day of attempts on the lives of Poroshenko, Rogozin and the journalist from the Echo of Moscow.

The SBU reported a failed attempt on the life of Petro Poroshenko.

https://twitter.com/nastyar26933289/status/922518840940122112

Also a man shot at the Russian border guards trying to illegally cross the border from Ukraine. He was carrying two handguns with 50 rounds of ammunition, five hand grenades, and also 26 vials with presumably mercury.

Ukrainian man detained after opening fire on Russian border guards

A Ukrainian man was shot and detained after engaging in a firefight with Russian border guards during an attempt to illegally cross into Russian territory, the Federal Security Service (FSB) said. Border guards in Russia’s Kursk Region apprehended a 31-year-old Ukrainian citizen, who resisted arrest and opened fire on them, the FSB said.

“He received a moderate gunshot wound in a firefight,”

it added. The man had a pistol, five grenades and 26 ampules with a substance, believed to be mercury, on him.


Irina Prohorova on the attack on Felgenhauer:

In essence this attack is a disintegration of statehood.”

‘The editor-in-chief of the journal Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, (New Literature Review) Irina Prokhorova, in an interview with Ruposters linked the attack on deputy head of the radio station Ekho Moskvy Tatiana Felgenhauer with increased aggression in Russian society.”

“No detachments of so-called “Christian believers”, or some other “guardians of the Fatherland” who attack, threaten and beat, would not act that frequently if those people were convicted for hooliganism or an attack, for a couple of times. And, since this they are all supported behind the scenes, we see the result spreading around. It’s impossible to put together a piece of meat, once you put it through a meat grinder,”

the journalist noted.

“Such situations, Prokhorov is sure, testifies to the “disintegration of Russian statehood.”

“If grassroots terrorism is encouraged, then any person who thinks of himself as a bearer of some values ​​believes that he has the moral right to beat, kill, smash and insult, then it is rather difficult “to put him back in his place. “But in general there are laws according to which such people should be judged, and they are usually being released, since no corpus delicti is found, or they are given provisional sentences. And thus anarchy begins,”

Prokhorova summed up.


Oleg Kozyrev, a founder and CTO at the RocketBank

“Most likely an attacker was either matildovets (protester of the Matilda movie about Nicolay II) or watched too many of anti-Echo federal propaganda. We will find out, soon.”


Oleg Kashin, the New York Times author, about the authorities initial reaction.

“I want to call bastards those people from the Moscow Police department, who started talking about the personal reasons for this attack.”

People compare this attack with Oleg Kashin’s, who was reported beaten in 2010, he was taken to Israel “for treatment.” In Israel he “accidentally” met with then president Dmitry Medvedev.

This time around no one was whisked away to Israel. The good Russian doctors took care of everyone and no one claimed to be in a coma.


Rustem Adagamov, who fled to Prague following pedophilia probe:

“Judging by the way this animal is pushing some kind if “telepathic connection” during him being questioned by the Police, he is a product of the KiselTV (federal TV channels) that nudges’ people to attack.”


DW in Russian

https://twitter.com/dw_russian/status/922451876427288577

“Russia

The attack on Tatiana Felgenhauer: one known cause

The attack on the radio anchor woman and Deputy chief editor of “Echo of Moscow” Tatiana Felgengauer – one of the consequences of hatred, fomented on TV, I’m sure, the cartoonist Sergei Elkin.”


A psychiatrist claims after watching the video of Boris Grits that he doesn’t demonstrate any of the common psycho-motor traits and speaks like a healthy person who just says memorized text. Plus, he had a knife and pepper spray with him. it means that he was prepared to commit crime. People who experience hallucinations can’t plan in advance.


Blaming the federal TV stations for instilling hatred towards the liberals doesn’t really stick, since the attacker is an Israeli, who never watched the Federal TV channels broadcasted in Russia.


Man stabs anchor in neck at Russian radio station Echo of Moscow

Russian Radio Journalist Is Stabbed, Renewing Fears of Attacks on News Media,

“The attack immediately touched off social media posts suggesting a political motivation, though other possibilities were also discussed.”

“This month, Russian state television singled out Ms. Felgenhauer in a report critical of what it called Echo of Moscow’s role “attempting to form pro-Western positions” in Russian society. The selection of experts and the layout of informational and political material speaks for itself,”

the state TV report said.

That broadcast on Oct. 11, called “Echo of the State Department,” said the station collaborated with foreign-funded nongovernmental organizations and was “carrying out anti-government policies, in essence.”

In Russia, such politically hued screeds on state television often set the tone for future action by prosecutors or proxy organizations, although there was no indication that the assailant who attacked Ms. Felgenhauer belonged to any such group.”


Russian radio journalist stabbed in Moscow, suspect held

“Echo of Moscow is a well-known station that regularly invites Russian political opposition figures and is known for its critical views of the government despite energy giant Gazprom being the majority shareholder.

Russia has a disturbing record of attacks on journalists, with 58 killed since 1992, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. Threats made against journalists often go unaddressed and attacks are not investigated.”


 ‘Nobody defends us’: Russian journalists respond to knife attack, by Shaun Walker in Moscow

Reporters decry climate of hatred after Tatyana Felgenhauer is stabbed in neck at Ekho Moskvy radio station.

Monday 23 October 2017 14.24 EDT First published on Monday 23 October 2017 07.36 EDT

“Russian journalists have said an increasingly polarized and violent political climate in the country may have encouraged a knife attack in which a well-known radio host was stabbed in the neck.

“Tatyana Felgenhauer, deputy editor of the Ekho Moskvy radio station, was attacked on Monday lunchtime by a man who broke into the station’s studios in a central Moscow tower block. The intruder sprayed pepper in the face of a ground-floor security guard, before vaulting the barrier and taking the lift up to the Ekho Moskvy studio on the 14th floor.

Alexei Venediktov, the station’s editor-in-chief, said in an interview on Monday evening that doctors had operated on Felgenhauer for more than an hour. She will be in an induced coma overnight, but doctors say there is no immediate threat to her life.

Felgenhauer was conscious after the attack and able to walk, but it soon became clear that her injuries were serious and she was taken to hospital. Police arrived to detain the assailant, who had been tackled by two security guards.”


Russian journalist stabbed in neck after attacker storms radio studio

“An unknown assailant storms studio and attacks journalist after series of death threats is sent to reporters at a radio station.

“The incident follows death threats sent to journalists at the station, described as Russia’s only independent outlet, in the past.

Ekho Moskvy has been openly critical of the Russian administration sparking opposition from pro-government critics.

The broadcaster is owned by a media holding controlled by state-owned gas giant Gazprom but it does give air time to staunch critics of the Kremlin and its allies.”


Multiple calls for Vladimir Solovyev and other leading Jewish journalists to condemn the Zionist terror against journalists in Russia went unanswered.


Speaking of fake news. @SvobodaRadio posted an announcement of Fengelgauer @t_felg being shot to death, but attack didn’t go as they planned.

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement //pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

Russia’s Rosatom is the world leader in international construction of nuclear power plants

Rosatom is currently constructing the Akkuyu nuclear power plant in Turkey.

Avatar

Published

on

In spite of western sanctions, Russia’s Rosatom is the world’s number two in uranium reserves and has become number one globally in the implementation of nuclear reactor projects. Currently, Rosatom is working on six reactor projects in Russia and 36 abroad. Rosatom has acquired 67 per cent of the world nuclear plant construction market, the orders portfolio exceeding $133 billion. Rosatom is working on nuclear plants in Turkey, China and Bangladesh, to name just a few of the countries, where the Russian corporation is present. Rosatom is highly respected as the global technological leader in high-performance clean energy solutions and was also recently named best Russian employer for the year of 2018 by an international headhunter firm. On the 15th and 16th of April 2019, the eleventh ATOMEXPO FORUM was held in Sochi, Russia, upon invitation by Rosatom.

The Russian State Corporation Rosatom (Росатом), established in 2007, has its headquarters in Moscow. The organization comprises more than 360 enterprises, including scientific research organizations and the world’s only nuclear icebreaker fleet. Since 2016, its General Director is Alexey Likhachev.

Rosatom was ranked number one as best employer of Russia in 2018 by HeadHunter, a top HR management platform and resource centre. In a vote, the company achieved the highest score by employees, candidates and experts out of over 1.000 big Russian companies. Commenting on the accolade, Tatyana Terentyeva, HR Director of Rosatom, said:

“We’re immensely proud of this achievement which is a testament to our strong company culture of always putting our people first. The growth of regional and international projects has given employees and applicants a chance of working in multicultural, cross-divisional and cross-functional project teams. Digitalisation, alone, will open vacancies for 1.000 new specialists this year, from software developers to product and data scientists.”

“We believe that the responsibility lies with human capital stakeholders, such as large multinationals, universities and governments to begin discussing the policy response in earnest. We hope that the gathering of these parties at the global Skills Summit, taking place alongside the WorldSkills 2019 Conference in Kazan this August, to address the global skills gap which affects everyone, will be an important starting point from which companies and governments can work together to help solve this issue”, she further commented (CISTON PR NEWSWIRE, 28.03.2019).

Rosatom is currently constructing the Akkuyu nuclear power plant in Turkey. Laying the foundation has already been completed. The 17.000 cubic metres of self-compacting concrete foundations are due to be followed by the construction of the exterior and interior walls of the reactor. Construction of the concrete bases for the auxiliary reactors and control room have also begun. The work meets International Atomic Energy Agency safety standards.

Rosatom said that the entire first reactor would be finished by the end of the year 2019, with engineering studies for the second reactor already in progress and documentation being prepared to construct the third reactor in Turkey’s Mediterranean province of Mersin. The Russian nuclear utility is due to build four reactors, each with a capacity of 1.2 gigawatts. The plant is anticipated to have a working life of 8.000 hours per year and produce 35 billion kilowatts of electricity at full capacity. That will meet 10 per cent of Turkey’s electrical demands, according to the Turkish authorities. Akkuyu has an operational date for the first reactor in 2023 with full capacity targeted by 2025 (ENERGY REPORTERS, 15.03.2019).

In China, Rosatom built the Tianwan nuclear power plant, Phase I, Phase II and Phase III. Now, the Russians will construct Tianwan Phase IV. The general contract was signed in March this year for the construction of two further Russian-supplied reactors at the Tianwan nuclear power plant in China’s Jiangsu province. In addition, a technical design contract was signed for a second pair of reactors at the Xudabao site in Liaoning province.

Rosatom said that the contracts had been prepared in accordance with the strategic package of agreements signed during a visit by Russian President Vladimir Putin to China, in June 2018. This package defines cooperation between Russia and China in the nuclear industry for the coming decades.

Tianwan Phase I – units 1 and 2 – was constructed under a 1992 cooperation agreement between China and Russia. The first concrete was poured in October 1999. The units were commissioned in June 2007 and September 2007, respectively. Tianwan Phase II – units 3 and 4 – was constructed from December 2012 until December 2018. Unit 3 entered commercial operation in February 2018, with unit 4 following in December 2018. Tiawan Phase III – units 5 and 6 – both featuring Chinese-designed 1080 MWe ACPR1000 reactors, were begun in December 2015. Units 5 and 6 are planned to go into commercial operation by the end of 2021 (WORLD NUCLEAR NEWS, 12.03.2019).

Another Rosatom construction site is located in Bangladesh. Both Dhaka and Moscow expressed their satisfaction over the progress of construction work of the Rooppur nuclear power plant. It is being implemented under an intergovernmental agreement, signed between Russia and Bangladesh in November 2011. In December 2015, Atomstroyexport, Rosatom’s subsidiary, was appointed as general contractor for the construction of the Rooppur plant with two VVER 1200 power units, each with a capacity of 1.200 megawatts. In 2015 and 2016, preparatory work was carried out at the construction site, working documentation was developed and licencing documents were prepared.

In 2017, the regulatory authority of Bangladesh (BAERA) issued the required licence for the design and construction of the plant. In July 2018, unit 2 also went into the active phase of construction, following the “first concrete”. In August 2018, the installation of the “core catcher”, one of the most important passive safety systems, began at unit 1. The installation of the “core catcher” for unit 2 began in February 2019. Currently, construction of the main buildings of both power units is underway (DHAKA TRIBUNE, 10.03.2019)

Rosatom has further ambitious plans for NPP construction worldwide. Building a network of nuclear reactors across the world will help to extend Moscow’s influence into global energy markets, as it offers competitive deals and comprehensive service, including the provision of plutonium. Kirill Komarov, deputy CEO of Rosatom, told the media:

“We are the ultimate leader in the majority of nuclear sectors. Most of our projects are in the developing world. These are the countries which show the strongest economic growth. China, India, Southeast Asia, countries in the Middle East region. We see countries on the African continent and in Latin America.”

Kirill Komarov explained that “Rosatom is offering solutions for developing countries to enable them negotiating the regulatory challenges involved with going nuclear. Rosatom is a unique company in that we have activities in all areas of the nuclear business; starting with mining of natural uranium, enrichment fuel fabrication, developing our own nuclear equipment, construction of nuclear power plants, decommissioning, waste management … everything” (ENERGY REPORTERS, 05.10.2018).

General Director of Rosatom is Alexey Likhachev. He assumed office in October 2016. Alexey Likhachev graduated from Gorky State University and started his career as an engineer in the Gorky Research Institute of Instrumentation. In 1998, he graduated from the Economic Faculty of Nizhniy Novgorod State University with a Ph.D. in economics.

In 2007, Alexey Likhachev joined the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia, where he held a wide variety of leadership positions. Throughout his career, he held senior positions in other governmental bodies and public organizations as well. He was a member of the State Duma, serving as Deputy Chairman of the Committee for Economic Policy, Entrepreneurship and Tourism, from 2000 to 2007.

According to Alexey Likhachev, Rosatom plans to retain its leading role in nuclear power plant construction worldwide, during the decade of 2020 to 2030. The Russian corporation aims to maintain a portfolio of foreign orders in the amount of at least $130 billion per year.

“Several years ago, we assumed the leading role on the global nuclear power plant construction market,” Alexey Likhachev said. “The market is moving, so our share on the market fluctuates between 68 and 72 per cent. I think we will be able to maintain it above 60 per cent at least, this is how we see our goals for the coming decade” (TASS, 13.01.2019).

Since the beginning of the 21st century, with President Vladimir Putin coming into power, the Russian Federation has moved upwards, building a vast nuclear empire spanning South and North America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia. Rosatom is the government corporation behind this enormous expansion, exporting nuclear technology all over the world, thus becoming the world’s leading nuclear powerhouse.

The International Atomic Energy Agency predicts that nuclear power will continue to grow in the next 15 years. The agency’s latest report puts the low margin of growth at 17 per cent and the high at 94 per cent. The Russian Federation is uniquely positioned to capitalize on this projected growth – it has a rich legacy of research and engineering in the field, as well as a history of cooperation with countries on all continents.

The Russian Federation is ensuring its steady presence on almost every single continent through the export of nuclear power projects, expanding its sphere of influence beyond traditional military and hydrocarbon means. Building nuclear power plants is a geopolitical tool, allowing Russia to tie up strategic foreign governments into long-term cooperation. In this way, Russia is demonstrating its prowess by building nuclear rectors across the world (GEOPOLITICAL MONITOR, 17.05.2016).

With these projects, the Russian Federation is gaining a strong foothold on the ground because nuclear power plants require transfer of technological know-how and long-term engagement of scientists, engineers, diplomats. The plants are, in essence, embassies and commerce chambers, which guarantee Russian access to local governments and politicians. Besides, the Russian Federation is opening its universities for students from future nuclear clients and building networks of cadres across the world.

One of the possiblities for Rosatom to reach foreign government agencies and business people is the international ATOMEXPO Forum, a major event in the global nuclear industry. Upon invitation from Rosatom, the 11th forum took place in Sochi, on the 15th and 16th of April 2019. The forum included an exhibition and a convention with an extensive business programme, centred around a plenary discussion. The forum provided a good opportunity for networking and signing partnership agreements. The forum also offered an entertaining cultural programme with possibilities to visit the beautiful Russian seaside resort of Sochi on the Black Sea and the nearby Caucasus mountains.

Seen in this light, Rosatom functions not only as a powerhouse exporting nuclear power plants but also as a corporation of diplomatic and geopolitical importance for Russia.


Olivia Kroth: The journalist and author of four books lives in Moscow.

Her blog: https://olivia2010kroth.wordpress.com

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

What’s Really Behind The State Department’s Meddling In Ukraine?

US meddling in Ukraine and support for a schismatic Ukrainian Church is not just about weakening Russia’s ‘soft power’ and geopolitical position but about expanding the reach of the US’s identity, gender and sexual politics

Jim Jatras

Published

on

This article is republished with the author’s permission.  Previously published by Chronicles

On March 31 the first round of Ukraine’s presidential election was held. In line with all polls, the top spot (with about 30 percent of the vote) was taken by Volodymyr Zelensky, a comic actor who played President of Ukraine in a popular TV series, making him the leading candidate for the position he once spoofed. He was followed (with about 16 percent) by incumbent President President Poroshenko, known as the oligarchic “Chocolate King” because of his confectionary company, Roshen. Poroshenko has also sought to emulate another king, England’s Henry VIII, through creation of his own Ukrainian church, which late last year Poroshenko declared independent of the Russian Orthodox Church with assistance from an unlikely duo, the Greek Orthodox Patriarch in Istanbul and the US State Department.

(Trailing behind Poroshenko with about 13 percent was perennial candidate and former prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko, also known as the “Gas Princess” (for her prominent role in the shady natural gas industry), “goddess of the Revolution” (for her firebrand image in Ukraine’s turbulent post-Soviet history), and the “Princess Leia of Ukrainian politics” (for her trademark folk-motif braids). Tymoshenko claims, quite plausibly, that Poroshenko stole the second spot from her but that Ukraine’s judicial system has been “privatized” by Poroshenko and it’s pointless to challenge the results in court.)

Zelensky and Poroshenko will now square off in an April 21 second round. The smart money favors Zelensky, given how badly he trounced Poroshenko in the first round. The smart money is probably wrong. Poroshenko—for whom the stakes are likely either self-imposed exile to avoid prosecution or continued slopping at a lucrative trough—has a lot of cards he can play, both what they call locally “administrative measures” to pad his vote and goodies to get former rivals to support him.

Most of all, he can count on western governments, notably that of the United States, and their hangers-on to not only turn a blind eye but to positively enthuse over Ukraine’s democratic vitality.

In world in which Washington routinely thunders from on high about other countries’ democratic legitimacy, the see-no-evil attitude toward Ukraine speaks volumes. (Imagine if, say, Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro, Russia’s Vladimir Putin, or Syria’s Bashar al-Assad had while in office racked up a 10,000 percent income increase, mainly from a shady Zurich-based fund.)

At this point it’s appropriate to stop and ask: why should anyone in the US care about Ukraine and its elections? Perhaps the more important question is, why does the State Department care so much? The answer has many facets: historical, geopolitical, ideological, ethnic, moral, and—perhaps surprisingly for some who may not think of “mere religion” as being particularly important in a postmodern Europe—spiritual.

In fact, upon examination Ukraine is a revealing showcase of all that’s wrong with American global policy, including a fanatical determination to impose a post-Christian moral order on what are still unexpectedly vibrant Christian societies rebounding from decades of communist repression. Sadly, this determination has not slackened under the Trump administration but has continued as though the previous administration had never left. In this regard, whatever his very public professions of his Christian faithwhited sepulchre Secretary Mike Pompeo and his State Department area at the forefront.

One of the major claimed accomplishments of incumbent Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko’s reelection campaign of “army, language, faith” is creation of an autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church (i.e., completely self-governing, with no tie at all to the Russian Orthodox Church). Western governments and media have uniformly—and inaccurately—hailed this as a reality already fulfilledwith the awarding of a tomos (literally, a small book containing an authoritative pronouncement or declaration) from Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople to Poroshenko and religious figures in Ukraine who had up until then been universally shunned as schismatics by all Orthodox jurisdictions. As of this writing, no other autocephalous Church has endorsed Constantinople’s actions, and several, notably the Patriarchates of Belgrade and Antioch—and notably Church of Albania, which is largely Greek by ethnicity—have taken sharp exception to it.

The Ukrainian Church situation is complex and contentious. It will be months if not years before it works itself out. Indeed, it may lead to a permanent split within Orthodoxy, not only in Ukraine but worldwide. Also, despite Patriarch Bartholomew’s stated intention to foster accord and reconciliation in Ukraine, his actions clearly have aggravated already raw feelings among believers there. Far from creating a united Ukrainian autocephalous Church, he has only managed to cobble together a new body under the authority of Constantinople in opposition to the canonical Moscow-linked Church, which continues to exist under its primate Metropolitan Onufriy. Violence in various forms is inevitable as Ukrainian authorities harass the canonical Church and prepare to seize its parishes and monasteries, notably the historic Kiev Perchersk Lavra and the Pochaev Lavra in western Ukraine.

Conspicuously, Poroshenko’s blatant politicking in Church affairs—which has been criticized even from quarters favoring autocephaly—has been applauded by western governments, notably by American officials. Just a few days after a high State Department career officer commendably declared in September 2018 that “any decision on autocephaly is an internal [Orthodox] church matter” he was reversed by endorsements of autocephaly by Secretary Pompeo, US Special Representative for Ukraine Kurt Volker, and US Ambassador in Kiev Marie Yovanovitch (an Obama appointee but still in place). Following the December Robber Council of Kiev on December 15, the US Embassy tweeted out its congratulations in English and in Ukrainian (not in Russian of course). Secretary of State Mike Pompeo placed a personal call to the “newly elected head of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine Metropolitan Epifaniy” (Dumenko). US Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch extended her congratulations to Dumenko in person. It should also be noted that The Atlantic Council, an über-Establishment Washington-based think tank operating in close coordination with the US government (and heavily funded by US and allied government agencies and contractors), has been an active advocate for autocephaly in the policy community and media.

Moreover, there is reason to believe the US State Department’s involvement was not just hortatory. As reported by this analyst in October 2018, according to an unconfirmed report originating with the members of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (an autonomous New York-based part of the Moscow Patriarchate), in July 2018 State Department officials, possibly including Secretary Pompeo personally, warned the scandalridden and broke Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America (also based in New York but under authority of the Ecumenical Patriarchate) that the US government was aware of the misappropriation of a large amount of money, about $10 million, from an estimated $37 million raised from believers for the (now stalled) construction of the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church and National Shrine in New York (to replace the original St. Nicholas church destroyed in the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center). The State Department warning also reportedly noted that federal prosecutors have documentary evidence confirming the withdrawal of these funds abroad on the orders of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. It was suggested that Secretary Pompeo would “close his eyes” to this theft in exchange for movement by the Patriarchate of Constantinople in favor of Ukrainian autocephaly, which helped set Patriarch Bartholomew on his current course. Moreover, the State Department’s direct hand in this sordid business may not have consisted solely of wielding the “stick” of legal threat: there’s reason to believe there was a “carrot” too. There are numerous unproven reports of a $25 million payoff to Constantinople from Poroshenko (although allegedly Poroshenko initially attempted to hold back $15 million for himself). Attributions of the original source of that money differ. Some claim it came from organized crime bosses in Dnipro. This analyst was told by an unsolicited, confidential informant in the Greek Archdiocese in New York that the funds came from the State Department.

We may never know the truth about any such payment. But whatever the details, one still has to ask why the US is so keenly committed to creating an autocephalous Church in Ukraine. Aside from the obvious impropriety of the United States’ taking sides in a question of the Orthodox Church’s internal governance, why is the State Department so committed to promoting a transparently political power grab by Poroshenko, the Ukrainian schismatics, and Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople?

Given the various lobbies with a lot of influence in Washington, including those of foreign states and ethnic communities, it is natural to look in that direction to identify relevant actors and driving forces on the American side with respect to formulation of policy toward Ukraine. Among those that might come to mind are the Ukrainian diaspora in the United States (just under a million people), the Greek-American community (variously estimated at between one and three million, depending on self-identification), and so forth. There is precedent for such influences on US policy in Eastern Europe. One is reminded of the role the Croatian and Albanian diaspora communities played in the breakup of Yugoslavia. It should be noted that the Yugoslav conflicts took place as the post-Cold War drive for US global hegemony was only beginning to take form, and Bosnia and Kosovo were catalytic in its development.

It is true that some Ukrainian-Americans (heavily weighted by those with western Ukraine origins) have long taken part in activities of various “Captive Nations” and “ethnic heritage” groups operating after World War II, notably the CIA front “American Committee for Liberation from Bolshevism” and the “Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations” (originally spun off by the United Kingdom’s MI6 from the earlier “British League for European Freedom”). Mainly though not exclusively oriented toward the Republican Party they operated under the banner of anti-communism but really (to an extent many non-“ethnic” Americans may not fully have understood) were vehicles for their various ethnic agendas. These agendas related less to communism than dissatisfaction with the territorial arrangements that existed after 1945, giving these groups the character of World War II losers’ associations. Russophobia (and with respect to the Balkans, Serbophobia) was a common point of agreement.

It should also be noted that while American Greeks were not notable in these activities the US government has valued the utility of the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate since at least the 1940s. Today, while his flock within Turkey dwindles to almost nil (in effect, it is what in English parliamentary context was known as a “rotten borough”), Patriarch Bartholomew has sought to expand his profile as a “player” on the world stage, exemplified by his demonstrative environmentalism as “the Green Patriarch” and, together with Pope Francis, welcoming Muslim migrants to Europe through Greece. Moreover, his actions in Ukraine are an expansion of Constantinople’s longstanding quasi-papal ambitions built on uncanonical claims to “universal” status as a kind of “Eastern Pope,” misuse of doctrinally troubling incarnational language, and adoption of a breathtakingly arrogant tone that would cause even the most ultramontane proponent of the Rome’s supremacy to blush.  Given strong support for Ukrainian Orthodox autocephaly from the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, which now sees a new opportunity for it to be elevated to a patriarchate within Roman Catholicism, Ukraine also advances Constantinople’s warm ecumenical embrace aimed at reunion with the Roman Papacy, with a Ukrainian church in communion with both Rome and Constantinople as a possible catalyst. In short, whatever the carrots and sticks involved, the State Department was pushing on an open door at the Phanar.

However, as described below, by 2005 the ideological and methodological aspects of the US policymaking establishment’s aspirations for global hegemony were already fully formed. A key part of this was turning Ukraine into a forward salient against Russia, as attested to in the “Orange Revolution” of 2004-5 and the 2008 NATO Bucharest declaration regarding Ukraine’s (and Georgia’s) destiny as part of NATO. Today, attacking the Orthodox Church in Ukraine is another logical—and well-targeted—element of that aggressive aim. While some elements in the Greek and (especially) Ukrainian communities no doubt had a hand in it, they don’t have the influence to set the agenda and should be regarded more as implementing a program thought up by others. I would compare the US apparat in this regard to that of the Soviet Union: the imperatives are ideological and bureaucratic; while ethnic lobbies (comparable in their day to pro-Soviet Third World “national liberation movements”) are useful, they are the tools of policy, not its masters.

The origin of the US focus on Ukraine and its religious issues must instead be sought within the larger perspective of American policy since the end of the first Cold War in 1991 and the development of the current one in the course of the 1990s: the American “unipolar moment,” as the bipartisan US policy establishment sought to consolidate and perpetuate its hegemonic control over the entire planet, taking advantage of the vacuum left by the demise of the USSR. Perhaps the fullest expression of this was a 1996 article by neoconservative ideologists William Kristol and Robert Kagan, misleadingly titled “Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy,” in which they called for the US to establish and maintain indefinitely “benevolent global hegemony”—American world domination. As scrutinized by this analyst in Chronicles magazine the following year, Kristol and Kagan laid down virtually all of the elements that have guided US foreign policy during the ensuing years. It is no accident that GOP neoconservatives were enthusiastic supporters of Bill Clinton’s Balkan interventions of 1990s, under the guidance of people like then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who once opined regarding the sanctions-related deaths of a half million Iraqi children that “the price is worth it.” In the US establishment, there is little dissent on either side of the partisan aisle with Albright’s sincere conviction that a militant United States has a special wisdom: “If we have to use force, it is because we are America; we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future . . . ”

The result is a kind of neo-Bolshevism, where as the vanguard of all progressive humanity the United States sees itself as the midwife of history to advance the principles not of the USSR’s “peace, progress, and socialism” but of a similarly ideologized triad of “democracy, human rights, and free markets.”

Viewed this way, a revived, non-ideological, nationally minded Russia is an obstacle that must be overcome—one way or the other. (A similar attitude exists toward China and Iran.) Recently the administration of US President Donald Trump, who as a candidate repeatedly stated his desire to improve ties with Russia but has been prevented from doing so, has taken to describing the neoconservative program of previous administrations as (in Secretary Pompeo’s words) as reassertion of sovereignty (but only for the US and our allies!) and “reform” of “the liberal international order.” The rhetoric is new but the policies are the same as under Trump’s predecessors.

Sometimes we are told that the current Washington-Moscow standoff is just a turf war, that unlike the 1945-1991 rivalry it “lacks an ideological dimension” beyond the authoritarian determination to elevate “the Russian state, ruled by [Vladimir Putin] and his clan.” Such a view totally dismisses the fact that following the demise of communism as a global power bloc there has been an eerie spiritual role reversal between East and West. While it’s true that during original Cold War the nonreligious ruling cliques in Washington and Moscow held basically compatible progressive values, ordinary Christian Americans (mainly Protestants, with a large number of Roman Catholics) perceived communism as a murderous, godless machine of oppression (think of the Roman Catholic men’s organization Knights of Columbus’ campaign to insert “under God” into the Pledge of Allegiance). Conversely, today it is western elites who rely upon an ideological imperative to justify a materialist global empire and endless wars, much like the old Soviet nomenklaturadepended on Marxism-Leninism both as a working methodology and as a justification for their prerogatives and privileges. In that regard, promotion of nihilist, post-Christian morality—especially in sexual matters—under the guise of “democracy and human rights” has become a major item in the West’s toolkit.

This has a special importance with regard to Russia, where under Putin the Orthodox Church has largely resumed its pre-1917 role as the moral anchor of society. This elicits not only political opposition but a genuine and heartfelt hatred from the postmodern elites of an increasingly post-Christian West, not only for Putin personally and Russia generally but against the Russian Orthodox Church—and by extension against Orthodox Christianity itself.

This points to why, from the point of view of the State Department, the Russian Orthodox Church – and hence the canonical autonomous Ukrainian Orthodox Church—is nothing more than an instrument of the Kremlin’s soft power. According to one person rather new to the relevant issues but nonetheless considered authoritative by the State Department:

‘The Church, for its part, acts as the Russian state’s soft power arm, exerting its authority in ways that assist the Kremlin in spreading Russian influence both in Russia’s immediate neighborhood as well as around the globe. The Kremlin assists the Church, as well, working to increase its reach. Vladimir Yakunin, one of Putin’s inner circle and a devout member of the ROC, facilitated in 2007 the reconciliation of the ROC with the Russian Orthodox Church in Exile (which had separated itself from the Moscow Patriarchate early in the Soviet era so as not to be co-opted by the new Bolshevik state), which reconciliation greatly increased [Patriarch of Moscow] Kirill’s influence and authority outside of Russia. Putin, praising this event, noted the interrelation of the growth of ROC authority abroad with his own international goals: “The revival of the church unity is a crucial condition for revival of lost unity of the whole ‘Russian world’, which has always had the Orthodox faith as one of its foundations.”’

Hence, weaken “Russian state’s soft power arm,” weaken the Russian state.

But there is even more to it than that. The authors of the current US anti-Russia, anti-Orthodox Church policy know, or at least instinctively sense, that the revival of Russia’s Church-State symphonia after a hiatus of eight decades is not just a political alliance of convenience but is the source of deep spiritual, moral, and social strength. This is reflected, for example, in Putin’s warm remarks on the dedication of a Moscow monument to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the acknowledged godfather of Russia’s restoration as a Christian country, on the centenary of the writer’s birth.

In Russia’s reborn symphonia, President and Patriarch speak as one:

‘At the height of the Cold War, it was common for American conservatives to label the officially atheist Soviet Union a “godless nation.”

‘More than two decades on, history has come full circle, as the Kremlin and its allies in the Russian Orthodox Church hurl the same allegation at the West.

‘“Many Euro-Atlantic countries have moved away from their roots, including Christian values,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said in a recent keynote speech. “Policies are being pursued that place on the same level a multi-child family and a same-sex partnership, a faith in God and a belief in Satan. This is the path to degradation.” [ . . . ]

Mr. Putin’s views of the West were echoed this month by Patriarch Kirill I of Moscow, the leader of the Orthodox Church, who accused Western countries of engaging in the “spiritual disarmament” of their people.

‘In particular, Patriarch Kirill criticized laws in several European countries that prevent believers from displaying religious symbols, including crosses on necklaces, at work.

‘“The general political direction of the [Western political] elite bears, without doubt, an anti-Christian and anti-religious character,” the patriarch said in comments aired on state-controlled television.

“We have been through an epoch of atheism, and we know what it is to live without God,” Patriarch Kirill said. “We want to shout to the whole world, ‘Stop!’”’ [“Who’s ‘godless’ now?Russia says it’s U.S.: Putin seizes on issue of traditional values,” by Marc Bennetts, The Washington Times, January 28, 2014]

Such sentiments can hardly sit well with Western elites for whom celebration of the same-sex partnerships decried by Putin is a mark of social enlightenment. That’s why an inseparable part of the “European choice” the people of Ukraine supposedly made during the 2014 “Revolution of Dignity” is wholesale acceptance of “European values,” including the kind of “Pride” symbolized by LGBT marches organized over Christian objections in Orthodox cities like AthensBelgradeBucharestKievOdessaPodgoricaSofia, and Tbilisi. (Note that after the march in Odessa in August of this year a priest of the canonical Church targeted by Poroshenko cleansed the street with Holy Water.)

There is no doubt that the moral/sexual component of undermining Orthodox Christianity in Ukraine is a key factor in US policy. There is a curious consistency between advocacy for non-traditional, post-Christian sexual morality and support for the schismatics sponsored by Poroshenko and Patriarch Bartholomew. This is well understood by Constantinople’s pseudo-Church in Ukraine. In December, shortly after his “enthronement,” “Metropolitan Epifaniy” Dumenko responded to a phone caller claiming to be a western parliamentarian (but in fact was a Russian prankster), suggesting that “if the new church will soften its position regarding the LGBT community, the gays of Ukraine, and it will take liberal values, it will be a great stimulus to develop European values. We spoke with Secretary Pompeo and he agrees that you should the increase your LGBT and gay values in the future.” Taking the bait, Dumenko said that “because we are moving towards Europe . . . we should depart from the Russian conservative tradition” and adopt a progressively more “open” position on such matters.

Indeed, the relevant US government officials cheering on Poroshenko and the Ukrainian church schismatics are remarkably up-front and visible in their advocacy of the LGBT agenda in Ukraine. The US Embassy Kiev website displays Pompeo’s declaration on behalf of all Americans that “The United States joins people around the world in celebrating Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex (LGBTI) Pride Month, and reaffirms its commitment to protecting and defending the human rights of all, including LGBTI persons.”

Ambassador Yovanovitch has really gone the extra mile – literally. Not only did she tweet out her own Pride message, she also participated in the parade (and took 60 Embassy personnel and family members with her!) proudly marching behind the American flag (as shown in this MUST WATCH video tweeted by the embassy—your American tax dollars at work!). Additional videoposted by HromadskeUA, an “independent” Ukrainian media outlet reportedly funded by, among others, the US Embassy, the Canadian Embassy, and George Soros’s International Renaissance Foundation (though the cited HromadskeUA financial reports no longer seem to be available). Both Yovanovitch’s remarks in the video and the posted text draw an explicit connection between the “freedom” of the 2014 regime change and the new sexual morality (Google auto-translation from Ukrainian):

‘The atmosphere is wonderful. It is important for us because we maintain equal rights. In 2014, people in Ukraine were in favor of freedom, and this is an organic continuation—US Ambassador Marie Yovanovich goes to the March of Equality Column. With her together with about 60 representatives of the American embassy.’ [emphasis added]

The locals were quick to make the same connection. “KyivPride,” a local LGBT advocacy group unsurprisingly supported by the US Embassy (again, our tax dollars at work), the Canadian government, the German embassy, the US Agency for International Development (USAID), and Freedom House were quick to hail creation of the new pseudo-church, no doubt reflecting the deep Orthodox piety of the group’s members. As posted by OrthoChristian.com, The organization posted a message on several platforms, including Facebook and Instagram, reading:

‘KyivPride congratulates all LGBTI Orthodox believers on the formation of a united and independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church and reminds everyone that love does no harm to others! Also remember that article 35 of the constitution of Ukraine states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of personal philosophy and religion. This right includes the freedom to profess or not to profess any religion.” Human rights above all!’

Last but certainly not least should be noted the involvement of certain fringe elements in the Orthodox Church itself, who perhaps can be compared to the Roman Catholic Church’s far more powerful “Lavender Mafia.” As this analyst warned months ago the Ukrainian church crisis seemingly facilitates the anti-Christian moral agenda of certain marginal “Orthodox” voices like “Orthodoxy in Dialogue,” Fordham University’s “Orthodox Christian Studies Center,” and The Wheel. As Anatoly Karlin points out, “many of the biggest supporters of Ukrainian autocephaly in the West are for all intents and purposes SJWs [social justice warriors]. The website Orthodoxy in Dialogue, for instance, wants Orthodoxy to get with the times and start sanctifying gay marriage:”

‘We pray for the day when we can meet our future partner in church, or bring our partner to church.

‘We pray for the day when our lifelong, monogamous commitment to our partner can be blessed and sanctified in and by the Church.

‘We pray for the day when we can explore as Church, without condemnation, how we Orthodox Christians can best live our life in Christ in the pursuit of holiness, chastity, and perfect love of God and neighbour.

‘We pray for the day when our priests no longer travel around the world to condemn us and mock us and use us as a punching bag.

‘We pray for the day when the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of Christ ceases to be our loneliest closet.’

In sum, US official involvement in Ukrainian Church affairs is not really about Ukraine or Ukrainians at all. It is about hostility to Russia, which in turn reflects Washington’s own drive for unlimited worldwide political and moral supremacy. Breaking Ukraine’s spiritual ties with Russia is at least as important to breaking of political ties and enlisting Ukraine as part of NATO’s anti-Russian deployment. Even something as simple as Poroshenko’s making (western) December 25 Christmas a public holiday with (Orthodox) January 7 is hailed by The Daily Signal, a publication of the Heritage Foundation, as “a leap of faith” towards “ditching Russian influence.”

But underlying this geopolitical aspect is another, darker motive: to inflict on Ukraine and indeed all Orthodoxy the social, especially sexual, pathologies that have wrought havoc in western societies. As an ideological imperative built on Cultural Marxist dichotomies of oppressor and victim classes according to sex, race, language, religion, etc. (as  described by this analyst in Chronicles) this effort to transform all human society supplies a missionary zeal no less relevant to American officials’ and their fellow travelers’ efforts than their aspirations of global political dominion.

Jim Jatras is a former U.S. diplomat and former foreign policy adviser to the Senate GOP leadership. He is the author of a major study, “How American Media Serves as a Transmission Belt for Wars of Choice.” Find him on Twitter @JimJatras.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

German fake news reports Russian invasion of Estonia [Video]

German TV’s Russian invasion ruse meant to uphold the narrative that Russia is evil; Russian reaction is, “just more of the same nonsense.”

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

Germany’s news media joined the chorus of fake news regarding Russia as “threat” as the 70th anniversary of NATO was being marked by the alliance’s member nations. On the news program “Heute” (English: “Today”) hosted by Claus Kleber, the anchor announced that Russian Armed Forces carried out an invasion of Estonia.

From Sputnik News, this translation:

“The US Army along with German and European allies are heading for Estonia in order to boot out units of the Russian military forces that intruded there just like they did several years ago in Crimea”, RIA Novosti cited Kleber as claiming.

Shortly after inciting an understandably strong reaction from his viewers, Mr. Kleber then simply announced that this was not true, but that it was a description of realistic events.

Ostensibly this act was played out to justify the continued existence of NATO, even as questions rise about the purpose of the alliance now that the Soviet Union (which it was intended to ward off) is no more.

The Russian news media and political spokesmen were not happy about this. Apparently, neither was NATO itself, as General Petr Pavel, the chairman of the NATO Military Committee went on record specifically saying that the alliance does not see any open aggression from Russia regarding the Baltic states.

Vesti News made their own set of comments about this stunt:

According to the website www.tellerreport.com, the Chairman of the Russian Federation’s Council’s committee on Information Policy, Alexei Pushkov, had some things to say about this event:

The Russian senator in his Twitter noted that “Russia has not invaded and will not invade Estonia.”

In his opinion, the statement of the German TV channel is an “information provocation” in order to “play along” with the North Atlantic Alliance.

And since Russia has no aggressive plans, they need to be invented. In this and only this is the meaning of information provocation on the ZDF channel. Play up NATO, demonize Russia.The attack on the brain is in the spirit of the current information war, ”he wrote.

It would appear that this assessment is correct. Russia has repeatedly noted it has no intentions or desires to exceed its borders for any reason. However, the country has developed an array of extremely powerful weapons, from tsunami-causing nuclear torpedos to hypersonic missiles that cannot be stopped.

While the Western angle on this weapons development has not quite established a footing on the claim that these weapons developments are aggressive in nature, the media seems eager to push as close as they can to making such a claim. This “report” by the German anchorman is a good example of when this desire for sensationalism and perhaps some further scapegoating exceeds its bounds.

Relations between Russia and the West began to sour at least as early as 2014, when Russia’s President Vladimir Putin forbade homosexuals to be anywhere near children at the Sochi Winter Olympic Games. (The common narrative blames the Maidan Revolution and the rejoining of Crimea to Russia as the cause of pressure, but these are likely only to be the “acceptable” excuses for the increasing pressure not only on Russia, but on its Orthodox Church, and all Orthodoxy Christianity in general.)

A very nasty ideological war is simmering right now between Russia and the West, and military action would actually be a distraction from that war. Still, agitprop is the weapon of choice by the West to isolate Russia for not going the way of the world.

 

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Videos

Trending