Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

CONFIRMED: Commander ‘Givi’ assassinated in bomb blast in Eastern Ukraine

Donetsk Lieutenant Colonel Mikhail ‘Givi’ Tolstykh is the latest victim of a state-sponsored terrorist killing.

Published

on

2,522 Views

As the fascist forces of the Kiev junta become increasingly desperate, they are resorting to assassination upon assassination of commanders from the Donetsk and Lugansk republics.

Days ago Lugansk Colonel Oleg Anashchenko had his car blown up and today it is Donetsk Lieutenant Colonel Mikhail Tolstykh, affectionately known by his call sign Givi.

Givi was blown up in his office, the victim of yet another ISIS-style assassination. Unable to win the war on the battlefield, in spite of increased violence, the fascist forces are showing signs of desperation, a desperation which is costing lives.

At this point, it becomes necessary to discuss the various options on the table for the Donbass republics, their allies and their enemies.

–Stay the course

The Donbass republics have had consistent military victories in the event of almost every fascist onslaught. The Donbass freedom fighters are fighting for their own homes, their families and their way of life. This has helped keep morale high, vis-à-vis an impoverished and demoralized Ukrainian side who are quick to desert in the face of actual confrontation. This is the reason that the Kiev junta has had to rely on so many irregulars including mercenaries and terrorists. Even then the command structure on the fascist side is generally poor, having little knowledge of good military tactics.

This is the reason that the Kiev junta has had to rely on so many irregulars including mercenaries and terrorists. Even then the command structure on the fascist side is generally poor, having little knowledge of good military tactics.

Although the Donbass republics have not received any military aid from a foreign power, unlike Kiev who has received supplies and money from NATO countries, the military equipment of the Donbass republics continues to improve and the ability of the world-class machinists of the region makes repairing and building weapons far more reliable than it otherwise would be.

If this strategy of the Donbass republics ‘going it alone’ continues, there is a chance that whilst the republics are not powerful enough to launch major counter-offensives into fascist held territory, that they will be able to continue to defend their territory and eventually wear down and bankrupt the fascist forces.

The problem with this strategy is that so long as the fascists have enough power to continue assaults on Donbass, innocent people will die in one way or another. This situation, which was never acceptable, is becoming increasingly frightening.

–Russian intervention

If Russia decided that enough is enough and that it was time to send in the military, the war itself would be over, virtually before it began. The fascist forces cannot beat volunteers from Donbass, therefore there is no conceivable chance that they could hold any ground against one of the world’s best armies.

Russia could not only secure Donbass in this way, but could also technically liberate other fascist held areas which are historically Russian and have Russian populations who would welcome Russian forces. This includes areas like Kharkov, Odessa, Mariupol and Dnepropetrovsk.

One must not forget when a combination of Nazi Right Sector fighters and professional football hooligans slaughtered young men and women in Odessa in May of 2014. This has not been forgotten. Tensions do indeed burn outside of Donetsk and Lugansk, a fact which remains grossly underreported.

The problem with this strategy is the unknown element of the wider NATO reaction. Right now the fascist regime’s best defense is the threat that Russian intervention in Donbass would create a NATO backlash. However, with Donald Trump in power, it is not clear how a US-led response would look.

Unlike Obama, Donald Trump does not seem to care a great deal about Kiev. Furthermore, he seems to think of Eastern Europe in the way that Benjamin Disraeli once described Britain’s empire, ‘a millstone round our necks’.

The Trump administration seems far more concerned with Iran and China than with Donbass or Syria.

Some still think that Poroshenko and co could rally NATO into a full-on war with Russia, should Russia intervene in Donbass. Even under Obama, I believe such a scenario was unlikely. Risking a world-war over a gang of out of control fascists who offer nothing to the world, including to America in the long term, strikes one as fanciful. Under Trump this is all the more true.

However, Russia still is playing the cautious card in this. Many in Moscow will surely be hoping for Donbass to stay the course and the rest of the cobbled together state of Ukraine to eventually fall apart under its own weight.

–A Brokered Accord

Whilst the Minsk II agreement was dead on arrival and continues to be violated on a virtually hourly basis by the fascists forces, there is a chance now that America may be ruled by a more realistic administration, to have a meaningful, internationally brokered ceasefire.

This wold almost certainly require some sort of caretaker government in Kiev led by various compromise candidates. However, it is not clear that the fascists in control would vacate so easily. In spite of not being able to survive economically without foreign aid, nevertheless, they are something of a law unto themselves.

Such an accord would need to be backed up by the full weight of both Russia and America. I’m not sure if such a will exists, especially from the American side.

Because of all this, the most likely scenario is that things will continue as they are. Ultimately the Donbass republics will win for the same reason North Vietnam vanquished the American forces and Algeria expelled the French imperialists. The fact that unlike in The Vietnam War and the Algerian struggle for independence, the Donbass fighters are generally better than their fascist opponents, makes the prospect of an ultimate victory in the long term, even more assured.

The people of Donbass are fighting for their land against what amounts to a foreign foe. The sad fact is that Russia’s absence from the battlefield is costing lives. However, there is still a chance that in the long term lives are being saved, if and this is a big if, Russian involvement would provoke the war with NATO that the fascists long for.

All that remains to be said is RIP Givi, a patriotic hero whose bravery has helped the Donbass republics in their fight for freedom.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

Bercow blocks Brexit vote, May turns to EU for lifeline (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 112.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss Theresa May’s latest Brexit dilemma, as House of Commons Speaker John Bercow, shocked the world by citing a 1604 precedent that now effectively blocks May’s third go around at trying to pass her treacherous Brexit deal through the parliament.

All power now rests with the Brussels, as to how, if and when the UK will be allowed to leave the European Union.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via Bloomberg


Theresa May claims Brexit is about taking back control. Ten days before the U.K. is due to leave the European Union, it looks like anything but.

House of Commons Speaker John Bercow’s intervention, citing precedent dating back to 1604, to rule out a repeat vote on May’s already defeated departure deal leaves the prime minister exposed ahead of Thursday’s EU summit in Brussels.

Bercow, whose cries of “Orrdurrr! Orrdurrr!’’ to calm rowdy lawmakers have gained him a devoted international following, is now the pivotal figure in the Brexit battle. May’s team privately accuse him of trying to frustrate the U.K.’s exit from the EU, while the speaker’s admirers say he’s standing up for the rights of parliament against the executive.

If just one of the 27 other states declines May’s summit appeal to extend the divorce timetable, then the no-deal cliff edge looms for Britain’s departure on March 29. If they consent, it’s unclear how May can meet Bercow’s test that only a substantially different Brexit agreement merits another vote in parliament, since the EU insists it won’t reopen negotiations.

Caught between Bercow and Brussels, May’s room for maneuver is shrinking. Amid rumblings that their patience with the U.K. is near exhaustion, EU leaders are girding for the worst.

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

Latest

President Putin signs law blocking fake news, but the West makes more

Western media slams President Putin and his fake news law, accusing him of censorship, but an actual look at the law reveals some wisdom.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

The TASS Russian News Agency reported on March 18th that Russian President Vladimir Putin signed off on a new law intended to block distorted or untrue information being reported as news. Promptly after he did so, Western news organizations began their attempt to “spin” this event as some sort of proof of “state censorship” in the oppressive sense of the old Soviet Union. In other words, a law designed to prevent fake news was used to create more fake news.

One of the lead publications is a news site that is itself ostensibly a “fake news” site. The Moscow Times tries to portray itself as a Russian publication that is conducted from within Russian borders. However, this site and paper is really a Western publication, run by a Dutch foundation located in the Netherlands. As such, the paper and the website associated have a distinctly pro-West slant in their reporting. Even Wikipedia noted this with this comment from their entry about the publication:

In the aftermath of the Ukrainian crisis, The Moscow Times was criticized by a number of journalists including Izvestia columnist Israel Shamir, who in December 2014 called it a “militant anti-Putin paper, a digest of the Western press with extreme bias in covering events in Russia”.[3] In October 2014 The Moscow Times made the decision to suspend online comments after an increase in offensive comments. The paper said it disabled comments for two reasons—it was an inconvenience for its readers as well as being a legal liability, because under Russian law websites are liable for all content, including user-generated content like comments.[14]

This bias is still notably present in what is left of the publication, which is now an online-only news source. This is some of what The Moscow Times had to say about the new fake news legislation:

The bills amending existing information laws overwhelmingly passed both chambers of Russian parliament in less than two months. Observers and some lawmakers have criticized the legislation for its vague language and potential to stifle free speech.

The legislation will establish punishments for spreading information that “exhibits blatant disrespect for the society, government, official government symbols, constitution or governmental bodies of Russia.”

Insulting state symbols and the authorities, including Putin, will carry a fine of up to 300,000 rubles and 15 days in jail for repeat offenses.

As is the case with other Russian laws, the fines are calculated based on whether the offender is a citizen, an official or a legal entity.

More than 100 journalists and public figures, including human rights activist Zoya Svetova and popular writer Lyudmila Ulitskaya, signed a petition opposing the laws, which they labeled “direct censorship.”

This piece does give a bit of explanation from Dmitry Peskov, showing that European countries also have strict laws governing fake news distribution. However, the Times made the point of pointing out the idea of “insulting governmental bodies of Russia… including Putin” to bolster their claim that this law amounts to real censorship of the press. It developed its point of view based on a very short article from Reuters which says even less about the legislation and how it works.

However, TASS goes into rather exhaustive detail about this law, and it also gives rather precise wording on the reason for the law’s passage, as well as how it is to be enforced. We include most of this text here, with emphases added:

Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed a law on blocking untrue and distorting information (fake news). The document was posted on the government’s legal information web portal.

The document supplements the list of information, the access to which may be restricted on the demand by Russia’s Prosecutor General or his deputies. In particular, it imposes a ban on “untrue publicly significant information disseminated in the media and in the Internet under the guise of true reports, which creates a threat to the life and (or) the health of citizens, property, a threat of the mass violation of public order and (or) public security, or the threat of impeding or halting the functioning of vital infrastructural facilities, transport or social infrastructure, credit institutions, energy, industrial or communications facilities.”

Pursuant to the document, in case of finding such materials in Internet resources registered in accordance with the Russian law on the mass media as an online media resource, Russia’s Prosecutor General or his deputies will request the media watchdog Roskomnadzor to restrict access to the corresponding websites.

Based on this request, Roskomnadzor will immediately notify the editorial board of the online media resource, which is in violation of the legislation, about the need to remove untrue information and the media resource will be required to delete such materials immediately. If the editorial board fails to take the necessary measures, Roskomnadzor will send communications operators “a demand to take measures to restrict access to the online resource.”

In case of deleting such untrue information, the website owner will notify Roskomnadzor thereof, following which the media watchdog will “hold a check into the authenticity of this notice” and immediately inform the communications operator about the resumption of the access to the information resource.
The conditions for the law are very specific, as are the penalties for breaking it. TASS continued:

Liability for breaching the law

Simultaneously, the Federation Council approved the associated law with amendments to Russia’s Code of Administrative Offences, which stipulates liability in the form of penalties of up to 1.5 million rubles (around $23,000) for the spread of untrue and distorting information.

The Code’s new article, “The Abuse of the Freedom of Mass Information,” stipulates liability for disseminating “deliberately untrue publicly significant information” in the media or in the Internet. The penalty will range from 30,000 rubles ($450) to 100,000 rubles ($1,520) for citizens, from 60,000 rubles ($915) to 200,000 rubles ($3,040) for officials and from 200,000 rubles to 500,000 rubles ($7,620) for corporate entities with the possible confiscation of the subject of the administrative offence.

Another element of offence imposes tighter liability for the cases when the publication of false publicly significant information has resulted in the deaths of people, has caused damage to the health or property, prompted the mass violation of public order and security or has caused disruption to the functioning of transport or social infrastructure facilities, communications, energy and industrial facilities and banks. In such instances, the fines will range from 300,000 rubles to 400,000 rubles ($6,090) for citizens, from 600,000 rubles to 900,000 rubles ($13,720) for officials, and from 1 million rubles to 1.5 million rubles for corporate entities.

While this legislation can be spun (and is) in the West as anti-free speech, one may also consider the damage that has taken place in the American government through a relentless attack of fake news from most US news outlets against President Trump. One of the most notable effects of this barrage has been to further degrade and destroy the US’ relationship with the Russian Federation, because even the Helsinki Summit was attacked so badly that the two leaders have not been able to get a second summit together.

While it is certainly a valued right of the American press to be unfettered by Congress, and while it is also certainly vital to criticize improper practices by government officials, the American news agencies have gone far past that, to deliberately dishonest attacks, based in innuendo and everything possible that was formerly only the province of gossip tabloid publications. The effort has been to defame the President, not to give proper or due criticism to his policies, nor credit. It can be properly stated that the American press has abused its freedom of late.

This level of abuse drew a very unusual comment from the US president, who wondered on Twitter about the possibility of creating a state-run media center in the US to counter fake news:

Politically correct for US audiences? No. But an astute point?

Definitely.

Freedom in anything also presumes that those with that freedom respect it, and further, that they respect and apply the principle that slandering people and institutions for one’s own personal, business or political gain is wrong. Implied in the US Constitution’s protection of the press is the notion that the press itself, as the rest of the country, is accountable to a much Higher Authority than the State. But when that Authority is rejected, as so much present evidence suggests, then freedom becomes the freedom to misbehave and to agitate. It appears largely within this context that the Russian law exists, based on the text given.

Further, by hitting dishonest media outlets in their pocketbook, rather than prison sentences, the law appears to be very smart in its message: “Do not lie. If you do, you will suffer where it counts most.”

Considering that news media’s purpose is to make money, this may actually be a very smart piece of legislation.

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

Latest

ABC’s Ted Koppel admits mainstream media bias against Trump [Video]

The mainstream news media has traded informing the public for indoctrinating them, but the change got called out by an “old-school” journo.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

Fox News reported on March 19th that one of America’s most well-known TV news anchors, Ted Koppel, noted that the once-great media outlets like The New York Times and The Washington Post, have indeed traded journalistic excellence for hit pieces for political purposes. While political opinions in the mainstream press are certainly within the purview of any publication, this sort of writing can hardly be classified as “news” but as “Opinion” or more widely known, “Op-Ed.”

We have two videos on this. The first is the original clip showing the full statement that Mr. Koppel gave. It is illuminating, to say the least:

Tucker Carlson and Brit Hume, a former colleague of Mr. Koppel, added their comments on this admission in this second short video piece, shown here.

There are probably a number of people who have watched this two-year onslaught of slander and wondered why there cannot be a law preventing this sort of misleading reporting. Well, Russia passed a law to stop it, hitting dishonest media outlets in their pocketbook. It is a smart law because it does not advocate imprisonment for bad actors in the media, but it does fine them.

Going to prison for reporting “the truth” looks very noble. Having to pay out of pocket for it is not so exciting.

Newsmax and Louder with Crowder both reported on this as well.

This situation of dishonest media has led to an astonishing 77% distrust rating among Americans of their news media, this statistic being reported by Politico in 2018. This represents a nearly diametric reversal in trust from the 72% trust rating the country’s news viewers gave their news outlets in 1972. These statistics come from Gallup polls taken through the years.

 

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

Trending