The former Deputy Minister of Defense of Ukraine, Deputy Chairman of the Center for Defense Strategies Alina Frolova during the briefing said that the Ukrainian authorities would like to "deploy NATO bases in Crimea.".
“We want Crimea to be open for cooperation with the EU and NATO, including military cooperation,” quotes it RIA Novosti.

Don Zelenskyy’s Secret Rental Property in Forte dei Marmi – Only €50,000 per month

Iain Muir 2 September 2022 3 min read

Volodymyr Zelensky reportedly rents his Luxury Italian Villa in Forte dei Marmi to a Russian couple according to the Italian Newspaper “Il Tirreno.”

Photographs taken by the couple, who are said to usually live in London, appeared on Social Media and immediately went viral.

Since a Russian woman published some images that portray her in the grounds of the Villa in Vittoria Apuana, the story began to circulate on the net, finding official confirmation shortly after. She explained that she had not rented a villa at random, but that of Ukrainian President Zelenskyy.

The news has sparked some controversy, given that at the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine it was Zelenskyy himself who requested not to host Russian tourists in Italy and their yachts and luxury goods be sanctioned. Read more

According to the Property Rental Agency that has the exclusivity of the summer rentals of the luxurious residence which is also up for sale valued at some €4.5m, they initially started and concluded negotiations with some South Korean tourists who were willing to rent it in August for a figure between €50k and €70k, but this deal had fallen through. The villa was rented for the whole month of August to a couple of Russian citizens who reside in London.

The multi-million Euro Luxury Villa is said to be registered to a Cypriot company, whose ownership was attributed to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his wife, Olena Zelenska.

The news provoked comment of the real estate agent of the Forte dei Marmi Villas Real Estate, Claudio Salvini. The real estate agent denied the rumors, asserting: “There were no Russians or Ukrainians in the villa of the President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy. What has been written is conjecture. The villa was rented to a couple for the summer, I will not tell you if they reside in London or not, but I assure you it cannot be Russians because we have an absolute ban on renting to Russians and Ukrainians”.

Salvini, then, added: “The villa of Vittoria Apuana is registered to an Italian company that belongs to another in Cyprus, and it is Zelenskyy’s wife, who gave us a mandate to rent the villa with that clause. If anyone heard Russian spoken in that house, it’s because the renter may have had Russian-speaking guests.”

The mayor of Forte dei Marmi, Bruno Murzi, also commented to Italian Media on the issue saying: “We did not have any news and frankly until the outbreak of the war, the only information we had about the villa, which is located in the Villa Apuana area, is that it was owned by a company, among other things it has always been rarely inhabited”.

As this news was breaking in Italy, reports were coming to light of the theft of an entire Humanitarian Aid Train by members of Zelenskyy’s government in Ukraine being investigated by the Ukrainian SBU. Read more

Zelensky's wife condemned the British for complaints of price increases

September 4, 2022, 15:30
While Britain “considers a penny” to pay gas bills, they also consider those killed in Ukraine, said the wife of President of Ukraine Elena Zelenskaya in an interview with the BBC .

“I understand that the situation is very difficult. But let's recall that during the COVID-19 epidemic, which is still ongoing, prices have soared, and this has also affected Ukraine. Prices are rising in Ukraine too. But in addition, people are being killed in our country, ”cites her Air Force.

Therefore, she clarified, "when you count a penny in your bank accounts or in your pockets, we do the same, and in addition we consider our dead.".

The European Commission officially proposed to provide Ukraine with loans for 5 billion euros out of 8 billion, which were promised months ago, but were delayed, despite persistent reminders from Kiev

Uglavnom - Pereci, bili oni lijevi ili desni, koji svaki sukob svode na obranu priznatih granica, i "građana" unutar nje, čak i imaju neki rezon navijati za Ukrajinu. Ali se ne mogu prozvati osobama kojima hrvatski narod znači nešto, jer je očito da fetišiziraju granice naspram naroda kao skupine.

Meni je crvena linija samo napad na katolike ili grkokatolike (mada i za potonje nije toliko jasno, jer su oni krvnički tamanili rimokatolike Poljake). Doduše, primijetim kod Srba, pogotovo kod Age, baš neku napaljenost na katolike, i percepciju da su oni neki drukači koji zavađaju pravoslavce.

Pomešali ste me sa onim gospodinom Agom od pre 8 godina kad sam te banderaške degenerike iz Galičine mnogo više spominjao nego sad, štaviše, sad ih spomenem sporadično, možda 3-4 puta u ovih 7 meseci rata.
A šta je razlog za to? Pa sigurno ne moja nagla promena mišljenja o njima već prosta činjenica da mi se sad više sere od onih koji su tu unijatsku galičansko-genocidnu ideologiju prihvatili od njih koji su i korenski vezani za nju, nego što mi se sere od izvorne unijatske galičansko-genocidne škvadre. Plastično rečeno, od ovih mi se sere, a od ovih i sere i povraća, znači dejstvovanje na obe dizne.

Što je Ukrajinac?

Kako razlikovati pravoslavnu osobu koja govori ruski jezik iz Donjecka od pravoslavne osobe koja govori Ruski iz Belgoroda?

Kako bi prosječan dragovoljac iz Hrvatske mogao znati da govori s ukrajinskim patriotom, a ne sa "petom kolonom", ili čak s Rusom iz Rusije?

Natjerati ga da napiše svoje ime (pa ako dotični dragovoljac iz Hrvatske pozna ćirilicu), vidjeti je li Vladimir ili Volodomir?

U razmišljanjima na gornja pitanja se dakako krije i ne tako suptilan zaključak da je svaki Hrvat koji je u ovo emocionalno investiran, nešto gore od retarda. Pogotovo ako je Hrvat iz BiH, koji zaslužuje da ga se kao Bosanca mobilizira u "bosansku armiju" kako bi branio svoju zemlju Bosnu od agresora iz Hrvatske.

Meni je crvena linija samo napad na katolike ili grkokatolike (mada i za potonje nije toliko jasno, jer su oni krvnički tamanili rimokatolike Poljake). Doduše, primijetim kod Srba, pogotovo kod Age, baš neku napaljenost na katolike, i percepciju da su oni neki drukači koji zavađaju pravoslavce.

Uglavnom - Pereci, bili oni lijevi ili desni, koji svaki sukob svode na obranu priznatih granica, i "građana" unutar nje, čak i imaju neki rezon navijati za Ukrajinu. Ali se ne mogu prozvati osobama kojima hrvatski narod znači nešto, jer je očito da fetišiziraju granice naspram naroda kao skupine.

Floskula u "ruskojezičnim Ukrajincima"


Želio bih ovom prilikom skrenuti pozornost našoj javnosti na mit o ruskojezičnim Ukrajincima, jer su taj mit prihvatili svi mediji u Hrvatskoj. Ne postoje ruskojezični Ukrajinci, već dvojezični Ukrajinci. U istočnim i južnim pokrajinama stoljećima je zabranjivan i potiskivan ukrajinski jezik, ali nije uništen. Ukrajinski narod nije imao mogućnosti stjecati stručno visokoškolsko obrazovanje na materinskom jeziku, tako da mu je taj jezik postao drugi jezik.

Kako je u državnim ustanovama, vojsci, policiji, sudovima, strankama, firmama, kolhozima i školama prevladavao ruski jezik ljudima je postalo laganije "na službenoj razini" govoriti tim, nego materinskim jezikom. Ali to nije dovelo do zaborava i odbacivanja materinskog jezika. Još bi bilo pogrešnije misliti kako je ovakva situacija dovela do odbacivanja etničkog identiteta tih ljudi. Nikako! Razgovarao sam s mnogim piscima koji pišu na ruskom jeziku o ovoj temi i svi su me uvjeravali da jezik ne određuje njihovo domoljublje.

Oni vole svoju "ridnu Ukrajinu" i na ruskome jeziku. Osim toga, ruski je jezik u Ukrajini dobio neke specifičnosti tzv. suržika. Sve ostalo je politička manipulacija. Osobno svjedočim kako sam prilikom službenih posjeta gradovima, ili gubernijama, zahtijevao da lokalni dužnosnici sa mnom, kao veleposlanikom, govore jezikom koji je određen kao državni, a to je ukrajinski. Tako sam postupio i prilikom posjeta Krimu i Sevastopolju. Nije tu bilo zlobe, već pozivanje na Ustav.

I vjerujte mi, nije bilo dužnosnika, uključujući i krimske, a ti su bili etnički Rusi,koji nisu razgovarali normalno, lijepo i prijateljski s "horvatskim paslom" na ukrajinskom jeziku. Nije im padala kruna s glave. Uvjerio sam se u nepostojanje ruskojezičnih Ukrajinaca. Ponavljam: postoje dvojezični (rusko/ukrajinski) Ukrajinci. Nisam sreo Ukrajinca koji nije razumio materinski jezik. Mit o "ruskojezičnim Ukrajincima" koji su ugroženi i koje Putin mora spašavati od ukrajinskih fašista, je floskula koju svijetu prodaje Moskva, kako bi pronašla razloge za agresiju.

U stvarnosti postoji i efikasno djeluje ruska jezična agresija na Ukrajinu. Ruske knjige unose se u Ukrajinu vagonima i bez carina, čime se uništilo izdavaštvo na ukrajinskom jeziku. Sve TV stanice unisono služe se ruskim jezikom i u funkciji su asimilacije Ukrajinaca, odnosno njihove rusifikacije. Nakon pada Janukoviča situacija je nešto, ali ne mnogo, bolja.

Ruska Pravoslavna Crkva preko svoje Mitropolije u Ukrajini vrši sve vjerske obrede na ruskom, zapravo ona na svim razinama ignorira ukrajinski jezik, što je po mome mišljenju nasilje nad ovim narodom, u ime "kanona". Kada Rus iz Ukrajine dođe u Moskvu, već nakon prve rečenice domaćin će mu kazati: "Ti Hahol" – hahol je pogrdni naziv za Ukrajinca, a obratno – Moskalj za Rusa.

Surzhyk originated at the end of the 18th century, when Ukrainian peasants started to have greater contact with the Russian language as Ukrainian society modernized. Industrialization resulted in workers migrating from Central Russia to Ukrainian cities and the urbanization of the Ukrainian peasantry. Russian civil and military administration, together with cultural, business, religious and educational institutions, soon became forces of linguistic Russification.[1] Ukrainian peasants moving to the cities regarded Russian as being more urban and prestigious than their own language. However, because their schooling in the Russian language was inadequate, most Ukrainian peasants who strove to speak it ended up blending it with their native Ukrainian; this was how Surzhyk was born.[4]

The speaking of pure Ukrainian (i.e. a language without elements of Russian), was for the most part avoided by the urban intelligentsia, because the Ukrainian language was associated with provincialism and nationalism.[4] At this point, the majority of Ukrainians found it easy to become competent in Russian. The association of the Ukrainian language with a rural lifestyle or narrow-minded nationalism encouraged more Ukrainians to adopt Russian as their language of choice.[3] Such decisions led to an increased prevalence of Surzhyk in everyday speech and the further dilution of the Ukrainian language.

In 1721, the Russian Tsar Peter the Great prohibited the publication of books in Ukraine, except for Russian-language religious works, and decreed that Ukrainian books and records were to be burned. In 1786, it was decreed that services in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church were to be conducted using only the Russian pronunciation of Old Church Slavonic, and not the Ukrainian pronunciation. Decrees in 1863, 1876, and 1881 prohibited the publication and importation of Ukrainian books, as well as the public use of the Ukrainian language in general. The Russian regime of the day viewed the use of Ukrainian as evidence of political opposition and harshly suppressed it.[4]

The use of the Ukrainian language in theatre and music was also banned, and it had to be translated into other languages. Education in the Ukrainian language also suffered similarly, with ethnically Ukrainian teachers being replaced with ethnic Russians. In the early 20th century, children were punished for speaking Ukrainian to one another in school, and people sometimes lost their jobs for speaking it.[4]

Stockman Slams Washington's Pointless War On Behalf Of A Fake Nation

BY TYLER DURDEN
SATURDAY, OCT 01, 2022 - 04:05 AM
Authored by David Stockman via Contra Corner blog,

The messages are coming in loud and clear today - from the crashing pound, to repudiation of establishment governments in Italy, Sweden and more to come, to Hungarian Prime Minister Orban’s call to end the Sanctions War and do so pronto.

So let’s be clear: Washington’s dunderheaded intervention in the intramural spat between Russia and Ukraine and the accompanying global Sanctions War is the surely the stupidest, most destructive project to arise from the banks of the Potomac in modern times. And the architects of this perfidious folly—Biden, Blinkin, Sullivan, Nuland et. al.—cannot be condemned harshly enough.

After all, this madness is being pursued in the name of abstract policy norms—the rule of law and sanctity of borders—that make Washington a laughing stock. More than any other nation on planet earth (and by a long-shot), it has serially and blatantly violated these standards scores of times in recent decades.

Among other actions, Washington’s interventions in Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Somalia etc were not only pointless; they were also a self-evident violation of the very rule of law and sanctity of borders upon which Washington now beats its breasts ever more stridently.

Moreover, by wallowing in this unhinged hypocrisy Washington has abandoned every semblance of commonsense as to why this conflict happened in the first place and why it is wholly irrelevant to the national security of the American homeland, or, for that matter, Europe, as well.

The fundamental fact is, aside from the historically short interval of iron-fisted communist rule during the Soviet era, Ukraine had never been a nation-state within its post-1991 happenstance borders. In fact, for upwards of 275 years before 1918 much of its territories were borderlands, vassals and outright provinces of Czarist Russia; and before that constituents of the Polish-Lithuanian Empire and others.

So we are not dealing with the invasion of a long-established, ethnically and linguistically coherent state by its aggressive neighbor, but with the left-over potpourri of separate tongues, territories. economies and histories that were smashed together by brutal communist rulers between 1918 and 1991.

Accordingly, the fast-approaching dark, cold winter of stagflationary collapse in Europe is not being done in heroic defense of the grand principles proffered by Washington and NATO. To the contrary, it amounts to the pointless and grubby business of preserving a vile status quo ante that was confected on the lands north of the Black Sea, not by the ordinary course of historical evolution and nation-state accretion, but by the bloody-hands of Lenin, Stalin and Khrushchev.

In any event, the staggering economic costs for the everyday peoples of Europe in pursuit of such a threadbare and illegitimate purpose is starting to register among the long-suffering victims of Brussels’ elitist rulers. Hence the thunderbolts from the Italian elections this weekend and Viktor Orbán’s parallel appeal to the European Union to lift sanctions and thereby potentially reduce energy prices by half in one swell swoop.

Nor is Orbán the only one calling for an end to sanctions, with Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotaki calling for a repeal of Russian sanctions as well. Other political leaders, such as Matteo Salvini, who leads the conservative League party and will be a major force in Italy’s new government, says that Europe needs a “rethink” on Russian sanctions due to the harmful economic effects.

Likewise, the conservative Alternative for Germany (AfD) party has also been pushing for an end to sanctions and an re-opening of the Nord Stream 1 & 2 gas pipelines due to soaring energy costs in Germany. AfD member of the Bundestag, Mariana Harder-Kühnel, for instance, recently echoed Orbán’s call.

“The EU bureaucracy has turned the screw on the sanctions, and now we are paying the bill,” she said.

In this context, the ructions since Friday in the FX market for the pound sterling speak more powerfully than anything else.

The British pound briefly plunged to its lowest level ever early this week, touching $1.0349 during Asian trading hours, breaking through its previous record low of 1985. Moreover, today’s cliff-dive followed a tumble of 3% on Friday, after the new Truss government announced sweeping tax cuts and a massive energy bailout for businesses and individuals.

Likewise, the price of U.K. government debt has fallen in tandem with the pound, with yields rising sharply again today. The 10-year government bond was yielding 4.11%, up 28 basis points from Friday and a staggering 342% from the 0.93% yield of just one year ago.

For want of doubt, here is the path of pound sterling over the last twelve months. That’s a massive thumbs down by the FX markets if there ever was one.

But the relevant point here is not all the Keynesian palaver about the “mistake” of lowering the 45% top income tax rate and removing other disincentives to work and investment that take UK marginal rates as high as 60%. These reductions in the crushing tax rates that Conservative and Labor government alike have erected atop the UK’s lavish Welfare State are long-overdue and will, in fact, stimulate compensatory economic activity.

What’s actually going to destroy the remnants of the UK’s fiscal sustainability is Truss’ utterly foolish plan to freeze all energy prices for all citizens and businesses at a cost of upwards of $200 billion per year or 5% of GDP. But that’s neocon insanity run amok.

If London wants to relieve its consumers of onerous energy prices and utility bills it only need follow Orban’s advice and terminate its Sanctions War against Russian energy, food and other commodity exports. And it wouldn’t cost the Exchequer a dime.

That is to say, the pound’s crash ought to be a general wake-up call to Europe and Washington, too. By declaring war on the productive and peaceful commerce with Russia that previously prevailed, Europe’s leaders—-especially the new government of United Kingdom—have sacrificed their own prosperity and the living standards of their citizens in behalf of a prodigiously corrupt, anti-democratic regime in Kiev that is dedicated to preserving intact nothing more noble than the dead hand of the Soviet Presidium.

Or as our friend James Howard Kunstler rightly summarized:

Let us agree that the place called Ukraine was never any of America’s business. For centuries we ignored it, through all the colorful cavalry charges to-and-fro of Turks and Tatars, the reign of the dashing Zaporozhian Cossacks, the cruel abuses of Stalin, then Hitler, and the dull, gray Khrushchev-to-Yeltsin years. But then, having destroyed Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia and sundry other places all on a great hegemonic lark, the professional warmongers of our land and their catamites in Washington made Ukraine their next special project. They engineered the 2014 coup in Kiev that ousted the elected president, Mr. Yanyukovich, to set up a giant grifting parlor and international money-laundromat. The other strategic aim was to prepare Ukraine for NATO membership, which would have made it, in effect, a forward missile base right up against Russia’s border. Because, well, Russia, Russia, Russia!

So we return to the question at hand: Every Ukrainian presidential election since 1991 has revealed a nation radically split between pro-Russian populations in the east and south and anti-Russian nationalists in the center and west. When the mailed fist of communist rule was removed, in fact, Ukraine became a territory yearning to be partitioned into more amenable jurisdictions of governance.

For instance, here is the results of the 2010 election that put a pro-Russian politician in the president’s office and at length gave rise to Washington’s putsch during the Maiden uprising that soon drove the country into civil war.

The above map barely does justice to the actual figures. In many of the yellow Tymoshenko-supporting areas the vote was 80% or higher in favor of the latter’s nationalist candidacy, while in much of the blue area the pro-Russian Yanukovych won be similar massive pluralities.

Yet this wasn’t a one-time fluke of short-term electoral politics: It was actually the recrudescence of the manner in which the fake nation of Ukraine was put together during the last three centuries.

Prior to the end of WWI, there was no Ukrainian state. Like the artificial and unsustainable polities of Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, which were confected by self-serving politicians at Versailles (especially the domestic vote seeking Woodrow Wilson), Ukraine was a product of geopolitical engineering—in this case by the new rulers of the Soviet Union.

Indeed, the historical provenance of “Ukraine” can be described in a nutshell. What was to become Ukraine joined Russia in 1654 when Bohdan Khmelnitsky, a Hetman of the Zaporozhian Host, petitioned Russian czar Alexey to accept the Zaporozhian Host into Russia. That is to say, Imperial Russia spawned the latter day polity of Ukraine by annexing into its service the fearsome Cossack Warriors who inhabited its central region.

The army and a small territory then under Hetman control was called “u kraine,” which means in Russian “at the edge”, a term that had originated in the twelfth century to describe lands on the border of Russia.

During the next 250 years the expansionist Czars annexed more and more of the adjacent territory, designating the eastern and southern regions as “Novorussiya” (New Russia), which territories included Catherine the Great’s purchase of Crimea from the Ottomans in 1783.

That is to say, at the time of America’s own independence the heart of today’s Ukraine was ruled by the long arm of Czarist autocracy.

After the Bolshevik revolution, of course, the map changed radically. In 1919 Lenin created the socialist state of Ukraine on part of the territory of the former Russian Empire. Ukraine officially became the Ukrainian People’s Republic with the capital of Kharkov in 1922 (moved to Kiev in 1934).

Accordingly, the new communist state swallowed up Novorussiya per the eastern and southern portions of the green area in the map below, including Donetsk, and Lugansk regions, as well as the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions bordering the Sea of Azov and the Black Sea that are the sites of today’s Russia-sponsored succession referendums.

Then in 1939, as a result of the infamous Nazi-Soviet Pact, Stalin annexed the eastern territories of Poland, as designated by the yellow areas of the map. Thus, the historic territory of Galicia and the Polish city of Lvov were incorporated into Ukraine by the joint decree of Stalin and Hitler.

In June of 1940, Stalin next annexed Northern Bukovina (brown area) from Romania. And then at the Yalta conference in 1945, upon Stalin’s insistence to Churchill and Roosevelt, the Hungarian Carpathian Ruthenia was incorporated into the Soviet Union and added to Ukraine.

Taken together, these Stalinist seizures are now known as Western Ukraine, the people’s of which understandably do not cotton to things Russian. At the same time, the 85% Russian-speaking population inhabiting the purple area (Crimea) was gifted to Ukraine by Khrushchev in 1954 for the very reason of extending his own accession to the communist dictatorship.

Nevertheless, after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Ukraine inherited these communist-confected borders within which there were upwards of 40 millions Russians, Poles, Hungarians, Romanians, Tartars and countless lesser nationalities—all trapped in a newly declared country in which they didn’t especially wish to reside.



Indeed, the reason that the hapless state of “Ukraine” needs relief in partition, not a war to preserve the handiwork if Czars and Commissars, was well summarized by Alexander G. Markovsky in the American Thinker:

Today’s Ukrainian civil war is thus greatly exacerbated by the fact that unlike pluralistic societies such as the USA, Canada, Switzerland, and Russia, which are tolerant of different cultures, religions, and languages, Ukraine is not. Unsurprisingly, devotion to pluralism proved not to be her forte. Even though the Kiev regime had no historical roots in the real estate it inhabited, it imposed Ukrainian rules and the Ukrainian language on non-Ukrainian people after declaring independence.

As a result, pro-Russian sentiments – ranging from the recognition of the official status of the Russian language to outright secession – have always been prevalent in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. Western Ukraine has always gravitated toward its Polish, Romanian, and Hungarian roots. Emphatically anti-Russian, Poland may not miss this strategic opportunity to re-acquire its land and avenge the humiliation inflicted by the Yalta Conference.

The West’s insistence on maintaining the status quo of the Ukrainian borders established by Lenin, Stalin and Hitler exposes the disconnect between strategic doctrine and moral principles.

Indeed, Poles make no secret of their ambitions. Polish President Andrzej Duda, recently declared, “For decades, and maybe, God forbid, for centuries, there will be no more borders between our countries – Poland and Ukraine. There will be no such border!”

Romania is not far behind, especially in light of many inhabitants of former Northern Bukovina already carrying Romanian passports.

The territory of Ukraine is a mosaic of other people’s lands. If we want to stop this insane war and ensure peace in Europe, instead of calling Russia’s sponsored referendum in Eastern Ukraine a sham, we should conduct an honest referendum in all the disputed territories under the auspices of the UN and let the people decide what government they want.

Needless to say, partition of the fake state of Ukraine is not remotely on Washington’s mind. After all, it would remove the latest neocon reason for spreading the blessings of Forever Wars to the fairest parts of the planet.

Eh stara dobra vremena, prije CIA uplitanja.

Zelenski na Rosiji 1 za novu godinu 2013, zajedno sa Solovjevim.