Saturday, 25 April 2015



  Here is undeniable evidence that PUTIN IS SHIT! BAFS

(N.B. This video has been removed????  No traces nowhere???)

 And this includes the EU and the UN!



911 False Flag - American Traitors & Mossad - Where are the Oath Keepers? - Ken O'Keefe

Ken O'Keefe
Published on 20 Dec 2014
This is the updated version (as of December 2014) of my 911 production originally broadcast on The Peoples Voice in January 2014. It has additional footage and commentary, improved graphics and is a direct response to David Cameron's ridiculous speech at the UN General Assembly in 2014.

Lasha Darkmoon: "Putin As Rescuer: Will He Deliver Us From The Evil Empire?"  


Never forget Putin's massmurdering past!  I forgive as a Christic and a Muslim but never forget!

BAFS - Saturday 25th of April 2015


 Putin As Rescuer: Will He Deliver Us From The Evil Empire?

  Other Writers

“In the interests of world peace, it would be the best possible outcome if the US were decisively defeated in the coming war between East and West.” — Lasha Darkmoon

This is an edited abridgement, with commentary by Lasha Darkmoon, of a major new article by Rostislav Ishchenko called What Does Putin Want? According to the Saker, on whose website the article first appeared, this is the best article he has read on the Ukraine situation — “a masterpiece: a comprehensive analysis of the geostrategic position of Russia.”
The views of Kiev politicians are of no interest to us because they don’t decide anything. The fact that outsiders govern the Ukraine is no longer concealed. It doesn’t matter whether the cabinet ministers are Estonian or Georgian; they are Americans just the same.
Nor are we interested in the European Union’s position. Much depended on the EU until the summer of last year, when the war could have been prevented or stopped at the outset. A tough, principled antiwar stance by the EU was needed. It could have blocked US initiatives to start the war and would have turned the EU into a significant independent geopolitical player. The EU passed on that opportunity and instead behaved like a faithful vassal of the United States.
As a result, Europe stands on the brink of frightful internal upheaval. In the coming years, it has every chance of suffering the same fate as the Ukraine.
In fact, today the EU can choose whether to remain a tool of the United States or to move closer to Russia. Depending on its choice, Europe can get off with a slight scare, such as a breakup of parts of its periphery and possible fragmentation of some countries, or it could collapse completely.
Judging by the European elites’ reluctance to break openly with the United States, collapse is almost inevitable.
What should interest us is the opinions of the two main players in the unfolding drama known as World War Three: these players are the United States and Russia.
The US position is clear and transparent. In the second half of the 1990s, Washington missed its only opportunity to reform the Cold War economy without any obstacles and thereby avoid the looming crisis in a system whose development is limited by the finite nature of planet Earth and its resources, including human ones, which conflicts with the need to endlessly print dollars.
After that, the United States could prolong the death throes of the system only by plundering the rest of the world. At first, it went after Third World countries. Then it went for potential competitors. Then for allies and even close friends. Such plundering could continue only as long as the United States remained the world’s undisputed hegemon.
Thus when Russia asserted its right to make independent political decisions – decisions of not global but regional import –  a clash with the United States became inevitable. This clash cannot end in a compromise peace.
For the United States, a compromise with Russia would mean a voluntary renunciation of its hegemony, leading to a quick, systemic catastrophe – not only a political and economic crisis but also a paralysis of state institutions and the inability of the government to function. In other words, its inevitable disintegration.
But if the United States wins, then it is Russia that will experience systemic catastrophe.
After a certain type of “rebellion,” Russia’s ruling classes would be punished with asset liquidation and confiscation as well as imprisonment. The state would be fragmented, substantial territories would be annexed, and the country’s military might would be destroyed.
So the war will last until one side wins.
To complete the picture of the situation, we only need Russia’s position. It is essential to understand what the Russian leadership wants to achieve, particularly the president, Vladimir Putin. We are talking about the key role that Putin plays in the organization of the Russian power structure.
During Putin’s 15 years in power, he has tried to maximize the role of the government, the legislative assembly, and even the local authorities. These are entirely logical steps that should have given the system completeness, stability, and continuity. Because no politician can rule forever, political continuity, regardless of who comes to power, is the key to a stable system.
Unfortunately, fully autonomous control, namely the ability to function without the president’s oversight, hasn’t been achieved. Putin remains the key component of the system because the people put their trust in him personally. They have far less trust in the system, as represented by public authorities and individual agencies.
Thus Putin’s opinions and political plans become the decisive factor in areas such as Russia’s foreign policy. If the phrase “without Putin, there is no Russia” is an exaggeration, then the phrase “what Putin wants, Russia also wants” reflects the situation quite accurately in my opinion.
First, let’s note that the man who for 15 years has carefully guided Russia to its revival has done so in conditions of US hegemony in world politics along with significant opportunities for Washington to influence Russia’s internal politics. He had to understand the nature of the fight and his opponent. Otherwise, he wouldn’t have lasted so long.
Moscow could not have saved the Ukraine from the coup because of the baseness, cowardice, and stupidity of the Ukraine’s leaders – not only Yanukovych but all of them without exception.
After the armed coup in Kiev in February 2014, Russia entered into open confrontation with Washington. Before that, the conflicts were interspersed with improved relations, but at the beginning of 2014 relations between Russia and the United States deteriorated swiftly and almost immediately reached the point where war would have been declared automatically in the prenuclear era.
Thus at any given time Putin engaged in precisely the level of confrontation with the United States that Russia could handle. If Russia isn’t limiting the level of confrontation now, it means Putin believes that, in the war of sanctions, the war of nerves, the information war, the civil war in the Ukraine, and the economic war, Russia can win.
This is the first important conclusion about what Putin wants and what he expects. He expects to win. And considering that he takes a meticulous approach and strives to anticipate any surprises, you can be sure that when the decision was made not to back down under pressure from the United States, but to respond, the Russian leadership had a double, if not a triple, guarantee of victory.
I would like to point out that the decision to enter into a conflict with Washington was not made in 2014, nor was it made in 2013. The war of August 8, 2008, was a challenge that the United States could not leave unpunished. After that, every further stage of the confrontation only raised the stakes. From 2008 to 2010, the United States’ capability – not just military or economic but its overall capability – has declined, whereas Russia’s has improved significantly.
So the main objective was to raise the stakes slowly rather than in explosive fashion. In other words, an open confrontation in which all pretences are dropped and everyone understands that a war is going on had to be delayed as long as possible. But it would have been even better to avoid it altogether.
With every passing year, the United States became weaker while Russia became stronger.
This process was natural and impossible to arrest, and we could have projected with a high degree of certainty that by 2020 to 2025, without any confrontation, the period of US hegemony would have ended, and the United States would then be best advised to think about not how to rule the world, but how to stave off its own precipitous internal decline.
Thus Putin’s second desire is clear: to keep the peace or the appearance of peace as long as possible.
Peace is advantageous for Russia because in conditions of peace, without enormous expense, it obtains the same political result but in a much better geopolitical situation. That is why Russia continually extends the olive branch. Just as the Kiev junta will collapse in conditions of peace in Donbass, in conditions of world peace, the military-industrial complex and the global financial system created by the United States are doomed to self-destruct.
In this way, Russia’s actions are aptly described by Sun Tzu’s maxim “The greatest victory is that which requires no battle.”
It is clear that Washington is not run by idiots. But the political elite who have emerged in the United States in the past 25 years have become accustomed to their status as the owners of the world. They sincerely don’t understand how anyone can challenge them.
For the ruling elite in the United States (not so much the business class but the government bureaucracy), to go from being a country that decides the fate of inferior peoples to one that negotiates with them on an equal footing is intolerable.
In principle, any war is a struggle for resources. Typically, the winner is the one that has more resources and can ultimately mobilize more troops and build more tanks, ships, and planes.
Nuclear powers cannot confront each other directly. Therefore, their resource base is of paramount importance. That is exactly why Russia and the United States have been in a desperate competition for allies over the past year. Russia has won this competition.
The United States can count only the EU, Canada, Australia, and Japan as allies (and not always unconditionally so), but Russia has managed to mobilize support from the BRICS, to gain a firm foothold in Latin America, and to begin displacing the United States in Asia and North Africa.
It turns out that the countries aligned with Russia together control about 60% of the world’s GDP, have more than two-thirds of its population, and cover more than three-quarters of its surface. Thus Russia has been able to mobilize more resources.
Facing imminent humiliation at the hands of Russia, the United States is now employing a desperate, dog-in-the-manger policy vis-à-vis Ukraine. It’s as old as the hills. If we can’t have this juicy bone, you won’t have it either!
That which cannot be held, and will be taken by the enemy, must be damaged as much as possible so that the enemy’s victory is more costly than defeat, as all its resources are used to reconstruct the destroyed territory. The United States has therefore ceased to assist the Ukraine with anything more than political rhetoric while encouraging Kiev to spread civil war throughout the country.
The Ukrainian land must burn, not only in Donetsk and Lugansk but also in Kiev and Lvov. The task is simple: to destroy the social infrastructure as much as possible and to leave the population at the very edge of survival. Then the population of the Ukraine will consist of millions of starving, desperate and heavily armed people who will kill one another for food.
It is clear that the cost of rebuilding Ukraine’s hopelessly damaged infrastructure would then fall on Russia.
Putin correctly believes that not only the budget, but also public resources in general, including the military, would in this case be overstretched and possibly insufficient. Therefore, the objective is not to allow the Ukraine to explode before the militia can bring the situation under control. It is crucial to minimize casualties and destruction and to salvage as much of the economy as possible. The infrastructure of the large cities must be preserved if possible so that the population might somehow survive. The Ukrainians themselves will then take care of the Nazi thugs whom the US has done its best to foist upon them in Kiev.
At this point a potential ally appears for Putin in the form of the EU.
If Europe now has on its eastern border a completely destroyed Ukraine, from which millions of armed people will flee not only to Russia but also to the EU, taking with them delightful pastimes such as drug trafficking, gunrunning, and terrorism, the EU will not survive.
Europe cannot confront the United States, but it is deathly afraid of a destroyed Ukraine. Therefore, for the first time in the conflict, France and Germany are not only doing their best to silently resist unreasonable US demands — by imposing sanctions, for example, but only in a mild and moderate way — but they are also undertaking limited independent action with the aim of achieving a compromise: maybe not peace as such, but at least a truce in the Ukraine.
If the Ukraine catches fire, it will burn quickly. And if the EU ever becomes an unreliable partner by daring to take up a neutral position toward Russia, then Washington, faithful to its strategy, would be obliged to set fire to Europe.
It is not at all in Russia’s interests to have a conflagration stretching from the Atlantic to the Carpathian Mountains.
To protect Russia’s legitimate interests, Putin considers peace to be of vital importance. But because peace is no longer possible, and the truces are becoming more theoretical and fragile, Putin needs the war to end as quickly as possible.
Only one thing has changed in Russia recently, but it is of the utmost importance: public opinion. Russian society longs for victory and retribution.
Putin can maintain his role as the linchpin of the system only as long as he has the support of the majority of the population. If he loses this support, because no figures of his stature have emerged from Russia’s political elite, the system will lose its stability. Putin can maintain his charismatic power and authority only as long as he successfully embodies the wishes of the masses.
Thus the defeat of Nazism in the Ukraine, even if it is diplomatic, must be clear and indisputable – only under such conditions is a Russian compromise possible.
Regardless of Putin’s wishes and Russia’s interests, however, a war that should have ended last year within the borders of the Ukraine will almost certainly spill over into Europe. One can only guess who will be more effective – the Americans with their gas can, pouring fuel on the fire, or the Russians with their fire extinguisher?
The circumstances described above make it extremely unlikely that the proponents of an independent state of Novorossiya will see their wishes fulfilled. Given the scale of the coming conflagration, determining the fate of the Ukraine as a whole is not excessively complicated.
It is only logical that the Russian people should ask: if Russians, whom we rescued from the Nazis, live in Novorossiya, why do they have to live in a separate state? If they want to live in a separate state, why should Russia rebuild their cities and factories? To these questions there is only one reasonable answer: Novorossiya should become part of Russia.
If part of the Ukraine can join Russia, why not all of it?

Lasha Darkmoon comments:

Given Putin’s towering influence in Russia and the fact that he has come to symbolize all Russia’s hopes and dreams, it is obvious that the most effective way of dealing Russia a death blow right now would be the sudden assassination of Putin.
This is almost certainly on the cards, and Putin must know it.
In the interests of world peace, it would be the best possible outcome if the US were decisively defeated in the coming war between East and West. For a world dominated by the United States is, in effect, a world dominated by international Jewry — a fate worse than death. Such a world would lead not only to the destruction of Europe as we know it but to the permanent enslavement of the American people.
According to military historian and political activist Tariq Ali, however, a defeat for America is unthinkable. The United States, he believes, is an unbeatable colossus:
“The United States is now unchallengeable militarily and it dominates global politics, even the politics of the countries it treats as its enemies. 
 If you compare the recent demonisation of Putin to the way Yeltsin was treated at a time when he was committing many more shocking atrocities – destroying the entire city of Grozny, for example – you see that what is at stake is not principle, but the interests of the world’s predominant power. There hasn’t been such an empire before, and it’s unlikely that there will be one again.
At the present moment the United States remains unassailable: it exerts its soft power all over the world, including in the heartlands of its economic rivals; its hard power is still dominant, enabling it to occupy countries it sees as its enemies; and its ideological power is still overwhelming in Europe and beyond.” (See here)
This will be music to the ears of America’s neoconservative warmongers. Believing devoutly that they cannot lose, they will now plunge the world recklessly into war, unless reason takes hold. If this should happen and they win — God help us if they do! —we will all be the losers.

Is Putin Still a Freemason?

Today, the webmaster of the Blog “Kulissenriss” wrote me that acc. to the Tomlinson-link in my latest article, Putin is no longer a Royal Arch Mason. So I have tried to penetrate somewhat deeper into the matter – and will leave it to my readers to decide for themselves what that man really is.
I have several times referred to Vladimir Putin as a Royal Arch Freemason. This information is derived from an abstract  from Richard Tomlinson´s Book The big Breach from 2001 – which nobody has disputed, and which brought the MI6 into big trouble.
Richard Tomlinson was initiated in  the Royal Arch as were all MI6 members – which was apparently identical with the KGB: Vladimir Putin and the other KGB Royal Arch Freemasons  were educated alongside with Tomlinson. Like with Tomlinson, the MI6 in 1993 wanted to get rid of Putin when it no longer needed him.
The abstract (not written by Tomlinson) concludes: “What is known is that Vladimir Putin is no longer a Royal Arch Freemasonry member. Can the same be said to be true of Richard Tomlinson?” No explanation given for that statement.



Left above : Putin greets Tymosheno with Masonic handshake. Right above : Putin shows Masonic 
“sign of preservation”.  MASONIC???

Another Blog “John Scarlett” (about – not by – Tomlinson´s and Putin´s MI6 teacher, John Scarlett)
 brings a comment on 9 Febr. 2007 from a person claiming to have been initiated to anoint Vladimir Putin, who in 1979 was chosen to be the Illuminati Antichrist. He was anointed in 1993 – and “left the Royal Arch in 1994″. However the anointer claims that after Putin was anointed, his career sped upwards – and that only began in 1994! At that time Putin had been through a severe Royal Arch brainwashing – acc. to Tomlinson.
Henry Makow 11 June 2012: “It appears that “Red Ox” was also recruited by KGB at an early stage. He sees MI-6 & KGB as essentially one and their rivalry as Masonic office politics. He says most members of these agencies are so compartmentalized, they haven’t a clue of the bigger picture, i.e. both agencies serve Rothschilds.”

Did Putin really stop being a Royal Arch mason in 1994, as his career began? He would have lost invaluable information from the MI6/KGB society – and would a “traitor” who had broken his Illuminati oath be able to make career in the Royal Arch dominated KGB – which he did until made President in 1999? Today he is the overall boss of the KGB successor, the FSB (or its subordinate?). Has he really freed himself from the Pharisaic Rothschild /Jesuit  grip?

putin necktie 

Texe Marrs in his Codex Magica tells in his Flaming Ring of Fire: “Putin wears a Masonic neck tie. The triangles, on Putin´s tie and on the shirt collar, have their point, or spear, downward, toward the realm that is the controlling force of Masonry.

In terms of the secret order or secret society, it symbolizes sacrifice of the individual to the common good of the organization.
The neck tie Putin wears has Illuminist meaning. The X of Osiris is prominent in the design as is the two triangles—one pointing up, the other down—inside a diamond.”
Masons are slaves of their rituals which mostly betray them. Putin staked much on making the Sochi Winter OL games – the most expensive ever – a show of the power of his new Russia – as have former dictators also done.

So, do events at the Sochi games betray Putin as a Mason maybe even with a special role?

The following photos are from The Mountain Flame  and The World Truth 14 Febr. 2014 :prometheus-rockefeller-thumb

Right: Prometheus in front of the Rockefeller  Center, New York.
The World Truth 14 Febr. 2014 writes: “Why Sochi?  According to Greek mythology, Prometheus was held captive off the cliffs of Sochi where while chained to a rock, an eagle pecked out his liver only for it to grow back to be pecked out again.  His crime?  Stealing fire from the Gods and giving it to humans, thus illuminating them.  Basically, he is just another version of Lucifer.”
The double headed eagle below was flashed on the opening ceremony at times. It goes back to the Byzantine Empires, and can arguably get traced back even further to the secret schools of mystery (Horus was double headed) and also the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry (As above so below). It was the coats of arms of the Romanow emperors/Russian empire for 300 years ( thus showing Putins ambition – Eurasia). The Freemasons call the double headed eagle the Eagle of Lagash, and some Freemason websites claim that Scottish Freemason


Albert Pike once said: “As the Adept knows, the double-headed eagle is a Hermetic Symbol, representing the Divine Generative Potency, and Productive Capacity of Nature – like the human figure with two heads, one male the other female – God and Nature; the Egypian Osiris and Isis.”

Right: The economist brings the double-headed Phoenix rising from the ashes on the Russian Ruble to announce the one world currency

Left: The Pentagram as Sotchi logo
sotchi london*
 sotchi phoenis2

Right above: Phoenix rising from the ashes during the 2012 London summer Olympic Games.
sotchi1Right below: At the Sochi opening ceremony, Phoenix rose again and again.

Left: Fireworks form eyebrows of Lucifer/Horus´all-seeing Masonic eye just as in London.


 Above: The eye once more
Left below: Illuminati Pyramids with symbols I cannot interpret. Below right:

Left: Russian troika pulling the “Ring of Fire”.
In 1980, the US boycotted the Olympic summer games in Moscow. In 2014, the Russian troika takes the broken red one of the olympic rings back to Russia.


But Texe Marrs in his Codex Magica tells about the Flaming Ring of Fire: Former Mason Bill
Schnoebelen writes:  “Let’s face it, the Masonic tie tacks and rings that so many Masons wear proudly to their churches on Sunday are sexual idols.”
The Gods, like Baal, of all pagan nations around Israel were all sexual idols. Yet all these Masons are flaunting both their idols and their (church) membership.
Left above: Moon cult: Semiramis/Nimrod, Babylon. Right Above: The fallen Morning Star (Isaiah 14:12-14), Venus/Lucifer is in place on the one world pyramid with the capstone now in place in the sea of peoples.
sochi russia

Right; Slaves in scarlet environment (Revelation 17) are building rings of fire/wheels for some machinery (one-world-state?)
And now it becomes really uncanny. I will leave it to you to decide whether this video is over-interpreted. I am afraid not.
This entry was posted in english, euromed. Bookmark the permalink.

 Money Trails, Whistleblowers & Government Secrets + Lies with Scott Bennett
TheLipTV TheLipTV
Published on 6 Feb 2015
Government conspiracy and the hidden truth about whistleblowers is aired by Scott Bennett. We follow the money trail that connects terror to Washington D.C., look at the role of Saudi Arabia in funding terror, and revisit the shadows of 9/11. Has the government become too mired in power games and deception to act in service of the people? We explore patriotism in the age of Edward Snowden in this uncensored Buzzsaw interview hosted by Sean Stone.

Scott Bennett is a U.S. Army Special Operations Officer (11th Psychological Operations Battalion, Civil Affairs-Psychological Operations Command), and a global psychological warfare-counterterrorism analyst, formerly with defense contractor Booz Allen Hamilton. He received a Direct Commission as an Officer, held a Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmentalized Information (TS/SCI)security clearance, and worked in the highest levels of international counterterrorism in Washington DC and MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida. He has developed and managed psychological warfare theories, products, and operations for U.S. Special Operations Command, U.S. Central Command, the State Department Coordinator for Counterterrorism, and other government agencies.
He served in the G.W. Bush Administration from 2003 to 2008, and was a Social Science Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation. He has written extensively on the intelligence community’s surveillance activities addressed by Edward Snowden’s National Security Agency-Central Intelligence Agency materials; and since 2010 has filed numerous military-government whistle-blowing reports with Congressional Committees, including: the Intelligence, the Armed Services, the Government Oversight and Reform, the Homeland Security, the Judiciary, the Foreign Affairs, the Banking, and the Terrorism Committees.He has filed legal action against Booz Allen Hamilton and the Department of Defense for their involvement in secret Swiss Bank Terrorist Finance Operations, which he uncovered with the help of Union Bank of Switzerland whistleblower, Brad Birkenfeld.
His educational background includes a Bachelor of Science in Advertising and Spanish Minor from San Jose State University in California, a Master of Arts in International Business and Public Policy from George Mason University in Virginia, and a Ph.D. (ABD) in Political Theory from the Catholic University of America in Washington D.C. He currently resides in California.

Buzzsaw Full Episodes:
Buzzsaw Short Clips Playlist:

00:01 Welcoming Scott Bennett to Buzzsaw.
01:05 Bennett’s participation in the military and his imprisonment.
11:50 Why Bennett was thrown in prison and his attitude towards his work.
14:45 Brad Birkenfeld’s compelling evidence and the restrictions placed on him.
23:40 What role do the Saudi’s play in financing terrorism?
31:40 Why you cannot just replace islamic tradition with western culture.
34:20 Bennett’s impression of what happened in the shadows of 9/11.
47:55 The Soldier’s Creed and its significance in patriotism.
49:30 Thank you and goodbye.
 Entretien Ernst Zündel et pr Roger Dommergue

Roger Dommergue - Interview - completa

 Roger Dommergue - Interview - completa


Oui, bien écrit et bien structuré, facile à lire, pas jargonneux, didactique. Pas une histoire comparée des prises de pouvoir Bonaparte/Poutine, mais un bouquin articulant la pensée anti-moderne Rousseau-Tocqueville-Hegel-Nietzsche-Marx-Schmitt-Strauss et d'autres et les praxis politiques (pratique pour un objectif donné) des deux chefs, dans le rétablissement syncrétique des courants divergents de leurs sociétés respectives (libéralisme intrinsèque à la société civile contre tendance absolutiste de tout état, divergences politiques, pragmatisme des compromis, Histoire assumée etc ...) pour une société patriotique forte. C'est le point fort du bouquin (par ex comment Poutine rend hommage à un général russe blanc, à Soljenitsyne et Lénine tout à la fois !) En fait on a le même problème au Benêtland, quelle praxis syncrétique ? Pas une synthèse molle à la Flamby, mais une idéologie forte évolienne au dessus des différences, rassemblant colons/souchiens, et les rendant plus forts. Puis la dérive impérialiste de Bonaparte qui devient droitdelhommiste, qui veut faire le premier GlobalState ... français, et comme disait Talleyrand "ça finira mal". On trouve un panorama de la pensée conservatrice, en plus des précités, du Michéa, Debray, Renan, Zemmour, Jaurès etc ... Cités à propos avec les formules choc des écrivains. Des citations marrantes sur Poutine, Talleyrand, Napoléon ... Jaffré décrit bien des notions politiques, sur quoi reposent une nation, un empire, un impérialisme, le libéralisme melting-poteur, universaliste, impérialiste. Bouquin de politique générale, plus sociologique qu'économique. Actuel, Ukraine, Syrie, Libye. Ça ressemble à Michéa mais plus dans la praxis politique/géopolitique et pas avec des multiples renvois ... (Michéa est bon pour se foutre de la gueule de bobo, par la gauche). Général, fournit gros argumentaire et une idée de ce que devrait être une ligne politique par analogie historique en somme. Grosse bibliographie pour qui veut approfondir.
Mais bon ... c'est déprimant car on vit au Benêtland. Le melting-touche-pas-à-mon-pote-du-GlobalState reste l'arme absolue que n'ont pas eu à affronter Poutine et Bonaparte.
De KK que j'ai lus, le 2e après Clouscard (Capitalisme de la séduction).
Proverbe russe : "Plus le tsar est bon, plus le régime est sanglant".

Ouvrage très bien écrit et bien structuré. vous ne verrez plus Vladimir comme avant, et un mec comme lui, avec une paire de c.... au gouvernement, ça changerait la donne. le rapprochement bonaparte - poutine est très bien vu. on ne peut ignorer la sympathie de l'auteur envers poutine, sa recherche du sujet est tellement bien préparé qu'il est difficile après lecture de croire encore ce que nos médias maistream inventent. je conseille cet ouvrage mais attention au novice en lecture, c'est un bon niveau d'écrtiture.

Moscou capitale du monde libre

Le 9 mai n’est jamais une journée comme les autres en Russie, mais ceux qui ont pu vivre la journée du 9 mai 2015 dans les rues de Moscou ne l’oublieront sans doute jamais.
Pour les 70 ans de la victoire de la Russie soviétique sur l’Allemagne nazie, la journée avait été placée sous le symbole du « bataillon immortel » (Бессмертный полк) et les Russes étaient notamment conviés, après la fin du défilé militaire, à marcher en tenant les portraits de leurs aïeux tombés lors de la grande guerre patriotique, afin d’honorer leur mémoire dans ce lieu symbolique au moins le temps d’une journée. Il fallait être à Moscou pour ressentir cette atmosphère absolument incroyable de fierté et de patriotisme mais aussi et surtout d’unité nationale, puisque dans tout le pays, ce sont 12 millions de Russes qui ont participé aux cérémonies. 500 000 personnes ont rejoint les rues de la capitale, des moscovites de tous âges, certains en tenue militaire, arborant le ruban de Saint-Georges orange et noir.
Il fallait définitivement être à Moscou pour voir ces quelques 150 000 Russes qui défilaient portraits de leurs ancêtres a la main, dont de nombreux enfants et femmes, et les entendre crier « Hourra ! » a pleins poumons en traversant le centre de la capitale. Seule la Russie de Vladimir Poutine est sans doute capable au sein du monde européen de produire cette extraordinaire communion patriotique et populaire dans une totale sérénité.
Alors que certains commentateurs disaient le président russe isolé, il était en tête du cortège et il portait une photo de son père.

Mais surtout, les spécialistes de la Russie et autres kremlinologues professionnels, au-delà du Poutine bashing, semblent être incapables d’interpréter le grand bouleversement historique qui est en train de se produire.
Alors que l’Europe et l’Amérique ont brillé par leur absence inexcusable, ce sont au final « seulement » 20 chefs d’États qui étaient présents, parmi lesquels par exemple les chefs d’Etats chinois, indien, sud-africain, serbe, vénézuélien, vietnamien ou égyptien ainsi que le secrétaire général de l’ONU, Ban Ki-moon ou encore le président du Kazakhstan et initiateur de l’Union eurasiatique, Noursoultan Nazarbaïev.
Ceux qui étaient là ont pu assister au plus grand défilé de l’histoire de la Russie, rassemblant 16 000 soldats russes et 1 300 militaires étrangers, défilé clôturé par une incroyable parade aérienne.
Une preuve de plus que les élites russes entendent bien préserver et continuer à rendre vivante l’incroyable expérience historique et militaire qu’a été la résistance russo-soviétique durant la grande guerre patriotique.
Pendant ce temps, l’Union européenne fêtait la journée d’une Europe de plus en plus remise en cause par les peuples de Londres à Athènes. La nouvelle Europe pro-américaine avait organisé sa propre commémoration du 8/9 mai sous patronage polonais, et le président français, lui, était parti en Guadeloupe pour inaugurer un grand mémorial sur l’esclavage. On a les dirigeants que l’on mérite.
Les nombreux gros plans des télévisions du monde entier sur un Vladimir Poutine entouré des présidents kazakh et chinois sont extrêmement lourds de sens et il y a toutes les raisons de penser que va s’accentuer dans un avenir proche l’intégration entre la Russie et l’Asie, une intégration organisée autour d’un binôme Moscou-Pékin puisque lors de sa visite le président chinois a confirmé qu’il était déterminé à investir lourdement en Russie.
Cette nouvelle trajectoire historique est diamétralement opposée à celle qui se dessinait au début de la décennie lorsque la Russie semblait ouvrir une fenêtre sur l‘Occident puis sur l’Europe. Pour Dimitri Trenin du centre Carnegie, le concept de grande Europe de Lisbonne à Vladivostok a fait place, dans les projets des élites russes, à un projet de grande Asie de Saint-Pétersbourg à Shanghai.
Alors que la fin de la guerre symbolise l’unité et la paix retrouvée en Europe, le 9 mai 2015 aura permis à tous de comprendre qu’une dynamique différente s’était mise en place et que la passion avait disparu des relations entre la Russie et les États européens, pour faire face au mieux à un froid pragmatisme.
Mais tandis que personne ne peut clairement établir la direction que prennent les nations européennes au sein d’une Union européenne à la dérive, les élites eurasiatiques sont, elles, visiblement très décidées à accentuer et accélérer le partenariat asiatico-pacifique.
Pour Moscou, l’axe Paris-Berlin-Moscou semble devoir faire place à un axe Moscou-Astana-Pékin.
Avec ou sans l’Europe.
Voir aussi, sur E&R :

No comments:

Post a Comment