Democrats urge Biden to extradite Bolsonaro from Florida after Brazil riot

(How absolutely evil do you have to be to try to send Bolsonaro back to Brazil to be murdered? That's what they want in the US, send anyone to jail that questions anything, EVIL people, they should be sent to Brazil. This has nothing to do with "democracy" (a greatly overused word), they are spouting the SeeEyeAye Communist, Marxists line, trying to have a beloved World Leader get killed because they have to dissuade anyone from challenging a rigged election. They should all go to prison.)

U.S. lawmakers are comparing Sunday's events in Brazil to the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol.

By Madeleine Hubbard

Updated: January 9, 2023 - 2:38pm

Democrats lawmakers are urging fellow party member President Biden to extradite ex-Brazil President Jair Bolsonaro from Florida after his supporters Sunday sacked a complex of government buildings his home country.

Bolsonaro lost reelection in October 2022, and the Democratic lawmakers requests for his extradition are similar to those Jan. 6 Capitol riot that was preceded by then-President Trump losing his reelection.

"Nearly 2 years to the day the US Capitol was attacked by fascists, we see fascist movements abroad attempt to do the same in Brazil," New York Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweeted Sunday. "The US must cease granting refuge to Bolsonaro in Florida."

Hundreds of people have arrested following the protest Sunday, which included act of vandalism in the largely empty complex that Bolsonaro has since condemned.

In a tweet similar to the one by Ocasio-Cortez, fellow progressive Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., said: "Two years ago our Capitol was attacked by fanatics, now we are watching it happen in Brazil. … Bolsonaro should not be given refuge in Florida."

Texas Democrat Rep. Joaquin Castro tweeted: "Domestic terrorists and fascists cannot be allowed to use Trump’s playbook to undermine democracy," "Bolsonaro must not be given refuge in Florida, where he’s been hiding from accountability for his crimes."

White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said Monday that the U.S. government had not received any official requests from Brazil regarding Bolsonaro's status in Florida, Reuters reported.

"Of course, if we did receive such requests, we'd treat them the way we always do, we'd treat them seriously," Sullivan said.

Also on Monday, Bolsonaro was reportedly admitted to a hospital in Orlando, Florida, for severe abdominal pain. He has been admitted several times for such issues since being stabbed in 2018 at a campaign rally.

https://justthenews.com/government/congress/democrats-urge-biden-extradite-bolsonaro-florida-after-brazil-riot

9 Jan, 2023 16:33

No one has done enough for Ukraine – FM

Continuing to arm Kiev’s troops against Russia will restore “peace and security” in Europe, the country’s top diplomat has claimed

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba has urged Kiev’s “partners” tocontinue funneling military aidinto the country, claiming that “no one has done enough” to help, yet.

“Ukraine is grateful to partners for their military aid, but we should remain honest with one another: No one has done enough as long as Russian boots remain on Ukrainian ground. Arming our country for victory is the shortest way to restoring peace and security in Europe and beyond,” he tweeted on Monday.

The bold statement did not escape the attention of Russia’s first deputy permanent representative to the UN, Dmitry Polyanskiy, who delved into Kuleba’s thread to mock his rallying call and suggest that Kiev had different goals in mind.

“Translation from Ukrainian:We have squandered our army again, give us more armies, and we will continue to pretend that we are fighting Russia on our own. And don’t forget to sponsor our oligarchs’ luxurious life in Europe!”he wrote.

Since the beginning of the ongoing hostilities between Russia and Ukraine, the collective West has poured extensive military aid into the country to prop up Kiev in its fight and compensate for its heavy battlefield losses. The US has been by far the biggest supporter, having approved more than $100 billion in aid to Ukraine.

Russia has repeatedly urged the West to stop “pumping” Kiev with weapons, maintaining that the continuous aid would only prolong the hostilities and inflict more suffering on ordinary Ukrainians rather than changing the conflict’s ultimate outcome.

Russia sent troops into Ukraine on February 24, 2022, citing Kiev’s failure to implement the Minsk agreements, designed to give Donetsk and Lugansk special status within the Ukrainian state. The protocols, brokered by Germany and France, were first signed in 2014. Former Ukrainian president Pyotr Poroshenko has since admitted that Kiev’s main goal was to use the ceasefire to buy time and “create powerful armed forces.”

Shortly before the hostilities broke out, the Kremlin recognized the Donbass republics as independent states and demanded that Ukraine officially declare itself a neutral country that will never join any Western military bloc.

Last September, Donetsk and Lugansk, as well as Kherson and Zaporozhye regions, were incorporated into Russia following referendums.

(Ukrainians are the masters of ingratitude and shaming, the only way they get away with shit like this is because there are so many comped world leaders that can't fight back. I have a feeling some incidents are going to happen soon.)

https://www.rt.com/russia/569611-ukraine-aid-not-enough/

9 Jan, 2023 19:45

EU state to reintroduce conscription

Sweden’s move comes as it aims to boost its defense capabilities amid the conflict in Ukraine

The Swedish government plans to reintroduce civil conscription service in the country, Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson announced during a press conference on Monday, adding that the Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB) will be ordered to prepare the measure later this week.

According to Civil Defense Minister Carl-Oskar Bohlin, the first step will be to send people with the appropriate skills to municipal rescue services to perform civil service there. He noted that as many as 3,000 recruits could become part of this first wave, but stressed during a MSB meeting last week that the details have yet to be ironed out.

“We do not know exactly how many may be covered by the duty. We see that the municipal rescue service today is not designed for the demands of a high alert and ultimately an armed attack,” Bohlin explained.

“The experience from Ukraine is clear – when it comes to protecting the civilian population, emergency services are put under very heavy pressure,” he added.

Compulsory civil service was originally abandoned in Sweden in 2008. The MSB will have until March 1 to prepare the activation of civil duty, the minister said.

He added that the Swedish government hopes to recreate it on a much larger scale than before and stated that those called up for service will undergo additional training on conducting rescue operations in military conditions.

Civil service is the civilian equivalent of conscription, where citizens are called up to carry out missions that are crucial to a country’s defense capabilities. This includes filling positions in healthcare, child care, fire protection and other essential services.

Sweden revived its military conscription in 2017, citing Russian military activity as one of the reasons. The policy requires people to serve between nine and 12 months.

https://www.rt.com/news/569620-sweden-civil-conscription-service/

9 Jan, 2023 18:07

US to host largest-ever Satanic gathering

The Salem-based Satanic Temple has announced its2023 convention in nearby Boston

The Satanic Temple group has announced on social media that SatanCon 2023 will take place at the end of April in Boston, Massachusetts. Dubbed the “largest Satanic gathering in history,” this year’s convention will celebrate the Temple’s tenth anniversary.

Those who show up to the ‘Hexennacht in Boston’ on April 28, will have to wear “an N-95, KN-95, or disposable surgical mask,” according to the convention website. Other details, such as the exact venue in the “historic downtown,” the schedule of events, or names of speakers, have yet to be provided.

After holding the first-ever SatanCon last year in Arizona, The Satanic Temple (TST) is moving the event closer to its international headquarters in nearby Salem, known for its “witch trials” in the late 1600s. The Temple claims it has around 2,500 members in the Boston area.

The group insists it doesn’t actually believe in the devil, and its official mission is to “to encourage benevolence and empathy among all people, reject tyrannical authority, advocate practical common sense and justice, and be directed by the human conscience to undertake noble pursuits.”

They have also declared abortion a fundamental religious right, and argued that any state laws restricting the practice are unfairly discriminating against their members. After coming into the national spotlight due to that advocacy in 2020, the actual Church of Satan denounced TST as “a political activist group who uses scandalous language to get press attention.”

The Temple is best known for filing lawsuits against local and state authorities, claiming infringement of religious freedoms when their demands to deliver satanic invocations or display satanic statues on public property are rejected. In July 2021, it petitioned Boston to fly a flag outside the city hall for “Satan Appreciation Week,” but was turned down. The city went on to change its flag policy in October that year.

Boston and the Massachusetts colony were originally founded by the Puritans, an austere Protestantsect that believed the Church of England was too similar to the Roman Catholic Church it had separated from.

https://www.rt.com/news/569613-satanist-temple-boston-convention/

A Military Police officer falls from his horse during clashes with supporters of Brazilian former President Jair Bolsonaro © AFP / Sergio Lima

9 Jan, 2023 12:401of 2

Riots in Brazil: What we know so far

Angry crowds who still back ex-president Bolsonaro stormed three power branches in Brasilia as police need hours to restore order

Thousands of supporters of Brazil’s rightist former president Jair Bolsonaro stormed government buildings in the country’s capital Brasilia on Sunday. Several hundred people were arrested and dozens wounded amid clashes between the rioters and security forces.

What happened?

Thousands of Bolsonaro’s supporters, who refuse to accept his defeat –in a close election–to left-wing rival Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, gathered in the capital Brasilia on Sunday.

The protesters, many of whom carried national flags and were dressed in the jerseys of the country’s national football team, moved towards the Congress, the Supreme Court and the presidential Planalto Palace. They swiftly overwhelmed the police cordons, climbing on the roofs of government buildings, smashing windows and causing havoc inside. Some in the crowd reportedly called for the military to intervene and restore Bolsonaro to power.

It took security forces several hours to restore order in the center of the capital, with some 300 rioters being arrested amid violent clashes. At least 46 people were wounded, including six left in serious condition, local media have reported, based on the data from the hospitals.

How did the authorities respond?

President Lula, who was inaugurated just a week ago, declared a state of emergency in the Federal District of Brasilia and called for a “federal intervention” to quell in the unrest. He slammed the demonstrators as “fascist fanatics,” insisting that they and those who masterminded the riots should be punished for what they’ve done.According to Lula, it was “genocidist” Bolsonaro who was to blame, for having encouraged his supporters.(Marxist Bullshit)

The country’s Justice Minister Flavio Dino described the events in the capital as an attempted “coup” and promised more arrests in connection with the unrest.

Brazil’s Supreme Court suspended the governor of Brasilia Ibaneis Rocha for 90 days over failing to prevent the violence, despite the plans of Bolsonaro’s supporters to hold a major gathering having been well-known and widely reported in the media.

Justice Alexandre de Moraes argued that riots of such a scale “could only occur with the approval and even effective participation of the competent authorities.”

Ibaneis had earlier apologized for the events in Brasilia, branding the protesters “real vandals” and “terrorists,” and claiming that the city’s administration simply hadn’t expected the protests to reach such a scale…

https://www.rt.com/news/569598-brazil-riots-lula-bolsonaro/

(SeeEyeAye recreating the coup in Ukraine)

>>18111830

2 of 2

What did Bolsonaro say?

Bolsonaro, who had earlier left Brazil for Miami, Florida instead of going to inauguration of his rival, has turned down Lula’s accusations of having instigated the riots, which, according to him, weren't backed by any evidence.

“Peaceful demonstrations… are part of democracy. However, depredations and invasions of public buildings as occurred today… escape the rule,” he wrote on Twitter.

The ex-president also pointed out that left-wing protesters in Brazil were responsible for similar actions in 2013 and 2017.

Bolsonaro never publicly conceded defeat and claimed without providing evidence that Brazil’s electronic voting system was vulnerable to tampering.

How did the world react?

US President Joe Biden told reporters that the Brazilian riots were “outrageous,” while Democratic members of Congress Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Joaquin Castro went even further and called for Bolsonaro’s extradition from the US.

Other leaders in the region have also condemned the events in Brasilia, with Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro blaming the violence on “Bolsonaro’s neo-fascist groups.” Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador said that there was an “anti-democratic coup attempt” orchestrated by the “leaders of oligarchic power” in the country.

The president of Brazil’s neighbor Argentina, Alberto Fernandez, declared that his nation stood “together with the Brazilian people to defend democracy and never again allow the return of the coup ghosts promoted by the right.”

The Russian Foreign Ministry described as “unacceptable” the attempts to violate constitutional order by the “radical-minded representatives of the Brazilian opposition.” It was vital to maintain internal political stability in Brazil, which is “our strategic partner,” the ministry pointed out.

Comparisons to US Capitol riot

The riots in the Brazilian capital drew parallels with the January 6, 2021 storming of the US Capitol by supporters of then-President Donald Trump. Bolsonaro, who is sometimes referred to as ‘Trump Of South America,’ also doubted the reliability of the electronic voting system and questioned the outcome of the election despite it being recognized by various politicians in the country, including some of his own allies, as well as by dozens of foreign governments. One of the differences between the events in Washington and Brasilia was that in the latter case the unrest took place on the weekend and the government buildings were mostly empty.

Trump has repeatedly denied encouraging violence on the day of the protest. While the demonstrators successfully pushed their way into the Capitol, in some cases allegedly with the help of local police, they accomplished little beyond vandalism to the building. A number of rioters lost their lives amid the chaos, including one woman fatally shot by police and multiple others who suffered medical episodes, while nearly 1,000 individuals later faced a harsh crackdown from local and federal law enforcement agencies.

https://www.rt.com/news/569598-brazil-riots-lula-bolsonaro/

(Russia foreign ministry, you probably should have stayed out of this, the comments are disappointing)

9 Jan, 2023 16:24

UK mulls unprecedented arms supplies to Ukraine – Sky News

London is reportedly considering sending tanks to Kiev

Britain may soon announce a delivery of ten Challenger II tanks to Kiev, Sky News has reported, citing both Ukrainian and UK sources. While symbolic, the first-ever delivery of Western-made battle tanks is meant to encourage the US and Germany to do the same, the outlet added.

PM Rishi Sunak’s government has been discussing the possibility for “a few weeks,” according to the outlet, which suggested some kind of official announcement might be made on January 20, when the US-led ‘Contact Group’ for arming Ukraine is scheduled to meet.

One source said the UK “might offer around ten” tanks, described as “enough to equip a squadron.” While nowhere near enough to turn the tide of the conflict, the move could push other Western countries over the line they have been unwilling to cross up to now. France, the US and Germany have pledged increasingly heavier weaponry to Ukraine, but drew the line at sending main battle tanks, which Kiev is desperate for.

“It will be a good precedent to demonstrate [to] others – to Germany first of all, with their Leopards… and Abrams from the United States,” a Ukrainian source told Sky.

Ukrainian Defense Minister Aleksey Reznikov laid out this very tactic to the US outlet Politico last October. Last week, Reznikov told Ukrainian TV that his country is “carrying out NATO’s mission” by shedding blood, so it is the West’s responsibility to provide the weapons.

Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said in December thatMoscow wasn’t fighting the Ukrainian military so much as the entire West, noting that Kiev had received around $97 billion in military aid in 2022. Russia has repeatedly warned the West that this is only prolonging the conflict and may escalate into direct confrontation. The US and its allies have insisted they are not involved, but continued ramping up weapons shipments to Ukraine.

Last month,Ukraine’s top general told The Economist that his army needed at least 300 tanks and 700 infantry fighting vehicles. As of August 2020 – when it was rumored the entire armored corps might be scrapped as “obsolete” – the British Army had around 220 Challengers and 388 Warrior IFVs.

The BBC reported in mid-December that Sunak was looking for an audit of all the aid the UK had sent to Ukraine, citing anonymous sources inside Whitehall who were working with Kiev.

The British defense ministry would neither confirm nor deny the Sky News report about the tanks, only confirming that they have provided “over 200” armored vehicles to Ukraine so far. However, reports of pending weapons shipments are routinely leaked to the media. US outlets talked about the dispatch of Bradley IFVs a week before President Joe Biden confirmed it in a passing comment. The official announcement came just a day later.

https://www.rt.com/news/569608-uk-challenger-tanks-ukraine/

US President Bill Clinton's official visit to Russia, January 12-15, 1994. From left: US President Bill Clinton, Russian President Boris Yeltsin and President of Ukraine Leonid Kravchuk. © Sputnik / Alexander Makarov

9 Jan, 2023 12:271 of 4

The ghost of Lenin: Why didn't Russia and Ukraine sort out their border issues when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991?

How the USSR's leadership could have resolved the issue of Crimea and southeast Ukraine, and what prevented them

The search of the historical roots of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, which culminated in Moscow’s attack last February, usually focuses on historic events. The Russian leadership has repeatedly emphasized that Ukraine expanded into historically Russian regions due to decisions taken by Soviet leaders, often contrary to the wishes of local residents.Vladimir Lenin handed over the Donbass and Nikita Khrushchev did the same with Crimea.

In light of these discussions, it’s often forgotten how red flags were apparent to many politicians even before the collapse of the USSR.

So why wasn’t the Russia-Ukraine border issue settled 30 years ago?

A policy against borders

The decision to transfer the Crimean region to the Ukraine in 1954 was not subject to debate for several decades. The situation changed only during the years of perestroika, when the so-called “glasnost” (openness) policy made it possible to publicly discuss problems of the Soviet Union, including national identities.

The summer of 1987 was marked by the protests of the Crimean Tatars, demanding the right to return to their homeland from Central Asia, where many were forcibly deported in 1944.

Unrest was growing. In July, 120 activists held a demonstration on Red Square near the Lenin Mausoleum. Activists held up posters: “Return our people to their homeland,” “Restore the rights of the Crimean Tatars,”

“Democracy, glasnost for the Crimean Tatars.” KGB officers in civilian clothes took away their posters and tried to disperse the crowd, but they sat down on the ground and refused to leave, shouting slogans. The acts of defiance continued, brewing agitation.

Under pressure from the protesters, the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU was eventually forced to resolve the issue of the Crimean Tatars and their return to the peninsula – and as it turned out, the bigger issue of the status of the land itself.

In July and August of that year, the Politburo met twice to discuss the issue. At one of the meetings, Mikhail Gorbachev, who had already held the post of Secretary General for two years, told a narrow circle:

From a historical and political point of view, it would probably be right to return Crimea to Russia. But Ukraine will rise against it.”

At a meeting in August, the secretary general outlined the political course for resolving the controversial issue as follows: “Regarding the situation in the Crimea, a new reality has developed there after Stalin's crimes. Some propose to withdraw it [the peninsula] from Ukraine and form a ‘federal district’. The idea deserves attention. But everything can’t be done right away. We need to gradually meet the demands of the people… In a word, realism and concrete actions are the most important things right now.” With his usual caution, he added that it would not be possible to escape the problem, but it should be solved gradually.

While the deportation of the Crimean Tatars was rightly recognized by the Supreme Soviet of the USSR as illegal and criminal in November 1989, no action was taken by the central government regarding the peninsula’s status.

Nevertheless, the resolution stated: “The restoration of the rights of the Crimean Tatar people cannot be carried out without the restoration of the autonomy of the Crimea through the formation of the Crimean ASSR as part of the Ukrainian SSR. This would correspond to the interests of both the Crimean Tatars and representatives of other nationalities living in the Crimea today.”

https://www.rt.com/russia/569302-russia-could-have-prevented-conflict/

>>18111968

2 of 4

One referendum after another

The sovereignization process of the Ukrainian SSR and the return of the Crimean Tatars served as an impetus for holding a referendum on the status of the peninsula – one of the first plebiscites of this kind in the history of the Soviet Union.

It is noteworthy that at a session of the Crimean Regional Council of People's Deputies in November 1990, when the voting decision was made, Leonid Kravchuk, Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian SSR, was present. He tried to convince the deputies to resolve the issue without holding a referendum.

Nevertheless, the vote took place. Over 93 percent of Crimeans (against 5 percent, with a turnout of 81 percent) spoke in favor of making the region autonomous, from Kiev. Less than a month later, on February 12, 1991, the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian SSR adopted the law “On the Restoration of the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic”. Its first article stated that autonomy was being restored “within the territory of the Crimean region as part of the Ukrainian SSR”.

However, after the failed coup by the State Committee on the State of Emergency [GKChP] in August 1991, disintegration processes in the USSR abruptly accelerated.

In the short period from August 20-31, many Soviet republics, including the Ukrainian SSR, adopted acts of independence. When, during the coup, the President of the RSFSR Boris Yeltsin declared himself the “deputy” of USSR President Mikhail Gorbachev and behaved like the de facto state leader, attempting to build a “strong Russia,” the Ukrainian SSR realized that it was time to act.

Events developed rapidly. On August 24, at an emergency meeting of the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian SSR, the Act of Declaration of Independence was adopted.

Nevertheless, a large part of Ukraine’s population, especially the Russian-speaking southeastern regions, had no wish to destroy the country and break ties with the RSFSR.

For example, in the All-Union Referendum in March 1991, residents of the Ukrainian SSR overwhelmingly (70.2%) voted for the preservation of the Soviet Union. For this reason, the republic’s elites, headed by Leonid Kravchuk, decided to hold a referendum on the independence of Ukraine, to enlist the support of the population and deprive the All-Union vote of legitimacy.

The pen stroke

On October 8, 1991, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev received a report from his assistant Georgy Shakhnazarov. “[We must] not only publicly repeat but also officially state Russia's position regarding Crimea, Donbass, and the south of Ukraine. It is necessary to clearly and directly state that these areas are a historical part of Russia, and the country does not intend to abandon them,” the document stated.

Georgy Shakhnazarov warned: “There are less than two months left before the presidential elections and the referendum ‘on the independence of Ukraine’. Nationalist forces are increasing their activity, almost without opposition… The most alarming thing is the utter apathy of those circles of Ukrainian society that, it would seem, should have launched a powerful campaign for Ukraine to continue to be part of the [Soviet] Union.

“The [August] coup left the Communist Party paralyzed, and there is simply no other force capable of taking over the organization of countering Galician [Galicia is a historical region in western Ukraine — RT] nationalists and their accomplices… The part of the Ukrainian population that could resist the separatists thinks that Russia is renouncing it and that the case is obviously lost. Even if the

defeatist views are revised, it may be too late.

Literally every day is a lost opportunity to convince the broad masses that they are being pushed onto a destructive path.”

Shakhnazarov advised the president to take urgent measures – for example, to intensify work in Crimea with the help of the Chairman of the Supreme Council of the Crimean ASSR, Nikolai Bagrov. “The entire population of the republic should know that if Ukraine announces its withdrawal from the [Soviet] Union, Crimea will secede from Ukraine and become a part of Russia on the same day,” the assistant wrote. In addition, he recommended deploying systematic information through the USSR State Television and Radio, showing the inextricable economic and cultural link between Ukraine and Russia and warning against the “colossal sacrifices, suffering, and perhaps bloodshed” that the separation of the Ukrainian SSR from the USSR may bring both for the Russian and Ukrainian people.

https://www.rt.com/russia/569302-russia-could-have-prevented-conflict/

>>181119933 of 4

By that time, the Supreme Council of the Crimean ASSR had already adopted a declaration on state sovereignty of the autonomous region. It ensured the right of the Crimeans to the land, subsoil, airspace, water, and other natural resources of the peninsula.

According to the declaration, only the Crimean parliament could represent the interests of the Crimeans. In addition, local authorities established the right to pursue their own domestic and economic policies. According to the text of the declaration, Sevastopol, which had the status of a city of republican subordination, being under the direct supervision of central government, in the USSR, would maintain the status quo.

Yet despite such a serious claim to independence – the declaration was supposed to serve as a legal basis for drawing up the republic’s Constitution – the document stated that the autonomous region was declared a “legal democratic state within Ukraine”.

As a matter of fact, the peninsula was almost simultaneously claimed by three sides – in June 1991, a declaration of national sovereignty was also adopted by the protesting Crimean Tatars. But it was still part of the unified Soviet Union. Crimea’s fate was to be decided through negotiations.

The full stop

Vladislav Zubok, history professor at the London School of Economics and Political Sciences, believes that even at the end of August 1991, the USSR still had a chance. In his book “Collapse: The Fall of the Soviet Union”, he writes that if Gorbachev and Yeltsin had made joint efforts, they might have managed to divert the Ukrainian SSR from secession. After all, the republic did not have a unifying idea at the time, and for industrial regions such as Donbass, Kiev was not the center of attraction. Those who lived in the southeast associated themselves mainly with Moscow, Russian history and culture. “For millions of people in these regions — people of mixed ethnic origin and a common identity — the idea of Ukrainian “sovereignty” was something vague. Something that could still imply a common statehood with the Russian Federation.”

This thesis is confirmed, among other things, by the way Leonid Kravchuk's team campaigned for the independence of the Ukrainian SSR. For example, one of the propaganda leaflets, which was actively distributed on December 1, 1991, the eve of the referendum on the independence of the country, stated: “Only an independent Ukraine will be able to join any interstate community with its neighbors as an equal partner, and first of all with Russia that is closest to us… We are obliged to make the republic a good mother for all its citizens. The Declaration of the Rights of Nationalities, adopted by the Supreme Council of Ukraine, unanimously opens wide opportunities for the development of languages and cultures of all nations in Ukraine. It does not matter what language Ukrainian citizens speak as long as they speak about an independent Ukraine and its legal rights.”

The plan of the republic’s authorities was successful. The overwhelming majority of Ukrainian SSR residents (90 percent) said “Yes” to an independent path, separate from the RSFSR. The results spoke for themselves: 83.9% voted positively in the Donetsk region; 83.9% in the Luhansk region; 86.3% in the Kharkov region; 85.4% in the Odessa region.

Only Crimea stood out, although even there, 54.2% of voters supported independence.

There were many reasons for such a large-scale and uncontested vote. The population was guaranteed not just the preservation of unhindered ties with Russia, but also measures to protect and develop the Russian language and culture, as evidenced by campaign materials. Many sincerely hoped that nothing would drastically change, and that independence would lead to Ukraine’s prosperity. Economic development indicators comparable to Germany and France were cited. Indeed, before the collapse of the USSR, Ukraine occupied the first place in Europe in steelmaking, coal and iron ore mining, and sugar production. In addition, because of the parade of sovereignties and the August coup, people were completely disoriented. From the point of view of the Soviet layman, the vote that took place on the same day as the presidential election, which Leonid Kravchuk won, was a vote in favor of the authorities.

However the events are viewed, with the referendum Ukraine bid goodbye to the Soviet Union. Russian politicians decided not to raise the issue of Crimea and other southeastern regions of the Ukrainian SSR. On November 19, 1991, Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR Boris Yeltsin and his Ukrainian counterpart Leonid Kravchuk signed a document formalized as an agreement between two independent countries, although legally they remained republics within the USSR.

https://www.rt.com/russia/569302-russia-could-have-prevented-conflict/

>>18112029

4 of 4

At the same time, the sixth article stated:"The High Contracting Parties recognize and respect the territorial integrity of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic and the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic within the borders currently existing in the USSR."

An unsolved problem

As a result, the party hierarchy, including Kravchuk, suddenly saw themselves as nationalists, and quickly pursued their own interests. Although after the announcement of the referendum results, Yeltsin privately met with Gorbachev to discuss the prospects of preserving the USSR. On the same day, during his inauguration, Kravchuk said that Ukraine would not join any political unions but would build relations with the former USSR republics only on a bilateral basis. He promised the country an independent foreign policy, its own army, and its own currency.

Sergei Filatov, former chairman of the presidential administration of Russia, commenting on the visits of delegations from Donetsk, Lugansk, Simferopol and Sevastopol to the RSFSR Supreme Soviet in the fall of 1991 with the request not to leave them as part of Ukraine, said: “this was originally our land, they just gave it away”. The delegations asked “not to leave them under Kiev’s authority” on the eve of the signing of the Belovezhskaya Agreements. However, according to Filatov, the Russian leadership decided not to interfere in the fate of the regions. “We didn't have the time. We were thinking how Russia could survive in general,” he said.

The final famous démarche was uttered by the press secretary of the President of the RSFSR, Pavel Voshchanov, at the end of August 1991: “I am authorized by the President of the RSFSR to make the following statement. The Russian Federation does not question the constitutional right of every state and people to self-determination. However, there is a problem of borders, the unsettled nature of which is permissible only in case of allied relations fixed by a relevant treaty. In the event of their termination, the RSFSR reserves the right to raise the issue of revising the borders.”

Voshchanov insisted that Yeltsin really “authorized” him to speak these words and he was not acting of his own accord. However, the Yeltsin team officially upheld the version that the president's press secretary spoke in an unsanctioned manner. The cumulative effect of all the government’s actions and statements was unequivocally negative. As Georgy Shakhnazarov noted in his memorandum: “The situation is complicated by the fact that, having made reasonable statements on the territorial issue, the Russians, frightened by the sharp reaction of the nationalists, and to a considerable extent of some of the Democrats, immediately pulled the plug.”

Speaking on August 26, 1991, at one of the last sessions of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR with a call not to destroy the unified union state, then mayor of Leningrad (after 1991, St. Petersburg) Anatoly Sobchak, said: "Today the danger of hasty, emotional, ill-considered decisions is ten times higher than yesterday. Today we are deciding the future of the country and, to a certain extent, the future of humanity. Therefore, it is crucial not to allow any hasty, superficial decisions from the point of view of a national, independent position.” Unfortunately, no one heeded his words.

By Alexander Nepogodin, an Odessa-born political journalist, expert on Russia and the former Soviet Union.

9 Jan, 2023 14:57

Ex-Soviet state refuses to return weapons to Ukraine – Kiev

Georgia is holding on to Buk anti-aircraft missile systems, provided previously by Kiev, a senior diplomat has claimed

Georgia is refusing to hand back Kiev-supplied weaponry amid the conflict with Russia, the Ukrainian chargé d’affaires to the country has claimed. Andrey Kasyanov raised the issue in a piece written for the Yevropeyskaya Pravda (European Truth) newspaper, published on Monday.

“The Ukrainian side is consistent in its requests to all its international partners, including Georgia, for the provision of weapons, military equipment and ammunition,” Kasyanov wrote. “Namely, Kiev has asked to hand back the Buk [anti-aircraft] systems, which were transferred by Ukraine to Georgia during the 2008 war.”

According to Kasyanov, apart from the Buk systems,Ukraine also asked Georgia to provide US-made Javelin anti-tank launchers. The potential transfer was not only “approved by the US,” but Tbilisi has also received an offer from Washington to replace its Javelin stock “with newer systems,” the diplomat claimed.

“Despite the fact that the Georgian government categorically refused to provide military aid, Ukraine opposes the use of this issue in internal political disputes and rejects any accusations of attempts to draw Georgia into a war with Russia,” Kasyanov added, dismissing repeated calls on Tbilisi to open a “second front” against Moscow, voiced by top Ukrainian officials.

One such call was made early in the Russia-Ukraine conflict by the

Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine, Alexey Danilov, who accused Georgia of “behaving not very appropriately,” and said a potential new conflict over South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which broke away from Tbilisi in the 1990s and were recognized as independent by Russia in the aftermath of the 2008 war, “would definitely help us.”

Georgia has taken a neutral stance in the hostilities between Russia and Ukraine, refraining from joining Western sanctions as well as dismissing Kiev’s calls to open a new front against Moscow in the South Caucasus.

Georgian Prime Minister Irakly Garibashvili, as well as other top officials, have said such a move would only harm the country and run counter to Georgia’s national interests.

https://www.rt.com/russia/569600-georgia-ukraine-buk-systems/

>>18112197

Yes, a victory for the brave patriots, anyone that defeats Crenshaw is a hero!