WARNING – AMERICA IS ABOUT TO BE DESTROYED – WARNING
Has the Ukraine Civil War Resumed as Hogue Predicted it would and a TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) Update and the Putin Doctrine
Has the Ukraine Civil War resumed?
The new cold war intensifying between US and NATO allied nations with Russia in the spring could induce the world to take another civil-warring step closer to nuclear confrontation over Ukraine…(17 December 2014)In Predictions 2015-2016 I said the Ukrainian Civil War would resume in the spring and explained the reasons why. Now that Ukrainian forces have moved their heavy artillery and armor up to the ceasefire line and started indiscriminate terror shelling of civilian neighborhoods around the separatist capital of Donetsk, prompting retaliatory responses, it’s time to review what I documented last year:
[The Western-backed Kiev regime] lost the eastern provinces as a karmic price for letting the fascists in the revolutionary factions dictate in violence and with the massacres of ethnic Russians, the intentions of Kiev in the opening year of the new regime. The damage is done. However, if this solution is kept nebulously unresolved, watch for signs of US military hardware and advisers modernizing the Ukrainian Armed forces to resume the civil war in the spring or summer of 2015.
The reason why they will is little understood by those who have set this awful beast of civil conflict in motion. The US chooses not to be aware of the fascist elements controlling the Kiev-Poroshenko regime like lurking thugs in the shadows. The Ukrainian president got into power through the campaign financing of Right Sector. Right Sector wants to purge Ukraine of Russian citizens and they will withdraw support of any leader—more than that, they could kill or send this new president fleeing as quickly as they chased out the last. If Poroshenko actually sued for peace with the separatists and Russians at Minsk in 2014, there would be another violent putsch from the neo-Nazis. Poroshenko needs a civil war to stay in power. To do that, he must use the blood of thousands of Ukrainians to “bait the shark” if you will and lure the United States and Europe deeper into this developing catastrophe. He hopes a superpower standoff in Ukraine will go in his favor.(11 December 2014)
While finishing the book in April, Dmitry Yarosh, the head of the most brutal elements of the neo-Nazi Ukrainian party, Right Sector, became a special aide to the Chief of the General Staff and Commander in Chief of the Ukrainian military, Lieutenant General Viktor Muzhenko. That’s when I sensed the resumption of hostilities was only a matter of time, now that Right Sector militias would be integrated into the Armed Forces of Ukraine manning their own tanks and artillery.
Officially NATO does not arm and train the Ukrainians any more than the Russian Federation “officially” sends its troops and hardware to aid the separatists after the Kiev regime invited 600 mercenaries of Academi (formerly known by a more notorious name for their abuses in Iraq: Blackwater). The important point to factually understand here is that Russia has never initiated these incursions or escalations, but responded reluctantly to them. Moreover, I dare say they are gathering on the border to meet any Ukrainian escalation with “volunteers” on leave from the Russian Army. The reason they’ll be crossing the border by the hundreds soon is in response to Poroshenko’s provocative motion in the Ukrainian parliament that passed as the shelling of Donetsk suburbs started. The Parliament agreed to allow a foreign military presence on Ukrainian territory (read NATO forces). This is another step towards what my Oracle warned were NATO and the Russian Army eventually and in the clear staring eye to eye in a new East-West Germany scenario from the old cold war becoming East-West Ukraine in the new.
A few articles back I played with repetitive use of “almost” to describe what “almost looked like the Obama and Secretary of State Kerry turning a corner in worsening US-Russian relations for the better. I forecast it as just a maneuver that would soon be overshadowed by renewed, large-scale saber rattling, and NATO military maneuvers in the Baltic States, Poland and Romania. The cold war is deepening.
The fighting seems to have resumed this spring in Ukraine, though I hope to report next week that the current shelling of Donetsk will settle down. Still, I don’t see the Kiev regime capable of taking the next step in the Minsk II agreement: a political reform of the government that will insure security and amnesty for the Donbass separatist republics on Donetsk and Lugansk staying in the Ukraine as autonomous members of a new, federalist Ukrainian government.
So with summer upon us, the best season for fighting, NATO and neo-fascist Right Sector’s prompting of the Kiev regime returns to fester this most dangerous canker sore of war on Russia’s border. It’s encouraged by neocons and neo-liberal hawks in Washington and Brussels. The timeline to the first nuclear crisis in this new cold war has not been disturbed by errant of peace in Sochi last month. We are on track for a nuclear crisis sometime as soon as September 2015, more likely in the spring and summer of 2016, or by November 2017 in the first year of the new US president’s first term.
DATELINE: 07 June 2015
I hope Steven is not alone in calling my prediction about the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) my “Most Important Prediction” of late. It many ways its number three in the presciently rogue list of dangerous developments of which most of the rank and file humanity is made completely unaware by the corporate media filters. You’re being “Philip-Morris” flipped off when it comes to Planetary Climate Change. The same Madison Avenue firms that kept you toking on cancer sticks for twenty more years than need be are hired by multinational fossil fuel fuming corporations to fill your brain with the mental pollution of climate change denial at your own species’ peril. And then there’s the matter commented on in the last article, the Ukrainian Civil War flaring up again. It’s just another step towards a thermonuclear crisis in the near future if you all don’t hose down your war mongering western legislators, presidents and war-primed ministers of America and the EU.
Although there are faults and incidents have happened on both sides, I say for the prophetic record, if there’s anyone left to read it after you fulfill Stormberger’s terrible vision of a world walking with open eyes into the catastrophes of climate change and thermonuclear war prepared by the West the TPP is another open-eyed trap. It’s a trade swindle of corporations furthering the return of Fascism that I’ve predicted for over 20 years was coming by the 2020s wearing the mask of corporations.
I hope Steven isn’t the only one sounding similar alarms:
John: Right now on DrudgeReport is a link to the Breitbart article about Jeff Sessions – the article’s title starts with “Sessions To Obama”. It’s all about the SECRET TPP deals – exactly what you have been predicting. VERY SCARY! It’s impossible for this to happen – but it is!!! Please go on Coast To Coast AGAIN & all kinds of other shows to spread the word – everyone needs to know about this. Pretty soon everyone will lose total faith in govt.
I’m glad to see that you were listening last time I sounded the alarm about this. I hope many more in the audience of 10 to 20 million listening in feel as you do and write their representatives in Washington. I would suggest you all get in touch with all of your Facebook friends and have them do the same with all of their friends and have them simply write their House of Representatives members to stop what the Senate set in motion. (All my readers from the EU do the same from your side of the Atlantic.) This bipartisan issue could galvanize Democrats and Republicans to say no to this international version of Citizens United. In short, it’s a corporate takeover of all governments and the laws protecting citizens from an attempt at multinational world dictatorship. That’s not to imply the Internet yahoo conspiracy buffs have a clue how disunited corporate aristocracies are, yet they all share one thing in agreement: keep the people down, keep them stupid, divided, uninformed and afraid.
Vladimir Putin gives his Side
On Ukraine, Crimea, A New Cold War
And the NATO-Russian Sanctions and Standoff
At HogueProphecy we try to give you access to information the Western mainstream news does not, especially when it has become a mouthpiece for warmongering up a very dangerous prophetically warned development: a New Cold War that could go nuclear hot.
Western collective ignorance, your ignorance of the full story, will be the first condition needed to pull that nuclear trigger. So, as I am dedicated to peace and the negation of this terrible Nostradamus vision of an unexpected nuclear war as early as 2017 or as late as 2028, I have cut and pasted this large excerpt from the following interview with the Russian Federation President for an Italian Magazine.
Putin offers an impressive overview of the situation and a rational message. It is in stark contrast to the childish, Hitler name-calling of America’s potential next president, Hillary Clinton, and the other Putin bashing and demonizing peddled. Putin shows signs of being, unfortunately, the only adult amongst unprofessional and self-deluded leaders mostly residing in the West.
It’s a common theme in Nostradamus that the West plans and prosecutes a horrible war. He dates it happening around the 2015-2016 according to the astrological aspects quoted in verses 4 Q67 and 9 Q55. This weekend couldn’t be a more important time for my readers to get to know the man, and the country Russia, in the crosshairs of this planned war. If your ignorance, the flash in the firing pan, evaporates, the nuclear trigger is harder to fire.
So, I invite you to read this segment of an interview given by Russian President Vladimir Putin to Luciano Fontana, the head of the Italian newspaper Il Corriere della Sera published on 6 June 2015 under the title Putin: I think that only an insane person can imagine that Russia would suddenly attack NATO. (TASS Russian News Agency)
LF: Thank you, Mr Putin. When we were talking about the shadow cast on our relations, you said that it was not your choice, and there is an opinion that Russia feels betrayed, abandoned by Europe, like a lover abandoned by his mistress. What are the problems in our relations today? Do you think that Europe has been too dependent on the United States in the Ukrainian crisis? What do you expect from Europe in relation to the sanctions? I may have asked too many questions at once.
PUTIN: You have certainly asked a lot of questions, with an Italian flair. (Laughs)
First, about the mistress. In this kind of a relationship with a woman, that is, if you assume no obligations, you have no right to claim any obligations from your partner.
We have never viewed Europe as a mistress. I am quite serious now. We have always proposed a serious relationship. But now I have the impression that Europe has actually been trying to establish material‑based relations with us, and solely for its own gain. There is the notorious Third Energy Package and the denial of access for our nuclear energy products to the European market despite all the existing agreements. There is reluctance to acknowledge the legitimacy of our actions and reluctance to cooperate with integration associations in the territory of the former Soviet Union. I am referring to the Customs Union, which we created and which has now grown into the Eurasian Economic Union.
Because it is all right when integration takes place in Europe, but if we do the same in the territory of the former Soviet Union, they try to explain it by Russia’s desire to restore an empire. I don’t understand the reasons for such an approach.
You see, all of us, including me, have been talking for a long time about the need to establish a common economic space stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok. In fact, French President Charles de Gaulle said something similar a lot earlier than me. Today nobody objects to it, everybody says: yes, we should aspire to this.
But what is happening in practice? For example, the Baltic States have joined the European Union. Good, no problem. But today we are being told that these countries, which are part of the energy system of the former Soviet Union and Russia, they must join the European Union’s energy system. We ask: Are there any problems with energy supply or with something else? Why is it necessary? – No, there are no problems, but we have decided that it will be better this way.
What does this mean for us in practical terms? It means that we will be forced to build additional generating capacities in some western regions in Russia. Since electricity transmission lines went through the Baltic States to some Russian regions and vice versa, all of them will now be switched over to Europe, and we will have to build new transmission lines in our country to ensure electricity supply. This will cost us about 2-2.5 billion euro.
Now let’s look at the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement. It does not require that Ukraine becomes part of the European energy system, but it is considered possible. If this happens, we will have to spend not 2-2.5 billion but, probably, about 8-10 billion euro for the same purpose. The question is: why is this necessary if we believe in building a common economic space from Lisbon to Vladivostok? What is the objective of the European Union’s Eastern Partnership? Is it to integrate the whole former Soviet Union into a single space with Europe, I repeat for the third time, from Lisbon to Vladivostok, or to cut something off and establish a new border between modern Russia and the western territories including, say, Ukraine and Moldova?
Let me tell you something else now, and you can decide for yourselves what to publish and what to leave out.
What are the roots of the Ukrainian crisis? Its cause seems to be completely disproportionate to what has become an utter tragedy today claiming many lives in southeast Ukraine. What sparked the crisis? Former President Viktor Yanukovych said that he needed to think about signing Ukraine’s Association Agreement with the EU, possibly make some changes and hold consultations with Russia, its major trade and economic partner. In this connection or under this pretext riots broke out in Kiev. They were actively supported both by our European and American partners. Then a coup d’état followed – a totally anti-constitutional act. The new authorities announced that they were going to sign the Association Agreement but would delay its implementation until January 1, 2016. The question is: what was the coup d’état for? Why did they need to escalate the situation to a civil war? The result is exactly the same.
What is more, at the end of 2013 we were ready to give Ukraine $15 billion as a state loan supported by a further $5 billion via commercial banks; plus we already gave it $3 billion during the year and promised to cut gas prices by half if they paid regularly. We were not at all against Ukraine signing an Association Agreement with the European Union. But, of course, we wanted to participate in the final decisions, meaning that Ukraine was then and is still now, today, a member of the CIS free trade area, and we have mutual obligations as its members.
How is it possible to completely ignore this, to treat it with utter disrespect? I simply cannot understand that. The result that we have – a coup d’état, a civil war, hundreds of lives lost, devastated economy and social sphere, a four-year $17.5 billion loan promised to Ukraine by the IMF and complete disintegration of economic ties with Russia. But Russian and Ukrainian economies are very deeply interconnected.
The European Union unilaterally removed its customs duties for Ukraine. However, the volume of Ukraine’s sales to the European market did not grow. Why not? Because there is nothing to sell. There is no demand in the European market for Ukrainian products, either in terms of quality or price, in addition to the products that were already sold before.
We have a market for Ukraine, but many ties have been severed unilaterally by the Ukrainian side. For example, all engines for our combat helicopters came from Ukraine. Now deliveries have stopped. We have already built one plant in St Petersburg and another plant will be completed this year, but the production of these engines in Ukraine will be shut down because Italy, France or Germany don’t need and will never need such engines. It is impossible for Ukraine to divert its production in any way; it will need billions in investment to do this.
I don’t understand why this was done. I have asked many of my colleagues, including in Europe and America, about it.
LF: And what do they answer?
PUTIN: The situation got out of control.
You know, I would like to tell you and your readers one thing. Last year, on February 21, President Yanukovych and the Ukrainian opposition signed an agreement on how to proceed, how to organize political life in the country, and on the need to hold early elections. They should have worked to implement this agreement, especially since three European foreign ministers signed this agreement as guarantors of its implementation.
If those colleagues were used for the sake of appearances and they were not in control of the situation on the ground, which was in fact in the hands of the US ambassador or a CIA resident, they should have said: “You know, we did not agree to a coups d’etat, so we will not support you; you should go and hold elections instead.”
The same could be said about our American partners. Let’s assume that they also lost control of the situation. But if America and Europe had said to those who had taken these unconstitutional actions: “If you come to power in such a way, we will not support you under any circumstances; you must hold elections and win them” – (by the way, they had a 100-percent chance of a victory, everybody knows that), the situation would have developed in a completely different way.
So, I believe that this crisis was created deliberately and it is the result of our partner’s unprofessional actions. And the coverage of this process has been absolutely unacceptable. I would like to emphasise once more: this was not our choice, we did not seek it, we are simply forced to respond to what is happening.
In conclusion – forgive me for this protracted monologue – I would like to say that it is not that we feel deceived or treated unfairly. This is not the point. The point is that relationships should be built on a long-term basis not in the atmosphere of confrontation, but in the spirit of cooperation.
LF: You say the situation got out of control. But is it not the right moment for Russia to seize the initiative, to find a way to engage its American and European partners in the search of solution to the situation, to show that it is ready to address this problem?
PUTIN: That is exactly what we are doing. I think that today the document we agreed upon in Minsk, called Minsk-II, is the best agreement and perhaps the only unequivocal solution to this problem. We would never have agreed upon it if we had not considered it to be right, just and feasible.
On our part, we take every effort, and will continue to do so, in order to influence the authorities of the unrecognised self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk republics. But not everything depends on us. Our European and US partners should exert influence on the current Kiev administration. We do not have the power, as Europe and the United States do, to convince Kiev to carry out everything that was agreed on in Minsk.
I can tell you what needs to be done; maybe I will anticipate your next question. The key aspect of the political settlement was to create conditions for this joint work, but it was essential to stop the hostilities, to pull back heavy weaponry. On the whole, this has been done. Unfortunately, there is still shooting occasionally and there are casualties, but there are no large‑scale hostilities, the sides have been separated. It is time to begin implementing the Minsk Agreements.
Specifically, there needs to be a constitutional reform to ensure the autonomous rights of the unrecognized republics. The Kiev authorities do not want to call it autonomy, they prefer different terms, such as decentralization. Our European partners, those very partners who wrote the corresponding clause in the Minsk Agreements, explained what should be understood as decentralization. It gives them the right to speak their language, to have their own cultural identity and engage in cross‑border trade – nothing special, nothing beyond the civilised understanding of ethnic minorities’ rights in any European country.
A law should be adopted on municipal elections in these territories and a law on amnesty. All this should be done, as the Minsk Agreements read, in coordination with Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic, with these territories.
The problem is that the current Kiev authorities don’t even want to sit down to talks with them. And there is nothing we can do about it. Only our European and American partners can influence this situation. There is no need to threaten us with sanctions. We have nothing to do with this, this is not our position. We seek to ensure the implementation of the Minsk Agreements.
It is essential to launch economic and social rehabilitation of these territories. What has happened there, exactly? The current Kiev authorities have simply cut them off from the rest of the country. They discontinued all social payments – pensions, benefits; they cut off the banking system, made regular energy supply impossible, and so on. So you see, there is a humanitarian disaster in those regions. And everybody is pretending that nothing is wrong.
Our European colleagues have taken on certain obligations, in particular they promised to help restore the banking system in these territories. Finally, since we are talking about what can or must be done, and by whom, I believe that the European Union could surely provide greater financial assistance to Ukraine. These are the main points.
I would like to stress that Russia is interested in and will strive to ensure the full and unconditional implementation of the Minsk Agreements, and I don’t believe there is any other way to settle this conflict today.
Incidentally, the leaders of the self-proclaimed republics have publicly stated that under certain conditions – meaning the implementation of the Minsk Agreements – they are ready to consider themselves part of the Ukrainian state. This is a fundamental issue. I think this position should be viewed as a sound precondition for the start of substantial negotiations.
LF: So you are saying that it is out of the question for the Crimean scenario to be repeated in eastern Ukraine?
PUTIN: You know, the Crimean scenario does not reflect Russia’s position; it reflects the position of the people who live in Crimea.
All our actions, including those with the use of force, were aimed not at tearing away this territory from Ukraine but at giving the people living there an opportunity to express their opinion on how they want to live their lives.
I would like to stress this once again, as I have said many times before: if Kosovo Albanians were allowed this, why is it prohibited to Russians, Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars living in Crimea? And by the way, the decision on Kosovo’s independence was made exclusively by the Kosovo Parliament, whereas Crimea held a region-wide referendum. I think that a conscientious observer could not but see that people voted almost unanimously for reunification with Russia.
I would like to ask those who do not want to recognise it: if our opponents call themselves democrats, I would like to ask what exactly democracy means. As far as I know, democracy is the rule of the people, or the rule based on the will of the people. So, the solution of the Crimean issue is based on the will of the people of the Crimea.
In Donetsk and Luhansk people voted for independence, and the situation there is different. But the main thing, something we must always bear in mind, is that we should always respect the feelings and the choice of the people. And if somebody wants these territories to remain part of Ukraine, they should prove to those people that their lives would be better, more comfortable and safer within a unified state; that they would be able to provide for themselves and ensure their children’s future within this state. But it is impossible to convince these people by means of weapons. These issues, issues of this kind can only be resolved by peaceful means.
LF: Speaking of peace, the countries that used to be parties to the Warsaw Treaty and today are NATO countries, such as the Baltic states and Poland, feel threatened by Russia. NATO has decided to create special forces to address these concerns. My question is whether the West is right in its determination to restrain “the Russian bear”, and why does Russia continue to speak in such a contentious tone?
What does the actual potential show? US military spending is higher than that of all countries in the world taken together. The aggregate military spending of NATO countries is 10 times, note – 10 times higher than that of the Russian Federation. Russia has virtually no bases abroad. We have the remnants of our armed forces (since Soviet times) in Tajikistan, on the border with Afghanistan, which is an area where the terrorist threat is particularly high. The same role is played by our airbase in Kyrgyzstan; it is also aimed at addressing the terrorist threat and was set up at the request of the Kyrgyz authorities after a terrorist attack perpetrated by terrorists from Afghanistan on Kyrgyzstan.
We have kept since Soviet times a military unit at a base in Armenia. It plays a certain stabilising role in the region, but it is not targeted against anyone. We have dismantled our bases in various regions of the world, including Cuba, Vietnam, and so on. This means that our policy in this respect is not global, offensive or aggressive.
I invite you to publish the world map in your newspaper and to mark all the US military bases on it. You will see the difference.
Sometimes I am asked about our airplanes flying somewhere far, over the Atlantic Ocean. Patrolling by strategic airplanes in remote regions was carried out only by the Soviet Union and the United States during the Cold War. In the early 1990s, we, the new, modern Russia, stopped these flights, but our American friends continued to fly along our borders. Why? Some years ago, we resumed these flights. And you want to say that we have been aggressive?
American submarines are on permanent alert off the Norwegian coast; they are equipped with missiles that can reach Moscow in 17 minutes. But we dismantled all of our bases in Cuba a long time ago, even the non-strategic ones. And you would call us aggressive?
You yourself have mentioned NATO’s expansion to the east. As for us, we are not expanding anywhere; it is NATO infrastructure, including military infrastructure, that is moving towards our borders. Is this a manifestation of our aggression?
Finally, the United States unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which was to a large extent the cornerstone of the entire international security system. Anti-missile systems, bases and radars are located in the European territory or in the sea, e.g. in the Mediterranean Sea, and in Alaska. We have said many times that this undermines international security. Do you think this is a display of our aggression as well?
Everything we do is just a response to the threats emerging against us. Besides, what we do is limited in scope and scale, which are, however, sufficient to ensure Russia’s security. Or did someone expect Russia to disarm unilaterally?
I have proposed to our American partners not to withdraw from the treaty unilaterally, but to create an ABM system together, the three of us: Russia, the United States and Europe. But this proposal was declined. We said at the time: “Well, this is an expensive system, its efficiency is not proven, but to ensure the strategic balance we will develop our strategic offensive potential, we will develop systems of overpowering anti-ballistic defence. And I have to say that we have made significant strides in this area.
As for some countries’ concerns about Russia’s possible aggressive actions, I think that only an insane person and only in a dream can imagine that Russia would suddenly attack NATO. I think some countries are simply taking advantage of people’s fears with regard to Russia. They just want to play the role of front-line countries that should receive some supplementary military, economic, financial or some other aid. Therefore, it is pointless to support this idea; it is absolutely groundless. But some may be interested in fostering such fears. I can only make a conjecture.
For example, the Americans do not want Russia’s rapprochement with Europe. I am not asserting this, it is just a hypothesis. Let’s suppose that the United States would like to maintain its leadership in the Atlantic community. It needs an external threat, an external enemy to ensure this leadership. Iran is clearly not enough – this threat is not very scary or big enough. Who can be frightening? And then suddenly this crisis unfolds in Ukraine. Russia is forced to respond. Perhaps, it was engineered on purpose, I don’t know. But it was not our doing.
Let me tell you something – there is no need to fear Russia. The world has changed so drastically that people with some common sense cannot even imagine such a large-scale military conflict today. We have other things to think about, I assure you.
LF: But you cooperate with the United States on Iran, and John Kerry’s visit sent yet another message in this regard. Or am I wrong?
PUTIN: You are right– it did. We are cooperating not only on the Iranian nuclear programme, but on other serious issues as well. Despite America’s withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, our arms control dialogue continues.
We are not just partners; I would say we are allies in addressing the issues related to non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We are undoubtedly allies in the fight against terrorism. There are some other areas of collaboration as well. The central theme of Expo Milano, which you mentioned earlier, is yet another example of our joint work. Indeed, there are plenty of issues that we continue to tackle jointly.
LF: Mr Putin, on May 9, Russia marked the 70th anniversary of the Great Victory, which liberated both your country and the entire Europe from Nazism. No other country paid as bloody a price for this victory as Russia. However, there were no Western leaders standing next to you on Red Square. Il Corriere della Serapublished Silvio Berlusconi’s letter criticising those leaders for their absence. I have two related questions.
Do you think that by their absence they showed disrespect for the Russian people? What does the memory of the Great Patriotic War mean to the Russian identity today?
PUTIN: It is not a matter of identity. Identity is built on culture, language and history. This war is a tragic page in our history. When we mark such days, festive but also sad given the number of lives lost in that war, we think about the generation that made our freedom and independence possible, about those who triumphed over Nazism. We also think about the fact that no one has the right to forget this tragedy, first of all, because we must think about how to avoid the repetition of anything like that in the future. These are not just words; it is not an unfounded fear.
Today, we hear some people say that there was no such thing as the holocaust, for instance. We are witnessing attempts to glorify the Nazis and their collaborators. This is part of our life today. Today’s terrorism in all its various manifestations is very much like Nazism; in fact, there is hardly any difference between the two.
As for the colleagues you have mentioned, it is their personal choice, of course, whether to come to Moscow to join in the celebrations or not. I think that they failed to see past the current complexity in international relations to something far more important that is linked not only to the past, but also to the need to fight for our common future.
They made their choice, but this day is, first and foremost, our holiday. You see, there were veterans from quite a number of countries in Moscow: from the United States, Great Britain, Poland and other European countries. In fact, it is these people who are the true heroes of this day, and this was very important to us. During those celebrations, we did not honour only those who fought Nazism in the Soviet Union; we also remembered the Resistance fighters in Germany itself, in France and in Italy. We remember all of them and pay tribute to all the people who did not spare themselves in the fight against Nazism.
Certainly, we understand only too well that it was the Soviet Union that made the decisive contribution into the Victory and suffered the most severe losses in the fight against Nazism. It is more than just a military victory to us, it is a moral victory. You see, virtually every family lost someone in the war. How can we forget this? It is impossible.(source)
Russia’s Secret Weapon To Defeat America
RUSSIA DESTROYS AMERICA IN 1 HOUR
End Times: How close are we? Bible Prophecy
Survival MD (Best Post Collapse First Aid Survival Guide Ever)
Backyard Innovator (A Self Sustaining Source Of Fresh Meat,Vegetables And Clean Drinking Water)
Blackout USA (EMP survival and preparedness)
Conquering the coming collapse (Financial advice and preparedness )
Liberty Generator (Build and make your own energy source)
Backyard Liberty (Easy and cheap DIY Aquaponic system to grow your organic and living food bank)
Bullet Proof Home (A Prepper’s Guide in Safeguarding a Home )
Family Self Defense (Best Self Defense Strategies For You And Your Family)
Sold Out After Crisis (Best 37 Items To Hoard For A Long Term Crisis)
Survive The End Days (Biggest Cover Up Of Our President)