Historians do not fully agree on the starting and end of the «cold war», but the period is generally considered to span from the announcement of the Truman Doctrine on 12 March 1947 to the dissolution of the Soviet Union on 26 December 1991.
At the end of the cold war, corporations rushed into Russia and opened their businesses, and one of them was McDonald`s. They opened their first restaurant in Pushkin Square in Moscow on January 31, 1990. The same day they opened, thousands were lined up to try the new tasty burgers. And that ladies and gentlemen were synonymous with Capitalism, and its arrival symbolized Soviet Union`s impending demise. On May 16, 2022, McDonald`s announced that it was leaving Russia.
Now, McDonald`s is selling all of its 850 restaurants in Russia after Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine. After 80 years of socialism, people in Russia rushed to McDonald`s and the American culture. The new Western way of eating. But now people in Russia rush to the new Russian burgers at the new Russian fast-food chain called Vkusno & Tochka, which means «tasty and that`s it».
Founded by businessman Alexander Govor, who acquired all the restaurants for an undisclosed sum. But he said he paid «far lower than market price.» Govor has been a McDonald`s franchisee since 2015 when he agreed to open 20 restaurants through his business GiD LLC.
Govor also made a lot of money in mining and oil refining in Siberia. He made his wealth in the coal business as co-owner of the coal mining company Yuzhkuzbassugol, in his hometown of Novokuznetsk. He bought the mine together with Evraz during liberalization in the 1990s under President Boris Yeltsin.
Evraz bought out Govor from the company, and one of the owners is Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich (Chelsea FC).
When McDonald`s opened their first restaurant in Russia, it had this slogan: «If you can`t go to America, come to McDonald`s in Moscow.» That slogan is over and out, and in comes Vkusno & Tochka`s new slogan; «The name changes – love stays».
Most of the things in the restaurants are similar to McDonald`s. The same quality, and taste. The same equipment and the same double cheeseburgers. The difference is that most of the money goes to Russia. Not America anymore.
Many people in Russia wanted to take part in the opening of the new fast-food chain, and the rebranding marked a new era in Russia on Sunday last week. The last big mac has finally left Russia.
Govor will pay about 60,000 Russian McDonald`s employees for the next two years, according to the agreement with McDonald`s. In the same agreement, he also agreed to pay suppliers and landlords.
Govor`s company will invest 7 billion rubles ($125 million) into the new business in 2022.
By the way: McDonald`s has the right to buy back its restaurants within 15 years, but «they made it clear to me that they would not buy back», Govor said. Really?
The S&P 500 plummeted -by 3,88% on Monday, but shares of Mcdonald’s outperformed the market, jumped +0,39% and closed «only» $32 below its 52-week high at $271,15.
What president or prime minister won`t protect its own country and its own citizens? Most of the countries around the world have their own foreign policy, which is their activities in relation to their interactions with other states, unions, and other political entities.
Diplomacy has been practiced for a very long time. The idea of long-term management of relationships followed the development of professional diplomatic corps that managed diplomacy. Since 1711, the term diplomacy has been taken to mean the art and practice of conducting negotiations between representatives of groups or nations.
In the 18th century, due to extreme turbulence in European diplomacy and ongoing conflicts, the practice of diplomacy was often fragmented by the necessity to deal with isolated issues, termed «affairs».
Organizations such as the Council of Foreign Relations in the United States are sometimes employed by government foreign relations organizations to develop foreign policy proposals as alternatives to an existing policy, or to provide analytical assessments of evolving relationships.
There are several objectives that may motivate a government`s foreign policy. Among other reasons, foreign policy may be directed for defense and security, for economic benefit, or to provide assistance to states that need it.
All foreign policy objectives are interconnected and contribute to a single, comprehensive foreign policy for each state. Unlike domestic policy, foreign policy issues tend to arise suddenly in response to developments and major events in foreign countries.
Foreign policy is often directed for the purpose of ensuring national security.
Governments have historically formed military alliances with foreign states in order to deter and show stronger resistance to attack. Foreign policy also focuses on combating adversarial states through soft power, international isolation, or war.
In the 21st century, defensive foreign policy has expanded to address the threat of global terrorism. Foreign measures such as foreign aid and financial sanctions are believed to decrease terrorist activity, while military intervention and military aid risk increase terrorist activity.
Foreign policy is central to a country`s role within the world economy and international trade. Economic foreign policy issues may include the establishment of trade agreements, the distribution of foreign aid, and the management of imports and exports. The World Trade Organization facilitates the economic foreign policies of most countries.
Superpowers are able to project power and exercise their influence across the world, while great powers and middle powers have moderate influence in global affairs.
Small powers have less ability to exercise influence unilaterally, as they have fewer economic and military resources to leverage. As a result, they are more likely to support international and multilateral organizations.
The diplomatic bureaucracies of smaller states are also smaller, which limits their capacity to engage in complex diplomacy. Smaller states may seek to ally themselves with larger countries for economic and defensive benefits, or they may avoid involvement in international disputes so as to remain on friendly terms with all countries.
The political institutions and forms of government play a role in a country`s foreign policy. In a democracy, public opinion and the methods of political representation both affect a country`s foreign policy.
Democratic countries are also believed to be less likely to resort to military conflict with one another.
Autocratic states are less likely to use legalism in their foreign policies. Under a dictatorship, a state`s foreign policy may depend heavily on the preferences of the dictator. Dictators that interfere significantly with their foreign policy apparatus may be less predictable and more likely to make foreign policy blunders.
The Monroe Doctrine was a United States foreign policy position that opposed European colonialism in the Western Hemisphere. It held that any intervention in the political affairs of the Americas by foreign powers was a potentially hostile act against the U.S.
The doctrine was central to U.S foreign policy for much of the 19th and early 20th centuries.
President James Monroe first articulated the doctrine on December 2, 1823, during his seventh annual State of the Union Address to Congress. At the time, nearly all Spanish colonies in the Americas had either achieved or were close to independence.
Monroe asserted that the New World and the Old World were to remain distinctly separate spheres of influence, and thus further efforts by European powers to control or influence sovereign states in the region would be viewed as a threat to U.S security.
In turn, the U.S would recognize and not interfere with existing European colonies nor meddle in the internal affairs of European countries.
By the end of the 19th century, Monroe`s declaration was seen as a defining moment in the foreign policy of the United States and one of its longest-standing tenets. The intent and effect of the doctrine persisted for over a century, with only small variations, and would be invoked by many U.S statesmen and several U.S presidents, including Ulysses S. Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, John F. Kenndy, and Ronald Reagan.
After 1898, the Monroe Doctrine was reinterpreted by Latin American lawyers and intellectuals as promoting multilateralism (an alliance of multiple countries pursuing a common goal) and non-intervention.
Despite the United States’ beginnings as an isolationist country, the foundation of the Monroe Doctrine was already laid even during George Washington`s presidency. According to S.E. Morison, «as early as 1783, then, the United States adopted the policy of isolation and announced its intention to keep out of Europe.
Alexander Hamilton wanted to establish the United States as a world power and hoped that it would suddenly become strong enough to keep the European powers outside of the Americas, despite the fact that the European countries controlled much more of the Americas than the U.S herself.
Hamilton expected that the United States would become the dominant power in the New World and would, in the future, act as an intermediary between the European powers and any new countries blossoming near the U.S.
Great Britain shared the general objective of the Monroe Doctrine and even wanted to declare a joint statement to keep other European powers from further colonizing the New World.
The U.S government feared the victorious European powers that emerged from the Congress of Vienna (1814 – 1815) would revive monarchical government. France had already agreed to restore the Spanish monarchy in exchange for Cuba.
As the revolutionary Napoleonic Wars (1803 – 1815) ended, Prussia, Austria, and Russia formed the Holy Alliance to defend monarchism. In particular, the Holy Alliance authorized military incursions to re-establish Bourbon rule over Spain and its colonies, which were establishing their independence.
(The Holy Alliance was a coalition linking the monarchist great powers of Austria, Prussia, and Russia. It was created after the final defeat of Napoleon at the behest of Emperor (Tsar) Alexander I of Russia and signed in Paris on 26 September 1815. The alliance aimed to restrain liberalism and secularism in Europe in the wake of the devastating French Revolutionary Wars and the Napoleonic Wars, and it nominally succeeded in this until the Crimean War).
About three months after the Final Act of the Congress of Vianna, the monarchs of Catholic (Austria), Protestant (Prussia), and Orthodox (Russia) confession promised to act on the basis of «justice, love, and peace», both in internal and foreign affairs, for «consolidating human institutions and remedying their imperfections».
The British feared their trade with the New World would be harmed if the other European powers further colonized it. In fact, for many years after the doctrine took effect, Britain, through the Royal Navy, was the sole nation enforcing it, the U.S lacking sufficient naval capability.
The U.S resisted a joint statement because of the recent memory of the War of 1812, however, the immediate provocation was the Russian Ukase of 1821 asserting rights to the Pacific Northwest and forbidding non-Russian ships from approaching the coast.
In 1902, Canadian Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier acknowledged that the Monroe Doctrine was essential to his country`s protection.
The doctrine provided Canada with a de facto security guarantee by the United States, the US Navy in the Pacific, and the British Navy in the Atlantic, making invading North America almost impossible. Because of the peaceful relations between the two countries, Canada could assist Britain in a European war without having to defend itself at home.
Scholars such as Neil Smith have written that Woodrow Wilson effectively proposed a «Global Monroe Doctrine» expanding US supremacy over the entire world. Some analysts assert that this prerogative for indirect control and sporadic invasions and occupations across the planet has largely come to fruition with the American superpower role since World War II.
Such an expansion of the doctrine is premised on the «normal equality» of independent states. Such superficial equality is often undermined by material inequality, making the US a de facto global empire.
Smith argued that the founding of the United Nations played a role in the establishing of this global protectorate situation.
After World War II began, a majority of Americans supported defending the entire Western Hemisphere against foreign invasion. A 1940 national survey found that 81% supported defending Canada, 75% Mexico and Central America, 69% South America, 66% West Indies, and 59% Greenland.
In 1954, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles invoked the Monroe Doctrine at the 10th Pan-American Conference in Caracas, Venezuela, denouncing the intervention of Soviet Communism in Guatemala. President John F. Kennedy said at an August 29, 1962 news conference:
The Monroe Doctrine means what it has meant since President Monroe and John Quincy Adams enunciated it, and that is that we would oppose a foreign power extending its power to the Western Hemisphere, and that is why we oppose what is happening in Cuba today.
That is why we have cut off our trade. That is why we worked in the OAS (Organization of American States) and in other ways to isolate the Communist menace in Cuba. That is why we will continue to give a good deal of our effort and attention to it.
During the Cold War, the Monroe Doctrine was applied to Latin America by the farmers of US foreign policy. When the Cuban Revolution (1953 – 1959) established a Communist government with ties to the Soviet Union, it was argued that the Monroe Doctrine should be invoked to present the spread of Soviet-backed Communism in Latin America.
Under this rationale, the U.S provided intelligence and military aid to Latin and South American governments that claimed or appeared to be threatened by Communist subversion (as in the case of Operation Condor).
In the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, President John F. Kennedy cited the Monroe Doctrine as grounds of the United States’ confrontation with the Soviet Union over the installation of Soviet ballistic on Cuban soil.
The debate over this new interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine burgeoned in reaction to the Iran-Contra affair. It was revealed that the U.S CIA had been covertly training «Contra» guerrilla soldiers in Honduras in an attempt to destabilize and overthrow the Sandinista revolutionary government of Nicaragua and its president, Daniel Ortega.
CIA director Robert Gates vigorously defended the Contra operation in 1984, arguing that eschewing U.S intervention in Nicaragua would be «totally to abandon the Monroe Doctrine».
President Barack Obama`s Secretary of State John Kerry told the OAS in November 2013 that the «era of the Monroe Doctrine is over».
Several commentators have noted that Kerry`s call for a mutual partnership with the other countries in the Americas is more in keeping with Monroe`s intentions than the policies enacted after his death.
President Donald Trump implied potential use of the doctrine in August 2017 when he mentioned the possibility of military intervention in Venezuela after his CIA Director Mike Pompeo declared that the nation`s deterioration was the result of interference from Iranian- and Russian-backed groups.
In February 2018, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson praised the Monroe Doctrine as «clearly…..a success», warning of «imperial» Chinese trade ambitions and touting the United States as the region`s preferred trade partner.
Trump reiterated his commitment to the implementation of the Monroe Doctrine at the 73rd UN General Assembly in 2018. Vasily Nebenzya criticized the US for what the Russian Federation perceives as an implementation of the Monroe Doctrine at the 8452nd emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council on January 26, 2019.
Venezuela`s representative listed 27 interventions in Latin America that Venezuela considers to be implementations of the Monroe Doctrine, and stated that, in the context of the statements, they consider it «a direct military threat to the Bolivian Republic of Venezuela».
Cuba`s representative formulated a similar opinion, «The current Administration of the United States of America has declared the Monroe Doctrine to be in effect…..».
On March 3, 2019, National Security Advisor John Bolton invoked the Monroe Doctrine in describing the Trump administration`s policy in the Americas, saying «In this administration, we`re not afraid to use the word Monroe Doctrine….. It`s been the objective of American presidents going back to President Ronald Reagan to have a completely democratic hemisphere.
Noam Chomsky argues that in practice the Monroe Doctrine has been used by the U.S government as a declaration of hegemony and a right of unilateral intervention over the Americas.
When we talk about great power politics, rights in the final analysis just don`t matter. Might makes right, according to John Mearsheimer
In international politics, states usually pay attention to international law. They also pay attention to moral precepts as long as they`re in their strategic interests. But if there is a conflict between international law and a country`s strategic interests, the country will always privilege its strategic interests, and international law and human rights will be pushed off the table.
This is why Mearsheimer thinks it`s not very helpful to talk about rights. When you talk about whether Russia has the right to have a buffer state, or Ukraine has the right to have its own foreign policy. These are concepts that get you into all sorts of trouble.
In the international system; «MIGHT MAKES RIGHT».
For example; the United States would never tolerate a situation where Canada or Mexico invited in a legal way, China to bring military forces into Toronto or Mexico City.
The U.S has the Monroe Doctrine which is in the U.S’ strategic interest, and the Monroe Doctrine says; no distant great power is allowed to put military forces in the Western Hemisphere. Period. End of story.
What the Russians are doing is they`re basically articulating their own version of the Monroe Doctrine. They`re saying you cannot turn Ukraine into a Western bastion on our border. That has nothing to do with rights.
It doesn`t matter whether Ukraine has the right to do this or that. Putin and Russia are saying they can`t do it. Just like the U.S is saying that Cuba can`t invite the Soviets to bring military forces into the Western Hemisphere.
Rights just don`t matter. MIGHT MAKES RIGHT.
Those who can`t put themselves in Putin`s shoes have a huge problem.
The conflict between Russia and Ukraine is a complex crisis, but the answer lies in history. Who knows that Kiyv once was more powerful than Moscow? It was also a time when Ukraine and America were adversaries.
Neanderthal settlement in Ukraine is also seen in the Moldova archaeological sites (43,000 – 45,000 BC) which includes a dwelling constructed from mammoth bones. The territory is also considered to be the likely location for the human domestication of the horse.
So, there is no doubt that Ukraine is something special. But what is it? Alexandr Solzhenitsyn criticized the Allies for not opening a new front against Nazi Germany in the west earlier in World War II. This resulted in Soviet domination and control of the nations of Eastern Europe.
Solzhenitsyn claimed the Western democracies apparently cared little about how many died in the East, as long as they could end the war quickly and painlessly for themselves in the West. In 1978, he called the United States «Dechristianized» and mired boorish consumerism. Wow, that`s a long time ago, and we have the same going on even today.
He also accused the Western news media of left-wing bias (Wow! Really?), of violating the privacy of celebrities, and of filling up the «immortal souls» of their readers with celebrity gossip and other «vain talk».
He also said that the West erred in thinking that the whole world should embrace this as a model. While faulting Soviet society for rejecting basic human rights and the rule of law, he also critiqued the West for being too legalistic.
«A society which is based on the letter of the law and never reaches any higher is taking very scarce advantage of the high level of human possibilities.»
Solzhenitsyn also argued that the West erred in «denying (Russian culture`s) autonomous character and therefore never understood it».
Solzhenitsyn was also critical of NATO`s eastward expansion towards Russia`s borders. In 2006, Solzhenitsyn accused NATO of trying to bring Russia under its control; he claimed this was visible because of its «ideological support for the «color revolutions» and the paradoxical forcing of North Atlantic interests on Central Asia».
(Worldwide media use the term color revolution to describe various protest movements and accompanying attempted or successful change of governments that took place in several countries such as former Soviet Union. Russia, China, and Vietnam share the view that color revolutions are the «product of machinations by the U.S and other Western powers» and pose a vital threat to their public and national security).
In a 2006 interview with Der Spiegel, he stated «This was especially painful in the case of Ukraine, a country whose closeness to Russia is defined by literally millions of family ties among our peoples, relatives living on different sides of the national border. At one fell stroke, these families could be torn apart by a new dividing line, the border of a military bloc.»
He gave a speech in Washington D.C, on 30 June 1975 in which he mentioned how the system created by the Bolsheviks in 1917 caused dozens of problems in the Soviet Union. He described how this system was responsible for the Holodomor.
It was a system that, in time of peace, artificially created a famine, causing 6 million people to die in Ukraine in 1932 and 1933. He added: «they died on the very edge of Europe. And Europe didn`t even notice it. The world didn`t even notice it! 6 million people»
In 2008, he said that, while the famine in Ukraine was both artificial and caused by the state, it was no different than the Russian famine of 1921. he expressed the belief that both famines were caused by the systematic armed robbery of the harvests from both Russian and Ukrainian peasants by Bolshevik units, which were under orders from the Politburo to bring back food for the starving urban population centers while refusing for ideological reasons to permit any private sale of food supplies in the cities or to give any payment to the peasants in return for the food that was seized.
Solzhenitsyn further alleged that the theory that the Holodomor was a genocide that only victimized the Ukrainian people was created decades later by believers in an anti-Russian form of extreme Ukrainian nationalism.
He also cautioned that the ultranationalist’s claims risked being accepted without question in the West due to widespread ignorance and misunderstanding thereof both Russian and Ukrainian history.
The Holodomor means; «to kill by starvation».
It is also known as the Terror-famine, or the Great Famine, which was a famine in Soviet Ukraine from 1932 to 1933 that killed millions of Ukrainians. The term Holodomor emphasizes the famine`s man-made and allegedly intentional aspects such as rejection of outside aid, confiscation of all household foodstuffs, and restriction of population movement.
As part of the wider Soviet famine which affected the major grain-producing areas of the country, millions of inhabitants of Ukraine, the majority of whom were ethnic Ukrainians, died of starvation in a peacetime catastrophe unprecedented in the history of Ukraine.
Since 2006, the Holodomor has been recognized by Ukraine and 15 other countries as a genocide of the Ukrainian people carried out by the Soviet government.
Whether the Holodomor was genocide is still the subject of academic debate, as are the causes of the famine and intentionality of the deaths. Some scholars believe that the famine was planned by Joseph Stalin to eliminate a Ukrainian independence movement. Others suggest that the man-made famine was a consequence of Soviet industrialization.
According to Elazar Barkan, Elizabeth A. Cole, and Kai Stuve, there is a competition among victims in constructing a «Ukrainian Holocaust», stating that since the 1990`s Holodomor has been adopted by anti-communists due to its similarity to the Holocaust in an attempt to promote the narrative that the Soviet Communists killed 10 million Ukrainians, while the Nazis only killed 6 million Jews.
They stated that Holodomor was «introduced and popularized by the Ukrainian diaspora in North America before Ukraine became independent» and that «the term «Holocaust» is not explained at all.»
According to them, this has been used to create a «victimized national narrative» and «compete with the Jewish narrative in order to obscure the «dark sides» of Ukraine`s national history and to counter accusations that their fathers collaborated with the Germans.
Holodomor translated from Ukrainian means «death by hunger», «killing by hunger», «killing by starvation», or sometimes «murder by hunger or starvation.»
It is a compound of the Ukrainian holod, «hunger», and mor, «plague». The expression moryty holodom means «to inflict death by hunger.»
The Ukrainian verb moryty means «to poison, to drive to exhaustion, or to torment.» The perfective form of moryty is zamoity, «kill or drive to death by hunger, exhausting work.»
In English, the Holodomor has also been referred to as the artificial famine, famine-genocide, terror famine, and terror-genocide.
Holodomor is now an entry in the modern, two-volume dictionary of the Ukrainian language, published in 2004, described as «artificial by hunger, organized on a vast scale by a criminal regime against a country`s population.
On 24 February, EU leaders met at a special summit convened following Russia`s aggression against Ukraine. They agreed on further sanctions against Russia that target; the financial sector, the energy, and transport sectors, dual-use goods, export control and export financing, visa policy, and additional sanctions against Russian individuals.
Like Trudeau in Canada, the EU will freeze Russian assets and probably cut off SWIFT for now.
There is no doubt that ordinary innocent people will be attacked and suffer, and in the long run, we`re talking about starvation. Or «killing by starvation.» Is this Holodomor 2,0?
MSM is telling us that Putin and Russia are dangerous. They are attacking Europe. They are attacking the U.S. They are attacking the West. Today, Putin talked about the importance of solid support in the sphere of morals, ethics, and values which is increasing dramatically in the modern fragile world.
In fact, values are a unique product of the cultural and historical development of any nation. The mutual interlacing of nations definitely enriches them, openness expands their horizons and allows them to take a fresh look at their own traditions, he said.
What kind of a dangerous world leader is talking like this?
MSM has lost all credibility. Russia`s Putin is the MORAL leader of the world, and it`s a shame to see the U.S falling down from the top of that list. Putin is a conservative right-wing capitalist, and he does all he can to get rid of everything that has to do with the Bolsheviks that almost destroyed Russia.
Furthermore, he said the process must be organic, and it can never be rapid. Any alien elements will be rejected anyway, possibly bluntly.
Any attempts to force one`s values on others with an uncertain and unpredictable outcome can only further complicate a dramatic situation and usually produce the opposite reaction and an opposite from the intended result.
I assume he is talking about the EU that is attacking Poland. They try to force them to change their own rules. Is Poland the next country to leave the EU?
At the same time, the social and cultural shocks that are taking place in the United States and Western Europe are none of our business; WE ARE KEEPING OUT OF THIS, Putin said.
Some people in the West believe that an aggressive elimination of the entire pages from their own history, «reverse discrimination» against the majority in the interests of a minority, and the demand to give up the traditional notions of mother, father, family, and even gender, they believe that all of these are the mileposts on the path towards social renewal.
Putin’s said that they have a right to do this, but Russia is keeping out of this. We will also like to ask them to keep out of our business as well.
We have a different viewpoint, at least the overwhelming majority of Russian society. We believe that we must rely on our own spiritual values, our historical tradition, and the culture of our multiethnic nation.
The advocates of so-called «social progress» believe they are introducing humanity to some kind of a new and better consciousness.
The only thing that I want to say now is that their prescriptions are not new at all. It may come as a surprise to some people, but Russia has been there already.
After the 1917 revolution, the Bolsheviks, relying on the dogmas of Marx and Engels, also said that they would change existing ways and customs and not just political and economic ones, but the very notion of human morality and the foundations of a healthy society.
The destruction of age-old values, religion, and relations between people up to and including the total rejection of family (we had that too), encouragement to inform on loves ones, all this was proclaimed progress and, by the way, was widely supported around the world back then and was quite fashionable, same as today.
Putin also said that the Bolsheviks were absolutely intolerant of opinions other than theirs. This, I believe, should call to mind some of what we are witnessing now.
Looking at what is happening in a number of Western countries, we are amazed to see the domestic practices, which we, fortunately, have left, I hope, in the distant past.
The fight for equality and against discrimination has turned into aggressive dogmatism bordering on absurdity, when the works of the great authors of the past, such as Shakespeare, are no longer taught at schools or universities because their ideas are believed to be backward.
The classics are declared backward and ignorant of the importance of gender or race. In Hollywood, memos are distributed about proper storytelling and how many characters of what color or gender should be in a movie.
THIS IS EVEN WORSE THAN THE AGITPROP DEPARTMENT OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE SOVIET UNION!
Countering acts of racism is a necessary and noble cause, but the new «cancel culture» has turned it into «reverse discrimination» that is, reverse racism.
The obsessive emphasis on race is further dividing people when the real fighters for civil rights dreamed precisely about erasing differences and refusing to divide people by skin color,
I specifically asked my colleagues to find the following quote from Martin Luther King:
«I HAVE A DREAM THAT MY FOUR LITTLE CHILDREN WILL ONE DAY LIVE IN A NATION WHERE THEY WILL NOT BE JUDGED BY THE COLOUR OF THEIR SKIN BUT BY THEIR CHARACTER.»
This is the true value. However, things are turning out differently there.
By the way, Putin said, the absolute majority of Russian people do not think that the color of a person`s skin or their gender is an important matter. Each of us is a human being. This is what matters.
In a number of Western countries, the debate over men`s and women’s rights has turned into a perfect phantasmagoria. Look, beware of going where the Bolsheviks once planned to go. Not only communalizing chickens but also communalizing women. One more step and you will be there.
Zealots of these new approaches even go so far as to want to abolish these concepts altogether. Anyone who dares mention that men and women actually exist, which is a biological fact, risks being ostracised.
«Parent number one» and «parent number two,» «birthing parent» instead of «mother,» and «human milk» replacing «breastmilk» because it might upset the people who are unsure about their own gender.
This is nothing new; in the 1920s, the so-called Soviet Kulturtraegers also invented some newspeak believing they were creating a new consciousness and changing values that way.
As I have already said, they made such a mess it still makes one shudder at times.
Not to mention some truly monstrous things when children are taught from an early age that a boy can easily become a girl and vice versa. That is, the teachers actually impose on them a choice we all supposedly have.
They do so while shutting the parents out of the process and forcing the child to make decisions that can upend their entire life. They do not even bother to consult with child psychologists. Is a child at this age even capable of making a decision of this kind?
Calling a spade a spade, this verge on a crime against humanity, and it is being done in the name and under the banner of progress.
Well, Putin said, if someone likes this, let them do it.
I have already mentioned that, in shaping our approaches, we will be guided by a healthy CONSERVATIVISM.
That was a few years ago when passions in the international arena were not yet running as high as they are now, although, of course, we can say that clouds were gathering even then.
Now, when the world is going through a structural disruption, the importance of reasonable CONSERVATIVISM as the foundation for a political course has skyrocketed, precisely because of the multiplying risks and dangers, and the fragility of the reality around us.
This conservative approach is not about ignorant traditionalism, a fear of change, or a restraining game, much less about withdrawing into our own shells.
It is primarily about reliance on a time-tested tradition, the preservation and growth of the population, a realistic assessment of oneself and others, a precise alignment of priorities, a correlation of necessity and possibility, a prudent formulation of goals, and a fundamental rejection of extremism as a method.
In the impending period of global reconstruction, which may take quite long, with its final design being uncertain, moderate conservativism is the most reasonable line of conduct, as far as I see it, Putin said.
It will inevitably change at some point, but so far, do no harm the guiding principle in medicine, seems to be the most rational one. Noli nocere, as they say.
Again, for us in Russia, these are not some speculative postulates, but lessons from our difficult and sometimes tragic history.
The cost of ill-conceived social experiments is sometimes beyond estimation. Such actions can destroy not only the material but also the spiritual foundations of human existence.
Leaving behind moral wreckage where nothing can be built to replace it for a long time.
Afghanistan is a beautiful country, and only a few decades ago, people in Kabul were singing and dancing to live music and had fun. Kabul was probably much better than European countries. So, what in the world went wrong in Afghanistan?
Afghanistan had cinemas, restaurants and hotels, and people who lived in Kabul four decades ago describes it as romantic and better than Europe. They have high mountains and the weather is often sunny. It`s one of the best countries in Asia.
But something happened. Someone took the country.
In the 1960`s the King and the Queen opened up the country to the world after centuries of isolation. They also enabled women to partisipate in public life. They became feminists without even knowing what it was all about.
In 1964, according to the constitution, women also got the right to wote. Everything was fine and there was no segregation between men and women. Kabul was a modern city. People were dressed like Western people. They were listening to Western music and thought the Western style was the right thing for them.
People were poor but very happy, but then a lot of tourists came in to Kabul. And suddenly, it was time for a «hippy» era. Just like the West. Hippy music. Hippy fitness. A hippy style society. Tourists went to historical places to see Buddah.
But then, something happened.
A Western-style protest movement started in Afghanistan. Students began talking about Revolution. They talked about Communism and women`s rights. They said it should be more equality between men and women. Nor should it be discrimination.
Kabul became more and more like the Western world, but some people didn`t like that. And that was people in Pedesaan were 80 percent of the population live. Afghanistan had a conflict going on.
Pedesaan was way ahead of the modern city Kabul, and people didn`t like the changes. People in Pedesaan was more conservative and people were following tribal traditions and the teachings of Islam.
Women were isolated and could be forced to mirrage with someone they didn`t love. The Muslims were worried about the progress in Kabul. The problem at that time is that people were sleeping. They didn`t see the real problem. And the problem was their own «class difference.»
In the early 70`s, the first Islamic organisation was founded. Their goal was to protect their traditional lifestyle. It was the birth of the political Islamism in Afghanistan. This is the era were people in Afghanistan became divided in two groups.
Left and Right.
Communists on the left side, and Islamists on the right side.
The Islamist movement were blaming Communists, and Communists were blaming Islamists and the problems escalated. No one were able to guide the people and a blamegame started istead of keeping the great value of national unity among the people.
To everybody`s surprise; the communists managed to take power. First in 1973. It was a coup and they overthrow the monarchy. And now, the country became a republic with its first ever president.
Mohammed Daoud Khan became a President of Afghanistan from 1973 to 1978. Mohammed was a cusine of the former King, but in 1978, the communists desided that their time has come and seized power for themselves.
In just one night, they killed Daoud Khan and 23 members of his family. The communists called the bloody take over «april revolution.» (this is the same mindset as the Leninist communist in Soviet when they killed the Romanov family in their communist revolution).
The communist party coup took place in Kabul on April 28, 1978.
The new government tried to form the country into a new communist country thru radical reforms. People in Kabul had red flags and the communists took all oppositions. The communists first target were Muslims. (this is similar to the CCP today).
The communists arrested you if you were praying. You would also go to jail. This time was the most brutal time of the history of the country. Thousands of people was taken and all of the disappeared.
The communists took teachers that talked about religion. Many of them were dropped by a plane. Isamic activists started to build activist groups in 1979 and one of them was a group called Mujahideen (fighters of the holy was).
This revolution is an Islamic revolution, Islamist Party Leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar said. Their goal was to establish a pure Islamic system in Afghanistan. Freedom and liberation of Afghanistan.
In Moscow, former Second Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Leonid Brezhnev was worried. Afghanistan was a nabouring communist state, and a successful Islamic revolution could send a dangerous message to the 50 million Muslims in the USSR.
Brezhnev dicided to send in troops in December 27, 1979. and that was the beginning of a long and expensive war that led to bankruptsy.
10,000 prisoners were released in one day. For some it was hard to find back to their own family members. Afghanistan was under forign occupation.
Afghanistan changed like never before. People were leaving because it was not their country anymore. Others were chanting «allahu akbar» at night, and thousands were protesting on the streets.
The Communists in Soviet Union supported the brutal communist regime in Afghanistan and that wasn`t music for the people. The resistance among the people were growing and they distrubuted papers at night and wrote on the walls; Long live Islam.
In the United States, they were quick to react to the Soviet offensive.
Afghanistan became the new epicenter of the Cold War.
US President Jimmy Carter said in a speech that the Soviet invation was an extremely threat to peace. Carter also said that Soviet now can control much of the world`s oil supply.
Washington started to support Mujahideen with money and weapons.
US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brezezinski appeared to Afghanistan`s religion pride in 1980 when he visited Pakistan. One day, he said, you will take your country back because God is on your side.
The communists had big problems to fight back against the Mujahideen guerillas. The only place the communist had control was in Kabul. The communist government said no to women education. No freedom for women. So, women was used as a political tool. But people didn`t like it at all.
The Mujahdin used terrorist attacks in Kabul to destabilise the society. It was too dangerous to be there, so 3 million went to Pakistan or Iran to join their Muslim brothers. Peshawar near Islamabad in Pakistan became a hotspot of resistance.
They got the weapons they needed in Pakistan. And a Sudi also set up a camp there. His name was Osama Bin Laden. He recruited and supported all foriegn fighters from all over the Arab world to join the Afghan jihad. Radical Islam spread in the refugee camp. They started to brainwash the children and they are the one who became Taliban.
The countries that were involved trained conservative people and made monsters to get rid of the USSR. But the biggest problems was to know who the civilians and who the enemies was.
The war in Afghanistan was very expensive for the USSR, and in 1986, Mikhail Gorbachev desiced to withraw his troops. He said; «Counterrevolution and imperialism have turned Afghanistan into a bleeding wound.
We should like, in the nearest future, to withdraw the Soviet troops stationed in Afghanistan.» They took the troops out of Afghanistan in 1989.
People in Afghanistan were so happy. Finally, the USSR are going back home. And the people was feeling free. They won the war.
But, a lot of things happened. It wasn`t over.
The communist government still had control over Kabul, and was the final obstacle to become an Islamic republic. In other words; the war was not yet over. On April 24, 1992, The Mujahideen took control over Kabul.
It was a critical moment were the Mujahideen took over the presidential palace. The dream to become an independent Isamist state was on the way to be fulfilled. But instead, other groups of people started to fight against each other to take back the control. A new civil war started. Everybody was fighting against everybody.
Instead of confronting each other, they used civil women and child as tools in a brutal war. The fighters could have killed each other but they killed civilans instead.
Now, Kabul was stigmatized. Isolated from the rest of the world. Deserted by Westerners. The British embassy was closed. The US embassy was closed. The French embassy was also closed.
«My feeling is that the UN and the Western powers were interested in Afghanistan as long as we fought against the USSR. Against communism. It was a common enemy. Then their interest completely disappeared. They abandoned us,» Mujahideen Commander Ahmad Shah Massoud said back then.
Many different groups of people were fighting against each other but nobody knew why they were fighting. It`s between commanders they said. They attacked civilians and especially woman. They raped them and cut of their breasts.
In 1994, a new force emerged; The Taliban. An Arabic name for «students.» many of them came from Quran-schools. The Taliban promised to restore peace, order and morality. They had massive support from Pakistan. Many of them were grown up in refugee camps in Pakistan.
When Taliban came, they were welcomed by the people in Afghanistan. Finally, someone who wants to restore peace, order and morality. People thought that Taliban will take over the country and everything will be fine again. People supported them.
The Taliban took Kabul on September 27, 1996.
The Taliban changed Afghanistan repidly. The banned alcohol, films and all forms for entertainment. They smashed all Televisions on the streets. The Taliban ended the civil war and made peace.
But, they also took people`s freedom. What is peace without freedom?
Women suffered the most. They were fobidden to study or work. Girls were banned from school. They closed all the schools after the Islamic revolution. It was very sad for the kids, because the couldn`t learn to read and write.
The Taliban send people to the mosque and ban people from going out because these all are Islamic laws. They hunted all the women in Afghanistan. Why are you doing this? Why are you doing that? And so on. If someone say it is extremist, so be it, Taliban said.
Afghanistan became a hotpad for Islamic fundamentalism and it was under the Taliban protection that Osama Bin Laden returned to the country after a long war against the USSR. Osama Bin Laden founded the terrorist network Al-Qaeda to carry out a global jihad.
One of the attacks is said to be September 11. President Bush started a new war in Afghanistan. A few weeks after the attack on twin towers, the British and US soldiers attacked Al Quada leaders and their training camps.
The end of the Taliban regime ended on November 13, 2001.
People in Afghanistan was happy. Now, they are free. Taliban is gone and the United States will bring peace and freedom to Kabul and Afghanistan. Finally. People could go back to school again. Women could start to work again. They were free.
On a NATO command, 52 countries were placed in Afghanistan and in 2003, people voted for a new government. They tried to establish a new democracy. They were working hard to develop a new constitution.
December 17, 2003 – Constitutional Convention.
Millions of dollars were sent to Afghanistan to rebuild the country and establish a new democracy. But the money came into the pockets of the war lords who had, once again, returned to power. Rich people built supermarkets and houses like the one in Europe. Poor people remained poor.
Corruption started to emerge and new conflicts was rising. Corruption to access education, health care, jobs and justice. That alone has huge impact on the election and the politics.
Taliban recruited new members and prepared a new comeback. Despite the escalating violence, 2014 saw the withdrawal of most international coalition troops. Many aid organizations likewise left the country.
In February 2020, the US signed a peace agreement with the Taliban and announced the complete withdrawl of its troops within 14 months. But the Taliban have subsequently taken advantage of the resulting vacuum and the fragility of Afghan democracy to overrun the country.
The future and security of Afghanistan and its women is once again in jeoparady.
In August 2021, the Taliban overruns nearly all major Afghan cities in just 10 days. On 15 August, they enter Kabul. The Afghan government hands over power to the Taliban.
Afghanistan is the land of endless wars. They fought against Alexander the Great, Djengis Khan and Britain. Now, they are fighting against Taliban. 80 percent of the population is depressed. They have lost their hope and dreams. Does it stop here, and what is the next chapter?