Peaceful Buddhist monks without any weapons can demonstrate on the streets in Myanmar, but the military junta government with weapons can kill them if they want, and that have happened. What`s even worse is their systemic killings of the Rohingya minorities. That’s Genocide.
For most of its independent years, Myanmar has been engrossed in rampant ethnic strife and its myriad ethnic groups have been involved in one of the world`s longest-running ongoing civil wars. Myanmar is an ethnically diverse nation with 135 distinct ethnic groups officially recognized by the Burmese military Government.
The UN and several other organizations have reported consistent and systemic human rights violations in the country.
In 2011, the military junta was officially dissolved following a 2010 general election, and a nominally civilian government was installed. This, along with the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and political prisoners and successful elections in 2015, had improved the country`s human rights record and foreign relations and had led to the easing of trade and other economic sanctions, although the country`s treatment of its ethnic minorities, particularly in connection with the Rohingya conflict, continued to be condemned by international organizations and many nations.
Following the 2020 Myanmar general election, in which Aung San Suu Kyi`s won a clear majority in both houses, the Burmese military again seized power in a coup d’etat.
The coup, which was widely condemned, led to widespread protests in Myanmar and has been marked by a violent response by the military.
The military junta also arrested Aung San Suu Kyi and charged her with crimes ranging from corruption to the violation of Covid protocols, all of which have been labeled «politically motivated» by independent observers.
Aung San Suu Kyi is a Burmese politician, diplomat, author, and a 1991 Nobel Peace Prize laureate who served as State Counsellor of Myanmar and Minister of Foreign Affairs from 2016 to 2021.
The Rohingya people have consistently faced human rights abuses by the Burmese regime that has refused to acknowledge them as Burmese citizens, despite the fact that some of them have lived in Burma for over three generations.
The Rohingya have been denied Burmese citizenship since the enactment of a 1982 citizenship law.
The law created three categories of citizenship:
citizenship
associate citizenship, and
naturalised citizenship
Citizenship is given to those who belong to one of the national races such as Kachin, Kayah (Karenni), Karen, Chin, Burman, Mon, Rakhine, Shan, Kaman, or Zebedee.
Associate citizenship is given to those who cannot prove their ancestors settled in Myanmar before 1823 but can prove they have one grandparent, or pre-1823 ancestor, who was a citizen of another country, as well as people who applied for citizenship in 1948 and qualified then by those laws.
Naturalized citizenship is only given to those who have at least one parent with one of these types of Burmese citizenship or can provide «conclusive evidence» that their parents entered and resided in Burma prior to independence in 1948.
The Burmese regime has attempted to forcibly expel Rohingya and bring in non-Rohingya to replace them.
This policy has resulted in the expulsion of approximately half of the 800,000 Rohingya from Burma, while the Rohingya people have been described as «among the world`s least wanted», and «one of the world`s most persecuted minorities».
But the origin of the «most persecuted minority» statement is unclear.
Rohingya are not allowed to travel without official permission, are banned from owning land, and are required to sign a commitment to have no more than two children.
As of July 2012, the Myanmar government does not include the Rohingya minority group, classified as stateless Bengali Muslims from Bangladesh since 1982, on the government`s list of more than 130 ethnic races and, therefore, the government states that they have no claim to Myanmar citizenship.
In 2007, German professor Bassam Tibi suggested that the Rohingya conflict may be driven by an Islamist political agenda to impose religious laws, while non-religious causes have also been raised, such as a lingering resentment over the violence that occurred during the Japanese occupation of Burma in World War II.
During this time period, the British allied themselves with the Rohingya and fought against the puppet government of Burma (composed mostly by Bamar Japanese) that helped to establish the Tatmadaw military organization that remains in power for a 5-year lapse in 2016 – 2021.
Since the democratic transition began in 2011, there has been continuous violence in Myanmar. A UN envoy reported in March 2013 that unrest had re-emerged between Myanmar`s Buddhist and Muslim communities.
Yesterday, the Biden administration declared that the military junta in Myanmar has committed genocide against the Rohingya minority. The Biden administration has enough evidence to say that the junta has a clear intent to destroy the Rohingya.
The evidence of killings is mass rape and arson, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said on Monday.
Antony Blinken had a speech at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington DC, and he said that the killings of the Rohingya minority were «widespread and systematic». Hundreds of thousands of Rohingya Muslims have fled Myanmar since the military crackdown that began in 2017.
Mr. Blinken announced the US would provide $1 million in new funding for the Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar, which continues to examine atrocities. A case against Myanmar, also called Burma, was opened at the International Court of Justice in 2019.
«The day will come when those responsible for these appalling acts will have to answer for them», Mr. Blinken said.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee such accuracy. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.
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.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee such accuracy. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.
Putin said he started the war in Ukraine against the neo-Nazis, but nobody is listening to him. MSM is claiming that Putin is using Nazi propaganda to defend the invasion of Ukraine. But, if Putin is right, who are the neo-Nazis, and how many are they?
The war in Ukraine started in 2014, and this is also the year the neo-Nazi group called Azov Battalion was founded by far-right nationalist Andriy Biletsky. In its early days, Azov was a special police company of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
Andriy Biletsky, the gang`s leader who became Azov`s commander, once wrote that Ukraine`s mission is to «lead the White Races of the world in a final crusade….. against the Semite-led Untermenschen.»
Andriy Biletsky is now a deputy in Ukraine`s parliament.
Biletsky is also the head of two neo-Nazi political groups, the Patriot of Ukraine and the Social-National Assembly. In August 2014, he was awarded a military decoration, «Order For Courage», by Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko, and promoted to lieutenant colonel in the Interior Ministry`s police forces.
Later on, in 2016, veterans of the regiment and members of a non-government organization called the Azov Civil Corps created the political party National Corps.
Azov Battalion is a right-wing extremist, neo-Nazi, a formerly paramilitary unit of the National Guard of Ukraine, based in Mariupol, in the Azov Sea coastal region. Azov initially formed as a volunteer militia in May 2014 and has since been fighting Russian separatist forces in the Donbas War.
It saw its first combat experience recapturing Mariupol from pro-Russian separatists in June 2014. on 12 November 2014, Azov was incorporated into the National Guard of Ukraine, and since then all members have been official soldiers serving in the National Guard.
The Azov Battalion has its roots in a group of ultras of FC Metalist Kharkiv named «Sect 82». «Sect 82» was allied with FC Spartak Moscow ultras. «Sect 82» occupied the Kharkiv Oblast regional administration building in Kharkiv and served as a local «self-defense force.»
Soon after, a company of the Special Tasks Patrol Police called «Eastern Corps» was formed on the basis of «Sect 82». Azov was started as one of the Ukrainian volunteer battalions of the Special Tasks Patrol Police regulated by the Ukrainian Interior Ministry.
Arsen Avakov, the new Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine after the overthrow of the Yanukovich government, issued on April 13, 2014, a decree authorizing the creation of the new paramilitary force from civilians up to 12,000.
The neo-Nazis have infiltrated the Ukrainian government, the police force as well as the military complex system.
In 2014, the Azov Battalion gained attention after allegations of torture and war crimes, as well as neo-Nazi sympathies. The group has also been criticized for use of controversial symbols, as seen in their logo featuring the Wolfsangel, which is one of the Nazi symbols used by the 2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich.
Since 2014, Azov Battalion has killed more than 14,000 innocent people. Many of them are tortured, while others are burned alive. This is probably why Putin has had enough. This is a war crime, but on Sunday, Ukraine`s Zelenskyy says Russia`s siege of Mariupol, which is Azov`s headquarters, involved war crimes.
Zelenskyy also says Russia`s siege of the port city is «a terror that will be remembered for centuries to come».
The fall of Mariupol would mark a major battlefield advance for the Russians in the biggest land invasion in Europe since World War II. The Russian siege in Azov`s headquarter, Mariupol can be the end of the war, as Moscow sets Mariupol’s surrender deadline.
Ukraine has until 5am Moscow time (02:00 GMT on Monday) to respond to an offer on laying down arms and humanitarian corridors, Russa says. President Zelenskyy has told CNN that negotiations are the only way to «end this war».
The city Mariupol is destroyed and it is wiped off the face of the earth, Mariupol police officer Michail Vershnin said in a video to Western leaders on Sunday.
Estimates of Russian deaths vary widely, but even conservative figures are in the low thousands. Russia had 64 deaths in five days of fighting during its 2008 war with Georgia. It lost about 15,000 in Afghanistan over 10 years, and more than 11,000 in years of fighting in Chechnya, according to Aljazeera.
Alex Rubinstein tweeted a few days ago: «Watch Yevhen Karas the leader of Ukraine`s neo-Nazi terror gang C14`s speech from Kyiv earlier this month. Straight from the horses’ mouth, he dispels the many narratives pushed by the left, the mainstream media, and the State Department. Karas said: «We were now been given so much weaponry, not because as some say: «west is helping us. Not because they want the best for us, but because we perform the tasks set by the West because we are the only ones who are ready to do them because we have fun, we have fun killing and we have fun fighting, and that is the reason for the new alliance; Turkey, Poland, Britain, and Ukraine».
Mr. Karas also said they Ukraine doesn`t want to join the EU. «No, we are a huge powerful state, and if we come to power it will be both joy and problems for the whole world. Being part of a European family has already collapsed. This is about a new political alliance on the global level. A new political challenge».
We know from MSM that many people around the world are helping the neo-Nazis in Ukraine in the war against Russia. Many of them come from Scandinavia and especially from Sweden, but are countries around the world helping the neo-Nazis?
A provision in Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, passed by the United States Congress, blocked military aid to Azov on the grounds of its white supremacist ideology, in 2015, a similar ban on aid to the group had been overturned by Congress.
Mr. Karas also said that Maidan was a coup and that Maidan was the victory of the nationalist ideas. The neo-Nazis aren`t many members, but their influence is huge. That`s why they succeeded in the Maidan coup.
C14 signed an agreement with Kyiv`s city government to patrol its streets in early 2018. months later it began a campaign of pogroms against Romani camps.
We see a lot of propaganda from many sides, but according to Nation, five years ago, Ukraine`s Maidan uprising ousted President Viktor Yanukovych, to the cheers and support of the West. Politicians and analysts in the United States and Europe not only celebrated the uprising as a triumph of DEMOCRACY but denied reports of Maidan`s ultranationalism, smearing those who warned about the dark side of the uprising as Moscow puppets and USEFUL IDIOTS. Freedom was on the march in Ukraine, and the Nazis were waiving the swastica flag in the name of democracy.
Today, increasing reports of far-right violence, ultranationalism, and erosion of basic freedoms are giving the lie to the West`s initial euphoria. There are neo-Nazi pogroms against Roma, rampant attacks on feminists and LGBT groups, blood bans, and state-sponsored glorification of Nazi collaborators.
Post-Maidan Ukraine is the world`s only nation to have a neo-Nazi formation in its armed forces. The Azov Battalion was initially formed out of the neo-Nazi gang Patriot of Ukraine.
Azov Battalion took control over Mariupol in 2014, but as of Sunday 21 March, the Russian army took it back. Zelenskyy says he is ready for negotiations with Putin, but if they fail «that could mean that this is a third world war.»
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee such accuracy. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.
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?
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee such accuracy. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.
Stacy Abrams is nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize as Georgia investigates her group for voter registration fraud. Who cares? Not Lars Haltbrekken, who is the man that nominated Abrams. Lars Halbrekken is a member of Norway`s Socialist party and nominated Stacy Abrams for her work on voter registration and rights.
A lot of people went nuts when they heard about this earlier this week. But this is not the first time people went nuts regarding the Nobel Peace Prize. The last time people went nuts was when Barrack Obama won the prize. But why? Nobody didn`t understand that. Nor Barrack Obama.
This is very embarrassing for the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, but also for Norway. Giving Obama the prize was a shame and people called the Committee clowns. They lost a lot of credibility and they did not have their annual Peace Prize Concerts since then. They say lack of money is the reason, but we all know why they have a low profile.
Nominating Stacy Abrams is also a shame because we don`t know what happened about the election in Georgia yet. But we can assume that Lars Haltbrekken is satisfied because he is obviously not a Trump supporter.
He is a Norwegian environmentalist and was elected to the Parliament of Norway in 2017 for the Socialist Left Party. In the ’90s Lars tried to prevent natural gas power plants in Norway. A man who grew up in Trondheim.
Ingrid Galadriel Aune Falck is another one from Trondheim. She is a Viking. Well, she was. Right after Qanon (dressed as a Viking from Scandinavia) and his friends stormed Capitol Hill on January 6th, she resigned as a leader of a Viking re-enactment group.
Historically, the Vikings do have a shady reputation, and events in modern times have not made that easier to get past. You know, the Nazis and all that, Ingrid wrote on her blog.
For years, MSM in Norway has talked a lot about the Vikings, and for some people, it is very important to be part of something strong and powerful. A system that can make fear. But Ingrid didn`t want to be part of an organization that has become a Nazi party.
Qanon-shaman (Jake Angeli) with his «horned costume» stormed the US congress, but he also had Viking-tattoos on his body. One of them was the logo of Ingrid`s former re-enactment company, Hands-on History.
Let’s be clear; most Viking re-enactors are kind and respectful, regardless of their level of geekiness. However, every basket has some rotten eggs. And some of these rotten eggs don`t even try to disguise their white supremacist smell, Ingrid wrote on her blog.
The same can be said about the US. Qanon doesn`t represent the Christian community on the right side. He is one of the few extremists.
At the end of Ingrid`s blog, she wrote; I`m letting go of a beast I can`t control. And from now on I`m choosing to laugh instead of getting angry. Sorry guys, I`m out!
Last year, the police in Norway said the biggest threat wasn`t Al-Qaida, but the Nazi`s. A country that is struggling with domestic terrorists.
Philip Manshaus is the last known terrorist who was radicalized in Trondheim. A 21-year-old man who was active on the internet on various forums for anti-immigrant groups. He was armed with multiple weapons and opened fire in a mosque in Norway.
One person was injured before the attacker was overpowered by a 75-year old worshiper. Hours after the attack, the dead body of his stepsister was found in his own house. He murdered his own step-sister (17) who was adopted from China.
Philip Manshaus said in the court that there is a Genocide going on in Norway.
Manshaus was inspired by New Zealand-terrorist Brenton Harrison Tarrant, a 28-year-old man from Australia. He attacked Christchurch in New Zealand on 15 March 2019. He began his attack at the Al Noor Mosque in the suburb of Riccarton and continued at Linwood Islamic Centre. He killed 51 people and injured 40.
Tarrant is a self-avowed white supremacist, and Australia, where the gunman was from, has also seen an increase in xenophobia, racism, and Islamophobia. Tarrant also said that he like Communist China (editor; we all know what they do to Christians and Muslims).
Tarrant was inspired by Fjotolf Hansen (born Anders Behring Breivik), a terrorist who committed the 2011 Norway attacks. On 22 July 2011, he killed eight people by detonating a van bomb amid Regjeringskvartalet in Oslo, then killed 69 participants of a Workers’ Youth League (AUF) summer camp in a mass shooting on the island of Utoya.
Since his imprisonment, Fjotolf Hansen has identified himself as a fascist and a Nazi, who practices Odinism and used counter jihadist rhetoric to support ethnonationalism.
He admitted to the crimes and said the purpose of the attack was to save Norway and Western Europe from a Muslim takeover, and that the Labour Party had to «pay the price» for letting down Norway and the Norwegian people.
After his arrest, he referred to himself as «the greatest monster since Quisling (a Nazi who overtook Norway during World War II).
Fjotolf also alluded to himself as the future regent of Norway, master of life and death, while calling himself «inordinately loving» and «Europe`s most perfect knight since WWII. He was convinced that he was a warrior in a «low-intensity civil war» and had been chosen to save his people.
He described plans to carry out further «executions of categories A, B, and C traitors» by the thousands, the psychiatrists included, and to organize Norwegians in reservations for the purpose of selective breeding.
Genocide in Norway has happened before, and it is possible that it can happen again because history tends to repeat itself. We know the history of Norway`s five national minorities. We know the way of life of jews, Kven, Gypsies, and Romani people (tater).
The minorities have always been treated very badly. Jews were sent to Holocaust and killed during WW II. While Danish Jews were granted ordinary civil rights in 1814, the Constitutional Assembly in Eidsvoll, Norway, that same year went in the opposite direction. Jews were banned in Norway.
The 1800s saw emerging nationalism and a vision of one nation and one people in Norway, and there was little room for being different.
The abuse of power continued in Norway, Now in the form of assimilation.
The Child Protection Act of 1896 allowed the authorities to take children away from all travelers (tater), while the Vagrancy Act of 1900 made the itinerant lifestyle a crime.
Later on, modern genetics came to have a significant influence in Norway and on Norwegian government policy from the 1920s onwards. This hit the Romani people (tater) hard. Alongside groups such as alcoholics, criminals, and so-called “tater” were seen as carrying undesirable genes.
The Sterilisation Act of 1934 allowed for forced sterilization of people with serious mental conditions, people who were mentally deficient, or people whose mental development was severely impaired.
It has been documented that up until 1977 at least 125 Norwegians of traveling ancestry were sterilized, while Romani people (tater) were sterilized without basis in law. Many of them were left with physical and mental scars, and several later committed suicide.
Lobotomy was also carried out on Romani people (tater), resulting in death for some of them.
The Portuguese neurologist Egas Moniz won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1949 for his now-discredited procedure of the lobotomy, which involves serving nerve connections within the brain of a mentally ill person.
Today the lobotomy is considered a barbaric treatment for mental illness, and that`s why relatives of lobotomy patients now have started a campaign to have the prize rescinded.
Mr. DeForest Kelley (as Dr. Leonard «Bones» McCoy) once said; My God, man, drilling holes in his head`s not the answer. The artery must be repaired. Now put away your butcher knives and let me save this patient before it`s too late.
What will tomorrow`s historians say about today`s cancer treatments, such as chemotherapy and immunotherapy? It remains to see. People are still suffering and have pain even today. Fortunately not by lobotomy.
In 1897, the government delegated the work to assimilate the Romani people (tater) to a private organization, commonly known as the Norwegian Mission for the Homeless. The mission ran children`s homes, schools, and labor colonies for Romani people with the express aim of eradicating the Romani people/ tater culture.
One important strategy was to remove children from their parents and then raise them as «good Christians» and settled Norwegians in children’s homes. In total at least 1,500 children were separated from their parents, often growing up without knowing about their traveler (tater) background.
Many of these children suffered violence and abuse. More than one hundred families of Romani people/tater descent were sent to Svanviken labor colony in Nordmore to be «weaned off» their traditional way of life and become «good Christians».
The Norwegian Mission for the Homeless continued its activities in Svanviken until 1989, but the Norwegian government is still kidnapping children even today. They take 5 kids from their parents every single day.
The Norwegian government is breaking civil human rights and many of these cases end up in the European Court of Human Rights in Haag. Many of the cases I have heard of is shocking.
The human rights are pretty clear: You have a right to life. Art 3; freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. Art 4; freedom from slavery and forced labor. Art 5; right to liberty and security. Art 6; right to a fair trial, and Art 7; No punishment without law.
Will Ferrell Hates Norway in a new Super Bowl commercial. Not for any crimes, Nazism, Vikings, or White supremacists, but because they have too much electic vehicles.
Author Hannah Arendt wrote the book «The Origins of Totalitarianism» in which she discussed how it was possible for a democratic state such as Germany to turn into a cold-blooded totalitarian state.
Arendt makes the point that a totalitarian system may become even worse than dictatorships, as the latter implements fear of death when speaking up against the authorities, but totalitarian states do the same, but in a more subtle way.
The aim of totalitarian systems is to control every aspect of a person`s life, his views on the family, genders, his feelings towards the church, religion, and every aspect of life are to be controlled.
In such states, the population is held in fear of repercussions from the police and state authorities, in constant fear of losing their jobs, their reputation, and friends. Fear becomes the tool to keep the population in check. Nobody dares to say much, out of trepidation for what may happen then.
One of Arendt`s main points was that precisely because modern democracies incorporates well-developed institutions and the hierarchical structure, people tend to obey orders without daring to think freely.
They view themselves as part of a system with little or no personal responsibility.
Arendt found that it was not the desire to be brutal to certain ethnic groups such as Jews and Gypsies, that was the root for the «obedience towards the state» that permeated the German society.
It was the indifference, lack of empathy and willingness to obey status quo that permeated the German population.
Since groupthink was vital in this society, no one dared to step out of the group. Those who did quickly ended up in the same concentration camps where intellectuals dissidents joined the Jews and others who were unwanted.
The point is that societies that cultivate just laws prosper.
To contact the author: post@shinybull.com
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee such accuracy. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.
Ket Garden
Shiny bull 