Denne side er sidst redigeret d. 27/2 - 2022
Foto: Mariano Mantel, Colors of Russia, St. Basil and the Kremlim Moscow, Link til billeder på flickr
Denne webside - Noget om Rusland, som vi ikke hører så meget til og som måske kan være med til at nedbryde de fjendebilleder, der bygger på misinformation. det betyder ikke at der ikke kan komme citater fra meget kritiske artikler.
Lavrov says Russia will ‘no longer rely’ on West for energy trade as Moscow pivots to India and China
Independent d. 3/3 - 2023
Russia and China ‘wanted to include Nord Stream sabotage issue in G20 communique’
Russia will no longer rely on partners in the West for its energy trade and its new energy policy will be oriented towards more reliable partners such as India and China, foreign minister Sergey Lavrov said.
The Russian foreign minister who was in Delhi for the foreign ministers’ G20 meeting was speaking at the Raisina Dialogue, a multilateral conference, in capital New Delhi on Friday.
Mr Lavrov was asked how the war affected Russia’s strategy on energy and whether it will pivot to Asia for its energy trade.
“The war which we are trying to stop was launched against us using Ukrainian people of course to influence the policy of Russia, including the energy policy.
“And the blunt way to describe what the change is: we would not anymore rely on any partners in the west. We would not allow them to blow the pipelines again,” Mr Lavrov responded.
Rusland nævner dem igen og igen - her er deres 17 krav til Vesten
TV2 d. 22/1 - 2022
Russerne har krævet et skriftligt svar på samtlige punkter. Det kommer i næste uge, lovede USA fredag.
...Der er tale om de krav til sikkerhedsgarantier, som Rusland ønsker opfyldt, hvis den højspændte situation omkring Ukraine skal afvæbnes.
...Rusland skal dog næppe regne med, at Vesten kommer til at imødekomme kravene til fulde.
Russia-Ukraine war: Russian MP Condemns Putin's Invasion, Says Voted For Recognition Of DPR & LPR, Not For War
Russian lawmaker MP Mikhail Matveev said on Twitter that he had voted for recognition of the DNR and LNR. “I voted for peace, not for war,” he said.
R.Republicworld.com d. 26/2 - 2022
As the Russian troops advanced on the centre of Ukrainian Capital Kyiv and launched an offensive, MP Mikhail Matveev, deputy of the Russian State Duma, condemned Russian President Vladimir Putin’s decision about waging the war on Kyiv. Matveev from the Russian Duma posted on Twitter, “I think that the war should be stopped immediately.” He then added that as a Russian lawmaker, he had voted for recognition of the DNR and LNR. “I voted for peace, not for war,” asserted MP Mikhail Matveev. “For Russia to become a shield, so that Donbass is not bombed, and not for Kyiv being bombed,” he stated...
Moskvas røde linjer er ikke et forhandlingsutspill
Af Pål Steigan d. 19/12 - 2021
Russland har lagt fram et forslag til sikkerhetsgarantier som landet ønsker at USA og NATO skal gi. Utkastet til dokumentene, som ble gitt til USAs assisterende utenriksminister Karen Donfried onsdag og avslørt for offentligheten fredag, inkluderer en forespørsel om et bredt spekter av garantier fra både NATO og Washington som Moskva hevder er rettet mot å øke sikkerheten til alle involverte parter.
Putin to the West: Folks, let's get along!
Pravda d. 17/12 - 2020
"Why don't they give us the official conclusion about the use of Novichok at least?" Putin asked Rosenberg a counter question. "Are you asking me?" Rosenberg replied. "I am a journalist and I ask questions."
Putin laughed, apologized and continued: "I feel responsible for what is happening to Russia and its people, and I will do everything in the interests of the state."
"As for us being warm and fuzzy. Compared to you, yes, we are! We are warm and fuzzy. We heard assurances that NATO would not be expanding eastward. But you did nothing, shouldn't we react? Did we pull out from the missile defense treaty? But we have to react. Our partners pulled out from the treaty on long-range and medium-range missiles. Did we pull out? No. They pulled out from the Open Skies Treaty. What should we do in this regard? You, as a NATO country, will be flying above us collecting everything? You are smart people, why do you think that we are idiots? Why can't you calculate elementary things?" Putin said.
Putin reminded that Russia has army bases abroad only in terroristically dangerous areas, while the United States has a huge network of army bases all around the world. Russia is open to cooperation, but the United States wants no negotiations, the head of state said.
'Sådan en grusomhed skal ikke glemmes': Ny film om overset tragedie er vild og tankevækkende
DR d. 27/10 - 2020
'Den sorte jord' er historien om journalisten, der satte sit liv på spil for at fortælle sandheden.
Hør her. Jeg skal fortælle dig om en walisisk journalist ved navn Gareth Jones, der for 90 år siden rejste til Ukraine og skrev en artikel om hungersnød.
...Den skyldtes derimod den kommunistiske leder Josef Stalin.
Læs hele artiklen
Novichok, Navalny, Nordstream, Nonsense
Craig Murray d. 9/3 - 2020
Once Navalny was in Berlin it was only a matter of time before it was declared that he was poisoned with Novichok. The Russophobes are delighted. This of course eliminates all vestiges of doubt about what happened to the Skripals, and proves that Russia must be isolated and sanctioned to death and we must spend untold billions on weapons and security services. We must also increase domestic surveillance, crack down on dissenting online opinion. It also proves that Donald Trump is a Russian puppet and Brexit is a Russian plot...
...Next we are supposed to believe that Putin, having poisoned Navalny with novichok, allowed him to be flown to Germany to be saved, making it certain the novichok would be discovered. And that Putin did this because he was worried Merkel was angry, not realising she might be still more angry when she discovered Putin had poisoned him with novichok
There are a whole stream of utterly unbelievable points there, every single one of which you have to believe to go along with the western narrative. Personally I do not buy a single one of them, but then I am a notorious Russophile traitor.
The United States is very keen indeed to stop Germany completing the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which will supply Russian gas to Germany on a massive scale, sufficient for about 40% of its electricity generation. Personally I am opposed to Nord Stream 2 myself, on both environmental and strategic grounds. I would much rather Germany put its formidable industrial might into renewables and self-sufficiency. But my reasons are very different from those of the USA, which is concerned about the market for liquefied gas to Europe for US produces and for the Gulf allies of the US. Key decisions on the completion of Nord Stream 2 are now in train in Germany...
Caitlin Johnstone: The modern US war machine kills more like a python than a tiger
RT d. 27/8 - 2020
...“Cutting off China from its trading partners and sources of oil, natural gas and other resources could be the best, and least costly, way for the United States to defeat China in a major war,” Axe explains.
“In wartime, the US and allied fleets could blockade Russian sea trade, putting a choke-hold on the Russian economy that could force Moscow to end the war on terms favorable to Washington and its friends,” he writes.
Unspoken by Axe and Dismukes is the fact that both Russia and China are nuclear-armed nations, so direct hot warfare is something the US power alliance would want to avoid anyway.
Indeed, the articles present a vision for confrontation with Russia and China that is not just realistic but probable, and not just probable but currently underway. This is exactly the reason the empire-like network of allies loosely centralized around the United States has been so forceful about controlling crucial resources like oil on the world stage; it’s not so that the US can use the oil itself, it’s so it can control who will have access to it. It’s also why they’ve been working to surround both China and Russia militarily via military bases and NATO expansionism...
Ny kold krig af Marie Karrup
Beskrivelse fra Saxo
Siden murens fald og Sovjetunionens kollaps har NATO gradvist inddæmmet Rusland, og klimaet mellem USA (og NATO) og Rusland er gået fra dårligt til værre, så vi i dag befinder os midt i en ny kold krig.
Og hvis skyld er det? Putins, selvfølgelig! Herom er der udbredt enighed.
Så stor er enigheden, at påstanden ikke er til debat i puslinglandet. Pressefriheden knirker betænkeligt. Det gælder både de trykte medier og de elektroniske.
Og i Folketinget er der nærmest kun en politiker som tør se rationelt på forholdet mellem Vesten og Rusland.
Som uddannet sprogofficer behersker Marie Krarup russisk. Hun har boet tre år i Moskva og været assisterende forsvarsattaché på den danske ambassade i Moskva. Hun ved, hvad hun taler om, og i bogen samtaler hun med 17 eksperter fra Rusland, Ukraine, Canada, Letland, England og USA om forholdet mellem øst og vest.
Den vestlige debat om Rusland er – som også beskrevet i bogens indledning
– så betændt, at det er vanskeligt at komme med et afbalanceret indlæg om Rusland. Hvis ikke man gentager påstandene om, at Rusland aggressivt og som led i en ekspansiv strategi har overtrådt international ret, erobret dele af et naboland og nu er i gang med en aktiv hybrid-krig imod Vesten, så beskyldes man for at være Putins agent.
Danmarks udenrigspolitik er, som enhver vil vide, ikke til diskussion. Men spørgsmålet er, hvad læseren af en af de vigtigste og ærligste udenrigspolitiske udgivelser i årtier mon mener – efter at have læst bogen.
Bogens forfatter lægger op til debat på Facebook
Vor fjende Rusland?
DIIS Comment d.
3. april 2018
I løbet af de sidste fire år er fjendebilledet af Rusland i mange lande vokset – ind i mellem på et unuanceret grundlag. Parallelt med det, er styret blevet sværere at forsvare.
...Forrige tirsdag lancerede den uafhængige FN-kommission for Syrien en rapport om overgreb mod civile. Den konkluderede, at både russiske og amerikanske angreb er blevet udført uden megen hensyn til civilbefolkningen. Et russisk angreb i november 2017 førte til mindst 84 døde, og et amerikansk angreb i marts 2017 resulterede i mindst 150 døde. Begge lande bør kritiseres hårdt. Alligevel er kritikken mod Rusland mere synlig i medierne, hvilket Rusland desværre kan spille på for at underminere kritikken...
...Det rejser nogle vanskelige spørgsmål, når man fordømmer Rusland for at blande sig i valget i USA, men samtidig ser igennem fingre med, at USA også blander sig i valg og regimeændringer. Den USA-baserede forsker Dov Levin har set på USA’s og Sovjetunionens/Ruslands indblanding i andre landes valg i perioden 1946-2000. USA har således blandet sig mindst 81 gange, mens Rusland har blandet sig 36 gange. USA har i tiden efter 2000 blandet sig i valget i Kenya (2013), Libanon (2009) og Afghanistan (2009). Dov Levin definerer en indblanding i et valg som ”en kostbar handling, som er lavet for at bestemme valgudfaldet til fordel for én side”...
Russia Isn’t the Only One Meddling in Elections. We Do It, Too.
New York Times d. 17/2 - 2018
...“If you ask an intelligence officer, did the Russians break the rules or do something bizarre, the answer is no, not at all,” said Steven L. Hall, who retired in 2015 after 30 years at the C.I.A., where he was the chief of Russian operations. The United States “absolutely” has carried out such election influence operations historically, he said, “and I hope we keep doing it.”
Loch K. Johnson, the dean of American intelligence scholars, who began his career in the 1970s investigating the C.I.A. as a staff member of the Senate’s Church Committee, says Russia’s 2016 operation was simply the cyber-age version of standard United States practice for decades, whenever American officials were worried about a foreign vote.
“We’ve been doing this kind of thing since the C.I.A. was created in 1947,” said Mr. Johnson, now at the University of Georgia. “We’ve used posters, pamphlets, mailers, banners — you name it. We’ve planted false information in foreign newspapers. We’ve used what the British call ‘King George’s cavalry’: suitcases of cash.”...
...A Carnegie Mellon scholar, Dov H. Levin, has scoured the historical record for both overt and covert election influence operations. He found 81 by the United States and 36 by the Soviet Union or Russia between 1946 and 2000, though the Russian count is undoubtedly incomplete...
Interfering in Democratic Elections: Russia against the U.S., but U.S. Against the World
CATO Institute d. 1/8 2017
...In any case, Russia’s presumed Clinton hack seems minor compared to attempts by foreign governments to influence U.S. policy. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates recently invested heavily to win Washington’s support against Qatar, creating the spectacle of countries which have financed terrorism accusing a neighbor of financing terrorism.
Israel’s political influence is legendary. There may be no more powerful lobby, domestic or foreign, with a greater stranglehold over policy. Simply attempting to debate the issue is politically dangerous for Israel’s critics. Turkey and Greece routinely battle each other. Other countries hire lobbyists, some permanently. That’s no surprise: the U.S. imposes itself on other nations, which understandably seek to turn that power to their advantage or forestall its use against them.
Most striking about the ongoing controversy is how U.S. policymakers appear oblivious to the fact that America has routinely interfered in other nations’ elections. Washington is understandably outraged that someone else would interfere with Americans’ sacred right to choose their own government. However, the same officials believe that they have a sacred right to interfere with the right of others to choose their own governments. Sadly, Russia’s efforts really were not “unprecedented,” as claimed by Susan Rice, Barack Obama’s National Security Adviser.
Some of America’s foreign interventions have been dramatic and violent. Washington backed the 1973 ouster of Chilean President Salvador Allende. Thankfully years of brutal repression passed into history as the country returned to democracy. But the U.S. continues to pay the price of its support for the coup which overthrew Iran’s elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossedegh in 1953. The victorious Shah ruled for a quarter century, but then was overthrown by an Islamic revolution, the consequences of which continue to roil the Middle East and U.S. policy.
More common has been more mundane electoral interference—closer to the Russian model. Indeed, Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University identified 81 instances between 1946 and 2000 in which Washington attempted to influence other nations’ elections. (In contrast, the Soviet Union did so less than half as often, 36 times.) Levin does not include in this number coups and other post-election “remedies,” such as in Chile and Iran.
During the Cold War America’s focus was containing communism. Explained Thomas Carothers of the Carnegie Endowment: “The U.S. didn’t want to see left-wing governments elected and so it did engage fairly often in trying to influence elections in other countries.” However, attitudes in Washington haven’t changed much. In 2014 the U.S. backed a street putsch against the elected Ukrainian president and then American officials shamelessly plotted to get their favored candidate appointed prime minister.
The U.S. uses numerous tools to advance its interests. Explained Nina Agrawal of the Los Angeles Times: “These acts, carried out in secret two-thirds of the time, include funding the election campaigns of specific parties, disseminating misinformation or propaganda, training locals of only one side in various campaigning or get-out-the-vote techniques, helping one side design their campaign materials, making public pronouncements or threats in favor of or against a candidate, and providing or withdrawing foreign aid.”...
...The Trump administration should make the security of America’s elections a priority. Russia should know that any future attempt to interfere in U.S. elections would result in serious retaliation. However, Washington should begin with a pledge to stay out of other nations’ elections. Let people in a democracy make their own choices and select their own leaders. After all, if that policy is appropriate for America, it should be right for the world’s other democracies as well.
Undersøgelse: Mediernes dækning af Rusland efterlader os med et underskud af viden
af Lars Kabel d. 17.01.2017 i Viden
Nyhedsmedierne fokuserer i stor stil på væbnet krig, udenrigspolitik og doping, men nærmest slet ikke det univers af magt, interesser og nye initiativer, der udspiller sig mellem topeliten i Moskva og de mange borgere rundt i Rusland, viser ny undersøgelse.
...Den internationale forskning er meget kritisk i forhold til nyhedsmediernes dækning af Rusland. På baggrund af deres kritik og vores egne undersøgelser har vi stillet syv kritiske spørgsmål til mediehusenes korrespondenter i Rusland og til udvalgte redaktører her i Danmark. De afviser alle - dog med vigtige nuancer – kritikken, og rapporten giver et bud på, hvordan journalister og forskere kan se så forskelligt på den samme mediedækning. En forskel, der er bestemt af, hvorfra man observerer, hvordan man ser...
Fra sammeside er det muligt a tdownloade undesøgelsen
Marie Karrup beskriver undersøgelses konklusionen i sin bog Ny kold krig: Rusland beskrives i bipolært koldkrigsperspektiv. Der er tegn på atRusland dæmoniseres.
Faren for storkrig øker