Posted by: CS | May 16, 2015

UK 2015: Weird Election Math

The Scotch Nats, with 4.7% of the popular vote, won 56 seats or 8.6% of the total.

The Lib-Dems, with 7.9% of the popular vote, or two-thirds more than the Scotch Nats, won only 8 seats or 1.2% of the total.

UKIP, with 12.6% of the popular vote, or nearly three times the vote for the Scotch Nats, gained only a single seat or 0.15% of the total.

Thus the average number of votes cast for each seat won ranged from under 26,000 for the Scotch Nats, to 3,881,000 for UKIP.*

Still, in every constituency, the candidate with the most votes won (unless votes were rigged, as some believe).

So should anyone care that for each seat won, UKIP received 149 times as many votes as the the Scotch Nats? Probably not. Farage built UKIP’s campaign around huge public opposition to mass immigration, while repeatedly proclaiming:

  • (a) that he is an enthusiast for immigration;
  • (b) that Britain’s immigration policy should be based on Australia’s “points system” to control the quality and quantity of immigrants coming to Britain — as if immigration is part of some kind of selective breeding program (which is probably exactly how Farage and most members of the elite see it), and as if an immigration policy suitable for a settler state such as Australia, with half Britain’s population but 30 times the territorial extent is somehow appropriate for a densely crowded, many-thousand-year-old nation state; and
  • (c) that most Brits would prefer more Indians, Pakistanis and sub-Saharan Africans (i.e., the Commonwealth citizens favored by Farage) to Europeans, which seems unlikely even if many of the Albanians are professional pick-pockets.

With such a contradictory stance, Farage would almost certainly have disappointed all expectations had he and a significant group of Kippers been elected. Indeed, UKIP appears, like the late unlamented BNP, to be a party intended to divert, while dis-empowering, those most adversely affected by mass immigration.

* In addition, the Tories, with 36% of the popular vote, won 331 seats or 51% of the total, while Labour, with 30% of the popular vote, won 232 seats or 36% of the total.


CanSpeccy: The Scotch Nats at Westminster: A Party Without Power or Purpose

CanSpeccy: Why the UK Election changes nothing

CanSpeccy: The 2015 UK Pre-election Leaders’ Debate

I just posted the above at i-Lucretius. where I will likely be posting most often in the future.

i-Lucretius: The Real Jesus That Any Self-Respecting Christian Would Vote to Crucify

Blogger, Jew Among You, draws attention to this pseudo mea-culpa by Britain’s former chief enforcer of political correctness on racial matters, Trevor Phillips:

From it, I conclude that the Blairites (i.e., all the mainstream political parties in Britain, plus the nationalist Scotch and Welsh fringe) have been forced to change their line of attack on the British nation because the standard method of shutting up those who oppose the racial and cultural genocide of their own people through anti-natalist policies* combined with mass immigration and multiculturalism is no longer working.

What they used to do with critics is call them racists and, if possible, trap them in some violent expression of opinion for which they could be punished by the police and administrative forces of political correctness.

But too many people have figured out how the bastards twist the language, and have learned also the language and the concepts necessary to negate the lies without exposing themselves to liberal hate-speech and other anti-free speech measures.

The crime of genocide being committed by the British elite against the their own people is easily enough grasped as long as you know the basic facts, which are as follows. British women, who mostly still mate with British men, which is to say people of British ancestry dating to before 1950, have a fertility of 1.6 which is little more than two-thirds the replacement rate, whereas immigrant women mostly have a much higher fertility, with those from Bangladesh hitting 3.9 and Libyan mothers in Britain scoring brilliantly at 5.6. 

The process is the same throughout Europe and only the Russian state seems intent on reversing the death of its own people, a fact that may largely explain the tremendous hatred for Russia evident among staunch NATOists.

With, in Britain, a gross immigration rate of half a million people a year,existing policies mean rapid population replacement and thus, inevitably, the destruction of the native culture, i.e., both racial and cultural genocide.

In the meantime, as the silly English school principal featured in the video seemed to find truly wonderful, children who speak English as a second language are academically superior to native English speaking students, which is to say, English children have been reduced to the status of white trash, as a consequence of the fact that immigrants are generally of the more intelligent and energetic component of the population from whence they come, and hence their children also tend to be of above average ability. So even before they become a minority nationally (they already are a minority in London, Leicester, Birmingham and other great British cities) English children are being set up for social and economic failure.

But hey, the Phillips’s of the world are delighted to find a reason to do something for the indigenous people, now that they have been forced into a position of inferiority. And no doubt the remedial treatment will include a heavy dose of political correctness to deter any idea of rebellion.

* Britain’s anti-natalist policies which impact primarily the indigenous population, include K to 12 instruction in oral sex, masturbation and the use of a condom, propagandizing youth on the virtues of the homosexual life-style, and state funding of the annual slaughter of several hundred thousand of the unborn. In addition, rising house prices due to immigration-fueled demand, inhibits household formation and hence child rearing.

On March 24, the Daily Mail report on the crash of the Germanwings flight 4U 952, which reportedly flew into the side of a mountain in the French Alps the previous evening included the following witness testimony:

Pierre Polizzi, the owner of a camping ground near the crash site, told Al Jazeera:

The plane crashed just 2 km from here, high on a mountain. There was loud noise and then suddenly nothing. At first I thought it came from fighter jets that often hold drills in the area.

Lucille Polizzi, 18, said:

We were outside and then suddenly we heard this big noise.

I thought it was an earthquake. We have earthquakes fairly frequently here, just small ones. I wasn’t afraid. My father thought it was a fighter jet but we couldn’t see any. ‘The noise lasted probably seven or eight seconds. Then it stopped. There was nothing for maybe 15 to 30 seconds. Then a second noise. ‘The same as the first noise and it lasted about the same time. I wondered then if it was perhaps an avalanche.

One eyewitness in the village of Le Vernet, where some wreckage has been sighted, told Le Parisien newspaper:

This morning I heard a massive thud and soon after saw several jets fly over.

And according to IBTimes:

Witnesses told the French Air Force they heard an explosion and saw smoke coming out of the doomed Germanwings’ A320 passenger plane shortly before it crashed into the mountains near Digne, southern France, IBTimes UK can reveal.

A helicopter pilot in the French Air Force based in Orange, 30 minutes away from the site of the crash, told IBTimes UK witnesses in the crash investigation told him “they had heard an explosion and seen smoke”.

While the French authorities have not confirmed these accounts, the pilot confirms the French Air Force has received a number of corroborating witness testimonies.

The pilot also confirmed that debris was found upstream from the crash site which he said confirmed the fact that the piece of fuselage had “been detached from the aircraft before impact”.

Which observations are consistent with this hypothesis:


Confirmation of the presence of Mirage jet fighters in the immediate vicinity at the time of the crash was provided by non other than the mayor of the nearby municipality of Meolans Revel according to this Wall Street Journal report (German edition, translated by Google).

The Wall Street Journal article also reports:

– Various French ear witnesses spoke of having heard two explosions. Why these first reports disappeared very quickly from the media?

– Contrary to recent media reports received by the French Air Patrol minutes before the crash an emergency message from the cockpit of the German Wings machine. This was confirmed by official representatives of the competent French authorities with respect to various media outlets. Relevant reports found among others at Spiegel Online, CNN, France24 and N24. Why disappeared after a short time, the reports of the distress signal from the media and image online waving in the completely opposite direction “Why there was no emergency”?

– Why should the co-pilot, who intended to kill himself, nor leave it an emergency message shortly before the crash?

– The witnesses testified against the French Air Force also that they heard an explosion and saw smoke coming from the A320 just before it crashed into the rock wall. What could have exploded on board?

The same article also asks:

How can the aircraft with more than 800 km / h flying at an altitude of about 1,500 meters into the mountain when physical reasons until around 6,000 meters a speed of 800 km / h can be achieved?

Naturally, a number of crackpot conspiracy sites have taken up this theme, which rather muddies the water — perhaps intentionally. What better way, after all, to discredit a conspiracy theory than to employ a bunch of idiots to offer nonsensical elaborations on the truth to be concealed?


John Rosenthal: The Trouble with Germanwings Flight 9525



PBS: Aviation expert: Germanwings crash investigation assigned blame before probe ended

DailyMail: Was Germanwings plane crashed by a HACKER instead of co-pilot? Aviation expert says the jet could easily be accessed remotely


WRH: Evidence that Germanwings Flight U 4U 952 broke up before impact with the ground

Posted by: CS | April 7, 2015

No Political Opinions Please, We’re Canadian

The Toronto Symphony has barred Ukrainian-born artist Valentina Lisitsa from a forthcoming performance with the orchestra for commenting on the mainstream media’s biased coverage of the Nazi-backed coup d’état in Ukraine and Kiev’s genocidal war on ethnic Russians of South Eastern Ukraine.

As the Toronto Star reports:

In a statement apparently posted by the pianist to her Facebook page on Monday, Lisitsa — born in Kyiv — wrote about using social media to discuss the situation in Ukraine.

“I took to Twitter in order to get the other side of the story heard, the one you never see in the mainstream media — the plight of my people, the good and bad things that were happening in Ukraine,” the statement read. The post suggests the spirit of the Maidan uprising a year ago has been subverted and used to sow division within the country, adding that she has received death threats and been called a “paid Kremlin whore.”

The TO Symphony evidently headed by a bunch of Harperite whores.

Meantime, our guy in Kiev, Pietro Poroshenko, has appointed Ukraine’s neo-Nazi Right Sector (formerly Social Nationalist Party) leader as top military adviser to the country’s Chief of General Staff (source). But you won’t see anything about that in the Canadian media, which seems to confirm what Kiev-born Valentina Lisitsa has been saying.


Valentina Lisitsa: Facebook Mesage: Dear Friends

CTV News: Free speech ‘goes both ways': Ukrainian pianist trades barbs with TSO over cancelled show

R-I: Toronto Symphony Orchestra president Jeff Melanson sounds like a perfect little commie commissar

Deep Resource notes the remarkable difference between the inquiry into the Germanwings airliner crash and the crash of Malaysia Airlines MH17 blown out of the sky in the Ukrainian war zone:

Two weeks after the Germanwings crash we know everything: what was on the audio tapes, the cause of the crash, the motivations of the co-pilot. There are no more open questions.

How different with MH17. After 8 months they can’t even decide if it was a A2A or S2A missile that brought down MH17. We still don’t know what was on the tapes. Unlike the GermanWings plane, the US government immediately had an idea about who had done MH17: Russia. Just like the US government proclaimed to know within hours that bin Laden was behind 9/11.

Why the difference? Deep Resource offers two reasons:


The MH17 carried 196 Dutch nationals, so you would expect the Dutch government to be anxious to get the truth out. But then, out of the blue, the US gave 122.5 ton gold back to the Dutch government.


One of the two key suspects, Ukraine, is part of the investigation team and has a veto right (over release of the investigators findings)…

In a subsequent post, Deep Resource reports on a a leaked email, written by a Dutch diplomat, which refers to a briefing by the Ukrainian Foreign Minister given three days before the MH17 shoot down in which he states that “the separatists don’t have the means to take down planes from high altitude.“ From which fact, Deep Resource draws the following conclusions:

  • The separatists did not do it, because they did not have the means to do it, as per Ukrainian foreign minister’s own admission.
  • Kiev didn’t do it either. You are not going to brief western diplomats on the highest level that the separatists don’t have the means to down the planes, if you intend to setup a false flag operation and blame the separatists anyway.
  • Technically, the Russians could have done it, like they likely did with the Antonov, but unlike the separatists, the Russians knew precisely which plane is what on the basis of radar information and downing a western plane is the last thing the Russians would want to do.

Which questions lead to the further question: if neither the Russians, nor the separatists, nor Kiev did it, than who did,  upon which subject DR makes a plausible case that the crime was the result of a botched attempt, organized by Ihor Kolomoisky, the then governor of the Ukrainian Oblast of Dnepropetrovsk, to assassinate Vladimir Putin.


The revelation by the Ukrainian Defense Minister that Ukraine had lost Antonov military transports during the assault on their own compatriots in Donbass is interesting in light of the recent report that the Antonov aircraft company of Ukraine, which contracted with the Government of Indian to refurbish  India`s fleet of Antononv military transports has managed to `lose`five of them without trace. Presumably, the planes were `borrowed` by the Ukrainian military and reduced to scattered debris over the killing fields of Eastern Ukraine by Russian missiles.

Posted by: CS | April 3, 2015

The 2015 UK Pre-election Leaders’ Debate

At the insistence of Prime Minister David Cameron, leaders not only of the significant national parties, but also of the Greens and the nationalists, both Scotch and Welsh, were included in this so-called debate, thus preventing any real one-on-one that could have seriously damaged the Tory leader.

The marginals, all female, filled much of the air time with the usual liberal-left drivel designed to extend the culture of entitlement not only to all citizens but to anyone who manages to set foot on British soil, including healthcare tourists, criminals and radical Muslims with a settler mentality. Obviously the best thing to do with the three of them would have been to tie them in sacks and dump them in the Bosphorus.

As for the males, Cameron’s performance was exemplary: i.e., a suave delivery of the lying bullshit to be expected from a war criminal, Libya-bombing, treasonous Conservative Friend of Israel, bankster-enabling, son-of-a-bitch, Eton-Oxford product with a nasal whine and the look about him of an ill-tempered raccoon.

Clegg delivered the Liberal bullshit with charismatic elan: Wage compression for low-skilled Brits due to mass immigration? No prob., just raise the minimum wage. Yeah, Cleggy, and let ’em eat cake.

Milliband the ugly Jew with a reconstructed schnozz and a weird adenoidal vocal system blathered on in a more or less meaningless but vaguely appealing way. In fact, you could almost like this guy.

And then Farage: not in his element at all, although he managed to inject several facts into an otherwise fatuous debate and even got off a couple jokes. The crowd, hand-picked, no doubt, was hostile,  but the punters watching on the tube probably thought differently.

Interesting to watch the closing moments. Cameroon shaking hands with Farage while showing as much warmth as flask of liquid helium; the Green woman, shaking hands with Farage before turning away as if about to vomit; and Milliband shaking hands with Farage as though he accepted the man as a member of the human race.

So, on points, I would rate Milliband the winner, mainly on personality; although Farage was the only one to say anything useful about the questions the public should consider before voting in a general election.

The Leaders Debate: Nigel Farage

Peter Hitchens On Nigel Farage’s Leader’s Debate Performance

Posted by: CS | January 11, 2015

European Ethnomasochism

Originally posted on DeepResource:

“He must have been discriminated!”
“He is just the exception, a mentally deranged!”
“Don’t forget colonialism!”
“He merely had integration problems!”
“Don’t incite hatred and prejudice!”
“Don’t play into the hands of the Islam critics!”

Today we are going to witness one of the largest protest marches in European history, the Je Suis Charlie march, organized by the European America-leaning leftist establishment. The scale of the march will indicate what is at stake here: the survival of the second and last implementation of the Communist Dream of One World, after the first one finally failed in Moscow 1991, with the collapse of the East.

The Russian Bolshevik Communist Dream was about economic and gender egalitarianism (Marxism), the American Communist Dream (NWO) is about ethno-religious and gender egalitarianism (multiculturalism/cultural Marxism). The common slogan of the communists of all stripes is: “aren’t we all human?“, to which the dry answer…

View original 269 more words

Posted by: CS | December 1, 2014

Russia’s Puny Economy and Dying Population

In August, while speaking with John Micklethwait and Edward Carr from The EconomistPresident Obama remarked:

Russia doesn’t make anything. Immigrants aren’t rushing to Moscow in search of opportunity. The life expectancy of the Russian male is around 60 years old. The population is shrinking.

Russia’s puny economy and general decline is a common theme among those who disparage Russia. For example, in discussing the threat posed by Russia to European security, former UK Ambassador Craig Murray recently blogged:

Russia is not a great power. Its total GDP is about the same as Spain’s – and Spain is pretty knackered. Russia has even less economic clout as a basis for world domination than the UK.

Russia’s economy is not diversified. It is over-dependent on raw commodity production and export.  …  It will not be long before Poland plus the Baltic states are economically stronger than Russia.

Let’s consider these claims.

OK, Russia doesn’t make anything except, um:

They also make cars.

So much for making nothing.

What about the lack of rushing immigrants?

Well, actually, in 2013 Russia was the World’s second largest immigration haven. This year, who knows, Russia may come in as Number One counting the  million or so Ukrainians driven to Russia following Obama’s decision to turn the Government of Ukraine into an illegitimate, Russophobic Nazified puppet?

As for Obama’s “The life expectancy of the Russian male is around 60 years,” wrong again. Male life expectancy at birth in Russia for the 2010-2014 period is 65, years. And while we wish all Russians long life, we note in passing that it is highly efficient in economic terms for working males die in the year of normal retirement: no pension costs, no prolonged geriatric health care!

In case it would surprise you, Obama was also wrong about Russia’s population trend. Since 2010, Russia’s population growth has been positive.

In fact, Russians are doing better at maintaining their population than most Western nations.

In virtually every Western state the fertility of the indigenous majority is well below the replacement rate of 2.1.

In Greece and Bosnia, for example, the locals are rapidly approaching extinction with a fertility rate of only 1.3. Germany, Italy and Bosnia are headed for oblivion too, with a fertility rate of only 1.4.

By the same standard, the Russians are doing slightly better with a fertility rate of 1.6 but not as well as the Brits and the Americans who appear to be maintaining something close to population stability with a fertility rate of 1.9.

But the latter figure conceals the extent to which the native born are losing out to immigrants. For example, in Britain, native-born mothers match the poor performance of Russian women with a fertility rate of 1.6, whereas Libyan immigrants are hitting 5.6. Many other immigrant groups are well over 4.0, and Bangladeshi mothers, at 3.9, are doing much better than their sisters back home in Bangladesh.

This process of benign genocide is the result of a toxic culture, that results in the mass slaughter of the unborn (730,000 in the US in 2013), holds in high regard billionaire pornographers such as Rupert Murdoch and Silvio Berlusconni, and makes instruction in fellatio part of the school curriculum.

But returning to the puniness of Russia’s economy, no it is not the same size of that of Spain. According to the CIA Fact Book, Russia’s GDP in 2013 was 56% larger than Spain’s and if you adjust for purchasing power parity, the difference must be two to three times.

Likewise, the claim that Poland and the Baltic states will soon surpass Russia economically, is drivel. Poland and the Baltic trivialities have a combined GDP equal to less than one third of Russia’s. Moreover, Russia’s GDP per capita is greater than that of EU member Poland.

Another way of assessing the puniness of Russia’s economy is to compare it sector by sector with that of America. In agriculture for example, on a per capita basis, US agricultural output exceeds Russia’s by 9%. Well we know Americans tend to be overweight, so at least we can feel sure that Russians are adequately fed.

American industrial output per person exceeds Russia’s by 88%, but if we make the comparison on a purchasing power parity basis, the difference is only 51%.

But where the US truly excels is in services, things like movies, Walmart stores, advertising, doctors fees, legal action, government bureaucracy, etc., etc. There they outproduce Russia at a staggering rate of five to one.

Are Russians to be pitied for their lack of services? Well apparently they’re not complaining. In America, the white working class, we are told, like Obama less than ebola, giving him an approval rating of only 27%. In Russia, apparently, despite the puniness of the national GDP, President Putin has an approval rating almost twice that, though down from the eighties during the summer.

It’s difficult to have any respect for a head of state who talks rubbish. Either Obama is a fool or, we presume, an adherent of the Goebbels school of propaganda.

Information Clearing House: March 04, 2014 – The President of Russia met with media representatives to answer a number of their questions, in particular with regard to the situation in Ukraine.

PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA VLADIMIR PUTIN: Good afternoon, colleagues,

How shall we do this? This is what I’d like to suggest: let’s have a conversation, rather than an interview. Therefore, I would ask you to begin by stating all your questions, I will jot them down and try to answer them, and then we will have a more detailed discussion of the specifics that interest you most.

Let’s begin.

QUESTION: Mr President, I would like to ask (you took a lengthy pause, so we have quite a few questions by now) how you assess the events in Kiev? Do you think that the Government and the Acting President, who are currently in power in Kiev, are legitimate? Are you ready to communicate with them, and on what terms? Do you yourself think it possible now to return to the agreements of February 21, which we all talk about so often?

QUESTION: Mr President, Russia has promised financial aid to Crimea and instructions were issued to the Finance Ministry yesterday. Is there a clear understanding of how much we are giving, where the money is coming from, on what terms and when? The situation there is very difficult.

QUESTION: When, on what terms and in what scope can military force be used in Ukraine? To what extent does this comply with Russia’s international agreements? Did the military exercises that have just finished have anything to do with the possible use of force?

QUESTION: We would like to know more about Crimea. Do you think that the provocations are over or that there remains a threat to the Russian citizens who are now in Crimea and to the Russian-speaking population? What are the general dynamics there – is the situation changing for the better or for the worse? We are hearing different reports from there.

QUESTION: If you do decide to use force, have you thought through all the possible risks for yourself, for the country and for the world: economic sanctions, weakened global security, a possible visa ban or greater isolation for Russia, as western politicians are demanding?

QUESTION: Yesterday the Russian stock market fell sharply in response to the Federation Council’s vote, and the ruble exchange rates hit record lows. Did you expect such a reaction? What do you think are the possible consequences for the economy? Is there a need for any special measures now, and of what kind? For instance, do you think the Central Bank’s decision to shift to a floating ruble exchange rate may have been premature? Do you think it should be revoked?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Fine, let us stop here for now. I will begin, and then we will continue. Don’t worry; I will try to answer as many questions as possible.

First of all, my assessment of what happened in Kiev and in Ukraine in general. There can only be one assessment: this was an anti-constitutional takeover, an armed seizure of power. Does anyone question this? Nobody does. There is a question here that neither I, nor my colleagues, with whom I have been discussing the situation in Ukraine a great deal over these past days, as you know – none of us can answer. The question is why was this done?

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that President Yanukovych, through the mediation of the Foreign Ministers of three European countries – Poland, Germany and France – and in the presence of my representative (this was the Russian Human Rights Commissioner Vladimir Lukin) signed an agreement with the opposition on February 21. I would like to stress that under that agreement (I am not saying this was good or bad, just stating the fact) Mr Yanukovych actually handed over power. He agreed to all the opposition’s demands: he agreed to early parliamentary elections, to early presidential elections, and to return to the 2004 Constitution, as demanded by the opposition. He gave a positive response to our request, the request of western countries and, first of all, of the opposition not to use force. He did not issue a single illegal order to shoot at the poor demonstrators. Moreover, he issued orders to withdraw all police forces from the capital, and they complied. He went to Kharkov to attend an event, and as soon as he left, instead of releasing the occupied administrative buildings, they immediately occupied the President’s residence and the Government building – all that instead of acting on the agreement.

I ask myself, what was the purpose of all this? I want to understand why this was done. He had in fact given up his power already, and as I believe, as I told him, he had no chance of being re-elected. Everybody agrees on this, everyone I have been speaking to on the telephone these past few days. What was the purpose of all those illegal, unconstitutional actions, why did they have to create this chaos in the country? Armed and masked militants are still roaming the streets of Kiev. This is a question to which there is no answer. Did they wish to humiliate someone and show their power? I think these actions are absolutely foolish. The result is the absolute opposite of what they expected, because their actions have significantly destabilised the east and southeast of Ukraine.

Now over to how this situation came about.

In my opinion, this revolutionary situation has been brewing for a long time, since the first days of Ukraine’s independence. The ordinary Ukrainian citizen, the ordinary guy suffered during the rule of Nicholas II, during the reign of Kuchma, and Yushchenko, and Yanukovych. Nothing or almost nothing has changed for the better. Corruption has reached dimensions that are unheard of here in Russia. Accumulation of wealth and social stratification – problems that are also acute in this country – are much worse in Ukraine, radically worse. Out there, they are beyond anything we can imagine. Generally, people wanted change, but one should not support illegal change.

Only constitutional means should be used on the post-Soviet space, where political structures are still very fragile, and economies are still weak. Going beyond the constitutional field would always be a cardinal mistake in such a situation. Incidentally, I understand those people on Maidan, though I do not support this kind of turnover. I understand the people on Maidan who are calling for radical change rather than some cosmetic remodelling of power. Why are they demanding this? Because they have grown used to seeing one set of thieves being replaced by another. Moreover, the people in the regions do not even participate in forming their own regional governments. There was a period in this country when the President appointed regional leaders, but then the local legislative authorities had to approve them, while in Ukraine they are appointed directly. We have now moved on to elections, while they are nowhere near this. And they began appointing all sorts of oligarchs and billionaires to govern the eastern regions of the country. No wonder the people do not accept this, no wonder they think that as a result of dishonest privatisation (just as many people think here as well) people have become rich and now they also have been brought to power.

For example, Mr Kolomoisky was appointed Governor of Dnepropetrovsk. This is a unique crook. He even managed to cheat our oligarch Roman Abramovich two or three years ago. Scammed him, as our intellectuals like to say. They signed some deal, Abramovich transferred several billion dollars, while this guy never delivered and pocketed the money. When I asked him [Abramovich]: “Why did you do it?” he said: “I never thought this was possible.” I do not know, by the way, if he ever got his money back and if the deal was closed. But this really did happen a couple of years ago. And now this crook is appointed Governor of Dnepropetrovsk. No wonder the people are dissatisfied. They were dissatisfied and will remain so if those who refer to themselves as the legitimate authorities continue in the same fashion.

Most importantly, people should have the right to determine their own future, that of their families and of their region, and to have equal participation in it. I would like to stress this: wherever a person lives, whatever part of the country, he or she should have the right to equal participation in determining the future of the country.

Are the current authorities legitimate? The Parliament is partially, but all the others are not. The current Acting President is definitely not legitimate. There is only one legitimate President, from a legal standpoint. Clearly, he has no power. However, as I have already said, and will repeat: Yanukovych is the only undoubtedly legitimate President.

There are three ways of removing a President under Ukrainian law: one is his death, the other is when he personally steps down, and the third is impeachment. The latter is a well-deliberated constitutional norm. It has to involve the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court and the Rada. This is a complicated and lengthy procedure. It was not carried out. Therefore, from a legal perspective this is an undisputed fact.

Moreover, I think this may be why they disbanded the Constitutional Court, which runs counter to all legal norms of both Ukraine and Europe. They not only disbanded the Constitutional Court in an illegitimate fashion, but they also – just think about it – instructed the Prosecutor General’s Office to launch criminal proceedings against members of the Constitutional Court. What is that all about? Is this what they call free justice? How can you instruct anyone to start criminal proceedings? If a crime, a criminal offence, has been committed, the law enforcement agencies see this and react. But instructing them to file criminal charges is nonsense, it’s monkey business.

Now about financial aid to Crimea. As you may know, we have decided to organise work in the Russian regions to aid Crimea, which has turned to us for humanitarian support. We will provide it, of course. I cannot say how much, when or how – the Government is working on this, by bringing together the regions bordering on Crimea, by providing additional support to our regions so they could help the people in Crimea. We will do it, of course.

Regarding the deployment of troops, the use of armed forces. So far, there is no need for it, but the possibility remains. I would like to say here that the military exercises we recently held had nothing to do with the events in Ukraine. This was pre-planned, but we did not disclose these plans, naturally, because this was a snap inspection of the forces’ combat readiness. We planned this a long time ago, the Defence Minister reported to me and I had the order ready to begin the exercise. As you may know, the exercises are over; I gave the order for the troops to return to their regular dislocations yesterday.

What can serve as a reason to use the Armed Forces? Such a measure would certainly be the very last resort.

First, the issue of legitimacy. As you may know, we have a direct appeal from the incumbent and, as I said, legitimate President of Ukraine, Mr Yanukovych, asking us to use the Armed Forces to protect the lives, freedom and health of the citizens of Ukraine.

What is our biggest concern? We see the rampage of reactionary forces, nationalist and anti-Semitic forces going on in certain parts of Ukraine, including Kiev. I am sure you, members of the media, saw how one of the governors was chained and handcuffed to something and they poured water over him, in the cold of winter. After that, by the way, he was locked up in a cellar and tortured. What is all this about? Is this democracy? Is this some manifestation of democracy? He was actually only recently appointed to this position, in December, I believe. Even if we accept that they are all corrupt there, he had barely had time to steal anything.

And do you know what happened when they seized the Party of Regions building? There were no party members there at all at the time. Some two-three employees came out, one was an engineer, and he said to the attackers: “Could you let us go, and let the women out, please. I’m an engineer, I have nothing to do with politics.” He was shot right there in front of the crowd. Another employee was led to a cellar and then they threw Molotov cocktails at him and burned him alive. Is this also a manifestation of democracy?

When we see this we understand what worries the citizens of Ukraine, both Russian and Ukrainian, and the Russian-speaking population in the eastern and southern regions of Ukraine. It is this uncontrolled crime that worries them. Therefore, if we see such uncontrolled crime spreading to the eastern regions of the country, and if the people ask us for help, while we already have the official request from the legitimate President, we retain the right to use all available means to protect those people. We believe this would be absolutely legitimate. This is our last resort.

Moreover, here is what I would like to say: we have always considered Ukraine not only a neighbour, but also a brotherly neighbouring republic, and will continue to do so. Our Armed Forces are comrades in arms, friends, many of whom know each other personally. I am certain, and I stress, I am certain that the Ukrainian military and the Russian military will not be facing each other, they will be on the same side in a fight.

Incidentally, the things I am talking about – this unity – is what is happening in Crimea. You should note that, thank God, not a single gunshot has been fired there; there are no casualties, except for that crush on the square about a week ago. What was going on there? People came, surrounded units of the armed forces and talked to them, convincing them to follow the demands and the will of the people living in that area. There was not a single armed conflict, not a single gunshot.

Thus the tension in Crimea that was linked to the possibility of using our Armed Forces simply died down and there was no need to use them. The only thing we had to do, and we did it, was to enhance the defence of our military facilities because they were constantly receiving threats and we were aware of the armed nationalists moving in. We did this, it was the right thing to do and very timely. Therefore, I proceed from the idea that we will not have to do anything of the kind in eastern Ukraine.

There is something I would like to stress, however. Obviously, what I am going to say now is not within my authority and we do not intend to interfere. However, we firmly believe that all citizens of Ukraine, I repeat, wherever they live, should be given the same equal right to participate in the life of their country and in determining its future.

If I were in the shoes of those who consider themselves the legitimate authorities, I would not waste time and go through all the necessary procedures, because they do not have a national mandate to conduct the domestic, foreign and economic policy of Ukraine, and especially to determine its future.

Now, the stock market. As you may know, the stock market was jumpy even before the situation in Ukraine deteriorated. This is primarily linked to the policy of the US Federal Reserve, whose recent decisions enhanced the attractiveness of investing in the US economy and investors began moving their funds from the developing markets to the American market. This is a general trend and it has nothing to do with Ukraine. I believe it was India that suffered most, as well as the other BRICS states. Russia was hit as well, not as hard as India, but it was. This is the fundamental reason.

As for the events in Ukraine, politics always influence the stock market in one way or another. Money likes quiet, stability and calm. However, I think this is a tactical, temporary development and a temporary influence.

Your questions, please.

Read more

Older Posts »



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.