#ukraine uprising

[stillunusual]

History repeating itself....

[kalashnikovlobotomy]

nonsense au of a pretty good romanian movie about 6 people's lives intertwining before the communist revolution

[ravencat35]

Goa's performance gave off such Tron vibes, and then after their performance sweet dreams played hahaha

[sheltiechicago]

Ilinden / Makedonium – A Monument Dedicated To The Fighters And Revolutionaries Who Participated In The Ilinden Uprising Of 1903

Revitalizing The Heritage Of Socialist Modernism: BACU’s Online Initiative To Protect Central And Eastern European Architecture

Preserving the monumental yet decaying structures of central and eastern Europe erected between 1955-91 is the mission of the online initiative, Socialist Modernism, created by the Bureau for Art and Urban Research (BACU). With an aim to revitalize this heritage, BACU believes in the significance of these elements which managed to defy some of the ideological requirements of their time, giving the urban space a distinct flavor characteristic of the socialist period.

Palace Of Weddings, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, Built In 1987

One Of The Two Halls Of Parting, Memory Park (Kyiv/Kiev) Ukraine. Built 1968–1981

Eastern Gate Of Belgrade, Rudo Buildings, (Istočne Kapije) Belgrade, Serbia, Built In 1976, Architect: Vera Ćirković Engineer: Milutin Jerotijević

Museum Of The Slovak National Uprising, Banska Bystrica, Slovakia, Built In 1969

[oldsoldierdesign]

Руїна Дежавю

Руїна – період української історії другої половини XVII століття, що відзначився загальним занепадом гетьманщини, кровопролитними міжусібними війнами між гетьманами, а також численими повстаннями козацтва та селянства. Частіше за все під Руїною розуміють період від смерті гетьмана Богдана Хмельницького (1657) до початку гетьманства Івана Мазепи (1687). В той час гетьманщина була поділена по Дніпру на Лівобережну та Правобережну, і ці частини, перебуваючи під р��зними протекторатами (польським та російським), жорстоко й непримиренно ворогували між собою.

Дежавю, або дежа вю (фр. déjà vu — «вже бачене»), — психотерапевтичний термін. Означає психічний стан,за якого людина відчуває, ніби колись вже була у подібній ситуації чи у подібному місці.

[underthewingsofthblackeagle]

         The first priority now must be to end the deaths and terrible suffering in Ukraine as quickly as possible. And we certainly won't achieve that by supplying more and more weapons to Ukraine and allowing ourselves to be drawn further and further into this war. Even the top U.S. military officer, Mark Milley, says that this war cannot be resolved militarily, but will be ended at the negotiating table. Therefore, it must not be the goal of the West to munitionize a long and pointless war of attrition that will cost hundreds of thousands more lives. And for us, too, the delivery of ever heavier weapons means an ever greater danger of being drawn into this war ourselves. That is why we need social pressure for diplomatic initiatives, negotiations and peace. Therefore: Come on 25.02. at 2 pm to the large peace rally (https://aufstand-fuer-frieden.de/) to Berlin before the Brandenburg Gate, to which Alice Schwarzer, Brigadier General (ret.) Erich Vad and I together have called and for which further donations can be made (https://gofund.me/8f1847c4)! Also the "Manifesto for Peace", which meanwhile almost 600,000 people have joined, can still be signed (https://www.change.org/p/manifest-f%C3%BCr-frieden?algorithm=promoted&source_location=search&grid_position=3&pt=AVBldGl0aW9uADTzHQIAAAAAY%2FUJpMZg0vgxZmUyYTJhMw%3D%3D)

[andrasthehun]

Where to Ukrainian Refugees?

April 30, 2023 Ukraine is preparing for a major attempt to recover some of the territory lost to the Russians. It is over a year ago that Russia initiated an unprovoked war on Ukraine, calling it a “special operation”, a euphemism by any stretch of the imagination for what it is, a war. This “special operation” displaced over fifteen million people in Ukraine, and over eight million people left…

[marietheran]

One thing about the War in Ukraine I don't think Westerners really get is that from a local perspective... Russia has always been like that. I don't entirely know what purpose mentioning this may serve within the discussion... except maybe to point out that this war came as a surprise to no one in Eastern Europe, and that when we doubt the moral standing of the average Russian, we are deeply aware of how their worldview has been shaped for at least two centuries.

Because when Pushkin wrote his infamous poem against the Polish Uprising of 1830, he used very much the same arguments as the Russian literary scene today. None of this changes. And this is why nothing short of a complete restructuring of Russia could possibly allow for any kind of civil relations between it and its neighbours — if the blood that has already been spilled doesn't make it too late for this century.

[greencheekconure27]

@ogniemimieczem

Songs about the Khmelnytsky uprising, part 5: Пісня про козака Нечая

It’s been a long time since I added something to this collection, but a movie I’ve rewatched recently (Богдан Зиновій Хмельницький from 2006) reminded me that I can’t just ignore the song about one of the most popular participants of the Khmelnytsky uprising here.

The song about the Bratslav polkovnyk Danylo Nechai comes with many names and even more versions of the lyrics. A lot of these versions, especially the shorter ones, are nearly incomprehensible without context – only if one knows the events they refer to and/or has heard a longer version before, do they start to make sense. The most comprehensive and at the same time chronologically logical (and not too repetitive) version of the lyrics I’ve found might be this one.

To quickly sum them up in English: Nechai and his Cossacks come to a place where they are warned to flee, but Nechai, in a mixture of pride and carelessness, doesn’t heed the warning and goes to a relative to eat fish (or, in many other versions: to get drunk). There is a Polish surprise attack – and no guard – and the Cossacks defend themselves bravely, killing many of their opponents, but are hopelessly outnumbered. Nechai gets killed and is buried, and the comrades burying him plant viburnum (the famous червона калина of another folk song) on his grave, so that his fame and glory shall be remembered in all Ukraine.

What I’ve not found, unfortunately, is a recording using the lyrics exactly like this or at least somewhat close to it. The first recording I’ve included above – by Михайло Коваль ( Mychailo Koval) – already uses comparatively many of its stanzas, but even comparatively many is not that many at all, and the ending is surprisingly abrupt.

However, even though I was frustrated at first by the uncommonness of longer version telling all or at least most of the story, the question what the shorter versions actually choose to tell (and what they choose to leave out!) soon became interesting in itself.

Some can be so short and fragmentary that the lyrics become completely subordinate to the musical performance.

For example, all that is left of the story in this beautiful version by  Дике Поле is the initial warning, Nechai’s refusal to listen to it, and then a short conversation where Nechai asks his godmother if he should unsaddle his horse, to which she replies that she won’t be able to protect him, so he better shouldn’t. And still, even in this rudimentary form the lyrics contain an element that’s both remarkable and quite common in shorter versions of the song: the relative Nechai visits and gets drunk with is explicitly identified as his godmother Khmelnytska – in all probability meaning the hetman’s wife, who, at the time, would have been the famous former Helena Czaplińska. So, according to these songs, Khmelnytsky’s wife is mysteriously present at the place where Nechai gets ambushed and killed – he even gets ambushed and killed while getting drunk with her – but she herself somehow gets safely out of the situation without the songs ever explaining how or just mentioning her again.

I don’t know if it’s the strangeness of these events that gave rise to an interpretation I stumbled upon while looking for different versions of the lyrics: namely that mentioning Khmelnytska in this context is an allusion to a rumour that Khmelnytsky himself, envying Nechai’s popularity and wanting to get rid of a rival, had something to do with Nechai’s death.

How plausible it is – both the rumour and the interpretation of the song – I can’t tell. It has to be mentioned, however, that in none of the versions I’ve come across does Khmelnytska encourage Nechai to get drunk; she just doesn’t stop him when he comes to her to do so. Nor does she convince him to be careless. Quite to the contrary: when he asks her if he should unsaddle his horse, she always advises against it. Can her explanation for advising caution – that she can’t protect him – somehow be interpreted to mean that the hetman might have been responsible for Nechai’s death not in the sense of direct involvement, but negligence and lack of military support? That is probably a question of imagination. Is it something a clever songwriter could come up with who both wants to get his message across and not risk his head? Sure. Is it a likely explanation? I don’t know...

Whatever one prefers to believe, there’s versions that are only slightly longer but add some different nuances of meaning to the story. A very interesting one for what it does with the text is this one by Сашко (Олександр Власюк):

After the same fragment of the story that also the version by Дике Поле uses, it simply repeats the initial warning, emphatically, several times, completely changing the atmosphere of the song. The audience knows, of course, that the story is supposed to end with Nechai’s death. But this performance treats the events as if they were still happening at the moment – Nechai’s fate not decided yet – as if the warning could still reach him.

In a similar way, a version by Гуляйгород ends with Nechai becoming aware of the attack and getting ready to disperse the enemy – without mentioning the fatal outcome. It almost seems like it wants to spare the audience the part about the beloved hero’s death or, maybe more probable and more in line with what other songs about the Khmelnytsky uprising do, like it wants to talk not only of the past by showing the battle against the enemy as something that is still going on and can still be won.

Though most shorter versions decide to omit Nechai’s actual death, I also want to include one that goes the exact opposite way:

This performance by Taras Sylenko (Тарас Силенко) leaves out the whole drinking and carelessness, mentioning his pride in his Cossack fame as Nechai’s only reason for refusing to flee, and then immediately proceeds to the battle, putting all emphasise on his fighting, death and burial – and especially the fame that will survive him.

Like for the song about Morozenko, there’s also an episode of the podcast by Pavlo Nechitailo (Павло Нечитайло) and Taras Kompanichenko (Тарас Компаніченко) dedicated to the songs about Nechai – as always, I’m too helpless without written text to make use of it, but I’m linking it for anyone who might be interested:

[mageofminge]

REMINDER TO BOYCOTT EUROVISION

Here's a quick run down of everything they've done + why you should boycott

Despite banning Russia for its actions in the Russia-Ukraine war, Israel is still in the contest (despite committing war crimes, attacking Gaza with genocidal intent etc)

"But Hamas attacked first on Oct.7" - Then why is Israel also bombing southern Lebanon if Hezbollah and the Lebanese government aren't involved?????

Israel often uses ESC as a platform for propaganda

One key example is their promotions for their 2019 broadcast, where they tried to turn attention away from the occupation and portray the country as a liberal haven of democracy, with the lines "... it's a land of war and occupation. But we have so much more than that!" and pointing out its the only place in the middle east where "gays are hugging in the street". (as if the rest of the Levant INCLUDING PALESTINE isn't actually relatively chill when it comes to gay rights)

Another example is them sending an Ethiopian Jewish singer to perform a song called "Set me Free" the same year they stormed Al-Aqsa during Ramadan, which seemed to be very intentionally trying to shift the narrative away from Israel as a colonial occupier, and more as a persecuted people who have finally found safety

As well as the issues with Israel as a competitor, ESC is SPONSORED by MoroccanOil, an Israeli company (ik the name is misleading, but speaking as a Moroccan Israel just really loves to steal our culture while treating our people they stole like shit [I could go on an entire rant ab this but I won't])

So what this means is we can't just boycott this year and then forget about it the next. Until Israeli presence is completely removed from EUROVISION, your views and your money will be funnelled to support an Apartheid regime. I already know people who are still watching Eurovision despite not supporting the occupation, because they love the artists and the spectacle. But no spectacle is worth supporting an Apartheid regime. The best way we can help the Palestinians is by making Israel a pariah state, and pressuring politicians to cut all their funding. That way they won't be able to put down uprisings and maintain the brutal police state they have - at which point they can only resolve the conflict peacefully and end occupation, or find themselves in the throw of a violent revolution. It was these strategies that ultimately helped end the apartheid regime in South Africa, and it is these strategies which can help end Israeli apartheid.

[mariacallous]

The spectacularly rapid fall of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad and his regime is the Middle East’s 1989. Like the fall of the Berlin Wall, this weekend’s end of 54 years of Assad family rule signals an earthquake in the regional order—with tremors that will be felt for decades to come. Just as 1989 was marked by a series of falling dominoes in Poland, Hungary, East Germany, and elsewhere, the collapse of the Syrian regime is part of a chain of events, including Israel’s decimation of Hezbollah, Iran’s loss of its most potent proxy forces, and the weakening of Russia due to the war it started in Ukraine.

And just as 1989 marked the end of communism in Europe, Assad’s flight to Moscow signals the demise of the ideology of anti-Western, anti-Israel resistance in the Middle East. For more than half a century, the Assad family was the backbone for a political order in the Middle East in which a bloc of states styled themselves as the resistance to what they labeled Western imperialism and Zionism. The appropriation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict proved to be a powerful tool to mobilize the masses across the region who wanted justice for Palestinians—sentiments that the Syrian regime and its allies instrumentalized to distract from their domestic failures, oppress their own people, and extend their regimes’ regional influence. In reality, these regimes cared little about the Palestinians.

Within this bloc, Syria and Iran believed they had entered a mutually beneficial and durable alliance—and each thought it had the upper hand. Syria was crucial for Iran because it was the heart of the land bridge between Iran and its most valuable proxy, Hezbollah in Lebanon, while Syria saw alignment with Iran as increasing its own stature against Israel and bolstering its influence over Lebanon.

For Iran, the ideology of resistance was an indispensable tool to rally support from Arabs and Sunnis as Tehran vied for dominance in the Middle East. As the leaders of a self-styled Axis of Resistance, the clerics in Tehran were able to supplant the old ideology of pan-Arab nationalism, as espoused by the Syrian Baath Party and others, and ultimately dominate several Arab countries through well-armed proxies. The Assad regime ignored this challenge even as Iran manipulated the Baath Party to serve Tehran’s own objective of achieving regional dominance. For example, Iran presented Hezbollah to Syria as an ally when Hezbollah’s primary purpose was to support exporting the Islamic revolution.

The Syrian uprising of 2011 and the war that followed shifted the balance of power toward Iran, which intervened to prop up the Assad regime. Most consequentially, Tehran summoned Hezbollah to support the Assad regime against the Syrian rebels.

In the course of the Syrian war, the country moved from being a partner to a client of Iran. A much-diminished Assad regime was now dependent for its survival on Iran and its proxies, including Hezbollah and Tehran-controlled militias from various countries. In other Middle Eastern states, including Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen, Iran’s proxies consolidated their status as dominant political and military actors. Iran increased its investment in them as its outer lines of defense and tools of geopolitical influence.

Iran’s rise and dominance as a regional power came to define an entire era of Middle Eastern politics. Across the region, most countries either were under direct Iranian influence via the country’s proxies or were forced to configure their foreign policies around the threats posed by Iran. The Gulf Arab states, for example, ended up pursuing de-escalation with Iran to stave off the instability caused by its activities.

The United States, other Western countries, and Israel did not like this Iran-dominated order, but they tolerated it. They saw it as lower risk compared with the unknown forces that sudden political change in Iran or Syria could unleash. This Cold War-like arrangement with a confrontational status quo made Damascus and Tehran feel confident in their power vis-à-vis the West and its allies.

U.S. disengagement from the Middle East under the Obama administration paved the way for Russia to insert itself into the regional order. When Iran and its proxies showed themselves unable to prop up the Assad regime on their own, Moscow saw the Syrian war as a low-cost opportunity to reclaim its status as a global power and arbiter of the region. Russia’s substantial naval and air bases in Syria also served as critical logistical centers for Moscow’s expanding military operations in Africa.

For almost a decade, Russia thus became a major actor in the Middle Eastern cold war. Russia, Iran, and the rest of the Axis of Resistance appeared to form one bloc, while Western allies such as Israel and the Gulf Arab countries formed another. But Russian support for Assad was little more than a transactional partnership, and Russian-Iranian relations were never frictionless. From the beginning of Russia’s military intervention in Syria, it sought to undermine Iran’s influence in the country so that Russia remained the dominant actor.

The Iranian regime, in turn, was concerned about the challenge that Russia presented to its influence in Syria. Yet Tehran had no choice but to remain in Moscow’s orbit, regarding its influence over Syria as a small price to pay in return for gaining a powerful backer for its Axis of Resistance.

Tehran presented Hezbollah and the Assad regime to the Iranian people as a worthy investment: the front line of resistance to Israel and the crown jewels of Iran’s regional clout. Tehran needed to reassure Iranians that the economic sacrifices and political isolation that its support for Hezbollah and Assad generated were not in vain. Otherwise, Tehran argued, Iran would be under threat of erasure by Israel and the United States.

The collapse of the Assad regime has jolted this dynamic to an abrupt stop. Russia’s abandonment of Assad—and by extension, Iran’s project in Syria—creates additional rifts in Iran’s already shrinking network of proxies. The Iranian leadership will struggle to justify to its people decades of investment in Syria that have gone down the drain in a matter of days.

Standing alone without Syria and Russia in the face of a still-strong Western-backed bloc, the regime in Tehran will be revealed to its people as having imposed a futile sacrifice that not even its nuclear program can redeem. This poses a serious risk to the survival of the Islamic Republic—potentially the biggest fallout of last week’s events.

The repercussions of Assad’s collapse will also ripple across Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen as Iran’s proxies find themselves without an important lifeline. In Lebanon, in particular, the political dynamics set off by Israel’s decimation of Hezbollah are likely to accelerate with the loss of the all-important land bridge for weapons supplies from Iran. The sudden vulnerability of an already weakened Iran also means that Tehran’s remaining proxies may doubt the reliability of their patron.

The domino effect of the collapse of the Assad regime will inevitably mean the end of the Iran-dominated regional order. Replacing it will be a regional order dominated by Israel and its partners. Israel has shifted its perspective from an uneasy tolerance of Iran’s influence in the Middle East to actively seeking an end to this status quo and has succeeded in practically neutralizing the biggest threat to its security, Iran. Israel will move from being a state surrounded by adversaries and clawing at regional legitimacy to becoming the Middle East’s agenda-setter. Enjoying good relations with both the United States and Russia also makes Israel a key player in ending the cold war in the Middle East.

For the Gulf Arab countries, Iran’s degradation as a destabilizing actor also bolsters the implementation of their economic visions. The defeat of Iran’s revolutionary project will pave the way for widening the scope of normalization between Arab countries and Israel on the basis of shared business, political, and security interests. This recalibration will likely push Turkey to act more pragmatically in the way it engages with the region.

The anti-Western ideology nurtured by the Syrian Baath Party for 54 years and successfully appropriated by Iran blossomed for decades but is rapidly withering. Just as the Cold War ended with the defeat of communism, decades of confrontation in the Middle East will end with the defeat of the resistance ideology.

[sonyaheaneyauthor]

Tulsi Gabbard’s history with Russia is even more concerning than you think

“What happened in Syria is what allowed the Russians to feel that they could do the very same in Ukraine,” he said.

“And what she is doing with Ukraine shows that it goes beyond her maybe misunderstanding one conflict. She is, hook, line and sinker, a Russian puppet.”

In the summer of 2015, three Syrian girls who had narrowly survived an airstrike some weeks earlier stood before Tulsi Gabbard with horrific burns all over their bodies.

Gabbard, then a US congresswoman on a visit to the Syria-Turkey border as part of her duties for the foreign affairs committee, had a question for them.

“How do you know it was Bashar al-Assad or Russia that bombed you, and not Isis?’” she asked, according to Mouaz Moustafa, a Syrian activist who was translating her conversation with the girls.

It was a revealing insight into Gabbard’s conspiratorial views of the conflict, and it shocked Moustafa to silence. He knew, as even the young children did, that Isis did not have jets to launch airstrikes. It was such an absurd question that he chose not to translate it because he didn’t want to upset the girls, the eldest of whom was 12.

“From that point on, I’m sorry to say I was inaccurate in my translations of anything she said,” Moustafa told The Independent. “It was more like: How do I get these girls away from this devil?”

Even before Gabbard left the Democratic Party, ingratiated herself with Donald Trump and secured his nomination to become director of National Intelligence, she was known as a prolific peddler of Russian propaganda.

In almost every foreign conflict in which Russia had a hand, Gabbard backed Moscow and railed against the US. Her past promotion of Kremlin propaganda has provoked significant opposition on both sides of the aisle to her nomination.

Her journey from anti-war Democrat to Moscow-friendly Maga warrior began in Syria. The devastating conflict was sparked by pro-democracy uprisings in 2011, which were brutally crushed by the Assad regime. It descended into a complex web of factions that drew extremist Islamists from around the world and global powers into the fray.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), a UK-based monitoring group with a network of sources on the ground, documented the deaths of 503,064 people by March 2023. It said at least 162,390 civilians had died in that same time, with the Syrian government and its allies responsible for 139,609 of those deaths.

But Gabbard, a veteran of the Iraq War, viewed it all as a “regime-change war” fueled by the West and aimed at removing the dictator from power. She saw Assad – and Russia, when it entered the conflict – as legitimate defenders of the state against an extremist uprising.

In 2015, when Russia entered the Syrian war on the side of the dictator Assad, Gabbard expressed support for the move, even as the civilian toll from Moscow’s devastating airstrikes grew into the thousands.

“Al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11 and must be defeated. Obama won’t bomb them in Syria. Putin did. #neverforget911,” she wrote on Twitter.

It was precisely because of her support for Assad and Russia’s war that Moustafa was keen for her to attend the congressional delegation to southern Turkey to meet the victims of the conflict.

“From experience, everyone that we bring over to the border, and they see the victims, they always come back with a realistic view of what’s happening and who is behind the mass displacement and killing and atrocities and so on, and so that was the objective,” he said. “What was shocking was her lack of empathy. She’ll sacrifice the facts, even when it came to little girls in front of her telling her they got bombed by a plane – it didn’t matter.”

Charles Lister, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute who testified twice on Syria to the House Foreign Affairs Committee when Gabbard was a member, spent years debunking her various conspiracy theories about the war.

“Her consistent denial of the Syrian regime’s crimes is so wildly fringe that her potential appointment as DNI is genuinely alarming,” he told The Independent.

Lister said her views “appear to be driven by a strange fusion of America First isolationism and a belief in the value of autocratic and secular leaders in confronting extremism.”

They included a suggestion that Syrian rebels staged a false-flag chemical weapons attack against their supporters to provoke Western intervention against Assad — something the US intelligence agencies she will soon lead had concluded was false. She declined to call Assad a war criminal when pressed, despite masses of evidence, and used a video of Syrian government bombings to criticize US involvement in the war.

“Her descriptions of the crisis in Syria read like they were composed in Assad’s personal office, or in Tehran or Moscow – not Washington,” Lister added.

Gabbard was not swayed by meeting the victims of Assad’s airstrikes in 2015. In fact, two years later, she went to Damascus to meet the Syrian president in person and came away even more convinced of her opinions.

The congresswoman said her visit to meet Assad – the first by a sitting US lawmaker since the conflict began – was aimed at bringing an end to the war.

“I felt it’s important that if we profess to truly care about the Syrian people, about their suffering, then we’ve got to be able to meet with anyone that we need to if there is a possibility that we could achieve peace,” she told CNN at the time.

Fire rises following a Syrian government airstrike in Aleppo in 2016 (AP)

Gabbard was forced to defend her embrace of Assad and other dictators during her 2020 run for the Democratic presidential nomination. During the Democratic primary debate, she clashed with Kamala Harris, who accused her of being “an apologist for an individual – Assad – who has murdered the people of his country like cockroaches.”

“She has embraced and been an apologist for him in a way that she refuses to call him a war criminal. I can only take what she says and her opinion so seriously and so I’m prepared to move on,” added Harris, who would subsequently drop out of the race and later be selected as Joe Biden’s running mate.

When Russia invaded Ukraine, Gabbard again defended Russian aggression.

“This war and suffering could have easily been avoided if Biden Admin/Nato had simply acknowledged Russia’s legitimate security concerns,” she posted on Twitter in 2022.

Gabbard appeared to fall for various conspiracy theories about the conflict that were promoted by Russia, as she had done in Syria. One of those conspiracy theories was a Russian claim about the existence of dozens of US-funded biolabs in Ukraine that were supposedly producing deadly pathogens.

She later walked back on those remarks, suggesting that there might have been some “miscommunication and misunderstanding.”

Gabbard’s frequent echoing of Kremlin talking points has earned her praise in Russian state media. Indeed, an article published on 15 November in the Russian-state controlled outlet RIA Novosti went so far as to call Gabbard a “superwoman.”

The possibility that Trump would tap someone with Gabbard’s history to be America’s top intelligence official shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone who followed the president-elect’s first four years in the White House.

During his 2018 summit with President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, the then-president was asked if he believed the US intelligence community’s assessment, which stated that Russia had interfered in the 2016 presidential election on his behalf.

That assessment was based on analysis of what was determined to have been state-sponsored campaigns of fake social media posts and ersatz news sites to spread false stories about his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, as well as cyberattacks targeting the Democratic National Committee and prominent operatives associated with the Clinton campaign.

But Trump, who’d just spent several hours in a closed-door meeting with Putin, stunned the assembled press and the entire world by declaring that he trusted the Russian leader’s word over that of his own advisers.

​​"President Putin says it’s not Russia. I don’t see any reason why it would be," he replied.

Trump would go on to repeatedly clash with his own intelligence appointees during the remainder of his term. He sacked his first DNI, former Indiana senator Dan Coats, after Coats repeatedly declined to back away from the government’s assessment of what Russia had done during the 2016 presidential race.

Larry Pfeiffer, the director of George Mason University’s Hayden Center for Intelligence, Policy, and International Security, said Gabbard’s apparent susceptibility to foreign disinformation and her affinity for strongmen will give pause to American allies with whom the US routinely shares intelligence on common threats.

Intelligence services, he explained, are notoriously territorial and tight-lipped on sources and methods – particularly when it comes to so-called human intelligence, or Humint, which refers to information collected by and from spies and sources within hostile governments.

Pfeiffer said foreign allies are likely already concerned about how a second Trump administration will handle intelligence, given the president-elect’s record. He also predicted that Gabbard’s confirmation as DNI would cause even more problems among skittish partners.

“I think they wouldn’t feel like they’ve got an American confidant that they can deal with on a mature level,” he said. “I can guarantee you that the foreign intelligence services of Europe, including the Brits, are all having little side conversations right now about … what is this going to mean, and how are we going to operate, and what are we going to do now.”

Gabbard has taken the side of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad as well as the Russian president (AP)

The former US intelligence veteran also said Gabbard’s record of spreading foreign talking points calls into question whether she will be able to carry out the DNI’s important responsibility of briefing the president on threats to the nation.

He told The Independent: “Somebody like Tulsi Gabbard, you look at her long history of statements that seem to come out of the Kremlin’s notebook, her propensity to be influenced by their viewpoint – [it] raises questions as to whether she has the ability to present the intel community’s perspective as it is, or is she going to be one who’s going to want to discount it, influence it, color and change it, or ignore it and just present her own view?

“I think it also raises questions of judgement. You know, here’s an individual who seems very prone to misinformation, prone to conspiracy theory. That should worry anybody who’s worried about America’s national security,” he added.

Trump’s selection of the former Hawaii congresswoman could be a problem for the senators tasked with confirming her, on several different levels. For one, the position is unique among cabinet agencies in that there are strict requirements for who can serve in the director’s role.

The text of the 2004 law which established the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks on New York and Washington and the intelligence community’s failures leading up to the US invasion of Iraq, specifically states that any person who serves in the DNI job “shall have extensive national security expertise.”

The first person to serve as DNI, John Negroponte, was a widely respected foreign service veteran who had served as US ambassador to Iraq, Mexico, Honduras and the Philippines, as the country’s ambassador to the United Nations, and as a deputy national security adviser during the Reagan administration. The next three people to hold the office were flag-rank military officers with significant intelligence experience.

Pfeiffer, a US intelligence veteran of three decades’ standing who once ran the White House Situation Room and served as chief of staff to then-CIA director General Michael Hayden, told The Independent that Gabbard’s experience in the House and her military service, while admirable, do not match the standards envisioned by the authors of the 2004 law which established the office.

“That’s national security experience … but she was a freaking military cop … operating at a largely tactical level, not that strategic, long-term national security perspective that one would expect,” he said.

Gabbard may have left the Syrian conflict behind, but Moustafa still works with its victims every day. And he believes the connection between her views on Syria and Ukraine is clear.

“What happened in Syria is what allowed the Russians to feel that they could do the very same in Ukraine,” he said.

“And what she is doing with Ukraine shows that it goes beyond her maybe misunderstanding one conflict. She is, hook, line and sinker, a Russian puppet.”

[dontforgetukraine]

November 21st is the Day of Dignity and Freedom. On this day, Ukrainians ignited two revolutions against tyranny and injustice: The orange revolution in 2004 and the Euromaidan revolution in 2013-2014.

On 21 November, Ukraine commemorates the Day of Dignity and Freedom, honoring pivotal moments in its history that underscore the nation’s fight for independence, democracy, and the rule of law. This date marks the anniversary of the 2004 Orange Revolution and the 2013-14 Euromaidan Revolution, also known as the Revolution of Dignity, two popular uprisings that defined Ukraine’s resistance against Russian authoritarianism and its determination to embrace a pro-European future. Euromaidan began on 21 November 2013, when Ukrainians took to the streets to protest then-President Viktor Yanukovych’s abrupt decision to abandon a historic agreement with the European Union under pressure from Moscow. The peaceful demonstrations escalated into a nationwide movement demanding democracy and accountability. Yanukovych’s regime responded with brutal force, leading to the deaths of over 100 protesters, now remembered as the “Heavenly Hundred.” These revolutions were not just internal struggles but battles against Moscow’s endless efforts to maintain dominance over Ukraine. After Yanukovych fled in 2014, Russia annexed Crimea and launched a war in eastern Ukraine, laying the groundwork for today’s full-scale invasion. Today, Ukraine’s resistance continues more fiercely than ever as it defends not just its sovereignty but also the principles of democracy and international law. The legacy of 21 November serves as a reminder that Ukraine’s fight is far from isolated—its outcome will shape global norms on freedom and the rule of law. —Euromaidan Press

[starseedpatriot]

🇱🇾 USAID & NGOs were the Hidden Hand Behind Libya’s Destruction

For over four decades, Libya thrived under Gaddafi, but in 2011, the U.S., NATO, and Western-backed NGOs engineered an uprising, leading to his overthrow and Libya’s descent into chaos. USAID and its affiliated organizations played a critical role in financing, legitimizing, and facilitating the regime change operation.

How USAID & NGOs Helped Topple Gaddafi

USAID:

• 2011-2012, USAID funneled $75 million into “civil society” groups, opposition media, and transitional government structures.

• Funded the National Transitional Council (NTC), the de facto government after Gaddafi’s fall.

• Assisted in setting up opposition-run election commissions to ensure Libya remained under Western control post-regime change.

NED:

• Funded exile-run opposition media like Barada TV, which broadcast anti-Gaddafi propaganda from Washington, D.C.

• Provided grants to “civil society” groups that later funneled support to jihadists, including Free Syrian Army (FSA) members who later fought in Libya.

• Trained and promoted exiled opposition leaders who were later installed in Libya’s post-Gaddafi government.

OSF: Soros’s Role in Libya

• Pushed Western narratives on Libya, reinforcing media campaigns to justify NATO intervention.

• Funded opposition movements that aligned with U.S. geopolitical interests.

• Lobbied for mass migration policies in Europe, using Libya’s collapse to drive refugee influxes.

What did Libye lose?

Before 2011:

• Debt-free economy with $150 billion in foreign reserves.

• Free healthcare, education, and subsidized housing.

• One of Africa’s highest literacy rates at 87%.

• The Great Man-Made River Project provided sustainable water to the entire country.

• Oil wealth was distributed among the population.

After NATO & USAID Intervention:

• Libya became a failed state with rival militias battling for control.

• Open-air slave markets appeared, with migrants sold openly.

• Oil production collapsed, foreign corporations took over key sectors.

• ISIS and jihadist groups flourished.

• The country became a hub for weapons trafficking and human smuggling.

Gaddafi's Final Warning Before NATO Bombing in 2011?

“If Libya falls, chaos will take over North Africa, the Mediterranean will burn, and waves of migrants will flood Europe.”

Gaddafi knew what was coming. He was right.

The U.S. and its NGO network didn’t remove Gaddafi for “human rights.” They targeted him because he threatened Western financial dominance and refused to comply.

USAID used Libya as a practice round to hone their skills to be used in future campaigns:

Ukraine (2014): Funded Euromaidan protests → Led to civil war & U.S. economic control.

Syria (2011-2024): USAID financed the opposition → Led to over a decade of war.

Venezuela (2002-Present): Funded opposition coup attempts → Economic collapse under U.S. sanctions.

Georgia (2003/2023): Engineered “color revolutions” → Destabilized the country.

Libya, once Africa’s most prosperous nation, is now a shattered warzone. A direct result of U.S.-backed regime change funded directly by USAID.

🔴 @DDGeopolitics | Socials | Donate | Advertising

[pattern-recognition]

post taken from @/HavryshkoMarta on twitter

SBU boasts about uncovering a leftist organization allegedly preparing an "uprising" in Ukraine, encouraging young men to evade military mobilization and disobey commanders' orders. The comical aspect is that as 'evidence,' law enforcement shows books seized from the "criminals," including works by Lenin, Marx, the Criminal Code of the USSR, and other Soviet literature.

What is interesting is that several neo-Nazi Telegram channels in Ukraine freely distribute Mein Kampf, The Turner Diaries, etc., as well as shirts and patches with Nazi symbols; post information about their actions in the name of "White Race" (distribution of leaflets, drawing hate symbols in public space, beating people). Yet the SBU seems uninterested in these activities.

“Amicis – omnia, inimicis – lex.”