The Soviet Union was made up of republics and so was Yugoslavia composed of republics. Each Soviet republic contained ethnic minorities as did each Yugoslavian republic. It is said that Russians – by sheer numbers – dominated – culturally, economically and politically the Soviet Union; it is equally claimed that Serbs had a cultural, economic and political edge. The two largest soviet republics – Russia and Ukraine – appear to be especially hostile to one another; the same is true of the two largest Yugoslavian republics, that of Serbia and Croatia. Russians and Ukrainians share the same Christian Orthodox faith, while Croats are Catholic and Serbs are Orthodox. Still, there is some similarity even here: though the Ukrainians are Orthodox Christians, they style themselves as westerners as compared to Russians. In both cases – that of Russia and Ukraine as well as that of Serbia and Croatia – we can see ethnically mixed populations and especially ethnically mixed marriages.

The dissolution of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia was more or less peaceful. Real trouble began on the following day. In either case Western powers did their best to take an advantage of the conflicts and bring about a further weakening of Russia and Serbia, as the case may be. Chechens in Russia and Albanians in Serbia are parallel examples. While Russia eventually managed to suppress the Chechen revolt, Serbia did not: the Western interference prevailed. In both cases the Western media continue to tout Russia and Serbia as the only culprits in the developing conflicts. Russian and Serbian leaders are called names with dictator being among the most polite. Ukrainians and Croats, but especially Chechens and Albanians (Kosovars) are invariably spoken of as innocent victims of the atrocious and dreadful persecutions that they suffer at the hands of, respectively, Russians and Serbs. In either case these dreadful atrocities compel the collective post-West to step in militarily to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe or else. Or else we are in for yet another Auschwitz and the rest of it, as it is frequently maintained. The appalling atrocities allegedly perpetrated by either Russians or Serbs (and never ever by Chechens, Ukrainians, Croats or Albanians/Kosovars)) turn Western sworn pacifists into bellicose hawks.

Sanctions once imposed on Serbia and for some time now on Russia are so numerous and multiple, so repetitive, that you lose count of them, and they really do not make any impression on anybody anymore (not to mention that despite all that sabre rattling on the part of the collective West, Russian gas is still pumped to Western Europe, certainly not free of charge). These declarations of sanctions are something like crying wolf again and again in that well-known Aesop’s fable.

 

In both geographical regions we can see self-hating Russians and self-hating Serbs who fall all over themselves to please their Western overseers. In both cases pictures of fleeing people, especially women and – yes! yes! – children are hammered home to tug at our heartstrings. Emotions are stirred up, reason is not appealed to. Similar events are evaluated entirely differently. The attack of the United States on Serbia is approved, the attack of Russia on Ukraine is not; the recognition of an independent Kosovo is OK’d, the recognition of independent Donbass republics is not. Russian or Serbian nationalisms (the word patriotism is never used) are condemned, whereas Croatian and Ukrainian, and especially Chechen and Albanian nationalisms are endorsed. Continue reading →

Kosovo was a part of Serbia. It was (and continues to be) inhabited predominantly by Albanians. (They are frequently referred to as Kosovars for political reasons.) The United Nations once established the principle that nations ought to be allowed to determine their own destiny, that is to say, whether they want to have an independent state or join a state of their own choice. This principle led to the political action of Kosovo Albanians who rebelled against Serbia; the same principle was used as a pretext by the United States to bomb Serbia for 78 days because Serbs had been allegedly discriminating against Albanians and deserved to be taught a lesson. After Serbia had eventually caved in to American (and Albanian) demands, that is released its grip on the province, in due time Kosovo was recognised as an independent state by a large number of countries, especially those under American domination.

The Donbass (the republics of Luhansk and Donetsk) was a part of Ukraine. It was (and continues to be) inhabited predominantly by Russians. (They are frequently referred to as rebels for political reasons.) Since Kiev began ousting anything that smacked of Russian culture including the Russian language, Ukraine’s two easternmost departments of Luhansk and Donetsk made an act of secession and declared themselves to be independent republics in accordance with the aforesaid principle of the United Nations. A few days ago Russians recognised the independence of the aforementioned republics and began attacking Ukraine in defence of the Donbass inhabitants who had been suffering at the hands of Ukrainians for eight long years. 

The attack of the United States on Serbia and the recognition of Kosovo’s independence is said to be good whereas the attack of Russia on Ukraine and the recognition of the independence of the Luhansk and Donetsk Republics is said to be bad.

Why?

Parties in democratic, western countries have a short sell-by date. Their members sometimes switch to another party or grouping so quickly that the attentive observer of one or the other political scene in the so-called Western world is easily confused as to whom he should actually entrust his future (and present?). As a voter, you buy into a plot, a product, and shortly afterwards you experience a disappointment, an intestinal spasm, sometimes an inner poisoning. Does the majority of humanity (China+India+Russia+most of the “emerging countries”) even know this problem which, here in the so-called West, this television and these media are constantly hammering home: Which politician might not be corrupt, which guy is okay, which one is not anymore and which party is passé because of him? Do you still vote? Really?

Parties in authoritarian-ruled countries stay in power for so long that they can only envy their Western counterparts. Putin has stayed in power for over 4 terms of a US president. While we cannot remember the name of once-important politicians after a few years, time passes more slowly in the “second” world. Yes, time is an overlooked and crucial factor. Time is money. In the West, money is made fast (e.g. printed out of thin air by a central bank), in the poor South, from where migrants have been smuggled on an industrial scale since 2014, the same money thrives on drought-stricken plantations kept afloat with aid money from Western societies.

Please think about it and stick to your first impression: Which seems safer to you – Chinese 5-year and 10-year plans or the current administrative chaos of the EU? The plans forged under the influence of the voter polls in every European party and bold announcements by its members that should not be realised for another 3 years, or the GDPs of Eastern, Central European and other “emerging economies”? Think for a moment and imagine: Groko in China? Two speeds in China’s development? Ha, ha, ha! And there, in the Middle Kingdom, almost all the parts for your brand new German Volkswagen are produced. Germany is only responsible for the final assembly and the made-in… sticker. Continue reading →

For a few weeks now, Canadian truck drivers have been protesting against the horrendous Corona restrictions. As the government of Justin Trudeau hardly reacted to their demands, the drivers blocked the capital with their huge trucks. Many of them came there from remote places in the vast country to draw the government’s attention to their difficult situation, which costs them a lot of money (the fuel alone for a few thousand kilometers of trucking costs a few thousand Canadian dollars). Since they are mostly sole traders, they also lose their money because of contracts lost at the time of the protests. Trudeau learned from his friend Macron, who was tough on the yellow vests, and though he is a representative of the Liberal Party, he acted like a dictator: he had the protesters’ bank accounts frozen. The liberal elites don’t think much of ordinary citizens and their money – that’s a truism.

Now the banks in Canada are being stormed, just as they were in Greece, Iceland and Cyprus. The Canadian run on cash should make us think: What will happen when the central banks soon introduce their digital currencies one after the other? It is not a joke, but a global project that is already underway. China is already convincing its citizens with commercials about it, and Biden had the most important US offices prepare for it last week. Similarly, defiant rebels will be robbed of their savings in seconds. Will we allow digital currencies to creep up on us? Do we want to be transparent to the state? 

What does the phrase research and development make you think of? Science? Economy? Technology? Surprise, surprise! This term is about how to most efficiently destroy Russia. No kidding. The think tank that set itself such a task has chosen RAND as its name, which is short for research and development. RAND’s highly professional staff deals with a variety of problems and suggests solutions for the benefit of the United States and indirectly – yes, yes! – all humanity because we know that what is good for the United States is automatically good for the whole globe. Gefira 61 familiarizes its readers with over a 350-page long document drawn up by RAND. A fascinating read, really! You can all get the feel of watching from close-up the elaborate and meticulous preparations being completed by a military general staff working assiduously on the maneuvers aimed at bringing the enemy to his knees. Not that we have dug this document up or stole it during an undercover operation. RAND has made its findings and recommendations public. We only would like to draw your attention to something that otherwise you may have missed. We hope that after you have read the text, you will better understand what is happening around. Notice that RAND is not the only war-mongering think tank or institution…

Are such documents too frank, too open, too undisguised to be true? Why, not! Klaus Schwab, Bill Gates, George Soros and the rest of their ilk do not mince words about their plans for us, either. And you know what? They are all going to succeed because we do not want to believe them. Because we do not pay attention. Because we shrug our shoulders. It is as simple as that. Nor do we want to immerse ourselves in the past and draw lessons from it. If some of us sometimes do, we tend to dismiss old events as mere artefacts showcased in a museum, as something that is interesting in and of itself, but belongs to the past and as such has absolutely no relation to the present. Alas! That is also why Gefira 61 once again reminds of and examines certain historical facts, and draws parallels with what we are seeing in today’s world. Perhaps some of our readers will recognize the repetitive patterns and share this recognition with their fellow men so that the latter cannot later say that they haven’t been warned.

Are the current conditions: inflation, poor societal health, and the fall of fiat currencies, caused by the pandemic or the lockdowns? Will cryptocurrencies continue to succeed, or will the Russians and Chinese put an end to them? What real goals can the Western financial elites possibly have? Are we facing a major financial upheaval, a reset of fiat currencies and an end to the lower and middle classes slowly but surely being robbed of their savings and turned into servants? We do not know all the answers to these questions, but in our latest bulletin, apart from the parallels between the present and the past, we try to broaden the perspective of our reflections to possible events in the future.

 

It was a couple of days ago that we could see the press conference with the participation of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss. We could have an opportunity to listen to the argumentation of the two parties at length. We, that is, those who had access to the material posted on YouTube or elsewhere. We could feel like lay judges or assessors in a trial, weighing what one side to the conflict says against what the other side to the conflict says. And that’s it. Having listened to the announcements, we can form our opinion, make an evaluation and pass judgement.

Is that what we are usually confronted with? Not by any means! Television or radio broadcasters along with the press and internet news outlets cut the announcements of the parties involved into a handful of selected sentences and then put them together intertwined with the interpretation imposed by those who run the medium. We never, ever get the opportunity to listen – at ease – to the argumentation of the contestants.

It is even worse. What the media present – the aforementioned digested precis – is immediately followed up by TV talking heads or by a written comment from a big figure, and they again dissect what we have had no opportunity to listen to in full. They thus make sure that we – the recipients of the news – know precisely how to understand things or – to put it even better – who is the guilty party. They serve no useful purpose for us. They might be easily dispensed with. If they were dispensed with, then what would we need journalists for?

One might answer: for nothing. Yet, no. Journalists could be useful after all. How? They should be given the task of letting the politicians or leaders have their full say, also in confrontation with their opponents. How? By organizing such conferences or visiting the said politicians or leaders in their places and having them lay down their views and evaluations of events and of the actions taken by their opponents. That’s it.

Oh, yes. Journalist might also come in handy explaining or reminding of things that the viewers, listeners, readers might not be familiar with or may have forgotten. If Minister Lavrov or Secretary Truss mention the Minsk Protocol (the document signed in 2014 by Russia, Ukraine, Germany and France), then the journalists would duly remind of or explain (delete as applicable) what the Protocol was all about. Here again, a full text made available for all to read would be a must. No interpretations, no cuts allowed. You see the point?

If a conflict between Serbs and Albanians arises, the journalist should do his best to contact the best advocates of either side’s interests on either side to the conflict, let them present their case and, again, that’s it. The journalist might – if possible – hold an Oxford-like debate, where belligerents have their say, without being interrupted, without being compelled to answer questions that direct their attention and that of their listeners, viewers or readers away from what they really want to say, and without any audience that is instructed to boo and hiss so as to exert pressure on the speaker. The readers, viewers or listeners should then be left alone with what they read, saw and heard to evaluate, to judge, and to draw inferences. Why are we not given this opportunity?

Have you heard straight from the horse’s mouth via your media what Saddam Hussein or Muammar Qaddafi had to say, how they viewed the conflict with the West, what they complained about? Highly unlikely, to put it mildly. Instead, all you can hear is that President Assad is nasty, that President Lukashenko is Europe’s last dictator, that President Putin is a killer, that President Hussein gassed Kurds while Qaddafi or Milošević used to eat babies for breakfast or dinner in between pauses devoted to herding their opponents in concentration camps. Can’t we see how biased it all is?