Experts, who discovered Russian meddling in the US elections, finally revealed

The most important news in the past several months, after the presidential elections themselves, has been Kremlin helping President-elect Donald Trump win these elections. This campaign has been the favorite child of the US mass media led by the champion of everything anti-Russian and anti-Trump: The Washington Post. Russia was hacking everything from the Democratic National Committee to the Illinois voter database to Stanford University. It also created secret bank accounts to fund Donald Trump. And so on. What was the proof provided for these claims? Well, there was nothing that can be called “proof”. The entire campaign was based on the clams that “experts say” or “experts suspect”. The names of these experts were seldom revealed, as they spoke “on the condition of anonymity”.

Until yesterday that is, when The Washington Post finally revealed some of these experts. Well, not their exact names, but their web site and their Twitter account:


November 24




This list of “Russia-controlled media” (see below) is comprised of a whole slew of sites ranging from Noam-Chomsky-like and Bernie-Sanders-like places to ultra-conservative to Libertarian sites, including the highly respected Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity and The Drudge Report.

What they all have in common is criticism of the US government’s foreign policies in the support of the ultra-right-wing militia in Ukraine and the Sunni jihadists in Syria.

Wait. Did I say “all”? Not true. There are some sites on this list that seem to have nothing to do with politics. For example, 2 nutrition sites that sell vitamins: and I haven’t looked at all their pages, but it seems that they have nothing to do with politics at all. Why are they on this “enemy” list? Hard to tell. I can venture only two explanations:

  1. One of the PropOrNot’s “experts” had a bad experience buying vitamins from them and decided to retaliate
  2. One of the PropOrNot’s “experts” owns a vitamin shop and wants to eliminate competition

Which brings up the natural next question: what do we know about these PropOrNot “experts” other that they are anonymous? Let us go to their Twitter account. And when we do, we suddenly discover that these ” nonpartisan experts” are not Americans, but … wait for the drum rolls… Ukrainian right-wing extremists, peddling propaganda of the notorious Ukrainian fascist group called OUN(b) (Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists-Bandera), which actively helped Hitler to commit Holocaust in Ukraine and kill roughly a million innocent Jewish civilians, and on its own slaughtered 100 000 innocent Polish civilians.pr0!

Слава Україні! — українське вітання, гасло українських націоналістів.

Це вітання використовували в часи УНР та міжвоєнні роки. «Слава Україні — Героям Слава!» було поширене в УПА підконтрольному ОУН (б). В канонічній ОУНУПА під проводом А.Мельника натомість вживали «Слава Україні — Навіки Слава!»[1].

«Слава Україні — Героям Слава!» – “Glory to Ukraine – Glory to the Heroes!” – Ukrainian greeting, slogan of Ukrainian nationalists. This greeting was common in the UPA controlled OUN (b).

Moreover, we discover that this “nonpartisan collection of researchers with foreign policy, military and technology backgrounds” is actually nothing more than one or a couple of foul-mouthed simple-minded teenagers:



In case you were wondering, “Путінхуйло” is Ukrainian for “Putin is a Dickhead!”, only more obscene.




Ron Paul (born August 20, 1935) is an American author, physician, and former politician. He was formerly the U.S. Representative for Texas from 1976 to 2013. On three occasions, he sought the presidency of the United States: as the Libertarian Party nominee in 1988 and as a candidate in the Republican primaries of 2008 and 2012.

Here is their list:



“Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say”

Another group, called PropOrNot, a nonpartisan collection of researchers with foreign policy, military and technology backgrounds, planned to release its own findings Friday showing the startling reach and effectiveness of Russian propaganda campaigns.

“The way that this propaganda apparatus supported Trump was equivalent to some massive amount of a media buy,” said the executive director of PropOrNot, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid being targeted by Russia’s legions of skilled hackers. “It was like Russia was running a super PAC for Trump’s campaign. . . . It worked.”

PropOrNot’s monitoring report, which was provided to The Washington Post in advance of its public release, identifies more than 200 websites as routine peddlers of Russian propaganda during the election season, with combined audiences of at least 15 million Americans. On Facebook, PropOrNot estimates that stories planted or promoted by the disinformation campaign were viewed more than 213 million times.

The ‘Washington Post’ ‘Blacklist’ Story Is Shameful and Disgusting

The capital’s paper of record crashes legacy media on an iceberg

8 hours ago

Last week, a technology reporter for the Washington Post named Craig Timberg ran an incredible story. It has no analog that I can think of in modern times. Headlined “Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say,” the piece promotes the work of a shadowy group that smears some 200 alternative news outlets as either knowing or unwitting agents of a foreign power, including popular sites like Truthdig and Naked Capitalism.

The thrust of Timberg’s astonishingly lazy report is that a Russian intelligence operation of some kind was behind the publication of a “hurricane” of false news reports during the election season, in particular stories harmful to Hillary Clinton. The piece referenced those 200 websites as “routine peddlers of Russian propaganda.”

The piece relied on what it claimed were “two teams of independent researchers,” but the citing of a report by the longtime anticommunist Foreign Policy Research Institute was really window dressing.

The meat of the story relied on a report by unnamed analysts from a single mysterious “organization” called PropOrNot – we don’t know if it’s one person or, as it claims, over 30 – a “group” that seems to have been in existence for just a few months.

It was PropOrNot’s report that identified what it calls “the list” of 200 offending sites. Outlets as diverse as, and the Ron Paul Institute were described as either knowingly directed by Russian intelligence, or “useful idiots” who unwittingly did the bidding of foreign masters.

Forget that the Post offered no information about the “PropOrNot” group beyond that they were “a collection of researchers with foreign policy, military and technology backgrounds.”

Forget also that the group offered zero concrete evidence of coordination with Russian intelligence agencies, even offering this remarkable disclaimer about its analytic methods:

“Please note that our criteria are behavioral. … For purposes of this definition it does not matter … whether they even knew they were echoing Russian propaganda at any particular point: If they meet these criteria, they are at the very least acting as bona-fide ‘useful idiots’ of the Russian intelligence services, and are worthy of further scrutiny.”

What this apparently means is that if you published material that meets their definition of being “useful” to the Russian state, you could be put on the “list,” and “warrant further scrutiny.”

Forget even that in its Twitter responses to criticism of its report, PropOrNot sounded not like a group of sophisticated military analysts, but like one teenager:

“Awww, wook at all the angwy Putinists, trying to change the subject – they’re so vewwy angwy!!” it wrote on Saturday.

“Fascists. Straight up muthafuckin’ fascists. That’s what we’re up against,” it wrote last Tuesday, two days before Timberg’s report.

Any halfway decent editor would have been scared to death by any of these factors. Moreover the vast majority of reporters would have needed to see something a lot more concrete than a half-assed theoretical paper from such a dicey source before denouncing 200 news organizations as traitors.

But if that same source also demanded anonymity on the preposterous grounds that it feared being “targeted by Russia’s legions of skilled hackers”? Any sane reporter would have booted them out the door. You want to blacklist hundreds of people, but you won’t put your name to your claims? Take a hike.

Yet the Post thought otherwise, and its report was uncritically picked up by other outlets like USA Today and the Daily Beast. The “Russians did it” story was greedily devoured by a growing segment of blue-state America that is beginning to fall victim to the same conspiracist tendencies that became epidemic on the political right in the last few years.

…..   This was remarkably similar to the response of PropOrNot when asked by The Intercept to comment about its “list” report. The only difference was, Phillips didn’t use emoticons:

“We’re getting a lot of requests for comment and can get back to you today =)” PropOrNot told The Intercept. “We’re over 30 people, organized into teams, and we cannot confirm or deny anyone’s involvement.”

“They” never called The Intercept back.

Most high school papers wouldn’t touch sources like these. But in November 2016, both the president-elect of the United States and the Washington Post are equally at ease with this sort of sourcing.

Even worse, the Post apparently never contacted any of the outlets on the “list” before they ran their story. Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism says she was never contacted. Chris Hedges of Truthdig, who was part of a group that won the Pulitzer Prize for The New York Times once upon a time, said the same. “We were named,” he tells me. “I was not contacted.”

Hedges says the Post piece was an “updated form of Red-Baiting.”

“This attack signals an open war on the independent press,” he says. “Those who do not spew the official line will be increasingly demonized in corporate echo chambers such as the Post or CNN as useful idiots or fifth columnists.”

These journalists seemed totally indifferent to the Pandora’s box they were opening. They didn’t understand that most politicians have no use for critical media. Many of them don’t see alternative points of view as healthy or even legitimate. If you polled a hundred politicians about the profession, 99 would say that all reporters are obstructionist scum whose removal from the planet would be a boon to society.

The only time politicians like the media is when we’re helping them get elected or push through certain policies, like for instance helping spread dubious stories about Iraq’s WMD capability. Otherwise, they despise us. So news outlets that get into bed with politicians are usually making a devil’s bargain they don’t fully understand.

They may think they’re being patriotic (as many did during the Iraq/WMD episode), but in the end what will happen is that they will adopt the point of view of their political sponsors. They will soon enough denounce other reporters and begin to see themselves as part of the power structure, as opposed to a check on it.

This is the ultimate in stupidity and self-annihilating behavior. The power of the press comes from its independence from politicians. Jump into bed with them and you not only won’t ever be able to get out, but you’ll win nothing but a loss of real influence and the undying loathing of audiences.

Helping Beltway politicos mass-label a huge portion of dissenting media as “useful idiots” for foreign enemies in this sense is an extraordinarily self-destructive act. Maybe the Post doesn’t care and thinks it’s doing the right thing. In that case, at least do the damn work.

‘The Washington Post’ Promotes a McCarthyite Blacklist

“PropOrNot” has smeared working journalists as agents of the Kremlin while wrapping itself in a cloak of anonymity.

On November 24, The Washington Post published what at first glance looked to be a deeply troubling report on the far-reaching, insidious influence of the Kremlin on the American media. The Post’s national technology reporter Craig Timberg writes that “a sophisticated Russian propaganda campaign that created and spread misleading articles online with the goal of…helping Republican Donald Trump and undermining faith in American democracy.”

According to Timberg, a group which goes by the moniker PropOrNot, a “nonpartisan collection of researchers with foreign policy, military and technology backgrounds” has identified “more than 200 websites as routine peddlers of Russian propaganda during the election season, with combined audiences of at least 15 million Americans.”

PropOrNot, which has yet to identify its members or its source of funding (its executive director spoke to Timberg on the condition of anonymity) accuses the right-wing Drudge Report, left-wing Counterpunch, Consortium News (whose founder and editor was recently awarded the I.F. Stone Medal from Harvard University), the libertarian, Naked Capitalism, David Stockman’s Contra Corner, Truth-Out, TruthDig, as all being “useful idiots” of the Kremlin.

Still worse, “PropOrNot estimates that stories planted or promoted by the disinformation campaign were viewed more than 213 million times.” Yet, like much else about this anonymous outfit, how it came up with this figure is something of a mystery.

It should be noted that the PropOrNot Web site shares the same hallmarks of the very disinformation campaigns it warns against: a complete lack of transparency, a shoddy methodology, and zero information about its funders, claiming that its members “are anonymous for now, because we are civilian Davids taking on a state-backed adversary Goliath, and we take things like the international Russian intimidation of journalists, “Pizzagate”-style mob harassment, and the assassination of Jo Cox very seriously.”

This is a group that has assembled a media blacklist and smeared working journalists as agents of the Kremlin, all the while cravenly wrapping itself in a cloak of anonymity.

The group’s intentions are clear. They are “calling for formal investigations by the US government” of these Web sites because they think “the American people have the right to know when foreign governments are trying to mess with them.” What is more, they “strongly suspect that some of the individuals involved have violated the Espionage Act, the Foreign Agent Registration Act, and other related laws, but determining that is up to the FBI and the DOJ.”

That the Post would rely on the “findings” of a shoddy, anonymous blacklist that seeks to stifle dissent on Russia policy is deeply troubling.

In the days following the publication of the report, I e-mailed both Timberg and Washington Post executive editor Martin Baron asking whether it was appropriate for the paper to cite the “findings” of an anonymously authored blacklist. Timberg’s initial response was, “If you want a hand in reporting what I reported on—what researchers say about Russian efforts to influence the election—I am happy to lend a hand on background.”

When I followed up by asking, “What convinced you to run a story based partly on the ‘data’ and claims of this group—which doesn’t identify its members or funders and has named some very respectable outlets like Naked Capitalism and Consortium as Russian ‘propaganda’?,” Timberg quickly withdrew his offer of assistance, writing, “Questions about decisions about what the Post publishes and why are properly directed to Marty Baron.”

Baron has yet to respond.

Nevertheless, this is not the first time a media blacklist of journalists critical of US policy towards Russia has been promoted in the mainstream media. In late 2014 the Mikhail Khodorkovsky–funded Interpretermagazine (now part of the US government–funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty network) issued a report calling for an “internationally recognized ratings system for disinformation” that would furnish news organizations and bloggers with the “analytical tools with which to define forms of communication.” The report also urged newspapers to staff “counter-disinformation editors” who would “pick apart what might be called all the news that is unfit to print.”

The Interpreter report was praised in the pages of The New York Review of Books, The Washington Post, and The Atlantic. Yet at the time I wrote that“one would have hoped that journalists, of all people, would object to this project in the strongest possible terms. That no one has yet done so is an ominous sign.”

An ominous sign, as well as a sign of things to come, since, as we have seen, throughout the 2016 presidential campaign, much of the liberal commentariat worked itself into a neo-McCarthyite frenzy from which it has not yet recovered. By this point it hardly needs pointing out that some liberal pundits have themselves been actively engaged in a disinformation campaign for some time. How else can one describe former New Republiceditor Franklin Foer’s thoroughly debunked piece on the Trump Organization’s “secret email server” connected to a Russian bank.

Not surprisingly, almost as soon as the Washington Post report appeared, prominent members of the liberal commentariat tweeted it out to hundreds of thousands of people, as though it were hard-won vindication of their collective efforts to portray Trump’s surprise victory as the work of the Russian government. This despite the Obama administration’s statement of November 26 that the election results “accurately reflect the will of the American people.”

That these journalists and high-profile Clinton supporters would promote the PropOrNot blacklist is a measure of how debased our politics have become.

Publications Called Russian-Propaganda Distributors Consider Suing Anonymous ‘Experts’

Some editors say the person or group called PropOrNot crafted a ‘McCarthyite’ list that defamed them.

By Steven Nelson| Staff Writer Nov. 29, 2016, at 5:53 p.m.

Libertarian, left-wing and collaborative news sources were among the 200 websites declared distributors of Russian propaganda by the anonymous group PropOrNot. (PETRAS MALUKAS/AFP/GETTY IMAGES)

Several American news outlets are considering legal action against the anonymous person or group that last week published a widely distributed list of alleged Russian propaganda outlets and “bona-fide ‘useful idiots’” of the Kremlin.

Online publications including the influential news-aggregating Drudge Report, the primary-source publisher WikiLeaks and news outlets of various leanings made “the list” hosted on the website

The Washington Post leaned heavily on the anonymous group’s claims last week in an article reporting that “two teams of independent researchers” – including the Foreign Policy Research Institute and PropOrNot – had found a “Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’” ahead of the recent presidential election.

The term “fake news” has become a flashpoint since the election, with many mainstream media outlets claiming an epidemic of bogus reporting during the election campaign, soliciting stiff pushback from independent outlets that say the term is being used in a bid to censor social media and news platforms of independent viewpoints.

The anonymous website offers no individual analysis to justify its listing of sites, many of them with political views distinct from the mainstream media, such as the Ron Paul Institute,, the finance blog Zero Hedge and the Black Agenda Report.

The list includes actual Russian government-funded outlets such as Russia Today and Sputnik News but does not distinguish them from the large group declared guilty of “echoing Russian propaganda.”

“I haven’t had any financial damages yet, so that’s the only reason I haven’t started a libel suit,” says Doug Owen, senior editor of Blacklisted News, a popular independent news-hosting website.

The editor of a separate news and commentary website said his organization also is considering a possible libel lawsuit, perhaps as a cooperative effort with other sites on the list. He asked not to be named as this point but said a decision on whether to sue likely would come “fairly soon.”

Mark Allin, chief operating officer of The Above Network, which runs the large news discussion board, says “at this time we are reviewing our options, nothing is off the table.”

Two editors at the progressive news site CounterPunch also say they are keeping their options open as they work to determine who tarred them as Russian propagandists.

“It’s totally ridiculous – apparently they’ve never even read what I’ve written on Russia in Syria!” editor Joshua Frank says in an email. In June, he condemned Russia’s “murderous air bombardments” producing “piles of dead kids” in Syria and predicted the ultimate demise of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, a Russian ally.

“My own writings on [Russian President Vladimir] Putin have been nothing but critical,” adds Jeffrey St. Clair, the other CounterPunch editor, adding that “the Russian writers we’ve published, such as Boris Kagarlitsky, are Russian dissidents.”

St. Clair says CounterPunch is “exploring our options and digging on our own into the misty background of PropOrNot.”

Yves Smith, editor of the economics and news site Naked Capitalism, proposed a collective legal “counter-attack” Tuesday night, expressing concern that if unchallenged the characterization might be used to justify censorship on platforms such as Facebook. Smith wrote that a “seasoned First Amendment litigator” had volunteered their services, but asked readers to chip in for additional legal expenses.

The Washington Post reported that the executive director of PropOrNot spoke with the paper “on the condition of anonymity to avoid being targeted by Russia’s legions of skilled hackers.”

For now, the identity of PropOrNot’s operator or operators remains stubbornly hidden, as the site is registered with Domains By Proxy, which allows for anonymity. Legal action might have better success at unmasking the individual or entity, which directs inquires to a Gmail email address and maintains accounts on Facebook, Twitter and reddit.

Journalists including Glenn Greenwald and Ben Norton of the Intercept and Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone described the 200-website list as a present-day example of McCarthyism, a term named for former Sen. Joe McCarthy, who infamously claimed in 1950 he had a list of 205 communists within the State Department without providing evidence. The Intercept said the Post story ironically peddled “fake news” itself.

PropOrNot’s methodology for identifying Russian propaganda distributors is unclear.

“We have used a combination of manual and automated analysis, including analysis of content, timing, technical indicators, and other reporting, in order to initially identify (‘red-flag’) the following as Russian propaganda outlets,” the website claims. “We then confirmed our initial assessment by applying whatever criteria we did not originally employ during the red-flag process, and we reevaluate our findings as needed.”

The person or people who operate PropOrNot – which describes itself as “an independent team of concerned American citizens with a wide range of backgrounds and expertise, including professional experience in computer science, statistics, public policy, and national security affairs” – did not directly respond to questions about their expertise and potential legal action.

“We welcome good-faith attempts at dialog from anyone involved, and will be updating our site and list very soon following those discussions,” someone said in an emailed response Wednesday morning.





В среднем, заработная плата у них составляет около пяти тысяч гривен

Одесский технический колледж








Одесский технический колледж Одесской национальной академии пищевых технологий


  • Бакалавр компьютерной инженерии
  • Бакалавр энергомашиностроения
  • Изготовление изделий из кожи
  • Товароведение в таможенном деле
  • Товароведение и коммерческая деятельность
  • Производство хлеба, кондитерских, макаронных изделий и пищеконцентратов
  • Монтаж и обслуживание холодильно-компрессорных машин и установок
  • Швейное производство
  • Экономика предприятия
  • Обслуживание компьютерных систем и сетей


1 USD =25.6199UAH



Область знаний, специальность Всего мест Бюджетные места Срок обучения Стоимость обучения (грн.\год) Предметы ВНО, экзамены
Пищевая промышленность и переработка сельскохозяйственной продукции
5.05170104 производство хлеба кондитерских макаронных изделий и пищеконцентраторов
120 Есть 2 года 10 месяцев 5 450 Украинский язык и литература,
Математика или Химия























Who is lying about Syria: Russia or USA?

There are 2 diametrically opposing views of the conflict in Syria:

1. The view of the American government and media:

  • President Assad is an ally of Russia and Iran, therefore he must be removed from power in Syria
  • The rebels who are fighting the government of Syria are freedom fighters
  • The vast majority of these rebels  are fighters for democracy and Western values
  • Russia is not fighting against ISIS aka ISIL aka Daish, only USA is

1. The view of the Russian government and media:

  • President Assad is an internationally recognized head of state in Syria
  • It is up to Syrian people, not the US government, to decide who should be Syria’s head of state

Whose side is right?

Let us look at the authoritative report by  Tony Blair Faith Fgoundation/The Centre on Religion and Geopolitics:

If the Castle Falls: Ideology and Objectives of the Syrian Rebellion

IF THE CASTLE FALLS Ideology and Objectives of the Syrian Rebellion

Key Findings

Sixty per cent of major Syrian rebel groups are Islamist extremists

33% – nearly 100,000 fighters – have the same ideological objectives as ISIS.

60% belong to Islamist groups (those who want a state governed by their interpretation of Islamic law)












Is our government preparing a nuclear holocaust?

As part of the growing mass hysteria in the American/British mass media in preparation for WWIII, “60 Minutes CBS” has recently aired a segment, expressing outrage that Russia is not scared of the US warnings that Pentagon is ready to nuke Russia if it disobeys American orders.

It starts by bragging that the US is openly telling Russian people that it is preparing to nuke Russia or poison Russians with outlawed chemical WMDs:


Air-launched cruise missiles being loaded onto a long range B-52 bomber at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana.

David Martin: When you see it close up, it’s, it’s even bigger than you think it is.

Richard Clark: It is an impressive machine. About 185,000 pounds empty. But it’s built to carry weapons and gas.

Major General Richard Clark commands all of this country’s nuclear bombers.

David Martin: And these are the weapons?

Richard Clark: Yes sir. These are air-launch cruise missiles. It is the nuclear primary weapon for the B-52.

Clark told us these are training missiles so they are not armed with nuclear warheads.

A B-52 can carry 20 cruise missiles, six under each wing and eight in the bomb bay.

Richard Clark: So this is the rotary launcher. And it holds eight air-launched cruise missiles within the internal bomb bay of the B-52. It’s a tight fit but the way it works is the launcher rotates, allows the weapon to release and send it on its way.

David Martin: It looks like the chamber of a revolver.

Richard Clark: Same idea. Just much bigger bullets.

As the most visible arm of the American nuclear arsenal these bombers are meant to send a message to an international audience.

Richard Clark: We can put this aircraft anywhere we want, anytime we want and both our allies and our adversaries take note.  

David Martin: This is basically a nuclear show-and-tell?

Richard Clark: It’s not just a show-and-tell because it will deliver.


CBS then proceeds to discuss the issue of Crimea, a Russian province that was taken away from Russia in 1955 by Stalin’s bloody Communist henchman Khrushchev and given as a “gift” to the Ukraine, and re-annexed by Russia right after the bloody Maidan revolution in the spring of 2014 that threatened the predominantly Russian residents of Crimea.

In the context of talking about the Russian takeover of Crimea, CBS showed General Phillip Breedlove, the former supreme NATO commander in Europe, saying:

Within the last two years B-52s have begun sending that message directly to Russia, flying missions not seen since the Cold War. It started after Vladimir Putin changed history by invading an independent country, Ukraine, and seizing its Republic of Crimea.

Phillip Breedlove: The fact that military force would be used to change an internationally recognized border in the central part of Europe that was new.

Now retired, General Phillip Breedlove was the supreme Allied commander in Europe when Russia took over Crimea. The invasion was carried out by so-called little green men – Russian soldiers wearing uniforms without insignia – but looming in the background were nuclear weapons.

Phillip Breedlove> The fact that military force would be used to change an internationally recognized border in the central part of Europe that was new.

CBS meant it to refer to Crimea. However we all know that changing an internationally recognized border in the central part of Europe is NOT new. This practice was pioneered by NATO back in 1999 when it bombed Serbia and changed its internationally recognized border by stealing Kosovo.

Moreover, Russia used no deadly force in its Crimea takeover, as it was peaceful and there were no casualties. As opposed to NATO’s aggression on Serbia, which was highly violent and included numerous war crimes, such as the intentional bombing of the Yugoslav TV headquarters, the destruction of a Serb passenger train, and even the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade – an act of war against China – that killed 3 Chinese journalists.
Surely, as the former supreme NATO commander in Europe, Mr. Breedlove must be aware of the Kosovo campaign. Which leads us to 3 possibilities:
1. Mr. Breedlove is lying that “the fact that military force would be used in Crimea to change an internationally recognized border in the central part of Europe that was new”.
2. Mr. Breedlove suffers from dementia and doesn’t remember Kosovo.
3. CBS put his words in the wrong context, as Mr. Breedlove (btw, a beautiful name!) surely was not talking about Russia but was condemning NATO’s crimes in Kosovo.

Which is it?

Next “60 Minutes” addressed the issue of pre-emptive nuclear strikes. Plans for first strikes against Russia and other foreign countries have traditionally been the backbone of the American military doctrine, for example:


But “60 Minutes” claims that 3 years ago Russia adopted the same doctrine:

David Martin: Was there ever any indication that Vladimir Putin was prepared to use his nuclear weapons in any way?

Phillip Breedlove: Vladimir Putin said himself that he would considered raising the alert status of his nuclear force.

David Martin: He had considered it?

Phillip Breedlove: He said it himself.

Putin said he had given an order to his military to be prepared to increase the readiness of his nuclear forces if the U.S. and NATO tried to block his takeover of Crimea. “We were not looking for a fight,” Putin said in this interview. But “we were ready for the worst-case scenario.”

Phillip Breedlove: They see nuclear weapons as a normal extension of a conventional conflict.

David Martin: So to them nuclear war is not unthinkable?

Phillip Breedlove: I think to them the use of nuclear weapons is not unthinkable.

It says so in their military doctrine, signed by Putin in 2014, Russia “…shall reserve the right to use nuclear weapons . . . in the event of aggression . . . When the very existence of the state is in jeopardy.” 

CBS and General Breedlove are outraged that Russia is imitating the United States. Evidently, they believe that the international law mandates that only the USA has the right to use nukes. Does the US have the exclusive international patent for nuking other countries? Well, the USA is indeed the only country on Earth that has used nukes to slaughter people, having done so back in 1945 against Japanese civilians. But there is absolutely no patent. And therefore Russia does have a right to respond to the American plans for a first strike against Russia, and it does have a full right “to be prepared to increase the readiness of its nuclear forcesin the event of aggression.

However, the US government doesn’t think so, and in response to Russia saying that “Russia shall reserve the right to use nuclear weapons in the event of aggression, when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy”, the US government decided to hasten the nuclear holocaust by directly intimidating Russians with the American ability to nuke and gas the Russian nation  into the oblivion:

And the U.S. responded with more aggressive exercises of its own. One year after Crimea four B-52s flew up over the North Pole and North Sea on an exercise called polar growl the B-52s were unarmed but that little fin on the side of the fuselage identified them as capable of carrying nuclear weapons.

Hans Kristensen: What I plotted here are the two routes for these planes.

Hans Kristensen, director of the nuclear information project at the federation of American scientists, used Google Earth to show us the message that sent Russia.

Hans Kristensen: Each bomber can carry 20 cruise missiles a maximum of them so we’re talking about potentially 80 cruise missiles that could have been launched against targets inside Russia at this particular time.

Using the cruise missiles range of 1500 miles, Kristensen plotted his own hypothetical lines showing how far they could potentially reach into Russia.

David Martin: And the end points of those red lines?

Hans Kristensen: Yes, each of them go to a facility in Russia that could be a potential target for nuclear weapons.

David Martin: The Russians would look at that and see it as a dry run for an attack on targets inside Russia.

Richard Clark: I guess they can draw the conclusions that they need to draw.

David Martin: Eighty cruise missiles in your face.

Richard Clark: It’s a lot of fire power.

David Martin: Was that the message?

Richard Clark: That’s a message for sure.

The last time American nuclear bombers flew a mission like that was during the Cold War.

Richard Clark: This was a significant exercise for us. We’re training the way we might have to fight.

It was an unmistakable warningbut Rear Admiral Steve Parode says there’s no indication the Russian military has changed its thinking about nuclear weapons.


Of course, the concept of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is still in force, and after the US launches its nuclear strike on Russia, Russia defense forces will assuredly cover the US territory with nukes, killing virtually all of us, average Americans.

However, evidently, the US politicians, the media, and the military-industrial complex believe that they will be able to save their own asses in some kind of bomb shelters, so they really don’t care that all the average Americans die, and the Earth will become uninhabitable for the next million years. Or, maybe, the American elite believe the recent promises by Boeing and Musk to colonize Mars within 10 years (if they ever figure out how to prevent their rockets from exploding on the launchpad), and hope to escape the nuclear holocaust by flying to Mars.


Of course, these modern Dr. Strangeloves are crazy. They will die too. But it is time for the American public to wake up and stop this unprecedented anti-Russian war hysteria that we are witnessing this year from the American agitprop machine. The first steps in this escalation of war hysteria  started back in mid-1990s with NATO’s Drang nach Osten (eastward expansion), aimed at scaring and provoking average Russians into responding and reincarnating the Cold war, and has been snowballing since then into what is now a truly scary situation.

The reader is encouraged to watch and read the rest of CBS piece. I will finish here by quoting its last paragraph:

Cecil Haney: It concerns me that Russia has a lot of nuclear weapons. It concerns me that Russia has behaved badly on the international stage. And it concerns me that we have leadership in Russia, at various levels that would flagrantly talk about the use of a nuclear weapon in this 21st century.

In other words, the US military and media elites deeply believe that the United States has the monopoly to flagrantly talk about the use of a nuclear weapon in this 21st century.  And this may mean death to all of us.

Почему гондошка на ноге? Сползла!

Все знают фразу “Почему повязка на ноге? Сползла!“. Многие знают знаменитый юмористический рассказ Григория Горина на эту тему. Про людей без чувства юмора. Если забыли, вот он:

Думаете, это преувеличение? Нисколько. Таких в жизни полно. И среди них даже встеречаются умные люди. Но без чувства юмора.

Меня на Фейсбуке преследует некто Michael Franz. В жизни такой умный, вежливый и спокойный. Но, как и у многих, на Фейсбуке у него отдушина: не надо быть умным и вежливым. И вот какую шутку я бы не публикую на ФБ, он прицепляется к ней и уже никогда не отцепится. Как бы я ни пытаюсь объяснить свои шутки, он не понимает, а продолжает критиковат6ь мои шутки за то, что их текст не соответствует действительности.

Например, кто-то из гостей принёс ко мне пакетик с “edamame”. Стоит эта гадость у меня на кухне. Никто до неё не дотрагивается. Читаю: “eda mame”. Перевожу на русскую клаву: “еда маме”. Решил пошутить про это на своей ФБ странице. И для иллюстрации к шутке нашел в Гугле какую-то статью про вред этой “edamame”. Поместил. Люди посмеялись. Но не Michael Franz. Он пошел в бой на защиту этой edamame от моей шутки:


А вот ещё:


На этом разошлись. Но это исключение. Обычно он никогда не останавливается. Я думал, что он только притворяется, что нет у него чувства юмора, для того, чтобы меня доводить за то, что наши политические взгляды разнятся. Он ведь бывший одессит, а какой одессит не понимает юмор?! Но сегодня понял, что нет, оно у него действительно полностью отсутствует. Опубликую наши две дискусссии без дополнительных комментариев. Надеюсь, будет смешно:


А вот вторая бесконечная дискуссия, тоже сегодняшняя:


И так каждый день. Больше на этого зануду терять время не буду.








Question from the audience: Is islamic extremism really the major threat to the United States and will it die on its own or will it keep growing.

George Friedman: it is a problem to the United States, it is not an existential threat. It has to be dealt with, but it has to be dealt with proportionately. We have other foreign policy interests. So, the primordial interest of the United States over which for centuries we have fought wars, the first, second and cold war has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us, and to make sure that that doesn’t happen. If you are an Ukrainian, it is essentially to reach out to the only country that will help you, which is the United States. Last week, about ten days ago, General Hodges, commander of the ‘US army Europe’ visited Ukraine, he announced that US trainers would now be officially coming, not just unofficially coming. He actually pinned medals on Ukrainian fighters, which by protocol of the military actually is not the way, foreigners don’t get to pin on medals, but he did. Showing that this was his army, he then left and in the Baltics announced that the United States would be prepositioning: armour, artillery, and other equipment in the Baltic’s, Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria, which is a very interesting point.
So the United States, and now yesterday the United States announced that it will be sending weapons. Tonight of course they denied it, but they are, weapons will go. In all of this the United States has acted outside of the context of NATO. Because NATO has to have a hundred percent vote and anyone country can veto anything. And the Turks will veto it just for ‘giggles’. The point is that the United States is prepared to create a ‘cordon Sanitaire’ around Russia, and Russia knows it, Russia believes that the United States intends to break the Russian Federation.
I think that as Peter Lory put it, “we don’t want to kill you, we just want to sort of hurt you a little bit“. Either way, we are back at the old game, and if you go ask a Pole or a Hungarian or a Romanian, they live in a totally different universe from a German, and they live in a totally different universe from a Spaniard. So there is no commonality in Europe. But if I were Ukrainian, I would do exactly what they are doing, try to draw the Americans in.

Nick Brand: Alright, next question please.

George Friedman: The United States has a fundamental interest, it controls all the oceans of the world, no power has ever done that. Because of that, we get to invade people and they don’t get to invade us, that is a very nice thing. Maintaining control of the sea and control of space is the foundation of our power. The best way to defeat an enemy fleet is to not let it be built. The way the British managed to make certain that no European power could built a fleet is to make sure that the Europeans were at each others throats.
The policy that I would recommend is the one that Ronald Reagan adopted toward Iran and Iraq. He funded both sides, so they would fight each other and not fight us. This was cynical, it was certainly not moral, it worked. And this is the point: the United States cannot occupy Eurasia, the moment the first boots hits the ground, the demographic differential is that we are totally outnumbered. We can defeat an army, we cannot occupy Iraq, the idea that 130.000 men would occupy a country of 25 million. Well the ratio in New York of cops to citizens was greater than we had deployed in Iraq. So, we don’t have the ability to go across, but we do have the ability to first: support various contending powers so they are concentrated on themselves with political support, some economic support, military support, advisers and in extremis do what we did in Japan, I mean in Vietnam, in Iraq and in Afghanistan. With spoiling attacks, the spoiling attack is not intended to defeat the enemy, it is intended to throw them of balance. What we did in each of these wars, in Afghanistan for example we threw Al Qaida of balance.
The problem we have since we are young and stupid is that having thrown them of balance instead of saying ‘ok, job well done, let’s go home’. We said ‘well that was easy, why don’t we build a democracy here’. This was the moment of dementia that came in. The answer therefore is, the United States cannot constantly be intervening throughout Eurasia. It must be selectively intervening and very rarely, that is the extreme moment, we cannot as the first step send American troops. And when we send American troops, we have to truly understand what the mission is, limit to that and not to develop all sorts of psychotic fantasies. So hopefully we have learned that this time, it takes a while for kids to learn lessons. But I think you are absolutely right, we cannot as an empire do that.
Britain didn’t occupy India, it took various Indian states and turned them against each other and provided some British officers for an Indian army. The Romans did not sent vast armies out there, it placed kings. Various kings were created under the emperor and those kings were responsible for maintaining the peace, Pontius Pilate was one example. So empires that are directly governed by the empire like the Nazi Empire failed. No one has that much power. You have to have a level of cleverness. However, our problem is not yet that, it is actually admitting that we have an empire. So we haven’t even gotten to that point were we don’t think that we can go home and it will be over and done. So we are not even ready for chapter three of the book.

Nick Brand: Next question please. Yes the gentleman right here in the fourth row.

Question from audience: So, I infer from your comments that the euro as a currency will not survive.

George Friedman: The question on the table for the Russians is will they retain a buffer zone that is at least neutral or will the West penetrate so far in the Ukraine that they are 70 miles away from Stalingrad and 300 miles away from Moscow. For Russia, the status of Ukraine is an existential threat, and the Russians cannot let go. For the United States, in the event that Russia holds on to the Ukraine, were will it stop? Therefore it is not an accident that General Hodges, who is been appointed to be blamed for all of this, is talking about prepositioning troops in Romania, Bulgaria, Poland and the Baltic’s. This is the Intermarium, from the Black Sea to the Baltic, that Pilsudski dreamed of. This is the solution for the United States.
The issue to which we don’t have the answer is what will Germany do. The real wild card in Europe is that as the United States builds its cordon sanitaire, not in Ukraine, but to the west, and the Russians try to figure out how to leverage the Ukrainians out, we don’t know the German position. Germany is in a very peculiar position, it’s former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder is on the board of Gazprom, they have a very complex relationship with the Russians. The Germans themselves don’t know what to do, they must export, the Russians can’t take up the export. On the other hand, if they lose the free trade zone, they need to build something different. For the United States, the primordial fear is Russian capital, Russian technology, I mean German technology and German capital, Russian natural resources and Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States.
So how does this play out? Well, the USA has already put it’s cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltic’s to the Black Sea. For the Russians, their cards have always been on the table, they must have at least a neutral Ukraine, not a pro-western Ukraine. Belarus is another question. Now, whoever can tell me what the Germans are going to do is going to tell me about the next 20 years of history. But unfortunately the Germans haven’t made up their mind. And this is the problem of Germany always, enormously economically powerful, geopolitical very fragile and never quite knowing how to reconcile the two. Ever since 1871, this has been the German question, the question of Europe. Think about the German question, because now it is coming up again, that is the next question that we have to address, and we don’t know how to address it, we don’t know what they are going to do.







Today, he is founder and chairman of Stratfor, the Texas-based geopolitical forecasting and intelligence corporation. Immensely well-connected and well-informed, he is a much-quoted authority on intelligence and security issues. He also is a prolific author of many books, including his latest, Flashpoints: The Emerging Crisis in Europe.


Once again, he said, Germany is “Europe’s basic flaw,” a country that is “economically powerfully and geopolitically fragile.” Split off from its EU ties, it could once again look east to revive the age-old fear of “German capital and technology plus Russian resources and manpower”—an alliance that the EU was supposed to bury forever.



Cato Institute NATO warning

Libertarian position from 20 years ago:

NATO Expansion and the Danger of a Second Cold War

January 31, 1996

“Enlarging NATO to include the nations of Central and Eastern Europe would be an especially unwise step. Enlargement would undermine Russia’s beleaguered democrats, intensify Russian suspicions about Western intentions, and play into the hands of militaristic elements that argue that Moscow must restore the Soviet empire to protect Russia’s security.”

How prophetic.

Expanded NATO Will Tempt the Bear
Los Angeles Times. November 27, 1996.

February 3, 1997

Even worse, expanding the alliance to Russia’s borders threatens to poison Moscow’s relations with the West and lead to dangerous confrontations. Extending security commitments to nations in Russia’s geopolitical “back yard” virtually invites a challenge. The United States would then face the choice of failing to honor treaty obligations or risking war with a nuclear-armed great power

“The U.S. Senate will soon cast a vote that will set the tone of U.S.-Russian relations for the next generation. If senators approve NATO membership for Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, NATO will move right up to Russia’s border, seriously endangering the once-in-a-century opportunity for the United States to build a constructive relationship with that vast and important country.

Approval of Poland’s application means NATO on Russia’s border in 1999. If the Senate approves the first group of applicants, it can hardly deny membership to the next round of applicants, including Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Those nations share an additional 734 kilometers of border with Russia. Thus, the United States will have responded to the peaceful dissolution of the Soviet empire with in in-your-face deployment of the NATO alliance right on Russia’s doorstep. Humiliating a former adversary is a dangerous thing for a great power to do, and we may pay dearly for our arrogance”
Like · Reply · 18 hrs · Edited
Vlad Rutenburg
Vlad Rutenburg There is simply no need to expand NATO. Even the proponents admit Russia poses no threat to her neighbors, nor could she for many years to come even under the worst of circumstances. Eastern and Central Europe do not need a military alliance, they need access to Western markets. Then why are supporters pushing NATO expansion? It got started in 1996 as an election-year ploy to pander to American voters who identify with the candidate nations. It has been carried forward on the argument that expanding NATO into Central and Eastern Europe promotes stability. Everyone is for stability. But how do we promote stability anywhere in Europe by promoting instability everywhere in Russia? Our highest priority ought to be the reduction of Russia’s arsenal of nuclear weapons, which still constitutes a real and present threat to the United States. Resentment of NATO expansion prompted the Russian legislature to delay ratification of the START II Treaty that would shrink Russian and U.S. arsenals by 3,500 strategic nuclear missiles each. The refusal to ratify that important treaty, despite pleas from Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin, is a concrete example of the way NATO expansion strengthens the hands of the irresponsible elements at the expense of Russian reformers.

Further, NATO’s encampment right on Russia’s borders forces Moscow to rely more heavily on her large stockpile of tactical nuclear weapons left over from Soviet days. Moscow has lately renounced a no-first-strike policy. Given the decrepit state of Russia’s conventional forces, she has little choice but to make do. Unfortunately, tactical nuclear weapons can be used to make up for inadequate conventional forces. How does forcing Russian to turn increasingly to tactical nuclear weapons promote stability?

More broadly, NATO expansion poisons the well in U.S.-Russian relations. To contain Soviet communism, we fought two hot wars and a long cold war and spent perhaps $20 trillion. For 45 years, our citizens bore a heavy burden, including the risk of nuclear war or nuclear accident. At last we have an opportunity to build friendly relations with Russia. NATO expansion puts that priceless opportunity at peril, risking the waste of an enormous sacrifice of American blood and treasure. Worse, it risks a resumption of a dangerous confrontation between the United States and Russia, two nations that ought to be friends.
Like · Reply · 18 hrs · Edited
Vlad Rutenburg
Vlad Rutenburg Russian reformers who expected to be treated as friends and equals now find themselves cast beyond the pale as unworthy, uncivilized and unwashed. Russian leaders from across the entirespectrum bitterly resent NATO expansion. To dismiss their concern by saying ordinary Russians don’t care misses the point. Ordinary Russians haven’t the luxury of looking beyond the daily struggle to put food in front of their children. But Russians who make foreign policy care greatly, and they shape history. Proponents of expansion who say the Russians will “have to get over it” reveal an arrogance and a short-sightedness that serve us ill. NATO expansion may prove to be the most damaging mistake in international relations since the humiliation of Germany after World War I, an act of hubris most historians count asthe cause of World War II.

Vlad Rutenburg The authors served in the U.S. Senate, representing Colorado and New Hampshire, respectively. March 20, 1998
Like · Reply · 18 hrs · Edited
Vlad Rutenburg
Vlad Rutenburg Every word of these warnings from 20 years ago came true. Every single word.

My notes about Vysotsky in Wikipedia

Но еще в молодости Высоцкий, который превыше всего ставил свободу, стал непримирым врагом сталинизма и последующего за ним деспотизма. Он постоянно исполнял наполненную болью песню бывшего узника ГУЛага Юза Алешковского «Товарищ Сталин» [26] и свою собственную «Баньку по белому”» [27], написал и пел множество сатирических и трагических песен в защиту свободы слова, действий и инакомыслия. Написал и пел четыре песни, осуждающие практику бросания здоровых свободомыслящих в психбольницы, первую – еще в 1965 г. [28] [29] [30] [31] Постоянно пел о судьбе и героизме узников ГУЛага, начиная со «Штрафных батальонов» [32], «Нынче все срока закончены…» [33] и «Так оно и есть» [34], написанных еще в 1963-64 гг.

Так оно и есть –
Словно встарь, словно встарь -:
Если шел вразрез –
На фонарь, на фонарь!
Если воровал –
Значит, сел, просто сел,
А если много знал –
Под расстрел, под расстрел!
Думал я – наконец не увижу я скоро
Лагерей, лагерей,
Но попал в этот пыльный расплывчатый город
Без людей, без людей!
Бродят толпы людей, на людей непохожих,
Равнодушных, слепых.
Я заглядывал в черные лица прохожих –
Ни своих, ни чужих…

Главным в творчестве, как и в характере, Высоцкого были жизнеутверждениие, нетерпимость к несправедливости [35] [36] и особенно неутолимая и неукратимая жажда к воле и свободе[37]. Будучи индивидуумом, он был нндивидуалистом и презирал толпу, любые собрания (“манежи и арены”) и покорное “быдло” [38]. Сам практически ни к каким организованным группам не принадлежал и избегал ярлыков. Презирая советскую власть и КПСС и будучи инако-мыслящим, он, с другой сторон, отказывался называться “диссидентом” (хотя с болью и соочувствием относился к их борьбе и страданиям) и наотрез отметал любые сравнения с бардовским движением и не учасвовал в концертах “аторской песни”.

Жаждой свободы пронизаны почти все ранние – так называемые “блатные” – песни Высоцкого, написанные чаще всего (кроме юмористичеких песен), от лица закюченных, рвущихся на свободу. [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [38] [36] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57]

Гимном свободе и индивидуализму стал его аллегорическая песня “Чужая колея” 1972 г. В ней он сравнивает собственную жизнь и общества с ездой по одной общей проложенной “чужой колеей”, из которой “не выбраться” (“Крутые скользкие края имеет эта колея”). Он отметает материальные удобства (Отказа нет в еде-питье в уютной этой колее) из-за ее обезличвания и безразличия к индивидуальным судьбам и бедствиям (Напрасно жду подмоги я – чужая эта колея!). Высоцкий воспевает борцов за свободу с “колеей” и осуждает непротивление злу как предатеьство (Тем, что я ее сам углубил, я у задних надежду убил): [58]

Вот кто-то крикнул сам не свой:

– А ну, пусти! –

И начал спорить с колеей

по глупости.

Он в споре сжег запас до дна

тепла души,

И полетели клапана

и вкладыши.

Но покорежил он края,

И шире стала колея.

Вдруг его обрывается след –

Чудака оттащили в кювет,

Чтоб не мог он нам, задним, мешать

По чужой колее проезжать.

Песня заканчивается побегом из колеи:

Я грязью из-под шин плюю

В чужую эту колею.

Эй, вы, задние, делай, как я!

Это значит – не надо за мной!

Колея эта – только моя.

Выбирайтесь своей колеей.

Гимном свободе, чести и индивидуализму стала и знаменитая песня-исповедь “Я не люблю!” [35]. Трудно переоценить ту роль, которую сыграла для возрождения тяги к свободе в обществе пронзительная аллегорическая песня “Охота на волков”, ставшая общенародной: [59]

Не на равных играют с волками

Егеря. Но не дрогнет рука!

Оградив нам свободу флажками,

Бьют уверенно, наверняка!

Волк не может нарушить традиций.

Видно, в детстве, слепые щенки,

Мы, волчата, сосали волчицу

И всосали: нельзя за флажки!

Идет охота на волков, идет охота!

На серых хищников – матерых и щенков.

Кричат загонщики, и лают псы до рвоты,

Кровь на снегу и пятна красные флажков.

Она ударила прямо в душу всех, от низов общества до самих вождей, которые тоже тайно чувствовали себя узниками системы: [60]

Ну все – теперь, конечно, что-то будет.

Уже три года – в день по пять звонков.

Меня к себе зовут большие люди,

Чтоб я им пел “Охоту на волков”…

И об стакан бутылкою звеня,

Которую извлек из книжной полки,

Он выпалил: “Да это ж про меня!

Про нас про всех!. Какие к черту волки?!”

В начале 1960-х годов появились первые песни Высоцкого. Песня «Татуировка», написанная в 1961 году в Ленинграде, многими считается первой. Неоднократно таковой её называл и сам Высоцкий. Эта песня положила начало циклу «блатной» тематики.

Однако существует песня «49 дней», датируемая 1960 годом, о подвиге четырёх советских солдат, дрейфовавших и выживших в Тихом океане. Отношение автора к песне было весьма критичным: в автографе ей дан надзаголовок «Пособие для начинающих и законченных халтурщиков», с пояснением в конце, что «таким же образом могут быть написаны» стихи на любые актуальные темы. «Надо только взять фамилии и иногда читать газеты». Но, несмотря на то, что Высоцкий как бы исключал эту песню из своего творчества (называя «Татуировку» первой), известны фонограммы её исполнений в 1964—1969 гг.

Еще одним лейтмотивом в творчестве ВСВ были песни о мужестве и мужественности. [61] Они пронизывают большинство песен, особенно военнх, которые занимали особое место и в которых он достиг вершины отточености слова, слога и образа. [62] [63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73] Мужеством наполнены и большинство его “блатных” песен [74][75] и песен для кинофильмов [76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87] Начиная со своей первой же песни “Суров же ты, климат охотский” [88], ВСВ воспевал героических людей, поставленных в экстремальные условия, часто пел от лица альпинстов, моряков, пиратов и многх других “людей трудных профессй”. [89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104]


Нам могут даже предложить
и закурить.
– “Ах!” – вспомнят, – “вы ведь долго не курили!
Да вы еще не начинали жить!”-
Ну, а потом предложат: или-или!
Дым папиросы навевает что-то,
Одна затяжка – веселее думы.
Курить охота, ох, как курить охота!
Но надо выбрать деревянные костюмы.

Сам его хриплый баритон дышал мужественностью. Он имел и имеет множество поклонников в Польше, Болгарии, Германии, среди сабра в Израиле, и по всему миру, которые, даже не понимая слова, наслаждались его низким голосом и мужественными, мастерскими актерскими интонациями. Даже в КГБ его дело проходило под кличкой “Луис Армстронг”.

Происхождение рода

В настоящее время исследователи сходятся на том, что род Высоцких происходит из местечка Селец Пружанского уезда Гродненской губернии, ныне — Брестской области, Белоруссия[5]. Фамилия, вероятно, связана с названием города Высокое Каменецкого района Брестской области[6].

По воспоминаниям С. В. Высоцкого[7] и выводам профессора А. Багдасарова, сделанным на основании анализа архива Брестского облисполкома[8]. Дед поэта, тоже Владимир Семёнович Высоцкий (1889, Брест (в то время Брест-Литовск) — 1962), родившийся в семье преподавателя русского языка, имел три высших образования: юридическое, экономическое и химическое. Одно время профессионально работал стеклодувом. В дальнейшем переехал в Киев. Бабушка Дарья Алексеевна — медицинский работник, косметолог.

Виктор Васильевич Бакин, автор наиболее недавней и полной биографии Высоцкого «Владимир Высоцкий без мифов и легенд», пишет:

Владимир Высоцкий был коренным москвичом. Он был настоящий москвич — по биографии и по сердечной привязанности, по своему радушию, по своей безоглядности, по своей лиричности… Дед Высоцкого по материнской линии — Серегин Максим Иванович — четырнадцатилетним подростком приехал в Москву из села Огарево, затерявшегося между Тулой и Ефремово. Бабушка — Евдокия Андреевна Синотова — родилась в Подмосковье в деревне Утицы, недалеко от станции Бородино. Девочкой приехала в Москву. Совсем молоденькой девушкой она вышла замуж и всю жизнь посвятила воспитанию пятерых детей. 24 марта 1912 года родилась в семье Серегиных девочка Нина — мать Владимира Высоцкого. Родители умерли рано. С 20 пет Нина жила самостоятельно, воспитывая младшего брата — Владимира… В 1932 году окончила немецкое отделение Московского комбината иностранных языков и работала переводчиком-референтом в Иностранном отделе ВЦСПС. В начале войны служила в Главном управлении геодезии и картографии НКВД, где работала над составлением топографических карт для действующей армии. В первые послевоенные годы Нина Максимовна работала корреспондентом в В/О «Технопромимпорт» Министерства внешней торговли, а перед выходом на пенсию в феврале 80-го — в отделе технической информации НИИ химического машиностроения. В 1935 году брат Нины — Владимир — познакомил ее со своим однокурсником Семеном Высоцким.

Отец Семена, Вольф Шлиомович (Соломонович) Высоцкий, родился в 1889 году в Брест-Литовске в семье рабочего-стеклодува. Начав трудовую деятельность в 1905 году учеником токаря, решил получить настоящее образование. В 1911 году он поступает на экономический факультет Киевского коммерческого института, по окончании которого в 1917 году поступает в Киевский университет на юридический факультет. А в 1919 году молодой юрист продолжает образование в Киевском институте народного хозяйства на промышленном факультете, который заканчивает в 1922 году. В Киеве Вольф Шлиомович женился. Бракосочетание состоялось 5 августа 1915 года по еврейскому обряду. О новобрачном записано: «Слушатель Киевского коммерческого института из Селецких мещан Вольф Шлиомович Высоцкий, возраст — 26 лет». О новобрачной: «Девица фельдшерица Дора Евсеевна Бронштейн, возраст — 21 год». Позднее имена деда и бабушки Высоцкого изменят — просто чтобы приблизить их произношение к более привычному для окружающих: Вольфа Шлиомовича будут звать Владимир Семенович, а бабушку — Дарья Алексеевна… В 1926 году Высоцкие вместе с детьми переезжают в Москву… [9]

Газета «Брестский Курьер» от 2010 цитирует книгу воспоминаний двоюродной сестры Владимира Высоцкого Ирэны Высоцкой: «Бабушка Дебора/Дора Евсеевна Бронштейн родилась в 1893 г. в Житомире… С дедушкой бабушку познакомил ее родной брат, он служил в Белой армии и погиб на фронте.»[10][11] Киевской историк Михаил Кальницкий установил, что прадед Шлойма/Соломон Гершович Высоцкий умер 13 мая 1916 г. в г. Екатеринославе от «сахарной болезни». Он также пишет: «В 1911 году в Киев приехал поступать в Коммерческий институт 22-летний уроженец Бреста, сын мастера-стеклодува Вольф Шлиомович Высоцкий. Между прочим, в западной Беларуси, неподалеку от Бреста, есть городок Высокое — не оттуда ли фамилия? […] Еще студентом, в 1915-м, Вольф Высоцкий женился. Его избранница родилась в семье состоятельного жителя Житомира Евсея Бронштейна.»[12] Белорусская газета «Маяк» пишет: «Уже в 1837 году упоминается Высоцкий Лейба как кандидат в раввины от Пружанского уезда, м. Селец».[13][14][15]

Другие версии происхождения Владимира Высоцкого не подкреплены никакими архивными документами и лишены оснований[источник не указан 1311 дней].

Сам Высоцкий, как и многие другие, был глубоко и полностью русским человеком, который чувствовал себя евреем только когда сталкивался с дикриминацией, невежеством и деспотизмом (см. его песни[16][17][18][19]). Вадим Горский, редактор художественных фильмов и филер КГБ, цитирует Высоцкого: «Мешают ли мне еврейские крови? …Знаешь, в последнее время я стал задумываться: кто я?… Остается только воспроизвести написанное (жаль, что не мной!): Я — русский. По рождению, по языку, по культуре, по литературным пристрастиям, по друзьям, по любви, по впаянности в родную землю, по всему, что создает человеческую душу. Но пока на земле остается хоть один антисемит, я — еврей!… Конечно, дерьма вокруг хватает. И в быту, и в печати. Евреям не дают нормально жить холуи деспотизма. А другим — р-разве дают? Два десятка народностей загнали в вечную ссылку — им легче?!»[20]… «Любая дискриминация принуждает думать. И чем она несправедливей, тем честнее, свободнее и глубже мысль. Словом, в Совейском Союзе быть „инвалидом пятой группы“ почетно. Могут иногда и врезать по сопатке. Но, с другой стороны, ты не плебей, ты — еврей.»[21]

↑ Банька по белому – YouTube
↑ Высоцкий – Песня о врачах (История болезни II) – YouTube
↑ Владимир Высоцкий – История болезни I (Ошибка вышла) – YouTube
↑ Владимир Высоцкий – История болезни III – YouTube
↑ Высоцкий – Песня о сумасшедшем доме – YouTube
↑ Высоцкий: “Всего лишь час дают на артобстрел..”-1968. – YouTube
↑ Высоцкий – “Нынче все срока закончены…” ( М. Шемякин. д4) – YouTube
↑ Владимир Семенович Высоцкий – Так оно и есть – YouTube
Visotskiy-Владимир Высоцкий-Я не люблю RUS — YouTube
Высоцкий — «Говорят арестован…» — Мишка Ларин — YouTube
Высоцкий: «Если б водка была на одного..».(2). — YouTube
↑ Владимир Высоцкий — Бодайбо — YouTube
↑ Высоцкий — Серебрянные струны (Редкая запись) «PG-13» — YouTube
↑ Высоцкий: «Правда ведь обидно, если завязал..». — YouTube
↑ Высоцкий: «Сгорели мы по недоразумению..»- 1 — PG-13. — YouTube
↑ Высоцкий: «Весна ещё в начале..» — 3 — PG-13. — YouTube
↑ Владимир Высоцкий — Не уводите меня из весны — YouTube
↑ Я был душой дурного общества — В. Высоцкий [новый звук] — YouTube
↑ Высоцкий. «За меня невеста отрыдает честно». — YouTube
↑ Vladimir Vysotsky «Эй, шофёр, вези в Бутырский…» — YouTube
↑ Владимир Высоцкий — Мы вместе грабили — YouTube
↑ Высоцкий — Ребята, напишите мне письмо (Редкая запись) — YouTube
↑ Высоцкий « Передо мной любой факир- ну просто карлик…» — YouTube
↑ Высоцкий.Уголовный кодекс.. — YouTube
↑ Высоцкий Песня про стукача — YouTube
↑ Вот раньше жизнь — Владимир Высоцкий [новая версия] — YouTube
↑ Высоцкий — О нашей встрече, что там говорить… — YouTube
↑ Высоцкий: «Всё позади и КПЗ и суд..» — 2. — YouTube
↑ Владимир Высоцкий — Помню, я однажды — YouTube
↑ Высоцкий — Побег на рывок (Вадиму Туманову) — YouTube
↑ Чужая колея — YouTube
↑ Владимир Высоцкий — Охота на волков! — YouTube
↑ Высоцкий: «Прошла пора вступлений и прелюдий..». — YouTube–gJIfGX3xc,_%D0%92%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80_%D0%A1%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%91%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&oldid=48363882