Putin, a rock and the human rights industry

Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, 02 February 2006 01:12.

Back on News Years Day 2005 at, I see, the civilised hour of 11.33 am I posted a short piece on the political future of Russia.  The core of the article was an interesting prognostication by Telegraph journalist, Niall Ferguson.

His argument was intriguing, and provided several striking parallels between Weimar Germany and present-day Russia.  He concluded like this:-

We must all hope that events in Georgia and Ukraine will inspire a democratic revolution in Russia itself. But the Weimar parallel is not encouraging. Germany’s descent into dictatorship went in stages: there were three more or less authoritarian chancellors before Hitler, each of whom sought to rule Germany by decree.

The question that remains open is whether Putin is just a more successful version of one of these authoritarian warm-up acts, or a fully-fledged Russian führer. Either way, he is fast becoming as big a threat to Western security as he is to Russian democracy.

… In so doing, of course, Ferguson demonstrates the profoundly liberal preoccupations of his own mind.  The unchallengeable assumption is that Western-style democracy is the supreme, civilised path for all to pursue.  Signs of a viable alternative founded upon some as yet unknowable Eurasian authoritarianism are cause only for disquiet.  Ferguson’s is that a nationalistic, self-confident and assertive Russia will inevitably find cause for military confrontation with the West, just as Hitler’s newly invigorated Germany did in the thirties.  Hence the headline of my New Year’s Day post, “Will it be Moslems for Jews and Ukraine for Sudetenland?”

But, actually, that headline had a significant error.  It is not Moslems but Jews -  the eternal disseminators of anti-nationalism - for Jews.  It is Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Vladimir Gusinsky, Boris Berezovsky aka Platon Elenin … all the fonts of real power during the desperately corrupt Yeltsin years.  A Counterpunch article by Israeli journalist Uri Avnery, written about a TV series on the Oligarchs, explains why:-

... the most intriguing part of the series recounts the way they took control of the political apparatus. After a period of fighting each other, they decided that it would be more profitable for them to cooperate in order to take over the state.
At the time, President Boris Yeltsin was in a steep decline. On the eve of the new elections for the presidency, his rating in public opinion polls stood at 4%. He was an alcoholic with a severe heart disease, working about two hours a day. The state was, in practice, ruled by his bodyguard and his daughter; corruption was the order of the day.

The oligarchs decided to take power through him. They had almost unlimited funds, control of all TV channels and most of the other media. They put all these at the disposal of Yeltsin’s re-election campaign, denying his opponents even one minute of TV time and pouring huge sums of money into the effort. (The series omits an interesting detail: they secretly brought over the most outstanding American election experts and copywriters, who applied methods previously unknown in Russia.)

The campaign bore fruit: Yeltsin was indeed re-elected. On the very same day he had another heart attack and spent the rest of his term in hospital. In practice, the oligarchs ruled Russia. One of them, Boris Berezovsky, appointed himself Prime Minister. There was a minor scandal when it became known that he (like most of the oligarchs) had acquired Israeli citizenship, but he gave up his Israeli passport and everything was in order again.

By the way, Berezovsky boasts that he caused the war in Chechnya, in which tens of thousands have been killed and a whole country devastated. He was interested in the mineral resources and a prospective pipeline there. In order to achieve this he put an end to the peace agreement that gave the country some kind of independence. The oligarchs dismissed and destroyed Alexander Lebed, the popular general who engineered the agreement, and the war has been going on since then.

In the end, there was a reaction: Vladimir Putin, the taciturn and tough ex-KGB operative, assumed power, took control of the media, put one of the oligarchs (Mikhail Khodorkovsky) in prison, caused the others to flee (Berezovsky is in England, Vladimir Gusinsky is in Israel, another, Mikhail Chernoy, is assumed to be hiding here.)

Now, there are several possible explanations for the state’s action against the oligarchs.  One aired on British television a few weeks ago, dealing solely with the trial and imprisonment of Khodorkovsky, was corruption in Putin’s government.  Khodorkovsky was presented as a benign and helpless figure beset by ruthless political wolves.  Perhaps he is.  But Ferguson’s explanation of what is happening in Russia can also explain these events.

Of course, I don’t mean his dire warnings of an approaching Hitlerism.  But Hitler, too, sought to protect his Volk from internal decay and thence to set upon the path to an expressed greatness – not an entirely wise path, as it happened.  If we grant the grand, Duginesque characterisation of mother Russia as the very soul of the European land and its traditions, forever engaged in a Manichean struggle with the anti-national, arch-cosmopolitan forces of the English-speaking world, then we can vaguely glimpse through the mist the distinctness and difference of Russia’s political destiny.

If that difference explains Russia to us today we should, like a good scientist, be able to test the hypothesis by predicting certain outcomes.  For example, if financial rape is the explanation for the attack on the Oligarchs, one would hardly predict a new line of attack against the human rights industry in Russia.  But if nationalism, anti-decay and anti-liberalism are moving government, preventive measures against the hr organisations are wholly predictable, given what we know of hr’s effects in the West.  And so it proves.

TWO LUMPS, PLEASE

Enter MI6 and two lumps of rock:-

A fake stone alleged to have been used by British spies to communicate with Moscow agents was a “wonder” of technology that cost tens of millions of pounds (dollars), Russia’s FSB security service said on Thursday.

FSB spokesman Sergei Ignatchenko praised the high-tech spy stone, which would look at home in a James Bond film, and listed its extraordinary qualities.

The stone was revealed by the FSB on Sunday in a television program that apparently showed four British spies using it as a dead letter drop.

“This is like space technology in its qualities. You could throw this stone from the 9th floor, it can survive a long period in water, it has several different kinds of defense,” Ignatchenko said in televised comments.

“According to our experts’ assessments, this device costs several tens of millions of pounds. You could only create this technological wonder in laboratory conditions.”

We will pass quickly over the British spy seen on Russian TV “kicking the stone to try to make it work”.  Not 007’s finest moment.  Or Q’s.

The spy story, though, has been linked by the FSB with the British funding of “non-governmental organizations”.  Putin himself has spoken of the regretability that some Russian NGOs were “financed through intelligence channels”.

In response, the British ambassador to Moscow, Anthony Brenton, wrote a letter to the FT …

“to assure all of our current and former recipients of grants that there is nothing unlawful or in anyway improper about our support to NGOs in Russia … The suggestion that British government support to NGOs is anything but honest and open is wholly untrue.” He said all the UK’s support for the development of a healthy civil society in Russia was given openly. It was the intention of the British government to continue to support non-profit organisations in Russia.

The NGO’s, which include The Soros Foundation and the Open Society Foundation, have accused the FSB of running a smear campaign.  They are no doubt right.  The real intention is surely to cover a very Russian nationalist agenda with a more or less credible security blanket.

Mr Putin has signed a law giving the authorities wide-ranging powers to monitor the activities and finances of NGOs.

The new powers, which include the right to suspend NGOs should they “threaten Russia’s sovereignty or independence”, have been condemned by both domestic and international rights groups.

The rules are widely seen as a Russian effort to prevent any Ukraine or Georgia-style revolution spearheaded by NGOs.

The FSB security service - the main successor to the Soviet KGB - has accused Western intelligence agents of using NGOs to foment revolution in the former Soviet Union.

The attack on the NGO’s is bearing early fruit.  Thusfar, the Forum of Migrants’ Organizations, an umbrella group of 198 self-help organisations in 47 regions, has announced it is ceasing operations.  The authorities are now targeting one of the oldest hr organisations, The Research Centre on Human Rights, another umbrella group uniting, this time, a dozen organisations.

So, Niall Ferguson’s prediction is still in play.  Far from the Russian government fearing revolution from without, Aleksandr Dugin contends that “In principle, Eurasia and our space, the heartland Russia, remain the staging area of a new anti-bourgeois, anti-American revolution.”  Dugin himself is not perhaps so close to the seat of power as he has been.  But his peculiarly Russian brand of nationalism fits well with the emerging picture … better, anyway, than a vision limited to old-style Rusky authoritians and rapine gangsters.

Vive la difference Russe.



Comments:


1

Posted by Daveg on Thu, 02 Feb 2006 02:44 | #

The problem with these nationalistic movements is not that the can’t work - they can and do work quite well in the short term - it is the “soft landing.”

The society goes from being down and out to thinking it is all powerful and making reckless choices, (like declaring war on the US).

It would be nice to sese Russia pull out of its current state tho.


2

Posted by Daveg on Thu, 02 Feb 2006 03:36 | #

For example, if financial rape is the explanation for the attack on the Oligarchs, one would hardly predict a new line of attack against the human rights industry in Russia.  But if nationalism, anti-decay and anti-liberalism are moving government, preventive measures against the hr organisations are wholly predictable, given what we know of hr’s effects in the West.

...
NGO’s, which include The Soros Foundation and the Open
Society Foundation, have accused the FSB of running a smear campaign.  They are no doubt right.  The real intention is surely to cover a very Russian nationalist agenda with a more or less credible security blanket.

Don’t you think there is credibility to the claim that NGO are instruments of foreign governments and/or foreign interests, at least some of the time?

If so, than Russia’s response is not a strong indicator of the nature of the movement, is it?


3

Posted by Tournament of Champions on Thu, 02 Feb 2006 06:29 | #

The platforms of the Russian political parties, with the exception of the foreign funded ones, are exactly what one should expect in a real democracy: each one more nationalistic than the next, and often headed by open racialists.


4

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 02 Feb 2006 08:35 | #

Daveg,

Take some time to check the funding of NGO’s in, say, Britain.  American sources such as the Ford Foundation are a commonplace.

It’s somewhat absurd from a British perspective to see in Putin’s politics a battle for the future of the Russian homeland with MI6 and the CIA.  But as organs of external state power they have their place in the scheme of things, given the well-known analysis of the war of the Land against the Sea.  In the event that Putin sought to target them, however, he only needed to make foreign funding illegal.

What he has actually done goes much further.  He is harrassing the NGO’s administratively out of business.  That leads me to conclude that, actually, his target is International Jewry - which, of course, works through not only the NGO’s and minority movements but the mega-rich, the media owners and, intellectually, the liberal-left.

It is necessary to bear in mind that the partricular stripe of nationalism which Dugin philosophised is non-racial, because Russia itself is not racially homogenous.  It is revanchist and draws its power from the deep attachment to Russia’s soil of all its people.  The attachment to soil is always the great counterweight to rootless cosmopolitanism, and events in Russia should primarily be understood in that light, IMHO.


5

Posted by Alexei on Thu, 02 Feb 2006 10:20 | #

Ferguson got one thing right—the humiliation that lots of Russians, especially ethnic Russians in Russia and the “near abroad” have suffered since 1991. Other than that, he doesn’t see past the surface. First, Putin is not a nationalist; he only plays to the nationalist instinct of the average Russian. A Russian nationalist would focus on the long-term well-being of Russia’s native peoples. Russia is obviously suffering from a human capital crisis (people getting sicker and dumber) but Putin has not made health care, education or housing a priority. Not that these sectors are not being reformed—they are, but in a way that is not benefitting most Russians. Plus, Putin’s government is strongly pro-immigration.

Second, Germany had a sophisticated economy and a healthy, growing population in 1933. Russia has an economy that is becoming less and less sophisticated technologically, and an ailing population. Third, Putin, being no nationalist, is no Hitler; nor would he let a Hitler win an election; but Putin may need a Hitler to compete with in 2008. He needs radical ethnonationalists—strawman nationalists—in Russia to suppress them and emerge a protector of minorities’ rights and other European values. Fourth, Putin is no threat to anybody but the Russians because in foreign affairs, he’s a loser: he talks tough, then backs down. I can’t name a single foreign policy success creditable to Putin. Sometimes he just makes a fool of himself. Take this “space technology stone”—the whole Russia seems to be laughing at Putin’s counterintelligence. Fifth, Putin has no functional army. Sixth, most Russians can’t even imagine Russia invading Ukraine. And so on…

The NGO law that Putin signed is not as draconian as Ferguson would have us believe: its first draft was but an uproar in Russia and international criticism forced the government to amend the bill before the Duma voted it into law.

Berezovsky has never been PM of Russia.


6

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 02 Feb 2006 11:34 | #

Alexei,

Putin may well not be a Russian nationalist himself, even in the very particular sense that I have tried to communicate.  Nevertheless, daily politics, presidential or otherwise, do not proceed in an ideological vaccuum.  Philosophy engulfs everything.  Even if you favour the power/financial rape explanation of Putin still he operates within a general philosophical context.

That context (or milieu or zeitgeist) is not left-to-right liberal, like ours.  Neither is it Conservative in the sense that we (sometimes) mean it.  It is something else, in at least partial explication of which I have referred to the vehement Russian nationalist, philosopher and geopoliticist Aleksandr Dugin. 

Here is part of what Wikipedia says of this man and his new political party:-

The Eurasia Party, founded by Dugin on the eve of George W. Bush’s visit to Russia at the end of May 2002, is said by some observers to enjoy financial and organizational support from Vladimir Putin’s presidential office. The Eurasia Party also is supported by some military circles and by the leaders of the Muslim, Orthodox Christian, Buddhist, and Jewish faiths in Russia, and the party hopes to play a key role in attempts to resolve the Chechen problem, with the objective of setting the stage for Dugin’s dream of a Russian strategic alliance with European and Middle Eastern states, primarily Iran.

... Dugin’s theories foresee an eternal world conflict between land and sea, and hence, Dugin believes, the US and Russia ... According to his 1997 book, The Basics of Geopolitics, “The new Eurasian empire will be constructed on the fundamental principle of the common enemy: the rejection of Atlanticism, strategic control of the USA, and the refusal to allow liberal values to dominate us. This common civilisational impulse will be the basis of a political and strategic union.”

... Dugin does have a healthy respect for Judaism. He is, however, anti-Zionist, which he regards as standing in contradiction to basic Talmudic principles. He also views Israel as a “strategic base for [the] militant Atlantism” promoted by the US and Britain.

The last winter he has criticized the “Euro-Atlantic” involvement in the Ukrainian presidential election as a scheme to create a “cordon sanitaire” around Russia, much like the British attempted after the first world war. He has also criticized Putin for the “loss” of Ukraine, and accused his Eurasianism of being “empty”. Now he has a transnational NGO called International Eurasianist Movement.


7

Posted by Alexei on Thu, 02 Feb 2006 13:52 | #

Guessedworker, I don’t know whether Putin and/or his ruling clique and/or a politically important segment of the Russian voters, are thinking and operating within a “Eurasianist” context, even broadly defined. It might be that Dugin’s Eurasianism is an expression of a worldview many Russians share, if subconsciously. On the other hand, Putin might sense that and pretend to be operating within this context while pursuing his very personal goals.

I would warn against taking Dugin the man and his party too seriously—he does not seem an original thinker.  Dugin’s writings apparently owe much not only to early Russian Eurasianists of the 1920s and to Lev N. Gumilev, but also to Spengler, Guenon, Junger (and even Pat Buchanan), so his intellectual roots are not so exotically Russian.


8

Posted by Karlmagnus on Thu, 02 Feb 2006 14:26 | #

Putin’s a Commie.  Always has been, always will be.  He wants state control of everything, with reliable henchmen running the big ticket items like Gazprom and the powerful ones like the FSB.  he deeply regrets the disappearance of the Soviet Union, and aims to recreate it, preferably bigger and economically more efficient—a bit like the old 1970s joke about Hitler returning from South America, his motto is “No More Mister Nice Guy.” He wants immigration and doesn’t care what color the immigrants are, so long as they obey orders. He wants the NGOs out of Russia because while in Soros’ case they are generally helpful, they may find out stuff he doesn’t want publicised—they reduce his control.

Apart from jailing the local Soros Foundation, which one can approve of, there is nothing in Putin’s agenda for the West to rejoice at.  By sloppy short-termist policy, Clinton and Bush have thrown away Reagan and Thatcher;s great Cold War victory.


9

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 02 Feb 2006 14:56 | #

Alexei, my impression - admittedly very sketchy - is that Dugin’s current party political activity is an expression of the failing traction of his philosophical contribution.  I do think that, probably, he had a rather remarkable impact on Russian political ideology at the time the shine went off Yeltsin’s criminal beanfeast.  Essentially, he got lucky, and was probably punching above his weight.  But time and the nature of power may have found him out, and today he has nothing new or interesting to add that might regain the attention of the executive.  Hence the more overtly political current activity.

However, that does not detract from the fact that Russian politics operate in a context which, by hook or by crook, is substantially Duganist: pro-nationalist, non-racist, anti-liberal.  Whether he was genuinely creative in this regard, in the manner of the great philosophical thinkers, or just got lucky through striking the right note at the right time is a bit immaterial now (I suspect the latter, anyway).

For all that, he and modern Russia remain interesting but essentially valueless from our own standpoint.  We can’t use his ideas.  They don’t cross the Channel or the Atlantic.


10

Posted by Alexei on Thu, 02 Feb 2006 16:47 | #

I am more on Karlmagnus’ side here—Putin is a Commie of sorts, not the Lenin type of course but more of a Brezhnev-Andropov-lite thing with a Latin American flair: “For our friends, everything; for our enemies, the law!” On the other hand, there are good reasons to deplore the fact that the Soviet Union simply fell apart overnight instead of going forward as a non-Soviet, post-Communist Union, dissolving if need be over the course of years. That way, millions of Russian speakers wouldn’t have been left to the mercy of Asian mobs and dictators.

As for Dugin’s ideas, their anti-liberalism makes them indeed unacceptable in the Anglosphere.


11

Posted by daveg on Thu, 02 Feb 2006 17:09 | #

I really don’t see why the Soros and Ford foundations are accorded such respect by you?  I don’t see who the few individuals who run these organizations should be accorded such influence over a countries internal affiars, included the US’ internal affairs.


12

Posted by Karlmagnus on Thu, 02 Feb 2006 17:29 | #

Soros has been one of the major obstacles to progress towards free market oriented, reponsibly nationalist policies in Eastern Europe and the FSU—those pepole never saw a corrupt incompetent Socialist they didn’t like.

The late great Franjo Tudjman closed down the Soros office and jailed his local representatives; he was right.


13

Posted by Alexei on Fri, 03 Feb 2006 08:32 | #

Søren, I don’t think “liberalism” makes much sense outside of the English-speaking world, perhaps with Western Europe added, so I wouldn’t call myself a liberal. Besides, I do not believe the European populations of Britain, North America or Australia can ever abandon their liberal instincts. And why should they try?

I point out Dugin’s European roots to suggest that Continental Europeans might be better positioned to understand his ideas than people across the channel and the pond, who often think in totally different terms. I do object to his notion of Tradition, which goes back to Guenon, whose anti-Christianity I find unacceptable.


14

Posted by Alexei on Fri, 03 Feb 2006 17:58 | #

One of these Russians explained that in that country two different words are used in the Russian language to designate a Russian person:  “a Russian,” meaning a person of the traditional Russian race, and “a man of Russia,” meaning a citizen of the political entity called Russia, who can be of any race.

Let me try to explain this. In modern usage, Rossiya is Russian for “Russia,” and rossiyskiy is the corresponding attribute, i.e., related to Russia as a country or state. Russkiy commonly means “ethnically Russian” although it is often used in a more general sense. I believe 80% of Russia’s population are ethnic Russians. The remaining 20% represent over a hundred ethnic groups, the largest being the Tatars (5%+), then the Ukrainians (2%+)—most of them native to Russia.

Now the 80% that are ethnic Russians are not pure Slavs by blood, of course. The Russian (formerly Greater Russian, as opposed to Minor Russian or Ukrainian) ethnicity emerged after Slavs of Kievan Rus (and perhaps of Novgorod) started settling in the forests of the Upper Volga, possibly as early as the 11th century. As they were colonizing the land, they must have encountered its earlier inhabitants, mostly Finno-Ugric speakers. We have to assume that the Slavs mixed up with the Ugro-Finns and/or Slavicized them. It is hard to say how those Ugro-Finns looked like; I would assume they were of the so-called Uralic race.

The Mongol invasion of the 13th century could have left a genetic impact, too, adding not so much Mongol as Turkic genes to the pool. The extent of that among the peasantry is much disputed but the nobility of North-Eastern Rus’ (of Slavic, Scandinavian, Baltic descent) did intermarry with that of the Mongol Hordes for centuries. After the Golden Horde fell apart and Moscow came to dominate the emerging Russia, the nation started expanding again, colonizing new lands all the way to the Urals and beyond. As before, common Russians did not mind marrying natives, converting them to Christianity in the process. Not everybody was “sucked in” but, in general, Russians were not averse to intermarriage. For centuries, the Russian identity was primarily religious and linguistic.

Thus, the Russian “race” is an alloy, so to say, but its composition has not changed very much in the past 200 years (so it seems, except for the exodus of the aristocracy after 1917). My feeling is that many, perhaps most Russians think of themselves as basically Slavs with an assortment of admixtures. Russians are not very happy about the recent stream of immigrants from the Caucasus and guestworkers from Central Asia into Russia, but whether this aversion is mostly cultural or racial, I cannot judge. I would only say this pattern—of people from outside Russia+Ukraine+Belarus flowing into the heartland of Russia—is unprecedented.

By the way, if anybody is interested in the subraces of Russia, I suggest visiting http://dodona.proboards35.com/ for pictures and discussions.



Post a comment:


Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

Note: You should copy your comment to the clipboard or paste it somewhere before submitting it, so that it will not be lost if the session times out.

Remember me


Next entry: Not Guilty verdicts and dismissed charges free Griffin and Collett
Previous entry: The first piece of good news

image of the day

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Immigration

Islamist Threat

Anti-white Media Networks

Audio/Video

Crime

Economics

Education

General

Historical Re-Evaluation

Controlled Opposition

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Europeans in Africa

Of Note

Comments

Thorn commented in entry 'Trump will 'arm Ukraine to the teeth' if Putin won't negotiate ceasefire' on Sun, 22 Dec 2024 01:03. (View)

Manc commented in entry 'The Indian/Chinese IQ puzzle continued for comments after 1000' on Sat, 21 Dec 2024 16:14. (View)

anonymous commented in entry 'The Indian/Chinese IQ puzzle continued for comments after 1000' on Fri, 20 Dec 2024 21:12. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 19 Dec 2024 01:13. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 19 Dec 2024 01:11. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sat, 14 Dec 2024 21:35. (View)

Manc commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sat, 14 Dec 2024 20:51. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sat, 14 Dec 2024 19:49. (View)

Manc commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sat, 14 Dec 2024 18:47. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 12 Dec 2024 23:29. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'News of Daniel' on Thu, 12 Dec 2024 22:01. (View)

Manc commented in entry 'News of Daniel' on Thu, 12 Dec 2024 19:52. (View)

Manc commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 12 Dec 2024 18:17. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Trump will 'arm Ukraine to the teeth' if Putin won't negotiate ceasefire' on Thu, 12 Dec 2024 14:23. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Sun, 08 Dec 2024 14:19. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Trump will 'arm Ukraine to the teeth' if Putin won't negotiate ceasefire' on Fri, 06 Dec 2024 20:13. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Fri, 06 Dec 2024 01:08. (View)

James Marr commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Wed, 04 Dec 2024 19:00. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Trump will 'arm Ukraine to the teeth' if Putin won't negotiate ceasefire' on Mon, 02 Dec 2024 23:41. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'The journey to The Hague revisited, part 1' on Sat, 30 Nov 2024 21:20. (View)

James Bowery commented in entry 'The journey to The Hague revisited, part 1' on Sat, 30 Nov 2024 17:56. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Trump will 'arm Ukraine to the teeth' if Putin won't negotiate ceasefire' on Sat, 30 Nov 2024 13:34. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Trump will 'arm Ukraine to the teeth' if Putin won't negotiate ceasefire' on Sat, 30 Nov 2024 04:44. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Trump will 'arm Ukraine to the teeth' if Putin won't negotiate ceasefire' on Fri, 29 Nov 2024 01:45. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Trump will 'arm Ukraine to the teeth' if Putin won't negotiate ceasefire' on Thu, 28 Nov 2024 23:49. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Trump will 'arm Ukraine to the teeth' if Putin won't negotiate ceasefire' on Thu, 28 Nov 2024 01:33. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'News of Daniel' on Thu, 28 Nov 2024 00:02. (View)

Manc commented in entry 'News of Daniel' on Wed, 27 Nov 2024 17:12. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Trump will 'arm Ukraine to the teeth' if Putin won't negotiate ceasefire' on Wed, 27 Nov 2024 12:53. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Olukemi Olufunto Adegoke Badenoch wins Tory leadership election' on Wed, 27 Nov 2024 04:56. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Trump will 'arm Ukraine to the teeth' if Putin won't negotiate ceasefire' on Tue, 26 Nov 2024 02:10. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Mon, 25 Nov 2024 02:05. (View)

Manc commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sun, 24 Nov 2024 19:32. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Trump will 'arm Ukraine to the teeth' if Putin won't negotiate ceasefire' on Sat, 23 Nov 2024 01:32. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Trump will 'arm Ukraine to the teeth' if Putin won't negotiate ceasefire' on Fri, 22 Nov 2024 00:28. (View)

affection-tone