[Majorityrights Central] Three possible forms of a Ukrainian victory ... and a Russian defeat Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, 16 April 2026 16:36.
[Majorityrights Central] Empires, the Chinese Mind, a theoretical nationalism of ethnicity Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, 14 February 2026 01:54.
[Majorityrights News] Moscow Times: Valdai residents report no sign of drones attacking Putin residence Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 30 December 2025 11:33.
[Majorityrights Central] Thoughts on Mark Collett’s strategy for nationalism in the British future Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, 24 October 2025 15:01.
[Majorityrights Central] Principles, parts, processes of ethnic nationalism, Part 1: inflection? Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, 31 July 2025 12:03.
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 29 August 2019 05:04.
When this tweet speaks of “the socialist party” it is speaking of a party that would not delimit social accountability to native interests first and foremost.
The sane management of pervasive ecology has been dealt yet another serious blow as a central element, the management of human ecology through the accountability that ethnonationalism provides, has been pushed aside - at least temporarily - by liberal internationalist interests.
Matteo Salvini’s crucially necessary nativist, ethnonationalist anti-immigration platform has been sidelined by a coalition of the 5-Star Party, which is in cahoots with foreign interests and the corporate internationalist sell-out, Giuseppe Conte, reinstalling him as Prime Minister; allowing him to continue his border liberalization policies which are destroying Italy, Italians and European peoples broadly.
Italy’s corrupt Five-Star Movement announced Wednesday that it had made a deal with the Liberal Party to form a coalition government — keeping Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte in place while avoiding elections and ousting the ethnonationalist League led by Matteo Salvini.
Conte’s position was strengthened this week when President Trump, who pretends to share a similar vision on immigration to Salvini, tweeted his support of Conte – calling him a “very talented man who will hopefully remain Prime Minister!”
Showing his true colors form the start, Trump shunned a meeting with Salvini, who was prepared to endorse him as Trump campaigned for the Presidency.
While Salvini was able to gain popular support by broadening his party’s platform from Lega Nord, to one that represents all of Italy, he sought to gain elite support along with the 5-Stars and Conte’s party by joining the ass-kissing of the Kremlin, the Knesset and the Trumpstein agenda.
Salvini might have added Trumpstein, Putin and Netanyahu to the list of people not to trust with native European interests.
And with friends like that, highly practiced in the art of treachery, the message is: lay down with dogs and wake up with fleas.
Rather, wake up sidelined by the truly corrupt - corrupt enough to push aside your crucially necessary anti-immigration, nativist position and sell out your people and their ancient birthright.
Dr. Jörg D. Valentin@drjdvalentin
#RT
@EchoPRN: RT
@BasedPoland: It’s official.
The #FiveStarMovement & the [liberal] party have reached an agreement to form government
Ibid: #Salvini will be out of government until 2023 (unless snap elections at some point).
This article was originally published on Kurier.plus.
European Union – On July 22, French President Emmanuel Macron announced at a press conference in Paris that an agreement had been reached by 14 countries of the European Union on a temporary and voluntary redistribution mechanism for migrants taken on board European ships in the Mediterranean. Macron then once again threatened those countries that refused to take part in this “voluntary” scheme that France would no longer approve their receipt of EU structural funds. Although no specific country was named,the French media had no doubt that Macron was thinking of the Visegrád Four, and Hungary and Poland in particular. “As far as solidarity is concerned”, the French president said, “Europe is not ‘à la carte’. You cannot have countries saying ‘I don’t want your Europe when it is about sharing the burden, but I want it when it is about receiving structural funds’.”
A new Franco-German redistribution plan with similarities to the old compulsory relocation scheme
According to French sources, the temporary agreement reached in Paris is meant to avoid the endless squabbles over who should take charge of how many migrants each time an NGO ship conducts a new operation near the coast of Libya. It is based on the plan proposed earlier by German foreign minister Heiko Maas when he called for a “coalition of the willing” to replace the failed EU compulsory relocation mechanism. “We must now move forward with those member states that are ready to receive refugees – all others remain invited to participate,”Maas had said. On July 18, at an informal meeting of interior and justice ministers in Helsinki, Maas’s plan was proposed by Germany’s interior minister Horst Seehofer and supported by his French counterpart Christophe Castaner. France then organised the July 22 informal meeting in Paris with foreign and interior ministers from the “coalition of the willing”, as well as officials from the European Commission, the United Nations’ refugee agency and the International Organization for Migration (IOM). Maas’s proposal was by then being presented as a joint Franco-German initiative.
However, only eight countries were actually named and said to have agreed to “actively” take part in such a voluntary redistribution mechanism. These are France, Germany, Finland, Luxembourg, Portugal, Lithuania, Croatia and Ireland. Macron said that “in principle, 14 member states, at this stage, have expressed their agreement with the Franco-German document”, but the other six countries who are supposed to have expressed their agreement have not been named and were nowhere to be found in subsequent media reports.
One thing is for sure: Italy was not among them. And this is good news for the Visegrád Group, as Macron’s statement about EU structural funds clearly shows that, in the minds of some European leaders, this so-called “coalition of the willing”, when it is further discussed at European level in September as planned by Paris and Berlin, is meant to become a new version of the former compulsory EU relocation scheme.As soon as Germany’s foreign minister made known his proposal for a “coalition of the willing”, it was dismissed by former Austrian chancellor Sebastian Kurz. His centre-right ÖVP party being the front-runner to win the election in September, Kurz will probably soon become chancellor again. “The distribution of migrants in Europe has failed,” Kurz said on July 13, “we are once again discussing ideas from 2015 that have long proved impractical.” And he went on to explain that “the order of the day is rather to remove the business case for unscrupulous smugglers and return people after sea rescues to their home or transit countries, as well as creating initiatives for stability and economic development in Africa”, which is exactly what the Visegrád countries have been advocating since the beginning of the current migrant crisis.
In fact, not only would such a scheme take immigration out of the control of participating member states, but the discussions on the subject are sending a new signal to would-be emigrants in Africa and the Middle-East, and also to people smugglers in North Africa, that Europe’s gates are being opened wide once again, thus reinforcing the pull factor created by lenient policies in many European countries – not least in France and Germany, which allow most immigrants to stay and move freely around the Schengen area even after their requests for asylum have been rejected (see here for the figures as of 2018). At a press conference in Helsinki, French interior minister Christophe Castaner himself had to acknowledge that several EU countries fear the proposed voluntary redistribution mechanism will generate a new massive influx of migrants. This impression created by the likes of Maas, Seehofer, Castaner and Macron is further reinforced by the fact that NGO ships are now back in the Mediterranean, trying to force Salvini to reopen Italy’s ports to illegal immigrants, while France and Germany have also been making repeated calls for Italian ports to open up to boats transporting rescued migrants. The Franco-German mechanism which was agreed on in Paris on July 22 is still based on having rescued migrants disembarked in Italian ports and thereafter redistributed among participating countries. Similarly to the now defunct compulsory relocation scheme, the redistribution of migrants would only concern those asylum seekers who are likely to gain refugee status, and who are in fact a small minority of all illegal immigrants trying to cross the Mediterranean. According to the Franco-German plan, the remaining migrants would have to be kept in Italian centres until they could be deported. From the Italian point of view, there is nothing new in that proposal, and such a scheme will probably only increase the pressure on Libyan shores and increase the number of illegal immigrants making it to Europe, as well as the death toll by drowning in the Central Mediterranean.
Italy and Malta came to the summit in Helsinki on July 17–18 with a different proposal. A day after Heiko Maas had first presented his own plan to the German RND media group, namely on July 14, Italy’s foreign minister Esteri Moavero Milanesi described his alternative plan in an interview with Corriere della Sera. What Rome and Valletta proposed was to give people the possibility of applying for refugee status as close as possible to their countries of departure, so that asylum requests could be considered before migrants illegally tried to cross the EU’s external borders. Charter flights would then be organised to safely take to Europe those who really deserved refugee status, thereby weakening the smugglers’ business model and avoiding unnecessary deaths at sea. Since the number of people reaching Europe in such a manner would be smaller and better controlled, a distribution scheme could be more easily agreed among EU member states. For those who nonetheless try to reach Europe illegally by sea, the joint Maltese–Italian plan requires the creation of controlled centres (“hotspots”) in all countries of the EU-28 and common policies to force the countries of departure to take their citizens back. It rejects the idea of having all migrants on the Central Mediterranean route landing in Italy before their relocation to other countries. It also calls for NGO vessels to be kept out of the search & rescue zones of Libya and other third countries.
Salvini to Macron: “Italy will not be France’s refugee camp”
This plan was rejected at Helsinki, as both Germany and France supported Seehofer’s plan. The League’s leader, Matteo Salvini, confirmed in a statement released on the day after a meeting in Helsinki on July 17 between ministers from France, Germany, Italy and Malta that the Franco-German proposal was unacceptable to Italy, as “simply redistributing refugees will leave hard-to-expel illegal immigrants in the first country of arrival”. And while Malta’s Prime Minister Joseph Muscat announced preparations for a new meeting between interior ministers of all four countries in Malta in September, France’s Christophe Castaner announced that he was inviting ministers from the “coalition of the willing” to Paris on July 22 in order to go ahead with the Franco-German scheme.This infuriated Italy’s Matteo Salvini, who refused to take part in the Paris meeting, choosing instead to send a “technical” delegation to block any new joint declaration. On July 19, Salvini wrote his French counterpart a letter in which he expressed his surprise at the fact that only the Franco-German proposal was to be discussed in Paris,pointing out that the Maltese–Italian proposal had “gathered broad support” among EU countries. In that letter, the League’s leader insisted again on the need to review the rules on search and rescue operations in order to put an end to behaviours which encourage illegal and uncontrolled immigration, and to make NGOs comply with both international and national laws. According to Salvini, many at the Justice and Home Affairs Council held in Helsinki had “positions very close to the one expressed by Italy, in particular as regards a strict commitment to a migration policy based on the protection of the EU’s and the Schengen Area’s external borders”.
After the announcement by President Macron of an agreement reached under his auspices and supported by 14 countries (of which only eight, including France, were named and said to be ready to participate “actively”), Italy’s interior minister published a video on his Facebook profile with his own virulent reaction, mocking French leaders and saying directly to Macron, whom he called by his first name, that if he wanted ports open to migrants he should open France’s own ports in Marseilles, Corsica and elsewhere. He added that Italy would not take orders from France and would not be France’s refugee camp, as it is not a French colony.
Italy under pressure from France and Germany to take back illegal immigrants as per the Dublin Regulation
Salvini’s tone was no surprise to observers, who have been witnessing deteriorating relations between France and Italy since those whom the French president contemptuously calls “populists” and “nationalists” formed a coalition government in Rome over a year ago. Salvini’s mockery and verbal attacks have mostly come in response to Macron’s own highly arrogant and undiplomatic criticism of Italy’s leaders, particularly Matteo Salvini, which resembles some of the language he has used against the leaders of Poland and Hungary, as when he publicly asked last autumn in Bratislava: “What are these leaders doing with these crazy minds and lying to their people?”. Salvini’s anger is further fueled by the fact that, while French leaders call for Italy to open its ports to migrants for humanitarian reasons,the French authorities have been enforcing border controls for years between Ventimiglia and Menton on the Mediterranean coast, and they send back illegal immigrants to Italy, including, according to some media reports, when those immigrants are caught at some distance from the Italian border, in which case such ‘hot returns’ are in breach of European rules. The Italians have also accused Germany of breaking the rules when returning migrants to Italy as per the Dublin Regulation (the so-called “Dubliners”). Apart from being asked by Germany and France to reopen its ports to illegal immigrants, as the first country of arrival Italy is under great pressure from other EU member states to take back some 46,000 immigrants. As a consequence of the mass disembarkation which took place under the auspices of Matteo Renzi’s government, the number of asylum seekers sent back to Italy has tripled in just five years, with most of the 188,000 requests for transfer made since 2013 coming from Germany, Switzerland, France and Austria.
To make things worse, on the eve of the Paris meeting of July 22, SOS Méditerranée, an NGO based in the French city of Marseilles, announced the launch of a new joint search and rescue operation together with the Franco-Swiss NGO Doctors Without Borders (MSF), using a new boat said to be larger and faster than the Aquarius, which has remained blocked at the request of Italian prosecutors. The Ocean Viking left the Polish port of Szczecin flying the Norwegian flag and heading towards Libyan shores. SOS Méditerranée and MSF estimate the cost of this operation at around €14,000 per day. In a press release published on July 12, the city of Paris had announced that it would contribute €100,000 to this expensive operation. The grant made by the French capital was announced at the same time as the award of a medal to Carola Rackete and Pia Klemp, two German NGO vessel captains who are facing serious charges in Italy for allegedly aiding illegal immigration, including – in the case of Klemp – through active collusion with smugglers.
France’s responsibility for the situation in Libya
A Nation on Fire: America in the Wake of the King Assassination
Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, 2009
“Events have unmistakably shown that any municipality in the country with a Negro population is susceptible to a racial outbreak.” — From an FBI report dated May 26, 1967
Since becoming a Counter-Currents writer, I’ve come to see that the mainstream historical narrative of the 1960s is unique in how incorrect the conventional understanding of it is. What I mean by backwards is this: The big issue of the 1960s, the Vietnam War, has today shrunk to insignificance. The Vietnam War did have an impact on American culture, but not nearly as much as, say, the US Civil War, or even the Spanish-American War of 1898. But what was small in the 1960s is big today. Then, the 1965 Immigration Act appeared to be an unimportant administrative adjustment; but today, immigration is the Queen of all social issues. Meanwhile, the “civil rights” revolution and the resulting backlash is the unacknowledged King of all social issues.
Officially, “civil rights” triumphed in the 1960s through “civil disobedience,” but that is a misunderstanding. “Civil rights” triumphed in the 1930s and 1940s as a result of a number of desegregation cases and Negro uplift policies. In the 1950s, whites began to resist, to the point that “civil rights” gains could only come at the point of a bayonet. And by the late 1960s, whites built new (but shakier) segregation defenses.
“Civil disobedience” in itself was a problem in that it is not really civil at all. It is a tactic of breaking small laws to achieve a political objective, similar to how terrorism is used, and it can quickly get out of hand. Essentially, blacks had a standing green light to riot throughout the 1960s, probably due to the fact that the Kennedy and Johnson administrations responded very quickly and favorably to any Martin Luther King civil disobedience stunt.
Additionally, the morality of “civil rights” is backwards. The movement had the appearance of morality to the vast majority of whites in its early days, but by 1965 black violence, basic black social pathologies, and black militancy had swept away the moral façade. In other words, the riots which followed Martin Luther King’s assassination were the last stand of the “civil rights” movement, not the painful birth of some sort of post-racial paradise. The story of these riots is told in Clay Risen’s page-turning book, A Nation on Fire.
MLK was not a genius & civil disobedience isn’t civil
A Nation on Fire is the first mainstream book on the “civil rights” movement that I’ve read that even gets close to hinting that the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr. was not the saintly genius that the mainstream media made him out to be.[1] Risen describes King approaching his final days in Memphis thusly:
The past few years had not been kind to the civil rights leader. Since his success at Selma and the resulting passage of the Voting Rights Act in ‘65, King had been trying to broaden the scope of his movement, both in reach – out west, up north – and scope – taking on housing discrimination, poverty, and the war. But the public, the media, and the political establishment increasingly saw him in a negative light, a has-been who achieved great victories earlier in the decade but had no answers for the new issues of the day. Even Walter Fauntroy, his loyal Washington representative, called King a “spent force.”[2]
King was a spent force with no answers for newer issues because the consequences of his ethos had clearly created out-of-control problems by 1968. At the start of the 1960s, blacks dressed well, appeared to behave well in public, and honest white “civil rights” sympathizers could imagine that they and the blacks were fighting “unjust laws” with “civil disobedience.” By the end of the 60s, a considerable number of blacks were dressing like revolutionaries and impossible to appease in any way.
As a result, by the time of King’s assassination, the white public had started to sour on “civil rights.” The turning point was the Watts Riot of 1965. Watts wasn’t the first black riot of the 1960s, but it happened in a place where the economy was good and there was no long-standing history of “racism,” as in the South.[3]
As word trickled out from Memphis that King was dead on April 4, 1968, sub-Saharans began to riot on an enormous scale across the nation. Risen gives a personal account of the situation: His mother had to flee her office in Washington, DC with other whites in a packed bus. Her father, a soldier with eyesight so poor they wouldn’t send him to Vietnam, was pulled away from his desk job, given a rifle, and told to defend his base against rioting blacks.
Burning down cities they cannot build & how a riot works
Risen focuses most of his narrative on the riots in Washington, DC, but he also examines what happened in other places, such as Detroit, Chicago, and Baltimore. The roots of the riot were in black migration from the rural South. Washington, DC, along with all the great cities of the North, had experienced a large growth in their black populations since the First World War. The trend accelerated through the 1940s. In all cases, in those places where blacks showed up in massive numbers, jobs fled – especially after the Second World War. Risen shows the statistics regarding jobs, black migrants, and so on. From this, he draws a Tragic Dirt conclusion: That is to say, blacks were arriving in a geographical location where jobs were leaving through some sort of natural process beyond anyone’s control. It is probably more accurate to conclude rather that blacks in large numbers create an environment where an advanced economy cannot function.
But even as problems with blacks increased in the late 1950s and early ‘60s, only the radical whites seemed to notice. George Lincoln Rockwell, for example, frequently talked about what blacks were doing to DC. Nobody listened. And in the meantime, blacks began to gain control over DC’s city government. At the time of King’s assassination, DC’s mayor was a black named Walter Washington. He pioneered DC’s Africanized political ecosystem which only ended when the Bush I administration got rid of Marion Barry in an FBI sting operation in 1990.
Black management of any institution has the same effect as untreated high blood pressure on a person’s body: At first there are no symptoms, and then one’s heart explodes. In 1968, Washington, DC was beginning its slide into becoming a slum, which persisted until the end of the Clinton administration. The key thing is that black leaders – unless they are being supported by whites, and even then it’s iffy – make a series of small, bad decisions that compound over time. Mayor Washington was only part of the problem, though. The main issue was that the large black community made many small, bad decisions every day. And when word came that King was dead, blacks in general made a terrible decision regarding how to respond, and DC’s black mayor was quickly overwhelmed.
When the riot broke out, DC was unprepared. Civil servants did not know what to do, gave and received conflicting orders, and panicked. Whites simply fled. The roads became parking lots. Some drivers abandoned their vehicles and walked to the suburbs. The DC National Guard was called up, and federal troops from the “Old Guard” were deployed to protect the Federal District. The “Old Guard”’s regular duties were normally purely ceremonial, but their mission quickly shifted in the face of the scale of the violence. The Pentagon called up support troops from the other bases around DC to serve as infantry. The Marines were called in. The Maryland National Guard deployed to DC’s edge to keep blacks from burning the suburbs.
The deployment expanded from DC to other cities, especially Baltimore, involving massive troop movements. Paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne were rushed to cities around the nation, and the III Corps Artillery was deployed, along with brigades from the 5th Mechanized Infantry Division. Baltimore is unique in that the whites organized on their own during the riots: Armed groups of whites drove into the city and fired at rioting blacks, while white shopkeepers armed themselves.
Over the next few decades, sociologists would study the riots and offer explanations of how these riots begin and get out of hand. According to them, a social disturbance becomes a riot due to a “Schelling incident” – one in which people in a crowd realize they will be rewarded by that crowd for violence rather than punished for it. In DC, the Schelling incident occurred when the crowd saw looters break the windows of the People’s Drug Store. Soon, DC was in flames. Most of the deaths in the riot were the result of arson.
The Russian Prime Minister paid a visit to one of the four Russian-held islands which lie off Japan’s most northern region. Known as Iturup in Russian and Etorofu in Japanese, the island was occupied by the Soviet Union after World War 2. It has been a source of dispute between Moscow and Tokyo for the last three-quarters of a century – and Mr Medvedev’s visit threatens to put relations between Russia and Japan under strain.
Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs pulled no punches with a strongly worded statement aimed at the Kremlin.
Officials said that Mr Medvedev’s visit was incompatible with the Japanese people’s view on the Russian-held islands.
The statement added: “We strongly urge the Russian side to take constructive measures to further advance Japan-Russia relations, including the issue of the conclusion of the peace treaty.”
Iturup is one of four islands involved in the so-called Kuril Islands dispute, also known as the Northern Territories altercation.
The Yalta agreement – a post World War 2 deal signed by the US, Britain and the Soviet Union – stated that “the Kuril Islands shall be handed over to the Soviet Union” after the conclusion of the war.
It was supported by the Cairo Declaration of 1943, which stated that Japan must be expelled from all territories which have been taken by violence.
Japan originally took control of the island in 1875 after Russia reportedly agreed to give up all the rights for the Kuril Islands.
The Russo-Japanese war 30 years later yielded more territory to Tokyo and became the backdrop of simmering tensions between the two nations.
Diplomatic progress has stalled in the past 20 years over the dispute.
In 2005, to Moscow’s dismay, the European Parliament recommended Russia return the islands to Japan.
Recently, Discovery of Oil and Natural Gas in Sakhalin have given Russia a Milking cow in the region. Which was earlier used as Gulags.
2011 saw the installation of weapons on the island to, according to Mr Medvedev, “ensure the security of the islands as an integral part of Russia”.
Mr Medvedev’s latest visit came just two weeks after Moscow outright refused to discuss the potential handover of two of the contested islands to Japan.
That and the following article are not really all you need to know, as oil and natural gas supplies - which Japan is in desperate need for - have been located in Sakhalin Island, a natural extension of Japan’s historical and genetic ethnostate and an affect of the Russian Federation’s cleptocratic aggrandizement.
The decades-old dispute has prevented the two countries from concluding a peace treaty to formally end World War II.
Called the Kurils by Russia and the Northern Territories by Japan, a string of volcanic islands are at the heart of a feud between the two countries that has prevented them signing a formal World War II peace treaty. Talks stalled for decades due to Japan‘s claim to the four strategic islands seized by the Soviet army in the final days of the war.
Russia and Japan’s leaders meet for talks in Moscow on Tuesday over the disputed island chain.
As Russian President Vladimir Putin and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe are set to meet in Moscow on Tuesday for talks expected to be dominated by the territorial dispute, here are some key facts about the Kuril islands:
Location
The disputed islands of Iturup (Etorofu in Japanese), Kunashir (Kunashiri), Shikotan and Habomai lie at their closest point just a few kilometres off the north coast of Hokkaido in Japan.
They are the southernmost islands in a volcanic chain that separates the Sea of Okhotsk and the Pacific Ocean.
Indigenous people of Sakhalin Island
They are located to the southeast of the Russian island of Sakhalin and are administratively part of the same region, although Tokyo considers them part of its Hokkaido prefecture and “illegally occupied by Russia”.
Treaties
Russian Empress Catherine the Great claimed sovereignty over the Kuril islands in 1786 after her government declared they were discovered by “Russian explorers” and therefore “undoubtedly must belong to Russia”.
In the first treaty between tsarist Russia and Japan in 1855, the frontier between the two countries was drawn just north of the four islands closest to Japan.
Twenty years later in 1875, a new treaty handed Tokyo the entire chain, in exchange for Russia gaining full control of the island of Sakhalin. Japan seized back control of the southern half of Sakhalin after its crushing defeat of Moscow in the 1905 Russo-Japanese War.
Soviet takeover
The Kuril islands have been back at the centre of a dispute between Moscow and Tokyo since Soviet troops invaded them in the final days of World War II.
The USSR only entered into war with Japan on August 9, 1945, just after the United States had dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima.
The Soviet troops completed the takeover of the islands after Japan’s general surrendered later that month.
Russia argues that then-US President Franklin Roosevelt promised Soviet leader Joseph Stalin he could take back the Kurils in exchange for joining the war against Japan when they met at the Yalta conference in February 1945 at which the Allied leaders divided up the post-war world.
The Soviet capture of the islands has since prevented Moscow and Tokyo from signing a formal peace treaty to end the war, despite repeated attempts over the past 70 years to reach an agreement.
In 1956, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev first offered to give Japan the two smallest islands, Shikotan and Habomai, in exchange for signing a peace treaty but dropped the idea after Tokyo struck a military alliance with Washington.
Strategic value
Strategically, control of the islands ensures Russia has year-round access to the Pacific Ocean for its Pacific Fleet of warships and submarines based in Vladivostok, as the strait between Kunashir and Iturup does not freeze over in winter.
Russia has military bases on the archipelago and has deployed missile systems on the islands.
The islands’ current population is around 20,000 people.
After numerous meetings over the past few years between Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Russian President Vladimir Putin, they have launched various economic projects on the islands in areas such as the farming of fish and shellfish, wind-generated energy, and tourism, though Moscow says investment is still meagre.
Since 2017, the two countries have also agreed on charter flights for Japanese former inhabitants to visit family graves there.
The islands are rich in hot springs and minerals and rare metals such as rhenium, which is used in the production of supersonic aircraft.
That’s not really all you need to know, as oil and natural gas supplies - which Japan is in desperate need for - have been located in Sakhalin Island, a natural extension of Japan’s historical and genetic ethnostate and an affect of the Russian Federation’s cleptocratic aggrandizement.
When this tweet speaks of “the socialist party” it is speaking of a party that would not delimit social accountability to native interests first and foremost.
Salvini might have added Trumpstein, Putin and Netanyahu to the list of people not to trust with native European interests._07.jpg?r=1564761292)
Abe with Russian President Putin at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum on 26 May 2018 CCby4.0
Recently, Discovery of Oil and Natural Gas in Sakhalin have given Russia a Milking cow in the region. Which was earlier used as Gulags.
Indigenous people of Sakhalin Island
_07.jpg){kind=link}