Disinformation on Russia Ukraine Hoax What are they Hiding?

Disinformation on Russia Ukraine Hoax What are they Hiding?

Russia Ukraine Disinformation Hoax. Could it be that Russia has a legitimate reason for this war? Could this war be considered a just war from Russia’s point of view? When we “connect the dots” of the past few decades, a picture that contradicts the ‘approved” narrative starts to emerge. To see clearly involves taking a trip down the “Rabbit Hole”  

Vladimir Putin

The mainstream media (MSM) forms a sort of uni-voice in which most newspapers, TV as well as the majority of voices on the Internet unite to declare that Russia is a pariah state and that the person most guilty of that is Russia’s demonic Vladimir Putin. Russia is the big bully picking on the much smaller and weaker country of Ukraine and its heroic defender, President Volodymyr Zelinsky – and all for no reason at all except that Putin is BAD.

There are, however, other voices. A few odd questions:

  • Are there really Nazis in Ukraine? How could that be when President Zelinsky is a Jew?
  • Is NATO moving into Ukraine? What’s wrong with that? Isn’t NATO good?
  • What about Russiagate? Haven’t the Democrats shown that Russia was meddling with the American election of 2016 or else the idiot Donald Trump wouldn’t have been elected? What about the Steele Dossier that claimed Trump was cavorting with prostitutes in Moscow? Was it really “discredited” as some claim? Did Robert Mueller’s report find any evidence against Trump?
  • What are Putin’s “red lines”? Does he really have any?

A few days ago, your blogger came across a blog post by John Mearsheimer that has been sitting on the Internet since 2015. Mearsheimer predicted in 2015 that there would inevitably be the very war we are seeing now with Russia in Ukraine. Shouldn’t we pay attention to someone who has such amazing power of prediction?

Mearsheimer’s predictions are based on exposing the facts of the 2014 Maidan coup d’etat in Ukraine that threw out the democratically elected pro-Russian Prime Minister, Victor Yanukovich. The Maidan coup was planned by the American State Department, whose point person in the Maidan Square was Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland. In between handing out cookies to the rioters, she spoke on her cell phone with the American Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt, arguing about who they would make President once they got rid of Yanukovich. “Yats the man!” Victoria cried, referring to Arsenij Yatsenyuk. When Pyatt objected to something, saying that the EU might not agree, she said “Fuck the EU.” After the coup was successful, Yatsenyuk did indeed become President of Ukraine for two years. LEAKED AUDIO

Bonus of the Maidan coup for NATO was that Russia’s leading naval base at Sevastapol was in Crimea

The Maidan coup, executed by the U.S. State Department and George Soros’ Open Society Institute, was a major step in getting Ukraine to cut ties with Russia and become a de facto member of NATO. NATO is an explicitly anti-Russian military alliance led by the U.S. Right away, this would be a Red Alert for Russia to have a military alliance right on their border that is explicitly hostile to them. Even more significant, one of the bonuses of the Maidan coup for NATO was that Russia’s leading naval base at Sevastapol was in Crimea, which was part of Ukraine and would fall into the hands of NATO if Ukraine joined that alliance. Why on earth was Russia’s leading naval base in Crimea, which was in Ukraine?

Back story. Crimea had been part of Russia for over 200 years until Nikita Khrushchev, Communist leader of the USSR, transferred it administratively to Ukraine in 1954 at a time when the USSR was a country centrally ruled from Moscow. After the breakup of the USSR in 1991, Crimea stayed in Ukraine whether they wanted to or not. Russia paid rent to Ukraine for continued use of the Sevastopol naval base – an acceptable situation only as long as Ukraine remained neutral. As soon as Ukraine came closer to being incorporated into NATO after the Maidan coup, Russia’s immediate response was to re-annex the Crimean peninsula to Russia. This was a move wildly popular with the largely Russian population of Crimea who had voted strongly in the 2010 election for the deposed Prime Minister Yanukovich.  Russia held a referendum in Crimea on the choice of reunion with Russia. The vote was overwhelmingly in favour. In a flash, NATO lost its bid to take over Sevastopol.

Western versions of these events usually summarize them by omitting the role of the Maidan coup altogether. They also omit Crimea’s historic connection with Russia and the fact that its majority population is Russian ethnicity who had been disenfranchised when the Maidan coup led to the expulsion of Yanukovich. Western accounts just claim that hostilities between Ukraine and Russia were initiated by Putin’s “unprovoked” annexation of “Ukraine’s Crimea”.

Ideological descendants of those same organizations that sided with Hitler 

 US is Arming Neo-Nazis in Ukraine WATCH VIDEO

Two other important events followed the Maidan coup. First, a demonstration in the largely Russian-ethnicity city of Odessa led to a vicious attack by the Right Sector. Demonstrators were locked inside a union building that was then set on fire, while exits to the building were blocked. As many as forty people were burned to death. This is the kind of action that is characteristic of the neo-Nazis in Ukraine that we hear so much about. The Right Sector is an umbrella term that includes the Azov Battalion and others who are lineal and ideological descendants of those same organizations that sided with Hitler during WWII. They have the same slogans, symbols, and heroes. Although they helped the Germans persecute Jews during WWII, their current manifestation is less anti-Semitic and more virulently anti-Russian.

Second, the largely Russian-ethnicity East Ukrainian region of the Donbas, which had also voted overwhelmingly for the deposed Prime Minister Yanukovich, attempted to break away from Ukraine now that the coup had effectively disenfranchised them.  They formed the breakaway republics of Donetz and Lugansk, and also sought annexation by Russia. Russia did not agree, however, to annex these regions – perhaps they felt it was a step too far. Also, these regions did not contain any strategic sites equivalent in value to that of Sevastopol. Instead, Russia advocated for them to achieve local autonomy within a federated Ukraine.

Minsk leaders (from left: Vladimir Putin, Francois Hollande, Angela Merkel, Petro Poroshenko

Ukraine signed the Minsk Agreement in 2015, but has refused to implement

In 2015, Russia, along with Germany and France, brokered the Minsk Agreement, which required that Ukraine revise its constitution to become a federal rather than a unitary state. The Donbas republics would then be provinces with a degree of local autonomy, including language rights, within the Ukrainian Federation. The Minsk Agreement requires Ukraine to negotiate terms directly with the leaders of the Donetz and Lugansk People’s Republics. Ukraine signed the Minsk Agreement in 2015, but has refused to implement it since. Instead, the Ukrainians have launched a war against the two breakaway republics, who have formed militias to fight for independence. Ukraine refuses to discuss terms with the leaders of Donetz and Lugansk This would involve recognizing their status, which Ukraine refuses to do.

Much of the fighting against the Donbas militias has been executed by Azov Battalion forces. There is little doubt that Russia has supported the two breakaway republics with irregular fighters, some arms and other supplies. On the other hand, there is little evidence that the Russian army itself has taken part in the fighting.

The Ukrainian forces were massed opposite the break-away territory

In early February 2022, when the Russian army was massing on Russian’s Western border, they were lined up, not opposite the Ukrainian army, but against the territory occupied by the Donbas republics. The Ukrainian forces were massed, not on Ukraine’s Eastern border with Russia, but opposite the break-away territory, guarded by its militias. A considerable distance separated the armies of the two sovereign states. The current war started when Putin moved the Russian army into Donbas, and then into deeper Ukrainian territory.

We hear from some minority voices that, if Zelinsky would lay down his arms, this war could be over quickly. Few in the West believe this. However, the claim harks back to Putin’s security demands and his red lines, which Putin stated just before entering Ukraine. Western commentators have mocked or ignored Putin’s demands for security guarantees.

What are Putin’s red lines? Basically, there are three of them. Here they are, in diminishing order of importance.

  1. Russia demands that Ukraine never be part of NATO, which is an explicitly anti-Russian military alliance. Ukraine’s being part of NATO means that Ukraine would have American arms, possibly even atomic missiles, stationed permanently on Russia’s border – missiles that could reach major Russian cities in minutes without any possibility of defense. Ukraine’s being part of NATO would also involve war guarantees from all other NATO countries – but primarily the U.S. – in case of any future disagreement with Russia. Note that, prior to the American-led Maidan coup, Ukraine was effectively a non-NATO, that is, a neutral state.
  • 2. Implementation of the Minsk Agreement, signed by Ukraine in 2015. When the Ukraine government refused to follow through on their signed agreement to negotiate directly with the leaders of Donetz and Lugansk, Putin finally recognized the Donbas republics as independent,  and declared that Russia would enter their territory as peacekeeper. Recognition of the independence of these republics rendered the Minsk Agreement itself moot since there was no longer a need for Ukraine to become a federal state. the Agreement would be replaced by a requirement for Ukraine to recognize the independent status of these two republics, who might at some point choose to join Russia. A new but similar requirement would be for Ukraine to recognize that Crimea is part of Russia.

3. De-Nazification. In spite of widespread denial that there are Neo Nazis in Ukraine, it is well-documented that they are there. Although lineally and spiritually linked with organizations of the same name, The Azov Battalion and Right Sector less associated with with anti-Semitism and more with rabid anti-Russianism. Since the Maidan coup, they have become embedded in many Ukrainian institutions. They are especially involved in ruthless irregular war against the Donbas republics.

Russia Ukraine Disinformation Hoax

Before the current war started, Putin repeatedly demanded that Russia needed minimum security guarantees in writing. If his red lines had been taken seriously, there is no reason to believe there would have been a war.  As it is, Zelinsky’s putting down his arms and accepting serious negotiations with Putin would be the first step to ending the war. Non-membership in NATO would be paramount.

NATO was a military alliance formed in 1949 when it became clear after the end of WWII that the Soviet Union was occupying countries in Eastern Europe and incorporating them into a pro-Communist political and military bloc that eventually formed the Warsaw Pact. The chief policy of NATO, advocated by statesman George Kennan, was to contain Communism within the Warsaw Pact, while avoiding war with them, at least in Europe. The Warsaw Pact was disbanded in 1991, thus obviating the need for NATO.

In 1997, George Kennan wrote:

“[B]luntly stated…expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era. Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking … ”

Instead of following Kennan’s advice, the U.S. has preserved NATO and continued to treat Russia as an adversary. The most serious abuse of American policy in Europe has been the Maidan coup d’etat of 2014 and the attempt to install NATO in Ukraine. 32 years ago this month the George H.W. Bush administration promised the Russian government that if Russia surrendered East Germany, NATO would not “expand one inch eastward.”

Victoria Nuland Leaked Audio Fuck the EU

For several years, the Democratic party has run the Russiagate hoax, insisting that Russia has meddled in the American election of 2016. The 4-year Mueller investigation sabotaged the Trump presidency and served to render all relationships with Russia toxic; no collusion between Trump and Putin was found. Still we hear that Russia is responsible for everything liberals don’t like – the January 6 intrusion into the U.S. Capitol — even the Truckers’ Freedom Convoy in Ottawa. Russia has been accused of “weaponizing” their oil sales to Europe; the U.S. has succeeded in getting the cancellation of Nordstream 2 pipeline, a clear act of hostility against Russia, and for that matter, Germany.

Russia’s slow motion advancement into Ukraine, concentrating on the Russian-ethnicity areas could be contrasted with America’s carpet bombing of Serbia for over 80 days in the 1990’s, followed by the detachment of Serbia’s cradle province of Kosovo. Kosovo is now a impoverished Muslim narcostate. –

Steven Cohen War With Russia

The region of Kosovo was majority Serbian, and majority Christian, all the way back since the Bulgarian empire. And continued through the Byzantine Empire, all the way until the Fall of Byzantine Empire. When the Ottoman’s came to power – they brought the beginning of Islamization of Kosovo.

– but the U.S. has a military base there. Then there was the carpet bombing of Libya in 2010, starting a civil war in that country that has continued to the present day. Iraq in 2003, based on claims of having nuclear weapons, that turned out to be false. One could go on. Hypocrisy is America’s middle name.

How are the Cuban Missal crisis and Ukraine in NATO the same? Read the Monroe Doctrine.

Russia Ukraine Disinformation VIDEO PROOF

Mohammed Hashim reinvents Islam by accepting multiple gender identities

Mohammed Hashim reinvents Islam by accepting multiple gender identities

Mohammed Hashim is “a labour and human rights advocate working as the Senior Organizer for the Toronto and York Region Labour Council” and “a Founding Advisor of Progress Toronto.” According to his bio on progresstoronto.ca Mohammed Hashim “advocates on issues related to workers’ rights at the municipal level and is a leader on the promotion of equity issues and tackling Islamophobia.”

On January 2nd, 2019 Mohammed Hashim publicly criticized the Islamic Party of Ontario led by Jawed Anwar and specifically its goal to implement the sharia Islamic law and his “homophobic” platform. Hashim wrote (Facebook):

“Equally nutters is this Javed Anwer [sic] guy creating an Islamic Party of Ontario. He’s a Doug Ford [Ontario Premier] supporter! and to call someone an ‘enemy of Islam’?? Who made you God? But beyond that, I don’t know where he gets this idea that implementing sharia law on everyone is a good idea. It’s a mostly secular democratic system buddy,that strives for universal human rights. His platform is homophobic, misogynistic and surely does not represent my Islam.”

The Islamic Party of Ontario’s platform on LGBTQ issues reads:

“Allah has created two genders: men and women. Any physical defect in any organ of a person doesn’t change one’s gender identification and sexual orientation. All the communities of all the faiths believe in it; modern science proves it. The concept of “gender identity” is a false concept.”

Based only on Canadian authentic sources I’ve learned that the Islamic Party of Ontario’s position on LGBTQ reflects the true teaching of Islam. Allah said in the holy Koran (Surah Al-Hujjurat 49:13) “O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another.” There is a consensus among the senior Canadian Muslim scholars that liberal concept of gender identity is foreign to Islam. My thorough search failed to find any respected Canadian scholars who support you position on LGBTQ.

Media Inquiry

Can you please provide the Islamic sources that led you to unequivocally reject the aforementioned Islamic Party of Ontario’s platform on LGBTQ while stating “[it] surely does not represent my Islam”?

Does your reformed version of Islam recognize liberal concept of gender identity and the existence of multiple genders in contradiction to Allah’s holy Koran, Prophet Mohammad’s (pbuh), the sahaba and the teachings of the great scholars of Islam?

What are your qualifications in Islamic studies? Are they sufficient to challenge the great scholars of Islam and the consensus among the senior Muslim scholars in Canada?

An article on this issue will be published by the end of the week. A response by 11am Wednesday will be much appreciated.


Eric Stanley Brazau,

Investigative Journalist


Note: On March 25, 2020 I sent a reminder to Mohammed Hashim that reads “I will postpone publishing till Thursday 26 March 11am. Your response, should you make one, will be included.”

As of March 27, 2020 Mohammed Hashim has not responded to the media inquiry. A short time after the media inquiry was sent, Mohammed Hashim removed all public posts from his Facebook page.