The Former President of Estonia's Last 3200 Tweets Most Frequent Words

Victims of "Russian propaganda"

One of the accusations made to me in Twitter that I find more surprising and ridiculous is that of being victim of "Russian propaganda" or "Putin's propaganda". This accusation is a big insult to anyone's intelligence.

I live in Spain. When I turn on the TV there is not even one channel that broadcasts anything similar to "Russian propaganda"; quite the opposite, the only version given is that of the the EU, the US and NATO. When I turn on the radio, there is no "Russian propaganda" to be found anywhere; as in the tv, everywhere there is only the Western version. Exactly the same can be said about printed newspapers and magazines. But not only that, whenever you enter the internet, the headlines that services like Twitter, Google, Microsoft, etc. suggest me are those from big Spanish and International news corporations. Everything a Spanish citizen receives is EU/US/NATO propaganda. And I am quite sure that exactly the same happens in every Western country.

To receive "Russian propaganda" you have to look for it. A Spanish citizen will never come in contact with RT (Russia Today - the most popular "Russian propaganda" news service), or any other pro-Russian site, if they do not actively look for it (or a contact in a social media actively looks for it). So you simply can not be a victim of "Russian propaganda" if you live in a Western country: you can only be a victim of Western propaganda or a "rebel".

PS1: One of the recurrent moments when I get the accusation of being victim of "Russian propaganda" is when I oppose the affirmations "Russia invaded Ukraine" or "Russia occupied Crimea". But there is no influence of the "Russian propaganda" in my opinion; in fact it is the influence of Western propaganda. The Western propaganda that recurringly showed maps of the Ukrainian election results to show "how unfair was for half of the Ukrainians that Yakunovych was president". And I thought, why is this unfair, and not the opposite situation? And when Yanukovych was removed from the Presidency, I thought how can this be fair for the half of the Ukrainians that voted for him? And I foud it logical that the regions of Ukraine that had majorily voted for him, wanted to leave a country where their democratic vote could be washed away by a revolution by the other half who have voted for the other option. More essentially, my option is based on the maps of the elections that the Western media published over the years, until Yanukovych was removed.

PS2: If you want to know my theory about why people look for it, for "Russian propaganda", as well as for any alternative source of information (zerohedge, infowars, etc.), is that people do not trust anymore Western media, because you feel they are not telling the truth, or not telling the entire truth, and they want to see another point of view.

The President of Estonia has mentioned more times "Russia" than "Estonia" in Twitter...

I am fascinated with Taavi Rõivas and Toomas Hendrik Ilves. They are supossed to be the Prime Minister and the President of Estonia. Why I say "supposed"? Because they do not seem to have any interest in the real problems of estonian citizens. Or at least, that is what you understand from following their Twitter accounts.

I live in Catalonia, the separatist region from Spain, so I think I know quite well how Spanish politics work. And it is impossible to imagine that a Spanish leader, at least one that wants to become somebody important, could show such indifference with national matters.

You could think that this is a subjective impression, but it's not. You just need to count the tweets that they have dedicated to different subjects.

I lived in Estonia some years ago, and I fell in love with it, both the country and it's people. So, after coming back to Catalonia/Spain, I kept interested in Estonian affairs, and followed both the President, Toomas Hendrik Ilves, and the Primed Minister, Taavi Rõivas, of Estonia. But soon I got bored, because they seem only interested in Russia, NATO and similar issues.

So I decided to check scientifically if it was just my subjective impression or reality. For that I counted the tweets they had written about different subjects that, in my opinion, should be really important, if not the most important, for the President and the Prime Minister of a nation.


Toomas Hendrik Ilves has more than 13,800 tweets. 13,800 times when he found something interest enough to write about it, or to retweet someone else's tweet. Taavi Rõivas has almost 7,500 tweets. So I think nobody can deny that in both cases we have a very good sample of what they are intested in.

And when you analyze their tweets you find really surprising things...

But if you think this is really not so surprising what do you say if I tell you that the PRESIDENT OF ESTONIA has mentioned more times RUSSIA THAN ESTONIA since he joined Twitter?

Maybe Estonian citizens don't care about it, probably some find it even justified. For me, it's just impossible to understand that the President of one country has mentioned more times another country than his own. That idea would be an aberration in Spain.

"Russia invaded Ukraine"

I'm sure you have heard such statements as "Russia invaded Ukraine", "Russia invaded Crimea"...

It is completely understantandable that Ukrainians say such thing. Well, they are not going to admit that Crimean or Donbass people prefer to be Russian than Ukrainian. It is easy to understand that.

It was predictable that NATO officials, think tanks, and payrolled analysts, journalists, etc. would also say that, as they are completely involved in their neo cold war campaign. If you want to check NATO's doble standards regarding self-determination right, you can find it here.

But the truth is, as I always say about this, it doesn't take a Nobel prize winner to understand this map of the elections in Ukraine in 2010: there are two different countries inside the present Ukraine borders.

Source: Financial Times.

It is fascinating how some Westerners (read NATO and Bilderbergians) give and take legitimity of elections depending of what people choose: it is "legitimate", "democratic", "free" to vote pro-EU, pro-NATO, but it is "illegitimate", "undemocratic", to vote pro-Russian. Pro-Russian votes are, for these people, illegitimate. And that's the scary thing: when you decide that something is illegitimate, you can ignore it, supress it, abolish it. Citizens of east Ukraine voted pro-Russian, so it means they voted "illegitimate" and their vote can be dismissed.

It is quite disgusting but simptomatic to read how the Donbass region is depicted in the Wikipedia entry: "Surveys of regional identities in Ukraine have shown that around 40% of Donbass residents claim to have a "Soviet identity". Roman Horbyk of Södertörn University wrote that in the 20th century, "[a]s peasants from all surrounding regions were flooding its then busy mines and plants on the border of ethnically Ukrainian and Russian territories", "incomplete and archaic institutions" prevented Donbass residents from "acquiring a notably strong modern urban – and also national – new identity"." (Is there any similiar entry about any other country or region in Wikipedia? If instead of pro-Russian, we were talking about muslims, this entry would be surely qualified as racist, xenophobe...).

The Ukranian conflict is not so difficult to understand. The current borders of Ukraine include territories that have or had a majority of other nationalities. For example, the West of Ukraine was previously Poland. Crimea, in fact, was a part of the Russian SSR until it was transferred to the Ukrainian SSR in 1954. Their views of the Eastern and the Western part of Ukraine about international politics are completely opposed. There are two different countries inside the current borders of Ukraine. You could arguee it was unfair that Yanukovich was "imposed" to the West of Ukraine, but as unfair as Tymoshenko being "imposed" to the East of Ukraine. In such cases, only partition is a real solution. Definitely not imposing one sides's wish over the other's. Who opposes the only real solution? Who is then the imperialist?

"Kosovo and the myth of liberal intervention"

"The Council [of Europe] claims that civilians – Serbian and non-KLA-supporting Kosovan Albanians detained by the KLA in the 1999 hostilities – were shot in northern Albania and their kidneys extracted and sold on the black market. It names Hashim Thaçi, the former leader of the KLA and Kosovo's prime minister, as the boss of a "mafia-like" group engaged in criminal activity – including heroin trading – since before the 1999 war. The report is a damning indictment not only of the KLA but also of western policy. And it also gives lie to the fiction that Nato's war with Yugoslavia was, in Tony Blair's words, "a battle between good and evil; between civilisation and barbarity; between democracy and dictatorship".

It was a fiction many on the liberal left bought into. In 1999 Blair was seen not as a duplicitous warmonger in hock to the US but as an ethical leader taking a stand against ethnic cleansing. But if the west had wanted to act morally in the Balkans and to protect the people in Kosovo there were solutions other than war with the Serbs, and options other than backing the KLA – the most violent group in Kosovan politics. They could have backed genuine multi-party negotiations, or offered to lift sanctions on Belgrade if a peaceful solution to the problem of Kosovo could be found.

Instead, a virulently anti-Serb stance led the west into taking ever more extreme positions, and siding with an organisation which even Robert Gelbard, President Clinton's special envoy to Kosovo, described as "without any question, a terrorist group". In 2000 the Sunday Times revealed that, prior to the Nato bombing, US agents had been training the KLA. Shaban Shala, a KLA commander, claimed he had met British and US agents in north Albania in 1996.

It was the KLA's campaign of violence against Yugoslav state officials, Serbian and Kosovan civilians in 1998, which led to an escalation of the conflict with the government in Belgrade, with atrocities committed on both sides. We were told the outbreak of war in March 1999 with Nato was the Serbian government's fault, yet Lord Gilbert, the UK defence minister, admitted "the terms put to Miloševic at Rambouillet [the international conference preceding the war] were absolutely intolerable … it was quite deliberate".

The subsequent 78-day "humanitarian" bombardment of federal Yugoslavia massively intensified the ethnic cleansing of Kosovan Albanians by Yugoslav forces. Between 2,000 and 10,000 Kosovan Albanians were killed by these forces, with between 500 and 1,500 people killed by the Nato bombing.

But even after Russian pressure forced a Yugoslav withdrawal from Kosovo, ethnic cleansing and rights abuses in the region continued. Under the Nato occupation an estimated 200,000 ethnic Serbs, Roma and other minorities from south Kosovo, and almost the whole Serb population of Pristina, have been forced from their homes.

A report on Kosovo by Minority Rights Group International claimed: "Nowhere [in Europe] is there such a level of fear for so many minorities that they will be harassed or attacked, simply for who they are." And in October 2010, a report by Human Rights Watch stated that "Roma and related minority groups deported from western Europe to Kosovo face discrimination and severe deprivation amounting to human rights abuse". As for democratic advances, Sunday's elections in Kosovo, boycotted by the Serbian minority, have seen widespread allegations of fraud, with a turnout of 149% reported in one area.

Far from being Tony Blair's "good war", Nato's assault on Yugoslavia was in its own way as immoral as the assault on Iraq. But as the Iraq war has become discredited, so it is even more important for the supporters of "liberal interventionism" to promote the line that Kosovo was in some way a success. The Council of Europe's report on the KLA's crimes makes that position much harder to maintain. And if it plays its part in making people more sceptical about any future western "liberal interventions", it is to be warmly welcomed."

"Kosovo and the myth of liberal intervention". Neil Clark. The Guardian. December 15, 2010.

Who Wanted to Kill the Pope?

On May 13, 1981, Mehmet Ali Ağca shot Pope John Paul II. Twenty eight years later still we don't know what really happened.

The moment of the shots. In the picture bellow, Acga's gun circled.

There have been many theories involving almost opossite interests. Russian secret service, bulgarian secret service, ultra-islamists, mafia... But as it happens in other maginicides (JFK, Robert Kennedy, Olof Palme...) a lot of facts remain in the darkness.

Referring to the attempt to kill the Pope, one really interesting point is always ignored, and it is the relation between Ağca and NATO and the CIA [Le Monde Diplomatique].

Let's remember that Ali Ağca was a member of the turkish ultra-nationalist organization Grey Wolves.

"According to Daniele Ganser, a researcher at the ETH Zürich University, the founder of the Grey Wolves, Alparslan Türkeş was a member of Counter-Guerrilla, the Turkish branch of Gladio, a stay-behind NATO anti-communist paramilitary organization which was supposed to prepare networks for guerrilla warfare in case of a Soviet invasion. Le Monde diplomatique confirms that the Grey Wolves were infiltrated and manipulated by Gladio, and that important Grey Wolves member Abdullah Çatlı had worked with Gladio. According to the same article, Abdullah Çatlı met with Italian international terrorist Stefano Delle Chiaie, who, aside from taking part in Italy' strategy of tension, also maintained links with Pinochet's DINA and participated in the Argentinian dirty war."

Ali Ağca, "On February 1, 1979 in Istanbul, under orders from the Grey Wolves, he murdered Abdi İpekçi, editor of a major Turkish newspaper Milliyet. He was caught due to an informant and was sentenced to life in prison. After serving six months, he escaped with the help of Abdullah Çatlı, second-in-command of the Grey Wolves and a prominent Gladio operative, and fled to Bulgaria, which was a base of operation for the Turkish mafia. According to investigative journalist Lucy Komisar, Mehmet Ali Ağca had worked with Abdullah Çatlı in this 1979 assassination, who "then reportedly helped organize Ağca's escape from an Istanbul military prison, and some have suggested Çatlı was even involved in the Pope's assassination attempt". According to Reuters, Ağca had "escaped with suspected help from sympathizers in the security services"."

The Pope visiting Ali Acga in prison.

El pasado anti-OTAN de Javier Solana

Recordemos que Javier Solana se convirtió en Secretario General de la OTAN el 5 de diciembre de 1995.

Pero en su juventud, como su partido se opuso a la entrada de España en la OTAN. La foto que sigue fue hecha en 1981 en el pub 'Hebe' en Vallecas, en un mitin anti-OTAN.

Is Javier Solana The Anti Christ?

Really surprising title, isn't it? But sadly it is not mine. It is taken from here, an article from Grace Trhu Faith website.

It considers de possibility that letters contained in "Javier Solana" could add up to 666. Fascinating, isn't it?

Kosovo: Epíleg

Ahir van ser les eleccions de Sèrbia. En elles s’elegia entre dos candidats ben diferents: un pro-rus i contrari a la independència de Kosovo; l’altre pro-europeu i més disposat a aceptar la independència d’aquesta provincia serbia. Les darreres notícies donarien una lleugera victòria pel segon.

Sembla, doncs, que la independència de Kosovo no serà traumàtica. Però què ha passat per arribar fins aquí? Aparentment la història es pot resumir en tres fases: neteja ètnica, guerra humanitaria (sigui el que sigui això...) i protectorat de l’ONU. Però, com totes les guerres, no és tan simple com alguns s’esforcen en fer-nos creure…


Quan veiem aquestes fotos (i algunes de les que hi ha al final d'aquest article) ràpidament pensem en el exode albano-kosovar…però no, són serbis, fugint del Kosovo de la era OTAN.

Què va succeir abans de la guerra? Com vaig llegir un cop, sembla que la història de Kosovo salti de la derrota dels serbis davant l’imperi otomà al 1389 fins a l’aparició de Milosevic.


Quan Milosevic arriba al poder Kosovo compta amb una certa autonomia. Però, encara que sembli difícil de creure, la minoria serbia és perseguida i acosada per la majoria albanesa. Podem trobar nombrosos articles dels anys 80 que ho documenten:

“…but Serbs in some of the neighboring villages have reportedly been harassed by Albanians and have packed up and left the region.”
(…)
"The [Albanian] nationalists have a two-point platform," according to Becir Hoti, an executive secretary of the Communist Party of Kosovo, "first to establish what they call an ethnically clean Albanian republic and then the merger with Albania to form a greater Albania."

Això està extret d’un article del New York Times de 1982! (Marvine Howe, The New York Times; July 12, 1982 [*]). Però n’hi ha molt més, que podem llegir aquí.

És en aquest ambient, i després del polèmic informe SANU [*], que Milosevic anula l’autonomia de Kosovo. Comença un periode en el que la majoria albanesa passarà a ser la discriminada.

El 22 d’abril de 1996 va apareixer en escena un altre dels actors clau: l’UCK, o exèrcit d’alliberament de Kosovo [*], amb quatre atemptats simultanis. La seva estrategia era simple: atacar els interessos serbis per provocar la resposta serbia contra la població civil, i així aconseguir recolzament internacional per la seva causa. Aíxi ho confessen els seus liders al documental de la BBC: Moral combat. NATO at war [*]. Aquí teniu la transcripció completa del documental amb totes les declaracions.

L’UCK és una organització terrorista financiada bàsicament mitjançant el tràfic de drogues i tot tipus de activitats mafioses [*].

Però la seva estrategia va tenir el resultat esperat i les Nacions Unides van enviar un respresentant, William Walker, qui es va caracteritzar per una discutible visió dels fets (condemnant d’igual manera l’assassinat d’un adolescent en un bar, com les morts d’uns membres de l’UCK en combat) [*].

Era aquest individu el més adequat per portar a terme aquesta missió? Examinant una mica el seu passat, potser no; se’l considera responsable de tapar l’assassinat de sis capellans jesuites i dues dones a El Salvador al 1989. Walker va insinuar que havia estat el FMLN, quan tothom sospitava (com després es va demostrar) que darrera hi havia l’exèrcit [*].

Però William Walker es va fer celebre després de l’incident de Račak [*], quan, sense cap tipus d’investigació, va afirmar taxativament que les forces serbies havien executat uns 45 albanesos [*].

La investigació de Walker, amb les mans a la butxaca.

Dos complices.

Encara ara no s’ha aclarit el que va succeir realment, però existiesen testimonis que declaren que els fets van tenir lloc de manera diferent a com ho va vendre Walker:

“When at 10 a.m. they entered the village in the wake of a police armored vehicle, the village was nearly deserted. They advanced through the streets under the fire of the Kosovo Liberation Army (UCK) fighters lying in ambush in the woods above the village. The exchange of fire continued throughout the operation, with more or less intensity. The main fighting took place in the woods. The Albanians who had fled the village when the first Serb shells were fired at dawn tried to escape. There they ran into Serbian police who had surrounded the village. The UCK was trapped in between. The object of the violent police attack on Friday was a stronghold of UCK Albanian independence fighters. Virtually all the inhabitants had fled Racak during the frightful Serb offensive of the summer of 1998. With few exceptions, they had not come back. ‘Smoke came from only two chimneys,’ noted one of the two AP TV reporters". (Christophe Chatelot: "Were the Racak dead really coldly massacred?", Le Monde, 21st January 1999).

Aquí teniu més articles sobre el tema.

William Walker reconeix en privat, segons Klaus Naumann (director de l’OTAN) que la majoria d’incidents durant el cessament de foc van ser ocasionats per l’UCK. Tot i això, a conseqüència de l’incident de Račak , es celebra la conferència de Rambouillet. Però aquesta és una excusa. Segons reconeix la mateixa Madeleine Albright, ella va dir a la delegació albanesa que havien de signar doncs si ells signaven i els serbis també, tenien la autonomia de Kosovo; i si ells signaven i el serbis no, tenien la OTAN a Kosovo. La proposta era tan polenta pels serbis que fins i tot era pitjor que els acords que es van signar al final de la guerra: per exemple la proposta incloia la presència de l’OTAN a Kosovo quan després de la guerra se’n va encarregar l’ONU (com demanaven els serbis a Rambouillet).

El fracas de Rambouillet va justificar l’OTAN per iniciar els bombardejos. I aquest van desencadenar la neteja ètnica per part dels serbis.
El capitol més vergonyos de la campanya de bombardejos va ser la destrucció de la televisió pública. Tot i ser clarament un vehicle de la propaganda de Milosevic, va provocar la mort de 14 persones i va aturar les emissions només durant unes hores. Tony Blair s’excusava de la mort d’aquestes persones dient que ja els havien avisat (¿?). Finalment arriba la capitulació de Belgrad i la seva retirada de Kosovo.

Al fi de la guerra el seguiràn intents de l’UCK de portar la guerra a altres regions de Serbia i de Macedonia [*]. Al mateix temps es succeeixen els crims de l’UCK [*]. Al 2005, el Primer Ministre i exlider del UCK, Ramush Haradinaj, es acusat de crims de guerra.

Els abusos contra la minoria serbia després de la guerra (segons HRW) i, no només contra serbis, sinó també contra altres minories, provoquen un nou exode; i condueixen a un Kosovo etnicament pur, un Kosovo purament albanes.