Russia can be in trouble because of Finland's new president

08.02.2012 13:24

Finland elected a new president. It is Saul Niinistö, a 63-year-old right-wing politician, former Speaker of the Parliament and a representative of the Coalition Party. While he does not deliver Anti-Russian speeches, Russia still needs to be alarmed. Niinistö established himself as a politician who is not opposed to Finland's NATO membership.

Niinistö won by a large margin. He enlisted the support of nearly 62.6 percent, while his rival, the representative of the "green" Pekka Haavisto, scored 37.4 percent. The losing candidate initially was unacceptable for the residents of the Finnish outskirts. An open homosexual who never served in the Army and who quit the church is too much even for such an "ultra-democratic" country as Finland. This means that for the next six years the country will be led by Niinistö. 

Saul Niinistö is one of the oldest Finnish politicians with 35 years of tenure. At various times he served as the Minister of Justice and Treasury, and the chairman of the Parliament. In 2006 he ran for presidency, but lost to the outgoing President Tarja Halonen at least by four percent. For some time Niinistö served as the Deputy Director of the European Investment Bank and knows about the European policy firsthand.

With regard to the basic internal political guidelines of the new President, he advocates for raising taxes on the rich. Before, such statement from the right-wing politicians was virtually impossible, but the crisis dictates its own terms. Niinistö is considered a champion of European integration. He strongly objects the exit of Finland from the euro zone, but openly called the acceptance of Greece into Euro zone a mistake.

Since Finland is a neighbor of Russia, Niinistö's attitude towards Russia is a very important issue. "Many Russian tourists travel to Finland. At the same time many Finns are interested in and own businesses in Russia. We must create such conditions that our relationship continues to evolve smoothly," said Niinistö in a recent interview with Finnish television. According to him, Russia does not present a threat to Finland.

Niinistö said that the question of Finland's accession to NATO could be put to a referendum. In Russia, these words can be interpreted as support for Euro-Atlantic integration of the neighboring country with which it has 1,300 kilometers of common border. Niinistö's companion in the Coalition Party, Foreign Minister Alexander Stubb of Finland, is known as one of the most ardent "Atlanticists."

Another issue is possible territorial claims of Finland for Vyborg, Karelia isthmus and part of the territory of Karelia. Niinistö never made these claims, neither did Finland. However, there are well-known politicians among those who seek the return of these territories. The dissatisfaction with the introduction of the ban on the sale of land in the border zone in Russia was met with resentment among the country's top leadership. The new President's position is fundamentally important.

There are a few other important issues in the Russian-Finnish relations. For example, visas. Although the Finnish Consulate is different from its many colleagues in the EU because of its effective work, the leadership of Finland has never talked about the total abolition of visas. Niinistö has not yet paid particular attention to this issue.

On the first night after winning the elections, Niinistö did something that Russia was not particularly happy with. He appointed the deputy of the European Parliament from the Green Party Heidi Hautala the Minister of International Cooperation in the affairs of Finland. She is known for her close ties with the Russian non-systemic opposition. In addition, she has repeatedly criticized Russia for poor care of the preservation of the Finno-Ugric peoples.

What could the Russian-Finnish relations under President Niinistö be like? Should Russia be afraid of their deterioration and the accession of Finland to NATO? A Finnish professor and political scientist, chairman of the Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee Johan Backman answered these questions in an interview with "Pravda.Ru":

"Saul Niinistö cannot be called a supporter of the Finnish entry into NATO. He never openly spoke of accession to the North Atlantic Alliance. The very fact of his belonging to the right Coalition Party that is the biggest advocate for the development of ties with the U.S. says that he is not an "Atlanticist."

Niinistö's program on Russia reflects quite objective, realistic interests, focused on economic integration. Being a supporter of Finland's entry into NATO is equal to committing a political suicide. The recent polls showed that 68 percent of the Finns are dead set against NATO membership. Finland will never be its member, only a madman could demand this.

Niinistö has good political instincts. Here is an example from his biography. He was in Thailand in 2004 when the tsunami hit. Hundreds of people were killed around him, but he escaped. This man was born twice, and it left a mark on his life experiences. In addition, he worked briefly in the European structures, so for Russia such a partner is very convenient.

As for the topic of territorial claims, the very statement is offensive to people of Vyborg. This issue was settled in the Paris Peace Treaty of 1947. During the reign of President Martti Ahtisaari, who was born in Vyborg, there were a number of provocations on the Finnish side. But Niinistö is not a revanchist. "

Vadim Trukhachev

‘CIA drones deliberately target innocent people’

‘CIA drones deliberately target innocent people’

Noor Aftab

February 7, 2012 ISLAMABAD: In what can only be described as a gross violation of the Geneva Convention, the CIA-sponsored drone campaign in Pakistan has killed dozens of innocent civilians involved in either rescuing injured victims, or partaking in funerals. According to a report published by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism with the Sunday Times, between 282 and 535 civilians, including 60 minors, have been credibly reported as killed as a result of drone strikes since US President Barack Obama took office three years ago. "A three months investigation including eye witness reports has found evidence that at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims,î affirmed the report. It went on to state that more than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners. Speaking publicly for the first time on the controversial CIA drone strikes, Obama claimed last week they were used strictly to target terrorists. However the new report counters this claim, with international law specialists fiercely positing that the strikes amount to little more than state-sanctioned extra-judicial executions, and going on to question just how the US government would react if another state such as China or Russia started taking similar ìjustifiedî action against those they declared enemies. It has been reported that when the US attacks militants in Pakistan, the Taliban seals off the site and retrieves the dead. But an examination of thousands of credible reports relating to CIA drone strikes also showed frequent references to civilian rescuers. Mosques often exhort villagers to come forward and help, for example ñ particularly following fatal attacks that mistakenly kill civilians. The upsurge in Washingtonís unmanned war has been so dramatic that the US now has 7,000 drones in operation, with 12,000 more on the ground, while not a single new manned combat aircraft is under research or development at any western aerospace company. Noted expert on international law Ahmer Bilal Sufi told The News that the American administration will never be able to fully justify these brutal and illegal attacks carried out by technologically sophisticated and surgically precise killer robots since the ìself-defenseî theory holds little water in the eyes of the legal experts. "The US cannot carry out drone attacks in the Pakistani areas on the basis of self-defense because Pakistani forces had not attacked US targets, and if terrorist attacks are conducted by non-state actors against the US forces then this does not permit a violation of international air space," he said. He went on to argue that the statement issued by the foreign office a few days ago indicated that Pakistan too views drone attacks as a clear violation of its sovereignty, adding "The statement clearly stated that drone attacks are unacceptable." According to the South Asia Portal some 2,101 people have so far been killed in 217 drone attacks in the Pakistani since 2005. A UN investigator on extra-judicial killings, Philip Alston, in his 29-page report has already raised concerns over these drone strikes: "In a situation in which there is no disclosure of who has been killed, for what reason, and whether innocent civilians have died, the legal principle of international accountability is, by definition, comprehensively violated," wrote Alston. PML-N Senator and legal practitioner Syed Zafar Ali Shah told The News" that the US certainly violates the sovereignty of Pakistan by carrying out drone attacks on its territory but in response "we only do lip-service by condemning these attacks with our statements." He went on to reiterate that no sovereign state can possibly stand these kinds of attacks, and that the Pakistani government in coordination with the international community should raise its legitimate objections on a more global platform. INP adds from Washington: The report by the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism has confirmed that at least 50 civilians had been killed in follow-up strikes after they rushed to help those hit by a drone-fired missile. The bureau counted more than 20 other civilians killed in strikes on funerals. The findings were published on the bureau’s website and in The Sunday Times of London. --------------------------------------

RUSSIAN UFO CRASH

RUSSIAN UFO CRASH -- SEE THE VIDEO

----------------------------------

Video of crashed UFO in Russia leaks from secret KGB files

21.12.2006 08:27

The documentary featured an extensive summary of the footage, the canisters containing the footage, and expert analysis from the likes of Stanton Friedman. One film expert noted in the documentary that the footage came in an old Soviet canister that had information labeled on it that was consistent with info written directly on the film reel. The numbers on the film's header matched the canisters they came. The header of the film had the crest of the KGB on it and the term for TOP SECRET as shown in the first few seconds of this footage and image to the right. Having real looking alien footage is one thing, but including the original film reel & canisters means you are extremely close to proving 100% authenticity.This is something that has traditionally lacked in other more popular alien videos such as the widely known alien autopsy or the alien interview videos.

Did this UFO Crash actually occur ?

In the documentary, several KGB documents are produced to prove the film is authentic along with credible testimony from a former Soviet KGB Operative who claims to know about the event. "At first everyone believed that those debris were part of some novelty aircraft manufactured in the United States or England," said Pavel Klimchenkov a former KGB Operative, "but having done some measurements & material analysis, we came to the conclusion that none of the domestic or foreign manufacturers known to us could have produced this apparatus, at least not in the conditions existing on this planet." Along with Pavel's testimony, authentic KGB Top Secret documents were obtained by the filmmakers. Allegedly costing them $10 000, the documents described in detail a crash site recovery operation of a disc shaped object and organic remains.

Based on the credible testimony, KGB documents, expert film analysis and the general 'gut feeling' one gets when watching this interesting crash site video, it is safe to assume that this film indeed may be authentic. What about the autopsy? This footage will be posted in our second part article along with thoughts and analysis.

Actors, Training Exercises, & Skepticism

Some have put forth the argument that an American Production crew filmed the footage in March 1998. These claims are put forth on web sites claiming to know the truth about this footage. To date they have failed to show even one current photo of any of the soldiers in the film nor any statements from the actors that they were indeed only actors in this film. This should be easy to obtain if the footage was recently filmed.

Some have put forth the argument that an American Production crew filmed the footage in March 1998. These claims are put forth on web sites claiming to know the truth about this footage. To date they have failed to show even one current photo of any of the soldiers in the film nor any statements from the actors that they were indeed only actors in this film. This should be easy to obtain if the footage was recently filmed.

Another theory suggests the film was a training exercise. Yet no one has produced witnesses verifying this claim.

One skeptical viewpoint suggests that the object's thickness is far to small to support any would-be alien pilot. The craft's outer edge as seen on the image is only 12 to 36 inches. However, it is not necessarily indicative of the overall thickness of the craft. The image was taken from the only part in the video sequence where the craft's edge is visible. And since the camera never goes behind, there is no way to tell how much depth the craft may have on the other side. Additionally, if you consider the side facing us may be actually be the bottom, we can easily see that this craft can easily fit the traditional "flying saucer" shape as demonstrated by the below images.

In this documentary they claim that, since they only were able to acquire 4 canisters of film, more film footage of this incident is available. Such as the entire digging, clean up, and inside the craft investigation. To this date, almost a decade after it went public, no other videos have surfaced. 

----------------------------------

Russian UFO Crash
Part 1: The Crash Site Video

The Jaw dropping video below is from a UFO crash site allegedly filmed by the Russian KGB during March of 1969 in the Sverdlovsk region of Russia.

The footage was later obtained from the Russian Black Market by filmmakers who then published the documentary, "The Secret KGB UFO Files". Did an extraterrestrial spacecraft crash land in this remote region of Russian farmland?

KGB Official Symbol

The documentary featured an extensive summary of the footage, the canisters containing the footage, and expert analysis from the likes of Stanton Friedman. One film expert noted in the documentary that the footage came in an old Soviet canister that had information labeled on it that was consistent with info written directly on the film reel. The numbers on the film's header matched the canisters they came. The header of the film had the crest of the KGB on it and the term for TOP SECRET as shown in the first few seconds of this footage and image to the right. Having real looking alien footage is one thing, but including the original film reel & canisters means you are extremely close to proving 100% authenticity.This is something that has traditionally lacked in other more popular alien videos such as the alien autopsy or the alien interview video.

Interestingly enough, an autopsy of the alleged alien pilot of this downed saucer is seen in the documentary film. It will be featured on Alien Video in Part 2 of our small investigation into this case. 

Did this UFO Crash actually occur ? 

AK-47 Drawn as Guard Stands by UO

In the documentary, several KGB documents are produced to prove the film is authentic along with credible testimony from a former Soviet KGB Operative who claims to know about the event. "At first everyone believed that those debris were part of some novelty aircraft manufactured in the United States or England," said Pavel Klimchenkov a former KGB Operative, "but having done some measurements & material analysis, we came to the conclusion that none of the domestic or foreign manufacturers known to us could have produced this apparatus, at least not in the conditions existing on this planet." Along with Pavel's testimony, authentic KGB Top Secret documents were obtained by the filmmakers. Allegedly costing them $10 000, the documents described in detail a crash site recovery operation of a disc shaped object and organic remains.

Based on the credible testimony, KGB documents, expert film analysis and the general 'gut feeling' one gets when watching this interesting crash site video, it is safe to assume that this film indeed may be authentic. What about the autopsy?
This footage will be posted in our second part article along with thoughts and analysis. 

Actors, Training Exercises, & Skepticism 

Some have put forth the argument that an American Production crew filmed the footage in March 1998. These claims are put forth on web sites claiming to know the truth about this footage. To date they have failed to show even one current photo of any of the soldiers in the film nor any statements from the actors that they were indeed only actors in this film. This should be easy to obtain if the footage was recently filmed.

Note the outer edge thickness

Another theory suggests the film was a training exercise. Yet no one has produced witnesses verifying this claim.

One skeptical viewpoint suggests that the object's thickness is far to small to support any would-be alien pilot. Highlighted in the image ( right ) is the craft's outer edge. While it is only 12 to 36 inches, it is not necessarily indicative of the overall thickness of the craft. This particular image was taken from the only part in the video sequence where the craft's edge is visible. And since the camera never goes behind, there is no way to tell how much depth the craft may have on the other side. Additionally, if you consider the side facing us may be actually be the bottom, we can easily see that this craft can easily fit the traditional "flying saucer" shape as demonstrated by the below images.

More to Come

In this documentary they claim that, since they only were able to acquire 4 canisters of film, more film footage of this incident is available. Such as the entire digging, clean up, and inside the craft investigation. To this date, almost a decade after it went public, no other videos have surfaced. Yet...

Spain declassifies UFO crash report

23.01.2009 06:41

Fragments of an unidentified flying object fell down on the territory of Spain in 1965. The USA took them for the debris of the Soviet Vostok booster rocket and asked for adequate documents and materials from the USSR, which they subsequently received. Now Spain has declassified the US report about the incident.

It goes about report No. T67 94769, which contains eyewitnesses’ account of flashes of light which appeared in the sky on December 6, 1965, and about the finding of 14 units of one or several space objects of unknown origin in Badajoz and Sevilla.

The fragments were found scattered on the territory of 100 kilometers. As soon as reports about the incident appeared in the local press, the US Embassy in Madrid sent a note to then-leader of Spain, Francisco Franco, with a request to send the file to the USA. Franco complied with the request in return to the information about the results of the research.

Vicente Juan Ballester Olmos, an investigator on the case and the only officially known person, who had access to all materials of the case, said in an interview with El Mundo newspaper that the report would soon be published on the internet.

The US-based Battelle Memorial Institute presented the 300-page report about the examination of five metallic bodies of space origin in June 1967. The front page of the report indicated that it was a top secret document prepared exclusively for the government of Spain. The document excluded any opportunity of declassification and said that its content posed a threat to the national security of the United States of America.

Also read: Video of crashed UFO in Russia leaks from secret KGB files BELOW]

Even the renowned Roswell case, which investigates the UFO crash in the USA in 1947 and contains the alien autopsy report, did not have such a high level of secrecy.

Report No. T67 94769 substantiates the existence of ufology. However, none of the five reports pertaining to the crashes of UFOs in Spain in 1965 confirmed the extraterrestrial origin of the fragments, Olmos said.

“If the defense ministry does not declassify the documents about possible contacts with UFOs, it means that the conclusions that were made did not favor that version. The found fragments were the parts of the USSR’s Vostok booster rocket in this particular case,” said Vicente Olmos, who was the only civil person to participate in the declassification of the case between 1990 and 1999.

He said that the Soviet Union announced the last launch of its Vostok rocket on March 18, 1965 . According to this version, the fragments, which fell down on the territory of Spain, could not be the parts of a booster rocket.

As a matter of fact, Olmos said, the USSR was conducting secret launches of the booster rocket. One of those secret launches was performed December 3, 1965. “They launched the rocket with a satellite on board in the direction of the Moon. The launch was not successful, and the fragments of the SL-6 rocket (Vostok) crashed on the territory of Spain,” Vicente Olmos said.

The report contains the detailed description of 14 objects, including a five-kilo metal sphere 40 centimeters in diameter, as well as two cylinders 40 cm high and 20 cm in diameter.

The Soviet Union, El Mundo wrote, performed a successful launch of the moon robot only in 1970. The rover landed on the Moon and transmitted the first images of Earth’s natural satellite. In 1965, the USA classified the report in accordance with the rules of the Cold War. The Americans wanted to understand if the USSR had achieved considerable progress in order to copy some of its technical solutions.

Lubov Lulko

-------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------

RUSSIAN UFO CRASH -- SEE THE VIDEO

----------------------------------

Video of crashed UFO in Russia leaks from secret KGB files

21.12.2006 08:27

The documentary featured an extensive summary of the footage, the canisters containing the footage, and expert analysis from the likes of Stanton Friedman. One film expert noted in the documentary that the footage came in an old Soviet canister that had information labeled on it that was consistent with info written directly on the film reel. The numbers on the film's header matched the canisters they came. The header of the film had the crest of the KGB on it and the term for TOP SECRET as shown in the first few seconds of this footage and image to the right. Having real looking alien footage is one thing, but including the original film reel & canisters means you are extremely close to proving 100% authenticity.This is something that has traditionally lacked in other more popular alien videos such as the widely known alien autopsy or the alien interview videos.

Did this UFO Crash actually occur ?

In the documentary, several KGB documents are produced to prove the film is authentic along with credible testimony from a former Soviet KGB Operative who claims to know about the event. "At first everyone believed that those debris were part of some novelty aircraft manufactured in the United States or England," said Pavel Klimchenkov a former KGB Operative, "but having done some measurements & material analysis, we came to the conclusion that none of the domestic or foreign manufacturers known to us could have produced this apparatus, at least not in the conditions existing on this planet." Along with Pavel's testimony, authentic KGB Top Secret documents were obtained by the filmmakers. Allegedly costing them $10 000, the documents described in detail a crash site recovery operation of a disc shaped object and organic remains.

Based on the credible testimony, KGB documents, expert film analysis and the general 'gut feeling' one gets when watching this interesting crash site video, it is safe to assume that this film indeed may be authentic. What about the autopsy? This footage will be posted in our second part article along with thoughts and analysis.

Actors, Training Exercises, & Skepticism

Some have put forth the argument that an American Production crew filmed the footage in March 1998. These claims are put forth on web sites claiming to know the truth about this footage. To date they have failed to show even one current photo of any of the soldiers in the film nor any statements from the actors that they were indeed only actors in this film. This should be easy to obtain if the footage was recently filmed.

Some have put forth the argument that an American Production crew filmed the footage in March 1998. These claims are put forth on web sites claiming to know the truth about this footage. To date they have failed to show even one current photo of any of the soldiers in the film nor any statements from the actors that they were indeed only actors in this film. This should be easy to obtain if the footage was recently filmed.

Another theory suggests the film was a training exercise. Yet no one has produced witnesses verifying this claim.

One skeptical viewpoint suggests that the object's thickness is far to small to support any would-be alien pilot. The craft's outer edge as seen on the image is only 12 to 36 inches. However, it is not necessarily indicative of the overall thickness of the craft. The image was taken from the only part in the video sequence where the craft's edge is visible. And since the camera never goes behind, there is no way to tell how much depth the craft may have on the other side. Additionally, if you consider the side facing us may be actually be the bottom, we can easily see that this craft can easily fit the traditional "flying saucer" shape as demonstrated by the below images.

In this documentary they claim that, since they only were able to acquire 4 canisters of film, more film footage of this incident is available. Such as the entire digging, clean up, and inside the craft investigation. To this date, almost a decade after it went public, no other videos have surfaced. 

----------------------------------

Russian UFO Crash
Part 1: The Crash Site Video

The Jaw dropping video below is from a UFO crash site allegedly filmed by the Russian KGB during March of 1969 in the Sverdlovsk region of Russia.

The footage was later obtained from the Russian Black Market by filmmakers who then published the documentary, "The Secret KGB UFO Files". Did an extraterrestrial spacecraft crash land in this remote region of Russian farmland?

KGB Official Symbol

The documentary featured an extensive summary of the footage, the canisters containing the footage, and expert analysis from the likes of Stanton Friedman. One film expert noted in the documentary that the footage came in an old Soviet canister that had information labeled on it that was consistent with info written directly on the film reel. The numbers on the film's header matched the canisters they came. The header of the film had the crest of the KGB on it and the term for TOP SECRET as shown in the first few seconds of this footage and image to the right. Having real looking alien footage is one thing, but including the original film reel & canisters means you are extremely close to proving 100% authenticity.This is something that has traditionally lacked in other more popular alien videos such as the alien autopsy or the alien interview video.

Interestingly enough, an autopsy of the alleged alien pilot of this downed saucer is seen in the documentary film. It will be featured on Alien Video in Part 2 of our small investigation into this case. 

Did this UFO Crash actually occur ? 

AK-47 Drawn as Guard Stands by UO

In the documentary, several KGB documents are produced to prove the film is authentic along with credible testimony from a former Soviet KGB Operative who claims to know about the event. "At first everyone believed that those debris were part of some novelty aircraft manufactured in the United States or England," said Pavel Klimchenkov a former KGB Operative, "but having done some measurements & material analysis, we came to the conclusion that none of the domestic or foreign manufacturers known to us could have produced this apparatus, at least not in the conditions existing on this planet." Along with Pavel's testimony, authentic KGB Top Secret documents were obtained by the filmmakers. Allegedly costing them $10 000, the documents described in detail a crash site recovery operation of a disc shaped object and organic remains.

Based on the credible testimony, KGB documents, expert film analysis and the general 'gut feeling' one gets when watching this interesting crash site video, it is safe to assume that this film indeed may be authentic. What about the autopsy?
This footage will be posted in our second part article along with thoughts and analysis. 

Actors, Training Exercises, & Skepticism 

Some have put forth the argument that an American Production crew filmed the footage in March 1998. These claims are put forth on web sites claiming to know the truth about this footage. To date they have failed to show even one current photo of any of the soldiers in the film nor any statements from the actors that they were indeed only actors in this film. This should be easy to obtain if the footage was recently filmed.

Note the outer edge thickness

Another theory suggests the film was a training exercise. Yet no one has produced witnesses verifying this claim.

One skeptical viewpoint suggests that the object's thickness is far to small to support any would-be alien pilot. Highlighted in the image ( right ) is the craft's outer edge. While it is only 12 to 36 inches, it is not necessarily indicative of the overall thickness of the craft. This particular image was taken from the only part in the video sequence where the craft's edge is visible. And since the camera never goes behind, there is no way to tell how much depth the craft may have on the other side. Additionally, if you consider the side facing us may be actually be the bottom, we can easily see that this craft can easily fit the traditional "flying saucer" shape as demonstrated by the below images.

More to Come

In this documentary they claim that, since they only were able to acquire 4 canisters of film, more film footage of this incident is available. Such as the entire digging, clean up, and inside the craft investigation. To this date, almost a decade after it went public, no other videos have surfaced. Yet...