Connect with us

Red Pill


Ukraine gas deal reached. In summary, US and EU taxpayers will pay Russia for Ukraine's gas

Russia, Ukraine, and the European Commission have signed an agreement on gas supply and transit conditions until March 2015 during talks in Brussels…happily paid for by US and EU taxpayers.




In all fairness, America and Europe did break the country with their diabolically stupid “EU or nothing” strategy…so as the saying goes, “you break it, you buy it.”
Unfortunately, the poor people who will be stuck with the tab will not be Victoria Nuland, George Soros or José Manuel Barroso, but rather the citizens of the US and EU, who are simply struggling to get by in life.
The great irony is that all the money to be poured into Ukraine by the EU/IMF, in order to prop up their “frankenstein like” creation, will end up directly in Russia’s Gazprom bank account. The US/EU sanctions really do hurt.
And an even more ironic possibility, and being aware of the absolute corruption of Ukraine’s ruling Oligarchy…don’t be to surprised if the money to be provided to Ukraine goes missing, with no gas payment made. Remember, Ukraine has been given gas money before, and has ‘secretly’ used that money to fund ‘other’ initiatives, like bombing their very own citizens.
Zerohedge sums up the agreement nicely:

Good news for the cold-showering, snow-covered Ukrainians… Russia has reached an interim agreement to supply natural gas to Ukraine through March according to Bloomberg. Of course, this will be paid for by more IMF loans (thank you US Taxpayer), pushing Ukraine further into debt and more dependent upon the West.
Paid for by US taxpayers…

And the best news is that this is just the beginning of loans, or grants, that US and EU taxpayers will begin forking over to Ukraines’ Oligarchs and neo-nazi’s.
Via RT:

…on Tuesday, Ukraine’s outgoing finance minister, Alexander Shlapak, admitted that its “unlikely” that Kiev will receive the second tranche of a $17 billion IMF loan this year. It means that Ukraine has received only €760 million from the EU in 2014. This is peanuts. Kiev’s budget deficit is forecast to be around €15 billion.
For context, Britain is currently fighting with the EU about €2.1 billion it owes and threatening to withhold it. London, for the record, hasn’t suggested sending it to Kiev either. With such infighting in the current union, Ukraine is at the back of the queue with its begging bowl. Brussels’ annual budget is €143 billion, meaning that despite all of the nice verbal support for Kiev this year, they’ve given around 0.5% to the embattled nation. If support for Ukraine is measured on Jerry Maguire’s “show me the money” metric, it would be charitable to describe it as “lousy.”
For Kiev to sustain support for its Western journey, it must deliver economic growth and raise living standards. Not in 5 or 10 years’ time, but now. The last time Ukraine had a “revolution” (remember, the Orange one) in 2004, all the same promises were made. Just a few years later, the “losers” of that revolt took power and that eventually led to the Maidan violence and subsequent civil war.
There is no doubt that the pro-Brussels movement is better organized this time (and better funded on the ground) but the hard work has only begun. Revolutions might be won with emotion but they are consolidated by cold, hard graft when everyone has sobered up. Ukraine’s “morning after” is long overdue and the hangover will be humongous.
If Brussels is serious, really serious about bringing Ukraine into its tent, it’s going to require billions of euro. Not in loans, but in grants. Does the EU have the will? Or the money? We will know soon. I wouldn’t be optimistic.

Some conservative estimates have the final tab to simply get Ukraine back to 3rd world country status pegged at way over $100 billion in grants and loans. The Hill’s broke the situation down in a recent post:

The IMF had calculated that Ukraine needed $35 billion in foreign aid in May, but revised that figure to $55 billion in September. As Dennis Lachtman of the American Enterprise Institute noted in a comment for The Hill, “if the repeated upscaling of the financing needs of the IMF-EU Greek bailout program is any precedent, one should not be surprised if the total official bailout cost for Ukraine came closer to $100 billion rather than the $55 billion that the IMF is now estimating.”

If we consider Ukraine to be in far worse condition than Greece was before it started receiving money from the IMF and EU, (eventually landing Greece some $370 billion in debt with a population of roughly 11 million and no civil wars to speak)…then you can see where the EU/CIA Ukraine fiasco, and its 45 million population, is heading towards.
US and EU taxpayers are going to be reaching very deep into their pockets, over many decades, t0 support a country that will never be a full, functioning member of the EU…And most certainly has no strategic or economic significance for a single American citizen, except maybe Hunter Biden.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!

Leave a Reply

4 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
4 Comment authors
ilyushin76indigopinVeronikaFrankfuVonHenrick1 Recent comment authors
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

#Ukraine gas deal reached. In summary, #US and #EU taxpayers will pay #Russia for Ukraine’s gas


RT @VonHenrick1: #Ukraine gas deal reached. In summary, #US and #EU taxpayers will pay #Russia for Ukraine’s gas


RT @VonHenrick1: #Ukraine gas deal reached. In summary, #US and #EU taxpayers will pay #Russia for Ukraine’s gas


RT @redpilltimes: Ukraine gas deal reached. In summary, US & EU taxpayers will pay Russia for Ukraine’s gas. Sanctions at work…


“Transphobic” Swedish Professor May Lose Job After Noting Biological Differences Between Sexes

A university professor in Sweden is under investigation after he said that there are fundamental differences between men and women which are “biologically founded”



Via Zerohedge

A university professor in Sweden is under investigation for “anti-feminism” and “transphobia” after he said that there are fundamental differences between men and women which are “biologically founded” and that genders cannot be regarded as “social constructs alone,” reports Academic Rights Watch.

For his transgression, Germund Hesslow – a professor of neuroscience at Lund University – who holds dual PhDs in philosophy and neurophysiology, may lose his job – telling RT that a “full investigation” has been ordered, and that there “have been discussions about trying to stop the lecture or get rid of me, or have someone else give the lecture or not give the lecture at all.”

“If you answer such a question you are under severe time pressure, you have to be extremely brief — and I used wording which I think was completely innocuous, and that apparently the student didn’t,” Hesslow said.

Hesslow was ordered to attend a meeting by Christer Larsson, chairman of the program board for medical education, after a female student complained that Hesslow had a “personal anti-feminist agenda.” He was asked to distance himself from two specific comments; that gay women have a “male sexual orientation” and that the sexual orientation of transsexuals is “a matter of definition.”

The student’s complaint reads in part (translated):

I have also heard from senior lecturers that Germund Hesslow at the last lecture expressed himself transfobically. In response to a question of transexuallism, he said something like “sex change is a fly”. Secondly, it is outrageous because there may be students during the lecture who are themselves exposed to transfobin, but also because it may affect how later students in their professional lives meet transgender people. Transpersonals already have a high level of overrepresentation in suicide statistics and there are already major shortcomings in the treatment of transgender in care, should not it be countered? How does this kind of statement coincide with the university’s equal treatment plan? What has this statement given for consequences? What has been done for this to not be repeated? –Academic Rights Watch

After being admonished, Hesslow refused to distance himself from his comments, saying that he had “done enough” already and didn’t have to explain and defend his choice of words.

At some point, one must ask for a sense of proportion among those involved. If it were to become acceptable for students to record lectures in order to find compromising formulations and then involve faculty staff with meetings and long letters, we should let go of the medical education altogether,” Hesslow said in a written reply to Larsson.

He also rejected the accusation that he had a political agenda – stating that his only agenda was to let scientific factnot new social conventions, dictate how he teaches his courses.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading


Kavanaugh Accuser’s Classmate Backs Off Claims She Heard About Alleged Assault

“That it happened or not, I have no idea,” Cristina King Miranda told NPR’s Nina Totenberg. “I can’t say that it did or didn’t.”

The Duran



Authored by Amber Athey via The Daily Caller:

A classmate of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford is backing off of claims that she knew anything about an alleged sexual assault committed by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

Cristina King Miranda, who attended high school with Ford, wrote on Facebook this week that she heard school rumors about an incident involving Kavanaugh and Ford back in the 1980s. Miranda later deleted the post and said she did not want to talk to the media about her claims.

However, Miranda spoke to NPR on Thursday and clarified that she has no information about an alleged assault.

“That it happened or not, I have no idea,” Cristina King Miranda told NPR’s Nina Totenberg. “I can’t say that it did or didn’t.”

Miranda’s new statement directly contradicts her Facebook post, in which she wrote, “The incident DID happen, many of us heard about it in school.”

“In my post, I was empowered and I was sure it probably did [happen],” Miranda told NPR this morning. “I had no idea that I would now have to go to the specifics and defend it before 50 cable channels and have my face spread all over MSNBC news and Twitter.”

Miranda said the Senate Judiciary Committee reached out to her after her post but that she would not testify if asked.

Dr. Ford previously said she had not told anyone about the incident until a therapist meeting in 2012. Ford also said the incident happened during the summer, contradicting Miranda’s assertion that she heard rumors about it in school.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading


Pat Buchanan: “The Late Hit” On Judge Kavanaugh

Wha exactly is professor Ford’s case against Judge Kavanaugh?

Patrick J. Buchanan



Authored by Patrick Buchanan via

Upon the memory and truthfulness of Christine Blasey Ford hangs the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, his reputation and possibly his career on the nation’s second-highest court.

And much more. If Kavanaugh is voted down or forced to withdraw, the Republican Party and conservative movement could lose their last best hope for recapturing the high court for constitutionalism.

No new nominee could be vetted and approved in six weeks. And the November election could bring in a Democratic Senate, an insuperable obstacle to the elevation of a new strict constructionist like Kavanaugh.

The stakes are thus historic and huge.

And what is professor Ford’s case against Judge Kavanaugh?

When she was 15 in the summer of ’82, she went to a beer party with four boys in Montgomery County, Maryland, in a home where the parents were away.

She says she was dragged into a bedroom by Brett Kavanaugh, a 17-year-old at Georgetown Prep, who jumped her, groped her, tried to tear off her clothes and cupped her mouth with his hand to stop her screams.

Only when Kavanaugh’s friend Mark Judge, laughing “maniacally,” piled on and they all tumbled off the bed, did she escape and lock herself in a bathroom as the “stumbling drunks” went downstairs. She fled the house and told no one of the alleged rape attempt.

Not until 30 years later in 2012 did Ford, now a clinical psychologist in California, relate, in a couples therapy session with her husband, what happened. She says she named Kavanaugh as her assailant, but the therapist’s notes of the session make no mention of Kavanaugh.

During the assault, says Ford, she was traumatized. “I thought he might inadvertently kill me.”

Here the story grows vague. She does not remember who drove her to the party. She does not say how much she drank. She does not remember whose house it was. She does not recall who, if anyone, drove her home. She does not recall what day it was.

She did not tell her parents, Ford says, as she did not want them to know she had been drinking. She did not tell any friend or family member of this traumatic event that has so adversely affected her life.

Said Kavanaugh in response, “I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time.”

Mark Judge says it never happened.

Given the seriousness of the charges, Ford must be heard out. But she also needs to be cross-examined and have her story and character probed as Kavanaugh’s has been by FBI investigators as an attorney for the Ken Starr impeachment investigation of Bill Clinton, a White House aide to George Bush, a U.S. appellate judge and a Supreme Court nominee.

During the many investigations of Kavanaugh’s background, nothing was unearthed to suggest something like this was in character.

Some 65 women who grew up in the Chevy Chase and Bethesda area and knew Kavanaugh in his high school days have come out and spoken highly of his treatment of girls and women.

Moreover, the way in which all of this arose, at five minutes to midnight in the long confirmation process, suggests that this is political hardball, if not dirt ball.

When Ford, a Democrat, sent a letter detailing her accusations against Kavanaugh to her California congresswoman, Anna Eshoo, Ford insisted that her name not be revealed as the accuser.

She seemingly sought to damage or destroy the judge’s career behind a cloak of anonymity. Eshoo sent the letter on to Sen. Diane Feinstein, who held it for two months.

Excising Ford’s name, Feinstein then sent it to the FBI, who sent it to the White House, who sent it on to the Senate to be included in the background material on the judge.

Thus, Ford’s explosive charge, along with her name, did not surface until this weekend.

What is being done here stinks. It is a transparently late hit, a kill shot to assassinate a nominee who, before the weekend, was all but certain to be confirmed and whose elevation to the Supreme Court is a result of victories in free elections by President Trump and the Republican Party.

Palpable here is the desperation of the left to derail Kavanaugh, lest his elevation to the high court imperil their agenda and the social revolution that the Warren Court and its progeny have been able to impose upon the nation.

If Kavanaugh is elevated, the judicial dictatorship of decades past, going back to the salad days of Earl Warren, William Brennan, Hugo Black and “Wild Bill” Douglas, will have reached its end. A new era will have begun.

That is what is at stake.

The Republican Senate should continue with its calendar to confirm Kavanaugh before Oct. 1, while giving Ford some way to be heard, and then Kavanaugh the right to refute. Then let the senators decide.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading


Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...


Quick Donate

The Duran
Donate a quick 10 spot!


The Duran Newsletter