Сотрудники Посольства и члены их семей приняли участие во Всероссийском географическом диктанте
Это ежегодное образовательное мероприятие Русского географического общества, проводимое с 2015 г. Его основная цель – популяризация географических знаний и привлечение внимания к науке, национальному достоянию России, ее природным богатствам и уникальным ландшафтным особенностям.
Это ежегодное образовательное мероприятие Русского географического общества, проводимое с 2015 г. Его основная цель – популяризация географических знаний и привлечение внимания к науке, национальному достоянию России, ее природным богатствам и уникальным ландшафтным особенностям.
👍16
Forwarded from МИД России 🇷🇺
✍️ Президент России В.В.Путин подписал Указ от 19.11.2024 № 991 «Об утверждении Основ государственной политики Российской Федерации в области ядерного сдерживания».
🇷🇺 Основы государственной политики Российской Федерации в области ядерного сдерживания
I. Общие положения
1. Настоящие Основы являются документом стратегического планирования в сфере обеспечения обороны и отражают официальные взгляды на сущность ядерного сдерживания, определяют военные опасности и угрозы, для нейтрализации которых осуществляется ядерное сдерживание, принципы ядерного сдерживания, а также условия перехода Российской Федерации к применению ядерного оружия.
2. Гарантированное сдерживание потенциального противника от агрессии против Российской Федерации и (или) её союзников относится к числу высших государственных приоритетов. Сдерживание агрессии обеспечивается всей совокупностью военной мощи Российской Федерации, включая ядерное оружие.
<...>
II. Сущность ядерного сдерживания
9. Российская Федерация осуществляет ядерное сдерживание в отношении потенциального противника, под которым понимаются отдельные государства и военные коалиции (блоки, союзы), рассматривающие Российскую Федерацию в качестве потенциального противника и обладающие ядерным и (или) другими видами оружия массового поражения либо значительным боевым потенциалом сил общего назначения.
Ядерное сдерживание осуществляется также в отношении государств, которые предоставляют контролируемую ими территорию, воздушное и (или) морское пространство и ресурсы для подготовки и осуществления агрессии против Российской Федерации.
10. Агрессия любого государства из состава военной коалиции (блока, союза) против Российской Федерации и (или) её союзников рассматривается как агрессия этой коалиции (блока, союза) в целом.
11. Агрессия против Российской Федерации и (или) её союзников со стороны любого неядерного государства с участием или при поддержке ядерного государства рассматривается как их совместное нападение.
<...>
III. Условия перехода Российской Федерации к применению ядерного оружия
18. Российская Федерация оставляет за собой право применить ядерное оружие в ответ на применение против неё и (или) её союзников ядерного и (или) других видов оружия массового поражения, а также в случае агрессии против Российской Федерации и (или) Республики Белоруссия как участников Союзного государства с применением обычного оружия, создающей критическую угрозу их суверенитету и (или) территориальной целостности.
19. Условиями, определяющими возможность применения Российской Федерацией ядерного оружия, являются:
• а) поступление достоверной информации о старте баллистических ракет, атакующих территории Российской Федерации и (или) ее союзников;
• б) применение противником ядерного или других видов оружия массового поражения по территориям Российской Федерации и (или) ее союзников, по воинским формированиям и (или) объектам Российской Федерации, расположенным за пределами её территории;
• в) воздействие противника на критически важные государственные или военные объекты Российской Федерации, вывод из строя которых приведет к срыву ответных действий ядерных сил;
• г) агрессия против Российской Федерации и (или) Республики Белоруссия как участников Союзного государства с применением обычного оружия, создающая критическую угрозу их суверенитету и (или) территориальной целостности;
• д) поступление достоверной информации о массированном старте (взлете) средств воздушно-космического нападения (самолеты стратегической и тактической авиации, крылатые ракеты, беспилотные, гиперзвуковые и другие летательные аппараты) и пересечении ими государственной границы Российской Федерации.
20. Решение о применении ядерного оружия принимается Президентом Российской Федерации.
21. Президент Российской Федерации может при необходимости проинформировать военно-политическое руководство других государств и (или) международные организации о готовности Российской Федерации применить ядерное оружие или о принятом решении о применении ядерного оружия, а также о факте его применения. <...>
🇷🇺 Основы государственной политики Российской Федерации в области ядерного сдерживания
I. Общие положения
1. Настоящие Основы являются документом стратегического планирования в сфере обеспечения обороны и отражают официальные взгляды на сущность ядерного сдерживания, определяют военные опасности и угрозы, для нейтрализации которых осуществляется ядерное сдерживание, принципы ядерного сдерживания, а также условия перехода Российской Федерации к применению ядерного оружия.
2. Гарантированное сдерживание потенциального противника от агрессии против Российской Федерации и (или) её союзников относится к числу высших государственных приоритетов. Сдерживание агрессии обеспечивается всей совокупностью военной мощи Российской Федерации, включая ядерное оружие.
<...>
II. Сущность ядерного сдерживания
9. Российская Федерация осуществляет ядерное сдерживание в отношении потенциального противника, под которым понимаются отдельные государства и военные коалиции (блоки, союзы), рассматривающие Российскую Федерацию в качестве потенциального противника и обладающие ядерным и (или) другими видами оружия массового поражения либо значительным боевым потенциалом сил общего назначения.
Ядерное сдерживание осуществляется также в отношении государств, которые предоставляют контролируемую ими территорию, воздушное и (или) морское пространство и ресурсы для подготовки и осуществления агрессии против Российской Федерации.
10. Агрессия любого государства из состава военной коалиции (блока, союза) против Российской Федерации и (или) её союзников рассматривается как агрессия этой коалиции (блока, союза) в целом.
11. Агрессия против Российской Федерации и (или) её союзников со стороны любого неядерного государства с участием или при поддержке ядерного государства рассматривается как их совместное нападение.
<...>
III. Условия перехода Российской Федерации к применению ядерного оружия
18. Российская Федерация оставляет за собой право применить ядерное оружие в ответ на применение против неё и (или) её союзников ядерного и (или) других видов оружия массового поражения, а также в случае агрессии против Российской Федерации и (или) Республики Белоруссия как участников Союзного государства с применением обычного оружия, создающей критическую угрозу их суверенитету и (или) территориальной целостности.
19. Условиями, определяющими возможность применения Российской Федерацией ядерного оружия, являются:
• а) поступление достоверной информации о старте баллистических ракет, атакующих территории Российской Федерации и (или) ее союзников;
• б) применение противником ядерного или других видов оружия массового поражения по территориям Российской Федерации и (или) ее союзников, по воинским формированиям и (или) объектам Российской Федерации, расположенным за пределами её территории;
• в) воздействие противника на критически важные государственные или военные объекты Российской Федерации, вывод из строя которых приведет к срыву ответных действий ядерных сил;
• г) агрессия против Российской Федерации и (или) Республики Белоруссия как участников Союзного государства с применением обычного оружия, создающая критическую угрозу их суверенитету и (или) территориальной целостности;
• д) поступление достоверной информации о массированном старте (взлете) средств воздушно-космического нападения (самолеты стратегической и тактической авиации, крылатые ракеты, беспилотные, гиперзвуковые и другие летательные аппараты) и пересечении ими государственной границы Российской Федерации.
20. Решение о применении ядерного оружия принимается Президентом Российской Федерации.
21. Президент Российской Федерации может при необходимости проинформировать военно-политическое руководство других государств и (или) международные организации о готовности Российской Федерации применить ядерное оружие или о принятом решении о применении ядерного оружия, а также о факте его применения. <...>
🔥2
Forwarded from Russian MFA 🇷🇺
✍️ Russia's President Vladimir Putin approved the new Basic Principles of State Policy of the Russian Federation on Nuclear Deterrence, signing the attendant Executive Order on November 19, 2024.
Key items:
• State policy on Nuclear Deterrence is defensive by nature, it is aimed at maintaining the nuclear forces potential at the level sufficient for nuclear deterrence, and guarantees protection of national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the State, and deterrence of a potential adversary from aggression against the Russian Federation and/or its allies.
• The Russian Federation considers nuclear weapons as a means of deterrence, their use being an extreme and compelled measure, and takes all necessary efforts to reduce nuclear threat and prevent aggravation of interstate relations, that could trigger military conflicts, including nuclear ones.
• The Russian Federation ensures nuclear deterrence toward a potential adversary, which is understood to mean any individual states or military coalitions (blocs, alliances) which see the Russian Federation as a potential adversary and possess nuclear arms and/or other weapons of mass destruction or conventional forces with a significant combat capability.
• Nuclear deterrence is also ensured toward any states which provide the territory, airspace, and/or maritime space under their control as well as resources for preparing and conducting an aggression against the Russian Federation.
• An aggression of any single state from a military coalition (bloc, alliance) against the Russian Federation and/or its allies will be regarded as an aggression of the coalition (bloc, alliance) as a whole.
• An aggression against the Russian Federation and/or its allies of any non-nuclear state with the participation or support of a nuclear state will be regarded as their joint attack.
• The decision to use nuclear weapons is taken by the President of the Russian Federation.
Key items:
• State policy on Nuclear Deterrence is defensive by nature, it is aimed at maintaining the nuclear forces potential at the level sufficient for nuclear deterrence, and guarantees protection of national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the State, and deterrence of a potential adversary from aggression against the Russian Federation and/or its allies.
• The Russian Federation considers nuclear weapons as a means of deterrence, their use being an extreme and compelled measure, and takes all necessary efforts to reduce nuclear threat and prevent aggravation of interstate relations, that could trigger military conflicts, including nuclear ones.
• The Russian Federation ensures nuclear deterrence toward a potential adversary, which is understood to mean any individual states or military coalitions (blocs, alliances) which see the Russian Federation as a potential adversary and possess nuclear arms and/or other weapons of mass destruction or conventional forces with a significant combat capability.
• Nuclear deterrence is also ensured toward any states which provide the territory, airspace, and/or maritime space under their control as well as resources for preparing and conducting an aggression against the Russian Federation.
• An aggression of any single state from a military coalition (bloc, alliance) against the Russian Federation and/or its allies will be regarded as an aggression of the coalition (bloc, alliance) as a whole.
• An aggression against the Russian Federation and/or its allies of any non-nuclear state with the participation or support of a nuclear state will be regarded as their joint attack.
• The decision to use nuclear weapons is taken by the President of the Russian Federation.
👍4😁1🤬1
Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
In an attempt to spite Russia, the West has used one of the most controversial tools – cancel culture. It has gone against all spheres of life: art, music, sports. The directive: Russian culture must disappear from public space.
This film is about how the so-called free West began to subordinate history and culture to political expediency. Russian people living abroad were forced to hide their origins. The cancellation reached every sport in which Russians compete, including the Paralympics. The opposite happened - the Olympics themselves lost their value for Russians.
"If I never go to international competitions, don't go to some European place to have fun, I won't be too upset. It's much more important to me that people in Donbass can live a normal life"©
Collective Europe needs to understand: Russian talents will always be successful. We will never lose our culture, it is the West that will lose Russian culture.
#Майорские_фильмы
⚡️Two Majors
This film is about how the so-called free West began to subordinate history and culture to political expediency. Russian people living abroad were forced to hide their origins. The cancellation reached every sport in which Russians compete, including the Paralympics. The opposite happened - the Olympics themselves lost their value for Russians.
"If I never go to international competitions, don't go to some European place to have fun, I won't be too upset. It's much more important to me that people in Donbass can live a normal life"©
Collective Europe needs to understand: Russian talents will always be successful. We will never lose our culture, it is the West that will lose Russian culture.
#Майорские_фильмы
⚡️Two Majors
👍5
Forwarded from Russian Embassy to the UK
❌ Ukraine’s foreign partners keen on celebrating symbolic milestones have marked 1000 days since the crisis spiraled into its hot phase.
This, above all, exposes their persistent unwillingness to address the true origins and genesis of the conflict, which began much earlier – in 2014, following the coup d’etat in Kiev orchestrated with the backing of the US and NATO’s leading countries.
However, the British politicians have promptly seized upon this pretext to promote themselves on the backs of their Ukrainian protégés.
Once again lofty rhetoric and pledges in support of the Kiev regime have been unleashed with renewed vigour. New military aid packages have been announced. Fresh sanctions are being rolled out. All this has long been cynically turned into routine.
Decision-makers in London and other Western capitals do not seem to bother contemplating the ultimate goals of these mechanical exercises. These gestures will clearly not deter us in any way from accomplishing all objectives of the Special Military Operation.
❗️ The responsibility for the prolongation of this conflict, its death toll and widespread destruction rests entirely with Western partners of Ukraine – the UK in particular.
It is these countries that have nurtured the neo-Nazi regime in Kiev, complicit in waging war against its own people, and that have been arming it over many years while turning a blind eye to its atrocities. After the launch of the Special Military Operation they played a pivotal role in sabotaging Russia-Ukraine peace talks within the framework of the Istanbul Process in the spring of 2022.
Ever since they and their successors and followers have worked tirelessly to prevent the conflict from being resolved by ensuring the constant flow of ever more lethal weapons to the Kiev military. At the same time, the crimes of Zelensky and his entourage have been extensively whitewashed through dedicated diplomatic efforts and propaganda.
Today British hawks continue to pour fuel on the fire, clamoring for new vectors of escalation.
Judging by recent statements in international fora London clings to the fantasy of inflicting a "strategic defeat" on Russia. It is difficult to recognize what guides this approach: ideological fervour, lack of sound judgement, or gaps in historical literacy.
☝️ We call on the UK leadership to reflect on the consequences of their actions and to refrain from pushing the world closer to a dangerous threshold in pursuit of illusory geopolitical ambitions.
This, above all, exposes their persistent unwillingness to address the true origins and genesis of the conflict, which began much earlier – in 2014, following the coup d’etat in Kiev orchestrated with the backing of the US and NATO’s leading countries.
However, the British politicians have promptly seized upon this pretext to promote themselves on the backs of their Ukrainian protégés.
Once again lofty rhetoric and pledges in support of the Kiev regime have been unleashed with renewed vigour. New military aid packages have been announced. Fresh sanctions are being rolled out. All this has long been cynically turned into routine.
Decision-makers in London and other Western capitals do not seem to bother contemplating the ultimate goals of these mechanical exercises. These gestures will clearly not deter us in any way from accomplishing all objectives of the Special Military Operation.
❗️ The responsibility for the prolongation of this conflict, its death toll and widespread destruction rests entirely with Western partners of Ukraine – the UK in particular.
It is these countries that have nurtured the neo-Nazi regime in Kiev, complicit in waging war against its own people, and that have been arming it over many years while turning a blind eye to its atrocities. After the launch of the Special Military Operation they played a pivotal role in sabotaging Russia-Ukraine peace talks within the framework of the Istanbul Process in the spring of 2022.
Ever since they and their successors and followers have worked tirelessly to prevent the conflict from being resolved by ensuring the constant flow of ever more lethal weapons to the Kiev military. At the same time, the crimes of Zelensky and his entourage have been extensively whitewashed through dedicated diplomatic efforts and propaganda.
Today British hawks continue to pour fuel on the fire, clamoring for new vectors of escalation.
Judging by recent statements in international fora London clings to the fantasy of inflicting a "strategic defeat" on Russia. It is difficult to recognize what guides this approach: ideological fervour, lack of sound judgement, or gaps in historical literacy.
☝️ We call on the UK leadership to reflect on the consequences of their actions and to refrain from pushing the world closer to a dangerous threshold in pursuit of illusory geopolitical ambitions.
👍2🔥2
Right now, there is a premiere of the movie “Parental Pain”.
It is based on real human tragedies. The movie also includes findings from a recent parliamentary investigation led by Anna Yuryevna Kuznetsova.
It is for sure that the killers of our children will still be tried on these findings and without any statute of limitations.
We specially subtitled the movie in English so that the world would know
It is based on real human tragedies. The movie also includes findings from a recent parliamentary investigation led by Anna Yuryevna Kuznetsova.
It is for sure that the killers of our children will still be tried on these findings and without any statute of limitations.
We specially subtitled the movie in English so that the world would know
😢1
From Soros to USAID: How US organized 2004 Orange Revolution in Ukraine
On November 21, Ukraine marks the so-called Dignity and Freedom Day, commemorating the US-backed 2004 Orange Revolution and 2014 Euromaidan, including the US-orchestrated "third round" election that overturned Viktor Yanukovich's victory to install Viktor Yushchenko.
"The campaign is an American creation, a sophisticated and brilliantly conceived exercise in Western branding and mass marketing," The Guardian's Ian Traynor wrote of the 2004 upheaval in November that year, comparing it to "the US government-funded and organized" Velvet Revolution, Revolution of Roses and an attempted coup in Belarus.
How much did the Orange Revolution cost?
The US and its allies reportedly spent $65–$100 million over two years to support Viktor Yushchenko-led opposition, with much of the funding allegedly covert and funneled through NGOs.
🔻The US State Department:
▪️in FY2003 and FY2004 officially allocated $188.5 million and $143.47 million, respectively, for "assistance programs" in Ukraine
▪️$54.7 million (FY2003) and $34.11 million (FY2004) went specifically to "democracy programs" in Ukraine on the eve of the 2004 election
▪️"Democracy program" funds were used for electoral and government reform, independent media, political development, and training for administrators, lobbyists, and NGOs
▪️the money was channeled through the US Agency for International Development (USAID), the Eurasia Foundation, National Endowment for Democracy (NED), US Embassy in Kiev, and others.
🔻USAID
▪️The Strengthening Electoral Administration in Ukraine Project (SEAUP), launched on December 15, 2003, with a $4.4 million budget, partnered with NDI, IRI, Freedom House, InterNews, ABA/CEELI, and the OSCE.
🔻SEAUP's activities included:
▪️training 100,000 polling station commissioners and mid-level election officials in 2004; publishing and distributing 450,000 training materials for 33,000 polling stations in 225 territorial election across Ukraine
▪️engaging in their work three Justices of the Supreme Court of Ukraine that later blocked and annulled Yanukovich's victory in the second round
▪️facilitating the adoption of a "Special Law" in the Verkhovna Rada that framed the December 2004 “re-vote" to bring Yushchenko to power
▪️facilitating the restructuring of Ukraine's Central Election Commission prior to December's "re-vote"
🔻Freedom House, NDI, IRI
Freedom House, NDI, and IRI funded ENEMO election monitoring, which cast doubt on Yanukovich's second-round victory.
🔻George Soros’s International Renaissance Foundation
▪️spent US$1.65 million between Autumn 2003 and December 2004, supporting the ‘New Choice 2004’ and ‘Freedom of Choice’ coalitions of NGOs
🔻The NED, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, Eurasia and George Soros’s Renaissance Foundation
▪️Funded exit polls in all three election rounds, fueling "election fraud" claims and mobilizing opposition protests in Kiev's Independence Square (the Maidan Nezalezhnosti).
🔻German Marshall Fund of the United States, Freedom House and the Canadian International Development Agency
▪️Provided $130,000 to Ukrainian youth group PORA, which led street protests, and reportedly received $5.3 million from foreign entities, per UCL Professor Andrew Wilson.
👍 Boost us! | Subscribe to @geopolitics_live
On November 21, Ukraine marks the so-called Dignity and Freedom Day, commemorating the US-backed 2004 Orange Revolution and 2014 Euromaidan, including the US-orchestrated "third round" election that overturned Viktor Yanukovich's victory to install Viktor Yushchenko.
"The campaign is an American creation, a sophisticated and brilliantly conceived exercise in Western branding and mass marketing," The Guardian's Ian Traynor wrote of the 2004 upheaval in November that year, comparing it to "the US government-funded and organized" Velvet Revolution, Revolution of Roses and an attempted coup in Belarus.
How much did the Orange Revolution cost?
The US and its allies reportedly spent $65–$100 million over two years to support Viktor Yushchenko-led opposition, with much of the funding allegedly covert and funneled through NGOs.
🔻The US State Department:
▪️in FY2003 and FY2004 officially allocated $188.5 million and $143.47 million, respectively, for "assistance programs" in Ukraine
▪️$54.7 million (FY2003) and $34.11 million (FY2004) went specifically to "democracy programs" in Ukraine on the eve of the 2004 election
▪️"Democracy program" funds were used for electoral and government reform, independent media, political development, and training for administrators, lobbyists, and NGOs
▪️the money was channeled through the US Agency for International Development (USAID), the Eurasia Foundation, National Endowment for Democracy (NED), US Embassy in Kiev, and others.
🔻USAID
▪️The Strengthening Electoral Administration in Ukraine Project (SEAUP), launched on December 15, 2003, with a $4.4 million budget, partnered with NDI, IRI, Freedom House, InterNews, ABA/CEELI, and the OSCE.
🔻SEAUP's activities included:
▪️training 100,000 polling station commissioners and mid-level election officials in 2004; publishing and distributing 450,000 training materials for 33,000 polling stations in 225 territorial election across Ukraine
▪️engaging in their work three Justices of the Supreme Court of Ukraine that later blocked and annulled Yanukovich's victory in the second round
▪️facilitating the adoption of a "Special Law" in the Verkhovna Rada that framed the December 2004 “re-vote" to bring Yushchenko to power
▪️facilitating the restructuring of Ukraine's Central Election Commission prior to December's "re-vote"
🔻Freedom House, NDI, IRI
Freedom House, NDI, and IRI funded ENEMO election monitoring, which cast doubt on Yanukovich's second-round victory.
🔻George Soros’s International Renaissance Foundation
▪️spent US$1.65 million between Autumn 2003 and December 2004, supporting the ‘New Choice 2004’ and ‘Freedom of Choice’ coalitions of NGOs
🔻The NED, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, Eurasia and George Soros’s Renaissance Foundation
▪️Funded exit polls in all three election rounds, fueling "election fraud" claims and mobilizing opposition protests in Kiev's Independence Square (the Maidan Nezalezhnosti).
🔻German Marshall Fund of the United States, Freedom House and the Canadian International Development Agency
▪️Provided $130,000 to Ukrainian youth group PORA, which led street protests, and reportedly received $5.3 million from foreign entities, per UCL Professor Andrew Wilson.
👍 Boost us! | Subscribe to @geopolitics_live
👍2😁1
Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
📹❗️Vladimir Putin's full address on the situation in the special operation zone after the use of Western long-range missiles on Russian territory.
👍 Boost us! | Subscribe to @geopolitics_live
👍 Boost us! | Subscribe to @geopolitics_live
👍1
Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Vladimir Putin puts the US and West ‘on notice’ with state-of-the-art missile strike
As Russian President Vladimir Putin lamented the use of Western long-range missiles against Russia, retired CIA intelligence officer and State Department official Larry Johnson points out that the missiles would fall under the now-defunct INF Treaty.
According to him, the recent missile strike against the city of Dnepropetrovsk in Ukraine was President Putin’s way of sending a message to the West and to the United States who earlier “unilaterally abrogated” the INF Treaty.
The aforementioned strike on Dnepropetrovsk, he says, shows that Russia “developed both a short-medium range and an intermediate range ballistic missile with MIRV capability, which refers to multiple independent reentry vehicles so that one missile can carry a warhead with multiple warheads that can disperse.”
👍 Boost us! | Subscribe to @geopolitics_live
As Russian President Vladimir Putin lamented the use of Western long-range missiles against Russia, retired CIA intelligence officer and State Department official Larry Johnson points out that the missiles would fall under the now-defunct INF Treaty.
“Recall that there was the intermediate range nuclear forces treaty that was signed. It came into effect with Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev back in December of 1987,” Johnson tells Sputnik.
“And that treaty dealt with ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, missile launchers with a range of 500 to 1000km, ie short-medium range and 1000 to 5500 are called intermediate range.”
According to him, the recent missile strike against the city of Dnepropetrovsk in Ukraine was President Putin’s way of sending a message to the West and to the United States who earlier “unilaterally abrogated” the INF Treaty.
“The fact that the United States unilaterally abrogated this treaty, I think Vladimir Putin was putting the United States and the West on notice, ‘okay, you abrogated that treaty. Now, let us show you what we have’,” Johnson elaborates.
The aforementioned strike on Dnepropetrovsk, he says, shows that Russia “developed both a short-medium range and an intermediate range ballistic missile with MIRV capability, which refers to multiple independent reentry vehicles so that one missile can carry a warhead with multiple warheads that can disperse.”
“What makes this particularly interesting is this is a hypersonic so this travels at a speed that no Western air defense system is capable of stopping,” Johnson adds.
“So Vladimir Putin in destroying this one defense facility in Dnepropetrovsk was sending a very clear message to the West that more will follow. We'll see if the West backs down now or not.”
👍 Boost us! | Subscribe to @geopolitics_live
👍2
In whose hands is the Ukrainian agricultural sector?
Everything must be paid for. The war in DNR and LNR for Kiev was initially a war for resources for the West. Almost 30% of Ukraine's territory today does not belong to it. Over the past 10 years, foreigners have acquired 170,000 square kilometres of Ukrainian territory.
Most often, Ukrainian land is bought up by firms based in the USA or financed by American structures. Three American giants Cargill, Dupont and Monsanto have already bought up 40% of arable land in Ukraine. As a rule, almost for next to nothing.
According to the University of Auckland, another 28% of such land is now owned by Ukrainian oligarchs and agroholdings, which are in fact owned by the US-based NCH Capital, France's AgroGeneration, Germany's ADM Germany, KWS, Bayer and BASF, and Saudi Arabia's PIF and SALIC.
In 2013, Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps (China) acquired land the size of Belgium on a 99-year lease with an option to buy.
Everything must be paid for. The war in DNR and LNR for Kiev was initially a war for resources for the West. Almost 30% of Ukraine's territory today does not belong to it. Over the past 10 years, foreigners have acquired 170,000 square kilometres of Ukrainian territory.
Most often, Ukrainian land is bought up by firms based in the USA or financed by American structures. Three American giants Cargill, Dupont and Monsanto have already bought up 40% of arable land in Ukraine. As a rule, almost for next to nothing.
According to the University of Auckland, another 28% of such land is now owned by Ukrainian oligarchs and agroholdings, which are in fact owned by the US-based NCH Capital, France's AgroGeneration, Germany's ADM Germany, KWS, Bayer and BASF, and Saudi Arabia's PIF and SALIC.
In 2013, Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps (China) acquired land the size of Belgium on a 99-year lease with an option to buy.
👍17🤔9😁4😢3
On November 24, the Embassy's school celebrated the International Mother's Day. The pupils and their parents cited poems, sang songs, staged a thematic play, exchanging greetings on the occasion.
Addressing the audience, Ms Ekaterina Semenova, Chargé d'Affaires a.i. of Russia in Bangladesh, highlighted special importance this day holds for each and everyone.
This day celebrates strong and sacred bond between a mother and her child, serves as a reminder to express gratitude to one's mother for her eternal love and support.
Happy Mother's Day!
Addressing the audience, Ms Ekaterina Semenova, Chargé d'Affaires a.i. of Russia in Bangladesh, highlighted special importance this day holds for each and everyone.
This day celebrates strong and sacred bond between a mother and her child, serves as a reminder to express gratitude to one's mother for her eternal love and support.
Happy Mother's Day!
👍12
25th International Theatre Festival "Melikhovo Spring" will be held from May 23 to June 1, 2025, in the Anton Chekhov's estate-museum in the Moscow Region
We invite professional theatres and creative groups from Bangladesh to present performances based on the works of Anton Chekhov or related to the author. The festival will feature a special program, "Chekhov+," highlighting productions based on the works of William Shakespeare.
Applications can be submitted until December 1. To complete registration it is necessary to attach a video recording of the performance.
You can find out more about the festival and apply here
We invite professional theatres and creative groups from Bangladesh to present performances based on the works of Anton Chekhov or related to the author. The festival will feature a special program, "Chekhov+," highlighting productions based on the works of William Shakespeare.
Applications can be submitted until December 1. To complete registration it is necessary to attach a video recording of the performance.
You can find out more about the festival and apply here
👍4
24-25 ноября в столичных районах Демра и Джатрабари произошли столкновения между учащимися средних и высших учебных заведений, в результате которых пострадали свыше ста человек. В стране продолжаются массовые митинги рабочих, политические протесты, нередки случаи вандализма.
В связи с этим просим соотечественников, проживающих в крупных городах Бангладеш, избегать мест традиционного проведения демонстраций, таких как кампусы университетов и колледжей, офисы газет, телеканалов и политических партий.
Заранее планируйте свой маршрут и проверяйте обстановку при передвижении между городами, при выходе из дома. Проявляйте повышенную бдительность в оживленных районах, не оставляйте надолго личные автомобили без присмотра.
Посольство работает в штатном режиме. Напоминаем наш дежурный телефон: +8801713063027.
В связи с этим просим соотечественников, проживающих в крупных городах Бангладеш, избегать мест традиционного проведения демонстраций, таких как кампусы университетов и колледжей, офисы газет, телеканалов и политических партий.
Заранее планируйте свой маршрут и проверяйте обстановку при передвижении между городами, при выходе из дома. Проявляйте повышенную бдительность в оживленных районах, не оставляйте надолго личные автомобили без присмотра.
Посольство работает в штатном режиме. Напоминаем наш дежурный телефон: +8801713063027.
👍4😢3🤔1