Putin’s biggest failure (Re-blog with commentary)

I’ve written before that For Russia the 90’s Were Worse Than WWII, both when it came to loss of sovereignty, loss of human life and loss of industrial potential.

The Saker, an astute analyst, published not long ago an article Putin’s biggest failure, in which he describes the dynamics and the forces that were active in the 90s and, which are still partially present in the Russian political life. The Saker describes the continued presence of this 5th column as one of the Putin’s failures.

I do not entirely agree with the formulation. Rather, I view this as an event yet to happen. Observing Putins moves, one can come to a conclusion that he, like a doctor, is guided by the principal of “don’t do harm”. If an intervention into the political system brings more harm than good, then he’ll wait for a more favourable time. In this case, the threat is unsettling a delicate political balance in Russia, which it just re-acquired after the Wild 90s.

The beginning of the article below, highlighting is mine.


Whatever happens in the future, Putin has already secured his place in history as one of the greatest Russian leaders ever. Not only did he succeed in literally resurrecting Russia as a country, but in a little over a decade he brought her back as a world power capable of successfully challenging the AngloZionist Empire. The Russian people have clearly recognized this feat and, according to numerous polls, they are giving him an amazing 90% support rate. And yet, there is one crucial problem which Putin has failed to tackle: the real reason behind the apparent inability of the Kremlin to meaningfully reform the Russian economy.

As I have described it in the past many times, when Putin came to power in 1999-2000 he inherited a system completely designed and controlled by the USA. During the Eltsin years, Russian ministers had much less power than western ‘advisers’ who turned Russia into a US colony. In fact, during the 1990s, Russia was at least as controlled by the USA as Europe and the Ukraine are today. And the results were truly catastrophic: Russia was plundered from her natural wealth, billions of dollars were stolen and hidden in western offshore accounts, the Russian industry was destroyed, a unprecedented wave of violence, corruption and poverty drowned the entire country in misery and the Russian Federation almost broke up into many small statelets. It was, by any measure, an absolute nightmare, a horror comparable to a major war. Russia was about to explode and something had to be done.

Two remaining centers of power, the oligarchs and the ex-KGB, were forced to seek a solution to this crisis and they came up with the idea of sharing power: the former would be represented by Dmitrii Medvedev and the latter by Vladimir Putin. Both sides believed that they would keep the other side in check and that this combination of big money and big muscle would yield a sufficient degree of stability.

I call the group behind Medvedev the “Atlantic Integrationists” and the people behind Putin the “Eurasian Sovereignists”. The former wants Russia to be accepted by the West as an equal partner and fully integration Russia into the AngloZionist Empire, while the latter want to fully “sovereignize” Russia and then create a multi-polar international system with the help of China and the other BRICS countries.

What the Atlantic Integrationists did not expect is that Putin would slowly but surely begin to squeeze them out of power: first he cracked down on the most notorious oligarchs such as Berezovskii and Khodorkovskii, then he began cracking down on the local oligarchs, gubernatorial mafias, ethnic mobsters, corrupt industry officials, etc. Putin restored the “vertical [axis]of power” and crushed the Wahabi insurgents in Chechnia. Putin even carefully set up the circumstances needed to get rid of some of the worst ministers such as Serdiukov and Kudrin. But what Putin has so far failed to do is to

  • Reform the Russian political system
  • Replace the 5th columnists in and around the Kremlin
  • Reform the Russian economy

The current Russian Constitution and system of government is a pure product of the US ‘advisors’ which, after the bloody crackdown against the opposition in 1993, allowed Boris Eltsin to run the country until 1999. It is paradoxical that the West now speaks of a despotic presidency about Putin when all he did is inherit a western-designed political system. The problem for Putin today is that it makes no sense to replace some of the worst people in power as long as the system remains unchanged. But the main obstacle to a reform of the political system is the resistance of the pro-Western 5th columnists in and around the Kremlin. They also the ones who are still forcing a set of “Washington consensus” kind of policies upon Russia even though it is obvious that the consequences for Russia are extremely bad, even disastrous. There is no doubt that Putin understands that, but he has been unable, at least so far, to break out of this dynamic.

So who are these 5th columnists?

I have selected nine of the names most often mentioned by Russian analysts. These are (in no particular order):

Former First Deputy Prime Minister Anatolii Chubais, First Deputy Governor of the Russian Central Bank Ksenia Iudaeva, Deputy Prime Minister Arkadii Dvorkovich, First Deputy Prime Minister Igor Shuvalov, Governor of the Russian Central Bank Elvira Nabiullina, former Minister of Finance Alexei Kudrin, Minister of Economic Development, Alexei Uliukaev, Minister of Finance Anton Siluanov and Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev.


Please read the complete article and comments to it at The Saker.

As a post-scriptum, a remark to the fragment from the above article that “Russian Federation almost broke up into many small statelets”. Nikolai Starikov in his videoblog #68 at 44:23 demonstrates a collection of “Ural Francs” – money that were printed in 1991 in anticipation of the break-up of the Russian Federation into such statelets:

The Nets of Deception – False Reality. Documentary fragment (with English subtitles)

In this documentary, the authors demonstrate how falsification, information war, confidence tricks, financial pyramids and other unsavoury behaviour aimed to deceive the people works. I translated the first 10 minutes of the video, which would be of interest to an international viewer.

1Nemo1KPB8UjQjrURqn6V7Mscungx44XS2Please note that translating a documentary film or an article takes a lot of time and emotional effort. I am doing it on a voluntary basis, but if someone feels like supporting my work, a Bitcoin donation to the following address is appreciated: 1Nemo1KPB8UjQjrURqn6V7Mscungx44XS2

The original untranslated video is published here: Сети обмана. Фальшивая реальность.

After watching the documentary, I can recommend reading the following article by Lada Ray: How to Tell a Hoax from Targeted Info Dump (Navigating MSM and Alternative Media)

I could not include formatting for the subtitles, published on YouTube. The formatted subtitle file in ASS format can be downloaded separately. Full text of the script is below the video frame.

February 2003.
An extraordinary Security Council meeting is taking place at the UN Headquarters.
US State Secretary Colin Powel, while trying to prove that Iraq possesses chemical weapons, is demonstrating a small test tube to the assembly.
Here a teaspoon of Anthrax can be contained.
Iraq has tens, tens, tens of thousands of such teaspoons of such spores.
In our practice we call that glance for “a liar’s glance”.
He tells a block of lies, casts a glance around to make sure ‘am I being believed?’, if yes, then he would continue speaking.
Half a year later Baghdad becomes subjected to bombings.
However, no traces of the Anthrax or any other chemical weapons would ever be found there.
The statements of the Secretary of State turned out to be lies.
5 grammes of an unknown substance. 5 million people killed.
No one knows what was in that test tube.
But implying that Saddam Hussein has WMDs justified a global military operation against Iraq, which involved several countries.
It is often more difficult to uncover a lie than to concoct that same lie.
What is our life? One continuous illusion, which somebody makes us believe in.
We live in a world, woven from ideas, which often have very little to do with reality.
If a world of crafty inventions and fables, told to us in an entertaining way by untruthful politicians,
by unscrupulous historians, by incompetent “experts”.
THE NETS OF DECEPTION
FALSE REALITY
[Elena Lavrova. Psychologist. Teacher at the Faculty of psychology at the Military University of the Russian Ministry of Defence]
Our brain is working in such a way, that it does not want to check all of the incoming information all the time.
In the Internet, when it seems to us that we are more pro-actively selecting information,
our brain turns into a brain of a child, who got offered a lot of sweets to choose from,
and he starts grabbing this and that and is less critical in its perception.
The global network is a true paradise for liars and manipulators of all kinds.
A huge portion of the information, which appears in the Internet publications, often turns out to be untrue.
Sometimes lies camouflage under loud headlines.
While sometimes is takes such forms that it becomes difficult to discover the lie.
Mystifications, falsifications, defamations and bluffs have long ago become norms in the net-sphere.
Lies, presented as truths, make it possible to conduct wars.
Lies make it possible to justify crimes and to manipulate the consciousness of the masses.
They allow to score political points and to make profits out of thin air.
[Dmitrij Bondarenko. 2008-2014, Russian committee for education control]
A society has a lot of trustful, and outright stupid, people.
This is the foundation for all confidence trickster behaviour,
it’s based on their understanding of the fact that a society has a lot of stupid people.
And if there are so many of them, why not trick them?
[Igor Bruk. Marketologist]
They want to be deceived. They really want to be deceived.
And for some reason a dream of a magic wand exists all the time.
That if you buy a magic pill, a magic phone, take a magic loan, then all will be tip-top without requiring work.
A sweet lie clouds human mind and often appears as more appealing than the truth.
What makes people unconditionally trust those, who can’t be trusted?
Why is a false reality created around us?
How not to become entangled in the spider web of lies, especially if it is woven so masterfully?
31st of August 1939.
A group from the Nazi security service, following Hitler’s order, stages a take over of a German radio station in Gleiwitz by the Poles.
One of the participants of the provocation broadcasts a false radio message that the Polish army crossed the German border.
Then the provocator shoot German prisoners, clad in the Polish military uniforms.
In his speech explaining the invasion of Poland, the Furer also refers to the falsified incursion in Gleiwitz.
[Andrei Kondrashov. Host at Rossia-1 TV channel]
In the beginning simple pretexts, simple provocations were needed.
This way the two World Wars were started:
with the murder of the Austrian duke, with the falsified raid on a radio station by Poland, which was the pretext for the Nazi invasion.
Before only pretexts were needed. Nowadays justifications are required,
because in a globalised world, when we all have access to the mass media,
any of the motives of some “good” that sets out to fight the “evil”, can always be put into question.
Therefore the technologies nowadays are polished to the finest details, they become monstrously professional.
The criminal methods of igniting wars have changes little over the last decades, thinks the political observer Andrei Kondrashjov.
However, the methods of conducting said wars became different.
Nowadays, the wars are conducted not only in the trenches, but also on the newspaper pages, blogs and social networks.
The power of the information weapons is comparable to that of WMDs.
After all a virtual warfare leads to real victims.
[Andrei Kondrashov. Host at Rossia-1 TV channel]
The technology of brainwashing was first used around the time of the Korean War.
But now it’s been fully perfected.
We see how before our very eyes the brains of millions of people populating Ukraine are turned upside down.
It was enough to tell them that those people, whom you burnt in Odessa are not people, but some “Colorados”,
and millions were screaming in the social networks, that those who made the grill out of these so-called “Colorados” are such a clever bunch.
And if this is also accompanied by a huge amount of fakes, then the success of this ideological war is guaranteed.
Information falsifications, photo and video fakes were actively blossoming during the Balkan conflicts.
Back then, the West was actively making the Serbs look as real monsters.
The images that made the rounds across many of the world publications:
Worn out people behind barbed wire fence are reaching out a hand for a scrap of bread.
The press was stating: This is a concentration camp organised by the Serbs.
[Andrei Kondrashov. Host at Rossia-1 TV channel]
Look at the details. The distance between the barbed wires is half a meter.
Any normal, physically fit person, would climb out of such enclosure in three steps, if he’d feel so inclined.
Because that is not a concentration camp.
As it became known later, that was a muster point for the Bosnian refugees.
Those people were not repressed, they were simply staying at the refugee meeting point.
And they were talking to the journalists through the barbed wire, because the journalists asked them to.
however, this is what became the pretext to accuse Miloshevich of crimes against humanity,
when they were proving to everyone that he must become isolated.
Falsifications play a significant role in the modern information warfare.
And the technology of their creation is very simple.
One jsut has to unabashedly, many times over, and through various media repeat one and the same lie.
that, for example, the resistance are shooting at their own cities from their own “Grads”,
or that people burnt themselves on the Trade Union house in Odessa.
[Elena Lavrova. Psychologist. Teacher at the Faculty of psychology at the Military University of the Russian Ministry of Defence]
The information field is over-saturated. There are very many sources of information:
it’s the soicial networks, and simply Internet, and TV, and radio.
When we are inside such a current, there are two options:
for some critical thinking is reduced,
white another person stops trusting any sources of information,
he starts thinking that the goal is always to deceive him.
[Andrei Kondrashov. Host at Rossia-1 TV channel]
During our everyday work at the news studio,
we come across such examples of propaganda production of a global kind that it becomes laughable.
Because, for example, many pictures brought by our own reporters from Syria,
become twisted into the illustrations of the would-be fight of the resistance in the Donetsk or Lugansk People’s Republics.
And yet, the experts think it is possible to identify information falsification.
One just needs to remember that the devil is always in the details.
The easiest method is to find the original source.
It is enough to see whom it references. Who is the author of the photo or video published by it.
Where and when it was made. The date.
Are there anyone else, confirming this information, at least according to this source.
Sometimes they don’t even really bother to observe 2-3 common rules of journalism,
because the sensation that they are spewing out is intended to overshadow everything else.
It strikes emotionally. And that’s one of those cases:
if the emotions are off the charts of a frame that is intended to pass for a sensation,
and there is no common journalism practices behind that emotion, then it’s the first indicator of a fake.
However, if a sensationalist statement is not corroborated by photos or video from the scene of the events,
then it’s also a cause for concern that the statement may be false.
One must also become concerned if different sources give exactly the same text.
Don’t trust your own eyes – that must become a motto for all, who get information through the Internet.
There will be more lies.
And the deception will become even more sophisticated.

Project ‘Ukraine’. Documentary by Andrei Medvedev (with English subtitles)

This is a dispassionate chronological look at the history of Galicia and Malorossia, and how those Russian lands were being gradually turned into Ukraine. The film presents a trove of documents, citations, documentary footage and lives it to the viewer to draw conclusions. The documentary also takes an introspective look at where Russia went wrong with its handling of the budding extreme nationalism in those lands at the turn of the 19th-20th century, and introspection is a good sign – a nation, which does not view itself as exceptional, which has the capacity to understand its mistakes, has a hope for the future…

1Nemo1KPB8UjQjrURqn6V7Mscungx44XS2Please note that translating a documentary film or an article takes a lot of time and emotional effort. I am doing it on a voluntary basis, but if someone feels like supporting my work, a Bitcoin donation to the following address is appreciated: 1Nemo1KPB8UjQjrURqn6V7Mscungx44XS2

The original untranslated video is published here: Проект ‘Украина’. Фильм Андрея Медведева.

After watching the documentary, I can recommend reading the following articles:

I could not include formatting for the subtitles, published on YouTube. The formatted subtitle file in ASS format can be downloaded separately. Full text of the script is below the video frame.

I initially uploaded the video to YouTube, but it was immediately censored, claiming copyright violation by some BigMovieNetwork, even though the video is produced by Rossia24. Allegedly, the violation happened in the “Audio-visual content 39:50 – 1:25:40”, a span which incidentally starts in the middle of a voice only interview. I filed a dispute, which was rejected within minutes: Your dispute wasn’t approved. The claimant has reviewed their claim and has confirmed it was valid. You may be able to appeal this decision, but if the claimant disagrees with your appeal, you could end up with a strike on your account. The video is therefore being moved to another hosting channel…

Meanwhile, here is the original untranslated video without subtitles, which YouTube accepted under the standard license:

Until I find a venue to publish the subtitled version, here are 5 easy steps that will allow you to watch it with subtitles on your desktop machine:

  1. Download the video above, using KeepVid
  2. Download the subtitles
  3. Download and install VLC for your operating system
  4. Make sure that the video and the subtitle files have the same name
  5. Play the video in VLC – subtitles will load automatically

In July 1991, during his visit to Moscow, the President of the USA George Bush
was telling Gorbachev that a dismemberment of USSR is not in the American interests,
and that he will go to Kiev, the capital of the Soviet Ukraine, so as to convince the Ukrainians to not leave USSR.
Ukraine was still a republic in the Soviet Union, was still accountable to Moscow, and Gorbachev could have forbidden
the American president to go to Kiev, but he didn’t so that.
On the First of August Bush spoke before the Supreme Rada.
“Many centuries ago your ancestors called this country for Ukraine, or Borderland,
because your steppes lie between Europe and Asia.
But Ukrainians have now become border-guards of another kind.
Today you explore the borders and outlines of freedom.
We shall support those, who intend to abide by the democracy and the economic freedoms.”
That was, of course, a challenge to Moscow, which it failed to respond to.
Three months later, right after a sovereignty referendum, USA recognised the independence of Ukraine.
[Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzeziński. National Security Advisor for US President (1977–81)]
The West was interested in closer ties with Ukraine,
so the West made it clear for Ukraine, that if it wants to become a part of NATO at one point, then it is welcome in.
“Ukraine without Moscow!”
PROJECT “UKRAINE”
“Death to the enemies”
“Glory to Ukraine. Heroes be glorified.”
“Revolution”
Ukraine. Kiev. Winter of 2014.
A prolonged staying at Maidan.
Tents. Tea of the self-defence legion. Cookies from Victoria Nuland.
Collisions with the police.
Unidentified snipers shoot at the demonstrators.
This is how the world remembers Kievan winter of 2014.
Coincidence or not, but Kievan Maidan happened exactly 100 years after
the very first in Russian history mass march of the Ukrainian nationalists.
On the 26th of February 1914, a mob of several thousand people was moving down Kreschatik in Kiev.
Slogans of “Away with Russia” and “Hail to the independent Ukraine” were shouted.
Mikhail Menshikov, eyewitness to those events and a renowned publicist wrote:
“And so, this disgrace came to pass.
Kiev unfurls a banner of separation of Malorossia from Russia.”
Crashing shops and vendor stalls, the mob was moving towards the Austrian consulate.
Cossack divisions were brought into the town.
The police reported that they arrested several dozen of the rioters.
The liberal public in St. Petersburg and Moscow was indignant:
“What folly is this? What nationalists can there be on Kreschatik? State papers are lying!
In reality it was the progressive youth celebrating the birthday of poet Taras Shevchnko!”
But the Police Department knew: the demonstration was organised by Mazepanists.
Thus, after Hetman Mazepa, who betrayed Peter I, the police called the Ukrainian nationalists,
who were financed by the foreign intelligence services and embassies.
From the report of the Police Department to the Cabinet of Minister of the Russian Empire
about the situation in Malorossia – in Kiev, Volyn, Poltava and Chernigovo counties:
“A forceful propaganda of the ideas of Ukrainian separatism is being conducted on the territory of the whole of the Southern Russia.
Numerous propagandists – both foreign and local – by all means and with great persistence
are arguing that Malorossians are a completely different people, which must have a separate existence,
both culturally-nationally and politically.
Mazepanists plans consist of tearing away from Russia the whole of Malorossia, up to Volga and Caucasus.”
We will never be brothers.
Neither by birthplace nor by mother.
You don’t have willpower to be free.
We won’t even be stepbrothers.
You are calling yourselves elder brothers.
We can be younger brothers, but no yours.
It’s a pity there are so many of you, faceless.
You are huge, we are great.”
(Translator note: Such a manifestation of an inferiority complex, yet written in Russian!)
(We want into EU)
These verses were written in February 2014.
Young Kivan, Anastasija Dmitruh, could not, of course, have known that in her verses,
she almost verbatim recites the Polish publicists from the end of the 18th century.
It is they, 200 years ago, formulated the theory about two “unbrotherly” peoples – Russian and Ukrainian.
I was then that the geopolitical project “Ukraine” was launched.
[Szczepan Siekierka. President of the Polish Society for the Remembrance of the Victims of Crimes Committed by Ukrainian Nationalists, UOZUN]
Where did such terms as “Ukrainian lands” really come from?
No one knows.
Today this notion is so abused,
the world’s attention is so strongly directed towards the idea of the “Ukrainian people”,
of the “great Ukrainian state”, which in reality never existed.
What existed, was the Russian state.
And it started from Kievan Rus.
It was there that the Russian people were Christened, and Kiev became a centre, that united
the Russian principalities – from the Carpathian mountains to the Vladimir-Suzdal forests.
[Andrei Marchukov. Head Researcher at the Institute of Russian History, Russian Academy of Science]
There lived the one and the same Russian nation, and that’s a historic fact.
It does not matter where they lived – in Galicia, Vladimir-on-Kljazma, Novgorod,
in Perejaslavl or Smolensk, in Minsk or Vitebsk – they were still the Russian people.
They had the same material and spiritual culture, faith, common self-consciousness.
[Pavel Kuzenkov. PhD, Associate Professor of Department of Church History of the Faculty of History of Lomonosov Moscow State University]
We have “The Tale of the Times” – the most ancient Russian chronicles.
This is the authentic history of Rus, which starts from the calling of Rurik
and continues until about the 13th century.
The two eldest editions of this chronicles are called Laurentius Chronicles and Ipatiev Chronicles.
The most striking thing is that these two versions are from two different corners of the Russian world.
One is from Suzdal lands, and the other is from the Western Rus,
what we now call for Western Ukraine.
And they both carry one and the same text.
Kiev is that spiritual centre around which was created not just the Russian state, but the whole of the Russian civilisation.
[Andrei Medvedev. Program author]
By the end of the 12th century Kiev loses its importance and influence.
It is no longer a political centre of Rus.
Galician-Volyn and Vladimir-Suzdal principalities become the two new centres of Rus.
One in the West, the other – in the North-East.
The ultimate division comes after the Mongol invasion.
North-Easten Rus falls under the Horde’s domination,
while the Western Rus becomes part of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
[Andrei Marchukov. Head Researcher at the Institute of Russian History, Russian Academy of Science]
They retained the understanding that they are Russians,
and that the Moscowy State is also inhabited by Russians, though by slightly different ones.
In Moscow they also regarded those lands as our lands, the lands of the line of Rurik –
conquered illegally by Lithuania and Poles – but inhabited by the same Russians.
The Grand Duchy of Lithuania was not only a Russian state, but also an Orthodox Christian one.
Russian was the official legal language of the Duchy.
Russian kjazes – counts (commonly mis-translated to English as “princes”) comprised the majority of the elite.
[Krzysztof Zanussi. Polish film and theatre director]
Everything that the Duchy’s offices in Vilnius wrote, was written in Cyrillic and in a Slavic language.
Lithuanian was very seldom used at that time.
However, by the middle of the 15th century the life of the Western branch of the Russian world changes.
Lithuanian count dynasty actively seeks to become closer to Poland,
and in 1569 a federative state, known to us as Rzecz Pospolita, is founded.
Several counties (voevodstvo or “war regions”) populated by the Russians became part of Poland, or Rzecz Pospolita:
# https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%B5%D1%87%D1%8C_%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%8F#/media/File:Polish-Lithuanian-Commonwealth-1635-ru.png
Kievan, Bratslavsk, Belzsk, Podolsk, Volyn, and one more, called plainly Russian (Russkoe voevodstvo).
The capital of the latter became the Orthodox city of Lvov.
[Rostislav Ishchenko. Ukrainian politologist, President of the Centre for System Analysis and Prognosis]
The Great Count of Lithuania became also the King of Poland, while only a Catholic could become a Polish king.
So Catholicism became the dominant religion not only in Poland, but also in Lithuania.
The Orthodox Christians start being repressed in Rzecz Pospolita.
At that time, the self-consciousness of any people was based on religion.
Back then, “Orthodox” was synonymous to “Russian”.
[Andrei Marchukov. Head Researcher at the Institute of Russian History, Russian Academy of Science]
That was really a very harsh and at times cruel repression.
Russian people were not considered as equal in the two-part Polish-Lithuanian state.
Under pain of death, Russians were forbidden to travel abroad
and to have any contact with the Orthodox Patriarch in Constantinople.
They were forbidden to hold any official posts.
While Orthodox Christians were altogether forbidden to live in some of the cities.
At that time, it was extremely important for for the Polish government to weaken the Orthodox Church’s influence in the Western-Russian lands.
And so, in 1596, a number of bishops of the Kievan Metropolia,
headed by the Metropolitan Mikhail Rogoza himself, declared
about accepting the Catholic teachings and subjugation to the Roman Pope.
On the 9th of October 1596, at the Brest Gathering, a decree (union) was ratified,
proclaiming creation of a Greek-Catholic Church, or – as it is more commonly called – Uniate Church.
Meanwhile, in the newly-created church the services were conducted according to the Byzantine tradition,
and using the Church-Slavic language.
[Rostislav Ishchenko. Ukrainian politologist, President of the Centre for System Analysis and Prognosis]
The Unia was strengthened on the future Ukrainian lands using quite brutal methods.
Not only did the churches were handed over by force from one confession to the other.
[Translator note: Exactly the same is done to the Orthodox Christians living in Ukraine after the coup of 2014.]
Orthodox Christian priests were killed,
while the Orthodox flock was given a choice: either death or conversion into Uniatism.
Those who risked remaining as Orthodox Christians, formed brotherhoods.
The largest of those was the Lvov Brotherhood.
In 1609 its members report to their brothers-in-faith in Kiev:
“We, the Russian people, live under the yoke of the Polish people.
What is customary for a man to live by, that is not allowed for a Rusin on his very own Russian land,
and that is in the very same Russian city of Lvov.”
But it was already impossible to stop the process. More and more Russians were converting to Uniatism.
Russian gentry were converting directly to Catholicism –
in Rzecz Pospolita it was the only way to become an equal member of the state elite and to make a carrier.
In 1609 died the last Orthodox Christian Russian baron – knjaz Konstantin Konstantinovich Ostrovskij.
[Pavel Kuzenkov. PhD, Associate Professor of Department of Church History of the Faculty of History of Lomonosov Moscow State University]
How is Eurointegration conducted? Not through some deep-going economic processes,
but through the unification of the elites.
The national elites are incorporated into the pan-European ones, usually at the expense of the main part of the population, which
becomes pushed away from the values, or let’s say, valuables of the European home, European civilisation.
That happened 500 years ago, and it’s happening now.
“Ukraine is Europe”
“Ukraine is Europe”
To be honest I want to go to America.
[Pavel Kuzenkov. PhD, Associate Professor of Department of Church History of the Faculty of History of Lomonosov Moscow State University]
To blossom, Europe needs periphery.
Today this project is of special interest, when you can include into this periphery a former Russia,
cheap labour force and space for economic expansion, a goods market.
You need, after all, a place to sell all that.
That’s also a price to be paid for Euro-integration.
One must remember that Ukraine during the 16th-17th centuries was the main breadbasket of Europe.
London, Paris, were fed with the South-Russian bread.
So as to keep the bread’s price down, you need to have a production cost, which is close to zero.
And that was ensured by the system of strict exploitation of the local population.
[Andrei Marchukov. Head Researcher at the Institute of Russian History, Russian Academy of Science]
So people started thinking: “Who are we. We seem to be living in Poland, want to be in Poland, but we don’t get accepted. Why?
Because we are Russians, we are Orthodox Christian. And where do other Orthodox Christian Russians live? Oh!
Over there, across the Eastern border, in the Moscovy kingdom, and they live in freedom,
they have their own Czar, set by God.”
[Bogdan Bezpalko. Member of the Council on International Relations under the President of the Russian Federation]
They had two choices.
Either to flee to the state with the same faith, to the Russian Empire, the Russian Orthodox Christian Moskovy State,
or to muster a revolt, which Bogdan Khmelnitsky managed to turn into an all-out war against the Polish state,
which as the result lost a part of the territories – the left bank.
[Krzysztof Zanussi. Polish film and theatre director]
Simply speaking, we lost our historic chance already back then.
And it’s good to look at your own history with a critical eye, because you then understand that
not only our neighbours are to blame. Neighbours being the common scapegoats.
The question is how did we handle it.
And that’s what we must think about if we feel ourselves free.
Then we must simply see our own mistakes.
The revolt, headed by Bogdan Khmelnitsky started in 1648.
After 6 years of war, in 1654, Periaslav Rada was signed.
It’s a document about reunification of a part of Western Rus – including Kiev and the territories of Zaporozhje county – with the Moskovy State.
It was signed by Czar Aleksei Mikhailovich Romanov.
By the way, the phrase “reunification of Ukraine with Russia” appeared first in the Soviet history texts in the 1920s.
The historians knew perfectly well that in 1654 there was simply no such country as “Ukraine”.
Those territories were called Malorossia.
While the word Ukraina was used in Poland and Russia about borderlands.
For Poles it is the lands of the middle Dnepr – the central regions of the modern Ukraine.
[Anna Raźny. Polish historian, Professor of the Department for Russian and East-European studies at Jagiellonian University in Krakow]
In Polish it is called “pogranicze”.
It’s the border in the cultural, national, political, even historical meaning.
For Rzecz Pospolita, “Ukraina” meant a far away border,
a territory, where different ethnic groups could live.
In this context, Ukraina no longer exists in the present time.
For Moscow, on the other hand, Ukraina once meant Tula, Kashira, Serpuhov –
that was the “Oka-river Ukraina” – the border with the territories, from where nomads came.
The word “Ukrainian” in the Russian language of that time, is a profession – a border guard.
While a resident of Kiev or Poltava was called a Malorossian.
By the end of the 18th century, the weakened and torn apart by internal strife Poland
stopped playing any important role in the European politics.
In 1772, her neighbours – Prussia, Austrian-Hungary and the Russian Empire –
partially divided between themselves the lands of a once poweful state.
[Krzysztof Zanussi. Polish film and theatre director]
It is a separate question if our civilisation could have enough power
to raise such a large part of Europe.
Maybe it was our pride saying that we could do that.
It was a huge expanse.
Ultimately Poland ceased to exist in 1795,
when the large states performed the third division of the Polish lands.
Galicia, Zakarpatie (Transcarpathia) and Bukovina, populated by Russians, or as it was said then – Rusins (Ruthenians),
came under Austria-Hungary, while almost all of the Kievan Rus territories were taken by the Russian Empire.
So, here is a map of the Russian Empire.
Here is the territories of the Kievan Rus, which were a part of Poland.
Here is the part, which, after partitioning of Poland, went to Auatria.
And here are those lands, which Russia returned itself.
That is how a large portion of the Polish population ended up in the Russian Empire.
[Andrei Marchukov. Head Researcher at the Institute of Russian History, Russian Academy of Science]
The Poles are, of course, dreaming about resurrection of their beloved Poland – Rzecz Pospolita,
and in the wider borders, as they were before the partitioning.
All their ire and hatred is directed at Russia.
The idea is like this: sow separatism on those lands, tear them away from Russia,
announce that the people there are not Russians, but close to Poles.
In 1795 the Polish writer and historian Jan Potocki published
“Historically-geographical fragments about Scythia, Sarmatia and Slavs”.
In that work, for the first time, Russians of Malorossia were called “Ukrainians”,
a separate people, descendants of the Scythian tribe of Sarmatians.
Potocki’s idea was very simple in its design:
If Malorossian “Ukrainians” have nothing in common with Russians;
if Malorossian “Ukrainians” is a separate people with its separate culture and history,
then it follows that also Russia has no historical rights on the lands West for Dnepr, including Kiev.
Then it follows that there is not gathering of Russian lands.
It follows then that Russia annexed and occupied Malorossia/Ukraine.
Potocki’s propaganda was first and foremost directed at the Western reader,
who traditionally had a very vague idea what is Malorossia, Russia, Kiev, and where all this is found.
[Pavel Kuzenkov. PhD, Associate Professor of Department of Church History of the Faculty of History of Lomonosov Moscow State University]
We see very clearly how neighbours were calling these “Ukrainians”.
Up until 20th century they were called Rus.
Poles, Czechs, Hungarians, Romanians, all who surrounded this territory,
they were never in doubt that what starts from across Carpathian mountains is Rus.
But it was the Polish publicists, who by the beginnig of the 19th century turn a topographic term “Ukraina” into a name of a country.
In 1801 the Polish bibliophile and publicist Tadeusz Czadzki published his work, titled
“About the name of Ukraine and the birth of Cossacs”.
It was a new phase in forming of Ukrainianism as an ideology.
Tadeusz Czadzki further distinguished that Ukrainian Malorossians are not Russians, but rather a separate people.
Czadzki started the history of Ukrainians from the horde of the “Ancient Ukros”,
who according to him moved in the 7th century from somewhere in Urals, across Volga, to the Drepr river.
The fact that neither the Polish nor the Russian chronicles ever mentioned any “Ukros”, didn’t in the least bother Czadzki.
These theories could have probably remained as mind games of the intellectuals, if not for one “but”.
Czar Alexander I, a liberal pro-Westerner, favoured the Polish nobility.
He considered it to be more educated and well-mannered, than Russian.
During Alexander’s reign, Poles played an important role at the court, at the Academy of Science.
The Imperial Foreign Ministry was headed by an ardent russophobe Adam Czartoryski,
and with his support the Poles got full control of the education system in Malorossia.
Czartoryski’s close ally, a priest and historian Valerian Kalinka, thus wrote about Malorossia:
“This land is lost for Poland, but we must do it so, that it becomes lost for Russia too.”
[Andrei Marchukov. Head Researcher at the Institute of Russian History, Russian Academy of Science]
If we take look at the Right Bank that was added at the very end of the 18th century,
the leading educational institutions there – Kremenetski Lyceum, Umansk Basilian School –
were controlled by the Poles.
In these educational institutions Polish teachers were planting in the heads of the Russian pupils the idea
that Rus Minor (translation of Malorossia) is a part of the Western worlds, that Malorossians is a separate ethnos,
while Russian Moskovians are savages and Asians, occupants.
[Bogdan Bezpalko. Member of the Council on International Relations under the President of the Russian Federation]
If a school pupil is told that Ukraine and Russia had 5-6 wars, at a period when there in fact was no Ukraine at all,
when he is told that hunger was organised by the damned Moskovians so as to kill Ukrainians
for their pursuit of independence, what can grow up out of such pupil?
In the best case he will be a person, who will approve of the punisher battalion actions in Donbass;
in the worst case, he will be doing the killing as he will view those people as enemies of his nation.
“Who’s not jumping, he’s Moskal.” (‘Moskal’ is a Polish(!) derogative for ‘Russian’)
“Glory to Ukraine.”
“Moskals to the gallows.”
“Glory to heroes.”
“Communist to the gallows.”
“Glory to Ukraine.”
“Who’s not jumping, he’s Moskal.”
(A table for school kids of how the same names are written “correctly” and “incorrectly”. E.g if you are called Anja, then if you don’t respond to Gannusja, then you are an enemy.)
In 1831, during the Polish uprising, all pupils of the Kremenetski Lyceum –
Russians, Malorossians, Poles – went to war, to fight for the dependence of Poland.
A few other of its graduates fought in the Crimean War on the side of Britain, storming Russian Sevastopol.
One of them, a publicist and historian Frantishek Duhinski, wrote:
“Moskals are neither Slavs nor Christians.
They still remain nomads and will always remain nomads.”
However it was Nikolai Kostomarov, one of the biggest Russian historians of the 19th century,
who became the most famous pupil of the Polish professoriate.
He was a graduate of the Kharkov University.
Who is he?
He’s a someone, who dedicated all his life to destruction of the Russian Empire.
In 1845 Kostomarov founds in Kiev the Brotherhood of Cyril and Methodius,
a society for the young intellectuals, students and teachers.
They are the first in the Russian history to declare, that Ukraine is neither Malorossia nor Russia,
that it is a separate country, populated by a separate people – Ukrainians.
The Brotherhood of Cyril and Methodius was the first such society of intellectuals,
but it was the one to create the construct of the future “Ukrainian” identity.
One of the active members of the society was Panteleimon Kulish, also a pupil of the Polish teachers.
He was an ideological Ukrainian nationalist, who was the first to create an alphabet for the Malorossian dialect,
which he hastily proclaimed to be a full-fledged language of a new nation – a Ukrainian language.
[Alois Woldan. Professor of Slavic Literature at the Wien University, Austria]
For example, since the Romanticism era there was a striving towards the folk language.
That was, of course, a local language, a folk language of approximately the Dniestr river area,
which differed from the one, spoken in Poltava.
[Andrei Marchukov. Head Researcher at the Institute of Russian History, Russian Academy of Science]
You take a local dialect, codify it, formalise it, introduce a couple of letters,
and here you have a new language. And then, on this foundation, a new nation is grown.
This kind of operation could have been conducted on any territory –
not just in Malorossia, but in Arkhangelsk. Great, isn’t it?!
You publish a dictionary and seemingly do ethnography, but in reality – politics.
And many understood what this was leading to.
Even when the Malorossian intellectuals started publishing press using Ukrainian,
the so-called Kulishovka, no one read it.
Ukrainiaphilic journal “Osnova” (“Foundation”) closed in the beginning of 1860s as it lacked subscribers.
Books in Malorossian dialect were published also before Kulish, but they were printed using the regular Russian alphabet.
Intelligentsia and nobility from Kiev, Kharkov and Poltava spoke, wrote and read using the Russian language.
They could not understand why a new language needed to be invented.
In the middle of the 19th century every educated person in Russia knew
that the literary Russian language was created, among others, by Kievan learned men.
[Pavel Kuzenkov. PhD, Associate Professor of Department of Church History of the Faculty of History of Lomonosov Moscow State University]
The literary Russian language, which is spoken in Russia, was created by southern Rusins,
who at the time of Peter I and even before him – from the end of the 17th century –
played a significant role at the court of the Russian Czardom, and then the Russian Empire.
Before Peter I, Russian literary language, the official state language,
was very heavy, limited and very far away from the spoken language.
The young Czar invited the best experts from Malorossia to reform the language.
[Igor Barinov. Candidate of Science (History) at Moscow State University]
These were Simeon Polockij, and in the contemporary Ukraine – Berynda, Innokentij Gizel.
Simeon Polockij was one of the founders of the famous Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy in Moscow.
In 1755, using Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy as a foundation, the Moscow University was opened.
In other words, it was the Kievan-Russian scientists and teachers, who laid the foundations for the future common Russian academic science.
[Pavel Kuzenkov. PhD, Associate Professor of Department of Church History of the Faculty of History of Lomonosov Moscow State University]
So if someone is talking about “Moskal speech” – it’s nothing else, but a high-bread Kievan language of the 18th century,
which very organically blended into the greater Russian civilisation.
However, contrary to the common sense, the liberal societies of the intellectuals of Malorossia
continued with the propaganda of the ideas of Ukrainaism and spreading of the “Ukrainian language”.
Many went into the folk masses, carrying there the Ukrainian literature.
Those books were, however, printed not in Russia, but abroad – mostly in Lvov.
In Austrian Galicia, in Western Rus, the Ukrainian language was turning into
a formidable and dangerous political weapon, which was used to cut out a new map of Europe.
[Pavel Kuzenkov. PhD, Associate Professor of Department of Church History of the Faculty of History of Lomonosov Moscow State University]
The territories that stayed in Austria is Galicia, and first and foremost, Lvov
they turned into those areas, where a rather harsh confrontation begins.
[Rostislav Ishchenko. Ukrainian politologist, President of the Centre for System Analysis and Prognosis]
Before the beginning of the 20th century, and then up to the middle of the 20th century, Galicia was a part of various states.
For a long time it was a Polish territory, and that is why the domination of the Polish landlords formed there.
Then it became a part of Austro-Hungary.
Galicia, Bukovina and Trans-carpathia – the Western-most reaches of the Russian world –
ended up under the Austrian crown after the division of Poland.
Russians here were called in a Western style – Rusins or Ruthenians.
Over the years under Polish governance, Galician Russians forfeited Orthodox Christianity and became Uniats.
Polish landlords mercilessly exploited the Russian peasants.
[Igor Barinov. Candidate of Science (History) at Moscow State University]
As the result of the Polish domination, at one point the Russian intelligentsia in Galicia simply disappeared.
It wasn’t for nothing, that the Poles said that only peasants (“hlopy”) and priests (“popy”) are left of Rusins.
[Rostislav Ishchenko. Ukrainian politologist, President of the Centre for System Analysis and Prognosis]
The Austrian emperor was perceived by Rusins as an ally in their fight against their Polish landlords.
At some point the Austrians put a bet on supporting this Rusin movement.
The Viennese court conducted some strong reforms – cut down the size of the corvee taxes.
At the Uniat Church of St. Barbara in Vienna they opened the first college for education
of the Greek-Catholic priests and teachers from among the Galicia-Russians.
[Alois Woldan. Professor of Slavic Literature at the Wien University, Austria]
The upper class, the Ruthenian ruling class, was exceedingly loyal to Austria,
as there they could get certain freedoms, which were previously unavailable in Poland.
Loyalty to Austria was percieved as a counterweight to the Polish domination.
Ruthenians, Ruthenian leaders, put their hope on Austria so as
to achieve greater autonomy and independence from the Polish supervision.
Rusins became possibly the most loyal subjects of the Viennese court.
During the Polish revolt of 1809 and the Hungarian revolt of 1848,
armed Rusins fought on the side of the Austrian Emperor.
The Russian battalion showed an exemplary courage and perseverance in battles.
So the governor of Galicia, Count Schtadiun, on behalf of the Emperor, presented the Russians their new battle banner.
The banner was accompanied by a ribbon, on which the Empress herself embroidered the words “Loyalty Leads to Victory”.
The banner was a two-coloured, yellow and blue canvas.
[Rostislav Ishchenko. Ukrainian politologist, President of the Centre for System Analysis and Prognosis]
After the Polish uprising was suppressed, the Austrian court stumbled upon a contradiction in its own internal policy.
On one hand, it was good to use the Rusins against the Poles,
on the other hand, they were fully aware that this was a borderland province,
and that it is inhabited by people, who have a language, culture and mindset
akin to those living on the other aide of the border, in the Russian Empire.
Naturally the Austrians were afraid that under certain conditions
this province might feel a pull to transfer under the jurisdiction of the Russian Emperor.
In 1848, so as to control the Russians, central powers allowed to create the Supreme Russian Rada in Lvov,
which unified and coordinated the political demands of Galician Rus.
However, the governor of Galicia, Count Franz Stadion von Warthausen und Thannhausen, immediately gave Russians a condition:
“You can count on the government support only in that case if you’d want to be a separate people,
and would renounce the national unity with the people outside of the state, specifically – in Russia.
In other words, if you’d want to be Ruthenians, and not Russians.
It would not hurt if you take a new name, so as to differ from the Russians, who live outside of Austria.”
In 1849 happened the first in 500 years meeting of Galician Russians with the Russians of the Russian Empire.
The troops on General Paskevich, whom Nikolai I sent to suppress the Hungarian Revolution, were returning home through Galicia.
Rusins were communicating with the Russian soldiers using virtually one and the same language,
went to the church services, conducted by the Russian field clerics.
And with each day they were becoming more and more convinced – they are one and the same people,
wherever they live – in Lvov, Kiev or Moscow.
A Russian newspaper starts being published in Lvov – “Galician Dawn”.
Any one of us can easily read it now.
The texts have some dialect-specific words, but it is without any doubt Russian language.
Here is an edition from the 9th of March 1853.
A poem marking the death of a Trans-Carpathian and Uzhgorod priest and enlightener, Andrei Boludjanski.
A sad voice has come to us
From the dusky valleys of Carpathians
Father Andrei has passed away
Our kin, Rusin, brother.
One light has become extinguished,
A light that so majesticly and pleasantly
Was enlightening our sky.
By the beginning of the 1850s, Galician intelligentsia started to openly talk about reunification with Russia.
A schism was forming in the Russian Rada.
One part of the intelligencia – who was referred to as Moskvaphiles – thought that the folk education must be done using Russian literary language.
The other part was convinced that they must invent a separate, Galician-Russian, writing.
This part of the Russian Rada was referred to as Populists.
[Rostislav Ishchenko. Ukrainian politologist, President of the Centre for System Analysis and Prognosis]
The Austrian court made quite a logical under such circumstances choice.
They started supporting that group which promoted propaganda using a local dialect.
They accentuated that this group represents a completely different nationality.
That not Russians, but “Ukrainians” live on these territories.
That they have their own language, own culture.
That they have nothing in common with the Russian population of the Russian Empire. And so on…
In 1859, a work by a Czech philologist Josef Jireček was published in Vienna in German language.
It was called “On proposition to Rusians to write using Latin letters”.
(Note: Between 1919 and 1930 Bolsheviks almost pushed through the same Latinasation reform for Russian language!)
It was printed at the government printing house using government funds on the order from the Imperial Ministry of Education.
From Josef Jireček’s brochure:
“While Rusins are printing and writing in Cyrilllic, they will display a predisposition towards Churchslavinism and Russianism and thus the very existance of the Ukrainian literature will be jeopardised.
The Churchslavic and Russian influence are so great that they threaten to push out the local language and local literature.”
They didn’t manage to force Rusins to switch to Latin writing.
Then the Austrian government decided to form a new language and the new grammar,
based on the already existing alphabet of Panteleimon Kulish.
[Rostislav Ishchenko. Ukrainian politologist, President of the Centre for System Analysis and Prognosis]
So the local dialect, the Galician, which was spoken by the Galician peasants, started to be called “Ukrainian language”.
A Galician Rus politician Osip Monchalovski thus described the process of creation of a new language in the 1870s:
“Each of the professors of the Lvov University has his own private language.
It’s not even a language, but an artificial mish-mash of Russian, Polish and,
ever so often, arbitrarily invented ‘Ukrainian’ words and phrases.”
Panteleimon Kulish, who by the end of his life distanced himself from the idea of Malorossian nationalism and ukrainianism,
was terrified by what was happening in Galicia, how his alphabet became used.
But he had already laid the foundations for the forming of the identity, and he was powerless to correct anything.
From a letter sent by Kulish to a Galician scientist, teacher of the Ukrainian language, Emelian Portitski:
“I swear that if Ljahs will be printing using my alphabet, so as to underline a strife with the Great Rus,
if our phonetic writing will be positioned not as a help for the masses on the their way to enlightenment,
but as a banner for our Russian split, then I, who wrote in my way, in Ukrainian,
will from now on be printing in the old-school etymological orthography.”
An interesting detail: the Austrian subject, Emelian Portitskij, was developing and propagandising Ukrainian language and literature,
but he was still considering himself to be a Rusin – a Russian.
In Lvov he founded an organisation for the Ukrainian language teachers,
which he surprisingly called “Rusko Pedagogichno Tovarishestvo” – “Russian Pedagogic Union”.
However hard you try, there is no other way to translate this phrase from the Carpathian-Russian dialect.
Galician-Russian writer Vasilij Vavrik remembered:
“A peasant had difficulty in immediately switching from being a Rusin to being a Ukrainian.
It was difficult for him to trample over something that was sacred and dear to him.
Even more difficult is was for him to understand why the Ukrainian professors so foggily, cunningly
and misleadingly are substituting Rus with Ukraine and mix one name with the other.
With its very essence the people realised that a lie, falsehood, treachery is abound.”
The Austrian authorities, however, held the harsh course on the forming of a new identity among the Russians.
Those writers and journalists, who refused to use the new language were proclaimed to be “Moskal spies”;
school books were published in Ukrainian; the dissatisfied teachers were sacked.
Right before WWI, the Austrian War Ministry’s printing house published a phrase book,
with the intent that the soldiers conscripted from the various parts of the Empire could somehow understand each other.
The phrase book was printed in 6 languages: Hungarian, German, Polish, Czech, Croatian and Russian.
There was no place for the Ukrainian language in the phrase book.
[Anna Raźny. Polish historian, Professor of the Department for Russian and East-European studies at Jagiellonian University in Krakow]
They say it’s an artificial language.
As a culturologist I can say that you can use this language to speak and to write literature works.
But the following question arises: Why do Ukrainians – both from Western and Eastern Ukraine – speak Russian?
There are very many of them in Poland as of late, and they speak Russian.
I ask them, “Are you Russians?” “No, we are Ukrainians.” “Why do you speak Russian?” “We don’t know.”
In 1898, Osip Monchalovskij – a Lvov publicist and a Russian public figure –
wrote in his book “Ukrainophilism in Literature and Politics”:
“To be Ukrainian means to denounce your past; to be ashamed of belonging to the Russian people,
and event to the names Rus, Russian;
to denounce your tales and history;
to thoroughly erase from yourself all common Russian features;
and to try to blend into the provincial Ukrainian lifestyle.”
[Andrei Marchukov. Head Researcher at the Institute of Russian History, Russian Academy of Science]
One must say that for a long time, up to the 1920s, the term “Ukrainian”
was used, also by the adepts of the Ukrainian nationalism,
not as an ethnic term to characterise all these Malorossian and Rusin masses,
but as a term for those, who belonged to the Ukrainian party.
Odessa. The 2nd of May 2014.
Kulikovo pole.
Last minutes before the tragedy.
“We shall save all the icons over there, our belongings, go into the building and will be holding fort.”
– “As I see it we shall stand till the end.”
– “Yes”
At the same time at the Cathedral Square, the newly-arrived to Odessa Right Sector,
starts to warm up the football fans and the youth, who joined the nationalists.
“Glory to Ukraine. Heroes be Glorified.” (The Nazi-Bandera chant)
“Death to the enemies.”
The angered mass attacks the anti-Maidan camp.
Sign text: “We are FOR federalisation referendum.”
[Andrei Marchukov. Head Researcher at the Institute of Russian History, Russian Academy of Science]
Nowadays, a third of the Right Sector are ethnic Russians.
Now they’ve all naturally become Ukrainians.
And this is, by the way, a demonstration that Russian and Ukrainian identities
are like connected vessels – one flows out, the other in.
[Bogdan Bezpalko. Member of the Council on International Relations under the President of the Russian Federation]
There was the question: “Where are your mythical Bandera followers?”
Here you have the, here the turn up. You can admire them in their full splendour.
“The punishers attacking Odessa reaidents…”
“Firefighters working inside…”
“Barrages are being literally thrown into the windows…”
In the deranged crowd, most cries are heard in Russian.
The murderers scream in Russian, and the victims plea for their lives in Russian.
“Guys, guys, we must drag…”
“To the knees!” – “Help!”
“Please, don’t!”
“They murdered four people!”
“He’s sitting here. He’ll not go anywhere.”
“He shot at the people.”
“What are you doing, devils?! What are you doing?!”
A Ukrainian artillery shooter in Donbass is commenting his actions using Russian language.
He is shelling a peaceful city.
“Fire!”
“At this rate, in the near future, we’ll already completely exterminate them.”
“Glory to Ukraine. Heroes be glorified.”
Chanting this motto, Russians are again killing Russians.
Just like 100 years ago, in the Austrian concentration camp Thalerhof,
where Western Rus was exterminated and Ukraine was born.
“To the victims of Thalerhof. 1914-1918. Galician Rus.”
“Moskals to the gallows. Moskals to the gallows.”
Where there is a telephone pole
A katsap (Polish derogative for Russian) hangs instead of a bell
His lips turned blue,
Black eyes turned white
Teeth got crusted with blood
Rope cut through his neck.
100 years in Galicia, in Lvov, “katsaps” – that is, Russians, were murdered to the chanting of such rhymes.
They were murdered by former friends, by neighbours, by acquaintances, even by relatives.
Russians were killing Russians.
And only because some of them considered themselves Ukrainians.
In 1914, during the first days of the World War,
over 2000 Russians – politicians, peasants, teachers, doctors – ended up in prisons in Galicia.
300 Uniat priests were killed only on the bases of suspicion that they were secret sympathisers of Orthodoxy and Russia.
[Alois Woldan. Professor of Slavic Literature at the Wien University, Austria]
Under the pretext “they are the Russian spies”, innocent people got arrested and executed.
This is a big black spot on the Austrian history, which is already far from being white.
The biggest mistake, committed by Austria during its 150 years of ruling in Galicia.
Thousands of Russians ended up being lockes up in the first in the European history concentration camps – Thalerhof and Teresin.
The camps were dotted with poles.
Inmates were hung by a foot and were left hanging for several hours.
Hundreds of people died from this torture.
From the Thalerhof Almanach – a compendium of documents and memoirs about the genocide of the Russians:
Memorial book of the Austrian cruelties, torture and violations of the Carpathian-Russian people during the world war 1914-1917.
First Edition.
Terror in Galicia during the first period of the war 1914-1915.
Lvov, 1924
“Austrian soldiers carry in their backpacks ready-made nooses, and everywhere –
on the trees, in the houses, in the barns – hang all peasants because they consider themselves Russians.
Galician Rus has turned into a huge, terrible Golgotha.”
They grabbed anyone indiscriminately – anyone who thought of himself as Russian or carried a Russian name,
anyone who was found possessing a Russian newspaper or book, icons or postcards from Russia.
Ukrainian activists participated in the punisher operations.
Not only did they write denunciations, but were also performing hangings and shootings of their neighbours and relatives.
From The Thalerhof Almanach:
“One part of the Carpathian-Russian people, in great suffering, carried to the altar of their common motherland Rus their lives,
while the other carried out the shameful and deceitful deed of the conscious brother-murderer Kain.
The role of these people’s traitors – of these so-called ‘Ukrainians’ – during this war is well known.”
[Bogdan Bezpalko. Member of the Council on International Relations under the President of the Russian Federation]
This is the history of the genocide of those Galicians, who thought of themselves as Russians
by the hand of the Austrians and by the hand of those Galicians, who thought of themselves as Ukrainians.
60.000 people were collected at one place and exterminated,
in the same way as people were herded into the Trade Union house in Odessa and burnt alive.
[Rostislav Ishchenko. Ukrainian politologist, President of the Centre for System Analysis and Prognosis]
To this one must add about 300.000 refugees,
who went to the territory of Russia together with the Russian troops.
In that way the pro-Russian element in Galicia was completely wiped out.
[Andrei Marchukov. Head Researcher at the Institute of Russian History, Russian Academy of Science]
When we say “Ukrainian nationalism”, we think of Russophobia in the broadest sense of this word –
as in an ideology, as in a world-view. Not just as in “who’s not jumping is Moskal”,
but as in the practice on which the foundation of the Ukrainian nation, of the Ukrainian statehood is laid.
“God and Ukraine above all!”
(Note: resonating withe the Nazi German “Deutschland über alles” slogan)
The phenomenon of the Ukrainian nationalism is specific in that it appeared before the Ukrainian nation did.
In November 1914 the Austrian Foreign Minister Leopold Berchtold stated:
“Our main goal in this war lies in the long-term weakening of Russia.
And therefore, in case of our victory, we will start with creating an independent from Russia Ukrainian state.”
[Pavel Kuzenkov. PhD, Associate Professor of Department of Church History of the Faculty of History of Lomonosov Moscow State University]
A Bysantian thinker Simeon Salunski, has once pondered over a question of what is a nation.
And he gave a very precise answer: A nation is a people, who have common history.
That that in essence is the answer to how to create Ukrainians out of Russians.
One must write for them a history of Ukraine.
Mikhail Grushevskij was tasked by the Austrian authorities with inventing the history of Ukraine and Ukrainians.
Mikhail Grushevskij, assistant professor of the Kiev University, emigrated to Galicia in 1890.
In the Russian scientific circles he was already known for his quite eccentric views on the history of Kievan Rus,
and for his exceptionally questionable theory of history.
But this very theory turned out to be very timely and very suitable for the Austrian authorities.
Grushevskij wrote his 10-volume work “History of Ukraine and Rus” in Lvov, explaining that,
yes, there was Kievan Rus, but then there also appeared Moscow Rus and Lithuanian Rus.
And so as not to mix them up, the ancient Kievan Rus, where Russians-Ukrainians lived, must be called Ukraine.
In effect it was a substitution of terms.
However, students were taught by Grushevskij’s books.
He read lectures, and the excited youth started thinking of themselves as an exceptional people –
not just any old Russian, but Western, European, progressive.
Mikhail Grushevskij headed a department at the Lvov University when he was 28 years old.
In Lvov Grushevskij lived in a big mansion – there is his museum now.
When he returned to Kiev, he immediately bought a house for renting out.
It was know by almost all townsfolk, and was often called as “Grushevskij’s House”.
In effect that was the payment that Grushevskij got for his participation in the Austrian political project.
[Alexandr Kolpakidi. Historian, writer]
I don’t now a single historian who would have earned such a fortune on his historic writing, so as to buy a whole house in the centre of a capital.
[Pavel Kuzenkov. PhD, Associate Professor of Department of Church History of the Faculty of History of Lomonosov Moscow State University]
How much were the Austrians paying, and how much was coming in from still unknown sources – everything was done anonymously.
Huge amounts. In the order of hundreds of thousands guldens.
[Alexandr Kolpakidi. Historian, writer]
In 1991, the Ukrainian Ministry of Education officially issued an order that
Grushevskij’s concept is the metric for the Ukrainian history.
In Ukraine it is forbidden by law to challenge Grushevskij’s concepts. No other country has this.
The basic ideas of the Ukrainian nationalism were created by two Russian men,
both born in Malorossia – Nikolaj Mihnovskij and Dmitrij Dontsov.
[Rostislav Ishchenko. Ukrainian politologist, President of the Centre for System Analysis and Prognosis]
While being ethnic Russians, they were the founders of the fascist
part of the ideology of the Ukrainian nationalism.
The lawyer from Kharkov, Mihnivskij, became the author of the slogan “Ukraine for Ukrainians”.
He also formulated the 10 commandments of the Ukrainian People’s Party, which he himself founded:
“Don’t take a wife from among foreigners because your children will then become your enemies.
Don’t be friends with enemies of our people because you then give them power and courage.
Don’t make alliances with our oppressors, as you’ll become a traitor of Ukraine.
All people are your brothers. But Moskals (Russians), Ljahs (Poles), Hungerians, Romanians and Jews
are the enemies of our people.”
Dmitrij Dontsov was doing politics in the Russian Empire.
In 1908, after two arrests, he moved to Galicia.
Using the money from the Austrian Interior Ministry, he founded and headed “The Union for Liberation of Ukraine”,
which had a goal of uniting the Ukrainian nationalists of Malorossia to create an independent Ukraine under the Austrian protectorate.
Dontsov was paid his salary in the Austrian Interior Ministry.
The son of the Miletopol landlord remained an fierce Russophobe until the end of his life.
[Michał Siekierka. Polish historian. Wroclaw University]
Dontsov’s very ideology was… para-fascist.
For a people to be mighty, it must be racially pure.
For a people to be eternal, it must have a support at a specific territory.
From Dmitrij Dontsov’s book “Nationalism”, published in Lvov in 1926:
“Until we start carrying within us a passionate desire to create for ourselves a world from the outward chaos,
until the theorems become axioms and dogmas,
until shamefacedness turns into rudeness,
and the spineless love of peoples into an aggressive nationalism,
until that time will Ukraine not turn into a nation.”
[Bogdan Bezpalko. Member of the Council on International Relations under the President of the Russian Federation]
Ukrainian nationalists, who now strive to create that nation, which was founded in Dontsov’s works,
they by and large strive to conduct an ethnic cleansing.
For them, the people of Donbass are sub-humans, sub-Ukrainians. So they have no use for them.
This ideology is very simple for most people – they have everything, including “nation” in their heads.
[Pavel Kuzenkov. PhD, Associate Professor of Department of Church History of the Faculty of History of Lomonosov Moscow State University]
Ukrainism found an exceptionally warm response in the face of the Russian intelligentsia.
And it felt along the way some interest in supporting everything that went against the Empire, including these seeds of Ukainaism.
[Andrei Marchukov. Head Researcher at the Institute of Russian History, Russian Academy of Science]
Who supported them? Cadets, other liberal parties, Left parties.
Everything connected to being Russian was beginning to get associated with something that is monarchistic, something oppressingly-tyrannic.
Ukraine started to be viewed as a focal point of freedom.
From the middle of the 19th century and until today, the very idea of Ukrainaism has remained virtually unchanged:
“Ukraine is not Russia.” “Malorossians are not Russians.” “Moscow is Asia.” “Ukraine is Europe.” “We’ll never be brothers.”
The authorities of the Russian Empire looked upon the nationalism in Malorossia benignly.
Thinking, no problem, they’ll get over it.
And the government was not frightened by the support from the intelligentsia.
[Bogdan Bezpalko. Member of the Council on International Relations under the President of the Russian Federation]
The main fault of the officials of the Russian Empire lies in them not paying any attention to this phenomenon.
Mihail Sergeevich Grushevskij printed his “History of Ukrainorus” not just anywhere, but in St. Petersburg.
There was a mistaken belief that the economic might of Russia is able to solve absolutely all problems,
including cultural and political.
[Andrei Marchukov. Head Researcher at the Institute of Russian History, Russian Academy of Science]
Benignly and through the bushy whiskers they were booming,
that Russia is mighty, look, we have regiments stationed at Hindu Kush and on the Pacific shore.
Those intelligentsia with running noses are nothing to worry about.
We all know what it led to.
The situation of Russians in Galicia was becoming worse and worse by the year.
Russian activists got arrested. Court cases were constructed against them,
at which the Russians were accused of spying for the Russian Empire and of separatism.
Quite often the activists of the Ukrainian political parties acted as witnesses for the prosecution during these courts.
However, the absurdity of the situation was in the fact that by that time, those parties were at the same time Russian.
For example, in 1890 the “Russian-Ukrainian Radical Party” was founded in Galicia,
and it remained like that – Russian-Ukrainian – up until 1926.
Starting already from the end of the 19th century, the Austrian authorities started actively financing Ukrainian organisations.
Loans were given only to those peasants and businessmen, who called themselves for Ukrainians.
The association “Prosvit” – “Education” – covered the whole of Galicia with a network of libraries, reading rooms,
courses for the illiterate, theatrical clubs, in which the educational activities were conducted strictly on the Ukrainian language.
In 1912, the president of the Russian Club in the Galician parliament,
Kost Levitskij – basically a Russian man, who called himself a Ukrainian –
proclaimed the following to the Austrian Minister of War:
“Is it known to your highness that in Galicia that are a lot of Russophilic societies
of the young students, the participants of which get the right for a 1-year conscription service and get the Officer rank?
What are the prospects of a war, if there are so many enemies-Russophiles in the Army?”
[Bogdan Bezpalko. Member of the Council on International Relations under the President of the Russian Federation]
Racial theories were easily injected into various geo-political projects,
into different ideologies, and neither the Ukrainian nationalism could avoid this influence.
From the memoirs of the Russian activist if the Trans-Carpathia, Osip Monchalovskij:
“During one gathering in Lvov, some Ivan Rudnitskij, a notarial assistant, publicly stated:
‘From now on there will be no need for Secret Policemen, as we ourselves will be tracking them and exterminating them.
This role was put into practice by some volunteers so thoroughly,
that denouncements were written on even single and childless people, accusing them of bringing up their children in Moskalphilic spirit’.”
In 1908, the member of the State Duma, Vladinir Bobrinskij
returned from a Slavic symposium in Prague, where there also were delegates from Galicia.
Later, speaking before the State Duma, Bobrinskij said:
“I didn’t know that abroad there exists an authentic Rus,
which lives under an indescribable oppression, right here, near its sister – the Greater Russia.
We all must learn from the Galicians how to love Rus and how to fight for her.”
Count Vladimir Bobrinskij founded at his own initiative a Galicina-Russian charity.
At his own expense he financed the publication of Russian newspapers in Galicia, for example “Russian Pravda”,
financed the work of Russian political organisations and schools.
The Russian state continued to not notice the Galician Russians, refusing them both in financing and in political support.
[Igor Barinov. Candidate of Science (History) at Moscow State University]
Russian diplomats pointed out that financing of the Russophilic parties in Galicia
would lead to very serious international complications.
From the report of the the Russian Interior Minister Petr Durnovo:
“It is obviously not in our interest to add to our Fatherland a region, which lost with it any live connection.
After all, for a small handful of Galicians, who are Russian in spirit, how many Poles, Jews and Ukrainised Uniats would we get?”
From an article in the German newspaper Die Welt from February 2014:
“Europeans followed with admiration the unfolding of the Ukrainian drama,
and they are flattered to know that there are people, who for a dream about Europe
are prepared to sacrifice their health and even to risk their lives.
The European idea has not shone so brightly, as it did in the eyes of the demonstrators in Kiev and other places.
However, now is Europe is presented with the bill.
And a question arises: is it really worth to pay so much money for it?
Does Europe need yet another problematic country?
If €25 billion is the the price for spoiling a new imperial project of Russia, then paying such price is justifiable.”
What for does Europe and the West need Ukraine at all?
At the very peak of WWI, one of the founders of the German geopolitics, Paul Rohrbach, wrote about it.
In his work “Our military goal in the East and the Russian Revolution”,
the chief expert on the Russian question from the German Foreign Ministry reported:
“Only while having Ukraine, Russia attained the might, which allows it to strive for taking control
over the straits of the Black Sea and over the Balcans,
and if Ukraine remains a part of Russia, then the strategic goals of Germany will never be reached.”
Germany had the following goals in WWI:
to split off from Russia its eastern and southern lands;
to push it away from the Black Sea; entice wars with Caucasus;
to create a buffer Russophobic state West for Dnepr.
[Pavel Kuzenkov. PhD, Associate Professor of Department of Church History of the Faculty of History of Lomonosov Moscow State University]
This is, in fact, “Divide et Impera” – the policy of divide and conquer.
Let’s say the Austro-Hungarian part of project Ukraine was an internal product,
and when WWI started, its geopolitical potential was set into motion.
From the call from the “Union for Liberation of Ukraine”, created by Dmitri Dontsov:
“Ukraine has always been an open enemy of Russia, and in its aspirations for liberation, it always sought help from the West.
Europe will never have peace, it will never be free of the threat of the invasion of tsarism,
it will never have security for its culture,
until on the vast territories of Ukraine there is created a solid foundation against Russia.”
[Rostislav Ishchenko. Ukrainian politologist, President of the Centre for System Analysis and Prognosis]
Whole divisions fought as part of the Austro-Hungarian army and were angled as Ukrainian.
One of the Austro-Hungarian princes was even staking a claim on the future Ukrainian throne.
From the memoirs of the priest Iosif Egorskij:
“The army got its instructions and maps, where certain villages were underlined with red pencil.
And the red line on those maps left blooded victims in those villages.”
[Bogdan Bezpalko. Member of the Council on International Relations under the President of the Russian Federation]
“How is the slogan of th Ukrainian nationalists worded? “Glory to the nation, death to the enemies”.
Now those people got a chance to turn that slogan into reality.
They think that they are glorifying the nation by killing their own fellow citizens.
When in September 1914 the Russian army entered Lvov, it was met by communal prayers, cross processions, flowers and tears as a liberating army.
Even the Galician diaspora in USA –
which, seeking refuge from the prosecution in their homeland, ended up on the other continent – was exulted.
From “Svit” (“Light”) the newspaper of the American Galicians:
“Our Lvov is Russian, our Galicia is Russian! God be praised!
Our common prayer is sent to you from the millions of the Russian hearts.
Great God, the Almighty Savior, unite us as You are united in trinity.
So will our fragmented Rus will be as one forever.”
But the genocide of the Galician Russians of 1914 had forever changed the ethnic picture of Trans-Carpathia,
and those who thought of themselves as Ukrainians became more numerous than Russians.
[Anna Raźny. Polish historian, Professor of the Department for Russian and East-European studies at Jagiellonian University in Krakow]
There is no single Ukrainian people. There is not single Ukraine.
And there is no single Ukrainian ethnic national identity.
On the territory of Ukraine there live various ethnic minorities,
and the largest one is the Russian minority.
During the whole of WWI, Austrian and German concentration camps conducted an active propaganda work
with the imprisoned Russian soldiers from Malorossia.
It was attempted to convince them that they are Ukrainians, and that they have nothing in common with Russians.
From the book of Paul Miljukov – the Foreign Minister of the Temporary Government – “The History of the Russian Revolution” (Note: the February colour revolution), 1917:
“When it comes to the propaganda among the Ukrainian prisoners of war, it started already in the spring of 1915,
when all imprisoned Malorossians, who agreed to recognise themselves as Ukrainians, were concentrated in the camp Rastatt.
Systematic lectures were conducted in this camp.
One of the lecturers was the Austrian professor Bezpalko,
(Note: Cossacks were in reality the trusted backbone of Russian land).
who painted before the prisoners a picture of free Cossack movement, and calling to overturn the hated yoke of Moskovia.”
Hoverer, despite the colossal effort and money, which the authorities invested into the propaganda among the imprisoned Malorossians,
even in the camps they were in no hurry to recognise themselves as some new separate people.
On the 30th of January 1917 Vladimir Lenin, in his letter to a party friend Alicia Armant,
was telling a story of one such captive soldier, whom it was attempted to convince, that he is not a Maloross, but a Ukrainian:
“He spent a year in German captivity, in a camp with 27000 imprisoned Ukrainians.
Germans create camps, based on national affinity, and chip them off from Russia by all means possible.
Crafty lecturers from Galicia were sent to the Ukrainians.
The result: only 2000 agreed to “independence”.
The rest became enraged at the very thought of being separated from Russia and switching sides to the Germans or the Austrians.
It’s a remarkable fact. We can’t not believe it. 27000 is a large number.
A year is a long timespan. The conditions for the Galician propaganda were exceptionally favourable.
Yet still, closeness to the Velikorossia (Greater Russia) overruled everything.”
(Note: This quote must be read in the context that Lenin was a Russophobe and conteptious of all that is Russian.)
[Bogdan Bezpalko. Member of the Council on International Relations under the President of the Russian Federation]
Ukrainian nationalism got a certain push into the history only due to two historic events:
WWI and the October Revolution, as well as the preceding February Revolution.
[Rostislav Ishchenko. Ukrainian politologist, President of the Centre for System Analysis and Prognosis]
The main idea of the political class of Ukraine was to simply separate themselves
by a border from the Bolsheviks, who won in Moscow and St. Petersburg.
There appeared a national excuse: “We live in Ukraine, we have a Ukrainian nation. You had a revolution, while everything is fine here.”
Those processes were nurtured from outside, as Germany and Austro-Hungary were interested
in creating a buffer between themselves and the Bolsheviks.
And it was precisely the Revolution, which gave Austria and Germany such an opportunity.
Moreover, the warring empires needed the sizeable resources of Malorossia.
In an interview to the British “Daily Mail” of 1918, the German Chief of Staff of the Eastern Front, General Hoffmann stated:
“Ukraine is, in reality, my handiwork.
I created Ukraine so as to have an opportunity to sign a peace treaty with at least a part of Russia.”
[Rostislav Ishchenko. Ukrainian politologist, President of the Centre for System Analysis and Prognosis]
If we take a look at the maps that were drawn at that time,
Ukraine occupied the lands of Malorossia proper and part if the Galician lands.
While for the future they already drew maps, which covered Cuban, Northern Caucasus, Crimea, the whole of Donetsk oblast (region) –
in other words a much bigger span than the Ukraine of today.
Brjansk oblast, Orlovsk oblast, and even Southern Belorussia.
In February 1917 Mihail Grushevskij returned to Kiev from his exile. That very same “professor”.
In 1914 he came from Galicia to the Russian Empire,
and in the beginning of WWI he was arrested on suspicion of his connection with the Austrian intelligence services, and was sent into exile.
Right after the February revolution of 1917 in Petrograd, the Ukrainian separatists in Kiev gathered central Rada,
and declared about the creation of the creation of the Ukrainian state.
Grushevskij became the first Speaker of the Rada – the Austrian agent and the one who invented the story of “Ukraine is not Russia”.
Austrian and German troops supported the Central Rada, but Malorossians could not understand why they had to fight for some Ukraine
against the same Russian people, even though Grushevskij tried with all of his might to explain what Ukraine is.
[Andrei Marchukov. Head Researcher at the Institute of Russian History, Russian Academy of Science]
In the spring he writes one such little brochure: “Who are Ukrainians and what do they want”.
The name actually strikes the matter at its core.
By November 1918 both the German and the Austrian empires fell apart, while the Ukrainian statehood went on.
[Rostislav Ishchenko. Ukrainian politologist, President of the Centre for System Analysis and Prognosis]
Because when in Moscow Bolsheviks run things and declare that everything will become nationalised and will belong to the people,
it’s clear that if I have here property and assets, then I’m definitely staying in a different state.
The local elite supported the pseudo-statehood, while little by little warring among themselves and plundering Malorossia.
(Note: Like Poroshenko and the other oligarchs in today’s Ukraine!)
The Ukrainian state finally dissolved in 1920, when
from one side the victorious Red Army moved over the territory of Ukraine,
and from the other side Petljura signed a treaty in Warsaw,
which ultimately transferred the Western Ukraine under the Polish rule.
Western Rus, Malorossia, was again divided.
Poland got Volyn and Galicia, and Bolsheviks got the rest.
[Pavel Kuzenkov. PhD, Associate Professor of Department of Church History of the Faculty of History of Lomonosov Moscow State University]
Bolsheviks were the first to create a Ukrainian State,
with such attributes as Ukrainian language, with Ukrainian science, with Ukrainian economy.
That was an ingenious move. By doing that, they disarmed everyone.
Only the genius of Lenin could think of it.
In 1921, while speaking at the 10th summit of the Party in Moscow, Iosif Stalin – the People’s Commisar on the Affairs of Nationalities, proclaimed:
“Even if in some cities of Ukraine Russian elements are still dominating,
with the course of time those cities will inevitably become Ukrainised.”
[Victor Shchedrin. Historian at the Faculty of History of Lomonosov Moscow State University]
It was Lenin’s thesis: self-determination of nations up to and including separation.
And if Ukrainian people decided to become a part of the Soviet Union, then the Ukrainian nation has a right to exist.
[Alois Woldan. Professor of Slavic Literature at the Wien University, Austria]
Initially the strengthening of Ukrainian identity started not in Galicia, but in Kharkov, in the Soviet Ukraine.
The policy of indigenisation and suchlike.
Assistance in light of Lenin’s national policy. Support of the Ukrainian language.
In April 1923, during the 7th Conference of the Ukrainian Communist Party,
it was announced about the start of the Ukrainisation policy.
Everything got Ukrainised: state offices, legal procesures, schools, higher education, newspapers, theatres.
[Pavel Kuzenkov. PhD, Associate Professor of Department of Church History of the Faculty of History of Lomonosov Moscow State University]
The Ukrainian language was studied in schools.
Ukrainisation was conducted even somewhat cockily, also including on the Russian territories, which were added to Ukraine by Lenin.
By the way, why did he do it? Precisely so as to close the subject of Ukrainian separatism once and for all.
If the Ukrainian nationalists of today studied history,
they would have gathered not under the portraits of Stepan Bandera, but ubder that of the Stalin’s People’s Commisar – Lasar Moiseevich Kaganovich.
It was he, who with an iron fist mercilessly formed the Ukrainian nation from the Malorossian peasants.
Beat a Ukrainian identity into the youth.
It was thanks to Lasar Moiseevich, that by 1929 over 80% of schools,
55% of factory-professional schools, and 30% of universities conducted their education in Ukrainian language.
While by 1931, 90% of newspapers and 85% of journals of the Ukrainian SSR were published in Ukrainian language.
And that on the lands, where just 15 years before, most didn’t even understand what is this “Ukraine” and who are these “Ukrainians”.
From the book of the second President of Ukraine Leonid Kuchma “Ukraine is not Russia”:
“Regardless of the attitude one has to what was happening in 1920s,
one must admit that if not for the the Ukrainisation of school conducted at that time,
our today’s independence would probably not exist.
As time shows, the mass Ukrainian school, that graduated tens of millions of people,
turned out to be the most important and the most indestructible element of the Ukrainian foundation in Ukraine.”
[Pavel Kuzenkov. PhD, Associate Professor of Department of Church History of the Faculty of History of Lomonosov Moscow State University]
Those Ukrainians, who remained in Poland, looked at the Soviet Ukraine with envy.
Many moved over. Many openly expressed their sympaties.
Mikhail Grushevskij, who returned to Soviet Ukraine from his emigration, excitedly wrote to one of his comrades:
“Despite all the limitations, I feel myself here as in the Ukrainian Republic, that we began building in 1917.”
The former activists of the nationalistic movements also start returning from the emigration.
Galician Ukrainians are coming.
The forced Ukrainisation caused open hostility among the Malorossians.
Vladimir Zatonskij, the People’s Commisar for education of UkSSR wrote:
“The broad Ukrainian masses treated Ukraine with derision.
Not just workers, but also the peasants.
Back then, Ukrainian peasants hated Ukrainians.
In Kiev we received protocols of the peasants’ meetings.
In those protocols the peasants wrote to us:
‘We all feel ourselves Russian and hate Germans and Ukrainians,
and ask RSFSR (Note: Soviet abbreviation for Russia) to take us in.'”
In the beginning of 1930s the authorities of USSR stopped Ukainisation, fearing the possible growth of the Ukrainian nationalism.
The events in the Western Ukraine, which ended up in Poland, played a certain role in the decision.
In 1918, in Lvov the local Ukrainians attempted to create their own state – The People’s Republic of Ukraine.
However, Poland – which became independent earlier, after the dissolvement of the Russian Empire –
pretty quickly took Galicia under its control, after a short and brutal war.
While the Polish authorities started to suppress the Ukrainian national movement.
That’s is quite ironic. Poles, who played a special role in the forming of Ukrainian identity,
started to actively prohibit Ukrainian language and close down Ukrainian schools.
As the result of this, in 1929, the first summit of OUN – Organisation of the Ukrainian Nationalists – took place.
OUN set the goal of building a state, based on the principal of “one party and one nation” – Ukrainian.
OUN started an outright terror campaign against the Polish authorities –
murders of Polish colonists, Polish officials, arsens and bombings.
From the brochure of an OUN activist, Mikhail Kolodzinskij, “Ukrainian Military Doctrine”, 1938:
“Not only do we want to posses the Ukrainian cities, but also to trample over the enemy lands,
conquer the capitals of the enemies, and on their ruins salute to the Ukrainian Empire.
We want to win a war. A great, cruel war, which will turn us into the master of the Eastern Europe.”
From the end of 1930s the Ukrainian nationalists started to actively cooperate with Abwehr – the German secret service.
They were given training in the spy schools, studying diversion tactics.
These contacts especially intensified after the Soviet Army entered Western Ukraine in 1939.
The members if OUN viewed Germany as a temporary ally, which would help building an independent Ukraine.
The Germans, however, had no such plans.
For them the Ukrainian nationalists were a tool of their foreign policy, and nothing else.
[Bogdan Bezpalko. Member of the Council on International Relations under the President of the Russian Federation]
The creation of the Council of Ukraine as part of Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich was quite logical.
Yes, he quite openly wrote that he will have colonies in the East.
[Igor Barinov. Candidate of Science (History) at Moscow State University]
The Ukrainian nationalists were seriously expecting that after the occupation of Ukraine, once it’s over,
the Germans would give them the possibility to create their own independent state.
From the first days of the War, OUN started to openly collaborate with the German occupational administration.
Nationalists organised in Lvov terrible Jewish massacres, murders of Poles, Russians, Armenians.
OUN members participated in the polizei punisher battalions, into the Ukrainian division of SS.
From the speech of Stepan Bandera at OUN summit:
“During the time of chaos and trouble, one can allow oneself to eliminate the unwanted Polish, Moscovian and Jewish activists,
especially the supporters of the Bolshevik-Moskovian Imperialism.”
[Michał Siekierka. Polish historian. Wroclaw University]
It is very difficult to say what motives had those people, who enrolled into the ranks of SS as volunteers.
However, a part of those people undoubtedly enrolled on ideological grounds.
[Bogdan Bezpalko. Member of the Council on International Relations under the President of the Russian Federation]
The Ukrainian nationalism in itself is a pseudo-religion, which by and large pushes out Christianity from the minds and consciousness of the people.
And a good example to this are the brutalities, that the Ukrainian nationalists did back then and are doing now,
because a Christian simply can’t do something like this.
(Note: Not really. Remember the brutality of the Witch hunts and the Crusades of the Western Christianity?)
[Pavel Kuzenkov. PhD, Associate Professor of Department of Church History of the Faculty of History of Lomonosov Moscow State University]
Here we must also understand that there happened a degradation of the traditional religious structures.
Christianity started losing its ground.
Andrei Sheptitskij, the head of the Greek-Uniat Church, which at one time headed all those movements for creation of Ukraine,
he later in horror tried to stop this terrible process.
When “Glory to Jesus Christ. Glory for all time.” got turned into “Glory to Ukraine. Glory to the heroes.”
[Bogdan Bezpalko. Member of the Council on International Relations under the President of the Russian Federation]
What is happening now in Donbass and in Ukraine – abductions, tortures, murders,
outright nazism, appeal to the Nazi aesthetics and symbolism.
For example the symbol of the Azov battalion is simply the symbol the SS division “Das Reich”.
[Rostislav Ishchenko. Ukrainian politologist, President of the Centre for System Analysis and Prognosis]
Ukrainian democrats marched down Kreschatik with the portrait of Hitler,
but nobody really wants to accentuate that at the core of the Ukrainian nationalism is the Nazi ideology.
In the Soviet Union it was customary not to speak about the crimes committed by the Ukrainian nationalists during WWII.
For example, about the fact that the Belorussian village Hatyn was destroyed specifically by the Ukrainian polizeis.
Or about the Volyn massacre – a punisher operation during which the OUN members murdered 70000 Poles in Volyn,
including infants and old people.
Speaking about it did not go hand in hand with the Soviet concept of “friendship of the peoples”.
And besides, hundreds of thousands of Soviet Ukrainians honestly fought against Hitler, dying and becoming heroes.
And they fought also because it was the Soviet rule, which fully acknowledged the Ukrainian identity.
[Bogdan Bezpalko. Member of the Council on International Relations under the President of the Russian Federation]
We are all Russians – both those born Ukraine, and those born in Belorussia, and those born in Velikorossia.
The achievements that we had in science, in culture, in politics, in military art, they were always a common property.
For example the Ostankino TV Tower was engineered by Kondratjuk.
Basically a lot of figures, who are the classics of our culture, of our literature, hail from Ukraine: N.V. Gogol, Bulgakov, Korolenko.
[Rostislav Ishchenko. Ukrainian politologist, President of the Centre for System Analysis and Prognosis]
The most modern industries of the time were concentrated in Ukraine.
And in fact Ukraine possessed about 60% of the most efficient and high-tech industrial potential of the USSR.
[Pavel Kuzenkov. PhD, Associate Professor of Department of Church History of the Faculty of History of Lomonosov Moscow State University]
USSR was governed by Ukrainians for quite a lengthy period of time: Brezhnev, Chernenko, our various ministers.
Can one imagine the Russian Army without Ukrainians? What about Soviet Militia (police)? It’s totally impossible.
[Rostislav Ishchenko. Ukrainian politologist, President of the Centre for System Analysis and Prognosis]
There was definitely no restriction of the rights of the Ukrainians,
because if the language didn’t get the artificial support, if the books were not published in million copies in Ukrainian language,
if the Ukrainian writers and poets were not translated into Jakutian, or Uzbeck languages, or into the the languages of the world,
then, first of all, no one would have known about them, and without the support of the USSR Ukrainian culture would simply not have existed.
[Anna Raźny. Polish historian, Professor of the Department for Russian and East-European studies at Jagiellonian University in Krakow]
Why was everything different at the times of USSR?
The ideology of Communism was that power that was giving calmness to Ukraine. Stability.
The period of stability ended, Soviet Union fell apart, and from the 1991, an uncharted for Ukraine future begins.
In 1991, shortly after the so-called August Putch (coup d’etat), a referendum on independence was conducted in Ukraine.
Poland and USA immediately recognised its results. (Note: but not 2014 Crimean referendum!)
[Bogdan Bezpalko. Member of the Council on International Relations under the President of the Russian Federation]
A really independent Ukraine appeared only in 1991 and precisely within those borders, presented to it by the Soviet leaders.
[Anna Raźny. Polish historian, Professor of the Department for Russian and East-European studies at Jagiellonian University in Krakow]
The appearance of Ukraine, a huge Ukraine, after the dissolvement of USSR is, in my opinion, a mistake.
It is a political experiment, founded on the Western globalisation.
Here USA and EU play the most important role.
Leonid Daniilovich Kuchma, when he decided to define what is this state, the only thing that he could invent was that “Ukraine is not Russia”.
And this logical basis of the Ukrainian national policy is well-understood in the Western capitals.
The only ideology that was formulated over all these years, is the ideology of the Ukrainian nationalism.
Over all the years of the Cold War, the West was cultivating the Ukrainian nationalism,
financed the nationalistic organisations in Europe, USA and Canada.
From the televised address of the American President Obama to the people, September 2014
Full text at http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/barackobama/barackobamaunitednations69.htm
America heads the efforts to unite the whole world against the Russia’s aggression against Ukraine.
America and our allies will support the people of Ukraine as they develop their democracy and economy.
Already in 1979, Zbigniew Brzeziński – the (Polish-born) advisor to the American President Jimmy Carter on the issues of national security –
devised the Constitution of Ukraine, independent of USSR. Zbigniew Brzeziński wrote:
“Ukraine. The new important territory on the Euroasian chessboard
is a geopolotical centre because its very existence as an independent state helps to transform Russia.
Without Ukraine, Russia stops being a Euroasian empire.”
[Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzeziński. (Polish-born) National Security Advisor for US President (1977–81)]
The West is open for Ukraine. And what is equally imortant, Ukraine became tighter connected to the West.
The majority of Ukrainians are not the opponents of the Russians.
On the other hand the majority of Ukrainians like independence more and more. They prefer independence.
According to my personal observations, it is important that their independence is more justified for them and brings them closer to the West.
(Note the 25th frame effect in his use of the word “independence”!)
[Pavel Kuzenkov. PhD, Associate Professor of Department of Church History of the Faculty of History of Lomonosov Moscow State University]
Ukraine is still needed as a potential part of Rzecz Pospolita. After all, the Rzecz Pospolita project hasn’t been abandoned,
and it has great potential in the framework of the contemporary Europe.
In principal, USA is ready to hand over to the Poles the influence on these territories.
The Poles therefore don’t yet pull this ace out.
[Anna Raźny. Polish historian, Professor of the Department for Russian and East-European studies at Jagiellonian University in Krakow]
A Ukrainian has no influence over these processes, which are of a geopolitical kind.
It’s not just a domestic history of the contemporary Ukraine, it’s the Western intervention.
And that’s what EuroMaidan showed.
We all know how it was organised, who participated.
Regrettably, Poland took part in this EuroMaidan.
And the consequences of this EuroMaidan intervention unfold tragically before our eyes.
[Pavel Kuzenkov. PhD, Associate Professor of Department of Church History of the Faculty of History of Lomonosov Moscow State University]
Ukrainian separatism has grown into a civil war, which is currently ablaze.
Ukrainian identity is often based on a so-called resentment complex.
Someone is constantly guilty before this people. Someone stagnated their development.
First it was the Poles, then it was the Russians.
Everyone does wrong by Ukraine. This is a complex without a future.
[Anna Raźny. Polish historian, Professor of the Department for Russian and East-European studies at Jagiellonian University in Krakow]
There is only one way out for Ukraine: to return to the roots,
to the high values, on which both a Ukrainian, Polish-Ukrainian and Russian-Ukrainian future can be built.
[Pavel Kuzenkov. PhD, Associate Professor of Department of Church History of the Faculty of History of Lomonosov Moscow State University]
Meanwhile a fratricidal war is going on, and we also carry our share of guilt.
We are at fault, and this is primarily an ideological fault.
We completely ignored this question. We let everything drift.
We that that we could control the whole situation with just a pipeline. This was a grievous mistake.
[Krzysztof Zanussi. Polish film and theatre director]
Russia seldom speaks of its faults, I almost never hear that.
However if we want development, we must acknowledge our mistakes of the past so as not to repeat them.
In reality, despite all of these 150-year long spites, despite a consistent implementation of the Project “Ukraine” by the West,
we – Russians and Ukrainians – remain in fact one people.
And none, but Russia will understand Ukraine the best.
And no one, but a Russian will understand a Ukrainian the best.
Our friendship, our relationship is founded on the principals of cultural, religious, bloodline kinship.
We have a common civilisational foundation. We have common values, common victories and defeats.
A common history.
And one wants to believe that our future is also common.

Rostislav Ishchenko: ”Next to Last Victim of the International Tribunal”

Rostislav Ishchenko is an astute Ukrainian political analyst, who had to go into exile after the Nazi coup d’etat in 2014 Ukraine. Below, I present hist article on a topic, which I intend to expand upon in the future, and which I touched in the past: the destruction of Yugoslavia bay US/NATO.

Other publications in my blog, related to Yugoslavia, are:

1Nemo1KPB8UjQjrURqn6V7Mscungx44XS2Please note that translating a documentary film or an article takes a lot of time and emotional effort. I am doing it on a voluntary basis, but if someone feels like supporting my work, a Bitcoin donation to the following address is appreciated: 1Nemo1KPB8UjQjrURqn6V7Mscungx44XS2

Kosovo is Serbia!

Yes, Kosovo is Serbia in the same way as Provence is France, Schleswig-Holstein is Germany, Malorossia is Russia and Oxfordshire is England.
And before I go on with the translation, let us remember hundreds of thousands of Serbs, who were killed or driven away from their heartland of Kosovo, and are now condemned to witness their beloved land being desecrated and turned into a hub of cocaine dealing, human organ trafficking and Islamic terrorism by the US/NATO.

Rostislav Ishchenko’s original article in Russian is published on the 24th of March 2016 at Cont.WS.


Lack of autonomy and prejudice of the ICTY, which on Thursday sentenced Radovan Karadzic, buried the idea of ​​international justice over war criminals.

On Thursday, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), located in The Hague, has sentenced Radovan Karadzic – the former leader of the Bosnian Serbs, the most high-ranking accused the ICTY after the death of former Yugoslav President, Slobodan Milosevic. The court found him guilty and sentenced him to 40 years in prison.

The verdict is obvious

However, the chances that Karadzic would get an indictment were close to absolute.

And not only because without sentencing Karadzic, the validity of the previous convictions of the military leaders of the Bosnian Serbs would be cast under serious doubt. After all, Karadzic was their immediate supervisor, the mastermind and ideologue.

In the end, no one believes the impartiality of the ICTY for quite a long time, and Serbs (not only Bosnian, but also Croatian and Serbian citizens) and Montenegrins are openly called “victims of the tribunal”.

The “guilty” verdict for Karadzic was first and foremost inevitable for the following reason: When he was first arrested and brought to the Hague, he published the details of a secret deal that a UN negotiator for the Bosnian settlement, Richard Holbrooke, concluded on behalf of the USA.

Disclosure of the details of the deal, which the United States failed to comply with, has caused Washington a dual damage.

All potential victims of the American aggression learned that reaching agreements with the United States is meaningless – they will still cheat. This seriously weakened the USA’s ability to solve their problems with the help of secret diplomacy.

No one can say exactly how much Karadzic’s exposure influenced the decision of Gaddafi and Assad to resist until the end, but is definitely contributed to the awareness of the international community of the fact that Washington understands only the language of weapons.

In addition, the Karadzic’s exposure showed that the US diplomats at the UN office use their international status to promote US government interests. And that reduced the possibility for the Department of State to promote its own staff to the posts of United Nations representatives in the important for the US crisis regions.

Of course, the United States continues to work actively at such places, advancing for key positions the diplomats of the friendly countries. But any puppet is not controlled 100%. A puppet has their own government, their own state, and even personal interests. A puppet maybe not be against the Pax Americana, but wishes to take within it a higher position. In general, there are difficulties, which could be avoided in case of direct appointment of the American diplomats to such positions.

Given the not so young age of Karadzic, as well as the fact that some prisoners of ICTY prison (especially those who had the temerity to upset the United States) tend to suddenly leave this world, the 40-year sentence that he received, becomes in fact a sentence for life.

So once this episode’s informational potential connected to the sentencing is used, it is unlikely the MSM will ever again pay attention to this extraordinary politician, whose ups and downs are, however, in the past, in the turbulent 90s of the twentieth century.

The Court Withdraws

But not only Radovan Karadzic leaves the stage of the world political theatre. ICTY also concludes its activities. Karadzic was one of the last four of the accused whose cases remain unfinished.

In 2017, General Ratislav (Ratko) Mladic, who commanded Bosnian Serb army, expects the verdict. Former Deputy Prime Minister of Serbia, Vojislav Seselj and the former President of the Republic of Serbian Krajina (destroyed by the Croatian army in August 1995), Goran Hadzic were conditionally released on health grounds: both diagnosed with cancer (translator note: because of the extensive depleted Uranium use by the US in their bombing of Yugoslavia?).

Once all the cases are completed and the review of the appeals is finished, ICTY should cease to exist. However, the Tribunal is already too long with us. Originally it was planned that it would complete the work in 2010.

Summing up the ICTY activity, one cannot ignore its obvious bias.

More than half of the accused are Serbs and Montenegrins (92 cases). Meanwhile the tribunal considered a total of 60 cases against Croats, Bosnian Muslims, Macedonians and Kosovo Albanians together.

ICTY acquitted almost all of the Croatian generals accused of war crimes against Serbs and Muslims. It did not give an answer to the question of whose fault it is that in the Serbian Krajina hundreds of Serbs where killed, and hundreds of thousands of Serbs were exiled.

The tribunal is also not interested in the testimony of its own prosecutor, Carla del Ponte, who, in retirement, has released a book in which she argues that the ICTY had information Kosovo Albanians repeatedly extracted and sold organs from live Serbian prisoners. No one was charged on these accounts by the prosecution. ICTY ignored this information.

Today this terminating its activities tribunal has little respect, and people sentenced by them (especially the Serbs) are treated more as victims rather than as criminals.

World public opinion is inclined to regard the ICTY as nothing more, but a US mechanism for reprisal of the politicians, who prevent the advancement of the American interests in the Balkans.

Bad example is contagious

One could simply ignore the fate of the ICTY. Its work is almost over, there are no new accused, while the sentences have been passed on almost all of the old cases. But the fact is: the lack of independence, the injustice, the prejudice of ICTY practically buried the idea of ​​international justice, which, based on a UN mandate, would pursue people who have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity outside of the national jurisdictions.

The jurisdiction of the ICTY extended to the entire territory of the former Yugoslavia, except for Slovenia. However, the Rome Statute was adopted already in 1998, while the International Criminal Court in The Hague began its work in 2002.

The international community made an attempt to move from the practice of establishing tribunals ad hoc, whose work is limited in space and time, to a permanent international court, which does not work under any territorial or time limitations.

By the time of the adoption of the Rome Statute in May 1993, the ICTY had operated for five years. By the time the work of the International Criminal Court started – for nine. Taking ICTY as an example, the international community could just about imagine how and in whose interests would work the International Criminal Court, which was created precisely for the investigation of cases, similar to those considered the ICTY.

The enthusiasm faded pretty quickly. Especially after the United States, which signed the Rome Statute in 2000, not only didn’t ratify it, but withdrew their signature in 2002: President George W. Bush decided that there is no other way for Washington to protect their soldiers from prosecution.

After that, it became clear that the US is ready to use the International Criminal Court, in the same way as they used the ICTY – as a bludgeon against unwanted regimes and politicians. The only difference was that the ICTY could only consider cases involving crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia and only in times of war, caused by the collapse of a single state.

The jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court should, on the other hand, have extended to the whole world and to all the crimes committed after the Rome Statute of the approval. Meanwhile the United States themselves wished to remain outside of the international jurisdiction.

Naturally, after that the process of ratification of the Rome Statute was also stopped in Russia. Our country is still involved in the work of the International Criminal Court, but only as an observer. Its jurisdiction does not extend to the territory of Russia. China, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan and other countries did not even sign the Rome Statute.

As a result, today the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court extends to the EU, Canada, Latin America, Australia, Japan and half of Africa. The world’s leading countries (USA, Russia, China, India), and with them half of the humanity, are not included in this system. It is clear that in such circumstances the activities of the International Criminal Court (even if it was a model of honesty and impartiality) would have been far from perfect – after all, half of the world is unreachable to its jurisdiction.

In fact, the mechanism of a permanent international prosecution throughout the whole territory of the planet of the persons responsible for crimes against humanity and war crimes, which do not have a statute of time limitation, has not been enacted.

Much of the blame for this lies with the judges and prosecutors of the ICTY, which turned international judicial body in the mechanism of political and legal violence in the interest of the US.

It is clear that in such circumstances, normal countries are extremely wary of international justice, which is able to find a crime where there is none, and do not notice it where it is to be found. Mankind is not yet mature enough for a permanent international court. This means that, as at Nuremberg, war criminals will be judged by the winners of a war.

In other words, as sad as it is, the war becomes a necessary element, preceding creation of any tribunal leading to the triumph of justice. And as before, the winners are not judged.


As an afterword, I want to present translations of some of the reader comments, which fully reflect the general view of the Russian people on this matter:

Nikolai Kireev:
It’s sad about the Serbs. Sad, that we couldn’t help them in their hour of need, as we ourselves were weakened by treachery and desolation. Bu we retain our memory, and that’s important. Our time will come.

Vladimir Maximenko in reply to Nikolai Kireev:
The Serbs, who following Clinton’s and Albright’s initiative were declared by the West as “genociding people”, will yet raise their heads. Karadzic and General Mladic, convicted by the Western pseudo-justice, are honoured by the Serbs. This people are always looking to the support of the Russians, and Russians do not give up.

What Nikolai is referring to in his comment is the fact that Russia was de-facto under foreign – American – rule from the coup d-etat of 1993 and until 2000. For more, read the second part of my post The ”Wild 90s” in Russia, as reflected in people’s memory.

Vladimir Leonov:
What is sad, is that practically all international organisations are drowning in the political machinations, playing only one side of the field. This lead to the increase of chaos in the worlds and further destabilisation.

Mikhai. V.:
Interesting, are there Russian judges in this tribunal?

Andrei Karataev:
Russia is only an observer.

Mikhai. V.:
Then who the hell called it for an “international”?

Vladimir Maximenko:
The whole of the so-called international justice, starting with the ICTY, is nothing more than a system of unjust courts, set to crack down on political opponents of the West. And this machine is running very smoothly.

And a very good conclusion:

Vladimir Maximenko:
Before he headed the resistance of the Serbian people and became the President of Republika Srpska, Radovan Karadzic was renowned as a poet. The patriotic Serbs know well his poem “Inferno”:

Have you understood already?
Hell broke through
To our side.
Cerberus roam the streets,
Intercepting our delicate glances.
And there is little point
To be afraid of death
And the eternal darkness:
All that awaits us there,
Has already happened to us here.
Hell broke free,
It is visible to anyone who wants to see.
Cerberus growl at our thoughts.
Do not be afraid, my dear, of the old age,
Nor of the death.
The tomb will become a safe haven for us:
There the saving light will be born.
And our souls will break out of there,
To tame a raging inferno,
That broke through
To our side


And as a post scriptum, since one of the real war criminals – Hillary Clinton – was mentioned in the comments. Her role in enticing the discord leading to the destruction of Yugoslavia and the genocide of Serbs is comparable to that of Victoria Nudelman (aka Nuland) and her hallucinogenic-laced cookies in enticing discord in 2014 Kiev, leading to the destruction of Ukraine and the genocide of Russians in Novorossia and Malorossia. Here is Hillary Clinton, in her element – lying about “dodging sniper fire”:

”Donbass Seasons” – an Italian documentary with English subtitles

About a month ago a French documentary, “The Masks of Revolution” was aired in France, detailing the bloody consequences of the February 2014 coup d’etat in Ukraine. A little before that the Italian journalists published the film “Donbass Seasons”, presented here. And now the word is out that the Hungarian journalists are done filming their own documentary as well.

What we see is as the Russian saying goes: “All that is hidden, becomes apparent”, or an English saying of “Truth will out.”


Published on Jan 12, 2016
“Donbass-Seasons” is a documentary that traces the history of the war in Donbass, from the coup in Kiev to the Odessa massacre through to the start of the conflict.
The documentary contains interviews with Nicolai Lilin, Eliseo Bertolasi and Vauro Senesi, the narrating voices of the videos filmed by Eliseo Bertolasi and Sergeij Rulev.
Directed by Sara Reginella, “Donbass Seasons” shows the changing of seasons and the flow of life in a land in which life goes on, despite the suffering.

I have saved the film, and if YouTube censors it, like they did with the French film, let me know in the comments, and I will upload it to RuTube.

Crimea Celebrates the 2nd Anniversary of Reunification

On the 18th of March 2016 Crimea and Sevastopol celebrated the second anniversary of the joyous event of their reunification with Russia, after a 60-year long separation.

Lada Ray published a very much needed recap of the events that lead to the reunification in:

#Sevastopol #Krim #Rossia: 2nd Anniversary of Crimea’s Reunification with Russia

Following the February Ukraine coup, on March 16th, 2014, Crimeans voted overwhelmingly to secede from Ukraine and reunite with Russia. 95% to 97% voted for reunification, depending on the area. Simultaneously, a referendum whether to accept Crimea and Sevastopol as two new subjects of the Russian Federation took place in Russia. 95% of Russians said ‘yes.’

On March 18-19, Crimea and Sevastopol joined the Russian Federation as two newest subjects. The transition went smoothly and peacefully, not a single shot was fired and only two casualties were registered on both sides, shot by a provocateur Ukrainian sniper sent there to attempt inciting violence (by the old CIA playbook).

At the time, 16,000 Russian troops were stationed in Crimea, based on the Black Sea Fleet Sevastopol base lease agreement with Ukraine. Simultaneously, 20,000 Ukrainian troops were stationed on the peninsula as well. Out of these 20,000, about 18,000 Ukraine troops pledged allegiance to Russia, while only 2,000 chose to leave back to Ukraine. They were allowed to leave peacefully and with dignity.

The article also contains video from the celebrations in Crimea and from the Beautiful (Red) Square. Here I want to present one very significant song, the anthem of Sevastopol.

The Legendary Sevastopol

Music: Vano Muradeli
Text: Petr Gragov
Written: 1954
Ratified as the official anthem of Sevastopol on 29.07.1994

Russian text of the song and some history can be read in this Wikipedia article.

Fly winged wind.
Over seas, over land,
Tell the whole world,
About my beloved city.

Tell to the whole world,
How on the Crimean shores,
Our grandfathers fought,
And glorified in battle.

[Chorus:]
Legendary Sevastopol,
Impregnable to enemies.
Sevastopol, Sevastopol –
The pride of Russian sailors!

Here we went to the rightful and holy battles,
For our Motherland,
And your previous glory,
Have we multiplied.

Having shrugged of black sailor overcoats,
The Black Sea sailors, during the days of War,
Went against tanks with only handgrenades,
Your sons went to their deaths,

[Chorus]

If across the sea
enemies should come to us with swords,
We’ll meet the unwelcome guests
with annihilating fire

The whole of our dear country knows,
That the battleships do not sleep
And are guarding surely
The shores of the homeland

[Chorus]

Some trivia: During the most vicious period of Ukranisation of Crimea in 2006, Ukrainians tried to re-write the text, replacing “Russian sailors” with “Ukrainian sailors”, “Sevastopol” with “white-stone fortress”, and “Cossacks” were added. The reaction of the citizens was strongly negative, to say the least.

You can hear a rendition of it, where a girl spontaneously performed it at an election locale on the 16th of March 2014:

Galician Intellectuals Wishing to Deprive Ukrainian of the Cyrillic Alphabet

The essay below was published by a Ukrainian journalist and blogger Miroslava Berdnik in LiveJournal on the 7th of November 2014. It covers the history of attempts to replace the Cyrillic alphabet both in the lands, presently known as Ukraine, and also – after the revolution of 1917 – in Russia.

1Nemo1KPB8UjQjrURqn6V7Mscungx44XS2Please note that translating a documentary film or an article takes a lot of time and emotional effort. I am doing it on a voluntary basis, but if someone feels like supporting my work, a Bitcoin donation to the following address is appreciated: 1Nemo1KPB8UjQjrURqn6V7Mscungx44XS2

Before going on to the translation, I want to highlight a few points that the reader should keep in mind (some coming from the comments after the article).

Throughout centuries, the main argument for replacement of the Cyrillic alphabet in the Slavic lands was that it would bring those lands closer to the Western European culture. How? Will writing Russian using Latin alphabet make an Englishman understand Russian or vice versa? No. Will it make easier for the Russians to learn English? Partially, but not significantly. Will it tear away the new generation of Russians from their historic roots by not allowing them to read their own literature. Yes. Here you have it.

For an example, look at Croatian and Serbian. These are one and the same language. Croatian is written in Latin, Serbian in Cyrillic. What did it achieve? A split of the one people into two and easier implementation of divide and conquer strategy.

Secondly, Cyrillic alphabet maps exactly the soundscape of the Slavic languages – one letter, one sound. Slavic languages, which got Latinised at various points in time – like Polish, Czech or Slovak – had to resort to dual, triple, and quadruple letters to depict a single sound. Example: letters “Ш” can be Latinised, transliterated, in various ways: “SH” or, as in Polish “SZ”. In some cases, additional “latin-like” letters need to be introduced. See for example Polish “ś”, “ł”, “ę”, “ą”; or the Czech “Ú”, “Ů”, “Č”. So Polish, with its essentially close-to-Russian pronunciation, ended up having more letters, than Cyrillic Russian. Interestingly, the same sound comprising the word “Czech”, would have been written in Cyrillic using only 3 letters: “Чех”.

Read also Lada Ray’s extended commentary to the article here: How to Reformat People’s Consciousness and Keep them as Obedient Slaves.

There will be a few more comments after the translation, but now, the historical article itself. Enjoy.


The idea of ​​replacing the Cyrillic alphabet in the Ukrainian language with the Latin one for the sake of “Eurointegration” is very close to heart of the Galician thinkers. Round table on the topic will be held on November the 9th (2014) in Lvov.

On the 9th of November, in the famous cult cafe “Dziga” in Lvov, there will be a discussion on whether it is possible to transfer the Ukrainian language from the Cyrillic to the Latin alphabet. News program “Facts” of the Ukrainian TV channel ICTV reports about it.

The main argument coming from local intellectuals in favour of switching to the Latin alphabet is a question of civilizations. Ukrainian people, or, more precisely, the western Ukrainians – are from “time immemorial the people of Europe. In this they differ from the Russians and the Malorossians (Trans-dnepr Ukrainians – Ed.), who in essence are the Russian people“. And Latin alphabet will be best suited to emphasize the affiliation of Western Ukrainians to the family of Central European nations.

Sooner or later, such a transition from the Cyrillic to the Latin alphabet will happen, postulates Lvov intelligentsia. The idea of ​​”Latinization of Ukrainian language” appeared already in the 90s among the Galician intellectuals who actively advocated the independence of Galicia. By 2000, the norms for Latin spelling of the Ukrainian language had already been developed. Among the developers was the most famous artist and publicist Vlodko (Vladimir – Ed.) Kostirko. In the early 2000s, he was already publishing his articles on the Ukrainian language, written in Latin, in the editions of the Lvov cultural almanac “Ї”.

Kostirko have long switched to the Latin alphabet in his Ukrainian-language texts. In this way he hopes to emphasize the intransigence and even hostility between the two cultures – the “European” Western Ukrainian and “Russian” Central Ukrainian.

He even once created a painting “Uniate killing a Cossack”. In this painting a Polish “bewinged” hussar is spearing the head of a Zaporozhje Cossack (Translator note: names “Cossack”, “Khazar” and “Hussar” are of the same origin. See Lada Ray’s ESR6: NEW KHAZARIAN KHAGANATE? for more info). This is a reminder that there was a war in the 17th century between the Greek Catholic Galicians and the Orthodox Trans-Dneprians, the descendants of the Cossacks.

Greek Catholics, recalls the artist, fought on the side of Catholic Poles. Ukrainisation of the Galicians was started over time, and especially after the 19th century, but it became somewhat forgotten now. Today Vlodko Kostirko openly pits against each other the residents of the East and the West of Ukraine, arguing that cultural and civilizational reconciliation between them cannot happen.

Let me remind that in March, a temporary special commission for preparation of a draft law “On the development and use of languages ​​in Ukraine” considered a gradual phasing out of the use of the Cyrillic alphabet on the territory of Ukraine.

Already in 2007 I wrote about the attempts during President Yushchenko’s rule to push through the replacement of the Cyrillic alphabet with “abetsadlo” (translator note: From the Polish word for “alphabet”). Back then those attempts were doomed.

Issues pertaining to the functioning of the language already had the political and civilizational colouring in the XX and XXI centuries. And recently, in various Internet resources, there appeared some sensational information – that the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs ,for many months already, had a functioning commission on transfer of the Ukrainian language from the Cyrillic to the Latin alphabet, and that it’s headed by the retired Supreme Rada Foreign Minister Boris Tarasyuk.

According to the Internet publications, the commission includes officials from the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry, the Ministry of Education and Science, Ministry of Culture and Tourism. In addition to the state of philologists and linguists, in the development of the project are also involved some of the deputies of the Supreme Rada from the faction “Our Ukraine”, in particular, Vyacheslav Koval and Nikolai (Mykola) Onischuk.

The idea of ​​creation of the commission allegedly occurred in early 2005 and was supported by President Yushchenko. But then it leaked to the media on the level of rumours, and after a series of critical articles in the press, the project became “forgotten”. However, scientists continued to work on the project. The idea of ​​a commission emerged anew after the parliamentary elections, which “Our Ukraine” failed. And in August 2006 the commission was created after all. The Moldavian nationalistic site Moldovatoday.net reported that the commission from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs conducts regular consultations with the Moldavian colleagues, who were engaged in the transition of the Moldavian language to the Latin alphabet. It is also reported that the issue of transfer of the Ukrainian language to the Latin alphabet was discussed in backstage conversations of the Ukrainian and Moldavian delegation at the third meeting of the GUAM Parliamentary Assembly in October 2006.

I think that the constant experimentations with the Ukrainian language are conducted not only from a desire of som individual “свідомих” (translator note: Ukrainian for “conscious elements”, a term used by the nationalistically inclined Ukrainians) officials to grovel and earn the favours of the Western patrons. This is done in order to collapse the common cultural and civilizational space of the two peoples, who are close to each other. Slavic peoples adapted script, depending on the rite of Christianity, which they adopted – the Byzantine or Latin (Catholic). If it was the Latin, it determined the choice of writing – Latins used for their services the liturgical Vulgate – a version of the Bible, which was almost never translated into national languages, because that was the policy of the Western Church. Hence there was no need to adapt the script of the Cathilicised Slavs to the needs of their languages.

A different approach was taken by the Byzantium, so the missionaries Constantine Philosopher (Cyril) and his brother Methodius, who translated the Gospel to the Slavic (more precisely, its Old Bulgarian dialect), created a special script. This Slavic translation was accepted by all those Slavs who professed Orthodoxy. So our current writing system is determined by a choice we once made.

However, attacks on the Cyrillic alphabet were made repeatedly – in the XIX century in the Austro-Hungarian Galicia and in the XX century, this time by… the Bolsheviks.

Alphabet and abetsadlo

Already in 1823, the Viennese palace librarian and philologist, Bartholomew Kopitar – a Slovenian by nationality, wrote in a letter to the Czech linguist Josef Dobrovský: “My ideal for all Slavs – Latin letters, and a few letters of the Slavic Cyrillic as a supplement”. He proposed to introduce phonetic transcription in language practice, which would have lead to the individual writing system for almost every village in Galicia. In addition, he was going to replace the Cyrillic alphabet with Latin.

A compendium by the ethnographer and writer Vaclav Zaleski “Piesni polskie i ruskie ludu galicyjskiego” (“Polish and Russian Songs of the Galician People”) was published in Lemberg in 1833. For the alphabet he used not Russian, but Polish, a choice which he explained by the following reason: “I put before me a goal to, as far as possible, write as people speak, even if this would lead to any grammatical errors. As for the fact that to achieve this I used Polish letters, and not Cyrillic or Glagolic – well, everyone is obviously going to praise me for this later. I’m sure the time will come when all the Slavic people will leave behind those old letters that are the most hindering introduction of the Slavic literature to the collection of the European literature.”

He was supported by a colleague August Belevsky – historian, publisher and translator of “The Tale Igor’s Campaign”. In a review of the compendium, he wrote: “One of the most important moments, touched by the publisher of the book, is using which letters and how to spell the songs of the Russian folk, who yet have no grammar nor vocabulary for their language…” (translator note: What?!)

However, neither Zaleski nor Belevsky (translator note: see a note on Latinisation of names after the article) had any political goals in their attempts to introduce the Latin alphabet for the Galician Ruthenian (Rusins). They just wanted to “bestow” the common people. Somewhat later started events, which subsequently were dubbed as the “alphabetic war”.

The Latinisation idea was picked up by a young Galician priest Joseph Lozinsky, who in a Lvov newspaper “Rozmaitosci” (1834, №29) published an article “O wprowadzeniu abecadla polskiego do pismiennictwa ruskiego” («On the introduction of the Polish alphabet in Russian writing”), and the following year published his ethnographic work “Russian wedding” using Latin alphabet.

A process of national revival has just taken place in Galicia of the 1830s. The heart of it were the “Galician adherents” – the youth of the Lvov University, headed by Markiyan Shashkevich, Ivan Vahylevich and Yakov Golovatsky, nicknamed at the University as “Ruska trinity”. It was they who gave the most harsh rebuke to attempt of the introduction of the Polish “abetsadlo”, considering it an attempt to tear off Galicia from the ancient historical and cultural roots. “That is an existential question: to be or not to be for the Rusins (Ruthenians) in Galicia” – Golovatsky wrote much later, – “If the Galicians were to accept the the Polish abetsadlo in the 1830s, the Russian nationalal individuality would have vanished, the Russian spirit would have been gone, and Galician Rus would turned into a second Kholmshchyna.” (Golovatsky Yakov, Notes and additions to the articles of Mr. Pypin, printed in the “Journal of Europe” during 1885 and 1886., Vilna, 1888). As a response, Markiyan Shashkevych published a pamphlet “Azbuka and abetsadlo” in 1836. (translator note: see a comment on Azbuka after the translation.) In it, he clearly and reasonably demonstrated that Lozinski’s offer was unfounded, unacceptable and directly harmful. He also argued that the departure from the Cyrillic alphabet would not have brought Galicians closer to the European culture, but only alienated them from the other Slavs. For some time the idea of ​​introducing the Latin alphabet was abandoned.

Next attempt by the Viennese authorities to transfer the Galician-Rusin language to Latin was made in 1859. In Vienna, an Austrian politician and senior official of the Ministry of Education Joseph Irechek published a brochure “Ueber den Vorschlag, das Ruthenische mit lateinischen Schriftzeishen zu schreiben” (“On the Proposal for Rusins to write in Latin letters”). The author very clearly outlined the purpose of spelling reform: “The healthy development of Ukrainian literature will find a very strong support in use of the Latin letters. While Rusins write and print in Cyrillic, they will demonstrate a tendency to lean to the Church-Slavinism and thus to Russianism, and thus the very existence of the Ukrainian literature would be called into question. Church Slavic and Russian influence is so great that it threatens to completely displace the local language and local literature.” And further: “Apart from the rejection of the Russianism, the transition to the Latin alphabet would help Galician Ukrainians later on in their study of the Polish and German languages, without which they will not be able to survive.”

Such influential in the Galician-Russian community people, like Bishop Litvinovich and philologist Joseph Lozinski – who by then switched over to a Russophile position – voted against this reform in the Seim. They argued that this reform “is detrimental to the Rus nation, because with the Latin alphabet, the spirit and faith of the Ukrainian people will vanish.”

Already in the summer, Irechek was going to come to Lemberg and lead the Alphabetical Commission, while from October 1859 all the children in Galicia were to begin studying by the new ABC books. But the scale of popular demonstrations against the reform frightened the central powers. The population of Galicia conducted spontaneous meetings, there were articles in the press, they were writing petitions and sending delegations. And the Austrian authorities, well remembering the Hungarian revolution of 1848, retreated.

“…books written in the Russian alphabet, will be the subject of history”

In 1919, in a March publication of “Izvestia” there was published an article “On the Latin alphabet” signed with frivolous pseudonym “old schoolboy”. It was a letter to the editor, playful in its form, but with a serious question in its essence. It claimed: “Our alphabet is too complicated and is so different from that in Western Europe, that foreigners become horrified by it. We should switch to the Latin script, simple and elegant, just as we have moved from the Russian calendar to the pan-European (translator note: see comments after the article for the calendar discussion), and to the metric system from the ‘pounds’ and ‘arshin'”. And it explains how one can transfer specific Russian sounds to the Latin alphabet. There were also references to Slavic peoples, for example the Poles, who have long used the Latin alphabet.

Who hid behind that pseudonym – contemporaries deducted that easily. It was either Lunacharsky, or Bukharin – the main Red intellectuals, who later became active promoters of the “new alphabet”. But what kind of a whim it is – to transfer Russian to Latin?

Everything is, however, very simple: the ardent revolutionaries considered a common alphabet as one of the tools to create a new trans-ethnic community. Why Latin? Firstly, the new leaders were, of course, the people of Western civilization in their spirit. And secondly, because the world revolution was to follow the Russian one! We renounce the old world and start everything with a clean slate.

And in 1922 they started with such clean slate in Azerbaijan. Azerbaijani CEC chairman Samad Agamali-oglu, having previously spoken with Lenin, created in Baku “the Committee of NTA (New Turkic Alphabet).” Lenin, according to Lunacharsky, strongly approved the idea of Latinasation, though he thought that it was necessary to do this “later, once we become stronger”. Soon the Latin alphabet became the state alphabet of Azerbaijan. The previous script was declared as “feudal-reactionary”. Especially since Kemal Ataturk, who was then regarded as a strategic ally, was in full swing Latinising Turkey.

It was conceived to gradually turn the Latin alphabet into the basis for all non-Slavic peoples of USSR. VTsKNA (ВЦКНА) – The All-Union Central Committee of the New Alphabet – was created under the jurisdiction of the Presidium of the Central Executive Committee of the Council of Nationalities in 1927. By the beginning of the 30s the languages of ​​17 Muslim peoples were transferred to Latin, and by 1936 – of already 68 different nationalities. All this occurred against the backdrop of indigenization (in our country, Ukrainisation was carried out under the supervision of Kaganovich).

In 1930, on Lunacharsky’s initiative, the question of latinasation of the Russian alphabet (as well as Ukraine and Russia) was put forth. In the article “Latinisation of the Russian Writing”, published in the journal “Culture and literature of the East”, he wrote: “From now on our Russian alphabet has alienated us not only from the West, but also from the East which to a large extent was awakened by our own efforts… Gradually the books, written in the Russian alphabet, will be the subject of history. Of course it will always be useful to study Russian letters in order to have access to them. It will be a perceptible benefit for those, who deal with the history of literature, but in any case, it will be less and less necessary for a new generation… The benefits, presented by the introduction of the Latin alphabet, are enormous. It gives us the most of internationalisation, thus linking us not only with the West, but also with the renewed East.” (translator note: What a beautiful example of circular logic. First Latinise the East, then use it as an argument that Russia also needs to be Latinised. Also note the accent on the “new generation”, which is to be torn away from its roots.)

Established then in Glavnauka Narcompros (Head Department of Science in the jurisdiction of the People’s Committee of Education) a subcommittee on the Latinisation of Russian writing, announced that the Russian alphabet is “a form of graphics, ideologically alien to the socialist construct”, “a relic of class graphic of the Russian feudal landowners and the bourgeoisie of the XVIII – XIX centuries”, “graphics of the autocratic oppression, missionary propaganda, Greater-Russian nationalistic chauvinism and forced Russification”. (Translator note: In other words: let’s kill all that is Russian or somehow connected to Russia. It goes well with the obfuscation of Russia itself in the USSR, where it always went by an acronym RSFSR, and never by its full name. In USSR it was frowned upon mention anything to do with “Russian”.)

In the mid-1930s, the more ardent Latinisers were starting to get reined in. Stalin was able to defeat his Trotskyist opponents, so the idea of ​​the world revolution lost its relevance. A big war was looming over the the country, and it was necessary that the peoples felt themselves in a common cultural space.

In 1936, a top-secret report N ОБ-322 was submitted to the Secretariat of the Central Committee of the CPSU(b), in which, among other things, it was stated: “The enemies of the Soviet government and the CPSU(b) tried to use Latinisation for the purpose of segregation of the working people of those republics and regions from the total family of the peoples of the Soviet Union. While using the talk of an “international character” of the Latin base as a cover, they defended the course on bourgeois culture of the Western Europe, in contrast to the developing culture, national in form and socialist in content… As a result of the active elimination of the Russian alphabet, VTsKNA and local committees created 10 Latinised alphabets for the people with Russian script… The situation with the terminological construction of the languages ​​of many peoples of the USSR is unfortunate. Especially unfortunate it is in this regard among the border peoples and nations, where the “Latinisation” is simply an instrument of the large and small imperialists. For example, Romanisation of the terminology has been openly carried out over a number of years in Soviet Moldavia, while in the Soviet Karelia (under the old leadership) – was the case of the most active Finnisation. And all this is happening in spite of the resistance of the broad masses of the population.”

Today, only a phrase from the book “The Golden Calf” reminds of those times: “‘Herculeans’, in response to someone’s intrigues, promised to answer with a mass Latinisation of the official documents.” The meaning of the joke becomes clear only if we remember about that unfinished Latinisation campaign. But the case of the enthusiasts for “coming closer to the West” was not lost…

Why mobile operators need transliteration?

When you read the program article for Latinisation of the Ukrainian language “Ukrolatinitsa: simple and tasteful” in the “Mirror of the week” (№28 (453), 26.07-1.08 ’03), you get the impression that you ended up in the distant 30s. The same argument – “coming closer the civilized West.” The same enemy – the “Greater-Russian chauvinism” and Orthodox Christianity. As well as the main target group – the younger generation: “…not in this generation, but in the coming ones. Because already from the cradle, not yet realizing what these squiggles mean, the baby will get used to the Latin alphabet. It will pay off when the time comes to learn a foreign language: the little Ukrainians will not be breaking over the font.” (translator note: see a comment after the translation)

As we know, children’s mouth speaketh oft the truth. My daughter recently asked me a surprising question: “Мамо, чому оператори мобільного зв’язку надсилають SMS-повідомлення не українською мовою, але латинськими літерами?” (“Mom, why mobile operators send SMS-messages not in Ukrainian, but in Latin?”) Why indeed? After all, every keyboard has not only Latin, but also Cyrillic script. But, as is known, the majority of the mobile operators’ customers are young people. And they gradually get used to the Latin alphabet.

As mentioned above, on-line editions reported about the consultations of our developers with the Moldavian colleagues, who in the early 90’s Latinised Moldavian language, using the work of Lunacharsky’s commission as a foundation.

I got in touch with the first secretary of the press service of Foreign Ministry of Ukraine, Natalia Zhitaryuk. She “in the working order” refuted this information, adding that “якщо газета «2000» претендує на те, щоб бути серйозною газетою, то вона не буде дезінформувати читачів і писати про те, що не відповідає дійсності” (“If newspaper “2000” pretends to be a serious newspaper, it will not be misleading its readers and writing something that is not true”).

Although the foreign ministry’s press service denies the existence of the Commission for Latin transliteration of the Ukrainian language, one is greatly worried by the fact that over the last few years, the on-line editions as well as reputable newspapers constantly “inject” this topic into the information space. On the “orange” youth forums this topic is discussed quite aggressively. Here one just ought to remember, that the prelude to the war, which split the former Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic into two irreconcilable parts, was precisely the Latinisation of the language.


This concludes the translation.

Several comments, that were too long to be included as the in-line translator notes.

  • Last thing first, the Moldavian language Latinisation. A comment left by a Moldavian in the original article, points to two other side-effects of the Latinisation of the Moldavian language, in addition to pushing away Pridnestrovie and Gagauzija. One is the fact that many young people, unable to get a good education in Russian in Moldavia, leave for Russia to study there, and never return. The other side-effect is Latinisation of the personal names. The commentor wrote, that in his family of 4, 3 people ended up having different spellings of their surname in the passports! See also the next comment.
  • The way surnames Zaleski and Belevsky are Latinised is an excellent example against Latinisation: both end with the same 4 letters, best represented by the phonetic transcription “-skij”: Залеский, Белевский.

    Remember the Boston Marathon Bombing? Russian services informed the American authorities about the possible perpetrator, but the Americans Latinised his name differently, so it didn’t light up in the database.

  • About the transition to the European – Christian-based – calendar. With that Calendar reform of Peter I in 1700 [7208 by the Slavic Calendar], a large chunk of the Russian history was erased and re-written. Just think – year 2016 is 7524 by the Slavic Calendar, which starts its counting from the “peace treaty with the Dragon [presumably, China]”. Read more here at Lada Ray’s site on the roots of Russian calendar.
  • About the quote “little Ukrainians will not be breaking over the font”. I have studied several foreign languages, and helped some people study Russian, and can say that the learning process of an alphabet is less than 1% of the total language learning experience, insignificant, compared to learning of the grammar, vocabulary and culture.
  • A special note on the name of the Russian alphabet – Azbuka – which, like its Latin counterpart, is formed from the name of the first 2 letters. Unlike Latin, the Russian letter names encoded a coherent message, which was carried through the millennia, from before the Cyrillic writing was introduced, from the time of Glagolitsa and Bukvitsa.

    Let me touch upon the first 6 letters. Latinised for the sake of transcription, they are read like this: “Az Buki Vedi Glagol’ Dobro Est'” – “Аз Буки Веди Глаголь Добро Есть”.

    “Az” is “I” or “The First”. In Scandinavian it remains as the name of Asgard, the dwelling of the gods. In English in the word “Ace”. In modern Russian, it’s in “Azy” – “the basics”.

    “Buki” is “writing”. En English it lives on as the word “book”, and “bok” in Scandinavian. In modern Russian it’s in “Bukva” – “letter, litera”. The meaning is also connected to the “future” – “budujushee” and “gods” – “bogi”. So this letter is very multi-faceted.

    “Vedi” is “to know”. In Scandinavian it survived as “Viten” – “Knowledge”. In English, somewhat transformed into “vision”, and in modern Russian it’s to be found in the root of the word “vedat'” – “to know”.

    “Glagol'” (soft ‘l’) is “to speak”. In modern Russian it’s in the “glas” or “golos” – “voice”, and “glagol” – “the verb”. In Spanish in “habla” – “to speak”, absent in English and Scandinavian, except in the derogative form of “bla, bla…”. EDIT: Reader JK left a comment, saying that this word lives on in the Swedish “glosa” – “word”, which also points to the English “glossary”.

    “Dobro” is “goodness, kindness”. Still has the same meaning in modern Russian as well as all Slavic languages. Absent from the Latin languages. However, both Norway and England have geographic names of special cultural significance: “The white hills of Dover” in England and “Dovre mountain” in Norway. As we know, all geographic names initially have a specific meaning, even if with time this meaning is lost…

    “Est'” (soft ‘t’) – verb “is, to be”. Retained this meaning in the modern Russian. In English may have transformed into the affirmative “yes”. (In Russian “Est'” is also used in the meaning of “yes” by the military.) The English verb “is” is also coming from “est'”, through German “ist”.

    So these first 6 letters already give us: “I writing know speak good is…”, or rewriting: “I know how to write and it is good to speak…”

    Latinising the Russian language would cut the whole nation from its root, like this one. And this is the true reason for such efforts.

Ukraine: Les masques de la révolution – Ukraine: Masks of the Revolution.

Without them, there would have been no Ukrainian revolution.

In February 2014, paramilitary groups fought against the police in the streets of Kiev and ousted President Yanukovych. They settled a new government.

According to western media, they were the revolution heroes. They fought on the right side.

But they are actually extreme-right militias. And they are now heavily armed.

The Right Sector, Azov or Svoboda created parallel irregular forces that easily go out of control. In Odessa, in May 2014, they were responsible for a mass killing without facing any charges. 45 people burnt to death. A massacre that didn’t get much attention.

How come western democracies haven’t raised their voice in protest?

Most likely because these Ukrainian nationalist militias actually played a significant role in a much larger scale war. The Ukrainian revolution was strongly supported by the US diplomacy.

In the new cold war that opposes Russia to the USA, Ukraine is a decisive pawn. A tactical pawn to contain Putin’s ambitions.

“Ukraine, masks of the revolution” by Paul Moreira sheds light on this blind corner.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_6zoNweKII

PS: Just like they did with the Russian-subtitled version earlier, YouTube also quickly killed this English-subtitled version.

This important documentary can, however, be watched on RuTube:

In French:
http://rutube.ru/video/11b2e424f8b8186d2168a66045ac49e4/

Full professional Russian translation (dub + subtitles):
http://rutube.ru/video/ebf657119ed2d3344366cff75c44b9a1/

How Malorossia Was Turned into the Patch-quilt of Discord that is “Ukraine”

Lands that are presently collectively known under the name of “Ukraine” had a turbulent history, especially in the last 300 or so years. In this post I want to take a look at a few maps, and present some short historical information, pertaining the term “Ukraine” and how it came to be. I will finish this post with some quite obvious genetic discoveries.

Let us first start with the following 4 maps, and explanation to them, coming strait out of Lada Ray’s excellent Earth Shift Report 2. Ukraine: Truth, Lies & Future Hope. It is a highly recommended, well-researched for-donation report of a size of a small book, for everyone who want to learn what is going on in Ukraine behind the scenes, its history and what lies ahead.

lresr2_map1

This map shows how the size of Ukraine changed through history. NOTE! What is shown here in yellow as ‘Ukraine in 1654’ was in fact the territory of the Zaporozhie Cossacks (Zaporozhskie Kazaki). There was no country or territory called Ukraine before Lenin and Bolsheviks created the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic as part of the USSR.

lresr_map2

This map shows one of the ideas of how the division of Ukraine should happen by oblast, if it was done in 2014, before civil war began. It shows one big DNR consisting of Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporozhie, Kherson and Kharkov. For some reason it omits Dnepropetrovsk, which should be within this affinity, but that probably didn’t happen since at the time Kolomoysky was at the helm in Dnepropetrovsk . The center, incl Kiev, remains under Ukraine flag, western Ukraine’s 5 oblasts are obviously under nazi flag. Zakarpatie (Transcarpathia) with Rusins (ruthenians) has its own republic with a flag resembling Russian. Red/white/gold Odessa flag with anchor on it unites Odessa and Nikolaev oblasts (I’d add Kherson and certainly Pridnestrovie, plus possibly Gagauzia – part of Moldova). This kind of voluntary peaceful divorce could have happened if we were dealing with mature people and if Ukraine was a sovereign state, not under foreign occupation.

ls_esr2_map3

This map shows a different version of Ukraine’s division. In gray is basically western Ukraine – on this map it’s entitled ‘Ukraine (Poland)’; Small Malorossia in the center in pink with Kiev as capital; large Novorossia in the south-east in blue, which here includes Denpropetrovsk and also Kirovograd, plus Odessa and Nikolaev. But Kharkov and Sumi are designated separately as Slobozhanshchina, which is historically correct. Kharkov, Sumi and Chernigov – Severshchina (on this map in light green in the north) were always Russian territories, Chernigov being one of the ancient Russian cities. These, together with Novorossia were given to Ukraine by Lenin in 1922 over their population’s objections.

lresr2_map5

This map is self explanatory – a version of the ‘Future Map of Ukraine,’ giving some territory to foreign states, such as Hungary, Romania and Slovakia. All of Novorossia is under Russian flag, extending to Pridnestrovie and, presently Moldova’s, Gagauzia.


Incidentally, almost two years ago, I published the article Two Ukraines – with a Statistical and Historical View at Novorossia, which blends well with the maps, shown above.

But what is “Ukraine”? Lada’s Earth Shift Report 2 delves into it, and so does a larger documentary, which I am currently translating.

Here I will present two fragments of the translated script, along with two still images, illustrating the points made there.

What is “Ukraine”, “Ukrainian”?

The revolt, headed by Bogdan Hmelnitsky started in 1648. After 6 years of war, in 1654, Periaslav Rada was signed. This is a document about reunification with the Moskovy State of a part of Western Rus, including Kiev and the territories of Zaporozhje county. It was signed by Czar Aleksei Mikhailovich Romanov.

My the way, the phrase “reunification of Ukraine with Russia” appeared first in the Soviet history texts in 1920s.
The historians knew perfectly well that in 1654 there was simply no such country as “Ukraine”. Those territories were called Malorossia. While the words “Ukraine” – Ukraina (slight difference in stress here, both words are the same) was used in Poland and Russia about borderlands. For Poles it is the lands of the middle Dnepr – the central regions of the modern Ukraine.

Anna Razhny:
In Polish it is called “pugraniche”. It’s the border in the cultural, national, political, even historical meaning. Ukraina meant for Rech Pospolitaja a far away border, a territory, where different ethnos could live. In this context Ukraina no longer exists in the present time.

For Moscow, on the other hand, at one time Ukraina meant Tula, Kashira, Serpuhov – that was the Oka-river Ukraina – the border with the territories, from where nomads came.

The word “Ukrainian” in the Russian language of that time, is a profession – a border guard (or someone, who lives on the border). While a resident of Kiev or Poltava was called a Malorossian.

ukr1

Still frame above is a fragment of a dictionary entry. Judging by the revision of the Russian alphabet used, specifically by the letter “Ѧ”, this is a text from before the 1710 language reform of Peter I. The example usages are from Ivan the Formidable’s texts of 1503. Here is a translation taking the pronunciation into account:

Ukrain’nik (Украиньникъ) – Noun, a resident of a border territory.
Ukrain’nyi (Украиньныи) – Adjective, as in “Ukain’nyi baron” – governor of a border territory.
Ukrainjanin (УкраинѦнинъ) – Noun, a resident of a border territory.


How and when did the term “Ukraine” as a national designation appear?

Ultimately Poland ceased to exist in 1795, when the large states performed the third division of the Polish lands.
Galicia, Zakarpatie (Transcarpathia) and Bukovina, populated by Russians, or as it was said then – Rusins (Ruthenians), came under Austrai-Hungary, while almost all of the Kievan Rus territories were taken by the Russian Empire.

That is how a large portion of the Polish population ended up in the Russian Empire.

The Poles are, of course, dreaming about resurrection of their beloved Poland – Rech Pospolitaja, and what is more, in the wider borders as they were before the partitioning.

All their ire and hatred is directed at Russia. The idea is like this: sow separatism on those lands, tear them away from Russia, announce that the people there are not Russian, but close to Poles.

In 1795 the Polish writer and historian Jan Potocki published historically-geographical fragments about Scythia, Sarmatia and Slavs. In that work, for the first time, Russians of Malorossia were called “Ukrainians”, a separate people, descendants of the Scythian tribe of Sarmatians.

Potocki’s idea was very simple in its design: If Malorossian “Ukrainians” have nothing in common with Russians; if Malorossian “Ukrainians” is a separate people with its separate culture and history, then it follows that also Russia has no historical rights on the lands West for Dnieper, including Kiev. Then it follows that there is not gathering of Russian lands. It follows then that Russia annexed and occupied Malorossia/Ukraine.

Potocki’s propaganda was first and foremost directed at the Western reader, who traditionally had a very vague idea what is Malorossia, Raussia, Kiev, and where all this is found.

Pavel Kuzenkov:
We see very clearly how neighbours were calling these “Ukrainians”. Up until 20th century they were called Rus. Poles, Czechs, Hungarians, Romanians, all who surrounded this territory, never were in doubt that what starts from Transcarpathia is “Rus”.

But it was the Polish publicists, who by the beginning of the 19th century turn a topographic term “Ukraina” into a name of a country. In 1801 the Polish bibliophile and publicist Tadeusz Czadzki published his work “About the name of Ukraine and the birth of Cossacks”. It was a new phase in forming of Ukranianism as an ideology. Tadeusz Czadzki further distinguished that Ukrainian Malorossians are not Russians, rather they are different people.
Czadzki started the history of Ukrainians from the horde of the “Ancient Ukros”, who according to him moved in the 7th century from somewhere in Urals, across Volga to the Drepr river. The fact that neither the Polish nor the Russian chronicles ever mentioned any “Ukros”, didn’t in the least bother Czadzki.

These theories may have remained as brain games of the intellectuals, if not for one “but”. Czar Alexander I, a liberal pro-Westerner, favoured the Polish nobility, considered it to be more educated and well-mannered, than Russian. During Alexander’s reign, Poles played an important role at the court, in the Academy. The Imperial Foreign Ministry was headed by an ardent russophobe Adam Czartoryski, and with his support the Poles got full control of the education system in Malorossia.

Czartoryski’s close ally was a priest and historian Valerian Kalinka, who wrote about Malorossia thusly: “This land is lost for Poland, but we must do it so, that it becomes lost for Russia too.”

ukr2

The still frame above is a definition of “Ukraina”. Judging by the alphabet, and specifically the usage of the Latin letter “i” this text comes after the 1738 language reform of Peter I, when usage of double-dotted “ї” before vocals was abolished (single-dotted and double-dotted “i” and “ї” is what distinguished present day “Ukrainian” from Russian). Mentioning of A. Jablonovskij’s name in the text points to the end of the 19th century.

The beginning of the text translates as follows:

“Ukraina – thus were called the South-Western Russian lands of Rech Pospolitaja. This name was never official, it was used only in private conversations and became common in folk poetry. It is difficult to define the boundaries of the lands, known as “ukrainnyi”, more so that this name was not permanent and at different times covered varying stretches of land…


Recently, some of the Western-bread ultra-nationalists took up Tadeusz Czadzki’s segregation banner to a new low and started saying that Ukrainians and Russians are different people genetically, stating that Russians are not even Slavs… This propaganda was shot down in 2014 by a respectable study. I first learnt about it from the editorial column of Argumenty i Fakty. Here is a translated text of that note:

It was initially clear for any reasonable person that Ukrainians and Russians are brothers.

The recent massive and authoritative scientifically research proved: Russians, Ukrainians and Belorussians do not differ from each other genetically.

Let’s say it at once: the scientists studied the DNA of the Ukrainians on the basis of the genetic material of the inhabitants of the western regions of the country, namely, the city of Lvov, with which we markedly differ in language and culture. But, as it turns out, not the origin. Thereby the allegations of the Ukrainian nationalists, who say that Russians, having moved from the territory of modern Ukraine, have so much mixed up with the Mongoloid race, and that they stopped being Slavs, is completely debunked.

However, as it was initially clear for any sensible person: Ukrainians and Russians are brothers. And let the borders, ideology, economic disputes divide us now – this is largely a consequence of the geopolitical game of Western politicians, who have managed to embroil us with each other. One just wants to exclaim along with the character of Kipling: “We are of the same blood!” But now, alas, we are unlikely to be heard hear – until someone (both inside Ukraine and abroad) harvest their own political dividends from our “brotherly spats”.

Digging further, I found the publication from 27.07.2014 in KM.ru, which presents the research by Anatoly Klyosov. My translation of that article below:

A leading scientist of the scientific direction of “DNA genealogy”, Doctor of Chemistry, professor of Moscow State University and Harvard University, Anatoly Klyosov in an exclusive interview KM.RU denied allegations of genetic differences between the Russians and Ukrainians.

Russians, Ukrainians and Belorussians represent a set of the same genera

Nationalist school of Western Ukraine promotes the idea that the Russian and Ukrainian peoples are not closely related. This point of view is “based” on the fact that although once upon a time, Russians moved from what is now Ukraine, later they allegedly severely mingled with representatives of the Mongoloid race and are no longer Slavs.

There is virtually no truth in this statement. Russians, Ukrainians and Beloarussians represent a set of the same genera, it is one and the same people from the genetic point of view. They have almost the same origin. Ethnic Russians have three main lines: R1a, I and N. 48% of Russians and 45% of Ukrainians are in haplogroup R1a. 22% of Russians and 24% of Ukrainians are in haplogroup I. Depending on sampling, these parameters may vary up to 4%.

A more noticeable difference between our peoples is observed in haplogroup N, which is common in Northern Europe. It includes, in particular, a portion of Latvians, Lithuanians and Estonians, part of the Russian population of the Baltic states and the Russian north-east. 14% of Russians, 10% of Belarusians, and 1% to 4% of Ukrainians are in haplogroup N. Such a significant difference is due to the fact that Ukraine is located more south of the Baltic states, than Russia and Belarus. If we take the Belarusians, 52% belong to R1a, 22-24% belong to I, and as I said, 10% belong to N.

I want to stress that when I say “Ukrainians”, I am referring to the inhabitants of the western regions. Furthermore, we specifically took the data from Lvov. Of course, we have somewhat different cultures, and different language, but not the origin.

Assertions about the differences of our people is a part of the information war

There is such a thing as a “haplotype tree”. It is formed by different means. The first option is for the population genetics specialists to go to the field, go to the cities and villages with a test tube. Researchers collect saliva or blood from the representatives of certain ethnic category and determine DNA by it. From the point of view of the academic science such data is considered to be more accurate. The second option is when people send their samples to commercial organizations. Science generally shuns such data, but in the end the results obtained by scientists and commercial companies, is approximately the same, and often times simply identical.

So, we modelled this haplotypes tree , including to data on Russians, Ukrainians and Belorussians. To do this, we did a DNA analysis based on 111 parameters (DNA Y-chromosome markers), whereas normal “academic” analysis only takes into account 17 parameters or less – often 7-8 parameters. We tracked such details, that the researchers do not usually go into. We superimposed the haplogroups of our peoples, and found that there is a match everywhere. Again, the difference is observed only in haplogroup N. It is connected solely with the geographical reasons.

Thus, the question of the common origin of the Russian, Belorussians and Ukrainians is closed, although I am familiar with the “works” that deny this fact. They caused in me a great scientific and social resentment. These “scientists” spew nonsense and distort objective data. I regard such activities as a part of the information war.

For details of the research by Anatoly Klyosov see in the material in KM.RU “Professor Anatoly Klyosov ‘In DNA of Russians and Ukrainians there is no difference!'” (in Russian).

Lean Peace. Why Ukraine is not fulfilling its obligations regarding Donbass?

The article translated below was published in Argumenty i Fakty on the 12th of February 2016.

The title of the article is reference to a Russian proverb: Lean peace is better than a good strife (or the English proverb Better a lean peace than a fat victory).

Headlines for related articles (in Russian) are also quite telling:


February the 12th marks one year of “Minsk-2” – Donbass agreements, concluded after a night of negotiations of leaders of Russia, Germany, France and Ukraine. Kiev is still not in a hurry to fulfilling its obligations.

Meanwhile, as “AiF” discovered, the residents of Donbass still have to go to work over the minefields.

They are still shooting

The main condition for the implementation of the Minsk agreements still remains a complete cease-fire, however not even a full “regime of silence” was ever established in the Donbass. The OCSE mission report clearly states: shooting goes on. Only on the 2nd of February there were recorded “514 explosions of uncertain origin”, “more than 100 firing bursts from heavy machine guns” and “more than 1,000 rounds of small arms at a distance of 3-5 km to the west of the observers’ position in a controlled by DPR (Donetsk People’s Republic) railway station in Donetsk”.

The shootings already gave Kiev a pretext to close 2 checkpoints over the line of contact. For residents of Lugansk and Donetsk People’s Republic it is worse than the shootings. First, it is becoming increasingly difficult to legally “cross the border”. Second, the economic blockade of Donbass, which according to “Minsk-2” should have been removed, is on the contrary only strengthened.

“The pensioners who can not receive a pension are affected the most. Vehicles carrying humanitarian aid and medical supplies are blockaded. All this is nothing more than a continuation of the genocide of the people of Donbass by the Ukrainian government,” – Eduard Basurin, a spokesman for the Ministry of Defence of DPR, tells AiF. He believes that Kiev at the same time achieves another goal – protecting the Ukrainians from the truth about the life in the republics: “This is due to the significant difference in prices on the main categories of foods in the border regions of Ukraine and the DPR. Bread, milk, vegetables and potatoes, cereals and other products are cheaper in Donetsk than in Ukraine.” By the way, peaceful life – in spite of the disruptions of water supply and the economic blockade – is really getting back on track. Kindergartens, schools, hospitals, shops, cafes and restaurants are working. Factories have started up. For example, “Stirol”, one of the flagships of the chemical industry of Donbass, has again been started. And this means jobs and wages. The main problem – the sale of produce in the conditions of a blockade. However, entrepreneurs engaged in the installation of windows have no problems of this kind – after the war, the demand for their services is highest ever.

We must understand that the lives of many ordinary people, who find themselves on opposite sides of the demarcation line, is associated with the “enemy” territory in spite of the blockade. From DPR and LPR (Lugansk People’s Republic) people go “abroad” not only for pensions, but also to work. Thus, the press service of the OSCE mission said that the residents of the two villages near Gorlovka literally have to go across a minefield due to the closure of the checkpoint “Zaytsevo”: “They go on the mines to get to the controlled by Kiev Artemovsk, otherwise they run the risk of losing the jobs.” Not everything is simple with the pensions either. Some pensioners registered on the territory controlled by Kiev, and they cross the checkpoint every month to get the payments. But there are many of those who did not go to a compromise, and still can not get a pension. Dmitry Popov, manager of the Ombudsman of the DPR apparatus tells AiF that Kiev ignores the decisions of the Ukrainian(!) Courts regarding paying overdue pensions to the pensioners, who reside on the territory of the republic. Almost 15000 pensioners of Donbass prepared a lawsuits for the Ukrainian courts to recognize the Presidential Decree for the non-payment of pensions as illegal. Some of the lawsuits were satisfied by the courts of the first instance. Kiev said that while Ukrainian banks, treasury and financial management is not operating on the territory of DPR and LPR, the implementation of the decision impossible. However, they do not operate here not at the whim of the authorities of DPR and LPR, but because of the blockade of Kiev, which no one is intending to lift until the political issues are solved.

Why do they not want to agree?

Strictly speaking, all of the Minsk process has stalled on two points: the special status of Donbass (and related amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine), and the local elections on the territory of the DPR and LPR. Rada deputies, ignoring the “Minsk-2” agreement, did not vote for the amendments and moved the issue to the next session. Rather than comply with the requirements of Paris, Berlin, Moscow and even Washington, with regard to the ratification of such amendments, the deputies adopted some other amendments – regarding the rules of procedure of Parliament. Apparently, it is these subtleties of Ukrainian parliamentarism, which allow Kiev to sabotage the “Minsk-2”, that President Poroshenko was explaining last week to Angela Merkel in Berlin. Or perhaps he honestly admitted that he simply does not have enough votes in the parliament to fulfil his commitments.

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier suggested a possible compromise on the 19th of January, and it was later supported by Boris Gryzlov, the Russian representative in the contact group on the settlement of the situation in Ukraine. “According to «Steinmeier’s formula», you first need to hold elections in Donbass, and then use the emerging legitimate authorities for approval of the constitutional reform and other laws. But neither the Parliament, nor Poroshenko are yet ready for this,” said Konstantin Bondarenko, head of the Foundation “Ukrainian politics”. “Meanwhile the West is already barely holding back its irritation with Kiev’s policy as it is suffering from the sanctions not less than Russia. And if the ball does not get rolling on the implementation of the Minsk agreements, then, taking into account the forthcoming elections in their countries, Hollande and Merkel will try to demonstrate to Ukraine that if it will not abide by the agreement, then no one will talk to it.”

Not only the procedural matters complicate the situation with the local elections: Kiev demands that voting takes place according to the party lists, with the resumption of broadcasting (read – propaganda) of the Ukrainian TV channels for the whole of Donbass, while the Republics insist on elections by the majority system. If the West recognizes the elections, the Kiev regime will no longer be able to talk to Donbass using the language of force, consider these territories as occupied, and blame everything on Russia… “Kiev will be playing for time for another six months, while Donbass will continue the construction of its statehood, which sooner or later everyone will have to recognise. At the same time Donbass will be restoring its economy, which is quite powerful and self-supporting.” – said political analyst Sergei Mikheev.

Boris Yeltsin: Demon or Hero?

On the 1st of February Boris Yeltsin, the first President of the Russian Federation, would have been 85. Commemorating the date, Argumenty i Fakty published a two-polar article about Yeltsin. Two views on what he did to Russia, one negative and one positive. The whole article Boris Yeltsin: Demon or Hero can be read in Russian at the site of AiF.

Here I am only going to translate one view, which reflects the real negative impact of Yeltsin on Russia. I cannot bring myself to translating the positive view by Vladimir Ryzhkov, who was the vice-speaker of the Parliament in 1997-1999 – in the years after the 1993 Yeltsin’s coup d’etat. Ryzhkov’s words are sugar-coated paintings of black as white. IF anyone wants to read them, go to the Russian article above and use Google translate…


Aleksander Prokhanov, writer:

– For me, Yeltsin is an absolute evil, while the recently opened “Yeltsin Center” in Ekaterinburg is a temple where all the haters of Russia can now congregate and worship their idol.

When Hitler was preparing his attack on the Soviet Union, he had “Plan Ost” – to dismember the USSR, to destroy its defence industry, the whole of the Soviet ideology and culture, to reduce the number of Russian and, finally, to introduce external management of all parts of the dismembered country. Hitler’s plan was not allowed to come to fruition because in 1945 Stalin’s T-34 danced a quadrille on the Reich Chancellery bunker.

But in 1991 Yeltsin carried this plan out almost to the point. He made 3 coup d’etats. The first one in August 1991, when he took away all the powers from Gorbachev while he sat in Foros. The second – in December of the same year, when Yeltsin dissolved the Soviet Union by signing the Belovezhsk agreement. And the third coup – in 1993, when Yeltsin, in violation of the Constitution, disbanded the parliament, and then shot at it from the tanks, torching a terrible fire in the centre of Moscow. (Translator note: for more details about the 1993 coup d’etat see my post The ”Wild 90s” in Russia, as reflected in people’s memory)

In 1994, Yeltsin launched a fratricidal war in Chechnya. He compromised the integrity of what was still remaining of Russia – back then Tatar, Bashkir, Ural republics almost became independent… (Translator note: Nikolaj Starikov in one of his video journals demonstrated samples of “Ural Roubles” – a currency that war already printed and was supposed to be introduced in that fragmented bit of Russia.) Yeltsin created the monstrous class of oligarchs who to this day view the country as their prey, and are transferring the loot abroad. At the same time he created in Russia is alien to her way of consumption, saturation, hedonism and egoism – despite the fact that our people had always been a part of a community, cooperative, society… Yeltsin sought to re-encode the Russian people and Russian psycho. Hollywood came here in full power and started imposing Western values.

Finally, as was intended in the “Plan Ost”, our country came under external management. The Yeltsin-Kozyrev Russia did not have its own foreign policy – it was built on the national interests of the US; CIA officers were sitting in our economic centres, managing privatization and allocation of resources.


End of the translation.

The Belovezhsk agreement, which dissolved the USSR was voluntaristic and unconstitutional. Article 3 of USSR’s Constitution was dedicated to the procedures, which needed to be observed if a republic wanted to exit the union. Referendums were supposed to be conducted.

This Yeltsin’s act alone had terrible, tragic consequences: Russian people became the most fragmented nationality in the world, still living as non-citizens in oppression in such “European value” countries as Estonia and Latvia. Millions of people ended up being “abroad” from one day to the other. Hundreds of thousands of families were split up. Millions died in the ensuing war, hunger and economic collapse, which was also in the Hitler’s “Plan Ost”, manifested by Yeltsin.

At best, Yeltsin was a naïve fool, used by Western powers in their Big Game of destroying Russia. At worst, he was a ruthless criminal.

Democracy of Mass Destruction. Documentary by Pavel Selin (with English subtitles)

Ever wondered what is the common denominator between Vietnam, Yugoslavia and Iraq? How democratic values are dropped from the US war planes?

I have earlier posted a short article about two revealing Russian documentaries. Now, translation of one of them is done. The original untranslated video is published here: Демократия массового поражения. Фильм Павла Селина.

I could not include formatting for the subtitles, published on YouTube. The formatted subtitle file in ASS format can be downloaded separately. Full text of the script is below the video frame.

1Nemo1KPB8UjQjrURqn6V7Mscungx44XS2Please note that translating a documentary film or an article takes a lot of time and emotional effort. I am doing it on a voluntary basis, but if someone feels like supporting my work, a Bitcoin donation to the following address is appreciated: 1Nemo1KPB8UjQjrURqn6V7Mscungx44XS2

Note: re-translations of English language interviews will not be word-accurate.
Donbass. Summer of 2014.
The residents of Slavjansk will for a long time remember this blindly white fiery rain in the night sky.
Phosphorous bombs – a terrible weapon.
They literally turn people into ashes, and their use have long been banned.
In Donbass, the Ukrainian army used white phosphorus in violation of all conventions.
But the West did not notice this.
Such lack of care angered liberal politicians and all human rights watchdogs,
but left indifferent the veterans of the US Army, who had fought in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.
They had used phosphorus bombs there without any limitations.
And even deaths of their own brothers in arms from the forbidden types of weapons,
didn’t frighten or put them on their guard.
[Doug Rokke. Veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Ph.D. in Health Physics]
People from my division: Bill O’Reil, Kiefer, Sitton, Peterson, Blue, etc…
There are many names. All these people served in Iraq. There’re thousands of them
And all of them are dead.
USA. Rantoul. Illinois.
The participant of several wars that the Americans conducted in various parts of the world,
Major Doug Rokke is convinced that by using new, little studied types of weapons.
the USA is for several decades, knowingly, sparing neither foreign nor its own citizens.
Kosovo. City Zvechan.
The goals of those, who justify usage of WMDs become clear even to the children.
Serbian girl Christina Milutinovich, who was born in 1999,
during the massive bombings of Yugoslavia by the NATO countries,
has long ago guessed that both the Serbian tragedy and her own plight
have in reality nothing to do with advancing of democratic freedoms.
[Christina Milutinovich. resident of town Zvechan (Kosovo)]
I think that they never gave thought to anything, but their interests
and the goal was to destroy the country.
Maximum efficiency in elimination of the enemies, and not building of an abstract democratic idyll.
This is the main task of the US Army.
Many American politicians and political scientists say so directly nowadays.
[Robert Legvold. Professor Emeritus in the Department of Political Science at Columbia University]
No president during the entire history of USA did ever state
that USA brings the world democracy through the means of military intervention.
Japan.
Korea.
Vietnam.
Iraq.
Yugoslavia.
Afghanistan.
Once more, Iraq.
[Elena Ponomareva. Doctor of Political Science, Proff. MGIMO]
During the period since WWII, the Americans
attempted to conduct at least 50 political coup d’etats,
participated in organisation of assassination of 50 political leaders,
participated in 30 open military conflicts,
and I think this list is far from complete.
But for whose interests do tens of thousands Americans died and continue dying in the wars?
Is it a coincidence that the new types of WMD became
equally deadly both for the surviving NATO bombing 15 year old Serbian girl, Christina Milutinovich,
and for the carrying munitions American Doug Rokke?
DEMOCRACY OF MASS DESTRUCTION
At the very beginning of the XXth century, for WMD was called a machine gun,
invented by an American weapon-maker of British origin, Stephen Maxim
In Russia, this machine gun, a compulsory attribute of the revolution-connected armed carts, got the name Maksim.
Exceptionally rapid-shooting, compared to rifles and revolvers,
the machine gun made cavalry charges pointless.
While for centuries, it was cavalry that was considered the main tactical offensive force
WWI, which came soon after, quickly made many of the military strategies obsolete.
The first gas attack showed that bayonets and bullets
are equally powerless before the new technologies of the truly mass extermination of people.
Machine gun “Maxim” took a modest place among the classic types of weapons.
While tens of thousands of victims of the barbaric chemical attacks,
made both military and politicians think hard.
Geneva Convention was signed in 1925,
according to which it was agreed not to use poisonous gasses in warfare.
But not even half a century had passed, when chemists again helped military in shocking the humanity.
[Andrej Kuznecov. Co-director of Russian-Vietnamese tropical centre]
Hair glued together, deer died. Feathers glued together, birds died.
In mid-60’s of the last century, the most powerful herbicides, combined with inflammable napalm,
turned into a kind of time-bomb both for the Vietnamese and the warring against them American soldiers.
These American soldiers, posing in front of the camera, do not suspect what awaits them upon their return home.
The very air of that war in Vietnam turned out to be literally poisonous.
There are veterans of various wars buried here.
From WWII here, as we move over – from Korean war
All is mixed here – Vietnam, Korea, Iraq…
Here is a veteran of the Korean and Vietnam wars.
Veteran Doug Rokke is convinced:
A weapon of mass destruction need not be a nuclear explosion of unimaginable power.
At the end of WWII, US bombers dropped nuclear bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Over 240.000 people died.
Tens of thousands of civilians died of leukaemia already after the war.
The “mushroom” of a nuclear explosion has forever etched into the common consciousness
the ideal image of a weapon of mass destruction.
However, the employees of the secret laboratories knew:
even the terrible reality of the nuclear explosions is deceitful.
[Leuren Moret. Geologist, PhD]
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just an arena for the demonstration of the weapons of total destruction.
In reality, there are many ways to kill people by the tens of thousands.
The officially acknowledged types of WMDs are
the munitions with nuclear, biological or chemical charge.
While poisonous gasses became outlawed after WWI,
then the terrors of WWII forced imposition of strict restrictions on creation, storage
and usage of nuclear and biological weapons.
USSR, while having a nuclear bomb, never made use of this type of WMD,
and demanded that others follow the agreed upon rules when conducting military operations.
But the common human norms do not always agree with the plans of the USA and its NATO allies.
In the beginning of the 50s, American warplanes dropped on North Korea
bombs, containing Plague and Cholera.
According to different sources, several thousand people died back then from the artificially induced epidemics.
The 15-year old Serbian girl Christina Milutinovich has, of course, also heard that WMDs
is, first and foremost, a nuclear bomb.
But Christina knows from her own experience,
that tens of thousands people can be killed not only by an off-the-scale radiation or blast.
It lasted for a long time. It was very hard.
I felt pain in the back, had frequent vomiting, and I was very scared. Awful.
American Doug Rokke also had surprisingly similar symptoms.
He didn’t fight in Yugoslavia, but in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Both places, missiles with the so-called depleted Uranium were used.
If this is not a WMD, then why Christine, Doug and thousands of people across the world became invalids.
Iraq, Afghanistan, the Balkans, Somali, Kuwait, all the places where US Army performed
military interventions after 1999, the military personnel there knew about the dangers, connected with usage of munitions with depleted Uranium.
It is to this day used by armies of many countries: Israel, Canada, Great Britain, Australia.
USSR also worked in this direction, but as far as I know, they never made use of it.
Stop the murder in Ukraine.
In this archive footage of summer 2014, American veterans of Vietnam war
demand of the US government not to inflame the war in Ukraine.
And remember the disaster that they themselves lived through in Indo-China half a century ago.
[John Hirsch. Vietnam War veteran]
It was a genocide of the Vietnamese people.
The so-called “Army” charged into villages with unarmed people,
and killed as many people as they wanted.
In 1968, the officer of the US Military Intelligence John Hirsch thought that in Vietnam
his country was liberating the world from the Communist plague.
Now John is convinced that he simply took part in mass murders.
I understood that I do something wrong.
War is a terrible thing.
However, all the propaganda of that time showed us only enemies.
In reality it was a war against common folk.
Half a century ago, phosphorus and cluster bombs turned this land into hell.
And still, on the second decade of the XXI century, it is equally mortally dangerous.
Vietnamese minesweepers are still disarming thousands of such charges.
This work is not not paused even for a single day.
And there is no end in sight.
The long ago forbidden cluster and ball bombs are only the tip of the iceberg.
The most terrible heritage of the Vietnam war is that these weapons act as a time bomb,
literally permeating the blood of thousand of people.
Elements of these weapons are carried on at a genetic level.
But unlike radiation or combat viruses, they are invisible.
Yet still, equally lethal.
[Chin Hak Shau. Director of the Vietnam-Russia Tropical Centre]
During the war, from 1960 until 1970,
to destroy the green foliage of the jungle, Americans spread a terrible chemical from above: “Agent Orange”.
“Agent Orange” is a chemical from a group of herbicides.
It got its name from the brightly orange barrels this chemical was transported in.
It contains acids and dioxins, which under extreme heating exude substances,
causing cancer and genetic mutations.
It was used by the US Army in Vietnam to destroy the jungle, where the local resistance was hiding.
During the 10 years, about 170,000,000 (170 million!) litres of “Agent Orange” was spread above Indo-China.
Here is what happened. Here are the planes, spreading the chemicals.
Here is the tropical forest in its initial state, and here it is after these chemicals settle.
[Andrej Kuznetsov. Co-director of the Vietnam-Russia Tropical Centre]
Then napalm comes into play.
A certain number of barrels is dropped and all this is ignited.
The Americans applied the “Scorched Earth” tactics in the direct sense,
and turned precious tropical forests into a desert land.
Without the jungles, which covered well the Vietnamese military bases,
the partisans were suffering terrible losses.
Multi-kilometre-long tunnels helped them to survive and to continue fighting with the occupants.
These were dug largely by hand.
This system of branched-out, well-hidden catacombs and traps allowed the partisans
to carry out surprise attacks on the American soldiers.
[Hjuin Van Tia. Vietnamese partisan]
Look: here is a trap, constructed in such a way, what when a man stepped on its edge,
he fell in, while the trap reset, as if it was always like this.
Biologist Andrej Kuznecov has been working at the Tropical Centre in Hanoi for already 20 years.
And he continues to be surprised by how lethal for both humans and animals,
are the consequences of usage of the chemicals, which were used in the 60s of the last century.
There are completely frightening life collisions,
when freaks are born in the families.
It is customary to have many children in Vietnam.
So, one child with defects is born.
He get ok treatment. But they must get a second child, in the hopes of a normal one.
And the second one gets defects.
What to do?
These are not helpers at a farm, these are… I will not say these words…
But it’s an anguish and a tragedy.
The most terrible thing is that a mother, who has this chemical in her fat mass,
transfers it to her child with her milk,
she transfers it at birth through placenta. This is the most awful thing!
The consequences of use of chemical and nuclear weapons make themselves known after several generations.
Therefore, both the poisonous herbicides, which the Americans used in Vietnam,
and nuclear bombs, which they dropped on the Japanese cities,
can equally be attributed to the category of Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Hoan was born 20 years after the war.
The girl lack both feet.
[Chan Thi Hoan. Pulpil of the boarding school “The Village of Friendship”]
When I was little, I could not understand why am I like this.
Later I learned that my plight is a possible consequence of use of Agent Orange
While still as school, Hoan started to exchange letters with American anti-war activists.
They helped her to come to the USA.
Hoan spoke before the US Congress.
She tried, speaking on behalf of the Vietnamese invalids, to get any sort of compensation from the American government,
or the companies that produced the chemical Agent Orange.
But all was for naught.
I am mostly worried that my child may be born with defects.
I, just like every girl, dream of a family happiness.
But I am most of all worried for my future child.
Hoan grew up and remained to work at a boarding school, which is called “The Village of Friendship”
Here, the children, who were abandoned by their parents, are cared for.
These children have terrible genetic deviations.
They all come from places, where the Americans copiously spread their deadly Agent Orange.
[Nguen Thi Fyong Tan. Lead doctor of the boarding school “The Village of Friendship”]
Our laboratory has many frightening exhibits.
This one, for example, was born with two heads, one body and with the regular set of hands and feet.
He clearly could not survive and died after birth.
The mother was 21, and he was born in 2006.
It is already the third generation of those, who were subjected to the effects of dioxins.
All by itself, the chemical of Agent Orange is not that dangerous.
Moreover, it was in use in agriculture on the territory of USA.
The decision to make use of Agent Orange in Vietnam was made by President Kennedy,
before the large-scale American intervention into that country took place.
November 1961. John Kennedy.
USA will participate in a selective and carefully controlled joint program of
defoliant operations in Vietnam.
The so-called “selective” dissemination of the chemical Agent Orange
was largely a consequence of the Americans’ decision to not use selective nuclear strikes in Vietnam,
of the type of those that were delivered to Japan towards the end of WWII.
In the 70’s, some absolutely top secret documents of Pentagon were leaked into American press.
From those the world learned that President Nixon seriously considered nuclear bombings of Hanoi.
We are in possession of a unique recording of a conversation between Nixon and the then Secretary of State Kissinger.
Nixon: I still think that we must blow up the dams. How many will drown?
Kissinger: 200.000 people.
Nixon: Oh, no, no, no. I’d rather use a nuclear bomb. Have you prepared it?
Kissinger: I think it’s excessive.
Nixon: Nuclear bomb? Does it bother you? For God’s sake, Henry, I only want to think broader!
[Leonid Ivashov. President of the Academy for Geopolitical Problems]
It wasn’t the public opinion that stopped the use of nuclear weapons,
but the fact that USSR was involved,
and that we could use tactical nuclear weapons against them… well… through the Vietnamese,…
or on behalf of the Vietnamese – this is what contained them.
[Elena Ponomareva. Doctor of Political Science, Proff. MGIMO]
The USA were naturally fully aware that USSR, the main ally of
the opposing side, had nuclear weapons,
as well as that China got its nuclear weapons in 1964.
But it seems they think like this in the USA:
“If we are members of the Treaty, banning use of nuclear weapons,
why then not use other means of mass destruction of the opponent?”
“And not ourselves, but through the allies.”
This approach was used in 1982 during the war between Israel and Lebanon,
when during the siege of Beirut the Israeli forces used phosphorus bombs in large quantities
According to the official sources, more than 3000 people died back then from this terrible weapon.
Later, in 1999, during the so-called “peacekeeping operation to save ethnic Albanians”,
the civilian and industrial sites of Serbia were bombed out using munitions with depleted Uranium.
This resulted in double contamination of the bombed territories.
[Marijana Anzhelkovich-Lukich. Demolitions expert]
They bombed chemical sites, chemical factories, and by this created such an ecological situation,
that the consequences are akin to that of chemical warfare.
Officially, it’s as if there was no use of the weapons of mass destructions,
but the effect of such bombings turned out to be stronger than from a powerful gas attack.
And all over Serbia, after NATO’s bombings of 1999,
not only those who survived are doomed to suffer, but also those who at the time bombings took place, were not yet born.
You know, the most frightening was when they told me at the hospital that I will lose all my hair.
Serbian girl Christina Milutinovich is suffering from a war, of which she was no part.
In exactly the same was as the Vietnamese youth Dieng.
He’s never seen his parents.
Having genetic disorders, Dieng was left at this boarding school for abandoned children.
[Nguen Dyk Dieng. Pupil at the boarding school “The Village of Friendship”]
My right hand cannot grip, so I do everything with my left.
I help to feed the little ones, write, eat, work on PC.
I dream of becoming an architect.
The staff of the boarding school placed a photo of Dieng’s hand on a placard, urging to help children with genetic deviations.
No one imagined that this photo would have an exploding bomb in the family on an American woman Heather Bowser.
[Heather Bowser. Anti-war activist]
I had just seen his hand on the placard… I could not even imagine that he,
just like me is missing fingers on his hands, that he too is missing his right leg.
In other words, he has almost exactly the same defects as I do.
Canfield, USA
Heather Bowser, who has the disablement since childhood, recognised to her horror herself in that Vietnamese boy.
45 years ago their parents were on the opposing sides of the front at that Vietnam War.
And now it turned out that Agent Orange equalised the descendants of of soldiers of both armies.
On the very first day there my father had to extinguish a fire at the chemical storage.
They didn’t even have special gear.
Agent Orange was spread everywhere. It was poured into the ground.
It settled on their tents, uniforms, everywhere.
Agent Orange, just like the partisans’ trap in the jungle, flipped by 180 degrees,
and started killing the Americans themselves.
In the meantime, the American strategists are sure:
It’s exactly these facts of the common suffering that prove that
USA did not and does not use WMDs.
It’s simply the unpredictability of use of the conventional weapons.
[Robert Legvold. Professor Emeritus in the Department of Political Science at Columbia University]
This might be called a chain of events.
From outside, the foreign policy of the USA looks as if the US Armed Forces
are taking part in practically every conflict on Earth.
But it’s difficult to accept this appearance as a coherent strategy.
Because, if you start thinking about it, it appears the the American policy leads only to the negative results
and such devastating consequences. How can this be called a strategy?
It’s as if coming from a Russian saying – the forest is chopped so that splinters fly everywhere (implying over-eagerness).
And thus, even deaths of their own citizens, is not a morale hindrance to the USA.
A totally different system of values is in use over the ocean.
[Leonid Ivashov. President of the Academy for Geopolitical Problems]
Even if I do something wrong, but I became richer than you, say, an honest teacher or professor,
if you are poorer than me, then the God is on my side.
Then I am in the right.
USA, New Jersey
[Bill McClung. Vietnam War veteran]
What this represents and symbolises, is the people, who returned from Vietnam,
ill and disabled because of Agent Orange.
Many soldiers after the return got cancer, leukaemia and other illnesses.
Bill McClung was a field surgeon during the Vietnam war.
He amputated limbs, extracted splinters, mended many terrible wounds.
But neither the everyday horrors of that war, nor his medical education could help him
back then to recognise the tragedy, that spread throughout decades.
Diabetes, Parkinsson’s disease, heart diseases and,
of course, the most frequent – post-traumatic disorder.
You took part in terrible events, saw how people died, how they were shot at,
and upon returning home you don’t forget that.
This was one of my early legs.
See, it’s banged up and scratched as I was a boisterous child.
Heather’s father returned from that war as a 20-year old invalid.
His heart was worn out as in an elderly person.
He and his wife spent all their spare time fighting for the rights of the veterans,
who suffered from Agent Orange.
There were no cell phones, no Internet back then, so my parents wrote and letters,
met with people. That way they located more and more veterans,
and at one point they understood that this happens not only to them, but to everyone.
Some became ill themselves, others got sick children.
They started demanding attention to the problem, but the government ignored their pleas.
“Vietnam veterans, you always complain about something.”
The lawn in front of Heather’s house is covered with dandelions,
the neighbours are no pleased, but she never uses herbicides.
My husband and I waited for 5 years after marriage before getting kids.
Contemplating if we are prepared to risk it, knowing that our kids may get genetic deviations.
Thankfully my kids are almost completely healthy.
The eldest son only has Asthma, while the youngest – unbending joints.
Heather’s father died when he was barely 50.
Today, his daughter carries on his cause, and despite her disability,
she became one of the best known activists in a community
that fights for the rights of those, who suffered from Agent Orange.
[Merle Ratner. Co-Coordinator of the Vietnam Agent Orange Relief & Responsibility Campaign]
The American soldiers started to die at 30, 40, maximum at 50.
People addressed the government asking for help, as well as suing the chemical companies.
They asked for monetary compensation for treatment of 17-18 different illnesses,
which were provoked by Agent Orange.
[Jeanne Mirer. President of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers]
But in the court we were told:
“So the weapon, from which your defendants suffered was created to destroy vegetation.
And according to the international law, herbicides
cannot be viewed as weapons against humans”
After a series of lost court cases, the Americans, who suffered from Agent Orange understood:
both the chemical companies (producers), and the military high brass (procureres)
knew about the consequence of the use of those chemicals beforehand.
US government ordered Agent Orange for its use in huge quantities,
so the chemical companies, perusing quick and significant revenue,
pre-infused Agent Orange with large amount of the deadly dioxin.
[Elena Ponomareva. Doctor of Political Science, Proff. MGIMO]
And they cannot a knowledge it for the external consumption
as their image of a good cop would collapse.
A good cop, who, according to them, defends some kind of goodness, some mythical goodness.
Because if goodness has such a face, what can be said about the evil.
Americans themselves categorically do not agree with the image of a global policeman.
If you’d ask most Americans politicians, even President Obama himself,
if USA if the world policeman, they’d reply, “No, why would you think that?
For us it is important that other countries themselves take responsibility for their own state structure and order.
And that they’d act as a community policeman if there is a threat to peace. All together.”
The pragmatic American politicians fully believe that they use military power,
including the WMDs only in the utmost case, when their country is threatened.
I think if you look at the history of the American foreign policy of the last decades,
you’ll notice that it is founded on the national interests, national priorities and national security.
All that became more important, than the democratic values.
Yugoslavia
Year is 1999.
Americans bombed to smithereens tens of industrial factories, a ministry, power plants, bridges, hospitals, TV centre,
and even the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia, a country far from their (American) borders.
For what?
Yugoslavia didn’t intend and could not attack USA.
Moreover, the Southern-Slavic Federation did not possess WMDs.
When 10 million Serbs considered Slobodan Milosevich as their national hero,
TL note: Slobodan means “given/giving freedom”.
the then President of USA Bill Clinton compared him to Hitler, calling him a new Hitler,
and the portraits of Slobodan were published in the Western MSM tabloids
exclusively with a subscript “the face of evil”.
Bill Clinton at a Washington press conference, June 1999:
“By voting for Milosevich, Yugoslavs must realise that they approve of what he ordered to do in Kosovo,
TL Note: Kosovo is a historic Serbian heartland of many centuries.
approve of all those tens of thousands of murders.”
So for which such sins against the world order and for what did Americans bomb Yugoslavia?
The witness of the war, and the veteran of Russian diplomacy on the Balkans, Oleg Dzyza
has his own view on the real motives of the American politicians.
[Oleg Dzyza. Diplomat, Director of the Balkan Centre]
Once years have passed, and much of what was hidden came into light…
And they [Americans] themselves relaxed somewhat and started talking openly about it…
So, yes, the primary objective of that operation was conquering of the territory of Kosovo,
where they later built a military base – one of the largest bases in Europe.
Trampled that country back for 100 or 200 years.
And the most significant that they really broke the back of the [Serbian] people.
The Serbian girl, Christina Milutinovic, lived through the American bombings while in her mother’s womb.
Even after 15 years, neither she nor her family can comprehend the logic of those terrible air strikes.
[Zoran Milutinovich. Christina’s father]
I, as someone who believes in God, simply cannot wrap my mind around that someone can exterminate people like that.
Kosovo. Town Zvechan.
This is a little Serbian township in the very centre of Kosovo.
Heavy battles took place here in 1999.
Nowadays, the Milutinoviches are frequent church-goers –
they can only hope for a miracle, as Christina has leukaemia.
I can assert that our family has no history of such illness.
We don’t have a generic predispodency.
I suspect that there is a connection between my daughter’s illness and the bombings.
Local paediatricians also connect the growing number of cancer cases with the bombings.
[Zoran Savich. Head physician of the paediatric department of the Severnaja Kosovska-Mitrovca city hospital]
I surmise that this is connected with the usage of the depleted uranium munitions on the territory of our country.
We conducted statistical analysis.
There are 18 times more cases of cancer among children, compared to the pre-war time.
Depleted Uranium 238 is used in the core of the armour-piercing missiles and bullets.
It is 3 times heavier than steel, increasing the killing force by several magnitudes.
Even a small calibre missile pierces tank armour.
At the moment of explosion the uranium bar turns into radioactive dust.
NATO forces actively used depleted uranium missiles during the 1991 Desert Storm operation in Iraq,
and in Yugoslavia in 1999.
(TL note: from what I can hear of the English original track, Russian translation here is inaccurate, containing omissions.)
This is an aluminium model of the depleted uranium missile core.
It’s a very radioactive thing.
How does it work?
When such missile hits its target, it doesn’t simply explode, it ignites everything around.
All materials: plastic, fabric, asphalt, steel. Everything burns.
In Iraq and Afghanistan Dough Rokke was responsible for the munitions for tanks and artillery.
He handled the depleted uranium munitions every day.
This is what happens when you carry such missiles.
The bones become soft and the hands oozes, deforming the appendages.
All surfaces there were covered with radioactive dust.
Whether you wash a car or carry equipment, wherever you are, you are already doomed.
A field surgeon, upon seeing my hand, just said:
“Oh well, we all know what happened to your hand.”
He told me that it will become worse with time.
And it turned out like that.
The American Major now has a whole plethora of incurable diseases.
I have almost no single healthy organ left.
I have problems with eyesight, coordination, muscles, bones, urine system, nerve system.
Big problem with teeth.
Many started losing teeth while still stationed in Iraq.
So the field surgeons invented some quasi-diagnosis so as to explain away why soldiers are losing teeth.
Some calcium deficiency syndrome. Laughable. Calcium deficiency. Here, look.
In reality it is the depleted uranium that is killing me now.
Twice a year, at a small town of Rantoul, IL, the American war veterans gather.
With every gathering there are fewer and fewer of Major Rokke’s brothers-in-arms that come.
Almost all of those with whom I fought in Iraq during Desert Storm are either dead or very ill.
They died one after another.
Don Blue, Toerty, Kieffer, Peterson, Zuri, O’Reil, Jim Longey, Johnson.
The American government does not consider the number of casualties among those,
who inhaled the depleted uranium dust, as high.
And in general they do not acknowledge that the munition with depleted uranium cores were actively used.
[Daniel Ellsberg. anti-war activist]
There s an amazing quotation from the speech of Donald Ramsfeld, the US Defence minister.
He twice held the post, including during the war in Iraq.
He said: “Sometimes the president makes wrong decisions,
but the people must obey him. He is just another human.”
It’s a very shrewd lesson.
Any contact of the depleted uranium with water, soil or air leads to a chain reaction.
Everything gets poisoned, and that is specified in the US Ministry of Defence reports.
Serbia. A veterinary station “Bujanovac”.
This two-headed calf was born on the border of Serbia and Kosovo
in the area of intensive 1999 bombings with depleted uranium missiles.
Tailless goats, pigs without internal organs, eyeless and legless lambs.
Such animals don’t surprise anybody here nowadays.
[Aleksandr Stefanovich. Veterinarian]
Before you could have one such animal freak in the cause of several years.
While now we see such cases very frequently, sometimes once a month.
People are also heavily ill.
There’s long been a shortage of space at the cancer clinics of town Kosovska-Mitrovica.
[Radim Jankovich. Head doctor at the surgery department of the cancer clinic of town Severnaja Kosovska-Mitrovica]
We’ve noticed that after the bombings the number of patients grew by a lot.
Lunge diseases dominate.
Their number, compared to the pre-bombings time by 3, even 5-6 times.
There was increase in the number of cases of colon cancer and cervical cancer.
The huge sum of €150.000, necessary to operate young Christina Milutinovich,
were collected by the whole country’s effort during a charity TV marathon.
The girl, who so wanted to become a ballet dancer, had to abandon her dream.
Christina became famous in another way:
the whole of Serbia was following as she was fighting the terrible disease.
It was frightening, but the doctors said, that despite being a serious illness,
it can be cured and that I, of course, can be well again.
Over a year has passed after the operation, but just like before, Christina almost never smiles.
They say that time heals.
But obviously this saying is not about Serbia, which was bombed with missiles with uranium core.
I think that they need to repent, to apologise before everyone they harmed,
particularly before the children, such as I.
Russian diplomat Oleg Dziza postulates that
the American government was never impressed even by the most vivid testimonials of human suffering.
Despite all that they explicitly stated during contact meetings,
without a doubt in their eyes, they were convinced
that they were bringing not only democracy, but also freedom.
The practice shows: such concepts as “national interests” and “democracy and freedom” are not the same thing for the Americans.
In 1999, during the bombings of Yugoslavia, lieutenant-general Leonid Ivashov
on many occasions conducted negotiations with the American military.
During those “not for the press” dialogues, it seems he understood the logic of the American military,
here exemplified by talks with one of the American generals.
[Leonid Ivashov. President of the Academy for Geopolitical Problems]
You show him, demonstrate the facts, build a logical chain.
Then I ask, “John, do you agree with what I showed, proved you here?”
We showed maps of Yugoslavia, presented photo evidence…
They look at that carefully.
I ask, “Do you agree?” He says, “No”.
I’d ask, “Why?”
And the reply is, “Because this is not in the American national interests.”
(Tl note: From another source, I learned that American military insisted that Russian field medics stop assisting Serbian women in giving birth – something that would have increased Serbian infant and mother fatality and contributed to depopulation / genocide of Serbian population in Serbian Kosovo.)
[Robert Legvold. Professor Emeritus in the Department of Political Science at Columbia University]
There is a tendency for self-justification in the American foreign policy.
The politicians think that their policy brings good.
And in that situation we see manifestation of dual standards.
When we see a government in some country behaving unlawfully,
we ourselves start acting outside the law.
And that is the root of the problem.
So that’s not a mistake.
USA sees itself as a good policeman in all these events.
Another problem is that once USA got caught in this logical trap, they are not trying to extricate from it.
[Elena Ponomareva. Doctor of Political Science, Proff. MGIMO]
Because I think that the political establishment of the Western countries
consists of thinking people, they of course fully realise
that the policy of dual standards brings suffering upon innocent people.
The policy of dual standards, be it intentionally or unconsciously,
is dominant with the Americans both in real battles and when counting casualties.
[Radomir Kovachevich. Director of Centre for Radiological Defence of Serbia]
I can say that all our reports about illnesses, about changes at the genetic level, were all ignored.
NATO and the Western countries also collected data.
And their reports, laced with lies, are acknowledged, while our remain unknown.
All kinds of weapons of mass destruction are quickly perfected.
Military experts think that soon, to achieve their goals,
USA will not require aircraft carriers, fighters and rockets.
[Leonid Ivashov. President of the Academy for Geopolitical Problems]
We were tracking that the Americans are actively developing not powerful nuclear charges,
but rather miniature nuclear charges with the possibility of deep penetration even into rocky surface.
When we asked why are you developing this? What for?
They explained that “there are such dictators, like Saddam Hussein,
they hide deep under ground, in the rocks,
so we develop such munitions to smoke them out and annihilate.”
Our version about it is completely different, and it got a practical confirmation at one time,
that they use these miniature charges to cause earthquakes,
tsunamis and other natural disasters.
One cannot preclude that Agent Orange in Vietnam was also a first step, a test
on the way to creation of a climatic weapon.
After all, in the area of the intensive spreading of the chemical, the nature changed to an unrecognisable degree,
something which directly lead to a change in climatic conditions in those regions.
[Andrei Kuznecov. Co-director of Russian-Vietnamese tropical centre]
Something that we call “panzer” forms on the surface.
Ferrolite panzer or ferrolite cover.
It is very dense.
It’s impossible to break through it with a spade, and it’s completely infertile.
Nothing can be planted there. Those territories are lost.
The residents of the territories of the former Yugoslavia, which suffered the American bombings,
met the same problems, which point towards change in natural and climatic conditions.
[Marijana Anzhelkovich-Lukich. demolitions expert]
You know, it was the spring of 1999,
the time when birds procreate, fruits and vegetables start growing in the gardens.
However, that year there were absolutely no flowers on the trees.
Strange rain was falling down at that time.
Even hail ice took very long time to melt.
We suspected that they were using chemicals for weather improvement,
to improve visibility for their air raids.
In short, while the Americans demand of others to fight by the rules,
they themselves denounced those rules,
and brought upon the opponent destruction comparable to the long-prohibited chemical or nuclear attacks.
I think it is very frightening.
And that they didn’t at all think about the consequences of their actions,
what those actions could lead to.
Young Christina Milutinovich hopes that her heavy illness will recede.
But will USA step away from the idea of “humanitarian bombings”?
Will the American-created myth about admissibility of democratisation through occupation become dispelled?
Will the New Worlds politicians, exceedingly rational people, understand
that by defending the national interests by all means possible,
in the view other their own people they more and more frequently become seen as the opponents
and not as defenders of freedoms?
You have a minority of politicians, who resemble John McCain.
Hawks.
They no longer have influence.
By their constant call to use force, they lose the trust of the common people.
The spring of dual standards has become compressed to its maximum.
And God forbid if some leader of the USA would announce for the whole world to hear:
“we are allowed to do what others aren’t.”
Then the last illusion about America, a free land of free people, will collapse in an instant.
The diplomats and politicians of the USA are more and more frequently forced
to literally save the foundation of their ideology
of the American freedoms for the whole world,
and to justify their aggressive actions, invent more and more new so-called “special cases”.
Fragments from Obama’s speech at UN, 24.09.2013.\ Full text at American Rhetoric
Some may disagree, but I believe America is exceptional.
…In part because we have shown a willingness … to stand up not only for our own narrow self-interests, but for the interests of all.
…the danger for the world is not an America…
…America must remain engaged … [filling] … a vacuum of leadership that no other nation is ready to fill.
A new National Security Strategy was adopted in USA in May 2010.
The document is exceptionally clear:
USA is an epitome of universal values that must be advanced throughout the world.
And to that end, the American state, reserves for itself the right
of conducting one-sided military operations,
and striking an enemy in any corner of the world.
Simply speaking, according to this National Security Strategy,
the Americans have permitted themselves to strike anyone they deem a threat to democracy,
without first consulting with the world community,
and to use WMDs where they please.
And currently there are no clear signals from across the ocean,
that this concept will be revised.

Andrey Karaulov: “Those, who laughed at us yesterday, are no longer laughing today”

Below is my translation of an interview with Andrei Karaulov, published in “Argumenty i Fakty” on the 30th of January 2016. The information in this interview underlines and strengthens what I previously wrote in the articles, pertaining to the Wild 90s: The ”Wild 90s” in Russia, as reflected in people’s memory and another of Karaulov’s articles that I translated, For Russia 90’s Were Worse Than WWII.

One highlight from the article below:

Liberal historian Boris Sokolov counted how many people died over the course of only two years – 1992 and 1993 – during the so-called “reforms” of Gaidar and Chubais. 150.000 more than during the executions of 1937-1938.

Andrey Karaulov was born in 1958 in town Korolev. Journalist and writer, winner of TEFI, Author of TV programmes “The Moment of Truth”, “Russian century”. Author of the documentary films “Unknown Putin”, “Khodorkovskij. Pipes(dead bodies)” (translator note: the inserted character creates the pun), “A Common Fascism”. Author of the books “Around Kremlin”, Russian hell”, and other.


Olga Shablinsky, “AIF”: “It looks as if a new war is coming! We’ve quarreled with almost the whole world,” – it’s a conversation that I recently overheard, expressing the mood of so many… And at the same timet Karaulov writes on his page on the social networks: “Why is Putin not afraid of isolation?” Andrey, are you not worried with these feeling of a coming war?

– I want to ask you two questions. When and where did the first mobile phone appear? You don’t know? The answer is: in 1969. Leonid Brezhnev walked with it around his dacha, next to it, in the bushes there was a “Volga”, stuffed with equipment, but the handset worked exactly like a mobile phone – not from a wired network. Later the trunks of all government cars were equipped with a huge box with an antenna – “Angara” mobile communication system. And in 1992, Khasbulatov was holding the first real mobile phone released the pilot plant at one of the institutes of Dubna. But then reformers cropped up: one – the Minister of Economy, we all know of the other – Chubais. The plant and the Construction Agency were cut… disappeared as if they never existed! These “leaders” did not understand what they were doing. Well, they did not understand anything at all! And America and England got passed on the right to be called the “homeland” of mobile phones. If Dubna patented them back then, today they would have fed the whole of the Russian Federation, just like oil and gas do.

Now the main question: where did the cell phone come from? The answer is: it is one of the technologies that were used by two great men – Michael Yangel and Vladimir Utkin.

Now on to the next question: when and where did the Internet appear? Experts know, but I shall remind you: the first Internet (it’s prototype, if you like) was used by Yuri Andropov. This system was called “Mais”. It, too, hails from the Military-Industrial Complex. Only the members of the board of the KGB had access to “Mais”. The system was primitive. But the info from the “Database” on those USSR citizens who peaked the interest of the KGB or were part of the nomenclature came up instantly.

In other words, both the mobile phone and the Internet are the products of the Soviet defence industry.

The liberals (I suspect none of them were anywhere near any defence factory) are incessantly yelling that today’s Russia is militarising, that our “Korolev of today” – the great Russian scientist, academician Yuri Solomonov, and his colleagues are mad, creating one missile better than another, that all these expensive toys, including IL-80 of academician Henry Novozhilov will ruin our country. I also know how to yell. That does not take much wit… What is this mighty Soviet IL-80 drone? It is a “flying nuclear suitcase”! It is from this plane that the command to launch all of our terrestrial and submarine nuclear missiles comes, if for some reason the President, Defense Minister and Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces can not give the launch command themselves. And where will they fly? At those who decided that Russia is a third world country…

IL-80
IL-80

Now the most interesting – what will happen if IL-80 too becomes incapacitated in the air? Then a missile is launched, Americans call it “dead man’s hand”, and it issues a command to strike back…

No one else has such a nuclear shield, like our country today. We are ahead of the Americans by 15-20 years. When the US State Department, having given things some thought, speaks nowadays of the possible lifting of the sanctions from Russia in 2016, this is not surprising. It’s too late to fool around with Russian.

Each missile means tens of thousands of the latest technologies, many of them (well, almost all) have a dual purpose – not only military, but also civil. Solomonov put the chips from the “Topol” missile into the “Lada-Kalina” car. Military factories support over a dozen other industries. It is at the Solomonov’s factories that the monorail was developed in the 90s (Luzhkov applied it in Moscow), water purification system, the new X-ray machines and so on. New military technologies will make you happier, as well as all the citizens of Russia.

– And how will rockets make each of us happy?

– By giving us a complete safety! For our children and our grandchildren, too. America is the only country that can start a third world war. But the US has a law: if the enemy can (even in theory!) inflict an unacceptable damage, then the US will never attack that country. And unacceptable damage to them means 12% of their territory. So there will be no war. Through the operation in Syria, Putin has shown to everyone that the world is no longer unipolar, that it isn’t purely American. Those who yesterday were laughing at us, do not laugh today, after Syria. Today, we are as strong as ever.

A gang of thieves

– Andrey Victorovich, talks about our missiles, of course, inspire pride… But it would be nice to hear “the little man” as well. For example, my neighbour, who is crying: “Pensions are not enough for anything”.

– We must always believe the little man, because he is always right – what reason has he to lie? Why, despite the real successes of our country (defence is an enormous part of the economy) dollar so suddenly shot up relative to the rouble? Today, the best minds say that the rouble is undervalued by a third. And if the rouble is undervalued, why the hell did it drop relative to the dollar?! With these missiles! Say thanks to Anatoly Chubais – he was one of those who developed the scheme, where the rouble got pegged to the oil price. Some villains turned up, who agreed that the oil in our major export commodity. They started to play on it. But I am sure that Putin will instruct the Investigative Committee to conduct a supervisory investigation. And soon everyone will see that there is no connection between the oil price and the exchange rate of the rouble.

– But I also remember very well the pre-stock-exchange times – how my grandfather was on the verge of suicide when all his savings of many years evaporated – 5000 Soviet roubles. Granddaughters’ weddings were postponed…

– You have just mentioned the worst of the problems of the end of the twentieth century. Liberal historian Boris Sokolov counted how many people died over the course of only two years – 1992 and 1993 – during the so-called “reforms” of Gaidar and Chubais. 150.000 more than during the executions of 1937-1938. And, mark, so far no one got punished for that! And then there was 1994… The flywheel of reforms spun even harder…

Today neither Gaidar nor Chubais are in the power. We live in a different country. But people are still scared. Here you are talking to me about the little man. So as not to be a little man, it is necessary not to unduly frighten ourselves with the stories about the acts of terrorism, and to know the true heroes of the country and be proud of them! This is the genuine Russia.

It is necessary that the TV screens instead of reporting about disasters, started showing reports about the revived the great enterprises, about young workers, children, high school students, who come to the defence factories after school, how future professionals are made of them.

We live in a country of myths, but not of little people. People will read our interviews in “AIF”, and they will no longer feel as little people. Deceived – yes, not knowing much – yes. But proud of their country. Those who wants to know the truth, will always find a way. One just has to want to.

Who and How Transferred Crimea into Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1952-1954

Below is my translation of a very informative article by Mikhail Smirnov, published in Svobodnaja Mysl’ (Free Thought).

1Nemo1KPB8UjQjrURqn6V7Mscungx44XS2Please note that translating a documentary film or an article takes a lot of time and emotional effort. I am doing it on a voluntary basis, but if someone feels like supporting my work, a Bitcoin donation to the following address is appreciated: 1Nemo1KPB8UjQjrURqn6V7Mscungx44XS2

It is worth noting, that when the author points out the Russian roots in Crimea, he is most probably referring to the Scythians, who are just the same people as Rus, but going under a different name. See my summery of the documentary Yes, Scythians Are Us.

When reading the text below, note one historic peculiarity of USSR of that time. While 14 republics were almost always denoted by their national name – e.g Ukrainian SSR (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic) – there was one exception. In USSR no one spoke of Russia, to the extent that the existence of Russia as a republic was largely forgotten. Instead the acronym RSFSR was always in use (decoded as Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic).

At the end of this post, after the main article, I present my translation of the closing speech by K.E Voroshilov from the stenography of the session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR from the 19th of February 1954, which is an important historical evidence, setting the stage for the transfer and for the peninsular and the expectation connected to the act.


It was not Khrushchev, who made the decision on the transfer of Crimea, but his rabid anti-Stalinism and voluntarism became the propelling power behind this whole undertaking. There were no objective reasons for this decision.

In the history of the presence of the Crimea within modern Ukraine, which, as it is now widely known, began with the official transfer of the Crimean region of the RSFSR to the Ukrainian SSR in 1954 and is associated with the name N.S.Khrushchev, you can set apart the pre-history, that is the actually history of decision-making on behalf of the Crimea, from hatching of the idea to the party-bureaucratic mechanism for its implementation.

As it is well-known, at the time of its transfer into the Ukrainian SSR in 1954, Crimea had the status of the region within the RSFSR. From 1921 to 1945 it was a multi-national autonomy within the Russian Federation – the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (KrASSR) with the official languages ​​of Russian and Tatar, and in places of compact settlement – also German and Hebrew. After the well-known dramatic events during the War, the administrative status of Crimea was downgraded: Crimean Autonomy was eliminated by converting it into the Crimean region, officially – due to changes in the ethnic composition of the population of Crimea. Crimean Autonomy was restored in 1991 as part of the Ukrainian SSR, and in 1992 it was renamed into the Republic of Crimea.

In the public mind there is a long-established stereotype, which firmly connects the transfer of the Crimean region of the RSFSR into the Ukrainian SSR with the name of N.S. Khrushchev. By and large it is justified, but, after all, a few comments clarifying and enriching the picture of the event will be reasonably useful.

According to the memoirs of the contemporaries of the events, the idea of ​​the transfer of Crimea to Ukraine began to ripen in Khrushchev’s mind ever since the time, when he in 1944-1947 headed the Council of Ministers of the Ukrainian SSR, and at the same time was the first secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Ukrainian SSR. The year was 1944, the war was still going on. The boss off the USSR, I.V. Stalin, demanded that Khrushchev sent from the Ukrainian SSR to the neighbouring republic 100 thousand people – they were supposed to help with the rebuilding of the Russian Federation. But the position of Ukraine itself was not less, but even more severe, as during the Great Patriotic War almost the whole of its territory saw devastating military operations, and almost all of it has been exposed to enemy occupation. Nikita Khrushchev was furious. “Ukraine itself is destroyed, and more is taken from us” – he raged. (Head of the Soviet trade unions, Lavrentij Pogrebnoy, was a witness to Khrushchev’s indignation in 1944. A few years later, he told one of the Soviet writers about the events.)

Khrushchev could not directly oppose Stalin’s orders. So perhaps even then, or a little later, he hatched the idea that a decent compensation for this extra effort (and even, maybe for Starvation [translator’s note: Gologomor, for the real history surrounding it, I’d recommend reading the article The Real Truth About USSR: Golodomor and Collectivization in Ukraine]), could become a significant territorial gain of Ukraine within the USSR: of course, at the expense of the beneficiary of the “Ukrainian brotherly” assistance – the Russian Federation, which was to boot the most rich territory-wise. Even a cursory glance at the map of the Soviet Union was enough to see the most likely scenario for this: geographically isolated from the rest of the territory of the RSFSR, but located in the vicinity of the Ukrainian SSR and adjacent to it, is the Crimean peninsula. And being by nature a voluntarist, he vowed that he will get Crimea, whatever it takes.

But Khrushchev began the direct implementation of his idea later, in the first half of the 50s, or more precisely – starting from 1952, when the signs of limitations in functional capacity of Stalin became more and more obvious for the party leadership. (Stalin announced that he was going to retire at the October Central Committee plenum of 1952, which was held after the completion of the XIX Congress of the CPSU. But already starting from February 1951, three Politburo members (G.M. Malenkov, L.P. Beria, N.A. Bulganin) were given the right to sign various documents on behalf of Stalin, as, according to Molotov, due to the decrease in performance he did not sign many government documents for a prolonged period of time.) The real opportunity opened up only in connection with the death of Stalin. But it is possible that another significant cause for activation of Khrushchev on this subject at that time was also the activity of a supporter of Stalin’s policy in regard to the Crimea, which brought to the fore the ideas that went counter to Khrushchev’s.

According to unconfirmed records, in October 1952, the first secretary of the Crimean regional party (in 1949-1954) P.I. Titov, while being a delegate of the XIX Party Congress, addressed personally to Stalin with a written offer to rename the Crimean region into Tauridia. In his opinion, it would be entirely consistent with the history of the region, starting from the XVIII century. In particular, as one of the arguments, Titov appealed to the forgotten Soviet Republic of Tauridia. He believed that for the Crimean region of the RSFSR “it’s high time to restore its Russian, Rus name”.

Titov’s proposal was not priorly discussed in the Crimean Regional Party Committee and was not approved by them. But we know that the second person in the region – D.S. Polanski (in 1952-1954 the chairman of the executive committee of the Crimean Regional Council) – objected to this initiative. On the other hand he supported the transfer of Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR. Twenty years later, the nomenclature Party member G.V. Myasnikov, while at that time the second secretary of the Moscow city committee of the Komsomol remembered Polyansky thus: “I remember how he went up the hill. He met Khrushchev and Titov in the Crimea. An idea of ​​the transfer of Crimea to Ukraine was brought up. Titov rejected the idea right away, while Polyansky said it was “brilliant”. The next day they gathered the plenum of the Crimean Regional Committee, Titov was driven out, while Poljansky became the first secretary of the regional committee.”

But it is more likely that this “cleansing out” of Titov took place more gradually, after the first secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of USSR, N.S. Khrushchev visited the Crimea in October 1953. Khrushchev’s son-in-law, Adjoubei Alex, who accompanied him on his trip around the country, recalled that when Khrushchev came to the Crimea at that time, he was shocked by how disastrous was the situation in the region and how great was the discontent by this among the local residents. At the same time, however, Khrushchev remained true to himself, and when he saw at the local airport some aircraft, he immediately ordered to fly it over to Kiev. And then, a few hours later, he already talked, over a supper, with the local party leaders about the transfer of Crimea and resettlement of Ukrainians into Crimea. Most likely, it was at this moment that an open dispute ensued between him and Titov. According to Titov’s deputy, L.G. Mezentsev, the head of the Crimea was called in to Moscow in mid-January of 1954 to inform him of preparation of a decision on the transfer of the region. He protested, for which on the 16th of January he was replaced with a Ukrainian Dmitry Polyansky. Thus, based on the totality of the memories of witnesses, it can be argued that P.I. Titov strongly objected to Khrushchev regarding the transfer of Crimea to Ukraine, and he had constant clashes with the Secretary of the Central Committee on this issue, which resulted in this imperious and prudent owner of the Crimean region being finally deposed to the rank of Deputy Minister of Agriculture of the RSFSR. In general, according to the researchers, Khrushchev initiated a rather limited number of people into his intentions with respect to Crimea. Among them – the first secretary (since June 1953) of the Communist Party of Ukraine A.I. Kirichenko, who, at the time, was also a candidate member of the Praesidium of the Central Committee of CPSU and was in good standing with Khrushchev.

But Stalin, who was by that time ill, delayed an official response to Titov. According to the memoirs of some of Titov’s colleagues, in the spring of 1953 and later he, nevertheless, referred to a brief personal answer from Stalin, which was sent personally to him in late January 1953, saying that his proposal was “interesting and perhaps correct. This question can be discussed and resolved.” In the middle of November of 1953 Titov told about this opinion of Stalin to Khrushchev and Polyansky, when the principal decision on the transfer of Crimea to Ukraine had in fact already been made.

An indirect confirmation of the fact that Stalin was quite seriously considering Titov’s proposals, can be the process of renaming of the Crimean Tatar names into Russian ones, which began from the mid-1940s and which was initiated by Stalin himself after the deportation of the Tatar population from there. There are many sources describing this. For example, a comprehensive project on renaming in Crimea was dated with the 25th of September 1948, when the Crimean Regional Committee passed the decree “On renaming of settlements, streets, certain types of work, and other Tatar designations”. However, it was not planned to rename Crimea itself. But even before that, in the 1944-1946, 11 out of 26 Crimean regional centres were renamed (for example, the Ak-Mechetsky region into Chernomorskij, Larindorfsky into Pervomaisky) as well as 327 villages. In the period from 1948 to 1953, it was planned to rename some towns. The documents recorded in particular that Djankoi was going to become either Uzlovo, Severnyj or Verhnekrymsk, Saki turning into Ozernoje, and they wanted to call Bakhchisaray – “Pushkin”. Kerch was supposed to be given the name of “Korchev”, known from the old-Russian chronicles. In general, during 1947-1953 new – Russian – names were given to 1062 settlements and nearly 1300 natural object, mostly replacing Tatar ones. It is obvious that in the context of this process, also Titov’s proposal to change the name of the Crimea looked quite logical. However, the renaming slowed down when the turn of the cities came. And after Stalin’s death, the plan to rename the Crimean cities was abandoned altogether.

Thus, we can see that the project of the inclusion of Crimea into Ukraine was preceded by a project of strengthening of Russian presence in Crimea, and in 1952-1953, as a logical completion of the latter, there was also a project, which remained on the level of an idea, of re-renaming the Crimean region into Tauridian.

(An aside from the translator: Crimean Tatars are more likely Mongolians, the descendants of the Golden Horde of the Mongolian Khan Baty, who raided and occupied the peninsular in the 14th century. The name given to the peninsular by them was “Kyrim”, meaning “trench”. Before the Mongol occupation the peninsular had the Greek name of “Tauridia”. What the endemic population, Scythians, called their land back then is lost.)

As is known, the Russian presence in Crimea has been recorded since ancient chronicled times. Of particular interest to us – in the light of the events of the XX century that we discuss here – is “Tmutarakan” sub-plot of this presence. The original antique city of Panticapaeum, which in the era of the Khazarian Khaganate (translator note: For a well-researched foray into the history of Khazarian Kaganate, I would recommend reading Lada Ray’s Earth Shift Report 6: UKRAINE – NEW KHAZARIAN KHAGANATE?) of the VIII century got the name of Karsha or Charsha, which in Turkic means “market” or “bazaar”, is mentioned in the old-Russian historical records of the events of the X century under the Slavinised name of Krchev (Korchev) [Кърчевъ]. In the tenth century, Tmutarakan principality – part of the Ancient (Kievan) Rus – takes root on the Crimean and the Caucasian coasts of the Kerch Strait. Korchev was closely associated with the capital of the principality – Tmutarakan, while the Eastern geographers of that time called the Kerch Strait for the Russian River.

And so it was in Kerch that, after a long period of Ottoman history in Crimea, Russia once again establishes on the peninsula, several years before its full incorporation into the Russian Empire. In 1771 Russian troops took Kerch and neighbouring fortress Yeni-Kale. By the Kuchuk-Karnadzhiyskomu peace treaty between the Russian and Ottoman empires, which ended Russian-Turkish war of 1768-1774, this city with its fortress was the first of all the Crimea to become part of the Russian Empire, while, in accordance with that agreement, the Crimean Khanate as a whole then became independence from the Ottoman Empire, with the exception of the influence in the questions of religion. The manifesto of Catherine II was issued on the 8th of April 1783 and decreed the accession of Crimea, Taman and Kuban into the Russian Empire. By the decree of the 2nd of February 1784 Tauridian region (oblast) was established, covering some of the continental land. Later it was transformed into a province (county).

It is quite possible that the role of Kerch, and the Kerch Peninsula as a whole, in the Russian development on Crimea was the foundation for another P.I. Titov’s proposal in November 1953, which he already addressed to Polyansky and Khrushchev, and reiterated in January 1954. It pertained to the inclusion of this region (ie. Eastern Crimea) with the status of the “Kerch region” into the composition of RSFSR. Already then Titov had a well-founded belief that it was inadvisable for RSFSR “to vacate” Crimea, and, thanks to the newly formed region, the strategically important Kerch (Azov-Black Sea) Strait – “Russian River” – would still be a part of RSFSR. Titiov’s “Kerch” was outright rejected by Khrushchev followers, so much so, that the entire water area of ​​the Kerch Strait in the subsequent transfer of the Crimea ended up being assigned to the Ukrainian SSR.

The question of what was the nature of the whole of Crimean autonomy – national or territorial – is also of crucial importance. Lenin’s Sovnarkom initially created both types of autonomies, but over time only the national ones were left. The Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, in this regard, had become a unique autonomous construct, which retained its territorial nature. According to the All-Union census of 1939, Russians comprised 49.6% of the Crimean population, Crimean Tatars – 19.4%, Ukrainians – 13.7%, Jews – 5.8%, Germans – 4.6%. But as the total population during the war declined sharply, and its ethnic composition underwent fundamental changes, Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic was transformed into the Crimean region (oblast) on the 30th of June 1945. Unlike most other autonomous regions, where there was the predominance of the indigenous population, the Crimean Autonomous Republic was not Tatar from the very beginning of its establishment. Moreover, 2/3 of the population of the Crimea at the time was Russian, and only one-third consisted of the peoples who had settled here before the Russians and made up the indigenous population of the peninsula. (Translator note: in the bird’s eye historic perspective, Russians are the indigenous population of the peninsula, who were driven from Crimea, but later returned.) At the same time, flirting with Kemalist Turkey, the Soviet leadership traditionally appointed mostly men of Tatar origin to the leading positions in the republic. This created a false impression that the Crimean autonomy was, like all the other, the national one – Crimean Tatar. But as it is known, in accordance with the provisions of the National Defence Commission of 11th of May and the 2nd of June 1944, of all Tatars of all ages (about 180 thousand people) were deported from Crimea to Kazakhstan. (Translator note: the exception was given to mixed-marriage families, where a Tatar woman was married to a Russian.)

All of the above sheds some light on the political context in which Khrushchev’s fateful for the history of the Crimea voluntarist decision was conceived and prepared. But it is equally important to take into account the details of the mechanism of this decision at the state level.

The fact is that N.S. Khrushchev became the first person in the USSR leadership only in 1955. While immediately after the death of Stalin (at the time of the death he held the post of the chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers), the head of government and a key figure in the leadership of the USSR was G.M. Malenkov. By the end of Stalin’s life, Malenkov was one of the main contenders for the post of supreme leader of the country, and immediately after his death, inherited the post of the chairman of the Council of Ministers. I.V. Stalin died on the 5th of March 1953, and at that time, in the beginning of the 1950s, this was the main post, while the position of the General Secretary of the CPSU was abolished, since, according to the late Stalinist concept of the governance structure, the Communist Party should no longer play a leading role in governing of the country.

M.S. Voslensky in his famous book “The Nomenclature” writes:

In the days after the death of Stalin in March 1953, it was customary to conclude speeches at the memorial meetings in the following typical ending: “Eternal glory to the Chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers, Secretary of the CPSU I.V. Stalin! Long live Chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers, Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee G.M. Malenkov!”

As it becomes clear from these titles, according to a new tradition established by Stalin, the post of the President of the Council of Ministers of USSR was the most important positions in contemporary system of power, and that it was inherited by Malenkov. And although the decision from March the 5th 1953 of the joint meeting of the Plenum of the Central Committee, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet and the USSR Council of Ministers abolished the Bureau of the Presidium of the Central Committee of CPSU, and on the the 14th of March 1953 the political opponents of Malenkov managed to deprive him of his post of a Secretary of the CPSU (ie, at the time, one of the many secretaries of the Central Committee), in 1953-55 he was still the Chairman of the USSR, and presiding over the meetings of the Presidium of the Central Committee of CPSU (as Politburo of the Central Committee of CPSU was called at the time). And thus, according to the then semi-official representations of the structure of power in the USSR, and, to an even greater extent, due to the political practice established under Stalin’s influence, he was the real leader of the country. It was during the period of his leadership of the country, that the transfer of the Crimean region into the Ukrainian SSR actually took place.

And if you take the viewpoint of those, who do not recognize that the decisions in the USSR were taken collectively, but absolutely want to assign personal responsibility for any decision to one of the “leaders”, then we must blame Malenkov, and not Khrushchev for the transfer of the Crimean region. By the beginning of 1954, when the Crimea was handed over, Khrushchev was not yet a sufficiently influential figure so as to define such major decisions. He was one of the secretaries of the Central Committee, responsible for the work of the entire Secretariat (on September the 7th 1953 he was elected 1st secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU), he was a member of the Presidium of the Central Committee, and was a member of a group, warring with the group of Malenkov. The very same Voslensky in his book indicates that Malenkov tried his best to belittle the role of the Central Committee Secretariat, and it was under him that they began to speak of the secretariat as of a purely technical body. Therefore, it is logical to assume that any significant initiatives emanating from Khrushchev, would not get the support of Malenkov.

If, however, we are be absolutely exact, then from a purely formal point of view, the transfer of Crimea was initiated by a collective body – the Presidium of the CPSU Central Committee, which meetings at that time were chaired by Malenkov. This can be seen from documents published in “Rossiyskaya Gazeta” (Federal Edition #3409 of the 19th of February 2004):

From the protocol N 49 of the Central Committee of the CPSU Presidium meeting on the transfer of the Crimean region from the composition of the RSFSR into the composition of the Ukrainian SSR
25th of January 1954
Presided by: G.M. Malenkov
Present:
Members of the Presidium of the Central Committee, comrades N.S. Khrushchev, K.E. Voroshilov, N.A. Bulganin, L.M. Kaganovich, A.L. Mikoyan, M.Z. Saburov, M.G. Pervukhin.
Candidates for members of the Presidium of the Central Committee, comrades N.M. Shvernik, P.K. Ponomarenko.
CPSU Central Committee secretaries, comrades M.A. Suslov, P.N. Pospelov, N.N. Shatalin.

XL About transfer of the Crimean region from the composition of the RSFSR into the composition of the Ukrainian SSR
1. To approve as amended at the meeting, the attached draft of the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on the transfer of the Crimean region from the composition of the RSFSR into the composition of the Ukrainian SSR.
2. To deem it appropriate to hold a special session of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of USSR, at which to consider a joint submission to the Bureau of the Supreme Soviets of the RSFSR and the Ukrainian SSR on the transfer of the Crimean region from the composition of the RSFSR into the composition of the Ukrainian SSR.

Secretary of the CPSU Khrushchev
АЛРФ.Ф.З.Оп.10.Д.65Л1,4-б Подлинник (original)

However, having the real distribution of power in the USSR leadership elite in favour of the government agencies – as a testament from Stalin, outwardly the power system in the country continued working in a mode, familiar to the people, that is, in such a way, that the decisions of the Central Committee of the CPSU were governing in relation the decisions of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, which was only a “law publishing” body, which gave the appearance of democracy to decisions, which had actually been taken in the Central Committee. Thus, the Council of Ministers, headed by Malenkov, was sidelined on the decision of the Crimea. This decision was taken by the Presidium of the CPSU Central Committee, a meeting presided by Malenkov.

Again, from a purely formal point of view, N.S. Khruschev’s responsibility for this decision consisted only in the fact that he, like everyone else, voted “for” and in addition to this, as the 1st Secretary of the Central Committee heading the work of the Secretariat of the Central Committee, put his signature, just formally certifying the protocol. In the same way as in the Brezhnev period Giorgadze put his signature after Brezhnev’s signature. But analysis of the alignment of the centres of power in the power system of that time shows that the decision of the Presidium chaired by the economic planner Malenkov could be a bargaining chip (albeit a pretty small one) in the nomenclature and political struggle of his supporters with the group of Khrushchev – the highest at that time party functionary. In any case, with that set up, Malenkov was a guarantor that, as a result of this decision, there would be no major changes in the Crimea’s situation and, above all, in the nature of economic relations of the Crimean region within the control system of the USSR.

From the extract from the protocol N49, cited above, it is clear at the same meeting the draft of the Decree of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on the transfer of Crimea was approved, which after a multi-stage procedure, would in the end be “rubber-stamped” by the Supreme Council. The Supreme Soviet of the USSR rubber-stamped the decree draft at its meeting of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of February the 19th 1954. Here is the text of the decree:

The stenography of meeting can be consulted here. (Translator note: I will translate the closing speech of Voroshilov, which gives additional context to the political and cultural background, as well as assumed conditions, of the transfer.)

DECREE
Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR
On the transfer of the Crimean region from the composition of the RSFSR into the composition the Ukrainian SSR

“Given the commonality of the economy, the proximity and close economic and cultural ties between the Crimean region and the Ukrainian SSR, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics RESOLVES:

Approve the joint submission of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR and the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian SSR on the transfer of the Crimean region from the composition of Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic into the composition of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.”

Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR K.VOROSHILOV
Secretary of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR N.PEGOV
Moscow, The Kremlin, February 19, 1954.

And already on the 26th of April 1954 the Supreme Soviet of the USSR by the Law “On the transfer of the Crimean region from the composition of RSFSR in the composition of the Ukrainian SSR” approved the decree of its Presidium and made the appropriate changes to Articles 22 and 23 of the Constitution of the USSR.

Incidentally, we must note that the issue of transfer of the Crimea went in the agenda of the meeting of the Presidium of the CC CPSU as item XI or XL (it is not very clear from the publication of the document). In any case, this issue was not perceived as being particularly important. It is possible that this attitude has led to a certain constitutional legislative negligence in the design of the entire transfer procedure. The fact is, under Article 18 of the Constitution of USSR, which was in effect by 1954, the territory of a republic could not be altered without its consent. Such consent was given by both Republics in the form of a Ruling of the Presidium of the Supreme Councils of the two Republics. However, Article 33 of the Constitution of the RSFSR, which contained a list of the authorities given to the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, there is no authority to change the boundaries of the RSFSR. Not to mention the fact that out of the 27 members of the meeting of the 5th of February 1954, during which the issue was addressed, only 15 were present.

Further considering the nature of the relationship of the then leadership of the USSR to the “Crimean issue”, one should also note the following. For example, in the relevant documents of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet it was claimed both wisely and pompously, “that the transfer of Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR, taking into account the commonality of their economies, the proximity and close economic and cultural ties, is fully appropriate and is a testament to the boundless trust of the Russian people in the Ukrainian people…” This is how the “Ukrainians” at the helm thought back then. At the same time, the event itself passed completely unnoticed. It was not widely presented by the official propaganda to the Soviet and foreign public as another triumph of the party reason and higher justice. Probably for this reason, the Western press said nothing about this. While in the Soviet publications one can only find a couple of paragraphs about the symbolic meaning of this act in the context of the 300th anniversary of the “reunification” of Ukraine and Russia. However, the celebrations that took place in late May 1954 were generally devoted only to the anniversary. And even in the festive speech of Khrushchev, not a word was said about the Crimea. The absence of any indication to the transfer of Crimea in the Soviet sources of the time leads to some extent to a probable assumption, that the leaders of the Soviet Union intended to create in the perception of the peoples of the Soviet Union the idea, that the presence of the Crimea as part of Ukraine was a self-evident fact, and the decision to transfer the peninsula was represented as something long-overdue and almost as correction of a certain historical misunderstanding. But it is also quite possible that there was a feeling of voluntary overeagerness, and that there was no complete confidence that the decision, taken completely privately and without extensive discussion between the peoples of the two largest of the Soviet republics, would not cause public rejection. (Translator’s note: It did, at the “kitchen talk” level, much of which I heard first-hand, while spending many a summer of my youth in Crimea.)

N.S. Khruschev made a considerable progress towards senior management position of the country only in 1955 as a result of the nomenclature struggle for the removal of Malenkov from power. In 1955, Malenkov was dismissed from the post of Chairman of the USSR, and on the 29th of June 1957 he was removed from the Presidium of the CC CPSU. It is not known when exactly he ceased to be “presiding” at the Presidium meeting, but most likely in the very same 1955.

Since that time, that is, from the time when N.S. Khruschev, as the 1st Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee and member of the Presidium of the Central Committee, began to gradually strengthen his position as the sole leader of the Communist Party, we can say that the party organs as a whole began to regain the lead in the country’s leadership. However, until 1958 the high status and independence of the state and economic apparatus inherited from the Stalinist era remained. Chairman of the USSR from 1955 to 1958 was N.A. Bulganin, who previously, just like Malenkov, was one of the Vice-Chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers of Stalin. It was only in 1958 that Bulganin was dismissed, and his position was also taken by N.S. Khruschev while still holding the post of the First Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee. The defeat of the group of Bulganin, Malenkov, Kaganovich, Molotov and Shepilov occurred in June 1957 when at first during the meeting of the Presidium (Politburo) of the Central Committee of the CPSU by a majority vote, it was decided to abolish the post of the 1st Secretary of the CPSU and to appoint Khrushchev Minister of Agriculture, and then during an urgently convened plenum of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, as a result of the dramatically unfolding events and with Zhukov’s help, Khrushchev managed to turn the situation to his advantage, and called Bulganin/Malenkov’s group for “anti-party”. Only after 1958 can N.S. Khurshev be held solely responsible for the supreme power decisions in the country. The Crimean region was transferred to Ukraine at the beginning of 1954, while the opinion about the deciding role that Khrushchev played in it, was formed only later with the help of the official propaganda.

Soviet newspapers, like mirrors, reflected the change in the ratio of different branches of power in the USSR. The newspaper “Pravda” of the 21st of December 1955 in its report on the national meeting of the top performers of agriculture in Tashkent, said: “spacious auditorium of the theatre named after Alisher Navoi was filled to capacity. 11 am. Loud and prolonged applause greeted the appearance at the meeting the Chairman of the presidium of the USSR Council of Ministers N. Bulganin and First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, N.S. Khrushchev. Places on the podium are occupied by the first secretary of Central Committee of the Communist Party: Uzbekistan – A.I. Niyazov, Kazakhstan – LI Brezhnev, Tajikistan – BG Gafurov, Chairman of the Council of Ministers: Uzbek SSR – N.A. Mukhitdinov, Tajik SSR – T. Uldzhabaev, Turkmen SSR – B. Ovezov, Kirghiz SSR – A. Suerkulov, Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Uzbek SSR Sh.R. Rashidov.” Here, the Chairman of the USSR Council is still mentioned in the first place, while the first secretary of the Communist Party – in the second, as a figure of lesser importance.

But already in 1960, at the height of Khrushchev’s personality cult, there is a dominating and familiar us from the days of Stagnation formula, where the Central Committee of the Communist Party is mentioned in the first place: “The workers of agriculture of the Penza region report to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Soviet Government and personally to Comrade N.S. Khrushchev that, realizing the historical decision of the XXI Congress of the CPSU, collective and state farms, overcoming the difficulties created in the current year due to adverse weather conditions, have grown a good harvest, and completed the plan to sell grain to the state ahead of schedule – on August the 9th – using 20 working days.” (“Pravda” of the 12th of August 1960).

There are some important considerations at the end of this brief historical sketch of this dramatic episode in the history of Russia. In that harsh time P.I. Titov became the forerunner of the modern Communist Party of the Russian Federation in that part of its activity, which is directed today to protect the all-Russian interests. It is a pity that his name have not become a symbol of the 23-year-long modern struggle for liberation of the Russian-speaking people of the Crimea against the Ukrinising occupants. In light of the events of the modern Russian history, that person is worthy of his memory being perpetuated at least by a commemorative plaque in Simferopol, and at least a mention of him in the future textbooks of the history of the Fatherland as a Russian citizen, who was not afraid to go against the voluntarist projects of omnipotent Russian Ukrainophile Khrushchev. The country and the people need to know their heroes, and not only the negative ones.


Below is a translation of the closing speech by K.E Voroshilov from the stenography of the session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR from the 19th of February 1954. As the commentary note at the top of that site says, “The Communist regime held no referendum or any opinion poll among the Crimeans regarding their transfer into the Ukrainian SSR”. All highlighting in the translation is mine.

Comrades, the decision of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on the joint proposal of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet and the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian SSR regarding the transfer of the Crimean region from the composition of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic into the composition of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic is a testament to further strengthening of the unity and indestructible friendship of the Russian and Ukrainian peoples within the great powerful fraternal family of the peoples of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. This significant act of great national importance once again confirms that the relationship between sovereign allied socialist republics in the USSR is based on genuine equality and a real understanding and respect for mutual interests, aimed at the prosperity of all of the Union republics.

In history, there is no – and can not be – other such relation between States. In the past, especially under capitalism, at the very root of relations between states there was an aspiration for territorial conquest, the pursuit of strong states profiteering at the expense of territories of weaker countries. Only within the conditions, created by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics may there be such a fair resolution of all issues between Union Republics, decisions based on economic feasibility and sensibility, full of mutual friendship and fraternal co-operation of their peoples. The transfer of the Crimean region of the RSFSR into the Ukrainian SSR is in the interest of the Russian and Ukrainian peoples, and meets the national interests of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The Crimean region, due to its historical development, due to its territorial and economic status, is important for the whole of the Soviet state. And in the distant and recent past enemies have repeatedly tried to take away the Crimean peninsula from Russia, use it to plunder and ruin Russian and Ukrainian lands, establish a base there for attacks on Russia and Ukraine. However the Russian and Ukrainian peoples had more than once, in their common struggle, severely beaten the arrogant invaders and thrown them out of the borders of Ukraine and Crimea. Ukraine and Crimea are closely linked by common economic interests – this has already been eloquently stated both by the presenters and by comrade speakers. Cultural relations between Crimea and Ukraine in particular have increased and deepened. The transfer of the Crimean region into the Ukrainian SSR will undoubtedly further strengthen the traditional ties.

Comrades, this friendly act takes place in the days when the Soviet people solemnly celebrate the remarkable historical date of the 300th anniversary of the reunification of Russia and Ukraine. This is a great traditional celebration not only of the Ukrainian people, but also for all the peoples of the USSR. Friendship of peoples – one of the foundations of our great multinational Soviet state, the source of its invincible might, of its prosperity and power. We know and rejoice that the Russian, Ukrainian and other peoples of our vast country, will also in the future continue to develop and strengthen their brotherly friendship. Let our great Motherland – the fraternal Union of Soviet Socialist Republics – develop and grow stronger!

”The Shepherd’s Crown” – A Fare You Well from to Granny Sir Terry Pratchett

It is now almost a year since my blog started transmitting “GNU Terry Pratchett” in the X-Clacks-Overhead of each HTTP header of each response – to keep the name of Sir Terry in the wires. And it is only now that I found resolve to read the final Discworld book – The Shepherd’s Crown.

The Sheperd’s Crown is, just like all the Discworld books, a masterpiece. But it is much more than that. It encompasses both a parting of the author with his audience, a farewell to the beloved characters, who accompanied us for all these years, and ultimately, Sir Terry’s testament and guidance to his readers, no, to humanity at large.

Pratchett introduced a new character his final book – Geoffrey, who is a male witch and a “peace-weaver”. I felt an instant liking to this character – we need more such peace-weavers in our Roundworld gone mad, someone who can talk reason and calmness in the situations when the elves of our world are souring not just beer, but the good neighbourly relations between peoples, putting peoples at loggerheads.

I am not one, who cries when reading a book, but one chapter, where as a result of a monumental shifting event, almost each of the key characters of Discworld made a cameo appearance, made me cry. Those were the bitter-sweet tears of parting, coming out despite all the admonishing that we should not grieve the passage of those, who left the world as a slightly better place, than how it was, when they found it…

And so, the window that we had into the living, breathing, working world of Discworld has closed, after being open for just 32 years. We were privileged to be able to peek into this world! And as we leave it, we know that it will continue to live and function somewhere out there in the multiverse, unbeknownst to us, as the great narrator of Discworld, Sir Terry Pratchett, is no longer here to relay its story.