Ukraine celebrated its independence – from what?

Rostislav Ischenko wrote an article (in Russian) “Lost Independence”, about the recently celebrated in Kiev Independence day. I want to start this post with a translation of a short fragment from that article, followed by a report from Donbass – how Poroshenko’s words that he “loves Donbass” manifest into mortar shells falling onto people’s heads.

Ukraine celebrates the 25th anniversary of its independence. Independence from what?

From the oil of Tyumen and Yamal gas, from Yakutia diamonds, and from gold of Kolyma, from the world’s largest reservoir of fresh water – Lake Baikal, and from the incalculable riches of the Arctic shelf. From all this, and many other things has Ukraine been independent for the last twenty-five years. But two and a half years of Poroshenko’s reign achieved new accomplishments. Now Ukraine is also independent from Crimea with its unique climatic conditions, and from Donbass – two regions which gave more than 30% overall and nearly half of foreign exchange earnings to the budget.

Over these two and a half years Ukraine got independent of several millions of its citizens. Optimists say that of five, the pessimists – that of fifteen. Even during the Great Patriotic War, Ukraine was “freed” from Ukrainians with lower rates. So there are things in which Ukrainians can be more effective than Germans and their allies, who built a “united Europe” in the first half of the twentieth century. Back then, too, the Europeans wanted to see Ukraine in Europe, and neither did they promise that the Ukrainians would get there together with Ukraine. As a result, the country was cleared of 20% of its population over the three years [of Nazi-German occupation]. The current government cleared it by 25% over two and a half years.

At this rate, by 2025 Ukraine will become independent of its entire population. Presumably complete happiness will then come. No opposition. No dissatisfied. Only the eternal peace, reconciling the right and left, the Russian-speaking and the Surzhik-speaking, “Eurointegrationalists” and Eurasians, Orthodox and Uniate, rainbowy fanatics of homosexual love and the harsh traditionalists.

All this happened because first of all Ukraine got independent from common sense, having become a country of victorious absurdity already in the beginning of 1992. Opponents of exit from the USSR accounted for the majority of the population. They controlled the parliament. Executive power was so diligent and so quick to execute commands of the Union center (even before they were given) that Ukraine in the years of perestroika, was called a “stagnation reserve”, being contrasted with the “democratic Belarus”, in which social life was flourishing.

Ischenko’s conclusion is that Ukraine was a failed state from day 1 – because its elites were creating the state for their own enrichment and not for the benefit of the population, and now, when there is nothing left to plunder they are looking towards either US, EU or Russia to fix their problems:

But how well it all began. The largest, bigger than the Russian, European army, huge arsenals of the most modern weapons, half of the strategic aviation of the USSR, the third in the world (after Russia and the US) nuclear arsenal. 40% of the Union’s machine-building industry, about 50% of the Union’s Agriculture, 60% of the Union’s GDP. Ports, both commercial and military fleet, gas pipeline system, higher education institutions and world-famous scientific schools, highly qualified workforce and population, which ranked first in Europe in terms of education, social welfare, health care.

It seemed like it would never end. And yet, just 25 years later – the emptiness, catastrophe.

Now we say that the state has not materialised. But it didn’t happen now. It did not materialise from the first moment and hasn’t been a valid state for even a minute. Because, if the Ukrainian state manifested, at least at one point of its existence, it would never have reached such a life as now.

A state that somebody needs can’t not manifest. But a Ukrainian state is not even needed by the Ukrainian Nazis. They come as scavengers upon an already dead carcass, to have time to grab a piece of rotting flesh, and die next to the remains of Ukraine. For the Nazis, too, can not exist without a state. But they are finishing it off as they have nothing constructive to offer – in comparison with the program of the oligarchic elite, which they are coming to replace – except for “take everything and divide”, while dividing it in a new way.

However, there is nothing left to divide.

Meanwhile, the sad state of things in the East – how people of Donbass survive Poroshenko’s “love”. Watch the following documentary fragment of Vesti from 28th of August 2016, translated by me:

Lada Ray Report: Putin’s visit to Slovenia, Union of Southern Slavs and Russia (reblog)

This Lada Ray’s report, Putin’s visit to Slovenia, Union of Southern Slavs and Russia talks about the recent visit by the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the tragic events of WWI, remembered through the Russian chapel.

I do urge my readers to go and read the full report, but in this re-blog, I’d like to concentrate on its second half – the history, language and ties of Slovenia…

Another striking point: Slovenia stands for dialogue and peaceful resolution of all outstanding issues and disputes.

It’s important to correctly understand certain things about Slovenia, Serbia and former Yugoslavia

First, let’s remember this: in the Balkans and elsewhere, one’s attitude towards Russia is connected closely with one’s attitude towards Serbia. If Serbia is perceived as an enemy and/or a rogue state, then Russia is likely perceived as at least not a friend – and vice versa.

Slovenia is the only early breakaway former part of Yugoslavia that never was involved in an armed conflict with Serbs, as opposed to Bosnia and Croatia, plus Kosovo. Conversely, Macedonia (FYRM) and Montenegro (Chernogoria) were split from Serbia later, in order to further weaken it. The collective West, at the time spearheaded by Bill Clinton, correctly perceived that the weakening of Serbia meant by default the handicapping of Russia.

Slovenia is a Slavic-populated country – as attested by its name; the language spoken is Slovenian (Slovene).

In truth, the differences between Yugoslav languages are minor and they really should be considered dialects of the same South-Slavic (aka, Yugoslav) tongue. The differences in many cases are akin to the degree of closeness of the Russian – Belorussian language relationship. In other words, it’s even closer than Russian – Ukrainian language relationship. And even Ukrainian, in my professional opinion as a linguist and native language carrier of both, should be considered a dialect. Read about that in Discovering The Real Belarus and in Earth Shift Reports: ESR2: Ukraine Truth, Lies & Future Hope and ERS6: Ukraine – New Khazarian Khaganate.

Southern Slavic languages are also very close to Russian. As an example, the name of the capital of Slovenia, Ljubljana, doesn’t really need a translation. Without knowing the language, I can tell you that it is very close to the Russian word lyubov’, which means love. Therefore, Ljubljana is likely translated as ‘the city of love,’ or perhaps, ‘the beloved place/city.’

Incidentally, those with a keen eye will recognize the same root ‘lyub’ in the English love. This again attests to something I often stress: we are ALL ONE, we all come from the same root, and all these barriers – political, military or linguistic – are artificial! Read more in Forbidden History: Are Scandinavians Slavs? and under Category: Forbidden Linguistics.

Historically, Slovenia is arguably the most ‘Westernized’ of all Yugoslavia and the closest to Austria and Hungary, having been a part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. As a result of religious conversion, the population is presently primarily Catholic.

As it so often happened in history, the difference in religion is what served as the foreign-induced pretext for the ’90s civil wars of Orthodox Serbs vs. Catholic Croats & Muslim Bosnians/ Kosovo Albanians. US/EU needed to breakup Yugoslavia pronto while Russia was at her weakest – and they succeeded admirably. Therefore, it is remarkable that Slovenia actually remained neutral through the ’90s war and it attests to the peaceful character and wisdom of the residents (of course it helps that geographically Slovenia is furthest removed from Serbia).

After the war ended and hot heads cooled down, those who retained reason and common sense began to question the war and resulting artificial separation. It’s much harder for Serbia, Bosnia and Croatia to come around in relation to each other, due to a deep-running resentment and mistrust. Kosovo situation is even worse: it is regarded in Serbia as an outright theft and humiliation. Of course, this division, resulting in lack of sovereignty and animosity was the end target of then US president Clinton and the globalist West.

The ‘divide and conquer’ worked in Yugoslavia’s case all too well. There is never such thing as one side exclusively being guilty of all sins. Since the ’90s, Serbia and Serbs were exclusively vilified, while the atrocities of Croats, Bosnians and Kosovo Albanians were ignored or whitewashed. Moreover, the barbaric NATO bombings of Serbia were presented as a great triumph of Western democracy against evil dictatorship.

The ultimate goal was to humiliate and suppress Serbia so it couldn’t continue being the heart of undesirable sovereignty in the middle of the EU. This goal was achieved. And here I have to tell you the truth, which will be hard for the Serbs to hear. The reason this goal was achieved so easily and so handily is because Serbs ALLOWED it to be achieved. By taking the foreign bait of inter-confessional conflict and civil war they opened an entry point for NATO to tear the country apart. If they were wiser and acted in such a way that would quell the conflict, the degree of the disaster we are observing today could have been diminished in big part.

As a stark contrast to that catastrophic mistake, let’s recall how Russia and Putin had handled the situation with the late ’90s – early 2000s Chechen war. Later in 2008, Russia wisely managed the situation with S.Ossetia/Georgia conflict. And the latest: how differently Russia and Putin are handling the situation in Ukraine! As you know, I predicted from the start of 2014 that Russia would never send troops to Ukraine and that Russia would, conversely, concentrate on peacefully remolding the situation, on turning it around carefully and slowly to de-escalate both regional conflict and WWIII potentiality. As we see, the situation has developed, and continues developing, exactly as predicted. (As always, read PREDICTIONS on top bar).

Therefore, the unwise actions of both sides in the ’90s Balkans conflict caused a rift from which it would take long to recover. However, those parts of Yugoslavia that don’t have much bad blood between themselves have started waking up.

We’ve seen the attempts to reach out to Russia and protest NATO and EU expansion in Macedonia and Montenegro – so far, squashed by the West.

I’ve noticed that for years Slovenia’s government and parliament quietly invited speakers and advisors who were anti-US/West establishment and steadily grew relations with Russia. As I said, Slovenia is the kind of country that will try to get along with everyone. They won’t fight and protest so much as they’ll try to quietly get where they want to be, while others are distracted by fighting. Kinda reminds me of how Zakarpatie (Transcarpathia) Rusins behave, who are presently under Kiev, but want to secede. Incidentally, both were for centuries under Austria-Hungary, so they learned to work quietly for fear of suppression.

Slovenia is the kind of country that is technically a part of EU and NATO, but at the same time it tries to develop and maintain a good relationship with Russia. This is a necessary job – we do desperately need the ‘bridge-countries’ that would help develop and keep connections between Russia and West, despite the destructive forces currently at work in the EU and West in general. Countries like Slovenia keep a small flame alive, protecting it from the raging hurricane and reminding those who would listen that there is another way. Slovenia tries to gently remind Europeans that if the continuing foreign-induced conflict between EU and Russia were to be replaced with cooperation, everyone would win. They aren’t the only ones. Austria tried to do the same, Czech president did as well, while being isolated by his own parliament and government, Hungarian PM Orban tried…

But as I wrote many times before, the crumbling US Empire simply cannot afford Russia and European countries working peacefully and cooperatively together. The artificially built new Iron Curtain is in the works, using the sell-out Poland, Romania and the Baltics, through NATO expansion and BMDS in Eastern Europe.

It’s the Grand Chess Game, however. Putin’s Slovenia visit is one of Russia’s counter-moves. Slovenia sees Russia getting stronger, while EU and US are busy with their own problems. Therefore, Slovenia can make a move of her own. It’s a small and meek move, but it’s an affirmation of a certain allegiance and a nod to the historic memory.

All in all, this is a very good start!

In addition, it’s important to remember that Russians routinely helped ‘brothers’ Slavs, including Slovenians, during several previous great wars. This includes liberating many of the Slavic and Orthodox ‘brothers’ in the Balkans and Eastern/Southern Europe from the Ottoman Empire yoke and helping them during WWI and WWII. The liberation list is very long and includes Czechia, Slovakia, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Greece and all of Yugoslavia, including of course, Serbia and Slovenia. There indeed are many Russians who fell in the Balkans.

If there are readers from those parts, I invite them to share their experiences in the comments! TRUTH ONLY accepted!

On another note, Slovenia, as much of the former Yugoslavia, has magnificently beautiful nature, with pristine forests, mountains, some parts of ex-Yugoslavia also have a lovely sea shore. I hope it stays that way!


The Union of Southern Slavs & Russia

It is my strong opinion that the Yugoslavs (the word means ‘Southern Slavs’) need to unite in one country, based on mutually respectful, cooperative principles. They need to use wisdom and reason – not their pride and overinflated egos, while doing so. Failing that, they’ll always be a yo-yo in someone’s unscrupulous hands, ready to be manipulated on moment’s notice.

Uniting is the only way for them to re-gain sovereignty and to be strong enough to withstand foreign pressure and invasions. Incidentally, this South-Slavic/Balkan Union should include Bulgaria. The inclusion of Greece, plus possibly Cyprus (as non-Slavic, but Orthodox countries), is a long shot; but if that were to happen, it would be greatly beneficial for both Greece and all Yugoslavs.

This is what Serbia tried to do: create a union of Southern Slavs. However, for this union to be lasting, Serbs and others have to tuck away their egos and pride and work together for the greater good of all.

The weakness of the Balkans is that it doesn’t have a border with Russia. If it did, history, as we know it, would have been very different… WWI and Yugoslavia ’90s bombings may have never happened. The Russian Empire attempted to establish a friendly corridor to the Balkans via creating from scratch in the 19th century what was thought of back then as ‘friendly’ Romania, having liberated that area from the Ottomans. However, it didn’t take long for Romania to get seduced by the UK, turning it into a problem rather than part of the solution. Therefore, the larger the Union, the more stable it will be. When these little countries are apart they are easy pickings for predators.

If such union of Southern Slavs is created, it would serve as powerful ADDITIONAL counterweight to NWO/globalists, US and EU. It would become a great help for Russia’s global rebalancing efforts. By default, it would mean the strengthening of Russia.

Meanwhile, Russia would also be in much better position to help the Southern Slavic Union to defend itself and to develop its economy. For instance, South Stream pipeline project would be automatically revived as then the YugoSlavic Union, not EU or US, would be deciding whether it should go through Bulgaria or not.

Eventually, Eurasian Union can and should be expanded to include the Southern Slavic Union.

But this is exactly what globalists are afraid of and this is exactly why they want to keep Balkans broken up into small parts.

People can make a difference by uniting, setting aside their old grudges and creating a new reality. I’ve more than once seen my ideas and recommendations materialize into reality, after I voiced them out on FT or in Earth Shift Report.

LADA RAY REPORT: End of Olympics? Plot to Remove Russia from International Sports Revealed (reblog)

With the highly-politices Rio Olympics approaching, it is imperative to know what is happening around it, how it is used as a weapon against Russia and Blazil (BRICS). All this is covered in Lada Ray’s excellent extensive report

LADA RAY REPORT: End of Olympics? Plot to Remove Russia from International Sports Revealed

Below is the beginning of it:

Bad things happen when good people are silent – or indifferent!

Why should you pay close attention to what is happening in global sports and Olympics, even if you are indifferent to them? Because just like anywhere else, if you look the other way, they’ll sneak in NWO before you know it!

The modern Olympics movement was started in the end of 19th century by the French Pierre de Coubertin. Russia is presently rebalancing the severely tilted to the West world, which has become utterly imbalanced, with an unfair advantage assigned to the West, at the expense of the rest of the globe. It is fitting that an era of the West will end in the disbanding or slow dying of the Western initiative of the modern Olympics.


includes some damning evidence, Lada’s bold predictions & recommendations:

-A summary of facts in the anti-Russia hybrid war in sports
– NTV bomb from the horse’s mouth: proof of US/EU/WADA/USADA/IAAF collusion
– Lada’s complete geopolitical Earth Shift analysis: real reasons for the Russian Rio ban
– Lada’s recommendation: what steps Russia should take to reformat the corrupt global sport & Olympics

Russian team ban from Rio Olympics

Russia lost it’s Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) appeal on Thursday, 7/21, against an Olympic ban on its track-and-field athletes. Russians were holding their breath for the decision, still hoping for some justice from the ‘democratic’ European court. The court located in Switzerland, had some wishy-washy closing words to say: on one hand the appeal cannot be granted because the IAAF (Intl Athletic Federation) ruling is within its rules; on the other hand – how strange that IAAF and WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) waited till June to come out with allegations and issue the ban, thus leaving no time for ‘clean’ athletes to appeal before the start of Rio Olympics on August 5, 2016. The ban was upheld, nevertheless.

But it gets worse: Russia faces a potential blanket Rio 2016 ban after losing appeal against IAAF ruling on track-and-field athletes. The total number of the Russian athletes who were supposed to participate in Rio was 400 before the ban.

The entire Russian track-and-field team, except 1 – about 68 athletes in total – were banned from Rio Olympics participation, including many who never failed a drug test in their life. Why did they single out one random athlete to allow her participation in Rio? Because this one single person is chosen to put a rift within the team and underscore further just ‘how corrupt the entire team is.’

WADA/IAAF/US also tried to seduce some of the athletes to participate in Rio not under the Russian flag, but under a neutral IOC banner, basically denouncing their country. This was a clear provocation designed to create suspicion and rift within Russian society and sports community. There were no takers among track-and-field team. I guarantee if there were any takers, such athletes would have been immediately allowed to compete in Rio.

It has to be mentioned that for most athletes being at the games is a once in a lifetime opportunity and the psychological trauma of being denied that chance can break one’s life. Therefore, giving them a choice to participate at the expense of betraying their country constitutes an especially exquisite torture.

This ban includes 2-time Olympic and 7-time world champion, multiple-time world-record holder Yelena Isinbayeva. Isinbayeva, named more than once World Athlete of the Year and widely known to never take any drugs, recently came back from maternity leave in order to train hard for participation in her last Olympics. Isinbayeva is one of the best known names in the contemporary sport and she was the spokesperson for the Russian team during the CAS appeal.

Yelena Isinbayeva has been very outspoken about the injustice of the IAAF/WADA decision, and the attack on Russian athletes based on political motives. It is interesting that most world’s national athletic federations have been silent about the decision, while the retired athletes and sports bureaucrats internationally spoke out against it.

Meanwhile, it has been announced that ten countries demanded Russian blanket ban, among these: USA, Canada, UK, Switzerland and Germany. A British competitor of Yelena Isinbayeva said that she (Isinbayeva) ‘doesn’t deserve justice because she is a heterosexual (aka, not gay!), and Putin supporter(!).’ Just imagine how much her competitors have hated her coming back after childbirth and how much they are afraid of her!


I strongly urge everyone, who is indefferent to the direction our world is heading to read the full report here: LADA RAY REPORT: End of Olympics? Plot to Remove Russia from International Sports Revealed

Germany Preparing for War Against Russia (reblog)

This is a reblog of

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

According to a report issued on June 6th in German Economic News (Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten, or DWN), the German government is preparing to go to war against Russia, and has in draft-form a Bundeswehr report declaring Russia to be an enemy nation. DWN says: “The Russian secret services have apparently thoroughly studied the paper. In advance of the paper’s publication, a harsh note of protest has been sent to Berlin: The head of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Russian State Duma, Alexei Puschkow, has posted the Twitter message: ‘The decision of the German government declaring Russia to be an enemy shows Merkel’s subservience to the Obama administration.’”

Back on February 17th, DWN had reported that German Chancellor Merkel “will develop a new military doctrine” declaring, “The ‘annexation’ of Crimea by Russia is the basis for military action against Moscow.” Apparently, that prior report will soon be fulfilled.

Not mentioned in the DWN articles — nor anywhere in Western ‘news’ media — is a crucial fact, that the head of America’s ‘private CIA’ firm Stratfor acknowledged only when addressing a Russian-speaking audience: that (in English) the overthrow of Ukraine’s President in Russia’s neighboring nation of Ukraine during February 2014 was “the most blatant coup in history.” Extensive video documentation exists demonstrating that it was a coup, and even demonstrating that the Obama Administration had selected Ukraine’s post-coup leader 22 days prior to his being formally appointed by the Ukrainian parliament. Furthermore, the only detailed scholarly study of the evidence that has been performed came to the same conclusion — that it was a U.S. coup. The last month before the coup was incredibly violent, with Obama’s hired fascists attacking the government’s security forces brutally: Here is some of the bloodshed from the prior month, on January 21st, then January 22nd, then January 25th. Moreover, immediately after the overthrow, when the EU sent its own investigator into Kiev to report back on how the overthrow had taken place, he too reported that it had been a coup. Subsequently revealed was that the Obama Administration had started preparing the coup inside the U.S. Embassy in Kiev by no later than 1 March 2013 — almost a year prior to the coup. Also, the even earlier preparation for the coup, extending through decades, on the part of CIA-affiliated ‘nonprofit’ or NGO organizations (funded by Western aristocrats and their corporations), laying the groundwork for this coup, has been brilliantly documented at some online sites. None of this information has been widely published — it’s virtually not at all published in the West. Though the potential audience for it might be vast (especially since Western publics pay much of the tab for this operation and yet receive none of the benefits from the resultant looting of Ukraine, which goes all to aristocrats in the U.S. and allied aristocracies), the market in the West for reporting it, is virtually nil, because the market is the West’s news media, and they’ve all (except for a few small ones like this) been taken over by the aristocracy, and serve the aristocracy — not the public (their audiences, whom they’re in business to deceive). The aristocracy’s companies advertise in, and thereby fund, most of those ‘news’ media, and the aristocracy’s governments fund the rest — and the public pays for that, too, not just by being manipulated to vote for the aristocracy’s politicians, but by being taxed to pay what the NGOs and their aristocrats don’t (so the public are buying the weapons etc.). It’s a vast money-funnel from the many, to the few.

Though the transfer of Crimea from Ukraine to Russia is treated by Western ‘news’ media as having been a ‘conquest’ by Russia, and as being Russia’s ‘seizure’ of Crimea, and Russia’s ‘stealing’ Crimea, nothing of the sort is true (and Crimeans had good reason to be terrified of the Obama-coup regime that had just been installed, from which Russia saved Crimeans), but the lie needs to be promulgated in order for the aristocracy’s invasion of Russia to be able to organized and carried out.

Unfortunately, the reason why this U.S coup in Ukraine has still not been reported in the West, is that to make it public to Westerners would jeopardize not only the Western economic sanctions against Russia after Russia accepted the overwhelming decision by Crimeans to separate from the post-coup Ukrainian government, but would also jeopardize the preparations by all of NATO to go to war against Russia: both the sanctions and the invasion would have no basis and no support among Western publics. All of that (the sanctions, and now the pouring of troops and weapons onto and near Russia’s borders for a possible invasion of Russia) would no longer be at all palatable by Western publics, if this history — that it all began by a violent U.S. coup in Ukraine — were to become known before the U.S. and NATO invasion occurs. So it all remains, instead, suppressed in the ‘democratic’ West.

So: please email this article’s URL address (which is immediately above this article), to friends, so as to spread to them the word, that NATO is preparing an invasion of Russia. There’s no way that the ‘news’ media they see are likely to tell them (until it’s already too late).

Read also Paul Craig Roberts latest article Armageddon Approaches.

Why does NATO scare Moscow with “paper tigers”?

This is A speed translation an analytical article by Rostislav Ishchenko from the 7th of July 2016, published at his channel on Kont.

The NATO summit will begin in Warsaw on Friday. For two days (8 and 9 July), senior officials and generals will discuss a lot of technical and political issues. We are, however, interested in only one item on the agenda of the event. In Poland, the Alliance is going to once again discuss relief measures to the “Russian threat”.

As is the custom in the recent years, the “threat” is felt particularly acutely by the Balts and Poles, who demand the deployment on their territories of additional contingents of Western European and American allies.

Washington and London pretend to be impressed by the fears of the limitrophes, and agitate for meeting requests for strengthening NATO forces on the Russian border. We are talking about dislocation of four battalions.

In terms of the real military strengthening of the block’s abilities on the north-western borders of Russia, this gain is negligible. The American military analysts argue that even a dislocation in the region of four additional full brigades will not allow NATO to hold out much longer in the case of a real military conflict.

In fact, we are only talking about whether it will take the Russian troops one or two weeks to reach the Oder line. Or more precisely, how many US troops will need to be hastily evacuated from Poland and the Baltic states, if suddenly something goes wrong and, contrary to common sense, a military conflict in this area happens.

A US soldier during the 2016 Saber Strike exercises in Estonia.

Protection Poles and the Baltic states as a diversionary tactics

So, the United States believes that the Russian group on the Baltic borders now has absolute superiority, which it is impossible to stop by unfolding of either four or sixteen battalions. At the same time, as a result of NATO’s war hysteria of NATO, Russia decided to deploy in the western direction three new high-grade divisions, and another army corps in Kaliningrad.

One must say that Moscow has the potential to deploy new divisions faster than NATO would be able to collect and deliver their battalions to the area of the limitrophe’s. That is, theoretically, by provoking a military confrontation, the US and NATO impair their strategic position in the region.

Poland today: “If the Russians start pushing too hard, call us.”

A question: Why do they scare Moscow with “paper tigers”, if they know that as a result they will be worse off?

And, yes, they know it. Not least because Washington, which was initially swearing to deliver all four of the desired battalions by themselves, insisted on the separation of the burden in half – two battalions from the US and two from Western European allies. The Germans and the French (and who else would allocate the battalions, if not them) are not enthusiastic. And quite a lot of time will pass between the principal decision and the actual appearance of the troops.

Not only in Moscow, but also in European capitals they are well aware that in case of war, a battalion or two would not make a difference. European politicians, though sometimes pretending to be naive, are well aware that millions of Germans and French, who would be happily trying on helmets and flak jackets and rushing off to the eastern front to protect “European values” in the face of Latvians and Poles, is the story of fantasy. And yet the US successfully force through the NATO program of “protection” of small but very proud Eastern European allies, who regularly pull the tiger’s whiskers, feeling drunken from their own boldness.

Joint parachuting of American, British and Polish troops during Anakonda-2016 on Polish territory.

The answer to the question – why is it necessary – could be obtained based on the area of ​​concentration of the main Russian group. Except for the Kaliningrad exclave, which is under threat simply by virtue of its isolation, more than half of the newly formed units are concentrated in the south-west of Russia, near the Ukrainian border, on which Kiev has already thrown some tantrums.

On the eve of the NATO summit, a confirmation that Moscow considers the south-western direction as the most explosive is, was given in a statement of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia, Sergey Lavrov.

He warned our western friends and partners that, according to the available information, in the near future Kiev can organise a large-scale provocation that could lead to the resumption of full-scale hostilities in the area of ​​the civil conflict in the Donbass.

Who needs new territories

Let us put two and two together, and add to this the undisguised (for the past two and a half years) desire of the USA to tie the hands of Russia by drawing it into a full-scale conflict in Ukraine. Let us not forget that it was the Balts and the Poles, who repeatedly promised to provide military support to Kiev in case of a “Russian aggression”.

Polish soldiers during international exercises Rapid Trident-2016 in Lvov region, Ukraine.

Recall also that a number of border states – the Eastern European members of NATO – are having problems with the Ukrainian territories inhabited by their respective minorities and formerly being part of the these countries. In addition to traditional Poland, Hungary and Romania, even the Bulgarian government has expressed concerns about the protection of the rights of compatriots and supported the idea of ​​creation in Ukraine of a Bulgarian autonomy.

What do we get? The high risk of a sharp intensification of the Ukrainian conflict together with its simultaneous internationalization, with the participation of the Eastern European members of NATO. Of these, it is Poland and the Baltic States (exactly the countries that were promised the new battalions) are the most militantly set.

And now let us turn to history. In 1939, the courage of Warsaw, which rejected all German demands and literally longing for war, was backed by the British and French guarantees. Polish army was numerically comparable with the German. They did not yet know in Poland about the real overwhelming technical superiority of the Reich, and the absolute intellectual superiority of its general staff.

The military leaders of the country believed that they would be easily able to hold out for a few weeks or even a couple of months. Then the French would start an offensive: French army at the time was considered to be strongest in the world (wrongly, but no one knew about it), and with them would come the British. And after that the Poles were going to share the spoils of war, and to acquire new territories. By the way, the very same East Prussia, a third of which now comprises the Kaliningrad region.

Is a blockade of the Kaliningrad region possible

In general, to encourage Eastern European cannon fodder for the war, it was necessary to create an illusion of security and proximity to an easy victory.

In the first half of the twentieth century, this illusion was provided by the Anglo-French guarantee. Now simple NATO guarantees are not enough. Even limitrophe’s became smarter and doubt that Americans (and Europeans) will risk of full-scale war with a nuclear power because of the ambitions of Riga and Warsaw. Now contingents of US and Western Europe in their respective territories should become such a guarantee.

Limitrophes believe that in the event of hostilities, these forces will inevitably fall under attack. That is, in actuality the bigger partners would enter a war automatically – through the fact of death of their soldiers.

And the passage of the internal procedures, required for each individual NATO country would become involved in the conflict as part of the block, would be fast tracked in the event of an attack by the “insidious Russia” on the “peaceful American soldiers”.

This, in turn, means that the limitrophes, who had already long since gone over the brink in their Russophobia, will now completely lose their head from courageousness.

Very simple. In the event of a start of full-scale hostilities in Ukraine, it won’t be a problem to once again accuse Russia of aggression. And then, in accordance to giving assistance to the “young democracy” they would not even need to cross the border. It is sufficient to organize a blockade of the Kaliningrad region.

Not only a blockade is a hostile act, which is equated by the international law with military aggression. Moscow will in any case have to break through it. The region, Navy and the Army can not exist without communications with Big Land. And they can fully try to sink the ships and shoot down planes, which try to break the blockade, all the while crying that it was Russia attacking.

Soldiers of the Polish and American armies during the Anakonda-2016 exercises on the territory of Poland.

And then the limitrophes (just like the Poles in 1939) believe that in the face of the inevitable (in their opinion) American intervention, Russia would retreat.

By moving the Baltic pawn in the form of the four battalions (half of which is not theirs), the US is trying to solve a problem that they still didn’t man resolved – creating an outbreak of the Russian-European military confrontation. While they themselves are going to remain outside the conflict.

Firstly, no one knows when more battalions will arrive. Secondly, it is a lot easier to promptly evacuate a couple of battalions, than it was for the British to evacuate nearly 340 thousand of their own, French and Belgian soldiers from Dunkirk in 1940.

So that the risk of conflict comes not from the battalions incapable of anything, but from the minds of inadequate politicians that learn nothing from history.

Behind the EuroVision politics – the Truth about Tatar Deportation of 1944

This is a re-blog of Lada Ray’s article Eurovision’s Dirty Secrets: Another Instrument in anti-Russia Proxy War and Crimean Tartar Card, which shows how highly politicised and rotten the EuroVision become. But we all knew that…

More importantly, it covers the context and history behind deportation of Tatars from Crime in 1944. Below is a fragment in question from the article:

The song Jamala sang was called ‘1944.’ It talked about tragic experiences of Crimean Tartars during WWII, when the entire tribe was deported to Central Asia. Let me again point out that political songs are not allowed at this competition, yet this rule is routinely broken. I think next time Russian singers should sing about the 27 million Russians/Soviets killed in WWII, or about Mongol-Tartar invasion and the devastation Crimean Tartars inflicted on Russians throughout history; Brits should sing about bombings by German aviation of Coventry and London, while Germans should sing how US/UK bombed to the ground Dresden. Serbs should sing how NATO bombed their country; Czechs – how Germany and Poland invaded them and tore the country apart; Greeks, how Ottoman Turks invaded and killed them, and so on. If some can do it, why can’t others? It’s a democracy and same rules apply to all, don’t they?

I didn’t want to focus here on what really happened in 1944 and why. I may touch more upon the real truth of what happened in Crimea in 1941-1944, as well as Crimean Tartar actions during Mongol-Tartar invasion. This should be discussed in my future Crimean Agenda Earth Shift Report, which will come out later in the year (see Earth Shift Reports link at the bottom).

But because the real history was so severely re-written or silenced due to West’s relentless desire to malign everything Russian, let me say a few words for clarity’s sake. The gruesome truth is that when Crimea fell to Hitler and German Nazis in 1941, Crimean Tartar leadership greeted the invaders with great enthusiasm. Under occupation, many Crimean Tartars served as snitches, concentration camp guards and executors of Russians and Ukrainians. The situation in Crimea was quite similar to western Ukraine and Bandera ukro-nazis. Many, many Russians were tortured and executed by, or with the help of, Crimean Tartars.

When Red Army returned in 1944, local witnesses told stories of the brutal genocide Crimean Tartars inflicted together with Hitler’s troops. When volumes and volumes of evidence were collected, the decision was made to relocate all Crimean Tartars to Central Asia, mainly Uzbekistan, partly for their own safety, because Crimeans might have torn them apart if they remained. Let’s recall, it was still the middle of WWII and parts of Soviet territory were not liberated yet. Russians could hardly spare many resources for such a massive endeavour. They acted in the best possible way with the information and capacities they had at the time. Also, considering the brutal invasion Russia/USSR was still under, 27 million dead, cities and infrastructure destroyed, the overwhelming tragedy and devastation, just look at the humanity with which it was handled!

The relocation destination was not the cold Siberia or Kazakhstan, but the warm and sunny Uzbekistan, where there is plentiful food that grows all year round and the climate similar to Crimean. Plus Uzbeks are Muslims, with similar enough customs to the Crimean Tartars, so it was reasonable to assume they would get along.

Granted, just like in the case of Western Ukrainians, not every Crimean Tartar was a snitch or war criminal/mass murderer, but it was the middle of the most brutal war Russia has ever known. There was no possibility to investigate who was who and who did what. It was known that many were and many more supported it. Was it cruel to relocate people so suddenly? Yes, it absolutely was. Now let’s ask ourselves: how would you react if you found out that these people caused thousands of your people to be executed, if you knew many of them looted the homes and buildings retreating Russians were forced to abandon, thus preying on the common tragedy? How would you react if your family was dead because of them? How does the deportation look compared to that inhumanity and cruelty?

On top of it, there was another reason for deportation: as Red Army continued advancing to chase Hitler out of the country, it was legitimately feared that Crimean Tartars may betray again and strike from behind. With no possibility of keeping enough forces to guard Crimea, when all resources were necessary in the advancing western front, when it was impossible to investigate which of them were implicated in treason and which weren’t, the most humane and expedient way to solve the problem was to relocate the entire tribe far from the danger zone. Note also that this way families weren’t separated (which would occur if males, who potentially presented more risk as combatants, were placed in concentration camps till further investigation) and were able to continue living a normal life after relocation.

I’ll just add that during medieval Mongol-Tartar invasion, the nomadic Tartars invaded Russian steppes from Asia. Some of them took over Crimea and settled there, thus becoming ‘Crimean’ Tartars, as opposed to other Tartars living in Russia, such as Volga Tartars. Crimean Tartar Khanate, ruled by a war lord referred to as ‘khan,’ made a living by periodically invading Russian cities (they went as far as the rich Kiev and Moscow). They would loot, kill, burn down cities and kidnap as many Russians as they could, to sell them as highly prized slaves in the Middle East. There is much more to the story, and books could be filled with sordid details.

It certainly isn’t the kind of history that Crimean Tartars, nudged and supported by their Western handlers, are trying to present. They portray themselves as poor innocent victims, mistreated by big, mean Russia for no reason at all. They are not the first ones to manipulate history and reality to suit their ulterior motives – we’ve seen this before. Of course, such blatant manipulation is only possible because the West encourages it.

But every coin has two sides. Part of the problem is that Russians always tried to sweep the tragedies that OTHERS CAUSED TO THEM under the rug in order to keep a friendly cooperation going. To keep peace in the family, so to speak. This, as much as the West’s encouragement, emboldened falsifications.

Incidentally, Putin recently signed the Crimean Tartar rehabilitation law. Hundreds of thousands of them returned to Crimea, they are given social help, housing and opportunity to start business. Crimean Tartar language, along with Russian and Ukrainian, is an official language of the Crimean autonomy – three official languages in total. Today’s Crimean leadership is doing everything to reconcile the past, include Crimean Tartars in the life of the republic, and keep peace. Now, that’s a mature and responsible behavior!

Meanwhile, the true history related to Tartars is turbulent and very unpleasant, to say the least. As usual, karma normally catches up with all. You live by the sword – you die by the sword. Crimean Tartar violence caught on to them eventually. The WWII deportation story, while tragic for families, is a karmic consequence of earlier collective deeds.

I’ll tell you more: the sooner Crimean Tartars understand the universal karmic law of cause and effect, the sooner they at large make peace with it and take a different route as a tribe, the faster they will resolve their heavy karma. The sooner they understand that those who attempt to revive old animosities are the true enemy of their people, the easier they will regain peace and dignity they crave so much. The sooner they figure out that the so-called Crimean Tartar Mejlis and the convenient dupe Jamala are fakes, being used as expedient political tools to harm Russia and plunge Crimean Tartars again into conflict, the better for everyone.

There are indications that the majority of Crimean Tartars residing in Crimea are starting to get it. It’s an absolutely different story for those ‘Crimean Tartars’ who are outside of Crimea and who are on payroll of Western or Turkish interests.

I know Russians are trying very hard to help Crimean Tartars be accepted in Crimea and overcome their old karma through extending a hand of cooperation and involving them in the life of the republic. For example, deputy head of the Crimean republic is a Crimean Tartar.

But Russia is alone in this positive approach. Driven by hate, the West, Turkey, Ukraine, Mejlis and all sort of extremist Islamist organizations attempt to use Crimean Tartars as an instrument directed at destabilizing Russia.

It is clear that Jamala is a political project and tool in the new all-out anti-Russian war. The Mejlis ‘leader’ Mustafa Jamilev, who’s a Kiev Rada deputy and well-known agent of CIA and Turkey, was at Eurovision to cheer her on. Crimean Tartar Mejlis is the organization that exists in Ukraine and Turkey. It has been banned in Russia as terrorist organization after in December 2015 it, together with Ukraine nazis from the right sector, blew up electric transformers, leaving without electricity 2.5 million Crimeans, including hundreds of thousands Crimean Tartars.

To conclude, the Crimean Tartar card and their turbulent history are used to:

1. Distract, humiliate and malign Russia

2. Attempt to create more animosity between Ukraine and Russia, keeping the artificial separation alive

3. Attempt to create a fight between Russians and Tartars, presently co-existing peacefully in Crimea

4. Stoke animosity between Muslims and Christians within Russia

5. Prop up an artificial wall of distrust and animosity between Western Europe and Russia, not allowing them to come together in cooperation as one single Eurasian space.

Let’s add that today, May 18, is the anniversary of the 1944 Crimean Tartar deportation, and the picture is complete. Jamala’s Eurovision win timed to this anniversary, and so ardently supported by NATO, says it all.

But let’s also remember that the Europeans’ public vote was given to Russia.

Immortal Regiment Across Borders

The peoples’ movement – The Immortal Regiment – has gathered 24 million participants across Russia. In addition, it took place in 40 countries of the world, gathering hundreds of thousands more , in all the post-Soviet states; in Bulgaria, Chechia, Serbia; in Paris, Venice, Toronto, New York.

People are united at the grass-root level in remembering the suffering that the War brought to their families, they are united in remembering their common history, despite the efforts to put wedges between people. This movement is one of the best things that happened to humanity in the recent years, safeguarding us from malicious manipulations of mind and from warmongering of the “national elites”.

immortal 2016

Below is a poem, written by Velentin Komarov from Cherepovec in 2015 (translation is mine):

The Immortal Regiment

We’ve become older than our grand-fathers,
Who performed their last duty –
And now, today, on the Victory Day,
We march in their stead in the Immortal Regiment

We walk, having raised the Hero’s portrait,
Who hasn’t been even seen before…
We shall not desert this time the ranks!
And will carry through the ages,

The holy name of the person,
Who sacrificed his life, but saved the land!
And we shall remember, age after age,
The war, the accursed war!

So that never would repeat that,
What we didn’t get to know.
And grandchildren know at least a little…
Of the warmth of their grandfather’s hands.

So that they! The portrait of the Hero!
Would carry over the May-day roads!
And would give a standing ovation
To the fallen heroes as is they are living!

Бессмертный полк
Валентин Комаров
Череповец, май 2015

Мы стали старше наших дедов,
Исполнивших последний долг…
И вот сегодня, в День Победы,
За них идем в Бессмертный Полк.

Идем, подняв портрет Героя,
Невиденного никогда…
Мы не покинем нынче строя!
И понесем, через года,

Святое имя человека,
Что отдал жизнь, но спас страну!
И будем помнить, век от века,
Войну, проклятую войну!

Чтоб никогда не повторялось
То, что досталось нам – не знать
Тепло ладоней деда… малость…
Дай бог, своим внучатам дать.

Чтобы они! Портрет Героя!
Несли по майским мостовым!
И аплодировали стоя
Героям павшим, как живым!

Some materials and ideas fetched from

Uncovering Slavic/Russian language traces in the European History

Having read Lada Ray’s excellent article How to Reformat People’s Consciousness and Keep them as Obedient Slaves – which (while mentioning Etruscans and the fact that their writing has been long ago read using Slavic) was an introduction to my translation of the Latinisation article Galician Intellectuals Wishing to Deprive Ukrainian of the Cyrillic Alphabet – I thought that the topic of the traces of the Russian language in the re-written European history deserves more attention.

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

This is a translation of a series of articles from KM.RU, which go under the common topic of Russian Language is the Great Heritage of the Whole of Humanity. The articles are ordered in such a way, so as to first give a theoretical background, followed by some specific examples.


  1. Why Do European Languages Have so Many Slavic Roots?
  2. The Anti-Slav Lawlessness in Epigraphy
  3. Who and How Erases Russian Names from the Maps
  4. Russian Truth about the Etruscans is Disadvantageous and Dangerous for the West
  5. Slavic Language in the Holiest Place of Vienna
  6. The Language Brotherhood of Russians and Bulgarians Was Deliberately Destroyed
  7. Moldavian Prince and Turkish Sultan also wrote in Russian!

Let me start with an article, which accentuates my own observations from using English, Norwegian, Spanish, German, and having an ear for Italian…

At least, until the XIV century, the overwhelming majority of the population of Europe spoke the same language – the Proto-Slavic.

No one today doubts the fact that Latin was created after the Greek letters. However, when comparing the so-called Archaic Latin, which is traditionally assigned to the VI century BC., and Classical Latin, which is traditionally assigned to the I century BC. (in other words, 500 years later), it is striking that the graphic design of the monumental Archaic Latin is much closer to the modern Latin, rather than to the Classical. The images of both varieties of the Latin alphabet can be found in any linguistic dictionary.

Black stone – one of the earliest artefacts inscribed in Latin (

According to the traditional chronology, it turns out that the Latin alphabet first degraded from archaic to classical, and later, during the Renaissance, again came closer to the original view. However, there is no such unjustified phenomenon within the concept of the supporters of the theory of the New Chronology, according to which the supposedly “ancient” Greek and Hebrew letter, not even speaking about the Latin alphabet, are derived from the Proto-Slavic (and thus Proto-European) alphabet.

When comparing Latin to modern languages, it is necessary to also pay attention to the fact that the structure of the medieval Latin language is almost identical to the structure of the Russian language. It is also inherited by the contemporary Italian.

Dante with a copy of “The Divine Comedy” at the entrance to Hell. The fresco in the Santa Maria del Fiore (

It is believed that the literary Italian was created by Dante Alighieri, who lived allegedly, according to the traditional chronology, at the turn of XIII-XIV centuries. The Name – the nickname “Dante Alighieri” is translated as “Damned liguriets” (in other words: A citizen of the Republic of Genoa). And indeed, he was cursed by the Catholic Church and sentenced in absentia to be burned.

It is noteworthy that no original manuscripts of Dante, just like of Boccaccio and Petrarch, ever survived. Dante, according to the theory of the New Chronology, created the “Divine Comedy”, most likely at the end of the XVI century, After the Council of Trent, which published a list of banned books, and plunged us into total censorship. “For some reason, after Dante, Petrarch and Boccaccio, for 200 more years all the other Italian authors write exclusively in Latin, – said Jaroslav Kessler in his book “Russian civilization. Yesterday and tomorrow” – and the Italian literary language as such is formed based on the Tuscan dialect (toscanovolgare) only by the beginning of the XVII century”. The blossoming up of the Latin literature falls on XVI-XVII centuries. The poetry of Dante, Petrarch and Shakespeare is born from the same epoch, and it is not the “antiquity”, but the XVI-XVII centuries. However the original manuscript of another Italian genius, Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519), are preserved, and in the number of almost 7000 pages. This clearly indicates that in fact the real story of the Italian culture is just beginning in the XV century, while before that it was Byzantine, in other words, largely Slavic.

Leonardo da Vinci’s self-portrait (

In in reality, the history of the origin of an artificial Latin language was repeated by L.Zamengof, when in 1887 he created the artificial language Esperanto, based on Latin, but with Germanic and Slavic elements. The only difference is that Latin was created on the basis of the Slavonic, and more specifically – on the Greco-Roman dialect of Proto-Slavic language, subjected to the influence of Judeo-Hellenic language. But it was not necessary to create artificial languages.

Scientists conducted an analysis of 20 major modern European languages, including Slavic, Baltic, Germanic, Roman and Greek, and identified more than 1,000 keywords, belonging to approximately 250 common to all the Balto-Slavic groups roots and covering all the concepts required for full communion. And this plainly demonstrates that, at least until the XIV century the vast majority of people in Europe spoke the same language – the Proto-Slavic.

In the light of the concept developed here, the sudden abundant appearance of the “Greek” literary artefacts at the end of XVI century becomes quite clear. Literary pogrom, inspired by the Inquisition and blessed by the Council of Trent, simply forced the Protestant intellectuals at the end of the XVI century to find other ways and different languages for the publication of their works, as the original literature in Latin was subjected to severe censorship, and freethinking authors were sent straight to the fires of the Inquisition. And thus appeared a pagan “Ancient Greek” mythology, relatively safe in terms of the Inquisition only due to its “ancient” character, the works “Roman” philosophers, “the ancient Greek satirist Aesop” (aka the French fable author of the XVII century Lafontaine), and so on.

And the emergence of modern European writing fully fits into the period of XI-XVI centuries (down to half a century margin of error): XI century. – Proto-Slavic alphabet (Cyrillic), XII century – Hebrew, Greek writing (zodiacal dating – 1152), Runic writing (zodiacal dating – 1198), Glagolitsa, XIII century – Latin, XIV century – the “artificial” languages: Church Slavonic, the liturgical Latin, the language of the Torah and the Koran, XV century – the beginning of printing, Bible gets printed in the XVI century. Note that the disappearance of the comparatively late Runic script and Glagolitsa is not a matter of chance: they were quickly driven out by forced introduction of Latin.

The activity of Saints Cyril and Methodius, who created the Church Slavic alphabet based on Proto-Slavonic was clearly already conducted against the backdrop of Latinisation of the Western and the Southern Slavs, so it must, according to the authors of the theory of the New Chronology, be dated 400 years later than according to the traditional dating – to the end of XIII – beginning of XIV centuries.

Gennady of Novgorod, lithography (

It is noteworthy that in the late XV century the Archbishop of Novgorod Gennady advocated education to the Russian clergy, complaining: “We can not find those, whoever is talented in grammar… so at to elect him to be a priest… He can not do anything, just reads along the book, while knot knowing anything of our church writing.”

Meanwhile, it is clear from the quoted passage that Archbishop is talking about educated Russian people, who were presented to Gennady for examination of the suitability of a church service, but who at the same time did not know the Church Slavic language! In other words, far more people mastered the Russian civil script, than the Church Slavic.

The above was a fragment of an interview of Jaroslav Kessler.

The next article discusses how any attempts to unearth (literally) the Slavic roots of the European languages were met with hostility. Some of that was discussed in How to Reformat People’s Consciousness and Keep them as Obedient Slaves with regard to Etruscans.

Why do the attempt at the study of ancient Russian letters are stopped and severely punished.

(Epigraphy – an auxiliary historical discipline that studies the content and form of inscriptions on hard materials [stone, ceramics, metal, etc.] and classifies them according to their time and cultural context.)

Because from the perspective of a number of sciences, including toponymics and historiography, prior to the Germans Slavic settlements existed in a number of places in Germany, it is natural to assume that the most ancient written language in Europe came from Russia. This was the hypothesis of a number of researchers, however, the German scientists were against. The aim of the German scientists was to show that as the Russians in particular, and Slavs in general never had anything original to contribute. Therefore, the findings of figures of the Slavic gods in Prilvitse, where Slavs used Germanic runes, was a good luck for the German rather than for the Slavic point of view. In other words, the early Slavic writing was German.

Prilvitskie idols (

Only Jacob Grimm noticed that in the German letter there are some subtle differences, so this variety can be called for the Slavic runes. However, a Croatian Vatroslav Yagitch devoted a lifetime to proving that there are no special differences in that form of the German writing used by the Slavs. But H. Fren discovered a Russian inscription in the Arabic manuscripts of El Nedim; and at once a Danish researcher Finn Magnus tried to show that it is inscribed with the German runes. However, his reading was rather clumsy and A. Shegren tried to improve this reading. So any special identity of the Russian letters was not even discussed.

Russian archaeologist Gorodtsov, while digging in Alekanovo village of Ryazan province, found an inscription on a pot, and after a year-long deliberation recognised in them “letters of the ancient Slavic writing”. But Gorodtsov was not an epigraphist, and his single message is no longer referenced by any researcher. While a Ukrainian archaeologist Vincent Chvojka, who discovered not only the Tripolis archaeological culture, but also the inscriptions on a vessel, which he described as Slavic, was later proclaimed by the colleagues from Moscow as a “dilettante.” The pre-revolutionary archaeologist from Kiev, Charles Bolsunovsky, who attempted to expand the monograms of the Russian princes into individual letters, is also deemed to be a dilettante by the modern archaeologists. In the XIX century, being called a dilettante – or an amateur – was quite a sufficient punishment.

In the twentieth century, everything became even more serious. Thus, Nikolai A. Konstantinov from Leningrad, who tried to decipher the “pre-Dnieper signs”, was forced to end his career under the pressure from the “conscience of the nation”, academician Dmitry Likhachev. In Kazakhstan, there turned up a researcher of ancient literature, this of the pre-Turkic one – a Kazakh writer Olzhas Suleimenov. For this he was threatened with expulsion from the Communist Party (at the time it was a “wolf ticket”, not allowing to engage in any form of creative activities in the future). He was only saved from such a severe punishment by the intervention of the First Secretary of the Communist Party of Kazakhstan comrade Kunaeva.

Olzhas Suleimenov (

A Serbian researcher Radivoje Pesic was forced to emigrate to Italy from the socialist Yugoslavia under Josip Broz Tito. He was a professional epigraphist, researcher of Etruscans. However, he found a new type of writing in Slavic culture in Vinca, which relates to the Neolithic age. It is for this discovery of a new kind of Slavic script (although not deciphered by him), that he was forced to say goodbye to his homeland. And even in today’s Serbia, after his death, the memory of him is not the best.

But the most flagrant demonstration of this kind of persecution can be considered the suicide of a young epigraphist from Moscow N.V. Engovatov. At the height of Khrushchev’s thaw, he allowed himself to not only search for the ancient Slavic written language, but also to relate about its results in the socio-political press, the magazine “Ogonyok”, some newspapers and weeklies. And even though he was still on the distant approaches to the solution of the problem, he was fired at from the scientific arms of the large calibre: the journal “Soviet archaeology” №4, 1960, published an article by two academicians of the USSR Academy of Sciences, B.A. Rybakov and V.L. Yanin, “On the so-called ‘discoveries’ by N.V. Engovatova”. There were no specialists of higher rank in the Soviet Union at that time. Further career of the young scientist was closed, and he shot himself.

The same idea of ​​the inadmissibility of the search for the ancient Slavic letters (for example, for the “pre-Polish alphabet”) was repeated by B.A. Rybakov from the stands of the 5th International Congress of Slavists. So it was simply impossible to legally search for the ancient Slavic alphabets.
Michael Ventris (

However, experts of the subject will always remember that decipherment of Linear B by Michael Ventris made it possible to read the ancient Greek texts dating 500 years further back. However, the scientific community did not apply any punitive measures to Ventris, on the contrary, he was welcomed. Similarly, there were no problem with learning the ancient Hebrew letters: on the contrary, new discoveries in this direction only encouraged.

So why in one case – the glory and honour, and in the other – expulsion from the Party, exile to another country, or bringing about a suicide?

The answer is simple: because all the other epigraphists are deciphering minor writing systems. Consequently, the Slavic, Russian ancient letters is the most important thing, the most significant for the historiography of Europe and the world, which none of epigraphists can touch on pain of death.

River Russ became Neman and Porus turned into Prussia

Until recently in the West, it was fashionable to attribute the first mentioning of the Slavs in general to no earlier than the V century. Later, a “concession»was mad to the Slavs – III or even II century. Since it was becoming too indecent to ignore “Gethica” of the Gothic historian Jordan. And he directly informed about the wars of their national hero Germanarich against the Slavs in these times. So the world historiography graciously conceded to the Slavic existence the II century. But on one condition – not further to the west than the the mouth of the Danube, within the boundaries of the Black Sea steppes to the marshes of the Pripyat and Desna (maximum – the upper reaches of the Dnieper, and even that, grudgingly). It seems like that should be more than enough for those “savages”.

Vatican. St. Peter’s Square (

At the same time, no one comes to the simple idea that the main sources on the history of Slavs and Russia are either simply destroyed or, more likely, taken from a wide use and are stored in special vaults of Vatican. So there was no “prolonged for many centuries lack of extensive contacts with the Rus people” and “incredible diversity in estimates” about this people, as postulated by some (incl. domestic) researchers. What was are the centuries of protracted censorship on the integral and consistent image of the Russian people’s history.

Professor, Chairman of the Commission of Russia Academy of Sciences on the ancient and medieval history of culture, Valery Chudinov remarks: “I very well remember the 50s of the twentieth century, when it was impossible in Russia anywhere to find either a caricature of Adolf Hitler or to form an idea of ​​the development of the Nazi Party in Germany: all sources of information were confiscated by the censor, and those interested in the problem of the position of various political forces in Germany could be suspected of disloyalty… We observe the very same thing in the history of the Middle ages: the Germans and the Italians, who came to the Slavic lands, won their place in the sun, first by fire and sword, destroying the owners of the land that hosted them, and then destroying the memory of said owners. A similar situation is being played out before our eyes, in Kosovo, where Serbs, who sheltered fleeing from neighbouring Albania citizens, these very same Albanian citizens, first began to squeeze out and then simply destroy. All Slavic shrines in this area were also subjected to destruction, so that no one would have any doubt that the Kosovo Albanians had “always” lived in this area, and not just from the middle of the twentieth century. Note that the rest of the European nations, especially the German and Italian, supported the line of the enemies of the Slavs, that is they just continued the line, which they held for centuries.”

Photo of two Albanians in national dress, 1904 (

In such a situation, it would be strange to find any consistent data from at the Kosovo Albanians about the residing on this territory Serbs and their shrines. Even if by miracle such information would still remain, it would be contrary to a host of other information, so it will not be possible to recover a true picture of the Albanian expansion from that data. Subsequent generations will be convinced that SHKIPITAR (that is Albanians) had lived here for many thousands of years. While Serbians will fleetingly mentioned as “unknown” and “unmentioned” barbaric people, pagans; its origin will be associated primarily with the “monsters-people of the oecumene land”.

Naturally, the Serbs will be portrayed as fanatics, monsters, cannibals and criminals, and not as defenders of their own land from the barbarian aliens. Note that the Serbs had already once suffered the same fate, when on the same field of Kosovo, they have suffered a defeat from the Turks; also then the Turks did not have any information about the previous shrines of the Slavs, and even if some of the original documents came into their possession (after all, Constantinople had strong historical archives), they were destroyed.

“Catherine II – lawgiver in the Temple of Justice» Painting by D.G. Levitsky (

As recalled by Professor Chudinov, “Catherine the Great wrote: “But as Sultan stoke their baths with archival papers, it is likely that also this scripture will be used to this end and will en up there” (IMP, with 168.). One can stoke the baths with archival documents, which have incalculable value, only in one case: when it is the documents of the enemies, of whom no memory must be preserved. The Europeans started treating the word Serbs (serby) as servi, i.e. servants; while the word sclavi, i.e. the Slavs, was turned into slaves. Note that such a derogatory naming of the ancestral Europeans from alien Germans and Italians is only possible in a condition of the alien victory over the hosts.”

But the opposite did not take place, and the Slavs called the Germans for “Nemcy” (translator: singular: “Nemec”, this is still the modern Slavic naming of the Germans), i.e. the people, who are “mute”, do not speak the common language of that time, that is – Russian. Our ancestors did not consider any people as servants or slaves, because they themselves did not know slavery. That’s why they let strangers into their land, considering them as people like themselves. It did not occur to them, that the new neighbours will eventually be engaged in the extermination and enslavement of the Slavs, and later – also in the elimination of the historical memory of the Slavs. The last act has a distinct name, introduced after World War II, although the phenomenon as such existed before – the Cold War. In contrast to the “hot”, this war is being waged in two dimensions – economic and information.

Element of the map of Prussia until 1905, with river Russ marked on it (

Here is one concrete example of one such “battle” in the ongoing information war, which Valery Chudinov shows, “Taking variation Rus/Ros as the root word, scientists have produced the correct decoding of, for example, the name of the area on the southern coast of the Baltic Sea – Prussia, which is ascending to the long-standing name of this land, Porusie, or “land at Russ river” as Neman was named in the annals, and how this river was depicted on maps as early as the beginning of the twentieth century (and still is on the contemporary Polish maps) (HUS, p. 106). I believe that here is an example of one of the brilliant victories of the Cold War episode, won by the Germans: River Russ became river Neman, i.e. Russian affinity of the terrain gave way to German one, even though the word “Neman” is Russian (the Germans call themselves Deutsche). The episode with Porus (Porusie, “lands along Russ”) was won even more interestingly: initially the newly-arrived Baltians were called for Prussians, and then the name was applied to the Germans, who took over the area and drove away the Baltic Prussians… In other words, the separation of Porus from Rus occurred in two stages. And then it turns out as if Germans were at war with the Prussians and seemingly this has no relevance to Rus at all. However, having dug to the original historical names in these two episodes, the researchers thus weakened the consequences of such cartographic expansion of the Germans. Weakened, but not eliminated, for Russian students in geography lessons still memorize the words Prussia and Neman, and not Porusia and Russ.”

The next article takes time to address some of the criticism aimed at Russian-based reading of Etruscan writing. As for me, the name “Etruscan” (Этрусский) is enough. As with many Russian words, it’s a composite: “Et” (“Эт”) means “this is/these are”, while “ruscan” (“русский”) means, well, “Russian”. You can’t get a clearer message than that! By the way, the reading of the name of the Italian capital, which stems from Etruscans becomes clear if you apply the mirror writing that Etruscans used and Russian/Old Russian: “Rome” (“Рим”) becomes “Мир” – (Mir) – “World”. Btw, I wonder why Leonardo da Vinci was so fond of mirror writing.

All of he centuries-old work of the Europeans to expel the Slavs from ancient history can go down the drain

The global historiography simply can not permit the very thought that the Slavs (and, in particular, Russian) were not simply the inhabitants of Pripyat marshes in the early Middle Ages, but the direct co-tribesmen of the ancient tribe of the Etruscans, who lived in Italy in the II millennium BC, whose culture, as is commonly believed, laid the foundation for the Ancient Rome. Unfortunately, many of the domestic researchers, who in other cases demonstrate their scientific integrity, also march within the European historiography paradigms.

The scene of a feast from the Etruscan tombs of the Leopards (about 470 BC) (

Here Professor Valery Chudinov cites an extensive fragment from the Book of Nadezhda Guseva (doctor of historical sciences, ethnographer and indologist – Ed.): “Parallel to the naturally interpreted explanation for the formation of the names of places or rivers, the scientific circles also developed a less common treatment of ethnonyms. And it was in this field that there arose a lot of contradictions in explaining, for example, the ethnonym “Etruscans”. After the scientists from many countries tried for two hundred years to explain the origin of this people, and reveal their connection with other populations both neighbouring and distant countries, a book by E.Klassen was published in Russia in the XIX century: “New materials for ancient history in general and for Slavic-Rus” (KLA), in which there were given decryptions and readings of the inscriptions on tombstones and some tablets of the Etruscans, and this decryption lead to believe that the language of these inscriptions was Russian. The reason for this interpretation was that the font of the writing was very close to the Greek alphabet, from which it is believed Cyrillic originated. Inspired by its deciphering, Russian readers, as well as some researchers, have not paid attention to the fact that such a modern Russian, which Klassen offers suggests, could not have been spoken in Etruria in the II-I millennium BC., as those inscription are dated.” (GUS, pp. 106-107).

Tadeusz Volansky (

Chudinov responds to this remark: “Judging by the numerous inaccuracies (consisting truncations and a distorted title of E.Klassen’s book, not only in the text, but in the list of references, in the mention of the name of E.Klassen as the author of the deciphering, while in fact the author was Tadeusz Volansky, who inserted his own book into the book of E.Klassen, in the absence of any “Etruscan tables” in the book, etc., etc.), N.R. Guseva didn’t read E.Klassen’s book, while he opinion is formed, based on other people’s reviews.

For me as a researcher of the problem, it is of interest that the inscriptions are dated by her no only from the first, but also from the second millennium BC; it seems that it is a dating from the XIX century. Nowadays, the most ancient Etruscan inscriptions are dated already from the VIII century, in other words their history was brought closer to our days by 12 centuries. Although, in my opinion, the inscription are younger by another 12-15 centuries. As for the “modern Russian”, in which allegedly the T.Volanskij’s inscriptions are written, then, no one hand, no one before me studied the Russian language of the Etruscan times, so is very difficult to talk about how “modern” or “ancient” it is.

On the other hand, T.Volanskij’s decryption, though very progressive for its time, if only by the noble desire to considered the Etruscans language as a Slavic one (like a true Pole, T.Volansky never believed that the Etruscan language was Russian: he translated only Etruscan inscriptions into Slavic languages including Polish and Russian), were incorrect. So there is no reason to consider this attempt as a model one. So my objections to NR Guseva are: 1) written from hearsay, 2) there are errors in the knowledge of the source and, therefore, an error in its interpretation, 3) one of the unsuccessful attempts to read Etruscan texts is proclaimed as an example evidence of Etruscans belonging to the Slavs, and 4) condemn the unsuccessful attempt by T.Volanskogo to the other readers from the standpoint of an alleged knowledge of the Russian language of Etruscan times. Therefore, not only do I see any credibility in N.R. Guseva’s opinion, but it also contains all the features of unprofessional handling of the sources in question”.

Chudinov also touched upon another of Guseva’s observations: “Historian Y.D. Petukhov developed a scheme of the genealogical tree of Indo-European languages, by tracing them from “proto-Slavic/Boreale”, and among the other descendants of that ancestor he also included the Etruscans, calling them “raseno-Etruscans”; thus in his book “In Gods’ Path”, he traces the relationship of Etruria with Asia Minor – via the Balkans to northern Italy, completing the circle over the Dnepr and Black Sea, as well as linking the Etruscans and the ancestors of the Slavs.” (GUS, p 107.).

As Chudinov explained, “One would not like to discuss the works of Y.D. Petukhov in passing; I believe that over time, I will give a detailed review of these interesting constructions… The important thing is that he mentioned Etruscans as the Slavs.”

Guseva, however, continues to insist: “He was not a novice in his search: many researchers wrote already in the XIX century about a marked influence on the Etruscan art and culture by the many aspects of the culture of Asia Minor. The big total work on the history, culture and language of the Etruscans, was the capital research of the French historian-orientalist Z. Maiani”Etruscans start talking”. Having prefaced his work with detailed prior publications, the author points out that some of the words and signs found in Etruria, are indecipherable as belonging to the Indo-European family system, but the basic vocabulary is clearly correlated with the major part of the system.” (GUS, p. 108).

But Zachary Maiani took upon himself an almost impossible task: to understand as a language the mess, into which the Etruscan was by Massimo Pallottino (Italian Etruscologist, professor of the University of Rome – Ed.) in his “reading”, when he simply “split into words” a continuous sequence of letters and then “transliterated” it, that is – gave the Latin spelling of Etruscan texts. As pointed out by the Valery Chudinov, “not knowing the reversals, that is how Etruscan letters should be shuffled, nor the ligatures, or, on the contrary, the writing of the dismembered letter (translator: for example as in the following single Russian letter: ‘ы’, which an unwary person may be tempted to split into two letters ‘ь’ and ‘ı’), not knowing Etruscan words, it is practically impossible even to split the text into words.” So, from the point of view of Professor Chudinov, “Zachary Maiani actually read a Latin surrogate of Etruscan, and his book should be titled “Surrogate Etruscan starts turning into some babble”, because over more than a quarter of a century, he was able to understand only about 300 words of this surrogate language, whereas I was able to identify more than 2,000 Etruscan-Russian word over two years time.

A legitimate question arises: are the professional Etruscologists after more than two centuries of observations did not understand that they are dealing with a form of the Russian language? I think they understood. Similarly, Europeans are well aware that the Albanians do not have any legal rights to Kosovo. However, they believe that it is necessary to get rid of the Slavs at any cost… Returning to our problems: why would they say that the Etruscan language was Slavic? What if the unearthed inscriptions suddenly contain something, that runs counter to accepted European historiography, in which the Slavs were expelled from the ancient period? What if it turns out that there was Russia, and Moscow, and that the “hand of Moscow” ordered to create Rome? Then all the centuries-old works of Europeans on the expulsion of Slavs from the ancient history go down the drain, and so well-going for Europeans cold war turns into a counter-attack of the Slavs”.

This was aragment of an interview of Professor Valery Chudinov to KM TV about the secret origin of the Etruscans and their relationship with the Russian people

It was in this language that the service in the famous St. Stephen’s Cathedral were conducted.

Unfortunately, the records of abbot Mauro Orbini (?-1614) were read by a few in our country. To explain for the non-experts: he is – the author of the monumental work “Slavic Kingdom” (published, as is commonly believed, in Pesaro in 1601 in Italian), in which he was one of the first to attempt to give a generalized history of all the Slavic peoples. Incidentally, Orbini believed that the Swedes, the Finns, the Goths, Danes, Normans, Burgundians, Bretons and many other Europeans stemmed from the Slavs.

The title page of the “Slavic Kingdom”, 1601 edition (

Orbini was proud of the feats of the Slavs, their majesty and power. He tells us about the spread of the Slavs, the invention of the Slavic written language, the ancient history of the Czechs, Poles, Polabans, Russians and especially the Southern Slavs. As the sources, Orbini used Russian chronicles, Callimachus, Cromer, Varshevitskij, Gajk, Dubravitskij, as well as Byzantine, German and Venetian writings. By personal order of Tsar Peter I, the book has been translated (with cuts) into the Russian language under the title of “Historiography praising the name, fame, and the expansion of the Slavic people and their kings and lords under many names and in many kingdoms, principalities, and provinces. Gathered out of many historical books, by the hand of the Lord Mavrourbina Archimandrite Raguzhskogo” (1722).

The first page of the Russian edition of the book by Mavro Orbini from 1722 (

Among other things, the Orbini’s book states that said “Slavic people” possessed France, England, Spain, Italy, Greece, the Balkans (“Macedonia and Illirich Lands”), as well as the coast of the Baltic Sea. In addition, according to the author, many European nations descended from the Slavs, while the official contemporary science says have nothing in common with their progenitors. Orbini fully realised that the historians will have a negative attitude to his work, and wrote about it in his book (re-translated from old Russian): “And if one of the nations would rebuke in hatred this true description – I call in witnesses historiographers, the list of whom I attach, and who in their historiography books speak regarding this case.”

St. Stephen’s Cathedral in Vienna, photo from 1905 (

We shall not recount in detail all Orbini’s work (a list of primary sources alone takes an impressive amount space there), and will focus only on one curious aspect. So, Mauro Orbini said: “From that time (that is from the time of Cyril and Methodius – Ed.) and till this time (that is to the end of the XVI century, according to the author – Ed.) priests of the Liburn Slavs, subjects of Archduke Noritskij, serve the Liturgy and other divine rites in their own native tongue, with no knowledge of the Latin language, and moreover Noritskij Counts themselves used the Slavic letters in the public writings, as seen in the Church of the Holy Stephen in Vienna” (here from the updated Russian translation of 1722).

Coat of arms of the Roman emperors Habsburgs (

We repeat: he is talking about the famous Catholic cathedral of St. Stephen in Vienna, which is the national symbol of Austria and the symbol of Vienna itself. It turns out that in the XVI century Austria (and according to the official version, it was in this century that Vienna became the capital of a multinational state of the Austrian Habsburgs – the emperors of the Holy Roman Empire) still wrote in Slavic! While the church services were held in the Slavic language! And the Slavic inscriptions adorned not just anything, but in the cathedral – St. Stephen’s Cathedral. The cathedral still stands today and is well known, but now you will not find Slavic inscriptions there. The authors of the theory of “The New Chronology” Anatoly Fomenko and Gleb Nosovskii, believe in their book “Slavic conquest of the world”, that obviously the awkward letters were ‘carefully’ destroyed by the reformers in the XVII-XIX centuries so as to no longer remind the inhabitants of Vienna of their “wrong” Slavic past. (Translator note: In Russia herself, many ancient inscriptions on the graves and in the churches, as well as the faces of some of the dukes in the church painting in the churches were chiselled off when Romanovs came to power, so literal “erasing of history” is a common practice.)

Anatoly Fomenko (left) and Gleb Nosovskii visiting KM.RU

And it is only one of the brightest examples cited by Orbini. Note that it touches not even the distant past, but the contemporary to Orbini times. In this case the author acts not as a chronicler, but as a living witness of the events.

The following article is important for understanding how a wedge is put between people and how peoples are separated using language as a tool. This is an example from the recent history, but it’s not the last such event to have taken place. Ukrainian “language” and now the Belorussian are the current ongoing examples of linguistic segregation.

Bulgarians are a Russian people from the shores of Volga river. People living there are to this day called “Volgarí” (Волгари) – compare to “Bolgary” (Болгары), which is how Bulgarians call themselves. For more information on the subject, I recommend Lada Ray’s article Bulgaria Returning to Native Shores: ‘Thank you Russia – 1878 and 1945’.

According to Academician Fomenko, up to the XVIII century we spoke the same language in both Russia and Bulgaria, down to the smallest details.

Many interesting things become revealed today when viewing Bulgarian history from the perspective of the concept of “The New Chronology”. For example, the creator of “The New Chronology”, Academician Anatoly Fomenko with the research team, was surprised to find that the old Bulgarian texts (for example, “Naming of the Bulgarian Khans”) is in fact written in exactly the same language as the old Russian texts (not to be confused with Church Slavonic!). They are virtually indistinguishable – neither in the language form, nor in the form of the letters! If you are not told in advance what kind of text your see – old Bulgarian or old Russian, then you are unlikely to guess its identity. Knowing the Old Russian language, experts were able to read those texts with ease read, unlike the later Bulgarian texts (not even speaking about the contemporary Bulgarian), which an unprepared Russian person understands with difficulty.

Text in “Naming of the Bulgarian Khans» (

“And this is understandable. Bulgarian language, branching from the old Russian in approximately XIV-XV centuries, eventually diverged from it and began to develop more or less independently. It did not diverge far, but noticeable differences had already appeared.” – explains Academician Fomenko explains. He’s also convinced that in Bulgaria of XIV-XV centuries simply the old Russian language was apparently in circulation, “also called Old Bulgarian language or the old language of the ‘Volga river dwellers’. As the language of the Rus-Orda. Moreover, it turns out, it was common in Bulgaria virtually unchanged up until the nineteenth century.”

It was no accident that in the XVIII-XIX centuries a special reform of the language had to be carried out, notably both in Bulgaria and in Russia. The grammar was slightly changed, and as a result the new languages started to markedly differ from each other. Although these languages ​​are still very similar, their complete identity disappeared.

As Anatoly Fomenko insists in his book “Mathematical Chronology of Biblical Events”, “up to the XVIII century one and the same language was spoken in Russia and Bulgaria, right down to the smallest details. Then this identity of the Russian and Bulgarian languages was intentionally destroyed. Bulgarians were taught (forced?) to speak slightly differently. Why was this done? Apparently, so as to create a linguistic border between the Bulgarians and the Russians. After all, the very fact that up to the XVIII-XIX centuries almost the same language was in use in both Bulgaria and Russia, clearly contradicted the Scaligerian history (Joseph Juste Scaliger, the founder of modern scientific historical chronology), which asserts that the Bulgarians and the Russians lived as different peoples for many hundreds of years.”

To clarify: Scaliger – this is the very same mathematician of the XVII century, who “invented” the chronology, on which the whole of the official world paradigm of historiography is based. Peter I, in his quest to imitate the West, forced its introduction also in Russia. However, Fomenko believes that the implementation of Scaligerian history in Russia was started already by the ancestors of Peter – the Romanovs, to strengthen their dynastic claim to the Russian throne.

However, the question arises: how could have the two nations – Russians and Bulgarians – for centuries managed to keep almost an identical language? After all, living apart, Bulgarians and Russians would have had to rather quickly start speaking much differently.

Anatoly Fomenko answers this question directly and categorically: Without a doubt, the reform of the Bulgarian language in the era of XVIII-XIX centuries was carried out deliberately to hide as much as possible of this glaring contradiction in the Scaligerian-Romanov history of the Balkans.

In the reconstruction-hypothesis established by Anatoly Fomenko, the explanation for all this is very simple. Bulgarians came to the Balkans as part of the Ottoman Horde forces in the XV century, they were mostly Russian and naturally spoke in Old Russian. The communications between Balkans and Russia remain very close up to the XVII century, so the language long remained virtually the same. Incidentally, we see the same in the case of the very distant from each other parts of Russia.

Cyril and Methodius with the students. Fresco of the monastery “St. Naum”, now in the Republic of Macedonia (

Academician Fomenko, in order to avoid confusion, clarifies that we are talking about the identity of the Old Bulgarian and Old Russian languages, and not of the Church Slavic, which has them an indirect relationship, and was obviously intended for the translation of the Greek church literature, first and foremost of the Holy Scriptures, to which end it (and the corresponding alphabet), were in fact developed by the great educators Cyril and Methodius.

Russian, also known as “Slovenian” language, was spoken on the vast territory, from the Adriatic Sea to the Urals and from Scandinavia to the Mediterranean

Any revolution is always a disaster for those, whose world it destroys. (In this context, the revolution must be understood in a broad sense – as a set of events that drastically alter the state of a society.) But it’s also an antistrophe, the ability to realize their ambitions for those who before could not even dream of it (“He, who was nothing, becomes everything). Revolutions are always associated with a change in the basic foundations of the mass consciousness of people (although, in theory, it is enough that 1/6th of the population accepts the innovations). And the foundations of consciousness (mentality) are directly connected with the language, because the language is a category of a higher order, than biology-physiology.

King of England Henry VIII (

A few examples from history. It is believed that Henry VIII in the first half XVI century forcibly imposed a mandatory “correct” English in England, while those who did not master it, lost all rights, including property (very similar to the current situation in the Baltic States). And that despite the fact, that for a long time the official language of England was… French. While in France – Latin! There is evidence that the “home” language of the first Romanovs was Polish. During Peter I rule, Dutch became the language of the court (and not German, as that dialect is is commonly called!). Later in Russia French became the language of the “tops”, while the family of Nicholas II spoke English at home, anticipating the current dominance of the “American English”.

Moldavian Prince Roman I (

According to the official version, the major European national languages ​​(English, French, German, Italian, Spanish) largely developed in the XVI-XVII centuries. The fate of the Russian language is completely different, though! Karamzin called Russian language of the XV century for “Slovenian” (from the name of the northern group of the Eastern Slavs – “Slovens”), which was spoken on the vast territory – from the Adriatic Sea to the Urals, and from Scandinavia to the Mediterranean. For quite understandable without any translation of the Russian language written Both the official letters of Moldavian Prince Roman of the XIV century and the letters of the Turkish Sultan Murad of the XV century, documents of office of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in XIV-XVI centuries – all were written in a quite understandable Russian language, which does not require any translation (Translator not: into modern Russian. See also a comment by Krzysztof Zanussi in Project ‘Ukraine’. Documentary by Andrei Medvedev regarding the language use in Lithuania). It is noteworthy that there (in Grand Duchy of Lithuania) this language bore an amazing name – «Попросту» (“Simply”, or “In a simple way”)! In other words, it was understandable to almost everyone, it was not for church, but for civil use. Until this day in Lithuania it is called “Russian” (meaning not the modern Russian language, but the one that was used in Europe in the Middle Ages), while by our linguists for “Old Belorussian”. It is believed, that in the XVI century and up until 1697 poetry was written in this language, not worse than in Italian, and, notably, using Cyrillic writing.

Ottoman Sultan Murad II (

But… in Romanovs’ Muscovy these books were banned: during the whole of the XVII century a total of 6(!) books of the secular kind were published. The Old Believers were almost without exception literate, while Nikonian reforms led to the fact that in just 40 years the majority of the population turned into ignoramuses. Peter I, abolishing the Patriarchate and subjugating the Church, introduced a civil alphabet and began to revive literacy. (Translator note: At the same time Peter I conducted persecution of the Old Believers, many of whom had to go into exile into the periphery territories, for example to the present-day Lithuania. Also, Peter I conducted a calendar reform, which tied Russian calendar to the Western-European and chopped off over 5000 years of history). His cause was later continued by Lomonosov, Dashkova and others. However, the classic Russian language only formed in the first half of the XIX century with the efforts of Zhukovsky, Pushkin, Boratynsky, Gogol, Lermontov, and a whole galaxy of writers of the “golden” century. The main achievement of these educators is the creation of a unified Russian language understood by all classes (“class” – “soslovie”, in Russian).

Incidentally, the word “soslovie” is a purely Russian notion, it means a community of people who have their own language, slang, understanding each other “from the words” (Translator note: “soslovie” [сословие] consists of the preposition “so-” [со-], meaning “co-” and root “slovie” [-словие], meaning “of word” – in other words “class”, “soslovie” is a group of “coworded” people). This slang, despite the specificity of terms and meanings is within the scope of the commonly accessible language. And, for example, in Greece and Norway there still exist two languages – “book” and “vulgar”. (Translator note: In Norwegian there is a “Bokmål” – “book language”, derived from the Danish and “Nynorsk” – “New Norwegian”, artificially created as an amalgam of the large variety of the Norwegian local dialects.) The revolution in Russia in the early XX century was objectively inevitable, but it led to very serious catastrophic consequences, including for the Russian language. As a “revolutionary” slang there appeared a lexicon of truncated combined word-freaks like “Kombed” (“Commettee of the Poor”), “Combrig” (“Brigade Commander”), “Narcom” (“People’s Commissar”), “Comintern” (“Communist International”).

Poster by the Gestapo during the Second World War (

In the first case “com-” is from the word “committee”, in the second – from the “commander”, in the third – from the “commissar”, in the fourth – from the “communist”. Echoes of this phenomenon is found in the words of the current “Prodmag” (“Food store”), “Universam” (“Universal self-service store”, “supermarket”), “Spetsnaz” (“special forces”), etc. A similar phenomenon was also in Germany, for example, “Gestapo” is an abbreviation of the German Geheime Staatspolizei (“Secret State Police”)…

October Revolution also needed a spelling reform. Having been carried out in 1918, it “cut off” from itself a considerable part of the Russian intelligentsia, which did not accept either the revolution or the revolutionary newspeak.

But the language, as a system of a high degree of organization and self-protection, is very tenacious. This fully applies to the Russian language. Evidence? You are welcome. The “telegraphic” Russian language can reduce up to 50% of the initial letters of words without losing the meaning. This is a direct evidence of at least two-fold redundancy, reliability, embedded into the language. Language absorbs what is viable, digests and throws out the surplus “carrion.”

Nature abhors a vacuum. And dialectal simple word “loh” (“goof”), which means emaciated after spawning salmon, which you can take with your bare hands, and Pskov-Tver, “lohan” (“a fool”) fully manifested in their meanings in the 1990s, during another revolution..

So do not be afraid of borrowed sayings such as “as’ka” (“ICQ”) or “fleshka” (“flash drive”): Russian language digested more than that before. An indicator of such digestibility are Russian suffixes, endings, declination.

While the Russian language is alive – Russia is alive too. And not only that: many different ethnic groups can communicate with each other exclusively in Russian. Therefore, the question of the Russian language is political, both in Russia and outside it. Several years ago, there was a campaign for the reform of the Russian language, which, thank God, was stopped. Russia needs not reforms of the Russian language, but a reform of the teaching methods of the Russian language – from top to bottom.

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”.
[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!”
“Death to the enemies”
“Glory to Ukraine. Heroes be glorified.”
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:

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.
“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
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.

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,


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


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 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.