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

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

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

lresr2_map1

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

lresr_map2

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

ls_esr2_map3

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

lresr2_map5

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


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

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

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

What is “Ukraine”, “Ukrainian”?

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

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

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

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

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

ukr1

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ukr2

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

The beginning of the text translates as follows:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

They are still shooting

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

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

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

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

Why do they not want to agree?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Ukraine: Still Smouldering Tinderbox (I) [Re-blog with comments]

Below is a re-blog of Michael Jabara CARLEY’s article Ukraine: Still Smouldering Tinderbox (I) published at the Strategic Culture Foundation site.

But before I present the text, I want to add a few comments of my own, which the reader can keep in mind while reading the article.

The city of Odessa was founded in 1794 by Russian Empress Catherine II and was the first free trade port in Russia.

The city of Nikolaev was founded in 1789 by Russian Count Potjomkin as a ship-building docks. It got its present name in commemoration of the victory by the Russian troops, when Turkish fortress Ochakov was taken in 1788 on the day of St.Nikolaj.

Regarding what the American handler of the Ukrainian puppet government, Proconsul Pyatt was saying, that Russia wants to “create Novorossia”. Russia has no need to create Novorossia. Novorossia is actually an old concept – it was an administrative region within Russia at the time, when the European emigrants were still stealing the land from the Native Americans. For an in-depth look at Novorossia, see my article Two Ukraines.

Ukraine is indeed a smouldering tinderbox. For a look at what is going on, I recommend watching the English-subtittled Donetsk Republic’s Ministry of Defence Briefing: Jan. 29, 2016 Ceasefire Violations by Kiev, published at Lada Ray’s blog.

And finally, I disagree with the author’s conclusion in the last paragraph. Putin is not intimidated, but is rather trying to resolved the conflict and free Ukraine from the American occupation diplomatically and not militarily. There was also no homogeneous resistance in Donbass, but rather several groups with varying interests, which were united by not wishing to cow-tow to the coup government. This cost Donbass the loss of momentum. The situation is all to close to what Russia (an by that I also mean Ukraine) experienced after the coup d’etat of 1917 and the subsequent civil war and Western interventionism…


The international situation is very dangerous. Syria seems to be holding everyone’s attention, but the Ukrainian tinderbox still smoulders. Fascists hold power in Kiev. They do not miss an opportunity to make provocative declarations or commit hostile acts against Russia or against Russian people in Ukraine. The Kiev junta is a repressive, murderous regime intolerant of political opposition.

Former Nazi collaborators like Stepan Bandera have been transformed into national heroes remembered in torch light parades evocative of Nazi Germany. Violence is exalted and tawdry fascist masculinity is openly celebrated.

Recently, Petro Poroshenko, the president of Ukraine declared that in 2016 the junta would retake control of the Donbass and Crimea. Whilst the fate of the Donbass remains uncertain, the status of Crimea is clear. As Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said recently, Crimea is an integral part of the Russian Federation and there is nothing to «negotiate» about it. In fact, the only way Ukraine can hope to take over Crimea would be in the aftermath of a Third World War won by the United States and its NATO vassals. To say the least, this is an unlikely eventuality. Not that a world war would overly trouble the burlesque Poroshenko, who still seeks to drag the European Union (EU) and the United States deeper into the Kiev junta’s conflict with Moscow. It is his lone hope for success.

Poroshenko is only nominally «president» of Ukraine. In fact, he is an executor of directives received from the US embassy in Kiev or the US government in Washington.

He has presided over the destruction and looting of the Ukrainian economy, but he continues in power, propped up by the United States and its EU vassals. The fascist or Maidan coup d’état in February 2014, backed by the United States, has enabled Washington to seize control of Ukraine though without Crimea and Donbass. Thus it is a victory which may eventually lead to a defeat.

US intervention in Ukraine is a grave matter and a direct attack on the security of the Russian Federation. It is also an attempt to change the course of history and to break the bonds of culture, religion and kinship dating back more than one thousand years. The first Russian state was established at Kiev in the 9th century. During the Late Medieval and Early Modern periods Ukraine was a contested borderland and no-man’s land between Muscovy, then tsarist Russia, Poland-Lithuania and the Ottoman Empire. Before 1991 Ukraine never existed as an independent state, or did so only in Kiev for a few months in 1918 and 1919, and then as a puppet regime of Wilhelmine Germany or France. It is ironic that so-called Ukrainian «nationalists», then as now, could only establish their putative authority under foreign domination. Then as now, foreign powers seek to use a Ukrainian client state as a place d’armes or as a proxy to attack Russian power in Moscow.

Vladimir Zhirinovsky, an eccentric politician and member of the State Duma in Russia, had this to say recently about Ukraine. Zhirinovsky often speaks the blunt truth that others may not want to hear or will not say. «All of the present day Ukraine», he said on a Russian talk show, «are the historical lands of Russia… All of Ukraine, this is Russia… When the Russian princes sat in Kiev [9th-13th centuries], was Ukraine ever a word? Who built [the cities of] Chernigov… Odessa, Nikolaiev?» It was not Ukrainians, Zhirinovsky concluded in so many words, it was Russians.

Of course, this is a Russian point of view for which the US government has no respect. Who would dare to make a claim on parts of the United States just because at one time or another they belonged to someone else? We stole those territories, fair and square, or made war to get them, an American joker might reply, and we’re not giving them back. The US ambassador or proconsul in Kiev, Geoffrey Pyatt, declared recently on Ukrainian television that Kharkov and Odessa would never again be part of Russia. «You have managed to defeat Putin», he said, «When the troops came to the Donbass the Kremlin wanted to seize Ukraine, it wanted to create Novorossia and seize Odessa, it wanted Kharkov. Now it will never happen. What Russia and terrorists supported by it are left with is a little piece of the Donbass. We will do our best to help you regain these territories». What an American fairy story.

More candidly, the US proconsul might have said (he certainly came close to saying it): «we’ve hijacked Ukraine right from under your nose, Mr Putin, and you can’t do anything about it». Does American pride go before a fall?

It remains to be seen how the crisis in Ukraine will evolve. In the meantime, Poroshenko plays the role of a dangerous US popinjay and bootblack who can only justify his existence by selling off Ukrainian resources and spewing out clownish threats against Russia.

The Kiev junta might make a great story line for an Opéra bouffe, except that it’s no laughing matter. Kiev’s fascist militias wage war against civilians and repress political opposition. In fact, any activities connected to the USSR are illegal. Sing the Internationale, for example, and hop!, you could get ten years in prison. Come to think of it, an Opéra bouffe is not the right way to showcase fascist Ukraine; better a dark Kafkaesque theatre of the absurd, or vaudeville mixed with horror.

The Kiev junta has refused to repay a $3 billion loan to Russia and blockaded Crimea, cutting off water, electricity, and food supplies. It bombards Donbass cities, targeting civilians, on a daily basis. Yet it expects cheap natural gas from Russia and transit payments for gas intended for Europe (which it often siphons off), trade benefits, and various other advantages.

The Russian government has in return attempted to avert an all-out confrontation by dampening down the anti-fascist resistance movement in Novorossia and by promoting the Minsk accords. For those who may not remember, these accords resulted from the defeat, not once but twice, of Ukrainian punitive forces attempting to put down the anti-fascist resistance in the east. Notwithstanding Proconsul Pyatt’s peculiar narrative, the Donbass opolchentsy won the war and lost the peace. They did not have much choice for they counted on Russian support, and Moscow insisted on Minsk. Novorossia became a concept to be forgotten. Militia commanders who spoke too much about independence or Russia were mysteriously assassinated. Anti-fascist élan has been doused, though not extinguished.

Why does the Russian government pursue such a sinuous, seemingly self-defeating policy? Well, for one thing, Moscow was faced with damaging western economic sanctions and growing Russophobic hysteria excited by the United States and its EU Atlanticist vassals. Only people with top secret security clearances in Moscow or Washington can say, but the United States may have threatened the Russian government with war if it did not take a less forward policy in Ukraine. Responding as though he might have been threatened, Putin endorsed the Minsk accords, although this meant accepting the continuation of the fascist junta in Kiev and accepting in effect the US hijacking of Ukraine out of the Russian world. Putin does not use the word «fascist» to describe his Ukrainian «partners», even as the Russian Federation celebrates annually the Red Army’s triumph over Nazi Germany. The Donbass is different from Crimea, Putin says in effect. Therefore, autonomy will have to do, whatever the people in the Donbass might want.

(to be continued)

Bird’s Eye Perspective on the Russian Federation

I get a feeling that many people, with whom I talk about Russia, have a perception about it as a large monolithic blob of unknown somewhere in the East. And as we know, everything that is unknown, becomes feared and distrusted. This perception is formed by the Western MSM, which seldom mentions Russia, and when it does, only the negative angle is allowed to reach the audience. This is very well put in Lada Ray’s article Desperate for Up-To-Date Truth About Ukraine and Novorossia?.
In this regard, it is an interesting exercise just to fire up Google Earth and take a bird’s eye view of the Russian Federation:

Russian Federation

And the first thing one notices is that, yes, it is a Federation. Notice all the territories, the Federal Subjects, that comprise the Russian Federation. They all have a large degree of autonomy, with their own regional laws, that take into account the specifics of the nationalities that populate them, most of them have one or more national languages, besides Russian – like Crimean Republic, which has Ukrainian and Tatar as official languages. And they all have a common desire for peaceful existence and prosperity. And Russia, just like about any other country, only as strong as it stands united

On the map above the reader can see Western Europe. I cannot say just “Europe”, because Russia is also Europe – a fact that is largely forgotten. And moreover, Western Europe is just a small fraction of one large common continent – Eurasia that got politically divided so as to split and rule us, the people.

Please read Lada’s Guide to the 85 Subjects of the Russian Federation for a lot more information and details on what is Russian Federation.

In the middle, a quite large chunk of the map is occupied by Ukraine – a hot topic of the last 2 years, what with the West-fuelled and MSM-ignored civil war raging there. That civil war was made possible for many reasons, one of which is: just like Russia (or, rather, because Ukraine is a historical fragment of Russia) Ukraine is not homogeneous, and for it to survive, it should have adopted a federative structure. This was vehemently denied to it by US/EU instigators, contrary to all common sense. So first Crimea, then Donbass/Novorossia took matters into their own hands, as then other regions will do too. It saddens me to see this large 40+ million country being so totally dominated by the Western mob.

But there is hope. Ironically, it comes from the biggest bully – the USA. Unwittingly, USA has acknowledged Novorossia’s claim to independence with a law, dating back to 1959!

US Congress and President Obama “Officially” Recognize Donbass’: Public Law 86-90 (1959)

The article above is a must-read. Not only does it describe the law in question:

The Captive Nations Week Resolution passed by both the Senate and House of Representatives in 1959 and reissued as a Presidential Proclamation every year for the last 56 years (also known as Public Law 86-90) affirms the RECOGNITION of the “Don” (Donetsk and Lugansk Peoples Republics are core countries of a Cossackia) as well as a future Zaporozhyian Republic (currently Zaporozhye Oblast).

It also gives an important view on the disparate constitution of what the West tries to pass as a monolithic “Ukrainian” nation:

According to Wasyl Veryha former Ukrainian World Congress president– read how he describes the populations of émigrés from “Ukraine

“In fact, the diverse nomenclature for the Ukrainian ethnic group caused a great deal of confusion not only at the turn of the century but also at a later period (through the 1930′s). The people of the province of Galicia and Bukovina, generally called themselves “Rusyny” (Ruthenians), Galicians, Bukovinians and Austrians… the Greek Catholic Church, to which at that time the overwhelming majority of Ukrainian immigrants adhered, preferred the term “Ruthenian”…both within the Austrian and the Russian Empires where the term “Ruthenian” and “Little Russian” respectively had begun to give way to the new, but at the same time old term, “Ukrainian”(person on the borderlands), as a national designation…The paper (Ukrainian Voice) was really a pioneer in transforming the “Austrians”, Ruthenians”, “Galicians” and “Bukovinians” into Ukrainians.. It popularized the term “Ukrainian” as a replacement for “Ruthenian.”

Wasyl Veryhas Masters of History Thesis

One Year Since Journalist Andrei Stenin Was Murdered in Ukraine While Covering the Conflict in Donbass

One year ago, on the 5th of Agust 2014, Russian journalist Andrei Stenin and tens of other civilians were killed. Below is my translation of a Russian article, where a female local witness sheds more light on the circumstances of Stenin’s murder and the chronology of the event is reconstructed. The original article in Russian can be read at RIA.ru site.


A year after the death of photojournalist of the international news agency “Russia Today”, Andrei Stenin, in Donbass, the picture of the tragedy became more complete. Witnesses of the events told RIA Novosti what occurred near the village of Dmitrovka in those days. Back then, as a result of shelling by the Ukrainian security forces, dozens of civilians were killed, most of them still remain unidentified.

A terrible equation with many unknowns

From the set go, there were a lot of mysteries in the case of disappearance of Stenin and his friends from the newssite Icorpus.ru Andrei Vyachal and Sergei Korenchenkov. The last time they had contact, was on August 5, 2014 from Snezhnoe (translator: mean “Snowy” in Russian. Note that all villages there have Russian names) (80 kilometers east of Donetsk). In the city headquarters of the militia, the journalists said they were going to go south, to the village of Dmitrovka on the Russian-Ukrainian border – there was fighting going og there, the army and the National Guard tried to surround DPR (Donetsk People’s Republic) and cut off the Republic from Russia. Journalists could shoot some footage there. However they did not seem to reach Dmitrovka – at least, the head of its headquarters with the call sign “Poet” did not see them.

Stenin’s, Vyachal’s and Korenchenkov’s phones and did not respond. A few days later, the adviser to the Interior Minister, Anton Gerashchenko, said the photojournalist of “Russia Today” was detained by the security forces. The fact that signal from Stenin’s phone was detected in Slavyansk – 160 kilometers north-west of the Snezhnoe gave plausibility to Gerashchenko’s words – after the retreat of militia, Slavyansk was turned into the headquarters of the military operation. On the 8th of August, everyone who phoned him, received and SMS that the subscriber is available again. There was hope that Stenin was alive, even if in captivity.

But then Anton Gerashchenko denied his words, that only increased the confusion and suspicion. Soon, one of Stenin’s friends managed to get through to his number. A strange voice responded, presenting itself as a Ukrainian military. “This phone came to me by chance, through a third party. It’s owner is dead, he’s near Stepanovka. Come, take the body,” – said the stranger.

Stepanovka is located eight kilometers from Dmitrovka and about 20 kilometers from the real place of Stenin’s death. A local would never say that it’s nearby. But for newcomers, such as the military from other regions of Ukraine, it is really very close.


Today’s view of the place where Stenin was killed.

“He’s ‘Beard’ and I’m ‘Beard'”

RIA Novosti correspondent managed to find a volunteer militia fighter, who saw Stenin with colleagues in Dmitrovka on the evening of August the 5th. This is a local resident with the call sign ‘Beard’, who a year ago fought under the command of ‘Poet’. ‘Beard’ testifies: the guys came from Snezhnoe, but didn’t go into Dmitrovka further than DPR’s checkpoint.

Armed forces tried back then to surround Dmitrovka – it is one of the key settlements near the Russian border. Apparently, the journalists were afraid to be surrounded and drove back to Snezhnoe. No one knew that by being surrounded you could still be saved, but the road back would be deadly.

“Serge ‘Greek’ (militia – Ed.) then came out of Snezhnoe, ate. The journalists then came together with them, we saw them.” – ‘Beard’ suggests while browsing portraits of Andrei Stenin on a pad.

“I remember him well. He’s – beard, and I’m beard, militiaman is laughing. – Especially since I saw him before in Kozhevnja (translator: means “tannery” in Russian) (another town on the border, where there also were intense battles – Ed.).

Stenin, Korenchenko and Vyachal did not know that the situation, as so often happens on the front, changed dramatically over a few hours. The road by which they have arrived safely to Dmitrovka, was already under the control of armed forces.


Lilija and Kostja Filjushins were wounded at the same time as Stenin, but survived.

NatsGuard was shelling and refused to help

“Nazigs (local reference to National Guard fighters – Ed.) appeared here in the evening of the fifth (August). Immediately they shelled the wheat field so that it caught fire – a villager from Rassypnoe (translator: means “scattered” in Russian) recalls Stenin’s death. – They went from home to home, told everyone to sit quietly. You can eat burdocks, but remain sitting in the cellars – they said.”

Taking control of the road between Snezhnoe and Dmitrovka, security forces started firing at all the passing cars. They did not inspect, dis not hinder the passage, simply fired at them.

On the 6th of August Vladimir Zolotous and his wife Maria went from Dmitrovka to Snezhnoe to pick up her daughter and grandchildren. Snezhnoe was already de-facto surrounded. Two weeks before the city was struck by an airstrike – 13 people were killed. Then in a nearby town of Shahtersk (translator: means “Miner’s Town” in Russian) street battles began (Stenin filmed them), and on August the 4th Ukrainian security forces opened fire from Snezhnoe using “Smerch” (multiple reactive rocket launcher). Daughter asked Zolotous’ to pick them out of the horrible city and take them to Russia. However, it turned out that the real danger was awaiting not the residents of Snezhnoe, but their would-be rescuers.

“Early in the morning we went to Snezhnoe. My husband did not want to go, as if knowing what would happen to us. He said: let’s not go! It’s not far away from here, so I convinced him – says Maria Zolotous. – Once we came up onto a hill (near Rassypnoe – Ed.), bullets suddenly started punching into the car. The first bullet hit her husband. He turned off the road into a ditch. And only said, “Run!”.


A cross at the spot where Vladimir Zlatous was killed and his wife wounded

And then a miracle happened: the door of the old “Lada”, which is always jammed (Vladimir always open it from the outside, so Mary could sit) opened instantly. Mary, whose legs were hit by bullets, burst outside.

“Guys, do not shoot! We are a peaceful people!” – Shouted Maria to the soldiers. “And she dares saying something,” – they responded and shot at the car from a grenade launcher. Injured woman crawled to the village.

“I saw a car there. Later, when watching news on TV, I realized that that was Stenin’s car. Then, of course, there was no time to look at it. I only remember that the car was already burning. And I did not see whether there were people in it” – said Maria.

“Two soldiers sat in the bushes – she continues her story. – I told them I was wounded, help me!”. “We have no medicines, crawl into the village, there is help,” – said the military. Already crawling away, Mary heard one say to the other: “What is in her bag? Why did you not check and let her go.”

Gotsutsovs family sheltered Mary in Rassypnoe. The woman lived for six days in their basement, so as not to become a victim of shelling – they did wound dressings and pain was relived by simple Analgin. A week later, Zolotous relatives were able to negotiate with the military so that her son in law would come and fetch her. The woman was taken for treatment in Russia.

Like in the movies about the Nazis and partisans

Sudakov family was less fortunate – both spouses were killed in the massacre, common cleaner and a driver of the village administration. It happened the day after the death of Stenin and Zolotous, August the 7th. “Dmitrovka was shelled the day before – recalls their son Denis. – Our whole family was hiding in the basement, but my mother did not make it in time. She was wounded by shrapnel.”


Denis Sudakov at the grave of his parents, who died at the same spot as Stenin

In spite of the continued shelling, Denis’ father, a 50-year-old Vladimir Sudakov, decided to take his wife to the hospital in Snezhnoe. On the way, they were ambushed and killed on the spot. But Dennis learned about it only a few days later. “We have not had any news from them. They did not reach Snezhnoe. I called all the hospitals – even on the Russian side. They were seen nowhere.”- says Sudakov Jr.

In mid-August, when the road was unblocked, Denis found there a burnt-out car of his parents and their remains. “My mother was lying in the back seat just like I put her. Rather everything that was left of her. I collected the remains and buried them,”- he said.

It is difficult to answer what was the tactical meaning of this brutal massacre, which lasted several days. Perhaps the security forces did not want anyone to even travel along this road, and that DPR would remained blockaded. Maybe they were afraid of a surprise attack by the militia. At least six of the militia, including Sergey “Greek”, who arrived with Stenin in Dmitrovka, were also killed at Rassypnoe.

“On the 7th of August, at 04:00 in the morning, we went in a column to Snezhnoe and came under fire near Rassypnoe – says another militia fighter, Vladimir Berezov, who was wounded, but managed to escape. – We were under heavy crossfire, the car tire was shot through, we were thrown into a ditch. We abandoned the car and retreated through the “greens”. I was wounded by a bullet – shattered ankle. We decided that I would stay in the village, while the rest will go for help.”

“Vladimir crawled to us, I hid him,” – says a local resident Galina Bulygin. But soon Nazguards came searching for wounded militia.

“Beryozov hid behind the house, in a cornfield. They searched the house, walked through the area. They asked whether we saw any DPR’ers. I felt like in some movie about Nazis and partisans – says Bulygin. – They found his bunk in the basement and asked who sleeps on it. I told them that it’s my husband’s, that he is sick, and the bed is in the basement, so that not to go down every time the shelling starts.” Nazguards went away.


Personal file of Ljudmila Sudakova, who was killed at the same time as Stenin

Accurate lists of the killed are still unavailable

Stenin’s, Vyachalo’s and Korenchenkov’s car was only found on August the 20th. It was identified by two professional lenses, burned in the trunk. Camera’s body itself was not in the car – we can assume that it had been taken with the mobile phone, which was then “heard” in Slavyansk.

To one side of the car there lay unopened vials of painkillers, which the professional war correspondent Stenin always carried with him, and his expensive Italian red plaid shirt with rolled up sleeves. Again photographer’s friends started to get hope that he is alive. But the results of the examination were ruthless: the charred remains in the car belonged to Stenin, Vyachalo and Korenchenkov.

But here’s another mystery: there were remains of two more people in the car. Who are these people and how did they appear in the car, were they riding along with the journalists or were they thrown in to burn all together – it is still not known.

In total, about 20 cars were shot at near Rassypnoe in those days – some died on the spot, some managed to escape. On the 6th of August, the locals and relatives of the victims gathered at this terrible place, to commemorate all victims of the tragedy. They want to put on this place a memorial with the names of all the victims. But their exact list is still being constructed, says the head of the local village administration Oleg Harichkov.

Some of the remains were buried by the compassionate locals – in mass graves. Some took relatives with them. For example, the remains of Vladimir Zolotous are buried in two places – part of the remains were collected by the relatives of his wife in Dmitrovka, then the rest that could be recovered, was taken away by the relatives to the city of Shahtersk.

This case is still waiting for its investigation. Someday, perhaps, the names of the actual perpetrators of the massacre will be announced.

And what about restoration of territorial integrity of Russia..?

A few days ago, after having been insultingly absent from the memorial Parade in Moscow commemorating the 70th anniversary of the defeat of Nazism, Frau Merkel again started saying something about restoration of the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

With this in mind, I want to address in this article a large pink trumpeting elephant in the room, that all but a few Western politicians are studiously ignoring:

What about restoration of the territorial integrity of Russia?

Ron Paul noticed in one of his articles that whenever forces are set in motion to split off a bit of Russia, these forces are hailed as democratic (like it happened in the 90’s with NATO-armed Islamic terrorist insurgency in Chechen Republic), and conversely, whenever peoples try to join Russia, they get vilified and demonised. As it happened with 2.4 million Crimeans, who for their democratic choice were put under sanctions, disconnected from international payment systems, and Apple and Google closed accounts of those that have some on-line data or development.

Over the last century, Russia’s territorial integrity was violated both illegally and illegitimately on many occasions – in the North, West and South of Russia. In this article I touch upon only three cases pertaining the state, still known today as Ukraine.

In 1917 a violent coup d’etat happened in Russia. It carried many of the characteristics of what later became known as “colour revolutions” – a small minority group, financed largely from the West, carried out a “red” revolution. As the result of this coup Russia became fragmented, large chunks of it being split off. Some, like Finland and LAtvia had only lose affinity to Russia (and yet, Finland chose a Russian navy flag from the time of Peter the Great as a template for their own national flag). Other, like Georgia, joined Russia of their own accord to protect themselves and enjoyed centuries of such protection, while remaining largely self-governed. And then there were integral parts of Russia, part of its heartland – Beloarussia, Malorossia, Novorossia, Crimea.

The state of Ukraine, as created by Lenin in 1917, was based on the Russian land, known as Malorossia. The Malorossian dialect – known colloquially as Surzhik – differs little from Russian. There are greater differences between, say Bavarian and High German or between Oslo and Trøndersk dialects. The Ukrainian language, as we know it today, was later built by incorporating Polish and German words and artificial changes to orthography. This was the first violation of Russia’s territorial integrity in that direction.

At about the same time everything Russian was being eradicated. Even the name of the country was erased for over 70 years, being hidden behind an abbreviation RSFSR (Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic). And it became a bad tone speaking about Russia in USSR…

After the Civil War and Polish insurgency were subdued (we can see exactly the same events playing out today in Ukraine, as the ones happening 96 years ago), it became clear that Ukraine was not a viable state, capable of supporting itself, so Lenin ripped off additional Russian territories and transferred them to Ukraine in 1922. Novorossia had a rich industrial and agricultural potential, that fed the whole of Ukraine up until last year. These lands were collectively known as Novorossia, and consisted among other of Harkov, Donetsk, Lugansk, Nikolaev, Herson and Odessa regions. People living on these territories spoke Russian, and continue to do so till this day. This was the second violation of Russia’s territorial integrity in that direction.

Incidentally, when Soviet Union was voluntaristically broken up on a handshake agreement between some unelected representatives of RSFSR, BSSR and UkSSR, those territories held a referendum, voting against the break-up of USSR. In reality they voted against the physical separation by a state border from Russia – up until that point the separation was largely symbolic.

Then, in 1954, in violation of the then Constitution of USSR and of the legislation of RSFSR, Khrushov transferred Crimea from RSFSR to UkSSR. This was also done against the wishes of Crimeans. The head of Crimean Communist Party lost his position, when he tried to object, voicing the popular opinion. Still, people continued to grumble in the privacy of their kitchens along the lines of “what was that idiot Khrushov thinking, transferring Crimea into Ukraine?” I personally heard such grumblings during my summer stays in Crimea in mid-80s. This was the third violation of Russia’s territorial integrity in that direction. Luckily this violation was rectified last year, in a contrastingly democratic process. Crimeans finally, for the first time after 60 years, got a chance to express their opinion about the forced transfer into Ukraine.

For Khrushov, Crimea was the largest personal bribe given in history. It is sometimes incorrectly stated that Khrushov was Ukrainian. However, Khrushov was connected to Ukraine through his party and repression work during the Stalin era. When he chose the line of exposing of Stalin’s deed as his election campaign line, he urgently needed his own transgressions in Ukraine to be forgotten. Ukrainian Communist Party was the most influential branch, surpassing the Russian one, so a really royal bribe was needed. Crimea became such bribe. (Can anyone imagine Obama giving one of the Hawaiian islands as a present to California so as to get political favours from the Californian rich men during an election campaign? No? Well, Crimea was such a case, and USA now vehemently defends this state of affairs.)

So, Frau Merkel, when you and your Washington masters speak about the restoration of Ukrainian territorial integrity, you in fact speak of sustained and continued support for a series of illegal, violent, tyrannic, totalitarian violations of Russia’s territorial integrity. But what is new in this theatre of double standards?

More informative reading on this topic:

Denouncing everything Soviet? Then return the territories.

Below is my translation from Russian of an article, published in “Argumenty i Fakty” on the 15th of April 2015, written by Alexander Kolesnichenko and Ekaterina Mirnaja.


Not only the TV series “Seventeen Moments of Spring” were banned in Ukraine, but also the medals and orders of the veterans of Great Patriotic War. Incidentally, it is now also impossible to call this war in this terms.

The new authorities threaten to send to jail all those who do not agree to equate communism and Nazism.

A Blow to the Veterans

The Supreme Rada (Ukrainian Parliament) approved a package of laws, which equates Soviet symbolism to the symbols of Nazi Germany. You can go to jail for 5 years for the public performance of the Anthem of the USSR or for marching under the red flag with the hammer and sickle. The country must remove all monuments to Soviet leaders and completely abandon the Soviet toponymy up to and including renaming of cities. That is, Dnepropetrovsk, Kirovograd, Dneprodzerzhinsk – all may sound in new ways. Renaming and removal of the monuments will affect primarily the unstable south-eastern regions. Including, for example, Artiomovsk, which is located 30 km from the front line. Even though there was recently conducted a referendum in the city, in which the citizens decided to leave the city’s name. “In the event of a change of names, people will need to renew passports and documents for real estate. Who will pay for it? – angrily demands Andrew Zolotarev, a political analyst in Kiev, and also draws attention to the fact that the symbolism will have to be chiselled down from hundreds of buildings. – Who will pay for the repair of façades?!”

But worse than wasting of any money, is the slap in the face, received by the Ukrainian veterans. Not only did Rada equate nationalists from the OUN and UPA, that is, those who worked during the war with the Nazis, to the veterans of the Great Patriotic War. Now it is not clear whether the elderly, who saved the world from fascism, are allowed to put on their medals on May the 9th – or if they’ll get thrown into prisons for 5 years for “Soviet propaganda”? “This is cynicism of the highest degree – to prevent the veterans to wear their orders the eve of the 70th anniversary of the Victory. The Victory Banner, too appears to be a symbol of the communist regime? – political analyst Mikhail Pogrebinsky told AiF. – I can not imagine how with such ideological line they are going to keep the country at least in its current borders.”


(Lenin’s present of 1922 included the following oblasts [counties] Harkov, Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporozhje, Herson, Nikolaev, Odessa; Stalin’s present of 1939-1940,1945 included Lvov, Ternopol, Zakarpatie [Transcarpathia], Ivano-Frankovsk, Chernovick. [It should be remembered that it was Lenin that after 1917 coup d’etat in Russia separated Ukraine into a separate state])

However, there indeed may be questions with the borders. Rada decided: from 1917 to 1991 a “criminal totalitarian regime” reigned in the country. But during the time when the Communists were “rampaging” in Ukraine, its territory markedly increased (see. Map). So the attempt to tear itself away from the Soviet past, casts doubt on the legitimacy of the Ukraine as a state. Because it actually was created by the Communists, with whom until recently many of those, who today denounce the Soviet regime, identified themselves. “For example, Turchynov was head of the department for propaganda, Poroshenko was a member of the Communist Party, Nalivaychenko was a KGB agent. Whoever you take, they were all members of the party! Even Yatsenyuk was one of the activists of the Young Communist League, and his father – the head of the Party cell,” – says political analyst Yuri Gorodnenko.

On All Fronts

The new Ukrainian laws, according to the Russian Foreign Ministry, are not just an attempt to “erase from the memory of millions of Ukrainians the true pages of the history of Ukraine of the XX century”, all is more dangerous and more serious: “Against the backdrop of a declared combat on the supposedly totalitarian past, Kiev introduced a truly totalitarian methods to eliminate unwanted parties and non-governmental organizations… Sets rigid censorship of political thought for compliance, perverted notions of good and evil… While hiding behind the rhetoric of the civil rights and liberties, Ukrainian lawmakers in fact passed acts that directly restrict the exercise of rights to freedom of thought, conscience, belief and expression.” It is no coincidence that this decision was preceded by the expulsion of the Communist Party of Ukraine from the Parliament, along with the attempts to ban it and prosecute its leaders.

Meanwhile, this week marks one year of the so-called “anti-terrorist operation” (ATO) in the south-eastern Ukraine. Sad anniversary was marked by fire from tanks near Mariupol and Donetsk. The “economic war” with Donbass continues: a Ukrainian Foreign Ministry confirmed that Kiev would not give a single hrivna to people living in DNR and LNR. Pensions and benefits are accrued to the accounts of citizens, but it is impossible to get them while Ukraine has no control over these territories. It is interesting: do Kiev “fighters with the past” seriously expect to regain control of millions of people whom they continue to exterminate by shellings, blockade, and, now, with the ideological taboos?

Crazy Asylum Overload: Ukraine Bans Communism – Goodbye Chinese Investments

Reblogging Lada Ray’s brilliantly sarcastic article on the repercussions of the recent Ukrainian ban on all things Soviet…

Ukraine is very actively and aggressively re-writing history!

On April 9 the Kiev Rada equated communism with fascism. Ukraine president Poroshenko announced that Stalin started WWII together with Hitler. All communist symbolism was banned. The leader of the practically illegal communist party of Ukraine, elderly, white-haired Petr Simonenko was arrested and had to endure an 11-hour interrogation at the SBU. Last year, communist faction (present Rada’s only legally elected) was banned and rudely thrown out of Rada. Simonenko and other communists’ homes were burned down.

Let me remind everyone that the very first thing Hitler did after coming to power was to boot out of Reichstag the very popular communists. Subsequently, German communists were killed or sent to concentration camps. Next, Hitler invaded the rest of Europe.

So, everything communist is bad, right?

Great! Then how about Ukraine also demolishes MOST apartment buildings on its territory, since they were built during Soviet times. Wouldn’t Ukrainians rather live in the street than in communist-built apartments?

Ukraine should also return DneproGes to Russia. DneproGes is Ukraine’s largest hydroelectric station build by those damn Russians and bad communists in the 1930s, which still provides 1/3 of Ukraine with unnecessary electricity. DneproGes was the first massive Soviet industrialization project, and it is widely considered a SYMBOL of the Soviet communist industrialization. I seriously think Ukraine should give it back, since they have no use for such communist symbol!

Read the full article here:
Crazy Asylum Overload: Ukraine Bans Communism – Goodbye Chinese Investments

Pepe Escobar in eastern Ukraine: Howling in Donetsk

The picture of what happens in Novorossia – or Donbass – that the Western audience gets, is formed in the imagination of the paied-for MSM, based on falsifications and outright lies voiced from the Kiev junta and their lap-media. No Western MSM reporters went personally to Donbass to see what they are all writing about. A few Western reporters don’t want to put up with this state of affairs in MSM and go there – risking their lives – to tell the truth. One such reporter is the British journalist Graham Philips. The other is Pepe Escobar, who newly published an article of his impressions from Donbass. Styled as a simple list of what he saw and what he didn’t see, it is a clean and sobering documentary, at odds with the rosy picture of the Western MSM.

Asia Times’ roving correspondent Pepe Escobar just returned from a reporting trip to the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR), the pro-Russian enclave in the Donetsk Oblast province of eastern Ukraine. The area’s been the scene of heavy fighting between pro-Russian rebels and the Ukrainian military. Escobar traveled to Donetsk at the invitation of Europa Objektiv, a German-based non-governmental media project. He traveled at his own expense.

I’ve just been to the struggling Donetsk People’s Republic. Now I’m back in the splendid arrogance and insolence of NATOstan.

Quite a few people – in Donbass, in Moscow, and now in Europe – have asked me what struck me most about this visit.

I could start by paraphrasing Allen Ginsberg in Howl – “I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness.”

But these were the Cold War mid-1950s. Now we’re in early 21st century Cold War 2.0 .

Thus what I saw were the ghastly side effects of the worst minds of my – and a subsequent – generation corroded by (war) madness.

I saw refugees on the Russian side of the border, mostly your average middle-class European family whose kids, when they first came to the shelter, would duck under tables when they heard a plane in the sky.

I saw the Dylan of Donetsk holed up in his lonely room in a veterans’ home turned refugee shelter fighting the blues and the hopelessness by singing songs of love and heroism.

I saw whole families holed up in fully decorated Soviet-era bomb shelters too afraid to go out even by daylight, traumatized by the bombings orchestrated by Kiev’s “anti-terrorist operations”.

Read the full article at Asia Times. It’s an eye-opener.

Ukrainians are taught that dying for the US interests is their purpose

American instructors are hard at work turning Ukrainians into brainwashed killing machines. A video below show ones such example.

Some of the recipients of the motivational speeches from these advisors are former convicts, formed into multiple so-called Territorial Defence Battalions or, politely-called “#police battalions”, but are in effect punishers, who have been documented molesting and killing local population that disagrees with the Nazi rule imposed on them, just like it happened durig the German NAzi occupation of these same territories in the 1940s.

Lada Ray analyses the video and highlights some of the unsettling aspects both with it and with the situation in Ukraine in her article Damning Evidence: “No Feelings.” How US Advisors Teach Ukrainians to Be Killing Machines!. The beginning of the article and the video are presented below, and I strongly advise my readers to follow the link above and read the article in full.

The damning video below shows a training session in Kiev, Ukraine, for the Ukraine army/national guard soldiers. This American, who explains that he used to work in the US, rehabilitating the worst drug addicts and axe murderers, says he ‘believes’ in people. “No feelings in war,” he repeats like a mantra. This is brainwashing at its best, as many of us have suspected all along. It has been suspected for the longest time that Americans are using all kinds of open brainwashing and MK ultra techniques on Ukrainians, and no doubt, on other Eastern Europeans. Finally, the evidence is coming out!

“Your senses have to be fully alert, but no feelings and emotions” (yes, god forbid you feel sorry or remorseful for the children you’ve killed in Donbass). This is a nazi killing machine preparation protocol in action!

The whole thing is in English, plus the translator is providing Russian translation. In the background, you can see the poster reading: “Believing in yourself, believing in Ukraine.” A very American poster, I must say, as no one talks like that in Ukraine!

The poster is also in Russian, not Ukrainian, which proves another thing a lot of Russian analysts have been pointing out: US is bent on creating ANTI-RUSSIA in Ukraine, using Russians and Russian-speakers living in Ukraine. The Gallup Poll of 2007 indirectly confirmed that over 80% of Ukrainians consider Russian their native language, not Ukrainian, despite many years of brainwashing. If they couldn’t do it through schools and media, they decided to create the anti-Russia, using Russians.

Crimea.
The Path to the Homeland.

A definitive documentary on the reunification of Crimea with Russia is aired today. Here is a quick translation of the blurb as presented on Rossia TV site.

This full-length documentary was conceived to preserve the history of every major episode of events that took place in the Crimea in the spring of 2014. Filming lasted for 8 months and covered Foros, Sevastopol and Simferopol, and Kerch, Yalta and Bakhchisaray; Feodosia, Djankov, Alushta and a dozen settlements of the Crimea. A long conversation with Vladimir Putin was recorded while the events were fresh, and later, more than fifty interviews with participants and witnesses of the Crimean spring. How it all began? How Russia received an official request from the legitimate president of Ukraine to save his life?

It was an operation, the likes of which has not been seen in recent world history. Vladimir Putin himself reveals a year later all the details of how a few kilometers before the ambush with machine guns, Viktor Yanukovych had been secretly evacuated, and a detailed reconstruction is dedicated to it in this film.

“It was the night of 22 to 23 February, finished at about 7 am, and I let everyone go and went to sleep at 7 am. And, in parting, I will not deny, when parting, before everyone left, I told all my colleagues, there were four of them, I said that the situation in Ukraine turned out so that we have to start working on the return of the Crimea to Russia. Because we can not leave the area and the people who live there to fend for themselves, under the roller of the nationalists. And I put forth some tasks, said what and how we should do, but immediately said that we will do so only if we are absolutely convinced that this is what the people themselves who live in the Crimea want”, – said in an interview Vladimir Putin.

So the first order, which was given by the president, concerned not the security services and the Ministry of Defence, but his administration, which experts and sociologists conducted a closed survey in the Crimea. What questions answered Crimeans, when even the word “referendum” was not yet spoken?

“It turned out that of those wishing to join Russia, there 75% of the total population. You know, a closed survey was conducted, outside the context of a possible merger. For me, it became obvious that if we come to this, the level or the number of those who would like to this historic event to occur, would be much higher, “- said the Russian president.

Korsun pogrom. How many people were killed or missing after Ukrainian nationalists attacked the convoy of the Crimean people and burned their buses? How a militia of the Crimea was formed? Who was its leader?

How “polite people” first appeared in Crimea? Who were they, by whose orders were they sent to the peninsula? And how long did the special operation take the resulted of which on the night of February 27 was to take under control of all key government buildings?

“The ultimate goal was not to capture the Crimea and do some annexation. The ultimate goal was to give people the opportunity to express their opinion on how they want to live. I tell you quite frankly, honestly tell you. I thought for myself, if people want, then so be it. So if they will be there with greater autonomy, with some rights, but as a part of the Ukrainian state. So be it. But if they want a different way, we we can not leave them! We know the results of the referendum. And we did what was required to do!” – said the Russian leader.

How did they managed without bloodshed to disarm 193 military bases of Ukraine in the Crimea? What was the secret of the Black Sea Fleet, which invited Ukrainian colleagues to negotiate exclusively to Hersonissos? How did they manage to close in the bays Ukrainian Navy ships? But why did it not go without assault and shooting in Feodosia?

How Russia came into contact with NATO units in the Crimea, and at sea, with the naval forces of the Navy? About what did Vladimir Putin talk in those days with Barack Obama? And how did our coastal missile complexes “Bastion” come to the Crimea, suddenly changing the whole course of events? Two outspoken interviews with Vladimir Putin, and all the episodes of the Crimean spring, which determined the course of Russia’s recent history – see nin the film “Crimea. The Path to the Homeland.”


In the meantime, Yatsnejuk, in his typical evil clown amplua, threatens to create a film, titled “Crimea. Crime and Punishment.” Sure. He should know how to commit crime against humanity and to create punisher Nazi battalions that slaughter the population of Donbass (a fate, that was also slated to Crimeans by the West-Ukrainian coup-makers).

If ever a film under his proposed title is created, its full title will be “Crimea. Khrushov’s Crime and the Punishment of Ukro-Nazis”.

#JeSuisDonbass

#JeSuisDonbass
#JeSuisNovorossia
#JeSuisDonetsk
#JeSuisLugansk
#JeSuisOdessa
#JeSuisMariupol
#JeSuisIlovaysk
#JeSuisPeski
#JeSuisAeroport
#JeSuisDebaltseve
#JeSuisAntiMaidan

For donations, and sending of humanitarian aid to schools and hospitals visit the following official site:

Save Donbass

“All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. A British Tory will defend self-determination in Europe and oppose it in India with no feeling of inconsistency. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labor, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral color when it is committed by ‘our’ side . . . The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.”

~ George Orwell, Notes on Nationalism

Must read:
Urgent! Secret Link Between French False Flag Attacks and Ukraine

See also:
Tribute to a victim of USA’s proxy shelling of Gorlovka
The Odessa Massacre Rhyme
A poem for a killed child
Recent Ukraine human rights violations released in ‘White Book’ report

How Yatsenjuk Admitted that Novorossia and Malorossia Are Not Ukraine

Yatsenjuk was yesterday in Germany, grovelling before Merkel to give him €500 million of EU taxpayers’ money so as to continue the genocide in Novorossia. She promised to give guarantees of possible payments by some or another bank.

But was not the biggest issue. The biggest thing was Yatsenjuk’s speech, where here said that Soviet Union attacked Germany and Ukraine in WWII. The magnitude of the lie and twisting is mind-boggling, exceeding many a lie uttered by the words NATO-trolls on internet. Russian Ministry of Foreign affairs decried the blatant falsification of history and asked Germany for an official clarification of their stance with regard to Yatsenjuk’s statement.

Moscow asks Berlin to clarify Germany’s position on Ukrainian premier’s claims

But of course…

German govt refuses to comment on Ukrainian PM’s assertions about WWII history

The Ukrainian prime minister, who has been appointed to this position by Nuland(Nudelman) even befor eUSA conducted the Nazi coup d’etat in Ukraine in February 2014, has in essence made two lies and one admission in his statement:

Lie 1: Soviet Union did not attack Germany.

Lie 2: Ukraine was a part of Soviet Union, and, before that a part of Russia under the names of Novorossia and Malorossia, and could not be thus attacked by USSR.

Admission: Galicia was not at that time a part of USSR, it was annexed to Ukraine by Stalin after WWII. But Galicia was known as “Ukraine” (edge) of Austra-Hungarian empire. By saying that USSR attacked “Ukraine”, Yatskenjuk acknowledges, that Glaicia was Ukraine, while Malorossia and Novorossia were not (they did the attacking as part of USSR). Incidentally, all of the current toxic ultra-nationalism in Ukraine comes from Galicia.

Descendants of the White Emigration Against Russophobia in Western MSM

The descendants of the first wave of Russian emigration published an open letter, condemning the overt russophobia touted in Western main stream media (MSM). The letter was first published in Russian on the site of newspaper Rossijskaja Gazeta, and they intend to publish it in French in Le Figaro. Further action will be an official translation of the letter into English with an open collection of signatures of support in Europe and all over the world.

After a short background, I will present here my own, unofficial, English translation of the letter.

Historical background

The first wave of Russian emigration – the White Emigrations happened after the coup d’etat of October 1917 that was led by Lenin and “Bolsheviks”. The people, who emigrated were the top-layer of the Russian society – noblemen, writers, thinkers, intelligentsia, as they rightly feared for their lives at the hand of the coup-makers. Those who stayed behind, hoping the madness would pass, mostly perished during the 20’s and the Stalin’s purges.

Though these people fled, they by no means betrayed Russia, they and their children and, now, grand-children, continued to be truly devoted to Russia. During the Soviet period they fought however they could against the Soviet system, sometimes making questionable or ill-advised alliances with Western powers under the (often wrong) principal of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. Many in the West were (and still are) also wrongfully setting an equation sign between Russia and USSR. This misconception, together with the Soviet propaganda of vilifying these people as anti-Russian, led many in-power in the West to believe that the White emigration and their descendants are against Russia.

Nothing could be further from the truth, as it comes now in the truly patriotic open letter that they wrote, addressing the leaders of European countries, denouncing the rampant russophobia that tarnish the country, which they, even in third generation consider to be their motherland.

About the letter

After the letter, the newspaper presents their interview with the initiator, Prince Shakhovskoy. It is not translated here.

Dmitry M. Shakhovskoy – Doctor of Historical and Philological Sciences, Professor Emeritus of French universities and St. Sergius Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris. He is a representative of the princely family, originating from the legendary Rurik. Among his ancestors are such prominent figures as a poet and writer of XVII century Simeon Shakhovskoi, Procurator of the Holy Synod Shakhovskoy Jacob, who was considered the most honest man of his time, a hero of The First Great Fatherland War, who participated in the Battle of Borodino and the conquering of Paris, General Ivan L. Shakhovskoy.

The letter below can be found on the pages of organisation “Russian Bridge” in Russian and French.

The Open Letter

For almost a year, the Ukrainian events were of deep concern to of us, the descendants of white emigration, especially since in contrast to the people around us, we, due of our origin, have access to comprehensive information. Knowledge of the recent past, namely the past of the pre-revolutionary Russia, gives us the opportunity, and with it the duty, to expose the obvious historical falsifications that led to the current drama in Ukraine. In the face of heightened tensions in the Donbass as well as in the international relations we come to a conclusion is that the aggressive hostility, unfolding now against Russia is devoid of any rationality. The policy of double standards is above any limits.

Russia is accused of all crimes, without a priori evidence it is declared guilty, while other countries are shown an amazing lenience, in particular with regard to observing human rights.

We in no way refuse to protect those values upon which our ancestors brought us up, doomed to exile after the 1917 revolution. We do not refuse neither the condemnation of the criminal acts of the Bolsheviks and their successors, nor restoring of the historical truth about that terrible time. But this does not mean that we can put up with with the slander that daily falls on modern Russia, its leadership and its president, which is sanctioned and gets dirt thrown at it, contrary to elementary common sense. This self-destructive for the European countries ridiculous idea prompts to serious thought all those, who see in it the desire of the West to rather prevent the development of Russia, than to settle the crisis in Ukraine. Especially ridiculous are the systematic attack on everything, that is somehow related to the “Russian world”: we are talking about the historical, geographical, linguistic, cultural and spiritual realities of the great civilization that has enriched the world and that we are rightfully proud of. We also resent the shameful silence of the European official institutions and the media with regard to the brutal bombing that Ukrainian army, supported by military groups under Nazi symbols, pours in Donbass on civilians and civilian infrastructure. Such silence is perceived by the Kiev authorities as providing them with full right to continue killing and destruction. For months, children and old people are killed or seriously injured, and prisoners are tortured. And now the Kiev government has in addition introduced a complete blockage (gas, electricity, railways, pensions, salaries, medication, institutions, hospitals, etc.), to finally destroy the region, which al the while it declares to be an integral part of its territory. And how not to condemn violent acts committed by the supporters of Kiev in relation to the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine?! Priests are persecuted, forced to flee and even killed; fifty temples have been bombed, of which twenty were completely destroyed; believers are persecuted. Where are the European values?

We can not put up with the daily slander against modern Russia that is falling upon us.

Despite the complete rejection of the Soviet Union, our fathers and grandfathers greatly grieved the suffering endured by the Russian people during World War II. In turn, we will not stay as indifferent and silent witnesses in the face of the systematic destruction of the population of Donbass, blatant Russophobia and hypocritical approaches, completely contrary to the interests of our beloved Europe. We really want to hope that the countries that once gave shelter to our families, will again take the path of prudence and impartiality.

Paris, November 26, 2014
P.S.

This letter is compiled by the Prince and Princess Dimitri and Tamara Shahovskaya, with the initiative being supported by the group “Russian Bridge”, established in February 2011 by the descendants of white emigration.

Published online on November 26, 2014, this letter was supported by more than one hundred representatives of princely and aristocratic families from different countries. Every day, more and more letters of “solidarity with Russia in the hour of the Ukrainian tragedy” come to e-mail solidairesdelarussie@gmail.com.

The letter was signed:

Yurievskij, His Serene Highness Prince Georgij A.
and Jurjevskaja, Her HighnessElikonida, (Switzerland)
Vera F. Albertini, (France)
Andreoli Olga A., born. Trubnikova (France)
Marianov, Arkady A., (Belgium)
Averino, Michael B. (France)
Baryatinsky, Prince Vladimir V.
and Baryatinsky, Princess Yolanda, (France)
Beglan, Marie-France, (England)
Belyavcky, Nikolay S.
and Belyavckaya, Gilen (Belgium)
Bereznikov, Aleksey A.
and Bereznikova, Claude (France)
Bobrikov, Alexander P., (France)
Bobrincky, Nicholas B., (Germany)
Boldyrev, Aleksandr (France)
de Boreysha, Irina P., (Switzerland)
Brune de Saint-Hippolyte, Sophia (France)
Butlerova Vera N., (France)
Vinand, Olga, born. Rosina (England)
Vinogradov, Michael, (France)
Vorontsov-Velyaminov, Michael W.
and Vorontsova-Velyaminova, Shantal, (France)
Davydov, Konctantin K. (France)
Durdin Mak, Dmitry P. (Belgium)
Drutskoy-Cokolincky, Prince Aleksandr A., (Belgium)
Gendercon-Ctyuart, Anna C. born. Countess von der Palen, (England)
Gendercon-Ctyuart, Andrei, (England)
Genko, Nector N.
and Genko, Mariya I. born. Ctarocelckaya (France)
Golubinova, Nadin, (France)
Gorohov, Zherar A. (France)
Grabar, Michael N. (France)
Grekov, Nikolai N., (France)
Guchkov, Ivan A. (Switzerland)
Grigorev, Aleksey P. (France)
Ignatev, Count Nikolai N., (France)
Zhivolup, Vladimir, (France)
Ivanova, D. Mariya
born. Countess Tatischeva (France)
Kameneva, Tatyana, (France)
Kapnist, Countess Veronica J.,
born. Liset (France)
Kapnict, Count Sergei A., (France)
Carmignani, Roger (France)
Knyupfer, Elena V. born. Yagello (England)
Kozyrev, Vladimir, (Belgium)
Kolla-Mucin-Pushkin, Rocticlav V. (France)
Aleksandr Kolchak R.
and Kolchak, Zhanin (France)
Krylov, Ivan P., (Belgium)
Crewe, Philip, (Belgium)
Kurdyukov, Ivan S. (France)
Lavrov, Oleg N., (France)
Lazarev, Ivan N. (France)
Louis Kicelevskaya, Anna M., (France)
Luchaninov, Sergey (USA)
Marshalk, Georgy (France)
Matchere, Georgy A. and
Matchere, Nadezhda V., born Princess Volkonckaya (France)
Matsnev, Andrei, (France)
Miller de la Cerda, Aleksandr N.
Miller and de la Cerda, Anna O.,
born. Countess Tolstoy, (France)
Miloradovich, Anna (Kanada)
Muratova, Kseniya M. (France)
Muruzi, Prince Konctantin P.
and Muruzi, Princess Suzanne (France)
Mure, Mariya A. born. Trubnikova (France)
Naryshkin, Peter A., (Cape Town, South Africa)
About de de Cizhi Mariya G. born. de the St Ippolit, (France)
von der Palen, Baroness Irina G. (Belgium)
von der Palen, Count Sergei C., (Switzerland)
Pasco, Serge (France)
Pervyshin, Rocticlav N.
and Pervyshina, Kceniya B. born Mashtaler (France)
Pernik, Yefim, (France)
Plott, Alexander V.
and Plott, Elena V., (France)
Pocylkin, Dmitry, (Belgium)
Pridun, Johann (France)
Pridun, Stephen, (France)
Pushkin, Aleksandr A.
and Pushkin, Mariya-Magdalina born. Durnovo (Belgium)
Pule, Marina R., born. Pervyshina (France)
Rampelberg, Marianna D.
born. Parfenova
and Rampelberg, Rene-Mari, (France)
Rebinder, Cerafim A.
and Rebinder, Elena A. born. Pochitalova, (Switzerland)
Rebinder, Sergey A.
and Rebinder, Elena K. (France)
Renn, Darya A. born. Rozov, (France)
de Rennenkampf, Aleksandra P., born. Nefedov (France)
background Rozenshild, Nataliya A., (France)
Ruccel, Elizaveta P. born. Ctefanovich (France)
Ruchkovsky Aleksey G.
and Ruchkovskaya, Nataliya A. born. Babkova (France)
Cafyannikov, Paul A., (Belgium)
Svechin, Ivan N.
and Svechin Deniza (France)
de Ippolit the St, Peter G. (France)
Stenbok Fermor, Count Andrei I., (France)
Stenbok Fermor, Countess Kseniya A., (Italiya)
Sukkar (Caharov), Antonio S. (France)
Culatskaya, Ekaterina A., (France)
Terentev, Aleksandr V. (France)
Tolstaya, Countess Colette M. (France)
Tolstaya, Countess Marina M. (Belgium)
Tolstoy, Count Dmitry C., (France)
Trotsky, Dr. Sergey C., (Austria)
Tunguzova, Tatyana A., (France)
Ucova, Tatyana K., (France)
fon Tsurikov, Catherine L. born. Countess Ignateva, (Germany)
Fedorov, Andrei N., (France)
Fedorova, Tatyana, (France)
de Fermor, Peter A., (France)
Filatova, Julia, (Belgium)
Finnson, Xenia P. (France)
Finnson, Vera (France)
Shakhovskoi, Prince Dmitry M.
and Shahovskaya, Princess Tamara G. born. Thorzhevskaya (France)
Sheremet, Count Petr P. (France)
Shidlovskaya, Irina A. born. Golovina, (France)
Shidlovskaya Marina Yu, (France)
Shirikova, Tatyana, (Switzerland)
Shorohov, Andrei P. (Belgium)
Yanov, Nicholas M., (France)