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

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

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

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

Kosovo is Serbia!

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

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


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

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

The verdict is obvious

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Court Withdraws

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bad example is contagious

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Andrei Karataev:
Russia is only an observer.

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

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

And a very good conclusion:

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

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


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

”Donbass Seasons” – an Italian documentary with English subtitles

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

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


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

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

Crimea Celebrates the 2nd Anniversary of Reunification

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Legendary Sevastopol

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Chorus]

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

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

[Chorus]

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

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

Galician Intellectuals Wishing to Deprive Ukrainian of the Cyrillic Alphabet

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alphabet and abetsadlo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why mobile operators need transliteration?

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

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

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

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

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


This concludes the translation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Without them, there would have been no Ukrainian revolution.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

lresr2_map1

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

lresr_map2

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

ls_esr2_map3

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

lresr2_map5

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


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

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

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

What is “Ukraine”, “Ukrainian”?

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

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

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

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

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

ukr1

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ukr2

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

The beginning of the text translates as follows:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boris Yeltsin: Demon or Hero?

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

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


Aleksander Prokhanov, writer:

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

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

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

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

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


End of the translation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

The First to the Orbit, Moon and Mars – Remembering Sergei Korolev

16th of January 2016 marks 50 years since the death of a the brilliant Russian space engineer, Sergei Pavlovich Korolev. Everyone remembers the heroic deed of Yurij Gagarin, the first man to fly into space. But it was the visionary thought and ingenuity of Korolev that made that flight, as well as many other “firsts” in space exploration, possible.

Russian news weekly “Argumenty i Fakty” published an article about this outstanding man. About his illness and death, about his life and work, about the repressions, about his realistic view on USSR’s outlook for taking the lead (he though that USSR would only be able to take the second place in the space race), and how he, with his out-of-the-box thinking managed to prove himself wrong on that account.

In this post I want to concentrate on translating two infographics. The first is the list of the “firsts” in space, largely achieved thanks to Korolev. The second is a short collection of ideas and sketches that Korolev had, but which were never implemented.


The following infographics was taken from AiF article “The First to Mars and Moom. The achievements of our space exploration.” Translation follows below the image.

The First

Moon program

  • 3rd of February 1966. Soviet lander “Luna-9” is the first to make a soft landing on the Earth’s satellite and transmits images of the lunar surface.
  • 21st of September 1968. Return of the probe “Zond-2” after making a flight around the Moon. The probe contained living creatures: tortoises, fruit flies, worms, bacteria.
  • 24th of September 1970. Station “Luna-16” returns to earth first samples of the Moon rock. This was the first automatic space probe that brought to Earth extraterrestrial material.
  • 17th of November 1970. The first in history remote-controlled rover intended for exploration of an extraterrestrial body arrives to the Moon. It was the Soviet “Lunokhod-1”. It worked there for three times as long as initially designed, covered 10.5km and transmitted to Earth 25000 images.

Exploration of Venus

  • 1st of March 1966. The first in history flight of a probe from Earth to another planet. Station “Venera-3” reached the surface of Venus, delivering there the pennant of USSR. It is noteworthy that the probe was launched while Korolev was still alive, but he didn’t live to see the end of the mission.
  • 18th of October 1967. Station “Venera-4” for the first time in history performs a flowing descent in the atmosphere of another planet.
  • 15th of December 1970. Probe “Venera-7” made the first soft landing on the surface of Venus.
  • October 1975. Probes “Venera-9” and “Venera-10” sent to Earth the first photo images of Venus’s surface.

Exploration of Mars

  • 27th of November 1971. Soviet station “Mars-2” reached the red planet. That was the first man-made object to end up on the surface of Mars.
  • 2nd of December 1971. Lander “Mars-3” for the first time in history performs a soft landing on the Martian surface.

Couplings

  • 30th of October 1967. The first coupling of 2 unmanned vehicles is performed – “Kosmos-186” and “Kosmos-188”.
  • 16th of January 1969. “Sojuz-4” and “Sojuz-5” perform the first in history coupling of two manned space ships.

Orbital Stations

  • 19th of April 1971. The first orbital station/laboratory “Saljut-1” is placed into orbit. It existed for 175 days.
  • 20th of February 1986. The basic module of space station “Mir” is placed into orbit. This was the first in history orbital station with modular composition.

The first “freighter”

  • 20th of January 1978. The first automatic cargo transport cargo ship “Progress” is sent into orbit.

The infographics below was taken from AiF article “Into Space despite the rules. How Sergei Korolev ensured USSR’s leadership in space”. It showcases some of Korolev’s sketches, which were realistic, but never implemented as finished projects. Translation follows below the image.

Korolev

Martian project

The most ambitious and beautiful of Korolev’s visions. It was planned to send to Mars a crew of 3 people. Start of the expedition – 8th of June 1971. Return on the 10th of June 1974. A Heavy Interplanetary Spaceship (HIS), weighing 83.1 tonnes was to travel to Mars. To build the system in Earth’s orbit, 15 launches of super-heavy rocket N1 were planned, each having the length of 105 metres and having a lifting capacity of 100 tonnes.

The development of the project was started already in 1959. The Council of Ministers of USSR and the Central Committee of the Communist Party approved the Martian project in 1960. However, it was shut down because of the “Moon race”.

Lunar expedition

On the 3rd of August 1964, the Central Committee of the Communist Party sets Korolev the following goal – to bypass Americans in landing on the Moon. A Lunar expedition project is initiated in all haste.

A robotic lunar rover was to be sent first. Its task would be to scout the landing site and to act as a radio beacon.

It was also planned to build the ship in orbit. 3 launches of the super-heavy rocket N1 were to deliver there the components of the Lunar space ship, weighing in total 180 tonnes. The ship carrying a crew of 3 was to reach the Moon. Soviet cosmonauts were to spend 10 days on the Earth’s satellite. It was planned to implement the project in 1968.

Lunar base

To be more precise – the whole 2 bases. The first was to become a satellite orbiting around the Moon and act as a kind of base of operations en route between the Earth and the Moon. The second was to be assembled on the lunar surface. 9 modular blocks-cylinders – 3 living quarters, command centre, workshop, medical centre with a sports hall, kitchen with the canteen, laboratory. Capacity – 12 people. The development of the project was started in 1962 and finished in 1971. Later the defence minister of USSR, Ustinov, rejected the project, citing too high price tag – 50 billion roubles.

Heavy orbital station

In a note to the minister of defence, dated 23rd of June 1960, Korolev writes: “A manoeuvrable station weighing 60-70 tonnes and having a crew of 3 to 5 people, could perform the following military tasks: surveillance, battle actions against enemy vessels, destruction of the enemy’s ballistic rockets…”

In 1965 a draft project was initiated and a mock-up of the station was built.


A special note about Korolev’s manned lunar landing project, and how it contrasts to the American faked lunar landing.

After sending living organisms to fly around the Moon, it looked like Korolev was aware of the need for proper shielding of the crew – thus the design of a super heavy space craft, which could require multiple component launches and in-orbit assemby.

Korolev was truly a visionary and such a man, about who it is usually said: He was born ahead of his time.

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)

Yes, Scythians Are Us

RTR Planet has recently aired a very thorough documentary, titled “Yes, Scythians Are Us”.

The documentary looks back through time, investigating who where Scythians, why they abruptly disappeared and Sarmatians turned in their stead, followed by Slavs. They come to the conclusion that both Scythians, Sarmatians (Samaritans?) and Slavs are one and the same people, called by different names at different periods in history.

I will at a later point write a complete translation of this documentary, but for now, here are some of the highlights of the arguments for this theory:

  • Greek and Western European chronicles list people from the same period interchangeably referring to the people living between Dnieper and Urals as both Scythians and Rus.
  • There are linguistic connection between the surviving Scythian names (in geographic name) and Old Russian.
  • Scythian burial customs are exactly the same as Slavic/Russian pre-Christian burial customs.
  • Scythians lead a semi-settle way of life, which allowed then to develop crafts like gold forging and iron forging of high quality. Scythians used the same types of weapons and armour as Rus vitjas (warrior).
  • “Scythians” seems to refer to a collection of tribes living between Dnieper and Urals, where each tribe was specialised in a certain craft and added to the value of the whole nation. This collection of tribes in their organisation seems to resemble a modern federation.
  • Depictions of Scythians on their own items of art, as well as the Greek artefacts, shows people with distinct Slavic facial features and body complexion, and nothing of the Asian look.
  • And the most significant argument comes from genetics. Scythians share the same Y-chromosome marker as majority of people living now on the territory of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine – the marker, which classifies them in the Slavic Rus group.

And just as an off-topic reminder: Holland is still holding Scythian – Russian – gold from the Crimean museums hostage.

USA declassifies its plans to nuke 1/3 of planet Earth

USA has newly declassified its plans to nuke 1/3 of planet Earth. Seemingly, there should have been a massive public outcry, but… these revelations were met by deafening MSM silence.

U.S. Cold War Nuclear Target Lists Declassified for First Time

Washington, D.C., December 22, 2015 – The SAC [Strategic Air Command] Atomic Weapons Requirements Study for 1959, produced in June 1956 and published today for the first time by the National Security Archive www.nsarchive.org, provides the most comprehensive and detailed list of nuclear targets and target systems that has ever been declassified. As far as can be told, no comparable document has ever been declassified for any period of Cold War history.

The SAC study includes chilling details. According to its authors, their target priorities and nuclear bombing tactics would expose nearby civilians and “friendly forces and people” to high levels of deadly radioactive fallout. Moreover, the authors developed a plan for the “systematic destruction” of Soviet bloc urban-industrial targets that specifically and explicitly targeted “population” in all cities, including Beijing, Moscow, Leningrad, East Berlin, and Warsaw. Purposefully targeting civilian populations as such directly conflicted with the international norms of the day, which prohibited attacks on people per se (as opposed to military installations with civilians nearby).

Russian EDaily published information about this report in Russian, titled:

Man-eater in the role of a global leader: The plans of US nuclear war against USSR have been declassified

In summary: In the first stage of the planned American nuclear war, all Soviet and Chinese airports would have been turned into craters from powerful nuclear explosions. Among the relevant test, it is known that the detonation of a thermonuclear warhead munition with the equivalent of four megaton explosion creates a vast area of ​​devastation with diameter of almost 12 km and the heat wave is causing 3rd degree burns within a radius of 21 km. The second stage of the nuclear attack by the US assumed total ruthlessness in destroying with nuclear weapons most of the Soviet cities and key cities in China and Eastern Europe. Where US nuclear planners did not reckon with any international conventions and rules of warfare in the planning of mass destruction of civilians. It is obvious that the published document – this is the first documented evidence of the absolute cannibalistic plans for the destruction of millions of people by the American military. Previously, such plans of mass destruction of cities was known a priori. Now it has documentary evidence.

This is not the first times, when USA’s plans to annihilate USSR through the massive nuclear strikes becomes known. Here is an article from 2012:

Jimmy Carter’s Controversial Nuclear Targeting Directive PD-59 Declassified

What can I say? Those brave souls, who assisted USSR in getting a nuclear bomb in the nick of time, are true heroes, who saved hundreds of millions of lives! What Hitler did during WWII, killing 27 million people in USSR alone, is a child’s play, compared to USA’s plans…

Two Documentaries: “Murder of Yugoslavia” and “Democracy of Mass Destruction”

Russian television aired this week two documentaries, which I can almost guarantee will never be shown on the History Channel in the West. Not because they are difficult to translate from Russian, but because they don’t tow the official American party line and will be considered dissidence by the Western media censorship.

Alas, I do not have time to translate them, but I will present translations of the blurbs/summaries on the TV channel’s pages.

The first one is…

How Yugoslavia was Murdered. The Shadow of Dayton

On November 21, 1995 world news agencies reported breaking news from the United States. At a military base in Dayton, the presidents of Serbia, Croatia and the leader of the Bosnian Muslims signed an agreement on cessation of the civil war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In accordance with it, this part of the former Yugoslavia is now divided into the Muslim-Croat Federation and Republika Srpska (Serbian Republic). An international force under NATO command is deployed there to control the borders and to support the truce – only about 60,000 people, half of whom are Americans. The Serbs, who at that time controlled almost 75% of the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina went to the serious concessions and agreed to keep only 49% of the territory. This was done for the sake of ending the civil war, which by that time virtually destroyed the former Yugoslavia.

In Dayton, President Clinton told reporters about the “key role” of Slobodan Milosevic in ending the civil war and call the Serbian president “guarantor of peace in the Balkans.” Just a few years after these statements, Serbia will be subjected to crushing air strikes by the US and NATO, will lose Kosovo, while the “guarantor of peace” Slobodan Milosevic, will die under mysterious circumstances in a prison of the Hague Tribunal.

Former Minister of Information of the Republic of Srpska, Miroslav Tohol, believes that the Dayton Accords were merely an intermediary for the strategic plans of the US and its allies to advance NATO eastward.

The civil war in Bosnia and Herzegovina was the most destructive military confrontation in Europe since World War II. Initially, the conflict was triggered by the unilateral decision of the Bosnian and Croatian deputies of the local parliament to secede from Yugoslavia. In doing so, they completely ignored the opinion of the Bosnian Serbs, who made up more then 31% of the population of this Yugoslav republic.

In fact, it was hinted to the Bosnian Serbs that from now on they will have the role of a powerless minority in the new nationalist state of Bosnians and Croats. In response, Serbian communities began formation of their own government structures. European countries have tried to stop the development of the conflict by proposing a peace plan for the division of Bosnia and Herzegovina into territories, in which the governance is transferred to the ethnic majority. In the spring of 1992, the plan was approved and even signed by representatives of the three communities, but the unexpected intervention of the United States has destroyed all hopes for peace.

The civil war in Bosnia and Herzegovina lasted for almost four years. As the result, one of the most beautiful and prosperous regions of Europe was completely destroyed and covered with blood.

According to the official data, the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina took the lives of 100,000 people, according to unofficial – twice as much. Of the four and a half million inhabitants of the republic, almost three million have become refugees. The spilled rivers of blood have forever divided the lives of the two communities – Serb and Muslim-Croat.

The bloody confrontation in Bosnia and Herzegovina was accompanied by all the horrors of the civil and religious wars – ethnic cleansing, secret concentration camps, brutal torture and mass rape. All the while, all the parties to the conflict once belonged to a single Slavic people, with a common language and culture. Separation into Catholics, Orthodox and Muslims was the result of five centuries of Ottoman rule, foreign invasions and the expansion of the Vatican City.

Strange blindness and one-sidedness in the coverage of the conflict, according to Serbian analysts, was the result of an unprecedented information war that the Western countries have declared on the then Serbian leadership, because of their attempts to preserve a united Yugoslavia.

At the same time, the Western journalists were completely silent about the facts of participation in the war of thousands of Islamic terrorists from other countries on the side of the Bosnian units.

In addition to the information war, Western countries also declared an economic war on the Serbs. Tough sanctions were imposed on Serbia for support of the compatriots and assistance to refugees. The most defenceless categories of the population became their main victims – the elderly and children, but the international community for some reason didn’t care about their fate.

As a result, for the attempts to resist the destruction of Yugoslavia, the Serbs virtually ended up in the full economic, political and military blockade. The sanctions were not lifted, even when, in 1994, Milosevic had closed the border between Greater Serbia and the Republika Srpska in Bosnia, to demonstrate to the West the desire for peace. On the contrary, the pressure on Belgrade only intensified, and NATO aircraft started bombing the Bosnian Serbs.

Despite the economic blockade and information pressure , the Bosnian Serbs have managed to defend the Republic and to turn the tide of the war imposed on them. By 1995 they controlled nearly 75% of the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. But, on Aug. 28, 1995 at the Sarajevo Markale market, a series of unexpected and mysterious explosions occurred. 37 civilians were killed, 90 people were injured. Just two or three minutes after crews of major Western broadcasters were working at the scene, saying that it was a mortar attack. By a strange coincidence, the explosions occurred on the eve of the meeting of the representatives of the US Secretary of State with the leader of the Bosnian Muslims Izetbegovic. The US and its allies immediately laid the responsibility for the tragedy on the Serbs, and already by August 30th NATO countries launched a military operation, codenamed “Deliberate Force”.

Division of Republika Srpska were subjected to powerful air strikes, which affected the civilian population.

Only after the war, independent experts and criminologists from European countries suggested that the explosion at the Markale is very similar to a carefully planned provocation. Its goal was to create a plausible pretext for open intervention of the United States and its NATO allies in the civil war in the Balkans.

Similar techniques were used against Belgrade in 1999. Then, under the pretext of protecting the Albanian population in Kosovo, NATO aircraft for 11 straight weeks destroyed the infrastructure of Serbia, not sparing even schools and hospitals. As a result of this aggression, 2,500 Serbs were killed and 12,500 were wounded. For the first time since the Second World War, the US and its European allies, by using brute force, tore away Kosovo from Serbia, and changed the borders of an independent state.

The forces fuelling the Balkan conflict were clearly unfamiliar with the history of this region. According to the Serbs, they were forced to take up the arms not only encouraged the new aggressive reality, but also historical memory. Foreign political strategists clearly did not take into account that people, who could defend their right to live while under a multi-century long bloody occupation and genocide, will fight to the end.

Author and Director: Aleksej Denisov.

Highlighting is mine, and those fragments clearly demonstrate the technologies of destruction and fragmentation of states, which were used before Yugoslavia on Russia in 1917 and an in 1992, and now again against Russia through the American invasion and destruction of Ukraine and an open economical warfare against Russia for helping hundreds of thousands ethnic Russian refugees from Malorossia and Novorossia (formerly known as Ukraine between 1917 and 2014). Note how the Markale market provocation bear the same signature as the unidentified snipers on Maidan, shooting at both the protesters and the police.

An at that time Russia was under soft US occupation, so it could do nothing…


The second one is…

Democracy of Mass Destruction

A Serbian girl, Christine Milutinovic, is afflicted with acute leukaemia. Christine is of the same age as the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. And at the other end of the world, veteran of the US Armed Forces, Doug Rocca, also suffers from numerous diseases. Doug fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. American Rocco and Serb Milutinovic are victims of depleted uranium shells.

From the nuclear bombing of Japan in World War II and until today the United States participated in almost all of the military conflicts in different parts of the world: Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Latin America, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria … Calling itself “a global peacemaker and bulwark of democracy”, the United States has long been trying to become the “world’s policeman”, all in pursuit of its own interests, and using the latest and constantly developing weapons of mass destruction.

The terrible genetic mutations in the offsprings of Vietnamese guerrillas and of American soldiers who fought in Vietnam in the ’70s are equally terrible. “Agent Orange” has become a “time bomb” for several generations of Vietnamese and Americans.

Why is this happening? How do victims of American “democracy of mass destruction” live and fight for their rights today?

Author: Pavel Selin
Director: Denis Argutinskij

In this regard, I’d like to introduce a new term, to distinguish the perversion, imposed on the world by the United States from true Democracy – the rule of the people, as practices in Ancient Greece and in Russia – in Novgorod Republic which existed between 1136 and 1478.

The new term, which I want to propose id: DEMOCRATISM – as destructive as most of the other “-ism”s.

Here is a (almost) complete list of the countries, where USA instilled (and I mean “instilled” and not “installed”!) or attempted to instil democratism:

1949 Greece
1952 Cuba
1953 Iran
1953 British Guyana
1954 Guatemala
1955 South Vietnam
1957 Haiti
1958 Laos
1960 South Korea
1960 Laos
1960 Ecuador.
1963 Dominican Republic
1963 South Vietnam
1963 Honduras
1963 Guatemala
1963 Ecuador.
1964 Brazil
1964 Bolivia
1965 Zaire.
1966 Ghana
1967 Greece
1970 Cambodia
1970 Bolivia
1972 El Salvador
1973 Chile
1979 South Korea (Pro-USA government wanted)
1980 Liberia
1982 Chad
1983 Grenada
1987 Fiji
1989 Panama
1991 Yugoslavia
1993 Russian Federation
1999 again Yugoslavia (Serbia & MN)
2001 Afghanistan
2002 Venezuela
2003 Iraq
2004 Haiti
2009 Honduras
2011 Libya
2011 Tunisia
2012-2015 Syria
2013 Egypt
2014 Ukraine

(List compiled by: Bryant Coleman @ Bitcointalk)

The Road to Victory – My Grand-Uncle’s Path from Moscow to Berlin

Exactly 74 years ago, on the 22nd of June 1941 at 4:00 in the morning, Nazi Germany attacked Soviet Union.

This article is a living tribute to my grand-uncle, who fought that war from the very first days and until the victorious end. Moreover, it’s a tribute to all 21 million Soviet citizens, who perished in that war, and tens of millions more, who suffered hardships and losses to bring the Victory. It is therefore, when the Western “leaders” refused to attend the Victory parade in Moscow on the 9th of May 2015, they effectively did a dance of glee on the bones of those 21 million perished people, and were perceived by all Russians (and here I use “Russian” in a broad sense, encompassing all 200+ nationalities that live in the Russian Federation, all the normal people of the former USSR, and all the foreigners, who sympathise with Russia) as modern-time Western heirs to Nazism. I previously translated an article, written by the President of the RF, V.V.Putin, describing his family’s struggle in the blockaded Leningrad. In this article here, I will touch upon my own family’s history.

This year the Russian Ministry of Defence launched a new web-site, consolidating, digitalising and geo-tagging all the newly-declassified information about those Soviet citizens, who fought (and died) in WWII, in the Great Patriotic War. The site is aptly called People’s Memory. A good English language article about it can be found at Russia Beyond the Headlines:

The new People’s Memory website, launched by the Russian Defence Ministry, is the largest of its kind in the world. The site, dedicated to those who served on the Eastern Front in World War II, allows users to locate the resting places of soldiers whose burial sites have remained unknown to their relatives until now, as well as acquire knowledge about their military careers.

Knowing my grand-uncle’s name, family name and patronymic, as well as his year of birth, I managed to locate him, and what I learnt, confirmed those disjointed memories I had of him from my childhood. I vaguely remember his face, and more his blazer, covered in orders and medals. He used to visit us in Moscow between 23rd of February and the 10th of May, celebrating Victory Day and meeting with the ever-thinning numbers of his brothers-in-arms. From the stories, re-told by my mother, I knew that he fought in the War as part of a tank division. That he was at one point surrounded, cut off from the main force for several months. That for some time he was presumed dead, until their company managed to reunite with the main force. That at another point he received a heavy concussion, but returned into the ranks. And that he finished the War in Berlin. But not much more. People’s Memory allowed me to go deeper and see his path and the deeds that lead to the awards.

There is memorial public initiative in Russia, The Immortal Legion, where people add photos and what information they remember of their grandfathers and great-grandfathers, lest it is forgotten. I have enlisted Grand-Uncle Georji into the legion, publishing what I found here at the authentic Immortal Legion’s official site.

Moiseev Georgij Mihajlovich, born in 1920 in Altai Krai in Siberia. At the age of 18, he was conscripted to the regular service as a tank mechanic. The regular service lasted at that time for 2 years, and in 1941 he would have been demobilised. But so came the War.

My grand-uncle’s given name – Georgij – is in itself fateful. It is connotative of Victory and courage. It is found in Saint George the Victorious (rus.: Georgji Pobedonosec), and in the St.George Ribbon (rus: Georgievskaja lentochka). The latter is the symbol of courage and self-sacrifice, established by Catherine the Great, and carrying the colours of the Russian coat of arms.

georg

According to the People’s Memory, his first battle happened on the 8th of November 1941 in the Orlov-Brjansk operation as part of the 1st Guard’s Tank Brigade. After that he participated in the Battle of Moscow, Battle of Kursk, Proskurovsk-Chernovick operation and liberation of Ukraine, Lvov–Sandomierz Offensive, Vistula–Oder Offensive, and the Battle of Berlin. Judging from the early history, leading to the formation of the 1st Guard’s Tank Brigade, my grand-uncle may have been one of the survivors of either the 15th or the 20th tank divisions, which largely perished during the first months of war and operated as infantry divisions.

The map can be seen below, as geo-tagged by People’s Memory project. The map is showing the path and the points where medals were awarded.
map_updated
Grand-uncle Georgij was awarded 3 Orders of the Red Star and 2 Orders of the Great Patriotic War II Class. People’s Memory allows one to view scans of the documents pertaining the awards, and the section detailing the act of heroism especially bring that time back to life. Read on for details about each award.

Орден Красной ЗвездыThe first Order of Red Star was awarded on the 1st of May 1943. The details about this order are not present in the People’s Memory database (yet?), but the information about it can be gleaned from the subsequent orders, as all preceding awards are always listed.

Орден Красной ЗвездыThe second Order of Red Star was awarded on the 22nd of July 1943. Here are the award list carrying grand-uncle Georgij’s name and the personal award sheet, pertaining to it:

Строка в наградном списке

Наградной лист

The section detailing personal battle merit, says:

Comrade Moiseev is a devoted son of the Party of Lenin-Stalin and of the Socialist Motherland. While participating in battles against the German usurpers he displayed bravery and courage. From the 6th until the 10th of July 1943, in the area of villages Jakovlevo and Dubrova, the brigade, where comrade Moiseev is a technical assistant, was conducting an unequal battle with quantitatively superior numbers of the enemy’s tanks. Despite the difficult conditions of the battle, comrade Moiseev took all possible measures to evacuate disabled tanks from the battlefield on to perform timely repairs. During the course of the battle, comrade Moiseev, disregarding any danger, evacuated 7 disabled tanks that were located at the front edge of the defence.
For the dispayed courage, bravery and self-sacrificing work, he is worthy of the Government award of the “Red Star” order.

Commander of the 2nd tank battalion,
Guard Major Vovchenko

Орден Отечественной войны II степениNext he was awarded the Order of the Great Patriotic War II Class. It happened on the 4th of October 1944, and was awarded for the battles near Poryck (today: Pavlovka in Western Ukraine). Here are the first page of the order, the award list carrying grand-uncle Georgij’s name, and the personal award sheet, pertaining to it:

Первая страница приказа или указа

Строка в наградном списке

Наградной лист

The section detailing personal battle merit, says:

Guard Petty Officer Moiseev, during the battalion’s battles in the period from the 14th until the 30th of July 1944 provided the battalion with spare parts for reconstruction and repairs of the damaged tanks, by dismantling them from disabled or burnt tanks on the battlefield. Timely delivery of spare parts ensured quick repair of the tanks and their return into service.

On the 17th of July 1944 in the northern part of town Poryck, 2 of our tanks were stuck in a marsh. One of the tank’s tracks were damaged by enemy fire. Comrade Moiseev, executing the order to retrieve those tanks and to repair the damaged one, crept to the tanks under enemy fire. After 2 hours, Moiseev – while using a manual winch – pulled those tanks out and repaired them. The tanks took part in the capture of the German stronghold, the town of Poryck.

On the 22nd of July 1944, during the crossing of river San, the enemy fire destroyed side blinders and a starter of one of our tanks, and the mechanic was wounded. Comrade Moiseev, taking a starter with him, managed to reach the machine and installed the starter under enemy fire. Then taking controls of the tank, he steered it from under enemy fire for further repairs.

For the excellent execution of the commander’s orders at the front of the fight against the German usurpers, and for display of courage and bravery, Guard Petty Officer Moiseev is worthy of the Government award – Order of the Great Patriotic War II degree.

Commander of the 2nd tank battalion,
Guards Captain Bochkovskij.

Орден Красной ЗвездыThe third Order of Red Star was awarded on the 15th of May 1945 for the Battle of Berlin. Here are the first page of the order, the award list carrying grand-uncle Georgij’s name, and the personal award sheet, pertaining to it:

Первая страница приказа или указа

Строка в наградном списке

Наградной лист

The section detailing personal battle merit, says:

Guard Lieutenant Engineer Moiseev has during a number of battles of 1945 provided the battalion with armour inventory, thus facilitating timely repairs of the disabled tanks and wheel-going vehicles.

Only during the latest assault battles from the 16th of April 1945, Guard Lieutenant Engineer Moiseev, provided repairs to 12 tanks of the battalion, ensuring their participation in the battles leading to the break-though of the fortifications and the approaches to Berlin and in the battles for the city.

Guard Lieutenant Engineer Moiseev, displaying initiative and personal courage and bravery, dismounted spare parts from the tanks on the battlefield, ensuring early rapiers the tanks.

On the 28th of April 1945, Guard Lieutenant Engineer Moiseev evacuated from the battlefield 2 disabled tanks and conducted early repairs.

For the timely provisioning of the battalion with spare parts during battles and for successful execution of the battle objectives encompassing evacuation of the tanks from the battlefield, Guard Lieutenant Engineer Moiseev is worthy of the Government award Order of the Red Star

Commander of the 2nd tank battalion,
Guard Captain Nechtajlo

Орден Отечественной войны II степениFrom the decorations on his photo, taken in 1999, I can see that he was awarded with another Order of the Great Patriotic War II Class. This event must have taken place on the final days of the War, after the Order of Red Star award above. The documents pertaining this last award are not (yet?) published…

Grand-uncle Georgij not only returned from the War, but lived a long and worthy life. But the shadow of War was always over him – my mother told me about him saying how he often had nightmares from those gruesome 4 years… He died in 2000.

And as post-scriptum, his sister – my grandmother, Elizaveta – also lived all her life, touched by the War. She was a civilian, working long 16 hour shifts, having little to eat. And ironically, the worst curse came from what was supposed to be help. The American Lend-Lease – a “help” that USSR paid through its nose for – brought a lot of dated food rations, which US Army could no longer use. These rations were distributed among civilians, and one such box of Spam ended up with my grandmother, giving her a severe poisoning. Her liver was damaged for life, and she lived since then on strict diets, being limited to what she could and could not eat…