I have written a few times previously on how the fake flags and false flags are constantly being staged by the West. Ad even now, former Ukraine is sending drones of both attack and kamikaze types at the Zaporozhije nuclear power plant (the largest in Europe, so a nuclear disaster there will make Chernbyl look like child’s play) in the hopes of blowing it up (never mind the fall-out – literally – in the former Ukraine itself and Europe) only in the hopes of blaming Russia for the disaster. The West has already laid the groundwork for this nuclear false flag through the publications in the MSM.
Yesterday I came across an article written by the Russian Foreign Minister Segrej Lavrov for newspaper “Izvestija”, which really accentuates this particular Western mindset and it is finally said by the top Russian diplomat, taking the diplomatic gloves off.
I first saw a shortened highlights-only version of it on Yandex Zen, and then found the article proper on the site of “Izvestija”. I decided to translate the complete and unabridged article, as no one cane say it better, than Mr. Lavrov himself.
On dramatizations as a method of Western politics
Today, the Russian Armed Forces and the DPR and LPR militias are confidently solving tasks within the framework of the special military operation (SMO), seeking to end blatant discrimination and genocide of Russians and eliminate direct threats to the security of the Russian Federation created by the United States and its satellites on the territory of Ukraine for years. Losing on the battlefield, the Ukrainian regime and its Western patrons do not disdain to stage dramatizations “with blood” in order to demonize our country in the international public opinion. There have already been Bucha, Mariupol, Kramatorsk, Kremenchuk. The Russian Ministry of Defence regularly warns about the preparations of new staged incidents with facts in hand.
Provocative dramatizations performed by the West and its minions have a recognizable handwriting. And they did not start with Ukraine, but much earlier.
1999, Serbian province of Kosovo and Metohija, village of Rachak. A group of OSCE inspectors arrives at the site of the discovery of several dozen corpses in civilian clothes. The head of the mission immediately, without conducting an investigation, announces an act of genocide, although it is not within the mandate of an international official to draw such conclusions. NATO immediately begins armed aggression against Yugoslavia, deliberately destroying the television center, bridges, passenger trains and other civilian objects. Subsequently, it reliably turns out that the dead were not civilians, but militants of the Kosovo Liberation Army gangs disguised in civilian clothes. However, the staging had already worked as a pretext for the first illegal use of force against an OSCE participating State since the signing of the Helsinki Final Act in 1975. It is significant that the head of the OSCE mission, whose statement served as a trigger for the start of the bombing, was P. Walker, a US citizen. The main result of the aggression is the forcible separation of Kosovo from Serbia and the creation of the largest American military base in the Balkans, Bondsteel.
2003 — the infamous performance of Secretary of State K. Powell at the UN Security Council with a test tube of a certain white powder, which he declared to the whole world to be anthrax spores, allegedly produced in Iraq. And again the staging worked: the Anglo-Saxons and their ilk bombed Iraq, which still cannot fully restore its statehood. The fake was quickly exposed: everyone admitted that there were no biological weapons or other WMD in Iraq. Subsequently, one of the inspirers of aggression, the British Prime Minister T. Blair admitted forgery, saying something like: “Well, they made a mistake, it can happen to anyone.” K. Powell himself later justified himself by saying that he was “framed by the special services.” One way or another, another staged provocation served as a pretext for the implementation of plans for the destruction of a sovereign country.
2011, Libya. There was a specific drama script here. It did not come down to a direct lie, as in Kosovo and Iraq, but NATO grossly distorted the UN Security Council resolution. This resolution established a no-fly zone over Libya in order to “ground” M. Gaddafi’s air force. And it didn’t fly. However, the NATO members simply began to bomb the units of the Libyan army that were fighting the terrorists. M. Gaddafi was brutally murdered, there is nothing left of Libya — they are still trying to put it back together, and the process is led again by a US representative appointed by a personal decision of the UN Secretary General without any consultations with the Security Council. As part of this process, Western colleagues have repeatedly staged inter-Libyan agreements on elections, which ended in nothing. Libya remains a territory dominated by illegal armed groups. Most of them work closely with the West.
2014, February, Ukraine. The West, represented by the Ministries of Germany, France and Poland, is actually forcing President Viktor Yanukovych to sign an agreement with the opposition to end the confrontation and peacefully resolve the internal Ukrainian crisis by creating an interim government of national unity and holding early elections within a few months. However, this turned out to be a set-up: the next morning the opposition staged a coup under Russophobic, racist slogans, the Western guarantors of the agreements did not even try to reason with it. Moreover, they immediately began to encourage the putschists in their policy aimed against Russia and the Russian people, unleashing a war against their own population, bombing the cities of Donbass just because they refused to recognize an unconstitutional coup there. For this, the Donbass people were declared “terrorists”, again with the encouragement of the West.
It should be noted here that another staging, as it soon turned out, was also the murder of the demonstrators on the Maidan, for which the West blamed the security forces loyal to V. Yanukovych, then the Russian special services. In fact, the provocation was staged by radicals in the ranks of the opposition, who worked closely with Western intelligence services. The facts were soon revealed, but the performance had already been played.
When the war in Donbass was stopped, as a result of the efforts of Russia, Germany and France, the Minsk Agreements were concluded between Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk in February 2015, and Berlin and Paris were active here, proudly proclaiming themselves their guarantors. However, over the next seven long years, they did not lift a finger to force Kiev — as the Minsk agreements, approved unanimously by the UN Security Council, explicitly demanded — to enter into a direct dialogue with representatives of Donbass to coordinate issues of its special status, amnesty, restoration of economic ties, and holding elections. Western leaders were silent even when Kiev — both under P. Poroshenko and V. Zelensky — took steps that directly contradicted the Minsk agreements. Moreover, the Germans and the French declared that a direct dialogue between Kiev and the DPR and the LPR was impossible, laying all the blame on Russia, although it was never mentioned in the Minsk documents, and, in fact, all these years was the only one who persistently demanded their execution.
If anyone had doubts that Minsk was another staging, they were dispelled by P. Poroshenko, who on June 17, 2022 said: “The Minsk agreements meant nothing to us, we were not going to fulfil them… our task was to avert the threat… to get ourselves time to restore economic growth and build the power of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The task was achieved. The Minsk agreements have fulfilled their task.” The price of this staging is still being paid by the Ukrainian people, whom for many years the West forced to accept life under the yoke of the Russophobic neo-Nazi regime. And when now O.Scholz demands to force Russia to agree to an agreement on guarantees of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, he is trying in vain. There has already been such an agreement — the Minsk agreements that were killed by Berlin and Paris, protecting Kiev, which openly refused to fulfil them. So the dramatization is over, finitta la comedy.
By the way, V. Zelensky is a worthy heir of P. Poroshenko, before whom at an election rally in early 2019 he was ready to theatrically kneel for the sake of ending the war.
In December of the same year, he himself had a chance to fulfil the Minsk agreements: the Normandy summit was held in Paris, where in a statement adopted at the highest level, he pledged to resolve issues of the special status of Donbass. Of course, he did nothing, and Berlin and Paris again protected him. The next advertised document turned out to be nothing more than a Ukrainian-Western statement — exactly according to the logic of P.Poroshenko — in order to gain time for pumping up the Kiev regime with weapons.
There was also Syria. After the implementation of the landmark agreement of 2013 on the destruction of Syrian chemical weapons, confirmed by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), for which it received the Nobel Peace Prize, in 2017 and 2018, blatant provocations were staged by staging the use of chemical weapons in Khan Sheikhoun and the Damascus suburb of Douma. Videos were distributed where some people called “White Helmets” (proclaimed themselves a humanitarian organization, but never appeared on the territory controlled by the Syrian government), provide assistance to allegedly poisoned residents, and no one wears protective overalls and does not use any protective gear. All attempts to force the OPCW Technical Secretariat to fulfil its duties in good faith and ensure, as required by the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (CWC), a transparent incident investigation process have failed. This is not surprising: the Technical Secretariat has long been “privatized” by Western countries, whose representatives hold key positions there. They also had a hand in organizing the aforementioned dramatizations, using them as a pretext for launching missile and bomb attacks on Syria by the United States, Britain and France – while before, at our insistence, a group of OPCW inspectors was supposed to arrive there to investigate the incidents, the decision on the dispatch of whom the West desperately resisted.
The ability of the West and the OPCW Technical Secretariat, which plays the role of an assistant, to arrange dramatizations also manifested themselves in situations with the “poisoning” of the Skripals and A. Navalny. In both cases, numerous requests officially sent by the Russian side to The Hague, London, Berlin, Paris, Stockholm remain unanswered, although these requests are formulated in full compliance with the requirements of the CWC and they must be answered.
In the same way, it is necessary to answer questions about the covert activities that the Pentagon (through its Threat Reduction Agency) was engaged in in Ukraine. The “finds” discovered by the forces of the SMO in military biological laboratories in the liberated territories of Donbass and in the surrounding areas clearly indicate direct violations of the Convention on the Prohibition of Biological and Toxin Weapons (BTWC). We have presented the documents to Washington and the UN Security Council. The procedure for obtaining clarifications in accordance with the BTWC has been initiated. Contrary to the facts, the American administration is trying to justify itself by stating that all biological research in Ukraine was exclusively peaceful, civilian in nature. No evidence is given.
In a broader sense, the Pentagon’s military-biological activities around the world, especially in the post-Soviet space, require the closest attention in the light of the multiplying evidence of criminal experiments with the most dangerous pathogens under the “peaceful” guise in order to create biological weapons.
The dramatizations of the “crimes” of the Donbass militia and the participants of the Russian SMO have already been mentioned above. One simple fact speaks about the price of these accusations: having shown the whole world the “tragedy of Bucha” in early April 2022 (there are suspicions that the Anglo-Saxons had a hand in the “mise-en-scène of the scenery”), the West and Kiev still do not answer elementary questions about whether the names of the victims have been established and what are the results of pathoanatomic studies. As in the cases described above with the Skripals and Navalny, the propaganda “premiere” of the production in the Western media took place, and now the ends are in the water, they have gone into denial, because there is nothing to say.
This is the whole point of the algorithm of Western politics: to concoct an information fake, inflate it to a universal catastrophe within a couple of days, blocking the population’s access to alternative information and analytics, and when the facts do come through, they are simply ignored, at best – mentioned on the last pages of the news in small print. It is important to understand: these are not harmless toys in the media war, since such productions are directly used as a pretext for quite material actions: punishing “accused” countries with sanctions, carrying out barbaric aggressions against them with many hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties, as it was, in particular, in Iraq and Libya. Or, as in the case of Ukraine, for its use as an expendable material in the war of the West against Russia. Moreover, NATO instructors and MLRS gunners already, apparently, direct the actions of the AFU and the National Security Forces directly “on the ground”. I hope there are responsible politicians among the Europeans who are aware of the consequences this is fraught with. In this regard, it is noteworthy that no one in NATO and the EU has pulled the rank of a certain Gerhartz, the commander of the German Air Force, who declared the need to prepare for the use of nuclear weapons and added: “Putin, do not try to compete with us.” The silence of Europe suggests that it complacently forgets about the role of Germany in its history.
If we look at today’s events through a historical prism, then the entire Ukrainian crisis appears as a “big game” according to the scenario that was once promoted by Z.Brzezinski. The talk about good relations, about the West’s willingness to take into account the rights and interests of Russians who found themselves in independent Ukraine and other post-Soviet countries after the collapse of the USSR, turned out to be nothing more than a staging. Already in the early 2000s, Washington and the European Union began openly demanding that Kiev decide with whom it stands – with the West or Russia?
Since 2014, the West has unconditionally been leading the Russophobic regime brought to power through a coup d’etat. Bringing V.Zelensky to the forefront of any at least somewhat noticeable international forum is also part of the staging. He speaks, makes pathetic speeches, while when suddenly and unexpectedly he offers something reasonable, they beat his hands, as it was after the Istanbul round of Russian-Ukrainian negotiations: then, at the end of March, the light seemed to dawn in the dialogue, but Kiev was forced to paddle back, using, among other things, a frankly staged episode in Bucha. In Washington, London, and Brussels, they began to demand that Kiev not start negotiations with Russia until Ukraine achieves full military advantage (former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson tried especially hard, and with him many other Western politicians who are still in power, but have already shown similar inadequacy).
The statement of the head of the EU Foreign Policy Service J.Borrel’s that the conflict should be ended by “Ukraine’s victory on the battlefield” suggests that such an instrument as diplomacy loses its meaning in the “stage performance” of the European Union.
More broadly, it is interesting to observe how Europe, “built” by Washington on the anti-Russian front, suffers more than others from thoughtless sanctions, empties its arsenals, supplying weapons to Kiev (without requiring a report on who controls them and where they go), freeing up its market for subsequent purchases of military-industrial complex products of The United States and expensive American LNG instead of affordable Russian gas. Such trends, coupled with the practical merger of the EU with NATO, make the still-sounding talk about the “strategic autonomy” of the European Union nothing more than a spectacle. Everyone has already understood: the foreign policy of the collective West is a “one—actor teater”. Moreover, it consistently leads to the search for new teaters of military operations.
Part of the geopolitical gambit against Russia is granting Ukraine and Moldova (which, apparently, also has an unenviable fate) the status of a country that is an eternal candidate for the EU. In the meantime, they are advertising the “European political community” initiated by the head of France E.Macron, where there will be no special financial and economic benefits, but there will be demands for full solidarity with the EU in its anti-Russian actions. Here the principle is not “either-or”, but “whoever is not with us is against us”. What kind of “community” is this, was explained by E.Macron himself: The EU will invite all European countries to join it — “from Iceland to Ukraine,” but not Russia. I’ll make a reservation right away that we don’t need to go there, but the statement itself is indicative, revealing the essence of this new obviously confrontational, divisive undertaking.
Ukraine, Moldova, and other countries courted by the EU today are destined to be extras in the games of the West. The United States, as the main producer of these productions, orders music and a storyline, on the basis of which an anti-Russian script is being written by Europe. The actors are ready, they have the skills acquired back in the “Quarter 95”, they will be able to voice pathetic texts no worse than the already forgotten Greta Thunberg, and play musical instruments if necessary. The actors are good: remember how convincing V.Zelensky played a Democrat in “Servant of the People”, a fighter against corruption, against discrimination against Russians and in general “for all good things”. Remember and compare with how he was instantly reincarnated as president literally according to the Stanislavsky system: the ban on the Russian language, education, media, culture. “If you feel like Russians, then for the sake of your children and grandchildren, go live in Russia.” Good advice. He called the residents of Donbass not people, but “individuals”. And about the Nazi battalion “Azov” said: “They are what they are. We have a lot of them.” Even CNN was embarrassed to leave this phrase in the interview.
The question arises: what will be the denouement of all these storylines? After all, in fact, dramatizations based on the blood and pain of people are far from fun, but manifestations of a cynical policy of creating a new reality in which all the principles of the UN Charter and, in general, the norms of international law are being attempted replaced by their own order based on their own rules, in an effort to perpetuate the elusive dominance in world affairs.
The most destructive consequences for modern international relations were the games started by the West in the OSCE in connection with the end of the Cold War, in which it considered itself the winner. Having quickly broken their promises to the leadership of the USSR and Russia not to expand NATO to the east, the United States and its allies nevertheless declared their commitment to building a single space of security and cooperation in the Euro—Atlantic and, together with all OSCE members, solemnly signed at the highest level — in 1999 and then in 2010 – under the political commitment to ensure equal and indivisible security, when no one will strengthen their security at the expense of others and no organization will claim a dominant role in Europe. It soon became clear that the NATO members did not keep their word, taking a course for the dominance of the North Atlantic Alliance. But even then we continued our diplomatic efforts, suggesting that they consolidate the same principle of equal and indivisible security, but already in a legally binding treaty. They have been offered repeatedly, the last time was in December 2021. In response, a categorical refusal. They said bluntly: there will be no legal guarantees outside of NATO. That is, the West’s support for political documents adopted at OSCE summits turned out to be a cheap staging. And now NATO, under the leadership of the United States, has gone even further: it demands subjugation not only of the Euro-Atlantic, but also of the entire Asia-Pacific region. The NATO members do not hide the main addressee of their threats, and the Chinese leadership has already made a principled assessment of such neocolonial ambitions. Beijing opposed the aforementioned principle of indivisibility of security to them, advocating its application on a global scale, so that no one in the world would claim their exclusivity. This approach completely coincides with the position of Russia. We will consistently defend it together with our allies, strategic partners and many other like-minded people.
The collective West should have returned to earth from the world of illusions. Dramatizations, no matter how much they continue, will not work. It’s time to play fair, not by cheating rules, but on the basis of international law. The sooner everyone realizes that there is no alternative to objective historical processes of forming a multipolar world based on respect for the principle of sovereign equality of states, fundamental to the UN Charter and the entire world order, the better.
If the members of the Western alliance do not know how to live according to this principle, are not ready to build a truly universal architecture of equal security and cooperation, then let them leave everyone else alone, let them stop forcibly driving into their camp with threats and blackmail those who want to live by their own minds, let them in fact recognize the right of independent, self-respecting countries’ freedom of choice. This is democracy — in reality, and not something played out on a crooked political stage.