Tag Archives: geopolitics

Were the events of August of 1991 a coup d’état?

Posted on by
Reply
Reading time: 18 minutes

Can the events that took place on August 19–21, 1991, be called a coup d’état? And why did the coup plotters lose so quickly? Maxim Artemyev, the author of the book “The Gekachepists”, a historian and journalist reflects on this in an interview with the “Historian” magazine in a conversation with Arseny Zamostyanov. July, 2021

This was perhaps the most striking and dramatic event of the turbulent perestroika period. Top leaders of the state removed Mikhail Gorbachev, the current president of the USSR, from power and declared a state of emergency. Armoured personnel carriers on Moscow’s pavements and barricades around the residence of the President and government of the RSFSR, the White House, became symbols of the confrontation that took to the streets. However, a few days later, the political fiesta ended with the unexpectedly rapid surrender of the Emergency Committee and crowded rallies, where supporters of the President of the RSFSR Boris Yeltsin, who initially called the actions of the Emergency Committee a “right-wing reactionary unconstitutional coup”, noisily celebrated the victory. Three days of “great upheavals”, which effectively became a fleeting epilogue to the entire history of the Soviet Union.

The actions of the State Committee on the State of Emergency (GKChP) are now perceived by many primarily as a gesture of desperation, doomed to failure from the outset. To this day, heated debates continue about the events of those three days. Indeed, what was it? An inept attempt to impose a harsh, semi‑military dictatorship on the country, or the last chance to save the Soviet Union? Maxim Artemyev has his own answer to this question. The biographer of the GKChP members generally believes that “their actions can be studied as a guide on how not to stage a coup”. However, Artemyev believes that the failure of the August coup is a verdict on the entire late‑Soviet elite, which by that time had already proven to be “too weak‑willed and uncompetitive”.

Press conference of the State Committee on the State of Emergency. From left to right: Alexander Tizyakov, Vasily Starodubtsev, Boris Pugo, Gennady Yanayev, and Oleg Baklanov. August 19, 1991

Was There a Coup?

– Do you consider the GKChP’s actions to be a state coup?

– I think that’s too strong a formulation. The events related to the creation and collapse of the State Emergency Committee are unique, and it is difficult to find an adequate definition for them. A coup or a coup d’etat is, as a rule, an action against the current government, while all the participants in the Emergency Committee themselves were members of the ruling elite of the Soviet Union. Head of Government and Vice-President, Chairman of the KGB, Minister of Defence, Minister of Internal Affairs…

– But they still isolated their boss, the President of the USSR…

– Please note that they constantly emphasised that Gorbachev was only temporarily unable to fulfil the duties of the President of the USSR due to his health condition. And Gennady Yanayev, at the famous press conference on August 19, kept insisting that Mikhail Sergeyevich was simply tired and, once he recovered, he would definitely return to fulfilling his duties. And it’s hardly possible to speak of complete isolation. Gorbachev simply made no attempts to leave Foros. It’s unlikely that the guards would have refused to carry out his orders if the president had decided to rush to Moscow in a hurry. According to many participants of those events (including Boris Yeltsin), Gorbachev was waiting in those days to see who would prevail and was in a kind of self‑imposed isolation. It is noteworthy that the GKChP’s appeal “To the Soviet People” contains no criticism of Gorbachev, and the only “dark forces” mentioned are nameless “extremists”, who are hard to equate with the President of the USSR.

– The main mystery surrounding the August events remains the question to which different memoirists and researchers give contradictory answers: was the “GKChP” project a surprise to Mikhail Gorbachev?

– Let’s put it this way: events took an unexpected turn for him. Gorbachev was preparing in Foros to sign the Union Treaty, which he regarded as his tactical success. The signing ceremony was scheduled for August 20. But the ideas that the GKChP relied on were up in the air. It is enough to recall Alexander Kabakov’s popular story “The Defector”, which, after the August events, was seen as a prediction of the so‑called coup. Or the popular leaflets that were distributed at democratic rallies in 1990 and early 1991: one of the most popular slogans was “Let’s not allow the revenge of the apparatus!” Society was so often spooked up by the advance of “anti‑perestroika forces” that it began to resemble the well‑known parable about the boy who jokingly shouted: “Wolves! Wolves!”, and when the real wolves appeared, no one believed him. So many perceived the GKCHP’s speech as a kind of apparatus revenge attempt, an attempt to “undo the changes”. Of course, Gorbachev was aware of the position of his conservative–minded colleagues, perhaps he considered them a counterweight to the radical Democrats, while he saw his line as centrist. At the same time, he was shocked that people who owed him everything had acted without his knowledge.
Continue reading →

Ukraine war as planned in 2019 RAND Corporation papers

Posted on by
Reply
Reading time: 5 minutes

The article is a overview of the RAND Corporation paper “Overextending and Unbalancing Russia. Assessing the Impact of Cost-Imposing Options. Nonviolent Ways the United States Could Exploit Russian Vulnerabilities”. The overview was written by Robin Stowe and appeared on several social media outlets, for example at Live Journal (https://oboguev.livejournal.com/8123922.html) (in both English and Russian). If only RAND Corporation instead created papers with titles like “Cooperating with Russia for the betterment of humanity”…

Kudos to Russian Baza for bringing discovering the overview last year. Overview is also available at our Telegram channel.

If you still think the war in Ukraine wasn’t premeditated – read this: a U.S. blueprint to drag Russia into a costly war, published by RAND Corporation in April 2019.

RAND isn’t a blog or a fringe group, it’s an official, state-funded think tank that advises the Pentagon, CIA, State Department, and NATO.

It designs wars, regime change and psychological warfare. RAND turns U.S. power into global control.

What the document says (verbatim):

“The steps we examine would not have either defense or deterrence as their prime purpose… Rather, they are conceived of as elements in a campaign designed to unbalance the adversary, causing Russia to compete in domains or regions where the United States has a competitive advantage.”

Translation: how to push Russia into costly traps.

1. Fueling war in Ukraine:

“Providing lethal aid to Ukraine would exploit Russia’s greatest point of external vulnerability.”

Translation: Arm Ukraine to provoke a Russian military response – and trap Moscow in a costly, prolonged conflict.

2. Economic warfare:

“Increasing sanctions and expanding U.S. energy production could harm Russia’s economy.”

Translation: Strangle Russia’s economy through sanctions while flooding the global market with American oil and gas to undercut Russian exports.

3. Destabilising from within:

“Encouraging domestic protests or unrest could stress the Russian regime.”
“Diminishing Russian influence in Syria could undermine its foreign policy goals and prestige.”

Translation: Use protests, dissent, and foreign policy setbacks to weaken the Russian government from the inside out.

4. Cutting Russia off from Europe:

“Reducing Russian gas exports by encouraging European energy diversification would hurt the Russian economy.”

Translation: Convince Europe to cut off Russian gas – crash one of Russia’s largest income streams.

5. Stretching Russia Thin in Syria

“Increasing support to Syrian rebels could jeopardize other U.S. policy priorities… but might raise costs for Russia.”

Translation: Arm and fund militants in Syria – make it harder and costlier for Russia to stabilize Assad’s government.
Continue reading →

Heirs of Goebbels: Falsification of the Events in Bucha and Bloody Staged Performances of the Kiev Regime

Posted on by
Reply
Reading time: 4 minutes

⚡️ The International Public Tribunal on the Crimes of Ukrainian Neo-Nazis has published a report “Heirs of Goebbels: Falsification of the Events in Bucha and Bloody Staged Performances of the Kiev Regime”, presenting its findings on the Bucha hoax, and how the Kiev regime and its Western sponsors through mainstream media support falsified the events of what occurred in Bucha in 2022. The report is available in English as a PDF file at the site of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The Tribunal brings together civil society representatives from 35 countries. Drawing on Ukrainian media reports, memorial records and eyewitness testimony, the publication debunks the claim that the individuals commemorated at the Bucha memorial were civilians killed by Russia’s Armed Forces.

Key findings:

▪️ Military personnel presented as civilian victims

The report identifies Ukrainian servicemen and combatants listed among the memorial’s “civilian victims”.

Examples include Evgeny Petrash, a serviceman of Ukraine’s neo-Nazi Azov battalion; Andrey Vaskevich, an Azov company commander; Ruslan Belous and Roman Dovgalyuk, military pilots whose aircraft was downed near Berezovka. Other entries include a sniper of Ukraine’s 80th separate air assault brigade Oleg Tsimbal, members of territorial defence units, airborne formations and military intelligence.

▪️ Discrepancies in the location and cause of death

A number of people commemorated at the Bucha memorial died elsewhere. Ukrainian sources place the deaths of a number of servicemen near Vorzel, Moshchun, Kopylov and other settlements.

The report also cites 68-year-old Galina Semenyuk, who died of cancer but somehow appears on the memorial. Such cases highlight the need to establish each person’s circumstances of death before presenting the entire list as “civilian victims killed by the Russian military”.

▪️ Witness accounts of shelling and manipulated coverage

The publication includes 16 witness accounts from Avdeevka, Ugledar, Dzerzhinsk and other towns and cities. Witnesses recount Ukrainian attacks on residential areas followed by the arrival of journalists, coverage blaming Russia, and pressure on residents to repeat that account.

***

The Tribunal’s conclusion is unequivocal: the material it has collected points to blatant falsification of events in Bucha by the Kiev regime with Western support, alongside a broader practice of killing civilians to produce footage blaming Russia.

☝️ The cases presented in this publication form only part of the evidence assembled by the Tribunal.

📄 Full report (PDF)

💬 Excerpts from the opening remarks by Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova

• Let me stress once again: the Kiev regime’s Western sponsors stood behind this fabrication. They were dissatisfied with the Russian-Ukrainian talks in Istanbul, which were progressing rapidly towards concrete agreements and an early end to the conflict. These Western countries – and, of course, Britain was at the heart of this little gang – were not merely unhappy with the talks. They needed to derail them, and that is exactly what they did.

• As the political talks were being derailed, dozens of bodies seemingly appeared in Bucha, a suburb of Kiev. What do I mean by “seemingly appeared”? They appeared when the media showed them. The first reports did not come from residents or neighbours unable to find their friends or loved ones at home or worried that they had not heard from them. Nothing of the sort happened. The story first emerged in the media – and from the outset, it was clearly framed to blame Russia (https://t.me/MFARussia/26423).

• Over the years, in various forums, in person and in writing, the Russian Federation repeatedly appealed to the UN Secretary-General. He and his colleagues had visited Bucha on several occasions, at what they described as the crime scene. We demanded lists of the people to whom they had supposedly paid their respects. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres never provided them. Yet he repeatedly claimed – including while looking Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in the eye – that an investigation had been conducted and that they held some confidential information. This further convinced us that this was more than a provocation by the Kiev regime – it was a global information campaign.

• The Ukrainian authorities built an entire memorial to what they call the “Bucha massacre”, yet never circulated a list of the victims of this proclaimed “tragedy” on which they had staked so much. The Ukrainian delegation routinely circulated all kinds of material as official documents: photographs, videos, lists and more. Yet in this case, no list was circulated.

❗️ This is unquestionably a fabrication.

📄 Full report (PDF)

Republic of Moldova: 35 Years of Independence – Facts, Chronology, Analysis

Posted on by
Reply
Reading time: 7 minutes

On 27 August, Moldova marks 35 years of existence as an independent state. What kind of state it should be and for whom — that is a question Moldovan society has not resolved and continues to work through. An article by Dmitriy, an admin at “Putinger’s Cat” chat. First published at “Beorn And The Shieldmaiden”.

Drawing by A. Gorbarukov

I. The Starting Point — The Moldavian SSR

By 1990, the Moldavian SSR was one of the most agriculturally developed republics of the USSR: agricultural output grew 3.7 times faster than the Soviet average, industry exported goods to over 40 countries, and the population stood at 4.36 million. The standard of living was higher than in most Central Asian Soviet republics, but lower than in the Baltic states.

There was one structural weakness, but a fundamental one: the republic had no autonomous economic cycle of its own. Energy, raw materials, markets, the financial system, the military, diplomacy — all were provided from outside. Independence meant that all of this would have to be built from scratch, amid simultaneous economic collapse.

II. Chronology of 35 Years

1991 — Independence and war in the same year. Independence was proclaimed on 27 August. In the same year, armed conflict erupted in Transnistria. The Russian- and Ukrainian-speaking population of the eastern bank of the Dniester refused to recognise Chișinău, backed by the Russian 14th Army stationed in the region. The 1992 ceasefire stopped the fighting but did not resolve the conflict. Approximately 500–1,000 people were killed. Russian troops remain in Transnistria under the 1992 ceasefire agreement, which formalised their presence as a peacekeeping mechanism. Chișinău has consistently sought to replace this format with a civilian OSCE mission; Moscow has blocked this within the “5+2” negotiation framework. Moldova has no practical means of compelling a withdrawal. The 1994 Constitution enshrined the country’s permanent neutrality.
Continue reading →

“Crimean Gold: The ‘Civilized’ Europe Loots Russian Treasures” – An exhibition on how the Netherlands stole Crimean Scythian gold

Posted on by
Reading time: 4 minutes

“Crimean Gold: The ‘Civilized’ Europe Loots Russian Treasures” — the exhibition prepared by the Russian Military Historical Society has opened on July 1st in Moscow, on Gogol Boulevard.

It tells about the unprecedented decision of foreign biased courts not to return the unique museum collection of the “Chersonesus Tauric” Museum Reserve and other museums of the Crimean Peninsula to their place of origin.

The results of many years of work by dozens of large, permanent expeditions, conducted by specialists from the Russian Academy of Sciences and Crimean archaeologists, were stored in the largest museums of the peninsula. Archaeological wonders and artifacts of the Crimean heritage attracted interest all over the world.

In 2013, the Kerch Historical and Cultural Museum-Reserve, the National Reserve “Chersonesus Tauric”, the Bakhchisaray Historical and Cultural and Archaeological Museum-Reserve and the Central Museum of Taurida signed a contract with the University of Bonn and the Dutch Allard Pierson Museum to hold the exhibition “Crimea: Gold and Secrets of the Black Sea”.

More than 580 artifacts (about 2,000 various items), brought from Crimean museums, were exhibited in the Dutch museum.

A month before the end of the exhibition, the Crimea returned to Russia, and the neo-Nazi Kiev regime decided to pocket the Russian treasures.

The Allard Pierson Museum made a huge profit from the hype around the Crimean gold. But the Dutch were always hard to satisfy — such are the traditions of the colonisers.

Disregarding all international laws, they refused to return the exhibition to Crimea.

In 2016, Amsterdam judges — direct descendants of bankers who got rich from the looting of colonies — denied Crimea the right of ownership of art objects. In fact, the Netherlands put itself on a par with Hitler’s Nazis, who looted Russian museums in 1941-1944.

Representatives of foreign museums grossly violated contractual obligations in the interests of the political interests of unfriendly countries. <...> Attempts to seek justice in foreign courts, as it turned out, were doomed to failure, due to the complete political bias and engagement of European judges.

The cassation appeal of the Crimean museums about the return of Russian treasures was rejected by the Dutch, and on June 9, 2023, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands ruled to transfer the collection to Ukraine. At the same time, the corrupt Kiev regime intends to transform the Crimean gold into the financial and economic turnover. In other words, Russia’s historical heritage may soon appear in the collection of a wealthy Western collector or, for example, of another Ukrainian oligarch-deputy. <...>

Unfortunately, in the history of our country, there have already been examples when foreign invaders shamelessly looted cultural heritage. The Nazis of the Third Reich, who are obviously a “role model” for the figures of the Kiev regime, particularly distinguished themselves in this regard.

The “Consolidated Catalogue of Cultural Values of the Russian Federation, Stolen and Lost During the Second World War”, which lists the lost works of art, includes more than one million items.

❗️ The work on their search and return to their homeland has not stopped for a moment. Similarly, the Russian side will act in relation to the stolen masterpieces from the collections of museums of the Crimean Peninsula.

In a shortened form, the exhibition is also presented at the Dutch Embassy. On Gogol Boulevard, the exhibition will last until the end of July this year.

❗️ All those involved in this essentially thieving scheme, carried out according to European colonial models, are undoubtedly complicit in the seizure of unique historical artifacts, discovered as a result of archaeological excavations in Crimea and which have since been permanently housed in Crimean museums.

Sources: Maria Zaharova and Russian MFA

⚡️⚡️⚡️

👉 Watch the documentary Alfred Rosenberg — The Failed Coloniser of the East, where plundering of the USSR by by the Nazis is described.

The Hasty Withdrawal of the Soviet Troops from the GDR and the Warsaw Pact Countries. The Consequences.

Posted on by
Reading time: 24 minutes

Before you is an account of the withdrawal of Group of Soviet Forces in Germany. In a 2025 interview to State TV and Radio of Iran, Lavrov rightly called it a betrayal:

“The German authorities, as conquerors, took control of all the lands of the former GDR, and all political figures were “removed” from the road. No future was offered to them. It was a takeover, not a merger.”

This publication consists of four overlapping articles, which we decided to present as is, for each article gives additional insights. More photos from that fateful time can be viewed here.

But first, how it all began…

June 10, 1945 – Based on the Directive of the Supreme High Command No. 11095 of May 29, 1945, the Group of Soviet Occupation Forces in Germany was established

May 9, 1945 — The Great Patriotic War ended victoriously. For the subsequent demilitarisation and denazification of Germany, as well as to protect the interests of the USSR in Europe, on June 10, 1945, the Group of Soviet Occupation Forces in Germany was formed on the basis of the 1st and 2nd Belorussian and 1st Ukrainian Fronts. The commander-in-chief of the GSOFG was Marshal of the Soviet Union Georgy Konstantinovich Zhukov. In addition, he led the Soviet Military Administration established by the USSR Council of People’s Commissars to manage the liberated territories.

The Group of Soviet Occupation Forces in Germany (from 1954 — Group of Soviet Forces in Germany, GSFG) carried out the protection of the border of the Soviet occupation zone, participated in measures to eliminate the fascist regime, and in the 1950s became the main unit of the Soviet Army, which was to deliver a crushing blow to NATO forces and liberate Western Europe in the event of a new war in Europe. The GSFG was the main guarantor of the inviolability of post-war borders in Europe and ensuring the security and peaceful life of socialist European states.

The Group of Soviet Forces in Germany existed until 1994. As a result of the betrayal of Mikhail Gorbachev and Eduard Shevardnadze, the Soviet Union pledged in 1990 to withdraw troops from Germany. The final withdrawal of troops was carried out in August 1994. A significant part of military property, including real estate, was left in Germany by the Russian leadership and received compensation of about 385 million dollars, while the real value of the property was approximately 7.3 billion dollars. A huge number of small arms, tanks, aircraft, helicopters, armoured vehicles were looted and sold to foreign countries.

With the cessation of the existence of the GSFG, security in Europe was put at risk. Taking advantage of the withdrawal of Russian troops from Germany, the United States and its NATO allies began to implement a policy of “expanding the alliance to the east”. The accession of Eastern European states to the alliance significantly weakened Russia’s defence capability and its geopolitical positions.

Source: CPRF

The humiliating withdrawal of Soviet troops in 1994 from Germany into the open field

It was the last day of August 1994, when the last military units leaving Germany marched in Berlin’s Treptow Park in the presence of thousands of spectators, as well as German Chancellor Helmut Kohl and Russian President Boris Yeltsin.

The Russian leader was drunk, and he delivered a heartfelt speech in which he emphasised that “there were neither winners nor losers in the war between Russia and Germany”. But it didn’t seem enough to him – if you party, go all out. He came down from the podium, took the baton from the conductor of the police orchestra and while “conducting” made the musicians play “Kalinka-Malinka”, while soloing into the microphone loudest of all.

It was a bitter scene of humiliation, as the liberating and victorious army, through the fault of a short-sighted politician, left like an unwelcome guest.
Continue reading →

The Unknown Cold War. Film 3. The Abduction of Europe… and the world. An RT documentary

Posted on by
Reading time: < 1 minute

This film looks into the key events that kicked off the Cold War.


Backup at Rumble.

After the Second World War, US President Harry Truman wanted to establish America as the world’s leading power and contain the spread of communism. Consequently, the US launched a large-scale economic aid programme for the devastated countries of Western Europe dubbed ‘The Marshall Plan’, but the aid came with strings attached that primarily benefited the United States.

America’s post-war strategy was unacceptable to the Soviet Union. It violated earlier Allied agreements on the demilitarisation of Germany and the restoration of European sovereignty. Furthermore, Moscow was unwilling to lose its own influence in the region. Stalin warned that the new US plan would only divide Europe and could provoke further conflicts around the world.

Driven by an intense fear of communism, the United States went on to fuel several other conflicts. One after another, wars broke out in Korea, Vietnam and the Middle East – all of which turned into bloody and prolonged struggles due to US involvement. The Berlin Wall was built, separating Germany into US and Soviet zones, and an Iron Curtain descended between Western and Eastern Europe.

👉 Watch also “Film 1 — The Unthinkable Allies”.
👉 Watch also “Film 2 — The Truman Delay”.

When the War Is at the Doorstep. Interview with Nikolai Patrushev

Posted on by
Reading time: 21 minutes

Interview of the Assistant to the President of Russia, Chairman of the Maritime Board of the Russian Federation N.P.Patrushev to Rossijskaya Gazeta on June 15, 2026.

Nikolai Patrushev: In Ukraine, we are saving our brothers who have fallen under the neo-Nazi occupation

On the lessons of the Second World War, forgotten today by politicians in Europe, who are leading their countries to a new catastrophe. On the role of Russia as a great maritime power. And also, for the first time, about something deeply personal – Nikolai Patrushev, Aide to the President of Russia and Chairman of the Maritime Board, told Rossiyskaya Gazeta in an interview about his parents who were front-line soldiers, his sister who did not survive the siege of Leningrad, childhood friends in Lithuania, and the undisclosed episodes of his service as director of the FSB.

Nikolai Platonovich, we are talking a few days before the anniversary of the most tragic date for our Motherland. The Great Patriotic War began 85 years ago. Do you think our great-grandchildren and their children will be as sensitive to the memory of the war as the generations whose parents still saw it?

Nikolai Patrushev: The Great Patriotic War is the cornerstone of national historical memory, an integral part of our culture. It is impossible to imagine a normal Russian citizen of any nationality who would not consider the memory of the War sacred. It is everyone’s task to fight uncompromisingly for the preservation of this memory. This is the best antidote to the new wars that are being unleashed on Earth today. I am sure that if people in the West were sufficiently deeply immersed in the history of World War II and knew the whole truth about the atrocities of Hitlerism, they would recoil in horror from their governments, which today support neo-Nazism.

There is anopinion that the number of citizens loyal to the Nazis and their active supporters in Europe was an order of magnitude greater than the number of resistance participants…

Nikolai Patrushev: Not an opinion, but a fact that even European historians recognise. Of the forty million French, about three and a half served the occupiers. I emphasise that they did not just sympathise, but actively served. About two hundred and fifty thousand French participated in the Resistance. The numbers are not comparable. The last defenders of the Reichstag were the French SS. Nevertheless, France became one of the victorious powers and won a seat on the UN Security Council thanks to the French anti-fascist movement and Stalin’s personal respect for General de Gaulle.

Storming of the Reichstag during the Berlin offensive. Troops of the 150th and 171st Rifle divisions of the 79th Rifle Corps of the 3rd Shock Army of the 1st Belorussian Front are fighting near the central sector of the building. Photo: Ivan Shagin / RIA Novosti

Few people know about the German occupation of the Normandy Islands in the English Channel, which belonged to the British. There, such mutual understanding was established between the British and the Germans that British police even patrolled the territory together with German soldiers. At the same time, many ordinary residents of the islands turned out to be more courageous than the British authorities and sheltered Soviet prisoners of war brought for forced labour by the Germans.

In general, it’s long been necessary to understand that the whole of Europe consciously fought against the USSR. Almost half of the SS divisions were staffed by representatives of other countries – Italy, Romania, Hungary, Finland, Slovakia, France, Croatia, Spain, Denmark, the Netherlands and several others.
Continue reading →

The Unknown Cold War. Film 2. The Truman Delay. An RT Documentary

Posted on by
Reading time: < 1 minute

This film looks at the final months of the Second World War and shows how Harry Truman’s presidency changed the dynamic between the United States and Soviet Union.


Backup at Rumble.

Truman’s predecessor, Franklin D. Roosevelt, had been elected four times and was widely popular with the American public. When Roosevelt died on April 12, 1945, Vice President Truman stepped into the Oval Office.

FDR’s successor took a much tougher stance towards Moscow from the start, having made his position on the USSR clear in the very beginning of WW2 : “If we see that Germany is winning, we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning, we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I do not want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances.”

Under Truman, the relationship between the two powers soured. After the US dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Soviet scientists pushed ahead with their own nuclear programme, determined to protect their country and create strategic balance.

Truman’s foreign policy centred on containing the Soviet Union and pushing back against communism. The Truman Doctrine became a key pillar in that approach and later contributed to the founding of NATO.

👉 Watch also “Film 1 — The Unthinkable Allies”.

85 years later, Germany is once again preparing to bomb Russia

Posted on by
Reading time: 5 minutes

An article by political scientist Vladimir Kornilov for RIA Novosti on June 22, 2026, and translated by us for our Telegram channel “Beorn And The Shieldmaiden”.

“Marching towards abyss”. AI-generated image by RIA Novosti.

June 22nd. The Day of eternal remembrance, the day of national mourning, and at the same time, the day as a symbol of the indomitability of our people. The day when each of us remembers our ancestors who died in the Great Patriotic War. And as you know, “there is no family in Russia without own hero to be remembered…”

Since the collective historical memory of that war and the Great Victory over a Europe united by Nazism is the core of our state, Europeans will always fight against our monuments. It is enough to recall what was done in recent years with monuments to Soviet soldiers-liberators in the Baltic States, Poland, the Czech Republic and Ukraine after the victory of Nazi ideology there.

Admittedly, Germany has stayed away from these trends for a long time. First of all, in connection with the publicly recognised collective guilt of the Germans for the crimes of the Second World War. But as anti-Russian hysteria escalates, the process of liberation from these self-restrictions is rapidly gaining momentum there.

At the very beginning of the SMO, the then German Chancellor Olaf Scholz made a speech in which he repeatedly made references to the history of the Great Patriotic War. And some media interpreted the speech precisely as “Germany’s rejection of historical guilt towards Russia.” Note that Berlin has repeatedly officially announced that its sense of historical guilt over the Holocaust determines its policy towards Israel. And recent statements by the Luftwaffe commander about his readiness to bomb St. Petersburg and Kaliningrad indicate that the shackles of collective responsibility towards Russia and the Russian people have finally been thrown off.

The Germans have not yet encroached on monuments to Soviet soldiers, being limited by their laws and international obligations to preserve graves. But a different kind of encroachment began there. So, recently, a heated debate has unfolded in Germany around the monument to the Soviet Soldier-liberator in Berlin’s Treptow Park. Moreover, these debates were started by Ukrainian activists who did not like the Soviet symbols and the fact that the memorial complex was covered with Stalin’s quotations.
Continue reading →

NATO: Beyond Law, Beyond Morality. An RT Documentary. With Soviet caricatures

Posted on by
Reading time: 3 minutes

The film traces the history of NATO since its creation in 1949, allegedly to “ensure the collective security of its member states.” However, from the very beginning, the bloc’s true purpose was “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down,” as the alliance’s first Secretary General, Hastings Ismay, formulated its mission in Europe.


Backup at Rumble.

In 1955, the USSR and its allies created the Warsaw Pact, which was capable of counterbalancing NATO, and a fragile peace was maintained in Europe for nearly half a century.

However, after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, the counterbalance to NATO disappeared. The North Atlantic alliance carried out dozens of military operations in various parts of the world, steadily advancing towards Russia’s borders through the accession of new member states.

Yugoslavia became the alliance’s first major “testing ground.” Under the guise of a “humanitarian operation,” the United States dropped thousands of bombs on homes, bridges, and factories. Middle Eastern countries – Syria, Libya, and Iraq – suffered wars that led to massive human casualties and widespread destruction.

In the 1980s-90s, while Western leaders verbally assured Moscow that NATO would never expand eastward, in fact, the alliance’s borders have gradually drawn closer to Russia since 1999, as Eastern European states joined the bloc, one after the other.

Today, NATO openly singles out Russia and Belarus as key potential targets in its military strategy. The deployment of troops and weapons in close proximity to Russia’s and Belarus’s borders is under discussion. The threat of nuclear war no longer seems abstract: NATO’s updated military doctrine includes the right of first strike.

Under the Old Guise

This caricature appeared in the Soviet satirical magazine “Krokodil”, issue № 06 in 1979. It had the title of “Under the old guise”

The drawing was accompanied by a news item, seen in the upper right corner:

The myths about the “Soviet threat” are not new… It was also referred to by those who created the NATO military bloc, directed against the Soviet country, which had lost 20 million people in the fight against the aggressor.

Continue reading →

Article by Sergey Lavrov «Ukraine, Europe and Global Security», 19 June 2026. Reblog.

Posted on by
Reading time: 7 minutes

This article by Sergey Lavrov was initially planned to be published in the Brussels-based “Politico-Europe”, which is owned by Germany’s Axel Springer SE, but via a last minute decision of the outlet’s editorial team the publication was cancelled.

Maria Zaharova commented: “Here’s the proof: Brussels that talks about democracy & pluralism is blocking information from Russia”

Some Reflections on Resolving the Ukrainian Crisis, Europe and Global Security

At a meeting in London on 7 June 2026, the leaders of Britain, France, and Germany, as well as Vladimir Zelensky, laid out five preconditions for Russia to secure a “just and lasting peace” in Ukraine. The united Europe now presents this list of demands as the basis for dialogue with Moscow.

Background

More than two decades of negotiation with Europe, as part of the collective West, leads to only one conclusion: engaging Russia in dialogue has served as a diplomatic smokescreen for the geopolitical expansion of Western institutions, above all NATO and the European Union, eastwards, right up to Russia’s borders.

Europe’s complicity in fuelling the Ukrainian crisis is undeniable. Together with the United States, European countries orchestrated the Orange Revolution in Kiev in 2004. To create an anti-Russian bridgehead in Ukraine, they spent years buying off politicians and entire parties, rewriting history and educational curricula, cultivating and nurturing Ukrainian nationalism, and went to great lengths to pull away Ukraine away from Russia.

In 2013, the European Union rejected outright our proposal for a compromise on the association agreement – a deal Brussels had long been pressing Viktor Yanukovich to sign. It is worth recalling: Ukraine was offered unilateral market opening, without reciprocal commitments – terms that would have proved incompatible with Kiev’s continued membership in the CIS free-trade zone. When Viktor Yanukovich requested a deferral, the Europeans incited street riots which swiftly escalated into a coup d’état in Kiev in February 2014.

Germany, France and Poland then proved themselves to be equally treacherous. Having guaranteed that the agreement struck between the opposition and Viktor Yanukovich would be honoured, they washed their hands of it the instant that same opposition, their own handiwork, took power. “Democracy,” they shrugged, “takes unexpected turns.”

Europe thereafter lent its backing to the new authorities. In Odessa on 2 May 2014, the burning alive of dozens of innocent supporters of closer ties with Russia did not draw a single word of condemnation from European capitals.

As co-guarantors of the 2015 Minsk Agreements, France and Germany effectively encouraged the Ukrainian regime to sabotage its own commitments. As Angela Merkel and François Hollande later conceded – after the special military operation had already begun – the implementation by Kiev of the Minsk Agreements, unanimously approved by the UN Security Council, was never genuinely intended. The objective, they admitted, was merely to buy time: to shore up the Armed Forces of Ukraine and flood them with Western weaponry.

Russia, for its part, explored every diplomatic avenue to defuse Europe’s security crisis. However, in January 2022, the United States and NATO rejected Russia’s proposal for legally binding mutual security guarantees. European NATO members actively endorsed that rebuff.

Following the launch of the special military operation, the united Europe threw its support behind the British Prime Minister’s efforts to sabotage the Istanbul negotiations between Russia and Ukraine. Boris Johnson’s appeal to Kiev – “don’t sign anything, just fight” – slammed the door on genuine diplomacy for the foreseeable future.

Current Situation

So what has prompted European leaders to suddenly shift their rhetoric and start talking of negotiations and what are they aiming for with these statements? For instance, the EU diplomacy head Kaja Kallas has stated: the purpose of any dialogue with Russia is to dictate Europe’s terms. These include: paying “reparations” to Ukraine; withdrawing troops from Transnistria and the South Caucasus; abolishing the “foreign agents” law; and accept hard limits on the size of the Russian Federation’s Armed Forces. In her framing, “there can be no just and lasting peace without accountability for Russia.” During the UN Security Council session on 19 May 2026, an EU representative made the point unequivocally: “supporting Ukraine militarily does not contradict the pursuit of peace, but rather serves as a fundamental prerequisite for any credible, good-faith negotiations.”
Continue reading →

Tulsi Gabbard reveals evidence of U.S taxpayer-funded global biolab program

Posted on by
Reading time: 2 minutes

Revelations from Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, about the American biolabs in Ukraine were not that big of a surprise for those, who remember 2022. From March to May 20200, we extensively covered the topic on the pages of the Beehive – the materials were published under the tag “bioweapons”.

Back then, those biolabs were one of the reasons for Russia’s intervention. They were one of the reasons why Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov, head of Russia’s Radiation, Chemical, and Biological Defense Troops was assassinated by the USA (proxy: Ukraine).

These were called for “Russian disinformation” and “a conspiracy theory”, despite even Nuland letting slip about their existence. Yet another “Russian fake” that proved to be Russian truth, with many more to follow until the West finally wakes up, hopefully not to smell the ashes of own making.

‼️Yesterday and today, at our Telegram channel “Beorn And The Shieldmaiden”, we compiled a recap of multiple materials on the topic of the USA’s biolabs in Ukraine (and Georgia) spanning 2022 to 2026, and we invite all our readers to read and watch them. There you will find a translated reportage from one such biolab in Mariupol, Victoria Nuland’s admission to having such biolabs on March 8, 2022 and Ned Price accusing Russia of lying about the biolabs on March 9, 2022. And much more…

And to round it off, a must-watch RT documentary film “Biological Warfare Department” from 2023:


Backup at Rumble.

In March 2022, Russian ambassador to the UN, Vassily Nebenzia, presented a report that detailed a network of 30 biological weapons labs in Ukraine. With each passing day, volunteers uncover new evidence of illegal activities related to the development of biological weapons in the liberated territories of Donbass. Oksana, an officer from Luhansk, serves in a special unit whose aim is to gather more evidence of the existence of secret US bioweapons factories. ‘The adverse reactions and fatalities that occurred here were all covered up, as evidenced by the removed records and locals testifying that very often, large black plastic bags were hauled out of here, and rather bizarre deaths occurred’, she says.

Through meticulous research and expert interviews, this documentary sheds light on the activities that take place in the US biolaboratories in Ukraine, Georgia, Indonesia and other countries worldwide. Former high-ranking officials and journalists who dared to visit these laboratories explain how the sophisticated network was established, and reveal its ultimate purpose.

Brainwashing is spreading in Norway

Posted on by
Reading time: 6 minutes

An article by Dan-Viggo Bergtun published in steigan.no on June 11, 2026, and translated from Norwegian by us at “Beorn And The Shieldmaiden”. Even though the article is written primarily with Norway in mind, what Dan-Viggo says is equally applicable to all the Western European countries, so heed the warning!

We AI-translated from Norwegian the AI-generated image by Dan-Viggo Bergtun. There are a couple of inaccuracies, as can be expected. “Fred” means “peace” in Norwegian, so the bubble in the middle should read “Peace is naivety”. Two of the bubbles in the corner should read: “We must be scared” and “This is for our own best”.
See the original image in Norwegian further down in the article.

Brainwashing is when common sense is wiped out. It is when the human capacity for independent judgment is gradually weakened, overridden and replaced by ready-made slogans, fixed enemy images and political reflexes. The brainwashed person does not necessarily think he is lying. The dangerous thing is precisely that he can be convinced that he is telling the truth, because the propaganda has been repeated for so long that it is perceived as his own thought.

This is what makes the development in Norway so serious. Our politicians are becoming the bearers of a brainwashing they themselves do not see. They repeat the message of war as if it were wisdom. They repeat the threat images as if they were sober analysis. They repeat that more guns means more security, as if history has not already shown us how wrong it can go when societies let fear rule.

This is no longer just about political dissent. It is about the manipulation of an entire people. We are manipulated through words, images, headlines, news broadcasts, expert panels and political speeches. We are told that the world is so dangerous that we must accept ever more rearmament. We are told that thoughts of peace are naivety. We are told that diplomacy is weakness. We are told that obedience to alliances and great powers is the same as responsible Norwegian politics.

This is how the boundaries in our heads are shifted. Little by little. Day after day.
Continue reading →

Kirill Strelnikov: “It’s a pity, but it’s necessary: The Kremlin has announced to Europe that we have no other choice.”

Posted on by
Reading time: 7 minutes

This article was published on May 2, 2026 by RIA Novosti, freedom-of-speeched in the EU, and then republished in Radonezh on May 4. Below is our translation, also presented at “Beorn And The Shieldmaiden”.

Sputnik © RIA Novosti – AI-generated symbolic image

Deputy Chairman of the Security Council Dmitry Medvedev at the site of the marathon “Knowledge. The First” made a number of important statements that describe with crystal clarity how Russia will now build its policy towards Europe and what the man with the moustache has to do with it.

Medvedev said that “our conflict with the Western world today is of an existential nature, that is, it is a matter of existence”. According to him, the current development of events has refuted illusions about relations with the West, and now European states and structures are headed by “idiots who are raving about the war with the Russian Federation”.

These statements were made against the background of very specific military preparations on the part of Europe: for example, Britain, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and the Netherlands have agreed to create a special “anti-Russian fleet”. What’s the explanation? It’s very simple: according to the head of the British Navy, General Gwyn Jenkins, “Russia continues to pose the most serious threat to our security”.

The French edition of Le Monde also confirmed that Europe is preparing for war with Russia. According to him, in the upcoming Orion exercises with the participation of France and 20 other countries, “the conditional enemy will have all the combat characteristics of Russia”, and “the military leadership calls on the army to be ready for a clash with Russia in the coming years”.

It is very characteristic that the theme of the spherical Russian threat as an excuse for its own accelerated militarisation is sounding louder in Europe every day. Since February 2022, absolutely all heads of Western military and political structures have repeated dozens of times, and the media thousands of times, almost verbatim, the words of German Foreign Minister Baerbock at that time: “Russia will remain the greatest threat to our security and freedom in Europe for the foreseeable future”.

It may seem that the Europeans have really gone crazy.
Continue reading →