Tag Archives: geopolitics

Churchill’s cynicism towards war-torn Russia

Posted on by
1
Reading time: 11 minutes

The following material is based on a post from the channel “WWII Day by Day”. We did some additional research, locating the texts of the mentioned telegrams. Kudos to ЭТО Я for the lead and inspiration, plus DeepSeek AI for the detective work assistance.

October 28, 1941: The entire double game of England is revealed in the telegram exchange of the British ambassador to Moscow, Sir Stafford Cripps, and the British PM, Winston Churchill.

On October 26, the British Ambassador to Moscow, Stafford Cripps, sent a telegram to the Foreign Office in London, explicitly stating what the Prime Minister needed to understand:

  1. The Russians do not trust England; they know that London is waiting for them to do everything for the English.
  2. The English (the delegation that participated in the Moscow Conference at the end of September) did not bother to explain anything at the military level. And there were people who could have done so.

Harold Lionel Ismay, a British general from 1940 to 1945, was the chief military advisor to Churchill. He was in Moscow and participated in the Moscow Conference of the three powers from September 29 to October 1. Cripps explains to Churchill that the lack of proper staff-level negotiations leads to a fatal misunderstanding by the Russians of the motives of the British. In a report on the conference, prepared by Ismay himself, it was written:

“No negotiations on military matters were held with the Russian General Staff…”

Ismay only exchanged a few words with Stalin informally during a reception at the Kremlin. Stalin already told the British generals that Great Britain must have a strong and large land army:

“The entire situation in Europe has changed. England will never be able to rely solely on its fleet…”

Cripps, in general, understands everything and feels a certain moral wrongness. He writes frankly: “…We have never honestly explained our own position to them…” In other words, England was never honest with the USSR during the war, says the ambassador in Moscow!

Winston Churchill discussed this telegram with members of the British government on the night of October 27-28. And on October 28, he sent a fantastically cynical response telegram to Cripps. This is a set of instructions to him as a diplomat — the official British position. Moreover, Churchill, knowing Cripps’s character and understanding that he belonged to a different faction of the British elite, stated that he did not really want to talk about what he was writing publicly, but he was willing to do so if Cripps “gave him out”.

The telegram is also interesting because it contains the exact words that are now repeated by some of our “historians”… well, those who tirelessly call for repentance for all “Stalin’s mistakes in World War II” and in general “for its outbreak”… Read it, it’s just a manual of talking points.
Keep in mind that this is the same Churchill who, on June 22, 1941, publicly said something completely different on the radio! The one who promised to help in every way possible, but so far has not helped at all… because the Germans are at the gates of Moscow, and it seems like this is the end for the Russians… they are to blame for it themselves…

♦️ ♦️ ♦️

A partial text of Stafford Cripps’ telegram to Winston Churchill, October 26, 1941

The complete text of the telegram is not available in English on the Internet. We found the Russian translation containing five paragraphs of the telegram at the Electronic Library of Historical Documents. It is sourced from the 2015 book “The Road to Great Victory. USSR through the eyes of the Western contemporaries: Documents and Materials”, which in turn source archive number “TNA, PREM 3/395/6”. Below we present a reverse translation of the text to English.
Continue reading →

The CIA first tested the Maidan technology 70 years ago in Hungary

Posted on by
Reply
Reading time: 10 minutes

Channel FKT – Geschichte der Sowjetunion — History of the Soviet Union — details the run-up to the attempted fascist coup in Hungary in October of 1956. The publication translated by us at “Beorn And The Shieldmaiden”.

👉 Read also our prior multi-part article The Hungarian “Revolt” of 1956 – a detailed historical look at the events!

On July 18, 1956, the country’s leadership resigned due to street protests. Three months later, a bloody coup took place there. The American intelligence service had been preparing this special operation for eight years.

Declassified archival documents reveal the intentions of the secret operations of the USA, reports the writer and intelligence historian Gennadi Sokolov.

THE COLD WAR

♦️The experience with organising subversive activities against the USSR is still well utilised by US intelligence agencies today. In modern history, again against Russia with the Ukrainian Maidan.

❓ How did the Maidan protests begin back then?

In Washington, it was not immediately realised that they were necessary. Initially, the goal was set to directly destroy the former ally in World War II. For this purpose, US President Harry Truman already in September 1945, the year of victory, ordered the Pentagon to develop Operation “Totality”. It was planned to drop 196 atomic bombs on the 20 largest cities and industrial centers of the USSR.

However, the enthusiasm of the American generals was dampened by the possible heavy losses of the famous “Flying Fortresses” – B-29 bombers with atomic bombs – in attacks on Soviet cities. According to Pentagon estimates, up to 55 percent!

Military experts also warned that in the event of a conflict, the Soviet tank armies stationed in Eastern Europe would reach the Atlantic coast within one to two weeks! This was also a restraining factor. However, the development of similar secret plans for a nuclear war against the USSR continued (“Chariot,” “Fleetwood,” “Trojal,” “Dropshot,” etc.).

The appearance of the atomic bomb in the USSR in 1949 forced the American “hawks” to retreat to avoid a nuclear counterstrike from Moscow. The plans for a “hot” war were replaced by a “cold” war.

Overseas, a whole complex of measures was developed in various areas:

  1. Geopolitics – founding of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation NATO under the aegis of the USA in 1949.
  2. Economy and finance – introduction of the Bretton Woods system after the war, based on the dollar instead of gold, as well as the Marshall Plan in 1948.
  3. Propaganda – broadcasting of the radio stations “Radio Free Europe” and “Radio Liberty” in the countries of the Socialist Bloc since 1953.
  4. Secret subversive activities – founding of the CIA’s Special Operations division in 1948.

Essentially, it was already a multi-layered or, as we say today, hybrid war. Its goal was to undermine the power of the USSR and the Eastern European countries, which according to the agreements of Yalta between Stalin, Roosevelt, and Churchill in 1945 on the division of spheres of influence after the war had fallen into the Kremlin’s sphere of influence. Thus, “Directive 10/2” was created.

What kind of directive is this?

June 10, 1948

Top secret

National Security Council of the United States

Directive NSC 10/2

… The National Security Council has decided that in the interest of world peace, the measures of the US government must be supplemented by covert operations…

This mission is assigned to the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) …

The head of the new “covert” operational area of the CIA was the veteran of the American intelligence service Frank George Wisner. He is the father of secret sabotage operations, including Maidan movements, uprisings, and coups far beyond America’s borders. In countries that Washington did not approve of. However, he made a name for himself not only through the first Maidan movements in Hungary, Poland, and East Germany.
Continue reading →

Katyn – a lie that has become history. Why do some Russian politicians continue to repent for everything that our ancestors did not do?

Posted on by
7
Reading time: 10 minutes

The article, the translation of which we are presenting here, was written by Yuri Krinitsky and Philip Sorokin, and first published by Military Industrial Courier (WebArchived version) on June 8, 2021 (Issue No. 21 (884)). It was later re-blogged by historian Nikolai Starikov.

“Today Katyn is a propaganda weapon of the Polish establishment in the struggle for political dividends. It uses various methods, including falsifications, lies, and double standards.”

Mikhail Gorbachev’s transfer of the “Special Folder No. 1” to the President of the Republic of Poland, Wojciech Jaruzelski

On August 25, 1993, Russian President Boris Yeltsin said: “Forgive us,” he laid a wreath at the monument to the victims of Katyn in Warsaw. After that, the governments of Russia and Poland agreed on the construction of memorials in Katyn and Mednoye. It would seem that a a mutual rapprochement step has been taken… But over the years, the inaccuracies and falsifications in the “official” (Goebbel-Polish-Gorbachev-Yeltsin) version of the shooting of Poles have become more and more obvious. Especially if both Katyn and Mednoye themes are viewed as a whole.

There are two burials on the territory of Russia, the history of which is deliberately muddled and used for information warfare purposes. One is in the Smolensk region (Katyn forest, Kozye Gory tract), the second is in the Tver (former Kalinin) region, near the village of Mednoye. Polish prisoners of war were shot and laid to rest here in the early 40s of the twentieth century. But there are two fundamentally different opinions about the number of people killed, the date and the perpetrators of the crime.

According to the version of the Reich Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels – which is also the version of the current Polish leadership and the liberal elite of modern Russia – Poles were executed by NKVD officers a year before the outbreak of the Great Patriotic War. According to the Soviet version, the prisoners did not have time to evacuate during the retreat of the Red Army. They ended up on the territory occupied by German troops, and in the fall of 1941 they were shot by the Nazis.
Continue reading →

The Katyn Schism. Gorbachev and his followers became confounded in repentance

Posted on by
2
Reading time: 10 minutes

The article by Yuri Krinitsky and Andrey Romanchenko was published in Military Industrial Courier (WebArchived version ) on May 22, 2018 (Issue No. 19 (732)).

Representatives of the NKVD-NKGB commission and the special commission at the ChGK in Katyn. Photo: 2w.su

The West’s desire to weaken the authority of our country is dragging up to the surface even old disagreements that arose decades ago. In the Katyn tragedy, which any enlightened person knows about today, there are proven and controversial facts. The mass execution of captured Polish officers is generally recognised. But there is uncertainty about the date of the shooting, the number of people killed, and the perpetrators of the crime.

The discussion around these “minor details” has long acquired the character of an information struggle, in which history has become a weapon of politics. But what if, without taking a priori anyone’s position in this dispute, we conduct an uncompromising and independent assessment to what degree the knowledge that exists about the events in the Kozye Gory tract of the Smolensk region is sufficient to identify the true perpetrators of the crime committed there?
Continue reading →

“I’m the tsar, if I want to, I’ll give it away!”: Yeltsin was going to give the Kuril Islands to Japan

Posted on by
Reply
Reading time: 29 minutes

The Russian Federation was not yet a year old, when Yeltsin was planning to give away the land, required with the blood of the Soviet soldiers in 1945. This is the story of how Yeltsin’s grand giveaway of the Kuril Islands was thwarted. It is told over 3 articles, each bringing additional details and food for thought.

“I’m the tsar, if I want to, I’ll give it away!”

Boris Konstantinovich Ratnikov

Boris Konstantinovich Ratnikov, 71, Retired Major General of the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation. In 1969 he graduated from the Moscow Aviation Institute, in 1974 he graduated from the Higher Courses of the KGB of the USSR. He spent 3.5 years on a mission in the Republic of Afghanistan through the KGB. He participated in combat operations, was awarded orders and medals. 1991-1994 – First Deputy Head of the Main Directorate of Security of the Russian Federation. He was engaged in ensuring the security of the country’s top officials, including through the use of psi technologies. Then he became the chief consultant in the Security Service of the President of Russia, adviser to the head of the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation. Currently, he is the head of the Information and Analytical Center of the National Association of Bodyguards of Russia.

Below is an interview of B.K.Ratnikov conducted by the correspondent of Komzomolskaya Pravda, Evegeny Chernyh on October 19, 2017.

Ratnikov: On August 21, 1992, the decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 1553-r “On the preparation of the visit of the President of the Russian Federation B.N. Yeltsin to Japan” was signed by Gaidar, General Ratnikov recalls. – A working group was created headed by S. Glazyev, the then First Deputy Minister of Foreign Economic Relations of Russia. The historic visit was scheduled for September. I learned that in Tokyo Yeltsin was preparing to transfer 2-3 islands of the Kuril Ridge to Japan to demonstrate his new political course. Boris Nikolaevich wanted to show himself as a peacemaker. Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Gorbachev did not give up the islands, I could! He was encouraged to take this step by a number of figures from his inner circle.

Chernyh: Who exactly?

– Kozyrev, for example, who was the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The Japanese had already happily promised us the first loan of $100 million. But the Kuril Islands are a very sensitive issue. This is both the integrity of Russia and the fate of our citizens living there. Where would they go? There was no relocation or employment program. All this would have caused outrage in the country. General Georgy Rogozin and I decided to test the situation and see possible scenarios.

Rogozin was a strong “psychic operator” (BATS note: that is, an able analyst). We were literally stunned by the information we received. As soon as Yeltsin hands over the islands to Japan, China will immediately lay claim to its disputed territories to Russia. At that time, hundreds of kilometers of the border with China were not demarcated. An armed conflict could have started.

– As on Damansky Island in the spring of 1969. Then we lost 58 border guards, the Chinese lost about three hundred.

– This time, the conflict could become more widespread and even escalate into a major war that would weaken Russia and China, two competitors of the United States. That’s what the calculation was for overseas. Through agents of influence in the CPC Central Committee, Washington would have pushed the Chinese leadership to take decisive action. The Russians gave the disputed Kuril Islands to Japan, and what about us? If they don’t give up the territory, we’ll take it ourselves! After all, the Yankees had their hands not only on Kozyrev, who now lives in the United States, but also on responsible Chinese comrades. The international community would declare China an aggressor. The United Nations and a number of countries would apply economic and political sanctions against an aggressor who encroached on the sovereign territory of another state. Or perhaps they would have divided the Celestial Empire into ethnic regions. Beijing was in Washington’s way in establishing a unipolar world after the collapse of the USSR and the Eastern Bloc. Moscow was also in the way, but having lost the Soviet republics, it was in the background.

It was this catastrophic scenario that a seemingly innocent, peacemaking transfer of the disputed Kuril Islands to Japan led to, to which Yeltsin was pushed by Kozyrev.

I decided to check through the intelligence and counterintelligence agencies whether this information has a basis, can events develop according to the predicted scenario? A thorough check has shown that the alleged situation and its consequences are quite real. The islands could not be given away.
Continue reading →

The Turkish Missile Crisis. How Khrushev twisted Fidel Castro’s words.

Posted on by
Reply
Reading time: 8 minutes

On October 16, 1962, U.S. President John F. Kennedy was informed that Soviet nuclear missiles had been discovered in Cuba. 45 of them. Moscow had deployed them on the island in response to the appearance of American “Jupiters” in Turkey, from where a missile could reach Moscow in ten minutes. From our telegram channel “Beorn And The Shieldmaiden”.

The Cuban Missile Crisis began — 13 days when the world stood on the brink of nuclear war.

U.S. declared a naval blockade of Cuba, raised strategic aviation and fleet to alert. Readiness level was raised to DEFCON-2 — first time in the country’s history. This meant one thing: everything was ready, only the order remained.

However, commander of U.S. strategic aviation announced on radio his readiness to bomb the “Reds” without the sanction of U.S. Secretary of Defense and the President. The Soviet command intercepted these messages but considered them a bluff. But they could have given the order for a preemptive strike.
An American U-2 reconnaissance plane was shot down over Cuba, and the military urged Kennedy to strike “before it was too late”. Kennedy delayed — and, as it turned out later, acted correctly.

The generals did not know that 12 missile complexes were already on minute readiness to launch. CIA was also mistaken, believing there were no more than 5,000 Soviet troops in Cuba — there were about 40,000.

Fidel Castro urged Khrushchev not to hesitate to use the missiles in case USA invades Cuba. When Khrushchev later pulled the missiles without consulting with Castro, it caused a cooling of relations between Moscow and Havana (more on it below). At the same time, Khrushchev granted commander of Soviet forces in Cuba, General Isa Pliev, authority to independently decide on the use of nuclear weapons in case of an attack or invasion.

Meanwhile, back-channel diplomacy was saving the world. KGB resident in Washington Alexander Fomin (operational pseudonym Alexander Feklisov) conducted difficult unofficial negotiations with the White House. He conveyed Khrushchev’s proposals, clarified the positions of the parties, and effectively became a live communication channel in the absence of a direct line. It was through him that the USSR and U.S. were able to reach an agreement. Later, Fomin would be called the first person to save the world from nuclear war.

The crisis was unfolding not only in offices. On October 7, the Soviet submarine B-59 was blocked by U.S. destroyers off Cuba’s coast. The U.S. dropped training depth charges, trying to force the submarine to surface. Inside, temperature exceeded forty degrees, communication with Moscow was lost, and air supplies were running out.

The commander, deciding that war had already begun, ordered the nuclear torpedo to be prepared for launch. Launching required the consent of three senior officers. Two were “for.” Senior assistant, Captain Second Rank Vasily Arkhipov, said “no.” The torpedo did not launch.
The same night, on the other side of the Pacific Ocean, on Okinawa Island, four American bases received radio orders to launch MGM-13 Mace nuclear cruise missiles with Mark 28 warheads. The codes matched, the signal was genuine. Targets were Beijing, Hanoi, Pyongyang, and Vladivostok.
However, the readiness level remained DEFCON-2: the state of war (DEFCON-1) was not officially declared. Air Force Captain William Bassett realised something was wrong and postponed the launch. One officer accused him of treason and demanded to “immediately start frying the communists”. Bassett then ordered “to send two armed pilots to shoot anyone at the controls if they attempted to launch”. He contacted command — and the order was horrifiedly canceled.

As a result of negotiations, USSR agreed to withdraw missiles from Cuba, and the U.S. to remove theirs from Turkey and lift the blockade.
After these events, a direct “hotline” was established between Moscow and Washington — a teletype connection for transmitting text messages to avoid misunderstandings and translation errors.

It remains in operation to this day.

Source

What Fidel Castro really told Khrushev amidst the Cuban Missile Crisis

A fake quote of what Fidel Castro presumably wrote to Khrushev appeared in the source of the text above, which we edited with a comment.

It went like this: “Cuba is ready to die, but communism must win.”

The quote did not seem authentic, painting Castro as someone indifferent to the fate of the people of Cuba. So we did some reasearch, and it turned out we were not the only ones curious about that quote.

The complete research can be read here.

In short, the legs, so to speak, grow from Khrushev’s publications. The following two fragments are of interest.
Continue reading →

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
1
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
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”.