Rostislav Ischenko on the Anti-Russian Racism: Operation “Derusification” or a global attempt to abolish the Russians

It has been a while since I last translated an article by Rostislav Ischenko. In the past I translated such articles as The Great Patriotic War in Ukraine. A historical retrospective by Rostislav Ischenko and Ukraine celebrated its independence – from what?. His political and historical analysis largely centres around Ukraine and the parallels of the present-day historical process to those of the past. Recently he published a number of articles that were mostly of interest to the domestic reader. The one you are about to read now, however, touches upon the wider theme of the anti-Russian racism that has engulfed and consumed the Western world.


Cemetery near Paris: Operation “Derusification” or a global attempt to abolish the Russians

Rostislav Ishchenko, Columnist of MIA “Russia Today”
January 16, 2023

The French authorities are hypocritically sad to announce that they will be forced to close the Russian cemetery in Saint-Genevieve-de-Bois, since Russia has stopped paying for its maintenance. However, Russia stopped paying because the French authorities stopped accepting payments as part of the imposed sanctions.

Saint-Genevieve-de-Bois is a monument to Russian emigration. Emigrants of the Civil War era of the early twentieth century, and then the emigrants of all the subsequent waves are buried there. In addition to Drozdovsky and Drozdov’s followers, Alekseev and Alekseev’s followers, Rodzianko, Yusupov, Grand Duke Gabriel Konstantinovich, Bunin and Gippius, Galich and Nuriev, Taffy and Tarkovsky, Lifar and Merezhkovsky lie there.

This cemetery is a monument to the Russian history of the twentieth century, with all its problems and contradictions. But at the same time it is a monument to the Russians who did not get along in Russia. Some being the losers of the Civil War, some – of the political struggle, whether they left Russia in search of a better life or professional self-realization. But it is also a monument to the Russian culture in its highest manifestations, in which sense it constitutes the integral part of the world culture.

Continue reading

“Fainting Piglet”, aka. “Unconscious Piggy” Satirical Cartoons Explain the Core of Ukraine and Why SMO Was Unavoidable (with future updates)

In the August of 2022 the CGI animator Evgenia from Krasnodar Krai started creating something that grew into an in-depth satirical reviews of all what was failing Ukraine, and explaining the Special Military Operation’s goals.

The character personifying Ukraine became a little wayward, Nazi-tainted piglet. The Russian title of the series is “Свинка в обмороке” (Svinka v obmoroke), which is a play on the shortened name of the Special Military Operation (SMO) – SVO in Russian. In English the series have got several varying names, trying to convey the essence: “Unconscious Piggy”, “Fainting Piglet”, “Piglet in a Swoon”, “Swooning Pig”.

All episodes are released at the official Telegram channel of the Fainting Piglet. Evgenia writes in the description: “The Piglet is not the whole of Ukraine, but only her demented part!” I have additionally uploaded them to Yandex Disk for easy download.

While the later episodes were released bilingually, earlier episodes require translation (and most of them also require some context for the Western audience, who have been subjected to the heavy Mains Stream Media censorship). This honourable task was undertaken by the admin of The Putinger’s Cat Telegram channel.

As more and more episodes get release and translated, they are becoming increasingly more difficult to trace. And, additionally, not everyone has Telegram. That is why I decided to upload them to Odysee and create this collated post that will get updates as new episodes see the light of day.

But first, a very short clip that cuts to the chase, and shows the very essence of the conflict and the role Ukraine plays in it!


The very first Unconscious Pig episode – “What is Russia Punishing Ukraine For?” or “Why do Russians support the SMO?” – is finally translated! (Translation at Putinger’s Cat)

Continue reading

The Legacy of Gorbachev. Germany is denying Russia what it got from Russia 30 years ago.

After Gorbachev’s passing, a lot can be said about his deeds and legacy. Little of it will be positive.
At best, he’s remembered as a bumbling fool, who started reforms that he was in no position to bring to a positive fruition.
At worst he – along with Yeltsin – is remembered as a malicious traitor to the Russian world, responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people as the result of the demolition of the USSR, which started several years before the fateful events of 1991.
As a middle-ground, I would recommend Scott Ritter’s article in Consortium News SCOTT RITTER: Mikhail Gorbachev, a Vector of Change

My today’s translation takes a look at Gorbachev’s legacy from a different angle – from the perspective of the reunification of Germany. It was in 2014 that first read a short comment about the German counter-historical stance on the reunification of Crimea in light of the prior reunification of Germany. Back then it was just that – a comment in some other discussion. Yesterday I came across an article at the Federal News Agency site that makes a much deeper , and more passionate dive into the matter. And article, a translation of which I am presenting below.


Germany refuses the Russians what Russians gave her thirty years ago

03.09.2022


Pravda Komsomolskaya/Russian Look

In Germany, Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev is very much loved. Much more than in Russia and many former Soviet republics. Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev was even called “the best German” because he did a huge historical thing for the German people. He united a divided Germany.

But he demolished his own country.

Continue reading

SCS Software makes a politically biased and uninformed statement, censors and bans commentors with descenting views

I happen to like playing driving games to wind down and just relax for a few minutes after a busy day. Trucking games, and especially those from SCS Software were among my favourites.

Yesterday SCS Software made a biased political statement, containing inaccuracies on their Steam Community Hub forum of their game Euro Truck simulator 2.

Coming to the forum, which was not locked for comments, I naïvely thought that SCS Software was open to discussion and posted the following comment:

[quote=jxnnxk GER;3185738591084346113]This game is about trucking not qbout politics… [/quote]
Exactly. I am saddened to see this statement by SCS, where I hoped they would keep away from politics.

Especially with a such badly-educated statement as “We deeply condemn this act of aggression for which there is no reason, nor excuse.” Forgetting the people of Donbass – children, women, elderly – their livelihood and homes being shelled by the Ukrainian army for the last 8 years, a topic which is not spoken about in the MSM.

I go to games to avoid politics, to find respite from it, not to find another political statement on the game’s newsfeed!

I was looking forward to the Heart of Russia DLC, and I have bought most of all of your map DLCs, enjoying all the routes, including those to what little of Ukraine you have there. But no, after this statement, I wonder if it is time to find another game to play…

in reply to someone else. Shortly thereafter, I noticed that my comment was deleted. They were deleting any comment that did not tow the political line of their statement, and also removed comments from people asking SCS to keep the game away from politics. I replied to another commentor, who complained that their message was removed, saying that mine was gone too. After that I was banned from posting for 1 month for… wait for it… “Repeated political posts”. Yes, for those 1.5 posts on a thread that was started by SCS software and was clearly political in nature.

I asked for an overturn of the ban from Steam support (update: upheld) and for a refund of the game (rejected).

Incidentally, the other blatant inaccuracy that SCS Software made in their statement is comparing the current military operation in Ukraine with the events of 1938 and 1968 in Czechoslovakia (SCS is a Czech company). Apart from placing those two past evens on the same level, which is historically incorrect, the better and more accurate comparison of today’s events is to the Soviet Army mop-up of the Nazis in Germany in April-May 1945 and the Russian Army mop-up of the Napoleonic forces in France in March 1814.

If SCS software first starts remembering 1938, it should be consistent and remember that is was Czechoslovakian factories that were providing Nazi Germany with tanks and other heavy assault vehicles, and they should remember how after the 1917 revolution Czechs performed an “intervention” deep into the tormented Russia, reaching Urals and making away with the Russia’s gold reserve.

On the other hand SCS Software left untouched numerous Bandera-Nazi hails in the comment section.

By the time of writing of this article today, the thread was locked with 284 comments remaining, which give an impression of a largely pro-Ukrainian stance on the matter. Observing the rate of posting and censorship yesterday, I would estimate that without SCS Software censorship, there would have been ten times that number of comments today, having a larger share of comments either asking SCS Software to keep away from politics or expressing the Russian point of view on the events.

I would have let the above statement from SCS Software slide if they made it as a closed topic, not pretending to play at democracy, or if they allowed all kinds of comments, removing only those directly calling for violence (incidentally, none of the comments that were subsequently banned did that), or if their statement was more balanced, wishing to provide for humanitarian aid to Ukraine in a controversial situation, while refraining from pointing fingers. Or better still, kept the politics entirely out of the game. But they just had to go ahead and shoot themselves in the foot, losing themselves, I suspect, not just one customer.


On a different note, I wonder what is the stance of the truck manufacturers that license their trademarks for use in SCS Software’s Euro Truck Simulator 2: Volvo, Mercedes-Benz, DAF, Scania, MAN, Iveco?


My profile in Euro Truck Simulator 2, with the political statement by SCS Software in the news strip. Volvo Construction Equipment DLC is something that I was going to buy prior to them making this statement.

Agents of Revolution-2. How the Leaders of October Repaid their Debts to the Sponsors

Marking the centenary of the October Revolution, I am publishing translations of three articles from “Argumenty i Fakty”. The second article in a series of two from 18.04.2012, taking a look at how the Western funds invested into the revolution got repaid. The article is by a reputable historian and writer Nikolai Starikov. Read the translation of the first article to learn the role of Valdimir Uljanov / Lenin on the eve of the October Revolution.


Having declaring war on global capital, once in power, Lenin and Trotsky gave up enormous resources to the mercy of their enemies. Was it a repayment for the “sponsorship” assistance in organizing the revolution and the Civil war?

In the previous atricle we told about the adventures Vladimir Lenin and his comrades experienced 95 years ago (note: the article is from 2012) travelling from abroad to Russia, and who aided them in that.

Writer, historian Nikolai Starikov, author of the books “Chaos and revolution weapon of the dollar”, “1917. The answer is “Russian” revolution,” etc., says that the Bolsheviks did not forget their benefactors. And though they did not completed the “order” for the collapse of Russia, they, nevertheless, more than repaid the financial debts.

The Civil war was barely over, when the young Soviet government started showing serious interest in the production of the yellow metal. On the 14th of November 1925, the government of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR), with a light hand of Trotsky (recall that this fiery Russian revolutionary of Jewish origin spent about 12 years of the early twentieth century in the West and even managed to obtain an American passport), transfers the rights to the development of the gold mines in Eastern Siberia to the company “Lena Goldfields Co., Ltd”. The very same, whose workers were shot in cold blood in 1912, when they were protesting against low wages. The famous Lena massacre gave at that time the Bolsheviks an excuse to denounce the autocratic rule in Russia. While now the Bolsheviks themselves transferred to a British consortium that owned “Lena Goldfields” the rights to mine gold in the basin of Lena river (and not only there) for 30 years! The area of the concession covered a huge territory from Yakutia to the Urals, and the interests of the Western company now went far beyond gold. They included silver, copper, lead, iron…

Under the agreement with the Soviets, a whole group of mining and metallurgical enterprises was handed over into disposition of “Lena Goldfields”. And what did the country receive in return? A measly 7% of the volume of the extracted metal.

Enormous wealth went overseas for virtually nothing. However, this blatant robbery of the country lasted for a relatively short period of time. On the 10th of February 1929 Leon Trotsky was expelled from the Soviet Union. And – what an amazing coincidence – in December of the same year “Lena Goldfields” was forced to cease its operations in Russia.

Swedish business

Someone will remark that the looting of the country was happening after the death of Lenin in January 1924. The debts for the sponsorship of the revolutionaries were seemingly returned only by Trotsky, who in spring 1917 arrived to Russia from New York with ten thousand dollars in his pocket? (By the way, not only he and Iljitch [patrimonial of Ulianov {Lenin}] returned to the country back then. Other “agents” came to the revolutionary Russia from the West: V. Antonov-Ovseenko, who later arrested the Provisional Government; the future head of the Petrograd Special Services, Moisey Uritsky, with whose murder starts the “red terror”; V. Volodarsky (Moisey Goldstein) and many others.)

In reality, the Bolshevik government entered into the shady deals with the West also during the life of Lenin. Perhaps the most notorious of these concerned the purchase of locomotives from the factory of the Swedish firm “Nidquist and Holm” (NoH AB).

The volume of the order is staggering – 1,000 locomotives to the price of 200 million gold roubles. It’s almost a quarter of the then gold reserves of the country! Note that until then, this firm could not afford a production of more than 40 locomotives per year. And then it was offered to make a thousand! The order was distributed over 5 years: in 1922, Russia was to receive 200 locomotives, and in 1923-1925 – 250 annually. Why would the Soviet country, in dire need of railway technology, want to buy them from this particular Swedish company and at highly inflated prices? Why would she agreed to wait for the delivery for 5 years, instead of having to buy the right product cheaper and immediately, but in a different place? The people’s Commissariat of Railways, headed in the early 1920s by Leon Trotsky, desired exactly these locomotives so much that not only did they make an advance payment of 7 million kronor, but also gave the Swedish company… an interest-free loan of 10 million kronor “for the construction of a mechanical workshop and boiler room”.

The Soviet magazine “The Economist” wrote about the peculiarities of this affair in early 1922. The author A. Frolov proposed to investigate: why was it necessary to order engines in Sweden? After all, for such money it was possible “to put in order our locomotive plants and feed theirs workers”. The Putilov factory had been producing more than 200 locomotives per year before the war. Why not issue a credit to them? And Lenin indeed sorted out the situation. After consulting with Trotsky, he asked Felix Dzerzhinsky to close down “The Economist” magazine (which also on previous occasions published articles unpleasant for the Soviets), stating: “the Staff of “The Economist” are the enemies of the most ruthless kind. All of them must be sent out of Russia”. The suspicious contract with the Swedes remained unchanged after the intervention of the leader.

So how did the Bolsheviks return the money to the foreign bankers? They obviously could not simply transfer them to the West and write in the “Purpose of payment” column: “Repayment for the Russian revolution and the victory in the Civil war”. A good excuse was needed. Such as to buy something in the West, for example those selfsame locomotives. Trotsky organizes the purchase, but Lenin, it seems, is aware of the transaction and does not prevent it. Otherwise this doubtful contract would have cost Trotsky his career.

In fact, many documents confirm, that the Swedish banking system was used to inject money for the revolution into Russia. And later it was also used to transfer money out. Already in the autumn of 1918 Isidore Gukovsky, deputy of the People’s Commissar of Finance in Soviet Russia, arrived in Stockholm. With him he had crates full of money and jewellry. The value of the goods was estimated at 40-60 million roubles. Millions of roubles were transferred to the Stockholm banks, including “Nya Banken” of Olof Aschberg, whose name often appears in the books on the financing of the Bolsheviks.

A Deal with the Devil

It is difficult to tell the exact number of contracts and concessions issued by the Soviet government to the American firms at the beginning of the construction of a new state. But this includes both $25 million of commissions to the American Industrialists for the period from July 1919 to January 1920, and the concession for the extraction of asbestos that was issued to Armand Hammer in 1921, and the lease agreement issued for 60-years to the Frank Vanderlip and its consortium, which provided for the exploitation of deposits of coal and oil, as well as fishing in the North-Siberian region, with an area of 600 thousand sq. km.

The return of funds allocated for the elimination of the Russian Empire, was obviously one of the agreements between the representatives of the Western governments and the Bolsheviks. And both Lenin and Trotsky carefully observed this agreement. However these new leaders did not meet the other Western hopes. Having been put at the helm of Russia to completely ruin it (and the initial aims of the West coincided with the revolutionary dreams of Lenin), Lenin started instead to put the torn apart country back together. To build a strong and independent state which again plays a key role in world politics.

However, the leader of the proletarians did not have long left to live. I do not exclude that the shot from SR member F. Kaplan, that precipitated his death, was a precautionary measure on the part of his former foreign guardians, so that he would not be getting full of himself. Trotsky, perhaps, was ready to continue to work for the West, but in 1929 Stalin sent him out, and then sent in pursuit an assassin R. Mercader, with an ice pick. As we know, no deal with the devil goes without repercussions.

USA Rushes to Destroy the Very Foundations of The International Law

We’ve all become quite accustomed to how USA flagrantly violates international law, starting from interfering into other counties political process (Ukraine being one of the hundreds of Examples), through instigation of violence and military conflict, and to outright bombing and invasions, like in Korea, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Syria, and many many other countries turned by the USA into wastelands.

However, until recently, USA did so trying to cover is naked aggressiveness by a thin transparent layer of legality, and observed at least some semblance of following the international law.

Staring in December, with Obama’s departing expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats, and seizure of Russian diplomatic and private property, USA took a step towards behaving like an outlaw, and outright street robber. In her August the 1st article Russia-US 4D Wars: Putin expels 755 US Diplomats; New Sanctions and Nord Stream 2 War, Lada Ray describes what and how USA stole:

Obama also took away two Russian diplomatic resorts, where the children of diplomats could go to summer camp and where families went for R&R. One such resort was not far from Washington DC. In 1977, The Soviet government officially purchased the compound for $1.2 mln.

Usually, such diplomatic compounds would be swapped between countries, based on mutual agreement. For instance, there was an agreement between the USSR, inherited by Russia, and USA about mutual exchange of properties in each country, to be used for diplomats and their families as private resorts or other needs. If the US allotted a piece of such real estate to Russia (USSR) in the US, a comparable piece of real estate had to be allotted to the USA in Russia.

The problem is that the resort near Washington DC wasn’t even a part of the exchange deal. It was purchased for $1.2 mln fair and square, and was fully owned by Russia. Therefore, taking away that particular resort amounts to an illegal expropriation of private property by the US government, using threats and force. This never happened even at the height of the Cold War. And you still think the USSR was bad?

Continue reading

Roman Dmowski – “The Ukrainian Question” political prophecy of 1930 coming true

A few years ago I wrote a translation of a documentary, called Project ‘Ukraine’, which very well covered the history, running up to the creation of the geopolitical entity, known as “Ukraine”.

I have now come across an unlikely source of information, corroborating and expanding on the theses put forth in the documentary above. It comes from a Polish politician Roman Dmowski and his 1930 work “Kwestia ukraińska” – “The Ukrainian Question”.

Below is my translation of a Russian article, which analyses his work: Year 1930: Roman Dmowski on Ukrainian Independence.


What is distinguishing a natural-born politician from a random rogue, hanging out on the political stage? The sense of political acumen, the ability to predict the course of events for decades to come signs that are little noticeable at the moment.

Roman Dmowski had this gift in abundance. The expert on Slavic history, active political leader of Poland of the first third of the twentieth century, opponent of Jozef Pilsudski. They say that in his youth Pilsudski stole Dmowski’s wife. Dmowski remained a bachelor, while in politics he seriously disagreed with Pilsudski.

Dmowski was a more measured politician than Pilsudski with his clinical Russophobia. During the revolution of 1905, Dmowski, remaining a Polish patriot, urged the Poles to ally with the Russian tsars, and during the First World War, unlike Pilsudski, he took the side of the Entente. However the proclaimed ultimate goal of his policy was always the building of a national Polish state.

Dmowski’s attitude to the Ukrainian question is noteworthy. Especially interesting is his extensive article “The Ukrainian Question” (“Kwestia ukraińska”). It does not exist in a Russian or Ukrainian translation, more’s the pity. The reader would be able to meet Dmowski’s predictions about the future of Ukrainian statehood and witness an amazing accuracy of his predictions. The “Ukrainian question” was written over 80 years ago – in 1930, when there was not even talk of independence of Ukraine, but Dmowski’s internal sense of politics foresaw much of what we are witnessing today. So…

From the first lines Dmowski indicates that the separate existence of the Ukrainian people begins only in the XIX century, and the dialect of the people “reached the level of literary language”, so the appearance of independent Ukraine on the world map was only a matter of time. The author agrees that the term “Ukraine” designated the lands near the Eastern edge of the Polish Commonwealth, and it had no political and national significance. Dmowski also acknowledges the fact of the unity of the Russian language from the Carpathian mountains to the Pacific ocean, and that the regional differences between the three Russian pieces (Greater Russia (Velikorossia), Rus Minor (Malorossia), Belorussia) was caused by the defeat of Kiev by the nomads.

As a cultural and historical whole, Ukraine does not exist for Dmowski. Different parts of it had different history and it makes no sense to speak of a single Ukrainian nation. He considered Chernigov and Poltava to be the most “Ukrainian”, while the spirit of Ukraine is expressed by “the great writer Gogol”. The author acknowledges that the tsarist authorities did not put obstacles in the way of literary and cultural ukrainophilism, but the Poles embarked on the transformation of this innocent ukrainophilism into a ukrainophilism of a different kind – political.

Ukraine is less interesting from the national-cultural point of view, than from the political-economic perspective, and that last factor is the key in the idea of Ukrainian independence. The populist idea that was so popular in the nineteenth century, became quickly adopted by the international powerhouses. Therefore, in the early twentieth century, the term “Ruthenian” (Rusin) – referring to the inhabitants of Galicia and Bukovina – is replaced by the term “Ukrainian” in the Austrian political discourse.

“The ease with which the official Vienna jumped from a local, narrow concept of “Rusin” (Ruthenian) to the broad concept of “Ukrainian” and thus the internal Ruthenian issue turned into an international Ukrainian issue is surprising,” writes Dmowski. Austria-Hungary, which was already associated with Germany in a close Union, went on to an even greater rapprochement with Berlin so as to have in the face of Germany as a second German state, an additional support for the Austrian Germans. It was just at that period that the common German political literature took up the production of a new state concept – Larger Ukraine. “A German Consulate is opened in Lvov – not for the German citizens, of which there were none in Eastern Galicia, but for the political cooperation with the Ukrainians, which subsequently became publicly disclosed”.

With the replacement of the “Ruthenian” question with the “Ukrainian” issue, the political centre of gravity shifted from Vienna to Berlin. There was no Ruthenian population in Germany, but the Ruthenian question very keenly interested the German strategists, who “on the eve of the First World War looked at Russia as an object of economic exploitation”. However, the discovery of coal and iron on the territory of Donbass (which would be transferred from the RSFSR to the UkSSR by the Soviet authorities) allowed the Russian Empire to begin strengthening their own industry, while for Germany that meant not only the closure of the Russian market for its exports, but also the emergence of a new competitor in the Asian markets.

Germany firmly asserted its presence in Turkey at the same time (during the First World War the Turks will act as the allies of the Germans), and they needed to remove Russia out of the way for the complete control over the Black Sea region and the Balkans: “All these dangers and difficulties were eliminated by the bold project of establishing an independent Ukraine. Given the national and cultural weakness of the Ukrainian population, its lack of solidity, the presence on the sea coast of peoples, who have nothing to do with Ukrainianism, a large Jewish population and a considerable number of German colonists in the Kherson region and Crimea, you can be sure that this new state will be easily subdued the Germanic influence. Independent Ukraine promises to be a political and economic branch of Germany”.

At the same time Russia would lose the opportunity to influence European policy, would be pushed away (albeit partially) from the Black Sea and would also lose influence in the Balkans, which improved the positions of the Ottoman Empire – a German ally and the eternal enemy of the Southern Slavs (Yugoslavs). In addition, the Ukrainian project was the German anti-Polish project, allowing to hit with one shot two German opponents – Poland and Russia.

For Dmowski the Ukrainian question was inseparably linked with oil. Due to the deposits of the Caucasian oil, Russia entered the small circle of privileged states with oil wealth. The oil of the New and Old world was already divided between the Western powers. Venezuelan, Colombian, Mexican, Peruvian crude oil was under US control; the Indian was under the control of the Dutch; Iranian and Iraqi – under the British control. The distribution of oil wealth meant the distribution of world powers and oil-rich Russia, with borders from the Pacific to the Carpathians was not included in the calculations of the West. “Ukraine has no oil… but if one understands its territorial scope in a wide sense, extending it to the Caspian sea, as some do, then the separation of Ukraine from Russia will lead to separation of the latter from the Caucasus and the liberation of the Caucasian oil from under her control,” concludes Dmowski, stating that the Ukrainian question is the issue of crude (Russian) oil.

How can one not remember the numerous statements of today’s national-patriots about “ethnic Ukrainian lands”, reaching the foothills of the Caucasus, and dashing statements of Michael Kolodzinski, a member of the OUN and the author of the military doctrine of Ukrainian nationalism: “We, who are building the Ukrainian state, must push the border of Europe to the Altai and Dzhungaria…. Ukraine aims to link this area with Europe politically, economically and culturally… and the phrase “on the border of two worlds” will get a real sense… Like Caesar, conquering Gaullia, opened the whole of Europe to the Roman culture and civilization, so will our nationalist revolutionary army must open to Western European culture the space, stretching to the South and South–East of Ukraine… This was the great goal of our life as nation and race, – to take possession of the steppes above the Black and Caspian seas and to build a new centre of world civilization on the verge of two continents”.

Dmowski insists on the rejection of the idyllic interpretations of the Ukrainian question as a matter of the people, suddenly awakened to political life in the nineteenth century. The Ukrainian problem got its scope due to the support of Germany, while the restoration of the Polish state only added urgency to it. An independent Ukraine with the deliberately undefined boundaries to the West became for Berlin a convenient way to get Poland to be flexible in determining the lines of the Polish-German border.

“In recent years, thanks to the coal and iron of the Donetsk basin and the Caucasus oil, Ukraine has become a subject of vivid interest of European and American capital and took a place in their plans for economic and political control of the world in the near future,” said Dmowski. External forces, causing the split between Ukraine and Russia, would never agree to the creation of a small Ukrainian state: “Only a large, as large as possible, Ukraine could solve the problems, that were giving the Ukrainian question such a broad meaning”.

“Ukraine has made a great career, but did the Ukrainians do so?” – the author asks the rhetorical question, alluding to the foreign trace in the Ukrainian question and predicting the future independent Ukraine hard times as soon as it becomes independent.

And it’s not from the machinations of “our enemies”, but from the future political elites’ lack of experience in managing such a large state and solving geopolitical problems of the country, something that they have never experienced before, being part of a larger geopolitical organism (Russian Empire, USSR).

Dmowski predicts the emergence of serious problems in the then non-Ukrainian Crimea and the Caucasus – as a consequence of the emergence of an externally controlled Ukraine next to Russia and the attempts of its creators to advance further into Russian territory. The Ukrainian people cannot solve all these problems, also due to the absence “of the outstanding instinct of statesmanship”, which characterizes Russians. According to Dmowski, stable and independent Ukraine is beyond the power of the Ukrainian people.

“However, there are those who can manage it [instead], but therein lies the tragedy. No human force is able to prevent the transformation of the independent and cut off from Russia Ukraine into a convergence spot for a bunch of speculators from all over the world, who can’t spread their wings in their own countries – the capitalists and seekers of capital, merchants, speculators, and schemers, thieves and prostitution organizers of all stripes. The Germans, the French, the Belgians, the Italians, the British and Americans would rush to the aid of nearby [ethnic] Russians, Poles, Armenians, Greeks, numerous, and most important, Jews… All these elements, with the aid… of the slyest of Ukrainians would create a ruling class, the elite… and no other state would be able boast such a rich set of international dregs”.

Here is the answer to the question why the Ukrainian government, comprised of people of different nationalities, remains the eternal guardian of Ukrainian nationalism! This is a business project, gentlemen, and no patriotism!

“Ukraine would become a boil on the body of Europe… – continues Dmowski, – and the people, dreaming of creating a cultural, healthy and strong Ukrainian nation, which would ripen in their own state, would see that instead of their own country they acquired an international enterprise, while instead of development they got a rapid progress of decay and rot. Those who think that… it could be otherwise, have not a penny’s worth of imagination. There are many managers of the Ukrainian question – both in Ukraine and abroad. Especially among the latter most clearly understand what they are aiming for. But there are also those who understand the project of Ukraine’s alienation from Russia in too a rural form. These naïve people would do well if they did not come near it.”

Sad, but true words.

Putin’s biggest failure (Re-blog with commentary)

I’ve written before that For Russia the 90’s Were Worse Than WWII, both when it came to loss of sovereignty, loss of human life and loss of industrial potential.

The Saker, an astute analyst, published not long ago an article Putin’s biggest failure, in which he describes the dynamics and the forces that were active in the 90s and, which are still partially present in the Russian political life. The Saker describes the continued presence of this 5th column as one of the Putin’s failures.

I do not entirely agree with the formulation. Rather, I view this as an event yet to happen. Observing Putins moves, one can come to a conclusion that he, like a doctor, is guided by the principal of “don’t do harm”. If an intervention into the political system brings more harm than good, then he’ll wait for a more favourable time. In this case, the threat is unsettling a delicate political balance in Russia, which it just re-acquired after the Wild 90s.

The beginning of the article below, highlighting is mine.


Whatever happens in the future, Putin has already secured his place in history as one of the greatest Russian leaders ever. Not only did he succeed in literally resurrecting Russia as a country, but in a little over a decade he brought her back as a world power capable of successfully challenging the AngloZionist Empire. The Russian people have clearly recognized this feat and, according to numerous polls, they are giving him an amazing 90% support rate. And yet, there is one crucial problem which Putin has failed to tackle: the real reason behind the apparent inability of the Kremlin to meaningfully reform the Russian economy.

Continue reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading

Bird’s Eye Perspective on the Russian Federation

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

Russian Federation

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

Continue reading

Berlin and the War of the Kiev-Junta

A few days ago a well-renowned German economist, industrialist and a former owner of a multinational company Vorstandschef der Thyssen AG, Dieter Spethmann, published an open letter addressing the German politicians to open their eyes on the events in Ukraine. He first tried to publish his open letter in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, but was declined. He published his letter then in Geolitico:

UPDATE May 2023:
WebArchived article in German (original link, no longer working)

Below is an automatic translation using Yandex translate:

Continue reading

Two Ukraines – with a Statistical and Historical View at Novorossia

The original article “Two Ukraines” appeared as blog by colonelcassad in Decmber 2013 in Russian.

I present here a translation of the article into English, with the infographics legend explained whenever feasible; but first I want to give some historical backdrop to where Novorossia comes from.

In his article Cold War Renewed With A Vengeance While Washington Again Lies Paul Craig Roberts very astutely writes:

The EU, ordered by Washington, told Russia to suppress the opposition in southern and eastern Ukraine to Washington’s stooge government in Kiev. But, as every educated person knows, including the White House, 10 Downing Street, Merkel, and Holland, Russia is not responsible for the separatist unrest in eastern and southern Ukraine. These territories are former constituent parts of Russia that were added to the Ukrainian Soviet Republic by Soviet Communist Party leaders when Ukraine and Russia were two parts of the same country.

The county of Novorossia was established by the Highest Decree of the Russian Empress Ekaterina II in 1764 and existed until 1802, when it was divided into three smaller counties: Nikolaevskaja, Ekaretinoslavskaja and Tavricheskaja counties. The reason for creation of Novorossia countie on the former territories of Slavjano-Serbia was to create a buffer zone against Osmano-Tatar aggression

Below is the maps of the Novorossia:
1800_Novoros_gov

And here is the Ekaterinoslavskaja county shown against the borders of Ukraine:
Gubernia_de_Ekaterinoslav_-_Imperio_ruso

Here is what Ukraine consited of until February (Crimea made a lucky escape and re-joined Russia):
Ukraina1653
Legend:
Light yellow – Zaprozhje – Ukraine before 1654
Orange – Presents of Russian monarchs between 1654 and 1917
Light-green – Novorossia – Lenin’s present in 1922
Medium-green (5+6) – Eastern Galicia – Stalin’s present of 1939-1940 (given to USSR according to Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement)
Dark-green – Crimea – Khrushjov’s present in 1954
Transcarpathia (9) – taken from Czechoslovakia in 1945
Northern Bukovina and Southern Southern (7+8) – captured by USSR in 1940

So bearing in mind that Ukraine is a collection of disparate lands, and remembering the Russian roots of the Cossacks living on the lands of Novorossia, the move performed by Lenin after the coup d’etat of 1917, in creating Ukraine and assigning to it the territories of Novorossia was a direct recipe for creating a problem for future generations.

The people of the East differ to much from their Polish-rooted Western cousins.

And now it’s time to introduce the translation of the blog post Two Ukraines.



(Legend: “Yukraina” to the left; “Yakraina” to the right, with percentage of people who voted for Yushenko or Yanukovich during the last legitimate presidential elections)

Continue reading