Another NATO Lie Exposed – Not a Step Eastwards Were Empty Words

Reading time: 5 minutes

Last week saw another major newsworthy event that had the honour of being completely and silently ignored by the Western MSM. And that is no wonder. For one, the news item reaffirmed what was said before, and vehemently denied by USNATO: the reassurance given to Gorbachev that the block would not be expanding Eastwards of the Eastern Germany’s Border once the West (read: USA) got control of the whole of Germany.

The extensive report from the National security Archive, titled “NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard” demonstrates that assurances were, indeed, given from various NATO politicians and military top brass.

However, not even 10 years passed when the military block, having seen no repercussions for invading, bombing and demolishing the sovereign state of Yugoslavia – in breach of the international law, set its course Eastwards, creeping ever closer to the Russian borders, all the while increasing the demonising rhetoric aimed at Russia. You can see the dynamics of the expansion on the map below:

And so, the news, as published in RT:

Gorbachev WAS promised NATO would not expand east – declassified docs

In 1990, Western politicians repeatedly assured Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO wouldn’t expand east of Germany’s borders, but broke that promise less than a decade later, say insider archives from both sides of negotiations following the dismantling of the Berlin Wall.

Researchers from the respected George Washington University-based National Security Archive, which specializes in obtaining key declassified information from the government, have put together 30 crucial documents that clearly show several top Western officials vowing to Gorbachev in unison that NATO would not expand eastward. Some of these have been publicly available for several years, others have been revealed as a result of Freedom of Information requests for the study.

Other free and independent media published their own articles and commentary to the revelation. Here is an article from Russia Insider, republishing the article from National Interest:

Newly Declassified Documents: Gorbachev WAS PROMISED Numerous Times NATO Wouldn’t Move Past East German Border

Just take a look at the number of assurances given!

The West lied to Moscow and then lied about the lying. It can’t lie any longer.

Gorbachev only accepted German reunification—over which the Soviet Union had a legal right to veto under treaty—because he received assurances that NATO would not expand after he withdrew his forces from Eastern Europe from:

    James Baker,
    President George H.W. Bush,
    West German foreign minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher,
    West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl,
    the CIA Director Robert Gates,
    French President Francois Mitterrand,
    British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher,
    British foreign minister Douglas Hurd,
    British Prime Minister John Major,
    and NATO secretary-general Manfred Woerner.

One very chilling fragment is the quotation of a prophetic interview of the American diplomat George F. Kennan:

“Expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era,” Kennan wrote on February 5, 1997 in a New York Times op-ed. “Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking.”

Kennan’s sage advice was ignored, and the exact scenario he warned about has today come to pass. More than 25 years after the end of the Cold War, relations between Moscow and Washington are at their lowest point since the fall of the Soviet Union. Indeed, some have suggested that the United States and Russia are entering into a new cold war of sorts.

USA surely shot itself in the foot there, but, in a way, that was a positive move to awaken Russia from its self-destructive complacency.

Lada Ray offers some more insight in her expanded commentary to the Rt article in:

New Documents Prove US Lied to Gorbachev and Broke Promise of NATO Eastward Non-Expansion

The evidence presented in the video above shows without a shadow of a doubt that US/Germany/EU/NATO lied and swindled Russia and the USSR. The temporary weakness of Russia was used as an excuse to break promises. Moreover, Germany never paid in full the agreed upon compensation for the withdrawal of Soviet troops, and we are talking billions of euros (plus close to 30 years worth of intrest!). This Germany denies as well, but I’m sure the documents to that effect will also come to light in due course. By the way, I have discussed this issue in Earth Shift Webinar 6: THE PUTIN ENIGMA.

EDIT:
Today Russia Insider published a follow-up article by Eric Magrolis, someone who was there as the historical move and the historical lie happened:
‘Sorry Chump, You Didn’t Have it in Writing’

The Poles, Hungarians and Czechs were brought into NATO, then Romania and Bulgaria, the Baltic States, Albania, and Montenegro. Washington tried to get the former Soviet Republics of Georgia and Ukraine into NATO. The Moscow-aligned government of Ukraine was overthrown in a US-engineered coup. The road to Moscow was open.

All the bankrupt, confused Russians could do was denounce these eastward moves by the US and NATO. The best response NATO and Washington could come up with was, ‘well, there was no official written promise.’ This is worthy of a street peddler selling counterfeit watches.

By the way, consider this paragraph, and dwell on the numbers:

Gorbachev was a humanist, a very decent, intelligent man who believed he could end the Cold War and nuclear arms race. He ordered the Red Army back from Eastern Europe. I was in Wunsdorf, East Germany, HQ of the Group of Soviet Forces, Germany, and at Stasi secret police HQ in East Berlin right after the pullout order was given. The Soviets withdrew their 338,000 troops and 4,200 tanks and sent them home at lightening speed.

Soviet Union was not prepared to take that large a number of servicemen back – there was no local infrastructure, no prepared dislocation settlements. All this put a huge additional economic strain on the already ailing economy of the USSR, and was one of the many blows, dealt to it by the West.

204 A-Bombs Against 66 Cities: US Drew up First Plan to Nuke Russia Before WWII Was Even Over – Reblog

Reading time: 8 minutes

We’ve written about it before, how USA was planning to annihilate USSR (read – Russia) just as WWII was drawing to a close. You can read that first article USA declassifies its plans to nuke 1/3 of planet Earth.

But it’s never too seldom to repeat this, and today’s publication in Russia Insider 204 A-Bombs Against 66 Cities: US Drew up First Plan to Nuke Russia Before WWII Was Even Over does just that.

UPDATE May 2, 2025: the original of the RI article disappeared, so the link is updated with the version stored at the WebArchive. We also update this post to include the complete copy of the article, with all the image. The article at Russia Insider was in turn re-published from South Front, here at the new address.

Our reader, JMF, found two more articles of interest on this topic: From 1945-49 the US and UK planned to bomb Russia into the Stone Age and The First Atomic Stockpile Requirements (September 1945).


“Wipe the Soviet Union Off the Map”: Planned US Nuclear Attack against USSR

This video from South Front is based on the research of Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

Below is the full text of Professor Chossudovsky’ article published by Global Research

According to a secret document dated September 15, 1945, “the Pentagon had envisaged blowing up the Soviet Union with a coordinated nuclear attack directed against major urban areas.

All major cities of the Soviet Union were included in the list of 66 “strategic” targets. The tables below categorize each city in terms of area in square miles and the corresponding number of atomic bombs required to annihilate and kill the inhabitants of selected urban areas.

Six atomic bombs were to be used to destroy each of the larger cities including Moscow, Leningrad, Tashkent, Kiev, Kharkov, Odessa.

The Pentagon estimated that a total of 204 bombs would be required to “Wipe the Soviet Union off the Map”. The targets for a nuclear attack consisted of sixty-six major cities.
Continue reading

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

Reading time: 6 minutes

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.

Agents of Revolution-1. Was Lenin a Spy for Germany?

Reading time: 6 minutes

Marking the centenary of the October Revolution, I am publishing translations of three articles from “Argumenty i Fakty”. The first article in a series of two from 11.04.2012, taking a look at who was Valdimir Uljanov / Lenin. The article is by a reputable historian and writer Nikolai Starikov.


Vladimir Lenin’s journey with a group of friends in a “sealed train” starting from a quiet and well-to-do Switzerland, through Germany and into the revolutionary Russia, that took place exactly 95 years ago (the article is from 2012), gave rise to the rumours that Lenin was a German spy.

This trip that changed the course of the world history, still raises many questions. Chief among them: who helped Lenin to return home? In the spring of 1917 Germany was at war with Russia, and it would have benefited Germans to drop at the heart of the enemy a handful of Bolsheviks who preached the defeat of their government in the imperialist war. But not all is that simple, says the writer and historian Nikolai Starikov, author of the books “Chaos and revolution – weapon of the dollar”, “1917. The answer to “Russian” revolution,” etc.

– If Lenin was a German spy, he would have immediately begun to seek the return to Petrograd through Germany. And would, of course, immediately get a go-ahead. But reality was different. Let’s remember: tiny Switzerland, where Iljich lived, was surrounded by France, Italy, Germany and Austria-Hungary, locked in mortal combat.

There were two ways to leave Switzerland: through an Entente member country or through the territory of its opponents. Lenin initially selects the first option. On the 5th (18th) March (here and further the date in bracket is according to the new style. – Ed.) Inessa Armand receives from him the following telegram: “My Dear friend! We are dreaming about the trip… I would love to give You an assignment in England to learn quietly and surely, if I could pass through. I shake your hand. Yours V.U.”. Between the 2nd (15th) and 6th (19th) of March of 1917, Lenin telegraphs to his colleague Ganetsky in Stockholm, presenting a different plan: to travel to Russia under the guise of… a deaf-mute Swede. While on March the 6th, in a letter to V. A. Karpinsky he suggests: “Buy in your name papers for a journey to France and England, and I will use them to go through England (and Holland) to Russia. I can wear a wig”.

The first mention of Germany as a route appears in a telegram to Karpinsku from Lenin on the 7th (20th) of March – on the 4th day of the search for options. But soon he confesses in a letter to I. Armand: “It does not work out with Germany”. Isn’t it strange? Lenin could not agree with the “accomplices” – the Germans – on the passage through their territory and was for a long time inventing workarounds: either to “quietly” go through England, or in a wig with false documents through France, or to pretend to be deaf and dumb Swede…

Conspiracy of the “allies”

I am convinced that even if there had been some secret agreements between Lenin and the German authorities at that point, they were very vague. Otherwise there would initially be no difficulties with his delivery to Russia. The Germans did not expect a successful February revolution, they did not expect any revolution at all! Because, apparently, they were not preparing any revolution. Then who prepared the February of 1917? For me the answer is obvious: Western “allies” of Russia in the Entente. It is their agents who brought first the workers and then the soldiers out on the streets of Petrograd, while the British and French ambassadors were in charge of these events. It happened unexpectedly, not only for the Germans, but also for the Bolsheviks. Lenin and his comrades were not required until February, the “allied” intelligence agencies were able to organize labour unrest and military rebellion without their aid. But so as to bring the revolutionary process to fulfilment (i.e., the collapse of Russia, which would fully subordinate her to the will of the Atlantic powers), it was required to add fresh yeast to the boiler – in the form of Lenin.

There is every reason to believe that in March 1917 it was the “allied” intelligence that in separate negotiations with the Germans convinced them not to hinder the movement of the Russians-Bolsheviks (i.e. representatives of the enemy country, who, according to the law of war, should have been arrested and put in jail until the end of the war). And the Germans agreed to that.

General Erich Ludendorff wrote in his memoirs: “By sending Lenin to Russia our government assumed a special responsibility. From a military point of view his journey through Germany had its justification: Russia had to collapse into the abyss.” After learning the good news, Lenin was delighted. “You will maybe say that the Germans will not provide a carriage. Let’s bet that they will!” he writes on March the 19th (April 1st) to Inessa Armand. And later, also to her: “We have more money for the trip, than what I anticipated… our comrades in Stockholm helped a lot”. Less than two weeks passed between the two letters to his beloved (“Germany won’t let us pass” and “they’ll give [a carriage]”), and during that time, the United States, Britain and Germany decided the fate of Russia. The Americans provided the necessary for Russian radicals money (indirectly, through the selfsame Germans and Swedes), while the British provided the non-interference from the Provisional Government, which they controlled. In Stockholm – where Lenin and his companions arrived after a long journey by train through Germany, and then by a ferry to Sweden – they easily got a group visa to Russia at the Russian Consulate. Moreover, the Provisional Government even paid for their tickets home from Stockholm! The revolutionaries were met by a guard of honour at the Finland railway station in Petrograd on the 3rd (16th) of April. Lenin gave a speech, which concluded with the words: “Long live the socialist revolution!” But the new government of Russia did not even think of arresting him…

The bucks at his bosom

Another fiery revolutionary, Leon Trotsky (Bronstein), was preparing for a journey home from the United States during those same March days. Like Vladimir Lenin, Lev Davidovich received all the documents from the Russian Consul in New York. On the 14th (27th) of March Trotsky departed with his family from New York on the ship “Kristianiafjord”. However, upon arrival to Canada, he and several of his associates were briefly taken ashore. But soon they were allowed to continue – at the request of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Provisional Government, Pavel Miliukov. An amazing request, isn’t it? Not in the least, if you consider that Milyukov was a personal friend of Jacob Schiff, an American magnate, “chief sponsor” of several Russian revolutions. During the arrest, by the way, it turned out that Trotsky was a U.S. citizen travelling on British transit visa and a visa for entry to Russia.

Additionally, ten thousand dollars were found in his possession – a huge amount at that time, which he could hardly have earned only from the fees for newspaper articles. If that, however, was money for the Russian revolution, then it was only a negligible part. Principal amounts from the American bankers were transferred to the correct accounts of verified people. This was nothing new for Schiff and other financiers of the United States. They allocated funds to the Social Revolutionaries and the Social Democrats in 1905, and also helped those who prepared the February. And now came the time to help the most “hard core” revolutionaries. By the way, in the case of Trotsky, this assistance was almost a family affair: the wife of Lev Davidovich, nee Sedova, was the daughter of a wealthy banker Zhivotovsky – companion of Warburg bankers, and those in turn were companions and relatives of Jacob Schiff.


The second part of the article is called Agents of Revolution-2. How the Leaders of October Repaid their Debts to the Sponsors

100 Year Anniversary of the October Revolution of 1917

Reading time: 3 minutes

This 7th of October 2017 marks the 100 year anniversary of the October (old style) Russian Revolution of 1917.

The event itself was both a curse and a blessing for Russia, a great tragedy and a salvation. Like so many times before and after, Russia rose from the ashes, stronger than what her ill-wishers could possibly imagine. Many controversies are floating around the subject of the Revolution, and many inaccuracies.

Let us start with the first – there were two revolutions. One in February, which actually depose Tzar Nikolai II, and one in October. The February revolution carried all the traits of a colour revolution – from the public unrest (justified, but externally directed), to removal of the current order in the country. There is evidence that the abdication note from Nikolai II is forged. After the February revolution, the temporary government did not have any real power, the country was plunged in a state power vacuum, which was ultimately filled in October/November 1917.

From a bird’s eye view perspective, one can argue that the foundation for the revolution (or what one would call nowadays with the ignomous term of Maidan) were laid much earlier – with the first attempt in 1905. Later, creation of the pretext of WWI, dragging of Russia in to World War (despite Nikolai II’s attempts to avoid it), the October revolution, the Versailles Treaty wich basically made WWII inevitable, and ultimately WWII itself were beads of a string of one single event.

WWI laid the foundations putting for economic strain, and thus social unrest on the pre-WWI economically blossoming Russia. WWI gave Britain hope to weaken and do away with Russia, and for Germany to get “lebensraum” (yes, that term was not coined by Hitler, but prior to WWI, and later adopted by him).

By 1917 Germany badly needed Russia to exit WWI as it overstrained itself, Britain still needed Russia destroyed. Lenin gave promises to both sides, thus getting financing from Britain and free passage from Germany. He also delivered on most, but not all of the promises, ultimately saving Russia from destruction.

British king George V, while granting asylum to a jeweller Carl Faberge, refused such courtesy to cousin of Nikolai II. Britain did not need any legitimate continuity of rule in Russi, it need Russia weakened and dismembered, and Lenin was the demolition man, though luckily for Russia he did not prove as cooperative as Britain had hoped, once in power.

There is an enlightening article at RT, Why didn’t Britain’s king save deposed Russian cousin after revolution? with this photo. Can you tell George V from Nikolai II?

Lada Ray conveyed the above and more in her post What is the Truth about 1917 Bolshevik Revolution? Striking Festival of Light in St. Petersburg, as well as in her informative Webinar INVERTED COLLAPSE USSR’S PAST – WEST’S FUTURE.

I planning on translating three articles from Aigumenty i Fakty pertaining to the financing, ties and movement of Lenin in 1917. Stay tunes.

Britain Re-asserts Its Support for Neo-Nazism in Ukraine. And the Rise of Malorossian Phoenix!

Reading time: 3 minutes

Graham Philips publish today a news article, which in effect highlights Britain’s re-asserted support for neo-Nazism in Ukraine, a regime that the West installed there in 2014 and which has been committing crimes against humanity and war crimes in Donbass ever since!

Rank Injustice, Hypocrisy in the UK – The Case of Ben Stimson and Chris Garrett

I’ve written, and made about this case extensively, and for some time. Now, with the imprisonment of Ben Stimson, and media exposure of that, it’s come to wider attention –

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4697734/Benjamin-Stimson-joined-pro-Russian-militia-jailed.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/british-man-pro-russian-forces-ukraine-jailed-terrorism-benjamin-stimson-a7842521.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-40612229

Interesting that here, the BBC didn’t mention one of the key reasons Ben was sent down, was the BBC’s framing of him –

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV-iJ50GxJ8

And in the BBC article, this quote –

Det Ch Supt Russ Jackson, head of the North West Counter-Terrorism Unit, said: “The images of him holding a rifle and wearing military clothing are deeply concerning.

“He has been jailed for the role he played in a violent conflict and I hope his conviction will send a message to all those who are even considering joining conflicts.”

‘Deeply concerning’. It’s interesting that no-one in UK authority finds Chris Garrett, from the Isle of Man, and his actions in the Ukraine conflict ‘deeply concerning’. Chris, joining a neo-Nazi battalion, and killing in its name, troubles no one in British officialdom.

So, while Ben is now doing over 5 years in Strangeways prison, for, as even the police admit, effectively just posing with a weapon. Chris is over on Ukrainian territory, doing much more than posing with weapons. The fates of the 2 men contrast sharply –

In other monumental news, the Federal State of Malorossiya is created and rising from the Western sponsored Ukro-Nazi destroyed remains of the former Ukraine:

Alexander Zakharchenko announces creation of new state

Today, on July 18, the capital of the Donetsk People’s Republic held a historic event – the signing of a political declaration on the creation of a new state, which will become the legal successor of ‘Ukraine’. The new state formation will consist of 19 regions of the former Ukraine and be called Malorossiya with the center of the new state in Donetsk. Kiev remains a historical and cultural center without the status of the capital city.

“All of us here are going to talk about the future. We propose a plan for the reintegration of the country through the law and the Constitution. We must build a new country in which the concepts of conscience and honour are not forgotten. We offer the citizens of Ukraine a peaceful way out of the difficult situation, without war. This is our last offer not only to the Ukrainians, but also to all countries that supported the civil war in Donbass. I am convinced that we will do everything possible and impossible,” said the Head of the DPR, Alexander Zakharchenko.”

“Malorossiya is a federal state with wide autonomy of the regions. The right of regional languages is guaranteed to be preserved, the flag of Bogdan Khmelnitsky is recognized as the national flag,” Alexander Timofeyev cited the constitutional act.

“The state “Ukraine” showed itself as a failed state and demonstrated the inability to provide its inhabitants with a peaceful and prosperous present and future,” one of the points of the political declaration emphasizes.”

Breaking! American military UAV over Donbass! Plus, 3rd anniversary of the MH-17 shoot-down

Reading time: 3 minutes

Today, on the 3rd anniversary of the Malaysian Airlines MH-17 shoot-down over Ukraine, USA made a surprising appearance over Donbass.

Here is a translation of a report from Argumenty i Fakty of 17th of July 2017:

A strategic unmanned aerial vehicle of the U.S. Air Force RQ-4A Global Hawk made on a Sunday a multi-hour reconnaissance mission along the demarcation line in Donbass, Interfax reports.

It is reported that the machine flew from an air base in Sigonella, Sicily and spent a few hours flying at an altitude of about 17 kilometres from north to south along the demarcation line between Ukraine and the self-proclaimed DNR and LNR, but did not cross it.

After the assignment, it left the Ukrainian airspace north of Moldova.

It is noted that the capabilities of the drone allow it to monitor a radius of up to 300 km, so it could monitor the entire territory of Donbass, and also the border regions of Russia.


A UAV like this flew over Donbass

This leads up to questions of what USA are up to – a preparation for an invasion?

In the meantime, the tragedy of the MH-17 shoot-down is remembered, despite the Western foot-dragging in the investigation, and despite the general withholding of information from the public. Back in 2014 I wrote that Russia will do everything that the MH-17 shoot-down is not forgotten and that the responsible for the atrocity would be found and punished.

RT commemorates the tragedy with the article

MH17 tragedy: Key questions remain unanswered as int’l probe enters 4th year

Three years after Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 crashed in Ukraine, crucial questions about the tragedy remain unanswered as international investigators are tied to dubious theories and seem to pay little attention to data provided by Russia.

Missile type

Continue reading

The USA’s track record of chemical weapons use and ISIS military support.

Reading time: 6 minutes

We’ve all long known that whenever USA “involves” in “democratising” a country, that country turns to dust. Or a radioactive waste. It once started with firebombing and nuking of Japan, then continued with invasion and split up of Korea, then with turning Vietnam into a chemical wasteland with Agent Orange.

But it really took off when USA would no longer be balanced out by Russia and started feeling that it can do whatever it likes without any consequences. It really took off with the invasion of Yugoslavia, splitting it up and turning parts of it (the Serbian Slavic parts) into a radioactive wasteland. Then came Iraq, Lybia, Egypt,

In Ukraine, after the US-sponsored Ukro-Nazi violent coup d’etat, Ukros used white Phosphorus bombs against its own population. Besides Ukraine, only USA and Israel used white Phosphorus against humans.

And now Syria with the US-created ISIS…

Some time ago I translated a documentary Democracy of Mass Destruction, which detailed much of the above. And now the Yugoslavian drama continues. Finally Serbia takes the aggressors to court:

‘Up to 15 tons of depleted uranium used in 1999 Serbia bombing’ – lead lawyer in suit against NATO

An international legal team is preparing a lawsuit against NATO over the alliance’s alleged use of depleted uranium munitions during its bombing of Yugoslavia. These have allegedly caused a rise in cancer-related illnesses across the region over the years.

“The NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999 used between 10 and 15 tons of depleted uranium, which caused a major environmental disaster,” said Srdjan Aleksic, a Serbian lawyer who leads the legal team, which includes lawyers from the EU, Russia, China and India. The legal team was formed by the Serbian Royal Academy of Scientists and Artists.

“In Serbia, 33,000 people fall sick because of this every year. That is one child every day,” he claimed.

NATO’s press office says it’s now aware of Serbia’s allegations, but gave no further comment.

When asked as of why Serbia has decided to sue NATO 19 years after the attacks, the lawyer said “considering the horrific consequences for our population… it is never too late to sue someone who has caused an environmental catastrophe, someone [who] bombed Serbia with a quasi-nuclear weapon, i.e. depleted uranium.”

The Serbian lawyer says 19 countries that were part of NATO at the time need to pay compensation for “for the financial and non-financial damages… to all the citizens who died or fell sick as a proven result of the NATO bombing.”

“We expect the members of NATO to provide treatment to our citizens who are suffering from cancer,” Aleksic said, adding that the bloc “must also provide the necessary technology and equipment to remove all traces of the depleted uranium” from Serbia.

“The use of banned weapons” by the US-led military alliance in the Balkans “was a violation of all the international conventions and rules that protect people” from such kind of weapons, the lawyer claimed, adding that NATO also used depleted uranium in Iraq in 1991.

But USA is still continuing with its atrocities and uses chemical weapons, only admitting to it, when backing out and shifting blame becomes completely impossible:

US-led coalition admits use of white phosphorus in Mosul amid mounting criticism

A New Zealand general has confirmed that the US-led coalition fighting in Mosul has used munitions loaded with white phosphorus. It comes amid mounting criticism over the use of the multipurpose weapon, which can be extremely dangerous to civilians.

US admits using toxic depleted uranium against ISIS in Syria

More than 5,000 rounds of depleted uranium (DU) ammunition were used in two attacks on Islamic State oil tankers in eastern Syria, the US military has confirmed. The US-led coalition previously pledged it would not use the controversial ordnance.

The strategy is still the same – poison the land and make it uninhabitable if you fail to completely take over it. And it looks like USA are failing to take over Syria. In their last attempt they resort to attacking Syrian forces in Syria, claiming they pose danger to the invading (!) American forces.

Tomahawk missile strike on Syria was ‘after-dinner entertainment’ – US commerce secretary
US strikes pro-govt forces in Syria, shoots down drone
US-led coalition downs Syrian army plane in southern Raqqa

In Russia they are exasperated and started to call the spade for the spade, discarding the protocol:

US-led coalition’s downing of Syrian plane ‘act of aggression’ & ‘support for terrorists’ – Moscow

“What is it then, if not an act of aggression, an act directly in breach of international law,” Ryabkov told journalists in Moscow.

“If you want, it’s actually help for the terrorists the US is fighting, declaring that they are conducting a counterterrorism policy,” the official added.

Ryabkov added that he believed the strike “should be first of all regarded as the continuation of the US agenda of neglecting the norms of international law. Regardless of who has power in Washington, people there are used to the fact that there are circumstances allowing them to arrogantly look down on – and in some situations, to openly ignore – the basics of international relations.”

And Russia is going to act upon it. Next time an American war plane tries some such atrocity in the foreign skies, it will be shot:

Russian military halts Syria sky incident prevention interactions with US as of June 19 – Moscow

“In the areas of combat missions of Russian air fleet in Syrian skies, any airborne objects, including aircraft and unmanned vehicles of the [US-led] international coalition, located to the west of the Euphrates River, will be tracked by Russian ground and air defense forces as air targets,” the Russian Ministry of Defense stated.

The ministry emphasized that Russian warplanes were on a mission in Syrian airspace during the US-led coalition’s attack on the Syrian Su-22, while the coalition failed to use the communication line to prevent an incident.

“The command of the coalition forces did not use the existing communication channel between the air commands of Al Udeid Airbase (in Qatar) and the Khmeimim Airbase to prevent incidents in Syrian airspace.”

Russia tried to act a a gentleman with the USA, warning and talking, but the USA acts and understands only bullying and force, so force they shall get

The American action in Syria may seem stupid and reckless acts of invasion. They are indeed invasion of a sovereign state, but they are not reckless. They have a goal of pushing the ISIS forces towards the government positions, but before that weakening the Syrian forces and not allowing them to take on ISIS first. that would have allowed USA to secure for itself about 60% of Eastern Syria and potentially splitting the country in two, like what they did with Korea. Take a look at the following situation maps from Rossi Barbera’s analytical blog post series “Never fight with the Russians”:


Left: Real situation of the 25th of May. Right: hypothetical situation if the US-supported forces succeeded.


And this (in green) would have been the de-facto US controlled part of Syria in case of American success and the Syrian forces’ failure.

That is the real reason and goal for the Amerecans bombing Syrians and supporting ISIS.

The following Op-Edge describes it really well:

‘US becoming de facto defense shield for Islamic State in Syria’

Washington’s Political Propaganda Tool – “Golodomor” (famine) in Ukraine

Reading time: 9 minutes

In this article I want to cover the topic of the so-called “Golodomor” (death by starvation), the term which was coined by the US Congress in 1988 as a tool targeting USSR, so as to foment discord and chip away the borderlands – Ukraine. The period of starvation in USSR of 1930s did indeed happen, but it was not exclusive to Ukraine and did not have such a scale, as claimed by the followers of the Washington directive.

To put that into personal perspective, my great-grandmother on maternal line died of famine, and he family lived in Southern Siberia (Altai Krai), one of the most fertile regions of Russia.

In 2014 Lada Ray wrote an extensive in-depth article The Real Truth About USSR: Golodomor and Collectivization in Ukraine, which I strongly recommend everyone to read, including the comments, and Lada’s replies to them. Here is a short fragment:

Back to collectivization and golodomor (= death from starvation): it took place in the early 1930s. It happened for several reasons: 1. Peasants sometimes didn’t care for fields and cattle that they felt wasn’t theirs after it was taken into kolkhozes. 2. Sabotage, burning and poisoning of cattle and fields by foreign agents. 3. Mistakes of authorities, both central and local. 4. Several bad years of drought and poor harvest in parts of Russia and Ukraine.

This is very important! Collectivization and golodomor were NOT Ukraine-specific phenomenons. Same exact results from collectivization happened in rich agricultural areas of Russia, such as Povolzhie and Kuban. In fact, the real hunger was in Povolzhie (the Volga region). Golodomor is a Russian word, not Ukrainian. Everyone suffered. So, making this into a Ukraine-specific issue is clearly a disgusting propaganda ploy.

There was never a secret made of golodomor in Russia – as a child I studied it in my Soviet history books. Perhaps, Russians were a little too self-punishing about it. The overall cost of golodomor was probably two hundred thousand lives, and it was a huge tragedy. I doubt more than 20,000 died in Ukraine. Much, much more died in Russia.

3 years have passed since that publication, but Washington is loath to abandon the propaganda line that brought so many dividends, and so this card is being played in the US, with the latest development of the State of Washington passing a “Golodomor” resolution… Below I am presenting a translation of an article by Ukrainian historian and political analyst in exile Rostislav Ishchenko with the title “Washington’s Genocide: USA speculates on the topic of starvation in Ukraine”.

But before we embark on reading of this article, let us keep in mind the developments in the United States of 1932-1933. During these years – the years of Great Depression – 7,5 million Americans died of hunger, while at the same time Roosevelt’s government destroyed crops and stock so as not to allow further depression of the prices on the foods market. Try to find demographic statistics for USA for 1932 – you will not be able to, as data for that year is mysteriously missing. So here we have another example of projection, so actively used in the American politics, or, simply put, a case of a teapot calling a kettle…

Incidentally, in many Ukrainianophilic publications you will see the Ukrainised term “holodomor”, which sounds stupid to the Slavic ear – “holod” means “cold”, so the derived term becomes “death from freezing”…


The Ukrainian Embassy in the USA can be congratulated with another large necrophiliac “victory.” The Senate of the State of Washington (located on the Pacific coast, not to be confused with the U.S. capital Washington, D.C. located on the Potomac river, near its confluence with the Atlantic ocean) adopted a resolution recognizing the so-called Golodomor (ukr.: Holodomor) as “genocide orchestrated by Joseph Stalin and the Soviet regime against the Ukrainian people”.

Until now a resolution which called Golodomor for a “man-made famines” was passed on 19 August 2016 by the Assembly of the State of California. There are still 48 “unstarved” States remaining and therefore, another 48 potential “victories” of Ukrainian diplomacy.

This, however, cannot change the official U.S. view on this issue. The fact is that in 1984, actively fighting against the USSR, Ronald Reagan created a Commission to study the 1932-1933 famine in Ukraine (Mace Commission, named after its President, James Mace). The Commission predictably concluded that “Stalin and his entourage committed genocide against Ukrainians in 1932-1933”.

US still occasionally refers to the opinion of the Mace Commission, but they are yet to dare to officially legalize its findings at the Federal level. Moreover, the James Mace complained that after the Commission’s findings were made public, the doors of the academic institutions in the United States became closed to him.

This reaction of the American scientific community is natural. In the 80-ies of the last century, politicians in Washington still did not have a monopoly on truth, and scientists valued their reputation. It is therefore not surprising that attempts to confirm the findings of the Mace Commission failed. The International commission created in 1988 by the initiative of the “world Congress of free Ukrainians” with the goal of investigating the famine, upset their customers, finding no evidence neither of the artificial nature of the famine nor of the intention to destroy the Ukrainian nation.

It was actually after this that the theme of famine stalled for several years. It was too difficult, without losing objectivity, to explain why in the course of the famine, ostensibly aimed at the destruction of the Ukrainians, the greatest losses were in the rural population of Kazakhstan (nearly 31% of the total) and the Volga region (23% of the total). While in the Ukraine and the Caucasus (where famine was also raging) the losses amounted to 20.5% and 20.4% respectively of the total rural population.

There is no accurate data on the victims of the Great famine of 1932-1933 in the USSR. The range of researchers’ estimates is extremely large: from 2-2.5 million to 7-8 million people in the whole Soviet Union. the figure of 6-7 million seems to be closest to reality, because, according to the official data, only on the territory of the RSFSR, excluding Ukraine and Kazakhstan, 2.5 million people died of hunger. The number of famine victims in Ukraine is estimated by the conscientious researchers to be 2-3 million (the lower limit being 1.5 million).

As we can see, the numbers are comparable. In addition, Ukraine of the 1930s was a multinational republic. Much more multinational than it is now. It is enough to note that the proportion of the Jewish population of Ukraine in the pre-war years amounted to 5-6% percent, while now it less than 0.5% of the total population. In Ukraine (in addition to the returned Crimean Tatars [translator note: here Ishchenko makes a mistake – in the 1930s of which the article is about, Crimea was not in Ukraine, so the Tatar population should be counted towards RSFSR or USSR total]) there also lived a later expelled (but never returned) large Greek, Armenian and German communities. The famine decimated all without asking nationality and not checking the passport data.

Moreover, hunger was particularly rampant in the Left-bank Ukraine, that is in regions with a high share, and even with the predominance of the Russian population. While the most vocal about the famine Western Ukraine was at that time actually a part of the Polish state, so if anyone organized an artificial famine on its territory, it not the Bolsheviks, but the civilized Europeans.

Nevertheless, after Ukraine gained its independence, starting in the mid 90-ies, the topic of the famine-genocide became more and more actively used by the Kiev authorities as political – especially international – trump card. Moreover, the subject was immediately given a Russophobic nature, even though Kiev initially denied this fact.

It is clear that if there actually was a genocide, it would imply that there was a customer (beneficiary) of this genocide, and the goal was specifically in the destruction of the nation. That is, Ukraine initially stressed that the famine was organized by Moscow and directed against Ukrainians as a nation, though in fact it mowed down peasants of all nationalities. And the reasons for it were known. It was a mix of both the “dizziness from success” in the collective construction, and crop failure, and overestimated grain procurement plans, and the inadequacy of local leadership, which for the sake of implementation of the plan, removed from the peasants even the seeding grain (as a result, the main impact of the famine came in 1933, when in some places the bread could not even be sown).

So as to prove the theory of Golodomor genocide, Kiev began to arbitrarily increase the number of famine victims in Ukraine. This was done in order to make Ukraine seemed the most affected in comparison with other localities of the USSR. Thus first appeared the figure of 6-7 million victims of the famine in Ukraine. The same political “researchers” lowered the figure for the rest of the Soviet Union down to 2.5 million.

And then Yushchenko came to power. This is where it all took off. Viktor Andrrevich Yushchenko was not satisfied with the already existing fraud. He immediately declared that Holodomor is the Ukrainian Holocaust. But by the end of the first year of his reign, Yushchenko claimed that the famine scale was greater than that of the Holocaust, and estimated the number of victims in 10 million people. A year later, Yushchenko already spoke of 10-15 million.

They had to stop at that, because the world ceased to pity Ukraine and began to laugh at her. It is easy to calculate that with 1932-1933 UkSSR’s population of 31-32 million people, every second or third inhabitant of the Republic had to die according to Yushchenko. Since the famine covered the territory unevenly, a significant portion of UkSSR would have to become a desert with abandoned cities and ghost villages. But painting up the atrocities of the Communist regime, Yushchenko did not stop at that and argued that up to ten million Ukrainians were dispossessed, exiled to Siberia where most perished.

That is, the Republic should have actually been losing population. It is unclear who then fought in the Great Patriotic War, which really killed seven or eight million inhabitants of pre-war UkSSR of all nationalities.

Currently Kiev does not operate with any approved (not even speaking of proven) number of famine victims, but voiced figures are never reduced below six or seven million, periodically returning to Yushchenko’s exorbitant eight to ten million.

In general, the history of the Ukrainian genocide is akin to the history of test-tube, which Colin Powers was shaking at the meeting of the UN Security Council, demanding international legalisation of the American invasion of Iraq. But in its extreme manifestations it is even more absurd and cynical. Bringing the number of victims to the point of absurdity in a futile attempt to prove genocide, the Ukrainian politicians and “scientists” relegated the real tragedy of millions of people to the grotesque. While the attempt to present Ukrainians as the sole victims of the famine, denying the millions of Kazakhs, Russians, representatives of the peoples of the Caucasus, who in those same years suffered this painful death, the right to memory and sympathy is beyond the bounds of morality and common sense.

Resolutions akin to that adopted by the Senate of the State of Washington are of short-term political nature. This is evidenced by the fact that of the 18 (including Ukraine) countries that recognized Golodomor as genocide of the Ukrainian people, 9 did so before the Supreme Rada of Ukraine itself enacted it as a law on 28 November 2006. Moreover, Estonia and Australia recognized Golodomor as genocide in October 1993 (13 years before Kiev). They knew better than the Ukrainians themselves.

One can be happy on behalf of the Ukrainian diplomacy, which has a virtually unlimited space for further “victories”. If they actively work with Lesotho, Swaziland, Island States of Polynesia, Melanesia and Micronesia, the number of countries, professionally recognising Golodomor as genocide, can double.

The Legacy of Brzezinski – The rise of Taliban and the Islamic terrorism

Reading time: 6 minutes

I feel very much compelled to repost most of the Op-Edge article by Neil Clark, published at RT, called World in flames – the deadly legacy of Cold War warrior Brzezinski. The article takes a much needed look at the events surrounding the creation of Taliban, and the role that the newly-departed Brzezinski played in it, and, consequently, in the rise of the global Islamic terrorist threat, as well as in the scenarios for destruction of Iraq, Libya, and Syria.

It is said that history repeats itself, and in this regard the mind wanders to the very recent times (from the Russian historic perspective), when another Polish ex-pat by the name of General Michal Sokolnitsky was advising Napoleon on how easy it would be to conquer Russia, turning Crimea into a second French Reviere, while Poland getting the Western Russian counties… And we all know how that went. Those who don’t, should research the origin of the word “Bistro”.


2017 has been a very bloody year for Afghanistan, with the UN Assistance Mission reporting more than 2,100 civilians were killed or injured between January and March.

None of this was mentioned when the establishment eulogies to Brzezinski started pouring in.

“I was one of several presidents who benefited from his wisdom and counsel,” said Barack Obama.

Former Presidents George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter also paid generous tributes. But while our condolences go out to Brzezinski’s family and friends at this difficult time, any objective assessment of what ‘Zbig’ actually achieved as US National Security Advisor would have to conclude that his influence was disastrous not just for the people of Afghanistan, but for the world as a whole. Put simply; the world would now be a much safer place if Brzezinski had used his considerable intellectual skills in pursuits other than global politics.

Zbig’s obsession in the late 1970s was with giving the Soviet Union their own Vietnam. Appointed President Carter’s National Security Advisor in 1977 Brzezinski found himself at loggerheads with Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, a man of peace who genuinely wanted to strengthen detente with Moscow.

Brzezinski’s anti-Soviet strategy was two-fold. Firstly, to aggressively promote the issue of human rights, the so-called ‘third basket’ of the 1975 Helsinki Accords, as a means of destabilizing the eastern bloc.

“Brzezinski recognized the political advantage to be had from the human rights issue, for it put pressure on the Soviet Union and rallied opposition to Moscow,” said Jeremy Isaacs and Taylor Downing in their book Cold War. But there was great hypocrisy at play here, as ‘Zbig’ was quite happy to work with governments whose human rights records were far worse than that of the Soviet Union’s to achieve his objectives.

The second strand of his strategy was to try to entice the Kremlin to send troops into Afghanistan.

To understand how Afghanistan became a new and crucial front in the Cold War we have to go back to the summer of 1973. King Mohammed Zahir Shah, who had governed the country since 1933, was deposed by his cousin Mohammed Daoud Khan with the help of Afghan communists. Daoud though continued his country’s non-aligned policy and liked to say by way of illustration that he was “ready to light his American cigarettes with Russian matches.”

However, the government in Kabul was increasingly courted by the US and tempted with offers of aid. Daoud banned the communist People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan and dismissed Soviet-trained army officers. The result was the so-called ‘Saur Revolution,’ which brought the pro-Soviet Nur Muhammad Taraki to power in April 1978.

“The left-wing government initiated reforms of land ownership and encouraged women to join literacy classes alongside men,” record Isaacs and Downing.

Hardline Islamic clerics weren’t too happy and religious opposition to the left-wing government grew. Brzezinski saw a great opportunity to back the anti-government Mujahedeen or ‘Soldiers of God.’ It’s a commonly held, but erroneous view, that the US only started to support the fundamentalist ‘rebels’ after the Soviet tanks had rolled into Kabul at Christmas 1979.

In fact, US financial assistance for anti-government forces had begun BEFORE the invasion- and was expressly designed to provoke a Soviet military response. In 1998 Brzezinski admitted that he had got President Carter to sign the first order for secret aid to ‘rebels’ in July 1979 a full five months before the Soviets intervened.

“I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion, this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention,” Brzezinski said. Even before that, US officials had been meeting with ‘rebel’ leaders. While in 1977 Zbig had set up the Nationalities Working Group – whose goal was to weaken the Soviet Union by stirring up ethnic and religious tensions.

The Kremlin was faced with a terrible dilemma. It was damned if it did intervene to help the beleaguered Afghan government, and damned if it didn’t. There was a fear Islamic fundamentalism if prevailing in Afghanistan after the Islamic Revolution in Iran, could spread to the Soviet Union itself and on top of this NATO had agreed to site Pershing and Cruise missiles in Europe.

But still the Kremlin, perhaps suspecting a trap was being set for them, was reluctant to commit ground troops. Taraki pleaded with Moscow for more assistance and visited the Kremlin in September 1979. But not long afterward Taraki himself was toppled (and killed by suffocation with pillows) with his Prime Minister Hafizullah Amin, taking over as president. Moscow believed that Amin was getting ready to pivot toward the west.

The Kremlin finally decided to act, even though there was still opposition from within the Politburo. On 24th December 1979, Brzezinski got the Christmas present from ‘Santa’ Brezhnev that he had long wanted. “The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter, essentially: ‘We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam War,’” he later admitted. Cyrus Vance urged a diplomatic solution, but unfortunately, Carter listened to Zbig.

The national security advisor flew to Pakistan in early 1980 and posed, two years before the first Rambo film, for photographs holding a Chinese-made machine gun at the Khyber Pass. “Your cause is right, and God is on your side,” he told the assembled holy warriors.

Over the next decade, billions of dollars of aid and weaponry from the US and their allies poured in for the Islamist rebels, euphemistically labeled ‘freedom fighters.’

In 1982, Ronald Reagan even dedicated the Space Shuttle Columbia to the anti-government fighters.

“The struggle of the Afghan people represents man’s highest aspiration for freedom,” the President declared.

It wasn’t just Afghan ‘rebels’ who were fighting against the socialist government in Kabul. Encouraged and equipped by the US and their allies, between 25,000 and 80,000 fighters came in from other countries.

Hawks in Washington, following Brzezinski’s anti-Moscow lead, did all they could to prevent a diplomatic solution to the conflict. The aim, to use Zbig’s phrase, was to “make the Soviets bleed as much and as long as is possible.”

Mikhail Gorbachev’s warnings about the dangers of Islamic fundamentalism and a hardliner takeover of Afghanistan having far-reaching global consequences went unheeded. The Taliban and Al-Qaeda grew out of the Mujahedeen and then many years later, the US led an invasion of Afghanistan to try and get rid of the Taliban. But the Taliban is still there (as is ISIS and Al-Qaeda) and has just launched a deadly new spring offensive.

Afghanistan has known nothing but war these last forty or so years and Brzezinski’s desire to give the Soviet Union “its Vietnam War” has an awful lot to do with it.

Not only that but his strategy of backing jihadists to destabilize and help bring down secular, socialistic governments friendly to the Soviet Union or Russia has been copied in other countries, such as Libya and Syria with such devastating consequences nationally and internationally.

Not that the ‘great man’ showed any remorse for what he had done. Far from it. In 1998 he was asked: “Do you regret having supported Islamic fundamentalism, which has given arms and advice to future terrorists?” Brzezinski replied: “What was more important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some agitated Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?”

When his interviewer then countered with “Some agitated Moslems”? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today, Brzezinski’s response was to say ‘Nonsense.’

In 2008 when he was asked again about his Afghanistan policies Brzezinski said “I would not hesitate to do it again.” When we look back at the disagreements in 1979 and 1980 between Zbig and the more cautious Cyrus Vance, who labeled Brzezinski “evil” time has surely shown us who was right and who was wrong. If only Vance and not the too-clever-by-half academic had prevailed.

“Russian Soldier Saved the World” – WWII memorial song by Artyom Grishanov

Reading time: 5 minutes

Now that Victory Day – the 9th of May – is drawing close, we constantly see the ever-increasing attempts to re-write the history of WWII and to erase the Russian-Soviet victory which cost us 21 million people’s lives.

So does grow the importance of remembrance and of not allowing to have this memory to become sullied. Song has always been one of the strongest conduits of people’s emotions and memory, and the song below is a very emotional tribute and reminder.

Artjom Grishanov has the talent for condensing the essence of a topic into a few well-selected strong words, backed by equally concise and poignant imagery. Russian soldier saved the world shows in no uncertain terms what the West wants to have remaining of the memory, and what we really should be remembering. Please, take a moment to listen to it (with English subtitles) and to remember.

Transcript of the documentary and the song

UPDATE from November of 2023. The transcript below was done for our new Telegram channel “Beorn and The Shieldmaiden”, and published there in two parts: part 1, part 2.

Russian news anchor:
“Polish authorities intend to demolish more than 500 Soviet monuments. We are talking about the monuments erected in gratitude to the USSR for liberating this country from fascism.”

Some liberal speaking in Russian:
“These are all the pillars of the empire. Since the empire has been in the dumpster of history for 25 years, all these pillars must be sent there as well”

Ukrainian nationalists intimidating a WWII veteran (spoken in both Ukrainian and Russian):
“For your own safety, I recommend you to sit at home, calmly, quietly and to not provoke people.”
“Today you are punished.”

Intimidation of veterans on the 9th of May in Ukraine.
“- Get away those red rags”
“- How can you insult the memory of the veterans?”

On a talk show, a liberal, then confronted by the hostess of the show:
“- Yes, a person worries about the most precious and hides it. This is normal, in principle.”
“- Do not mix up a veteran with Pinocchio. He does not hide the most precious thing, he hides what is sacred.”

Some liberal:
“I understand why you hold on to the past so hard. It’s because everything is bad for you in the present, while you probably have no future at all”

President Putin:
“All attempts to distort, rewrite history are unacceptable and immoral. Oft-times, a desire to hide one’s own dishonour is behind such attempts.”

Poroshenko:
“The soldiers of the UPA are remembered as an example of heroism in relation to Ukraine.”

Yatsenjuk:
“We all remember the Soviet invasion of both Ukraine and Germany.

François Hollande, the president of France:
“They were our liberators. France will never forget what it owes to those soldiers, what it owes to the United States.”

Some Polish radio host:
“Why did we all get so used to the fact that Moscow is the place where the end of war is celebrated, and not, for example, London or Berlin, which would have been more natural?”

President Putin:
“It only occasionally seems to us that they are speaking some kind of delirium nonsense. Pure nonsense. That it will slip past and no one will notice. No, you see, this is being implanted into the minds of millions of people.”

US citizens asked on the street:
“Who had the largest role, the most casualties in the fight against the Nazis during the Second World War?”
“- I am not totally [sure?]. Is it not the US?
“- France?”
“- Can you think of another country?”
“- America.”
“- Japan lost. Russia lost.”
“- Seriously? Which country took Berlin? Which army?”
“- The United States?”
“- I say the United States of America.”
“- The United States, Great Britain, France.
“- How about the Soviet Union?”
“- Yeah.”
“- It was the former Soviet Union?”
“- Oh, actually, it was Russia or the Soviet Union that had the most casualties. What’s you reaction to this? Are you surprised?”
“- Just, please, don’t put this on TV.”

The lyrics of the song:

Such a short memory –
It didn’t last even for 100 years.
Such a great impudence –
To cast a shadow over the memory of the victories.

The traitor chokes, spitting fire,
Looking askance at out Parade.
Oh, how he doesn’t like the truth that
Russian soldier saved the world.

Levitan’s radio announcement, chronicles:
“Today, on the 22nd of June, at four o’clock in the morning, without a declaration of war, the German troops attacked our country.”

The earth was torn to shreds
And the people were awakened by the war.
The horde invaded in the early morning,
Burning houses behind them.

The blow was devastating,
But the victory escaped their grip.
The enemy encountered the unheard of force –
The Russian spirit.

Chronicles:
“Today, not only Moscow is behind us, not only our vast Motherland. Today, the whole world is looking at us, holding its breath.”

It’s not enough to just kill it.
Just try to fell it to the ground.
It will gnaw with its teeth,
Even in an unequal battle.

The force was becoming stronger, day by day,
Just not a step back.
And the news broke out like thunder:
Russian soldier saved the world.
Russian soldier saved the world.
Russian soldier saved the world.

Meanwhile those who surrendered their cities
In the first days of the war,
Do not wish and will never comprehend
The joy of the Russian soul.

In the happy and torn-asunder May,
The Nazis’ hell was stopped.
Remember, never forget:
Russian soldier saved the world.
Russian soldier saved the world.

Then and now.

Quote:
“The gravest mistake is to dismiss the Russians, to consider the Russian people weak.”
“God forbid you mistreat or rob the Russians. They will return, demolishing any obstacle in their path.”
“Russians love peace, Russians build peace, Russians defend peace. Russians do not want war, but they can fight better, than anyone.”



The motto of the 9th of May: I Remember. I Am Proud. In the colours of the St. George Ribbon.

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

Reading time: 9 minutes

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.

Continue reading

The ”Wild ’90s” in Russia, as reflected in people’s memory. Part 2.

Reading time: 11 minutes

Two years ago I published an article The ”Wild ’90s” in Russia, as reflected in people’s memory, where I translated one testimonial of a survivor of the Yeltsin’s “Wild ’90s” in Russia. Such survivors are many, yet many more perished – in Russia more people died during Yeltsin than during WWII. In that article I also detailed Yeltsin’s coup d’etat of November 1993.

Now, a few days ago, the ignominious Navalny organised an “anti-corruption” rally in Moscow and several of Russia’s cities. I am not going to go into the details of how only 8000 people out of the 12 million population of Moscow was seen at this colour revolution attempt. I will not go into details of how Navalny turned to the political paedophilia, luring school-aged kids onto the streets with the promise of paying them €10000 if they manage to get arrested, and how the “political speeches” of said kids said that they want to buy sneakers. The use of kids seems to be in the instruction book of any colour revolt worth its name (see “protests” against Charles de Gaulle). I will not go into the details of how Navalny – a jobless man – manages to own expensive car, finance organisation of revolts and produce Hollywood-class films, and why this corruption fighter has several criminal corruption cases over him regarding illegal forest deals.

What I want to go into detail about, is the main chant of Navalny and co., of all the anti-Russian, Russophobic traitors organising such revolts: “Putin must go”. That’s all of their agenda. They say absolutely nothing about how Russia should be governed or about the future. At best they position themselves as the next presidents and say a few abstract words about how there’ll be no corruption and everyone will be equal. Aha! The same manifestos were proclaimed in 1917. And in 1991.

And this is what I am coming towards. All the Navalny-class “liberals” are aiming to bring Russia to the condition of the Yeltsin’s 1993-1999 era. The Desolation of Yeltsin as I like to call it, referring to the Desolation of Smaug.

By 1999 the “progress and democracy” in Russia reached such levels that the population was dying out from hunger, military and statehood all but destroyed. Foreign NATO-sponsored Islamic insurgency in Chechenia was at its peak. Here is a link to an article from Lenta.ru from 29.09.1999 with the telling title “Russia begs USA for a little more food”. Sad and detrimental, yet it fully reflects the reality of those days.

Continue reading

Yes, Scythians Are Us! (Documentary with EngSubs)

Reading time: 23 minutes

In 2014 Russian TV channel Culture aired a documentary, looking through the depth of time, trying to decipher who are Scythians, Sarmatians, Slavs and Russians, if they are one and the same people. The conclusion was mostly positive – yes, they are. The authors looked at the data from the chronicles, archaeology, linguistics and genetics, weighing arguments both for and against.

The film’s conclusion is open, and in a typical Russian way advocating peace and cooperation of all peoples, whoever their ancestors may be.

I want to add one material to better illustrate the point, made at 24:04, and citing Lavrentij Chronicles. I have the copies of those texts, and present the excerpt below with the words “Great Scythia” highlighted.


In the year 6415 Oleg went against Greece, having left Igor in Kiev; taking the multitude of Varjags, Slovens, Chudis, Krivichis, Merjus, Poljans, Severjan (Northerners), Drevljans (elder ones), Radimichis, Horvats (Croats), Dulebs, Tiverce, who are known as Tolkovny (Tolmachi – interpreters): and together they are called the Great Scythia (Velikaja Skuf’). And together with all of these Oleg went astride horses and in the ships, and the ships were counting 2000. And when they arrived at Czargrad, and Greece…

One notable thing, besides the mention of the Scythians as a collective name of the Slav people, is the date: year 6415. That is a separate topic of the Russia calendar, that was discarded by Peter I, and which lead to shortening and subsequent rewriting of the Russian history to suit the needs of the influentially growing Germanic aristocracy that was slowly taking over Russia’s political life at that time. I am going to publish a separate article about it soon.

Addendum: a 1531 map of Orontius Finaeus (Oronce Finé) came to my attention:

Orontius Finaeus map of 1531

Leaving aside the fact that it shows the coastline of Antarctica, uncovered by ice – probably from before the quite recent Flood time, when that continent’s coastline was accessible, we can look at the following part of Eurasia and see…

Scytia – mentioned twice, as well as Tartaria, Russia, and Bulgaria – the latter where it was supposed to start, along the Volga (Volgari-Bolgari) river bank, East from the Crimean meridian.

And now, on to the documentary…

The formatted subtitle file in ASS format can be downloaded separately. Full text of the script is below the video frame.


Yes, Scythians Are Us! at Rumble

Continue reading

Will Russia have to fend off NATO invasion too..?

Reading time: 4 minutes

The image below speaks volumes, without words. It speaks of Russia’s history past, and of the precarious future. The Russian Bear sitting on his land of old, looking with suspicion at the ever growing tentacles of the US/NATO, already consuming neighbouring lands in blood – Yugoslavia, former Ukraine – Malorossia and Novorossia, Middle-East. And besides The Bear is a compost heap of history, where one can see the the tentacles of the past that dared to choke Russia and got pruned. Will Russia again be forced to end another war that someone starts in the hopes of eliminating Russia, freedom, history, from the face of the world?

For those, not so well-versed in history, here is what the dates in the compost heap of history signify. I added a few more – on average Russia got invaded once every 50 years, and this time is not different, though the method of warfare changed.

  • 1242 – The Germanic Teutonic invasion and the Ice Battle on the Ladoga lake.
  • 1612 – Polish invasion into Russia and occupation of Moscow. Beaten by the people’s militia of Minin and Pozharskij, the memorial to whom you will find on the Beautiful Square in Moscow.
  • 1709 – Karl XII of Sweden said that “Russia is a dwarf, whom I shall put on its knees” and attacked. After that Sweden lost its status of a superpower.
  • 1759 – (not on the image). Freidrich I moved against Russia with the words “I shall conquer the backward Russia” and in 1759 Russian army entered Berlin.
  • 1812 – Napoleon is famous for his saying that “Russia is a giant on clay feet”. This giant made the Napoleonic army turn in 1812 after the battle of Borodino and a tactical surrender of Moscow, and in 1814 Russian army was marching down the streets of Paris. By the way, Russian Don Cossacks also had to restore some of Europe, for which they were promptly forgotten.
  • 1854-1855 – (not on the image) French, Brits and Turks attacked Crimea, and Russia held the defence of Sevastopol. Russia won that war, which in reality lasted between 1853 and 1856, and was the first really world war. Brits presented the history otherwise, claiming victory in the “Crimean War”, which was really only one of many battles. But if they won, how come Crimea remained Russian?
  • 1914-1918 – First World War, or the “War of 4 Cousins”, Russia had nothing to win in that war and got mixed in it responding to a provocation (much the same as what the West hoped to achieve in Ukraine, yet it didn’t work this time). Though Russia was on the winning side, the country got destroyed in the process.
  • 1918-1920 – The Civil War. Still Russia managed to hold its own against the subsequent foreign intervention and even chased the Poles (who tried to repeat their failure of 1612) from Moscow suburbs to Warsar. At that very time when time the Republican senator from the State of Washington, Miles Poindexter, was saying that: “Russia has become just a geographical concept, and it will never be anything more than this. Her power of rallying, organizing, and rebuilding is gone forever. The nation does not exist…”
  • 1941-1945 – Hitler proclaimed that he’d conquer USSR by the end of 1941. In 1945 Russian troops entered Berlin (again, as in 1759 – they never learn).
  • 2014 NATO – Obama famously said a few years back that “Russia is only a regional power, and US will destroy its economy”. When will the pruning begin, and have the streets of Washington been prepared for the welcoming of the liberating army..?

As I wrote earlier, Russia Means Peace, Russia loves peace, but knowing it’s own history of defence, it is always prepared to end wars.

For those suffering from historic amnesia, here is a song of revelations from Artjom Grishanov – Russian Soldier Saved the World (with English subtitles of the news items showcasing history rewriting, and of the lyrics):

In his article Washington’s Benevolent Mask Is Disintegrating Paul Craig Roberts writes:

By orchestrating Russophobia in the West, Washington has put all of humanity at risk. The Russians have watched Washington’s false accusations against Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Libya, Yeman, Pakistan, Iran and against Russia herself—“invasion of Ukraine.” False accusations have in the 21st century always been Washington’s set-up of the target country for invasion or bombing.

These provocations issued daily by the idiot Western press, the idiot Western governments, and the idiot commentators have prepared the groundwork for a misunderstanding that can result in thermo-nuclear war and the end of life on earth.

When you read the New York Times, the Washington Post, or listen to CNN, NPR, or MSNBC or the British, Canadian, German, French, and Australian media, you are being indoctrinated with war with Russia (and China) and, thus, you are being prepared for your funeral.

Hopefully it will not come to this, for Russia will do its utmost to preserve this good Earth.

And as an after word, the picture below is well-known by now (with the correction, that Kazahstan never had a NATO base, though some of the neighbouring republics did have advisors):