Tag Archives: Russia

Everything about Russia in all its incarnations through the centuries – Rus Tzardom, Russian Empire, USSR, Rusian Federation.

June 22 is the Day Of Memory And Sorrow in Russia – statement from the Foreign Ministry of the RF

Posted on by
Reading time: 4 minutes

June 22 is the Day Of Memory And Sorrow in Russia, the the most tragic date in the modern history of our country.

From the statement at the Telegram channel of the Foreign Ministry of the Russian Federation.

On this day 8️⃣4️⃣ years ago — on June 22, 1941 — the Soviet Union was attacked, unprovoked and without a declaration of war, by the Nazi Germany and its European cronies, which unleashed the full might of its vicious war machine. For our people on that day the Great Patriotic War began — the bloodiest and most brutal, devastating and terrible war, which lasted 1418 days and claimed lives of some 27 million Soviet citizens.

Obsessed with the ideas of racial superiority, the Hitlerites and their henchmen in Europe planned to wipe entire nations off the face of the Earth, and the survivors left — to turn into slaves of the Third Reich. The Germans invaded our country with one goal — to physically annihilate the Soviet people, to destroy our nation’s centuries-old cultural and spiritual heritage — the Nazis and their allies carried out a genocide.

2️⃣2️⃣.0️⃣6️⃣.1️⃣9️⃣4️⃣1️⃣

At dawn at 4 am, the enemy aviation launched massive strikes on airfields, railway stations, Soviet naval bases, deployments of the Red Army forces and cities along the entire western state border of the USSR to a depth of up to 250-300 km. Together with Nazi Germany, Romania, Italy, Finland and other states allied to the Third Reich took part in the aggression. The industries of almost the entire continental Europe served the aggressors.

The people of the USSR were informed on the radio about the attack by the Nazis and, thus, the beginning of the war. At noon on June 22, 1941, the People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs, Vyacheslav Molotov, on behalf of the Soviet leadership addressed the nation:

🎙 “Today, at 4 a.m. in the morning, the German troops have invaded our country, without making any demands on the Soviet Union and without a declaration of war. They have attacked our borders in many places and have subjected our towns to aerial bombardments.

This unheard-of attack on our nation, despite the non-aggression Treaty between the USSR and Germany, is unprecedented in the history of civilized nations.”<...>

Our cause is right. The enemy shall be defeated. Victory will be ours!”

It was the Soviet Union that bore the main burden of the Nazi aggression in Europe. It was the Soviet Victorious People who showed unparalleled heroism, courage and fortitude, fighting to the last drop of blood for the freedom of our Motherland, crushed Nazism and saved Europe from the Nazi ‘plague’. It was on the Eastern Front of the European theater of #WWII that the Nazis and their henchmen lost more than 75% of their forces fighting the Red Army.

The Great Victory was achieved at a high price. The Soviet Union’s losses amounted to 40% of all human casualties during WWII — almost 27 million people. Of these, more than 8.7 million perished on the battlefield, 7.42 million people were deliberately and cold-bloodedly killed by the Nazis. Over 5 million Soviet citizens were taken into slavery and moved to Germany and Reich-occupied European countries.

To this day June 22 still echoes in the hearts of all Russians with grief, sorrow and pain for the lives lost and fates of entire generations broken. There is no family in our country and in the former Republics of the Soviet Union that was not affected by that terrible war. There is #NoStatuteOfLimitations for the crimes committed by the Nazis and their collaborators on our land. On this day, we bow our heads in memory of our ancestors who perished during the Great Patriotic War.

🎙 Excerpt from the comment by Russian MFA Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova on the occasion of the Day of Memory and Sorrow (June 21, 2025):

💬 “Unlike the “collective West”, we do not divide the victims of the Nazis into categories — they all deserve justice and for their executioners to be punished.

We, regardless of race, nationality and religion, mourn the 2.6 million Jewish citizens of the USSR, millions of Slavs and representatives of other ethnic groups of the multinational Soviet people who became victims of genocide“.

The first reunification of Donbass and Russia

Posted on by
Reading time: 18 minutes

Without understanding the history of Donbass in the early XX century, it is impossible to understand the civil war that is taking place in Ukraine now. We have raised this topic in a 2016 article “Short History of Creation of Ukraine and Donetsk-Krivorog Republics after the 1917 Revolution in Russia”. However, that article was not as systematic as the one you are about to read now – “The first reunification of Donbass and Russia”. It was published in Regnum on June 17, 2017.

After reading this article, we will have a solid foundation for understanding the topic of forced ukrainisation, which was taking place in 1920s, a topic which we wil return to in a later publication.

The problem of Donbass is not new to Russia. Few people know, but in the early twenties of the last century, Russia and Ukraine were already in a very serious conflict over this region. Moreover, the tensions around that territorial dispute were very high. It almost came to a direct military confrontation. It worked out that time. Russia won then. However, the conflict itself was hushed up for a very long time, for obvious reasons. But as they say, there are never permanently resolved conflicts, especially if these conflicts are linguistic and regional in nature. And perhaps, having read the history of the territorial dispute between Ukraine and Russia over the Eastern Donbass, it will be easier to understand the processes taking place now in the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics.

The signing of the Brest Peace by the Ukrainian Central Rada on February 9, 1918, according to which the territory of Ukraine (including Donbass) was to be occupied by German troops can be considered as a kind of a start to that conflict. In response, on February 12, 1918, the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Republic (DKR) was proclaimed in Harkov at the regional congress of Soviets of Workers’ Deputies, which declared its independence and, accordingly, did not recognise the Brest Peace. The government of the new republic included representatives of the all—Russian left-wing parties, while the DKR was headed by the Bolshevik comrade Artyom (Fyodor Sergeev). After the proclamation of the republic, he sent a telegram to the leader of Soviet Russia, Vladimir Lenin:

“The Regional Congress of Soviets adopted a resolution on the creation of the Council of People’s Commissars of the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog basin as part of the All-Russian Federation of Soviets.”

According to the leadership of the new republic, it was created primarily based on the territorial and economic principle and was supposed to include the territories of three basins: coal, iron ore and salt. The coal basin (Donbass), divided in the imperial period of Russian history between several administrative units (Yekaterinoslav and Harkov provinces, as well as the Donskoy Army Region, also known as Don Host Region), according to the republican leadership, was supposed to become a single entity within one administrative unit. Therefore, not only Yekaterinoslav province (on the territory of which the Central or, as it was also called, Old Donbass was located) was included in the DKR, but also, as “comrade Artyom” wrote in a note to the heads of foreign states, describing the eastern borders of the DKR: “The Sea of Azov to Taganrog and the borders of the Soviet coal districts of the Don region along the railway line Rostov — Voronezh to Lihaya station.” And in the future, it is these “coal Soviet districts” that will become a stumbling block in the border dispute between the two Soviet republics.

German troops on the Sophia square in Kiev in April of 1918

However, the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Republic could not cope with the German offensive, and by the end of May 1918, the Germans had occupied all of Ukraine (including Donbass) and part of the territory of the Donskoy Army Region. The Government of the DKR was forced to evacuate.

After the revolution in Germany, in the autumn of 1918, the Bolsheviks began the liberation of Ukraine from the German occupiers. At the end of January 1919, the Council of People’s Commissars (Sovnarkom) of Ukraine was established in liberated Harkov under the leadership of Christian Rakovsky. The Government of the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Republic has also returned to Harkov. However, the Soviet leadership in Moscow decided that strategically, the existence of Soviet Ukraine is now more important than the existence of the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Republic. Therefore, the Central Committee (CC) of the Bolshevik Party decided to annex the territory of the DKR to the territory of Ukraine (which at that time was understood by the majority of the population of the former Russian Empire as the Middle Dnieper and the Right Bank of the Dnieper). On February 17, 1919, Vladimir Lenin signed a decree: “Ask comrade Stalin, through the Bureau of the Central Committee, to carry out the decommissioning of Krivdonbass”. The leadership of the DKR, dominated by the Bolsheviks, albeit with a heavy heart, but obeyed the decision of the party. In March 1919, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR) was proclaimed in Harkov. And since the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Republic became part of the Ukrainian SSR, the eastern border of the DKR automatically became the eastern border of Soviet Ukraine. To a certain extent, this came as a surprise to many residents of both Taganrog and Eastern Donbass (Alexandro-Hrushevsky (Shakhtinsky) and Yekaterinenskoe-Kamensky districts), who began to write mass appeals to the central authorities, opposing their annexation to the Ukrainian SSR. Because joining the Soviet Donbass was one thing, but joining Ukraine was quite another. After all, at that moment the Soviet Union had not yet been established. The Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR) and the Soviet Ukraine were de jure considered independent states, even if they entered into a military and economic alliance with each other.

At the same time, it is necessary to understand what processes were taking place inside Ukraine itself in order to understand why the residents of Eastern Donbass were far from enthusiastic about the prospect of becoming “Ukrainians”.
Continue reading →

“Situation in several European countries with the desecration and destruction of monuments dedicated to those who fought against Nazism during World War II” – Russia’s Foreign Ministry’s report

Posted on by
Reading time: 4 minutes

Read the full report at the site of the MFA!

Since the end of the World War II, approximately 4’000 monuments to Soviet soldiers have been erected in Europe. A total of more than one million Red Army soldiers are buried in Central, Eastern and South-Eastern Europe. In general, the peoples of the USSR and Europe paid a much higher price for the Victory over Nazism, measured in tens of millions of lives.

Vandalised Soviet soldier graves in Germany

The Soviet army liberated Bulgaria, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Austria (the eastern part of the country and Vienna), Romania, Yugoslavia and a number of other European countries from Nazism.

The majority of Soviet monuments were erected specifically in these countries. There are also monuments to the Soviet soldier in Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Finland, and France.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, many memorials ended up on the territory of states bordering Russia that emerged from the former Soviet republics. In several of these countries, the chosen course toward reviving Nazism and rewriting history has had a serious impact on the memorial legacy of the Great Patriotic War.

❌ Decommunisation, the destruction of monuments to our common history and culture, the desecration of the graves of fallen Soviet soldiers, neo-Nazi torch marches, the glorification of Nazis and their collaborators, the physical elimination of ideological opponents — many of these practices, and often all of them at once, have become commonplace in Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, as well as in Poland, the Czech Republic and a number of other European countries.

These very countries are the focus of this report. Under the guise of “decommunisation” laws and by dismantling monuments to Soviet soldiers, the governments of these countries are attempting to “reinforce an anti-Russian front”.

At the same time, monuments to Nazi criminals are being erected, their protection is being enshrined in law, and rare acts of activists opposing Nazi memorials are harshly prosecuted. The key objective of such steps is the complete erasure of historical memory.

This report has been prepared as part of the Russia’s Foreign Ministry’s efforts to draw attention to the manifestations of various forms of Nazi glorification, neo-Nazism, racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance in foreign countries.

The report focuses on the actions of certain countries, primarily the Baltic states, Poland, and Ukraine, which, using Russia’s special military operation aimed at denazification and demilitarisation of Ukraine, as well as the protection of the peaceful population of Donbass, as a pretext, have sharply escalated a long-standing practice of destroying Soviet, Russian, and often their own memorial heritage on their territories.

📄 Russia’s Foreign Ministry’s report on the “Situation in several European countries with the desecration and destruction of monuments dedicated to those who fought against Nazism during World War II” contains a detailed account of the unlawful actions by authorities of Ukraine, the Baltic states, Bulgaria, Moldova, Poland, Finland, Germany, and the Czech Republic, targeting Russian and Soviet monuments.

The report can also be downloaded as a PDF file.

The report is long, but should be read, or at least skimmed through, by all – including its 262 soure references!

👉 In July of 2023, documents were leaked from the NATO summit in Lithuania, where one of NATO’s action points was the targeted destruction of Soviet monuments. Tsargrad reported back then:

The destruction of monuments to Soviet soldiers and generals in Europe is not just the whim of individual Western politicians, but the official course of NATO. Hackers have declassified the alliance’s documents, revealing the conspiracy.

The hacker group “From Russia with Love” has gained access to documents collected by the organisers of the NATO summit, which is taking place in Vilnius these days.

It follows from them that the systematic destruction of monuments to Soviet soldiers-liberators, which began before their time, is not the Russophobic manifestations of individual Young Europeans, but the official course of the West, adopted at the NATO level.

The documents say that the destruction of Soviet monuments is an extremely important job. This vandalism allows us to destroy the “Russian narrative” that Europe was freed from fascism thanks to Moscow.

In addition, the destruction of monuments, according to the NATO leadership, contributes to the international isolation of Russia.

How Russia created Romania

Posted on by
Reading time: 7 minutes

Now that the “correct” president was selected for the Romanian, while the point of “the last Ukrainian” is quickly approaching, the time has come to take a closer look at that country, as well as its neighbouring, far order Moldavia. Below is a translation of an historiographic article from New Izvestiya, taking a quick tour into the very short history of Roimania.

A certain historical parallel to Finland emerges, where in both cases Russia played the key role in creating the statehood of these states, yet, the states turned on their creator with a rabidly russophobic/racist hatred.

In the context of this article, read also our recent translation The text of Hitler’s statement on the extermination of Slavic peoples has been published in Russia for the first time.

How Russia created Romania

Once upon a time, during the early Middle Ages, Romanians, like Russians, became Christian – Orthodox Christians. However, at that time Romania, as a country bearing such name, did not exist: there were disparate principalities united only by faith.

Even then, our peoples were linked by a common past: Romanians had long used Church Slavonic in worship and Cyrillic for communication and writing texts.

The Prut Campaign of 1711. Peter I and Gospodar of Moldavia, Dmitry Cantemir in the battle for Moldavia against the Turks and Tatars, 1911. Painter: Victor Arseni.

So how did Romania appear on the world map?

The Gospodars (rulers) of Wallachia and Moldavia (on the territory of the present-day Romania) have long sought friendship and protection from the Russian monarchs. The rulers, Orthodox Christians, were burdened by the fate of the vassals of the Muslim Ottoman Empire. They also did not like the need to leave their children and loved ones hostage in Istanbul, where many of them, and sometimes the rulers themselves, were martyred at the hands of the sultans. The poll tax, which all non-Muslim subjects had to pay to the sultan, was also a heavy burden, and on top of that, there were numerous levies and tributes that had to be collected annually and sent to the Ottoman Turks. Already in the 18th century, the gospodars and boyars saw Russia as a patron and protector. Fleeing from the Turks, many found shelter and fame at the royal court. In 1711, Dmitry Cantemir, the exiled ruler of Moldavia, arrived at the court of Peter the Great with a thousand boyars. He became the most serene Knyaz of Russia, along with illustrious comrade of Peter’s, Alexander Danilovich Menshikov. His son, the first Russian satirical poet Antioh Dmitrievich Cantemir, was Russian ambassador to England and France.

The map depicts the borders of the Principality of Moldavia, Principality of Wallachia before the Union (orange lines).
After 1711, the part of the Principality of Moldavia residing between rivers Dniester and Prut came under Russian protection, while what remained under the Ottoman Empire, formed a Union of Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia (light-green area with the black border).
Ater 1866 this union began to be called “Romania”.

The historical task of Russia

Russia considered it its historical task to get rid of the Turkish threat, and saw itself as a defender of the rights and freedoms of the Christian peoples who lived under Turkish rule. The power of the latter gradually weakened, and the Romanians sought to get out from under its influence. In the 19th century, the Russian Empire took a direct part in the liberation of Orthodox Romania. A significant part of the territory of the future Romania, at the insistence of Russia, was transferred by the Turks to Russian protection following the war of 1828-1829. The first constitutions of Moldavia and Wallachia were adopted, allowing the future Romanian lands to develop in the same way as other European countries of that time. Romanians were becoming really Romanians, and not just residents of villages and towns of different territories. Schools with native language teaching were opened. Historians have praised these laws: “The first Romanian constitutions that introduced fixed and stable laws that replaced momentary and arbitrary decisions.”

A series of wars and final independence

Even then, the Romanians’ dream of independence was being “crippled” by the Western European powers, who did not want Turkey to weaken as as counterweight to Russia. It all started with Napoleon, who encouraged the Romanians to “limit Russian expansion”. After the Crimean War, Romanians came under the influence of Western powers, which did not aim to liberate Romania from the Ottoman yoke: the principalities continued to pay exhausting tribute to the Ottoman Empire.

Romania appeared as a result of the Russian-Turkish wars, and became a sovereign country by the will of Russia in 1877-1878, after the final liberation of Romania from the Turkish–Ottoman rule, which had lasted from the 16th century. Russian losses in this war amounted to 16,000 killed and 7,000 dead from wounds (there are other estimates – up to 36,500 killed and 81,000 dead from wounds and diseases). These figures of losses are huge in themselves, but it is worth considering that, for example, 71 thousand people lived in Yaroslavl at the end of the 19th century, that is, either a quarter or half of the inhabitants of a large Russian city died in this war. Romanians, allied with the Russians, lost 1.5 thousand people. Yes, Romanian troops then took a direct part in the fighting – of course, on the side of Russia. Russian-Romanian troops participated together in the siege of Bulgarian Plevna, during the liberation of Bulgaria from the Turkish rule, and the first Romanian king even became marshal of the united Russian-Romanian troops.
Continue reading →

Victory Parade. Moscow. 09.05.2010. Joint parade fragment

Posted on by
Reading time: < 1 minute


Backup at Rumble.

One has to be invited to march across the Red Square, and not so long ago, on the 65th anniversary of the Victory, many military formations of the Soviet republics (including Ukraine), as well as American, British and French ones participated in the Victory parade.

From our telegram channel “Beorn And The Shieldmaiden”.

The repeat of Ukrainian-German incursion into Kursk

Posted on by
Reading time: 3 minutes

With Kursk newly liberated, it is fitting to take a look at the past Ukro-“future-NATO” incursions into Kursk. From our August 2024 post at “Beorn And The Shieldmaiden”.

Kursk region has become a historical singularity point. One might draw a parallel to the Battle of Kursk in 1943, when thinking of the present-day Western-backed incursion into Kursk. But there is an even earlier precedent, with an eerie similarity to today’s events.

♦️♦️♦️

The dissolvement of the Russian Empire resulted in appearance of a number of states, proxy-states and lawless areas on its outskirts, which the foreign «interventionists» sought to use as springboards for further partitioning of Russia.

Baltics almost immediately fell under German control. Further south there appeared a Ukrainian People’s Republic (UPR), which initially manifested the aspirations of the Ukrainian nationalists (Petlyura was one of its leaders), but later came under German control. Here is a fragment from the Big Russian Encyclopedia.

The UKRAINIAN PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC (UPR), in 1917-20 (with a pause) a state entity, autonomous within the RSFSR, since 2.1.1918 independent. Proclaimed 20.11.1917 on the territory of Kiev, Podolsk, Volyn, Chernigov, Poltava, Harkov, Yekaterinoslav, Herson and Taurida (northern counties, without Crimea) provinces. The center is in Kiev.

The UPR was liquidated as a result of a coup organized by P. P. Skoropadsky on 29.4.1918 with the help of Germany. The command, Central Rada and the government were dissolved, the Ukrainian state was proclaimed instead of the UPR.

The UPR was restored on 14.12.1918 by the Ukrainian Directory, which became the highest authority of the republic.

With the beginning of the Soviet-Polish war of 1920, the UPR concluded a military agreement on the union with Poland on 21.4.1920.

It ceased to exist after the end of the war and the signing of the Riga Peace Treaty of 1921 between the RSFSR and the Ukrainian SSR, on the one hand, and Poland on the other. The government of the UPR (presided by A. N. Livitsky) fled to Poland.

If one looks at the attached map, one will notice how UPR lay claim on a much larger territory than it actually controlled – it desired the territory of the Donetsk-Krivorozhie People’s Republic.

However, they did not lay claim to the Kursk region. Nevertheless, a few days before Germany conducted a coup in UPR, a joint incursion into Kursk area was made, as can be read in the telegram, preserved In the «Documents of the Foreign Policy of the USSR», volume 1, 7th of November 1917 – 31st of December 1918, page 224:

⚡️⚡️⚡️

106. Telegram from the People’s Commissariat of Foreign Affairs to the Council of People’s Ministers of Ukraine and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Germany

April 3, 1918.

A message has just been received that Ukrainian-German troops have entered the Kursk province. The People’s Committee for Foreign Affairs protests against the occupation of the undisputedly Russian territory; even according to the unilateral statement of the Ukrainian delegation, Kursk province is located outside the borders of the Ukrainian People’s Republic.

— People’s Commissariat of Foreign Affairs, Chicherin

Printed according to the archived publication of newspaper «Izvestia» No. 65(329), April 3, 1918

Germany cancels the Soviet Union on Victory Day!

Posted on by
Reading time: 6 minutes

The news coming from Germany, with the question arising: Is the war with Nazi Germany definitely over?                                                

Decree of the Berlin government.
Restriction of general use of public squares and freedom of assembly from May 8, 2025, 06:00, to May 9, 2025, 22:00.

The following is prohibited:

a) wearing a military uniform or its elements;
b) wearing military insignia;
c) a separate or highlighted display of the letters “V” or “Z”;
d) demonstration of St. George’s ribbons;
e) demonstration of flags and banners with Russian symbols, coats of arms of the USSR, Belarus, the Chechen Republic, as well as images of the heads of the respective states;
f) demonstration of symbols and signs capable of glorifying the Russian-Ukrainian war, including:
– flag of the USSR;
– Russian and Soviet military flags;
– images of the Ukrainian territory without Donbass (Lugansk and Donetsk regions, Kherson, Zaporizhie and Crimea);
– flags of the separatist regions of Luдansk and Donetsk, as well as territories under Russian control (Kherson, Zaporizhie, Crimea);
g) reproduction and performance of Russian marching or military songs, in particular all versions of the song “Holy War”.

Source: the channel of the political analyst Razvozzhaev, translated by us at “Beorn And The Shieldmaiden”

In fact, by imposing these restrictions, Germany unequivocally confirms two things: that Russia is fighting with fascism in Ukraine; and that Germany is abhorred by the Victory over fascism 80 years ago, thus seeing the need to erase all the symbols of that Victory from public view!

‼️ This is continuation of the fascist practice, with further tightening of the screws. Last year we described it in the post German “humanistic” intermezzo over – Berlin back to its good old fascist inclinations. However, last year, in a display of public disobedience, not dissimilar to that displayed by the good people of the occupied Europe, someone projected the Victory banner on the Brandeburg gate.

👉 First time this was introduced in May 2022, it was the St.George ribbon that became forbidden. We wrote about it in the Beehive article The “Immortal Regiment” broke through the prohibitions in Germany – a reportage from Frankfurt. People came with white ribbons with the words “I am the St. George Ribbon, forbidden in Germany” written on them. We shall see if there will be more creative approaches to the civil disobedience against Fascism this year. Maybe red garments with a yellow flower arrangement on the chest could become fashionable! Or striped shoelaces in black and orange!

“We freed them, and they will never forgive us for this.”
— Georgy Zhukov
Photo: Georgy Zhukov and Konstantin Rokossovsky in Berlin, July 12, 1945

Next up, are two excellent commentary posts by “The Islander”:

Germany’s Nazi Amnesia: When Baerbock Bans the Liberators

In an act soaked in historical irony and Russophobic revisionism, German FM Annalena Baerbock, a descendant of a Wehrmacht officer (highly decorated and a true believer Nazi) now seeks to ban Russian and Belarusian officials from attending commemorations of Nazi Germany’s defeat. The very nation whose grandparents ignited the deadliest war in human history is now arrogating moral authority to deny those who paid the heaviest price for Europe’s liberation from fascism.
Continue reading →

Berlin is heading east again – How Germany intends to become the military leader of the European Union

Posted on by
Reading time: 5 minutes

Translation of the article in RT in Russian by Gevorg Mirzayan.

Germany is negotiating with private companies to deploy its armed forces to the eastern flank of NATO. This was reported by the German Handelsblatt. Among these companies are the German airline Lufthanza, railway workers from Deutsche Bahn and a number of other logistics structures. Berlin wants, in the event of a war in the east — that is, more simply, with Russia — to ensure the transfer of personnel, ammunition, weapons systems, etc.

At first glance, it sounds ridiculous, even pathetic to some extent. After all, it turns out that the Bundeswehr does not have its own transport capabilities. Years of cuts and savings on the development of the army have led to the fact that the German Armed Forces — once the most powerful in Europe — are now forced to rely entirely on private carriers in logistics. And it turns out that these people are now threatening Russia with war!

However, if you look deeper into the situation, it doesn’t seem so funny any more. After all, these negotiations show the difference between Germany and France on the issue of future confrontation with the Russian Federation.

European elites and mainstream media now see a future clash (and even war) with Russia as inevitable. Journalists and a number of biased opinion leaders say that after the end of the war in Ukraine, Moscow will begin to restore historical and geographical justice in the Baltic States, and then it will deal with Poland. Some European leaders think the same way: they are well aware that in the context of a systemic conflict with Europe (which Europe has started and is not going to end) Russia will also act aggressively. In addition, they suspect that the Kremlin and the Russian people will never forget Europe’s behaviour during the conflict in Ukraine. Neither German tanks with crosses on their towers in the Russian steppes, nor Czech and French howitzers firing at peaceful Russian cities, nor murderous strikes by British missiles. This means that we can forget about any kind of collective security system in Europe with Russia’s participation. Instead, we need to build a European system of collective security against Russia. And most importantly, without the United States, which is increasingly moving away from European affairs in favour of Eastern ones.
Continue reading →

Russsia’s policy as escalation management. A reply to our reader.

Posted on by
Reading time: 4 minutes

Our reader, JMF, came up with an extensive comment to the article Eurofascism, like 80 years ago, is a common enemy of Moscow and Washington, which we felt warranted an equally thoughtful reply in an article of its own.

In contrast to the SVR Press article, I submit the following:

“US Plays ‘Mediator’ in its Own War on Russia”
Brian Berletic, April 22, 2025

I’ve read Brian Berletic’s analyses for years, and find him an incredibly astute observer.

I read the SVR piece with some trepidation: not because its recognition of Euro-fascism is misplaced — it certainly isn’t — but because it seemingly gives too much credence to a potentially beneficent role on the part of the US.

Knowing many aspects of my country’s darker history and recognizing our current “Fuehrer’s” malign tendencies, I’ve grown somewhat alarmed by Russia’s apparent warming toward the US. I hardly think that any “alliance” is eventually likely between our two countries, as the SVR article speculates in its conclusion. To the contrary, the current negotiations strike me as extremely self-serving for the US side. And should a war break out between Europe and Russia, I strongly suspect that the US stance would be much like that of Harry Truman (while still in Congress) during World War 2: ‘Let the two sides exhaust each other, and then we’ll move in and pick up the pieces.’ [paraphrased]

The SVR piece also quotes a US academic regarding Britain’s employment of “concentration camps and genocide”. But as I recall from other reading, Hitler’s inspiration was drawn directly from the US internment and genocide of native Americans. And several other observations can be as equally applied to the US as to Europe.

I sincerely hope that Messrs. Putin and Lavrov remain extremely cautious and sceptical when dealing with the Trump administration. While Witkoff seems a sincere negotiator, he is only the messenger, in this case for a likely pack of wolves dressed in sheep’s clothing.

Here, JMF added the entire quote:

“If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don’t want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances. Neither of them thinks anything of their pledged word.”
– Senator Harry S. Truman

Reply from Beorn And The Shieldmaiden

Brian Berletic’s publications are, indeed, well-worth reading, and we often forward his Telegram posts to our channel.

This article “US Plays ‘Mediator’ in its Own War on Russia” is no exception and overall, we agree with the analysis in Brian’s article. Incidentally, toward the end it contains one paragraph that in a way addresses the concern, outlined by JMF:

Russia, for its part, has left the door open for honest negotiations and has provided the United States ample exit ramps from both an unwinnable proxy war and indefinite confrontation with Russia into the future. The US is obviously not interested. Russia had, throughout “peace talks” with the US, continued its war of attrition against Ukrainian forces, continuing the process the New York Times describes as the central contributing factor for the proxy war’s current failure.

The Shieldmaiden and I also pondered the seemingly contradictory policy of Russia towards the USA, and The Shieldmaiden came with a concise and encompassing definition: “escalation management”.

Russia, just like the USSR in 1938-1940, is doing its utmost to prevent a world war, without conceding own interests. The goals for the SMO have been set in 2022: denazification and demilitarisation of Ukraine. And, as Peskov said the other day, they will be achieved regardless, either through peaceful means or militarily. Naturally, a peaceful realisation of those objectives is preferable.

So, what Russia is doing now, is a pro-active escalation management as multiple levels and dimensions are involved in the diplomacy of shaping the battlefield for the best outcome control in predicted risk situations, including psychological ones. Russian is guiding Trump’s impulsive and unpredictable emotionally-charged presidency into a more subdued form, balanced out by equally emotional (and economic) counterweights. Hopefully this will contribute to prevention of World War III flaring up on the usual battlefield – Europe.

EU, for its part, has already designated 2030 as “the year when Russia will invade Europe”, which, applying the 180 degree rule, means that Europe is planning the next “drang nach osten” for that year. This is what Russia need to avoid, using Trump’s impulsivity if need be, to achieve that goal. That is also the underlying motive for the article from the SVR, to rebuild the diplomatic ties with the USA as the only force that can influence Europe.

Still, Russia is very much mindful of the history of WWII and the preceding years. As in this contemporary Soviet caricature from “Kukryniksy” about the “Munich Conspiracy”, where UK and France are offering Czechoslovakia to the German wolf, while hilding up the sign with the words, pointing “To the East”.

Anatoly Sobchak talks about Ukraine and Crimea in 1992

Posted on by
Reading time: 2 minutes

Listen to Anatoly Sobchak, the one and only mayor of Leningrad/St. Petersburg, speak about Ukraine in 1992, shortly after the Soviet Union broke apart in 1991.

Read also: The referendum on the independence of Ukraine on December 1, 1991: how Kravchuk deceived Sevastopol and Crimea

The translated video and the transcript of the fragment by Putinger’s Cat.


Backup at Rumble.

USSR 1922

USSR in 1922

In this case, there’s only one possible lawful scenario, which is legally correct and just. The founding republics that formed the USSR in 1922, after the annulment of that 1922 agreement, should return into the borders they had at the time of entering the USSR. Anything else, all other “territorial gains”, so to speak, are matter for discussion, negotiation and decision-making, because the foundation has been annulled.

As to the Black Sea fleet’s fate, I don’t want to talk about, say, territorial claims, fate of the Crimea, but there is a good number of precedents when naval bases belonging to one country were located in the territories of another one. Even if we suppose such absurdity that Crimea is a territory of Ukraine, Sevastopol has never been the naval base of Ukrainian Navy. It has always been a Russian Naval base. And this is a situation that cannot change under the influence of some momentary circumstances. It is impossible to change in one day that which has come together over centuries, even if it was decided by the representatives of the communist establishment along with nationalists.

The actions of Ukraine in relation to, let’s say, the Soviet army and navy pose a colossal threat to humanity as a whole. I am opposed to solving any territorial conflicts by force. There should be negotiations, but time must not be lost. Ukraine must not be allowed to create an army, which, if it does create, it will certainly use. I don’t doubt that for a minute. And I think that today we are placing a mine not only under our future, but also under the future of all mankind.

This is a cut from an hour-long video of Sobchak answering journalists’ questions (in Russian):

Eurofascism, like 80 years ago, is a common enemy of Moscow and Washington

Posted on by
Reading time: 6 minutes

The Press Bureau of the External Intelligence Service (SVR) of Russia published an insightful analytical article, drawing on many historical parallels. One thing that they have not explicitly stated, though, is that the USA is once again, just like in 1944, inserting itself as a solution to the problem they contributed to create in the first place – we shall not forget Nuland’s cookies of 2014!

The article is opened by a caricature, which is a modern variation of the well-known War-time “TASS Window” (see our article The “TASS Windows” – the windows to our struggle in the Great Patriotic War), which appeared after the… allies deigned to open the second front.

The Hour Draws Near
The merciless, fearsome punishment
Shall not escape the German squid
The monster can expect the blows
Coming from here and there.
Artist: M. Cheremnych, verse by Demyan Bedny.

UPDATE 20.04.2025: We have replaced our translated text with the official translation that appeared at the Telegram channel of the Russian Foreign Ministry. The original text in Russian is at the site of the SVR.

Eurofascism is Moscow’s and Washington’s common enemy, just like 80 years ago

– The Press Bureau of the SVR of Russia, April 16, 2025

A hind-sight study of Western states’ policies attests to Europe’s “traditional propensity” for various forms of totalitarianism which regularly produces cataclysmic global conflicts. Specialists believe that the current rift in relations between the United States and the EU countries who blame Donald Trump for totalitarianism in the context of the upcoming 80th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War is becoming a factor that contributes to an alliance of convenience between Moscow and Washington the way it used to occur in the past.

This is confirmed, in particular, by a scandal involving French European Parliament member Raphael Glucksmann who demanded that the Americans “who have chosen to side with the tyrants,” return the statue of Liberty, Paris’s gift to the United States. Raphael Glucksmann, one of the globalists and a dedicated supporter of the Kiev regime, criticises the Oval Office master for slacking support for Ukraine and firing civil servants who stick to liberal views. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt slammed the “daring Gaul” having reminded that “unnamed low-level French politician” that it’s only because of the United States of America that he is speaking French and not German now.

It was pointed out that the multiple dictatorial regimes that were in power in France “distinguished” themselves by unparalleled cruelty and atrocities. Among those mentioned are the Jacobin dictatorship that killed thousands of French citizens in 1793-1794 and imprisoned 300,000 on suspicion of “counterrevolution,” as well as Napoleon’s bloody acts. It was stressed that America is free thanks to their ancestors’ readiness to counter such dictatorships as the British monarchy or the Jacobin revolution.

Experts believe that the notion of Eurofascism was introduced by French author and columnist Pierre Drieu La Rochelle who collaborated with German occupational authorities during WWII, and justified it as an ideology inherent not only in Germans but also other “societies” in Europe. In this context we can recall the French volunteer SS-Division Charlemagne which was named after Emperor of the Carolingian Empire, “Europe’s unifier.” The division’s soldiers were defending the Reichstag from the assaulting Red Army till the last hours of the German Nazi regime. Twelve of those fanatics were captured by the Americans and handed over to French General Phillipe Leclerc. As early as May 8, 1945, he ordered to shoot those war criminals without unnecessary judicial procrastination.
Continue reading →

Lukashenko’s Visit to Belgrade under NATO bombs

Posted on by
Reading time: 4 minutes

This article with two video reportages (with transctipts) presenting footage of President Lukashenko’s visit to Yugoslavia on April 14, 1999 is an important historic testimony to one overlooked and forgotten reason for why NATO, with the help of the armed terrorists on the ground, was so relentlessly bombing and dismantling Yugoslavia. This reason is mentioned in both videos almost as a footnote – Yugoslavia intended to join the Union state of Russian and Belorussia. However, it may nave been the main reason for the NATO’s savagery.

Under NATO bombs: On April 14, 1999, President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko flew to Yugoslavia

NATO not only did not guarantee flight safety, but also sent fighter jets to intercept. Lukashenko did not change his plans. The alliance’s airstrikes continued both during the negotiations and during the trips of the Belarusian president to Belgrade.

At the talks with Slobodan Milošević, Lukashenko represented the agreed position of Belarus and Russia. He was saying: “If we get even one millimetre closer to peace, we will be very satisfied.”

However, just a few months later, Yugoslavia ceased to exist.

Source: Sputnik Belarus


Backup at Rumble.

Aleksander Lukashenko was not scared off. Despite the warnings of NATO bosses that he would not be guaranteed security in Belgrade, he still flew to the Yugoslav capital.

He flew with one goal: to bring peace in Yugoslavia closer by at least a few millimetres.

“I am glad that I flew to Belgrade at this difficult time for this country. And I think that, as I said at the airport in Minsk, if we, at this time, get a few millimeters closer to peace, and if this Belarusian delegation will contribute to this, [we will be very satisfied]”.

During the talks with Milosevich, Lukashenko first of all relied on his friendly relations with the Yugoslav leader. However, he was speaking not only from his own name.

“This is a conceptual continuation of the negotiations that were started here with Evgeny Maksimovich Prymakov. We coordinated with him every day, clarified the positions. And only yesterday we agreed on one new idea that could promote the peace process here. I will not talk about it yet, we will discuss it with the President.

That is, we have a whole set of items, mutually agreed upon by Belarus and Russia. I am most likely speaking here as the Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the Union of Belarus and Russia, not only as the President of Belarus.”

Lukashenko discussed the agreed position of Russia and Belarus for two and a half hours with Slobodan Milošević.

This was happening to the sound of air raid alarm, sounded in Belgrade a few minutes after the landing of the plane of the Belarusian President and against the background of new bomb strikes by NATO aviation.

The main thing that Lukashenko ascertained during the negotiations is that the President of Yugoslavia is firmly determined to preserve the territorial integrity of the country, ensure equal rights for all its citizens and does not try to draw Belarus and Russia into a war in the Balkans.

According to Lukashenko, this is what NATO and other interested parties should use the starting point.

In addition, the Yugoslav President once again confirmed his desire to solve all problems peacefully and stated the readiness to bring into Kosovo the UN civil observers and other international organisations not associated with the aggressor countries.

Slobodan Milosevich handed over to the Belarusian President the official request for the entry of Yugoslavia into the Union of Russia and Belarus.

The frontier beyond which they would never retreat

Continue reading →

Reunification of the Left Bank of the Dnieper with Russia. With re-blog of a detailed article by Vladimir Putin.

Posted on by
Reading time: 30 minutes

Our re-blog of the publication by the Russian Foreign Ministry on the anniversary of the reunification of the Left Bank of the Dnieper with Russia, followed by the complete re-blog of an article by Vladimir Putin ”On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians“.

A small linguistic/phonetic aside. The name “Khmelnitsky” is pronounced “Hmelnitsky” (with “h” sounding as in the word “home”); and “Hetmanate” is pronounced “Getmanate” (with “g” sounding as in the word “get”).

On April 6, 1654, Sovereign, Tsar and Grand Prince of all Russia Alexey I Romanov, “The sole ruler of all Russia Great and Little”, granted his royal charter to Hetman of the Zaporozhian Host Bogdan Khmelnitsky. The document secured the reunification of the Left Bank of the Dnieper with Russia.

In the late XVI and the early XVII century, all groups of the Orthodox population in the lands of Ancient Rus, controlled by the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, were subject to an increased religious and ethnic pressure from the Polish-Lithuanian gentry, which sought to fully assimilate local residents through a policy of Polonisation and Latinisation.

After the Union of Brest was adopted in 1596, a majority of Orthodox priests became subordinate to the Pope. Those who remained faithful to Orthodoxy became outcasts and were deprived of hierarchical leadership, since Metropolitan of Kiev Mikhail Rogoza had also joined the Greek Catholics.

Amid forced Catholicisation, the loss of noble titles and lands, and ongoing persecution, the local Orthodox population began searching for ways to escape oppression. All attempts to come to an agreement with the Polish king failed as the Polish gentry firmly refused to acknowledge the autonomy of the Orthodox Cossacks and nobility.

✊ In 1648, a major liberation movement was sparked, led by the renowned military and political leader Bogdan Khmelnitsky. The Cossacks rebelled against the Polish oppressors to defend their faith, identity, and the right to self-determination.

Recognising the need for a stronger alliance, Khmelnitsky made several appeals to Tsar Alexey I of Russia, requesting protection and support, and asking him to take the lands of the Hetmanate under “his royal hand”. In 1653, Hetman Bogdan Khmelnitsky approached Tsar Alexey I, asking him to accept “all of Little Russia (Malorossiya) and the entire Zaporozhian Host into his eternal possession, allegiance, and protection” Later that year, in May, the Zemsky Sobor convened in Moscow, where an unequivocal decision was adopted in favour of the integration of Malorossiya into the Russian state.

On January 18, 1654, Pereyaslav Rada made a historic decision — the Zaporozhian Cossacks declared their allegiance to the Russian Tsar. On April 6, Tsar Alexey I of Russia signed the royal charter, which mentioned the Russian monarch’s title “the sole ruler of all Russia Great and Little” for the first time, emphasising the historical continuity of a unified state.

❗️ The Pereyaslav Agreement reflected a natural historical process of returning the ancient Russian lands to the unified Russian state and reuniting parts of a single nation, divided by civil strife and the Golden Horde yoke.

On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians

– Article by Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, July 12, 2021

During the recent Direct Line, when I was asked about Russian-Ukrainian relations, I said that Russians and Ukrainians were one people – a single whole. These words were not driven by some short-term considerations or prompted by the current political context. It is what I have said on numerous occasions and what I firmly believe. I therefore feel it necessary to explain my position in detail and share my assessments of today’s situation.
Continue reading →

The “Not an inch Eastward” NATO abomination is turning 76

Posted on by
Reading time: 17 minutes

At “Beorn And The Shieldmaiden” we are marking the sad date of the 76th year of NATO burdening the world with forever wars…

On the 76th anniversary of NATO

In Washington, on April 4th 1949, the foreign ministers of ten Western European countries together with the United States and Canada, signed an agreement on the creation of the military-political NATO bloc. In its 76 years of existence, this instrument of US imperialism has tormented humanity as world champion of children’s mass murder, destructor of nations, peoples, heritage. Creator of chaos and hunger, grief, loss and heartbreak, devastation and despair. A menace! An abomination!

One year ago, on the occasion of the 75-years jubilee, we wrote:

“We won’t send any congratulations.
But dear NATO, receive our deepest and most sincere wishes for a quick demise.”

Since then, mouths of the US MIC has forcefully been pushing for massive re-armament of European NATO countries to fill orderbooks and pockets of shareholder billionaires. Calling for war against a fake aggressor while salivating over the expected spoils of plunder, in no regard of the sanctity of life, in lack of anything human, serving only the dictum of profits; the classic strategy of crisis struck capitalism: Fascism.

Shaving the NATO sheep for the needs of the American MIC

Before you are two caricatures by the Soviet art collective “Kukryniksy” on the topic of the financial obligations of the NATO members before their American master.

The first caricature appeared in 1950 under the title “At the Marshallised Hairdresser. Standard hair-do”, referring to the “Marshall Plan”, which de-facto ensnared the whole of Western Europe in a financial net. The hapless members are sitting on the “Atlantic Treaty” bench, being shaved by Dean Acheson — the 51st Secretary of State in the Truman administration.

The British Ernest Bevin and the French Robert Schuman are already admiring their clean scalps, while the Italian Alcide De Gasperi is in the process of getting a new haircut. Next in line, tied by a single blanket, are the Be-Ne-Lux.

The illustration is from the “Kukryniksy 100 Years” Exhibition.

😈😈😈

The second image is a 1977 take by the “Kukryniksy” on the same topic. Now, the names of the individual politicians are gone, replaced by a single, all-tying NATO blanket. At the foot of the bench, the $-box has grown and turned into a whole sack, carrying a label “For the military needs”. And the shaving is done by the embodiment of the menacing-looking American Military-Industrial Complex.

The caricature is from the Kukryniksy artbook in The Shieldmaiden’s library, the book’s chapter with the title “Nuclear Maniacs”.

‼️ Here are several of the highly-relevant Soviet caricatures about NATO, which we showcased on our Telegram channel!
Continue reading →

The anniversary of the Karelo-Finnish SSR, and an unexpected turn in the “Wild ’90s”

Posted on by
Reading time: 10 minutes

We shall start with the contents of the post from our Telegram channel “Beorn And The Shieldmaiden”, where we marked the creation of the Karelo-Finnish Soviet Socialist Republic, and proceed to the translation of an article from “Argumenty i fakty” from July 23, 2019, which takes a deeper historical dive into the topic, as well as uncovers an unexpected twist from the “Wild ’90s”. The article also adds more touches to the portrait of the late Genndy Burbulis.

On March 31, 1940, at the sixth session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR in Moscow, the law on the transformation of the Karelian ASSR into the Union Karelo-Finnish SSR was adopted.

Most of the territories acquired by the USSR under the Moscow Peace Treaty, which ended the Soviet-Finnish “winter” War (1939 – 1940), were transferred to the KFSSR.

At that time, the Karelo-Finnish SSR became the 12th Union Republic of the USSR, in connection with which amendments were made to the Constitution of the USSR. Petrozavodsk remained the capital of the KFSSR.

♦️♦️♦️

In 1954 – 1955, relations between Finland, headed by President J. K. Paasikivi, and the USSR, headed by N. S. Hrushyov, began to improve. In early 1956, Paasikivi refused to run for a new term, and Urho Kekkonen was elected president in March.

On January 1, 1956, the USSR prematurely returned the territory of Porkkala to Finland, which it had received under the peace treaty, approved Finland’s neutrality and did not prevent its entry into the UN.

On July 16, 1956, the KFSSR was officially downgraded to the ASSR and returned to the RSFSR. At the same time, the word “Finnish” (Karelian ASSR) was removed from its name. The transformation of the KFSSR into the Karelian ASSR was supposed to show that the USSR had no aggressive goals regarding Finnish independence, and at the same time put an end to attempts by Finnish politicians to re-raise the issue of redefining the borders and annexing the western regions of Karelia (the Karelian question).

Source

♦️♦️♦️

In retrospect, if such a change had not happened in 1956, Vyborg and Petrozavodsk would now be outside of Russia, while Murmansk would be in the position of Kaliningrad.

The price list of Burbulis. Was Russia going to sell Karelia to Finland?

In the early 1990s, Russia could lose Karelia. There was no talk of secession of the Russian region on the initiative of local authorities: the federal government was thinking of selling Karelia to neighbouring Finland.

15 billion for the “problem territory”

“The idea of selling Karelia back to Finland was an emergency decision by Russia due to lack of money in 1991,” writes Finland’s largest newspaper Helsingin Sanomat, referring to the words of former Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Andrei Fedorov.

According to Fedorov, in the summer of 1991, in an atmosphere of the strictest secrecy, a working group was formed, which included Russian Foreign Minister Andrei Kozyrev, Fedorov himself, as well as Boris Yeltsin’s adviser Gennady Burbulis. The group was engaged in compiling a list of regions with a high risk of the growth of nationalist sentiments and the strengthening of extremist movements, advocating their own autonomy. Karelia was also included in the number of high-risk zones, referring primarily to the territories annexed following the Soviet-Finnish war of 1939-1940.

As Fedorov told Finnish journalists, Moscow was seriously considering selling the troubled territories for $15 billion, thereby replenishing the Russian treasury.
Continue reading →