The newspaper published a series of Telegram posts and articles, commemorating that turn to the worse in Russian history. Below, I will translate three materials from Telegram, finishing with a longer article by Doctor of Political Sciences Sergej Obuhov, who asks several highly-relevant questions about those times and how the events echo in today’s Russia.
All the images can be clicked on for higher resolution.
Today, after exactly 30 years, our editorial office publishes the historical Moscow edition of the newspaper “Pravda”, published on the 1st of October 1993 under the general headline “Politics is over. The dictatorship has begun”. It truly became a barricade leaflet, a “battle leaflet” that contained both a chronicle of what was happening, an analysis of the situation, and the thoughts and experiences of the participants in the events. Even now one can see in it the intensity of those events, the nerve of that time of troubles. For the edification of future generations.
In just two days there will be a bloody suppression of the popular uprising in the worst traditions of Pinochet, and “Pravda” became banned for a long time.
Here’s what the deputy editor-in-chief of Pravda, Viktor Linnik, wrote: “…It is absolutely not necessary to admire Hasbulatov and Rutskoy in order to be outraged by Yeltsin’s utterly cynical actions. Although it is precisely today that both Rutskoy, Hasbulatov, and every defender of the “White House” deserve the gratitude of the Russians for daring to throw the gauntlet in the face of tyranny.
In these hard times we get to know who the real journalists are – those who take the risk and go to the site of a conflict to see what is happening with their own eyes, to talk to the locals, to document the events. Nowadays, they are working against the other side – the court “journalists” who simply parrot whatever memo is sent to them from Kiev or Washington.
The independent Journalists, in addition to risking their lives while reporting from a hotspot, also face the smearing campaign in their home countries, where the MSM does everything it can to preserve the Party narrative and cannot allow any trickle of truth to seep through. But as the Russian saying goes, everything that is hidden eventually becomes uncovered.
Today I learned of two more: German Alina Lipp and Turkish historian Mehmet Perinçek.
I couldn’t find Alina Lipp’s TY channel, only a few reposts and some smearing videos trying to discredit her.
I did find an interview with her in English:
And I also located this short video on Rubmle, in which she is visiting the Mariupol harbour. In the beginning she mentiones that there are other international journalists with her – from Holland, Greece, Serbia, France… So it does look like the truth is being reported from there. The other question is whether somebody is listening…
I first hear of Alina in a re-translation article on Tsargrad:
A journalist from Germany, Alina Lipp, showed who the residents of Mariupol really blame for their troubles.
A journalist from Germany, Alina Lipp, talked to a local resident in Mariupol and found out his opinion about what is happening in the Donbass.
She asked a local resident how he feels about the fact that, according to German media reports, Russia is responsible for the devastation in eastern Ukraine: “I read the German news, and they say that Russia destroyed everything in Mariupol… and at killed everyone.”
The man did not hesitate to express himself:
Tell these Germans of yours to go f**k themselves..! Russia feeds us!
Alina Lipp was born in a suburb of Hamburg, she has a Russian father and a German mother. Last year she came to Donetsk for the first time and saw that the reality is very different from what German propaganda publications write. The journalist decided to stay and started posting her reports on social networks. Alina plans to continue to stay in the DPR and tell the truth about what is happening in the Donbass.
Likewise, as I do not know Turkish, I first learned of Mehmet Perinçek from a Russian publication, which I am translating to English below:
— I can say with confidence: if Russia had not launched a special operation in Ukraine, there would have been a more serious armed conflict, there would have been many times more destruction and casualties among the civilian population of Ukrainian cities.
— Kiev wanted to use these areas as a springboard against Russia. In this case, not only Ukrainian, but also many Russian cities located near the border with Ukraine would suffer. They would have turned into ruins.
— I visited Mariupol, Berdyansk, Donetsk and Melitopol. Local residents tell terrible things about the actions of neo-Nazis, about the “Azovites” who used them as a human shield. Neo-Nazis bombed the homes of civilians to blame the Russians, to blame the Russian army for the murder of children. Many say that the strikes on Mariupol were carried out even before Russian soldiers entered the city.
— Today, life in Mariupol is gradually recovering. Children and the elderly have the opportunity to walk quietly through the streets of the city. The most important thing that I was able to understand is that almost all residents of Donbass do not want to link their future with Kiev, while the Western media writes the opposite.
— This is reminiscent of the events in Iran and Iraq. In the end, the talk about some kind of weapons of mass destruction in these countries turned out to be nothing more than a fabrication. Today, almost the same thing is happening in Ukraine. In Zaporozhye, we visited a local nuclear power plant. If what the Western media say – that there is powerful radiation there – were true, then we would have died long ago. The station was operating normally. The Russian forces did not even change the local leadership of the facility.
Today, after exactly 30 years, our editorial office publishes the historical Moscow edition of the newspaper “Pravda”, published on the 1st of October 1993 under the general headline “Politics is over. The dictatorship has begun”. It truly became a barricade leaflet, a “battle leaflet” that contained both a chronicle of what was happening, an analysis of the situation, and the thoughts and experiences of the participants in the events. Even now one can see in it the intensity of those events, the nerve of that time of troubles. For the edification of future generations.