How Russia Became an "Aggressor"

[Russian Bear]

All articles from Russian Bear: https://projectavalon.net/forum4/sho...=1#post1672458

Russian political voice from Russian Bear, here I publish global news from all over the world: https://projectavalon.net/forum4/sho...=1#post1663607

Read also: This is why Europe wants to fight Russia https://projectavalon.net/forum4/sho...=1#post1671771

(History) The collapse of the USSR. How the Russians were betrayed: the collapse of the USSR is the final division of the Russian people https://projectavalon.net/forum4/sho...=1#post1664094



The story of how Russia became an "aggressor". The history of relations between Russia and the West.

The question of why the West hates Putin and Russia may seem strange to many.

"Well, how so?" a pro-Western person will say. "After all, there is Ukraine, anti-Western policy and, in general, a lack of sharing of Western values."

Well, they say, Putin is a person far from the civilized world, he does not fit in with it, and therefore relations with the USA and Europe are not going well. And if Putin were friends with the West or we had another pro-Western president, then everything in the whole world would be fine - this is the idea of ​​the world, conditionally, of Navalny's supporters, liberals and other various traitors to Russia.

But what is the reality?
Just think about it: how did Russia become an "aggressor"?

Today, one of the main reasons for the conflict between Russia and the West is the expansion of NATO.



And here's the story.

NATO was created to confront the Soviet Union.

And now look, even in Soviet times, the leader of the USSR Mikhail Gorbachev told the United States, which was and is leading in
⚠️NATO: "We are giving up our positions, withdrawing our troops from Europe."

News Chronicle:
Malta Summit. The outcome of the meeting was perceived as the end of the Cold War. Gorbachev solemnly assured that the Soviet Union would never attack the United States, but the Americans were in no hurry with such assurances. They put forward clear demands: the USSR must agree to the unification of Germany, not interfere with changes in Eastern Europe, stop helping Cuba and Nicaragua.

The Soviet side did not particularly object. After the summit, Moscow, in fact, accepted all the conditions, without demanding anything specific in return.


Malta Summit, 1989

Roughly speaking, Gorbachev bent the entire country to a geopolitical enemy.

And most importantly, he didn't ask for anything in return! Although it was possible (and even necessary) to ask for similar steps: the USSR withdraws its troops from East Germany, and the USA from West Germany.

But, let alone this, the USSR leadership didn't even demand that NATO not expand further east to the borders of the USSR and Russia. That is, it would have been possible to say: "Okay. We are giving up our positions, and you at least stop advancing your troops to our borders - a fair demand in this situation. - Let's sign papers confirming this, and we will live happily ever after in peace."

Read NATO verbally assured the USSR that it would not expand to the east: https://projectavalon.net/forum4/sho...=1#post1672076


No. Gorbachev didn't demand anything at all.

From the country's point of view, this is betrayal and capitulation.
From the point of view of the Western layman, this was a step towards peace.

Well, okay.

Then it turns out that it was the USSR that went for rapprochement, for the so-called peace in the whole world.

Not the United States, but the USSR.

❗️ That is, the Soviet Union should be considered a real peacemaker for the West.

Already at that moment, the West could have really started to be friends with Russia. And here is a question for pro-Western people: why didn't the US do this?

On the contrary, they began to pump out natural resources, finances, people, and generally everything that has value from Russia, as from a colony.

And NATO immediately began to expand:
❌ in 1990, the US occupied East Germany.

Why?

After all, the USSR voluntarily retreated. It said itself: "Let's be friends." And not just said, but took a huge step unilaterally, leaving Europe and not even asking for anything in return!

Then, under President Yeltsin, the best friend of American President Clinton,
❌ in 1994, NATO began attempts at military occupation of the former allies of the USSR.
❌ On March 12, 1999, 12 days before the bombing of Yugoslavia began, Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic joined the alliance.



⏩ So look: first Gorbachev completely capitulates to the US, saying: "That's it, we don't want confrontation. We want to live in peace." But the US only launched an offensive in response.
⏩ After Gorbachev, Yeltsin took over the country, who bent the country even more to the Americans - they practically completely controlled Russia: they wrote laws, appointed politicians, disarmed our country, etc.

It would seem that everything is fine - there can be no threat. But, no! NATO only expanded more and more, surrounding Russia.

❌ In 1999, violating all international norms and rules, all moral and ethical standards of humanity, the US began bombing the capital of the Slavic country - Yugoslavia. In addition to other horrors, this humiliates the dignity of the Russian state. Dignity, which, in fact, no longer existed.

Why all this?

⏩ Then Putin comes to power - a democrat, a liberal, advocates the rule of law and friendship with the West.

What prevented the West from stopping its humiliating policy towards Russia and starting to be friends?

Okay, maybe Yeltsin was an insane alcoholic, but Putin is more than adequate and smart.

What aggression came from our country then, so that
❌ in 2004, Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Estonia joined NATO. That is, specifically territories that had previously been part of Russia for hundreds of years!
This expansion was generally the largest in the history of the alliance.



That is, NATO, at a time when Russia was open on all fronts, when, like Leopold the Cat, it wanted to live peacefully, had already occupied the historical lands of Russia directly.

Why?

Look what happens: the world was in danger for many decades due to the threat of a nuclear war between the USSR and the USA. Naturally, for the Western layman and today's liberals and traitors, the main villain was the USSR. But it was the USSR that came and said: "I will not fight anymore. I surrender and let's disarm."

But Western leaders were surprised, smiled and began to attack even more against the supposedly former enemy. That is, they began to lead the situation to a future catastrophe. Not the USSR, not Russia, but the USA and its vassals!

And this is not Kremlin propaganda, these are open, well-known facts.

It gets more interesting.

⚠️ Think about it! Russian President Boris Yeltsin comes to the United States and declares that our missiles will not be aimed at a potential enemy (i.e. the United States) and does so unilaterally. And at the end he pompously says: "God bless America."

Boris Yeltsin (US Congress, June 17, 1992):

I declare with all responsibility: we, without waiting for the signing of a treaty or agreement, have already begun (and the Russian Defense Minister, who is present, will confirm) to remove from combat duty the heavy SS-18 missiles aimed at the United States of America.
...
God bless America.


Speech by Russian President Boris Yeltsin to the US Congress on June 17, 1992

What prevented the West from stopping the military development of Eastern Europe and historical Russian lands after this?

After all, just 2 years after these words, in 1994, NATO began to draw in countries of the former socialist camp.

Why?

❌ In 1999, GUAM, a political union of Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova, created by NATO against Russia, can be considered a geopolitical “branch” of NATO.



Thanks to this GUAM, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan withdrew from the CIS Collective Security Treaty. For this reason, Georgia's war against Russia in 2008 became possible.

Now, as for Putin. He did not show any aggression towards the West at all. On the contrary, he spoke about cooperation and rapprochement.

Moreover, Putin, in the face of the impending danger, i.e. NATO's approach to Russia's borders, in order to avoid military aggression from the bloc, which is actually happening now, even suggested that Russia also join NATO.

Putin (Valdai, 2023):
After all, there was a moment when your humble servant simply suggested: maybe we should join NATO? But no, such a country is not needed in NATO. No.

The question is, what else? We thought that we were already our own, excuse me, as we say in our country, bourgeois. WHAT else? THERE IS NO MORE IDEOLOGICAL CONFRONTATION. What is the problem?

Just realize it.

The Soviet Union, Russia, its presidents - all the time lying on their backs and wagging their tails, said to the West: "Let's be friends! Look: we are unarmed in front of you, our troops are not on your territory." But the West still attacked.

And Putin, looking at this, said: "Let Russia also join NATO and we will live in peace." Well, where else could we go to meet each other halfway?

Yes, the fact that Putin talked about joining NATO is used by some figures to discredit him. Like, look, what kind of patriot is he? He wanted to join NATO.

But firstly, in essence, it was logical to avoid a war with NATO in the future. A war that is already looming.
Secondly, Russia would have had enormous influence in NATO.
But thirdly, those who accuse Putin of unpatriotism, pointing to his words about Russia joining NATO, forget that the USSR also wanted to do this in 1954. That is, this is not new. And Russia's presence in NATO was seen as a victory and a threat to us.

Putin, 2001 (joint press conference with Bush):
I will now read to you a recently declassified... actually, this was in the press a long time ago, the accompanying documents were secret at the time. It says: a copy has been declassified, but it was completely secret.

This is a note from the Soviet government from 1954, sent to NATO member countries.

It says the following: "Guided by the unchanging principles of its peaceful foreign policy and striving to reduce tension in international relations, the Soviet government expresses its readiness to consider, together with interested governments, the question of the USSR's participation in the North Atlantic Treaty."

And here is the answer: "Such and such proposals were accompanied by the expansion of the Atlantic Pact by the accession of the Soviet Union to the North Atlantic Treaty. There is no need to emphasize the completely unrealistic nature of such a proposal." This is the answer.

About a year ago, I answered a question about whether it was possible for Russia to somehow join NATO. I said: "Why not?" And immediately the former US Secretary of State, Ms. M. Albright, said: "Well, this is not being discussed now."

I really want these facts to be seen in the West by ordinary people and our so-called pro-Western liberals.

❗️ So that they understand WHO is the real aggressor and how it all really began.

Next about "aggressive" Russia.
In 2001, Russia supported the US in the UN Security Council in the fight against terrorists and provided the territory to American troops as a transit base.

Think about how open Russia was - it allowed American troops to fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan, using its territory!

Here again, a small comment. This fact is also used against Putin. Like, look: he allowed the creation of a NATO base in Russia. What kind of patriot is this?

But those who say this are narrow-minded people who either simply do not know, or deliberately keep silent about the fact that the Taliban wanted to invade the territory of Chechnya. They really planned it.

That is why Putin happily helped the Americans in the war with the Taliban and prevented the invasion of a huge mass of terrorists into Russia.

As a result, what do we get?

Russia has always met the West halfway, always offered friendship and peace.

But the West smiled, nodded its head in response and strangled Russia more and more.

And in all senses: economic, military, geopolitical, etc.

Russia unilaterally not only gave up its positions and opened up to the so-called civilized world, but also disarmed itself.

Yes, our country destroyed its weapons, and UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE AMERICANS,
and the Americans at that time only increased theirs, surrounding Russia with military infrastructure.
Well, who is the aggressor here?

There are particularly stubborn people who claim that NATO does not pose any threat to Russia. Like, don't worry, it's just a defensive alliance.

Yes. A defensive alliance that destroys entire countries:
Iraq, Libya, Yugoslavia - they won't let me lie.

How America Destroyed Libya: https://projectavalon.net/forum4/sho...=1#post1671791
Iraq: https://projectavalon.net/forum4/sho...=1#post1671751
Syria: https://projectavalon.net/forum4/sho...=1#post1672003

And I repeat once again: this supposedly defensive alliance bombed these countries, violating all international rules! In addition, these bombings were carried out with depleted uranium ammunition, which still has its consequences.

Well, in general, look at the list of NATO military operations and answer the question: what kind of defense is this?



If we reason like this, then Hitler was only defending himself.

Here are the facts of ATTACK by the “defensive” alliance - there are plenty of them.
And from whom and when did it DEFEND itself, this “defensive alliance?”
Putin, 2001 (joint press conference with Bush):

We ask ourselves: is it a military organization or not?
Military.
Do they not want to see us there?
They do not want to.
Is it moving towards our borders?
It is moving.
WHY?

Here we can add:
➡️ American sponsorship of terrorists in the Chechen Republic,
➡️ construction of military biolaboratories in the post-Soviet space (again - against whom?) Russians Uncovered US Biological Labs in Ukraine (Bioweapons):https://projectavalon.net/forum4/sho...=1#post1663602
➡️ and in general a far from friendly policy towards our country.

But still, Russia, wiping itself of insults, humiliations and slavery, continued to look at the United States with wide-open, loving eyes. And even after they armed Saakashvili, who attacked Russian peacekeepers, after various made-up accusations, Russia still did not show any aggression!

In 2007, Putin gave a speech in Germany, where he warned the West that a unipolar world is destructive for the whole world, including the hegemon itself. Pointing out that under such a world order, there have only become more wars. Significantly more. And again he called for living in peace. (President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin at the Munich Security Conference, February 10, 2007)

It seemed like at that time it would have been possible to somehow agree on peace and cooperation, to sign some kind of agreement so that Russia would feel safe, and NATO would no longer expand its troops. But, no.

❌ In 2009 - the sixth expansion of NATO.



This was the time when the President of Russia was the liberal Medvedev, who spoke even more about friendship with the West than Putin, supported various resolutions proposed by the United States. And even he expressed concern, saying that

NATO is still a military bloc and its missiles are aimed at Russia.

Why was this sixth NATO expansion necessary?
Why?

And even after that, Russia did not pose any threat (none!) to the West - it was completely dependent on Europe and the United States, was part of a unipolar world: the ECHR, international courts - they still ruled in Russia (and partly still rule).

❌ And in such a situation, the West begins to actively destabilize the situation in our neighboring country, cultivating, to put it mildly, people who do not have a very good attitude towards Russia.



Again, the question is - why?

In general, there have been several coups d'état in Ukraine. And their purpose was to drag pro-Western people who could not win in fair elections into power. That's all.

As an example, the 2004 elections, when Yanukovych won. But he was essentially removed by a coup d'état. Then an unconstitutional - third - round was appointed, in which Yushchenko was already dragged through.

But later Yanukovych still won the elections and in 2014 he was removed from power, again, as a result of a pro-Western coup d'état. A coup d'état that was openly supported and financed by the United States.

The question is: why?

And here look: until this moment, again, Russia did not pose any danger to the West or to the neighboring country. The main thing is that there were no territorial claims to Ukraine: Crimea, Donbass - were recognized as Ukrainian and everything was fine.

But all this was destroyed by the 2014 coup d'état, which was staged by the Western intelligence services.
❗️ And only from that moment, from that year, Russia decided to make a statement. Not just to express concern, but to START ACTING - after all this aggression, humiliation and attack.

The Americans did not just come to a sleeping bear and stir up his den, saying: "Look! We told you that the bear is aggressive." The Americans managed to anger the bear, who was actually tame and docile.

At that moment, it finally... 100% .. It simply became clear that Russia will never be listened to, its concerns and problems are of no concern. The West understands only the language of force. And Russia has no choice but to speak this language.

Putin, 2018 (presentation of the latest type of weapon - Sarmat, Kinzhal):
We tried for a long time to persuade the Americans not to destroy the ABM Treaty, not to upset the strategic balance. All in vain.

In 2002, the United States unilaterally withdrew from this treaty. But even after that, we tried for a long time to establish a constructive dialogue with them. But, no. All our proposals (precisely ALL our proposals) were rejected.

It is even surprising, but despite all the problems that we encountered there: in the economy, in finance, in the defense industry, in the army, but still Russia remained and remains the largest nuclear power.

No. No one wanted to talk to us on the merits. No one listened to us. Listen now.

And here the West should have thought about the fact that it is THEIR policy that is leading to the Third World War, try to somehow come to an agreement, stop, because they have already captured almost the entire world.

But, no. In response to Russia's logical response, the US and its vassals became even more furious and began to put pressure with sanctions and, of course,
❌ further expansion of NATO and the creation of an anti-Russia from a neighboring country.



Again the question: why?

But Russia tried to reach an agreement until the very end.

Russia has always been willing to meet the world halfway. Now it is very important - think about it: in December 2021 (in December!) Russia is sending the Americans a draft treaty on security in Europe.

The point of the treaty was to agree on peace. Like, you - the Americans - stop attacking, and this is confirmed by documents. And we - Russia - will also confirm by documents that we will not threaten anyone.

That is, again, like Leopold the Cat, Russia said: "Let's live in peace."

And what do you think the Americans responded to this? They don't give a damn about security in Europe and Russia's wishes.

And then Russia did what it had been forced to do for many, many years.

It became an "aggressor" in the opinion of the West.
And from the point of view of our country, it simply began to DEFEND ITS INTERESTS.

To better understand the current situation, imagine it the other way around: if the US constantly talked about peace and listened to Russia, while Russia at the same time increasingly placed military bases somewhere in Canada, Mexico, Texas, while simultaneously accusing the US of aggression and imperial ambitions. How would it look? Adequate?

That's what's happening now, only in reverse.

And from all this information it should be clear that no pro-Western president will be able to please the West if he also strengthens Russia. All those who are supported by the West, like Navalny, in the opinion of this same West, should simply destroy Russia. Otherwise, why didn't the US want to be friends under Yeltsin, Medvedev and early Putin?

Unfortunately, such is the reality. They understand only the language of force.

Here, friends, is the story of how Russia became an "aggressor". Unfortunately, I have omitted many important points, because the article can be blocked. But I think you already know all the nuances about the country "404".

That's all for now, comrades. Go to my profile to see all my articles.

Add me as a friend comrades.


Russia is now gaining its strength, expect USSR 2.0 I will tell you 100% we will fight with NATO, this cannot be avoided, and in the future we will be on the brink of war with America, I hope it doesn't come to war with the United States, but there will be an open cold war 100% worse than now:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=kvL0lbL4wUs

Putin's entourage declared that the USSR exists! Here's why it was done. https://projectavalon.net/forum4/sho...=1#post1671746

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=IilPTkasc8U

History repeats itself. (Cold War) USSR and USA are on the brink of nuclear war and World War III
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/sho...=1#post1665101

[Russian Bear]

(Cold War) USSR and USA are on the brink of nuclear war and World War III
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/sho...=1#post1665101

Read NATO verbally assured the USSR that it would not expand to the east.

The process of NATO expansion to the east began in the 1990s. Since then, the North Atlantic Alliance has come very close to the borders of Russia. But before the unification of Germany, many Western politicians assured M.S. Gorbachev that nothing like this would happen. Now the very fact of such promises is being questioned.

Gorbachev's Memoirs
Following the fall of the Berlin Wall, difficult negotiations began between the leaders of the USSR and Western countries. The last General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, Mikhail Gorbachev, described these events in his memoirs, "How It Was. The Unification of Germany" (Moscow, 1999). The politician spoke about a conversation he had on February 9, 1990, with US Secretary of State James Baker, who arrived in Moscow to discuss the German question.

"Baker immediately and solemnly declared to me that - I quote from the transcript - "there will be no extension of NATO's jurisdiction and military presence by a single inch in the eastern direction," wrote M.S. Gorbachev.

At the same time, the American Secretary of State did not skimp on assurances of friendship and generous promises. He stated that the US leadership does not plan to "tear Eastern Europe away from the Soviet Union." After the end of the Cold War, Western countries plan to ensure stability and security in Europe together with official Moscow. True, a united Germany will join NATO, because such a country simply cannot be left without military control, otherwise the Germans, God forbid, will take up the creation of nuclear weapons.

That is, James Baker promised that after the territory of the former GDR joins the Alliance, NATO will not expand further in the eastern direction. The General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee heard such assurances at official negotiations from German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, US President George Bush Sr. and other prominent Western politicians. Gorbachev believed them, because "he was convinced that the Cold War would not return under any circumstances and that there was no longer a military threat to our country from the West."

In addition, foreign "friends" managed to convince M. S. Gorbachev that both NATO and the Warsaw Pact, which included Eastern European countries friendly to the USSR, were essentially military blocs that had already outlived their usefulness. And in a situation where there was no longer any confrontation, NATO would undergo a serious transformation, turning into only a political structure.

Treaty and guarantees
But all these assurances from Western politicians were never clearly recorded in any official international document. A very vague formulation, however, was contained in the “Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany,” which was signed on September 12, 1990, in Moscow. In addition to the FRG and the GDR, this document was countersigned by the leaders of the USSR, the USA, Great Britain, and France. In accordance with the treaty, our country assumed the obligation to completely withdraw its troops from the territory of East Germany by the end of 1994.

Clause 3 of Article 5 of this international agreement stated: “Foreign troops and nuclear weapons or their carriers will not be stationed in this part of Germany [referring to the territory of the former GDR – author’s note] or deployed there.”
The Soviet side interpreted this formulation as a guarantee of non-expansion of NATO to the east, while our Western partners, as it turned out, saw some other meaning in it. Moreover, Article 6 of the treaty granted the united Germany the right to join any alliances. Of course, the Germans soon took advantage of this right by formalizing their membership in NATO.

Retracted his words
As is known, in 2014, relations between Russia and Western countries noticeably worsened due to a number of reasons. And at the festive events dedicated to the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, M. S. Gorbachev presented our foreign "friends" with a real gift. In an interview with the German TV channel ZDF on November 8, 2014, the last General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee said that none of the Western politicians had given him promises about NATO not expanding to the east. And all the opposite statements, they say, are simply "a myth inflated by the press."

ZDF correspondent Florian Neuhann duplicated an excerpt from the sensational interview with M. S. Gorbachev in his article "Border dispute with Ukraine. How Putin makes policy out of a false myth" from December 3, 2021. The foreign journalist accused the Russian president of political manipulation.

V. Putin has indeed drawn attention to a simple fact several times in his speeches: Western colleagues promised M. Gorbachev that NATO would not expand to the east, and simply deceived him. And Florian Neuhann, referring to M. Gorbachev, expressed the opinion that V. Putin groundlessly accuses the leadership of Western countries of "alleged lies".

Thus, M. Gorbachev's refusal to renounce his own words, contained not only in his memoirs, but also in numerous interviews of the nineties and noughties, allowed the foreign press to criticize the position of the current Russian leadership.

Incidentally, Florian Neuhann also referred to the position on this issue of former German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher. The German politician admitted that on February 10, 1990, he spoke about NATO's non-expansion to the east with his Soviet colleague Eduard Shevardnadze. True, these words were not a promise, but rather a preliminary testing of the waters on the eve of real negotiations at the highest level. They say that the Soviet colleagues simply misunderstood everything.

Long ago and not true
It is no wonder that American politicians, like their German colleagues, deny the very fact of broken promises on their part. Thus, at a briefing on December 6, 2021, the official representative of the US State Department Ned Price spoke out on this topic.

“This was a long time ago, this is a long-standing NATO policy. I want to emphasize once again that NATO is a defensive bloc by nature. The idea that NATO or membership aspirants like Ukraine could pose a threat to Russia is laughable if the situation were not so serious. So we heard the same chatter from Moscow again,” the press secretary of the US State Department said.

By "chatter from Moscow" Ned Price probably meant the reproaches of the Russian leadership against Western politicians. But the former US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul outlined his position on this issue on June 5, 2016 in an interview with the Estonian publication Postimees.

"This statement is a complete fabrication. My experience with Russian diplomats is that the Russians want to put absolutely everything on paper, they need written agreements for everything... Such a promise was never made, and I have never seen or heard of a document confirming it," said Michael McFaul.

Well, perhaps modern Russian diplomats are trying to put everything on paper because they have taken into account the bitter experience of their predecessors. After all, the beautiful assurances of James Baker, Helmut Kohl and other Western politicians of the 90s turned out to be just empty words.

We were deceived
PhD in Philosophy, famous political scientist Alla Yaroshinskaya believes that foreign partners simply "dumped" the USSR. The researcher wrote about this in the article "Gorbachev Refutes Gorbachev?", which the Rosbalt news agency published on November 11, 2014. Having complained that the last leader of the USSR refused to follow his own words, the author expressed the opinion that Western politicians skillfully played on his pride and inexperience in international politics.

A.A. Yaroshinskaya regretfully noted that M.S. Gorbachev "did not even think about any legally valid document that would secure on paper all the sworn promises of Western leaders." But in words, everything was simply wonderful. Foreign "friends" talked about significant financial assistance to the Soviet Union, about the abolition of all military blocs in Europe, about the closure of American bases, about the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, etc.

Everyone knows what actually came out of this.

[Baby Steps]

I have come to think that Europe is morphing into a well disguised neo-fascist imperialist force, with the prime goal of breaking the integrity of Russia in order to disempower it and grab its huge wealth.

As much as anything, its an iteration of the British Great Game which was always interfering and destabilising Eurasia for its own aims/greed.

95% of Brits I talk to buy the state propaganda, helped by the Scripal psi-op which I strongly suspect was done by Russian mafia at the secret behest of British intelligence. After all the Idea that the Russian state would bungle as assassination and do it in a way that left identifiable 'finger prints' (old semi active novichok) is preposterous.

The entire Ukraine narrative we are being asked to believe is preposterous. We are being asked to believe that the White House announcement of its long term aim to bring Ukraine into NATO, in 2009 or earlier, was nor real or binding.

We are being asked to believe that Russia's clear response that bringing in Ukraine to NATO was 'the reddest of red lines' was not a warning of impending conflict if NATO continued its move east.

We are being asked to believe that running a coup in a Nation bordering Russia, just before those people got their chance to express their will in elections, was OK, sensible, and Obama 'Brokering' a governmental transition was not interfering in their democracy.

We are being asked to believe that Banderism is not important, and the integration of Nazi militias like the Azov battallion etc into Ukraine's army is a mere detail

We are being asked to believe that years or murderous shelling of the Donbass people is not a war crime

We are being asked to believe that Ukraines violation of the Minsk agreements is not a casus belli

We are being asked to believe that the prospect of NATO hypersonic missile batteries located 3 minutes flight from Moscow is not dangerous and destabilising

We are being asked to believe that significant oppression of Russian minorities in Ukraine including discrimination under law is Ok or is not happening.

We are being asked to believe that the creation of a heavily armed military colossus aligned with NATO operational standards on Russia's border could never be seen as a threat to Russia

We are being asked to believe that pathogen engineering in various labs in Ukraine as admitted by Victoria Nuland, it not to be seen as a threat

We are being asked to believe that the leadership of Russia, would be crazy to think any of this is a threat, even though half the nation was destroyed by invaders in 1941-45.

Tragically most of us buy the nonsense. When I lay this stuff out they just say that they don't agree and what is really happening is that Putin is behaving like a modern day Hitler, instead of what he really is, which is a modern day JFK.

[christian]

NATO didn't bomb Russia. Ukraine didn't bomb Russia. Russia invaded Crimea and parts of the Donbas in 2014 in response to a Western-backed false flag and coup in Kyiv. Then Russia started bombing all of Ukraine in 2022.

I don't like any government. I didn't like Saddam Hussein, but I was against the Iraq War, because Iraq was attacked. I don't like the Ukrainian government, but I'm against Russia's invasion of Ukraine, because it's wrong to invade another country.

NATO expansion was not discussed at the 1989 Malta Summit. It's true that in 1990, US Secretary of State James Baker suggested to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO wouldn't expand towards Russia if Gorbachev agreed to the reunification of Germany. However, this was never formalized or agreed upon in a binding treaty. On the contrary, just months later, Gorbachev signed the Paris Charter, in which the Soviet Union agreed to "fully recognize the freedom of states to choose their own security arrangements." In the 1997 NATO–Russia Founding Act, Russia renewed its pledge to respect the political sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries and their "inherent right to choose the means to ensure their own security." Russia then again reaffirmed "the inherent right of each and every participating state to be free to choose or change its security arrangements, including treaties of alliance" in the OSCE's 1999 Istanbul Document. Although these documents are not treaties under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, they are declarations of political intent that arguably carry more weight than a verbal offer that was ultimately superseded by Russia's assurances to respect every country's right to choose or change its military alliances. In general, neither Russia nor the US may lay claim to other countries by dictating their military alliances. In this sense, the Paris Charter, the NATO–Russia Founding Act, and the Istanbul Document signified progress toward a more equitable international order, placing the rights of individual countries above the interests of the world's superpowers.

In 2004, Putin said he hoped NATO expansion would lead to "the strengthening of trust in Europe and the entire world." He added that "each country has the right to choose the form of security it considers most effective." In 2005, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov was asked whether Ukraine and Georgia could join NATO. He said, "We respect the right of every state, including our neighbors, to choose its own partners, to decide for itself which organization it wants to join. We expect them to think for themselves about how they want to develop their politics and economy, and what partners and allies they want to rely on."

By 2006, the Russian government struck a less diplomatic tone. Putin declared that governments pretending to fight for human rights and democracy were pursuing selfish interests. He also noted that Russia was no match for the US militarily and therefore must ensure its security by empowering its military to enforce Russian foreign policy objectives in neighboring countries to prevent them from leaving Russia's sphere of influence.

This is from Putin's 2006 address to the federal assembly:

In terms of absolute figures, and we all know that in the end it is absolute figures that count, our defense spending [...] bears no comparison at all with the defense spending figures in the United States. Their defense budget in absolute figures is almost 25 times bigger than Russia's. [...]

But this means that we also need to build our home and make it strong and well-protected. We see, after all, what is going on in the world. The wolf knows who to eat, as the saying goes. It knows who to eat and is not about to listen to anyone, it seems.

How quickly all the pathos of the need to fight for human rights and democracy is laid aside the moment the need to realize one's own interests comes to the fore. In the name of one's own interests everything is possible, it turns out, and there are no limits. [...]

[T]he question arises whether we can reliably ensure our security in a situation of such disparity with the other leading powers. Of course we can, and I will say how now. [...]

A few years ago, the structure of the country's armed forces was not in keeping with the reality of today's situation. [...] When the need arose to counter a large-scale attack by international terrorists in the North Caucasus in 1999, the problems in the armed forces became painfully evident. [...]

The situation in the armed forces today has changed dramatically. We have created a modern structure for the armed forces [...]. This year saw the start of mass defense equipment procurement for the defense ministry's needs. [...]

We need to realize that the armed forces are part of ourselves, part of our society, and that service in their ranks is of immense importance for the country and for the entire Russian people.

Reflecting on the basic principles on which the Russian state should be built, the well known Russian thinker Ivan Ilyin said that the calling of soldier is a high and honorable title and that the soldier "represents the national unity of the people, the will of the Russian state, strength, and honor." [...] We must be able to respond to attempts from any quarters to put foreign policy pressure on Russia, including with the aim of strengthening one's own position at our expense. [...]

I repeat that our relations with our closest neighbors were and remain a most important part of the Russian Federation’s foreign policy.

It's all about military imperialism. It's telling that he references the 1999 Chechen War, which was justified with false flag terror attacks orchestrated by Putin's FSB. It was Russia's 9/11.

A veteran Soviet intelligence officer, Putin became head of the FSB in 1998 and secretary of Russia's security council in 1999. Only months later, Islamist militants launched an insurgency in Russia's Dagestan province. Apparently, the FSB had encouraged the Islamists to take Dagestan as part of a plot against President Yeltsin, but then double-crossed them as the insurgency served to oust the prime minister and replace him with Putin, who led a campaign to drive the Islamists out of Dagestan and into Chechnya.

This is from Jonathan Littell's paper "The Security Organs of the Russian Federation":

[O]n August 6 […], over a thousand heavily armed fighters, mostly Dagestani but led by the famous Chechen field commander Shamil Basayev and his deputy, the Saudi mujahideen known as [Emir] Khattab, crossed over into Dagestan. Basayev declared that he intended to unite Chechnya and Dagestan into an Islamic caliphate […]. On August 8, [Prime Minister] Stepashin returned to Moscow and was dismissed; Yeltsin immediately named Putin in his place, presenting the little-known [former] FSB director […] as his choice as successor. The new prime minister vowed to crush the rebels within two weeks […]. Putin loyalist Nikolai Patrushev was named to replace him at the head of the FSB. On August 23, after bitter fighting during which several villages were destroyed, Basayev and his forces withdrew to Chechnya; numerous eyewitnesses say that the federal forces did nothing to impede his retreat. […]

A senior Chechen field commander […] says that one of Basayev’s Wahhabi associates tried (unsuccessfully) to convince him to join the incursion, explaining to him that anti-Yeltsin elements in Moscow would remove all obstacles and give Basayev the "green light;" once he had linked up with the Dagestani Wahhabis and taken [Dagestan's capital] Makhachkala, the ensuing crisis would serve to topple Yeltsin, and those who would take power in his place would write off Chechnya and Dagestan, leaving it to the radicals.

With President Yeltsin suffering from poor health, Putin was in charge of the government when a series of apartment bombings shook Russia in September 1999. Putin immediately blamed Chechen terrorists, although no Chechen claimed responsibility and evidence suggested that the FSB was behind the bombings. A key witness is Achemez Gochiyayev. He sublet basement storage space to an old high school acquaintance in two Moscow apartment buildings that were destroyed in the bombings. Realizing that he had been set up, Gochiyayev alerted local authorities to two other buildings, where police found and defused two more bombs.

These are Gochiyayev's words:

In June 1999, an old acquaintance from my school years visited me in my office. He invited me to do some joint business, saying he has good channels for selling food products. First he asked me to purchase for him a consignment of mineral water, which I did. He sold the goods and settled accounts with me as agreed. Later he told me that he needed storage facilities in southeast Moscow since some of his stalls were located there. I helped him to find and rent several premises […].

On […] September 9 […] I was visiting some of my friends. At five o'clock in the morning on that day that man called me on my mobile phone to say that a small fire broke out at his warehouse on Guryanova Street, and that he urgently needed me there. […] As I was getting ready to leave […], I switched on TV and saw what had really happened there. I decided then not to go there and wait till all that was over. When the second blast ripped through an apartment block on Kashirskoe Highway, I finally realized that I had been framed up. I immediately dialed police, ambulance, and even "911" (emergency situations hotline) to alert them that there were similar warehouses in the neighborhoods of Borisovskie Prudy and Kapotnya. That helped prevent further explosions. However, I was dubbed a prime suspect, and later a mastermind of these attacks.

Since then I have been lying low. A closer look at all these events makes me conclude that all that appalling conspiracy had been devised and carried out by those people who wanted to and did take advantage of that. However, there was one hitch in their scheme: I have managed to escape from them. I believe the fact that on [...] September 9, I was not staying at home, but was visiting friends, helped me. Now I am almost certain that the man whom I worked with is a FSB agent.

The owner of the basement in the building on Guryanova Street, Mark Blumenfeld, confirmed that the actual tenant wasn't Gochiyayev, but says that FSB agents pressured him into giving false testimony and even switched the police sketch of the actual tenant with a sketch of Gochiyayev, who apparently later fled Russia.

Nine days after the Gochiyayev's call to the police led to the defusing of two bombs, a resident of an apartment building in Ryazan noticed suspicious activity and called the police, who discovered another bomb.

This is from Jeffrey Nyquist in WorldNetDaily:

On Sept. 22 […], Aleksei Kartofelnikov noticed a suspicious car near his apartment building […]. Aleksei decided to call the police. When a squad car showed up, […] they found four 100-pound sacks and an apparent detonator set to blow at 5:30 am. The bomb squad arrived to disarm the detonator […]. They later tested the sugar-like material found in the sacks, and detected the presence of hexogen, a special type of explosive.

This is from David Satter in National Review:

Within minutes, not only the building but also the surrounding neighborhood was evacuated. In all, nearly 30,000 persons spent the night on the street. The airport and railroad stations were surrounded by police, and roadblocks were set up on all of the roads leading out of the city.

The origin of the bomb was determined, however, in a totally unexpected way. On the evening of the 23rd, a call to Moscow was made from a public telephone […]. The operator who connected the call caught a fragment of conversation in which a caller said there was no way to get out of town undetected. The voice at the other end of the line said, "Split up and each of you make your own way out." The operator reported the call to the police and they traced the number. To their astonishment, it belonged to the FSB.

A short time later, with the help of tips from the population, the police arrested two terrorists. They produced identification from the FSB and were released on orders from Moscow.

This is from Jeffrey Nyquist in WorldNetDaily:

On Sept. 24, the very next day, FSB Director Nikolai Patrushev told a reporter in Moscow that a "fake bomb" had been planted in Ryazan by his organization as part of a security test. The whole incident was a "training exercise," he said. The sacks were filled with sugar—not hexogen. [...]

After Patrushev's statement, the Ryazan police investigation was immediately canceled. The FSB approached the angry residents […]. Many of them believed that the FSB had tried to kill them. Aleksei Kartofelnikov began to connect the dots: "The government started bombing Chechnya the next day."

Despite the FSB’s claim of a fake sugar bomb, the explosives expert who defused the bomb, Yuri Tkachenko, confirmed that it was real. This is from John Dunlop's book The Moscow Bombings of September 1999:

Journalist Pavel Voloshin [from Novaya Gazeta] later succeeded in tracking down Tkachenko. [...]

In his pioneering February 2000 essay “What happened in Ryazan: Sugar or Hexogen?” based in part on his lengthy interview with Tkachenko, Voloshin asked:

"What was in the sacks? As is well known, during the time of their discovery, a gas analyzer of the specialist-sappers of the Ryazan MVD [Ministry of Internal Affairs] indicated the presence of hexogen fumes. The head of the engineering-technical department of the public security division of the [regular] police, Yuri Tkachenko, who personally carried out the disarming [of the bomb], is completely certain that the instrument […] was in correct working order […]."

"Could," Voloshin then asked, "a mistake have happened? Yes, in certain cases. Due to antiquated equipment and to methodology. But the department of specialist-sappers is a unique unit not only for Ryazan but for the adjacent oblasts as well. Here there work exclusively professional sappers (13 persons), who have acquired an enormous experience of work. In addition, all of them have completed courses to raise their qualifications […] and each year they have to pass exams."

On the subject of the equipment, Voloshin went on to comment: "The equipment in Ryazan, no matter how strange it seems, is of a world level. One gas analyzer to detect the fumes of explosive substances (the one that was used) costs about $20,000 […]. [Tkachenko] is confident in his equipment. No other way would be possible since their lives depend on their instruments working correctly."

In addition to detecting hexogen fumes, Tkachenko and his bomb squad also discovered a live combat detonator in the basement. "The second 'piece of evidence,'" Voloshin noted, "is the detonator. According to the testimony of those who disarmed the device that was found, the detonator that was attached to the sacks was not a dummy […] and had been prepared on a professional level […]. It is therefore incomprehensible: why was it necessary to equip a dummy explosive with a live detonator […]?"

Voloshin was also interested in the fate of the three sugar sacks. "Why were the Ryazan […] specialists not given the possibility to conduct a full investigation of what was contained in the sacks but rather the load was immediately sent to Moscow by employees of the central apparatus of the FSB?"

When the Kovalev Commission—named after Soviet dissident and human rights activist Sergey Kovalev—began an independent investigation into the bombings, two key members of the commission were killed shortly thereafter. Sergey Yushenkov was shot dead near his home and Yuri Shchekochikhin was apparently poisoned. Yet another member, an investigator and lawyer for the family of a victim of the bombings, Mikhail Trepashkin, was arrested a week before a court hearing at which he was to present his evidence against the FSB. He was later sentenced to four years in prison for revealing state secrets.

Further evidence of FSB involvement in the apartment bombings can be found in the book Blowing Up Russia by Alexander Litvinenko, a longtime KGB and FSB spy. In 1998, after Putin had just taken over the FSB, Litvinenko informed Putin of FSB links to organized crime, but Putin let it slide and refused to talk to any more whistleblowers. Litvinenko then wrote an open letter to Putin and held a press conference with four other intelligence officers exposing the FSB’s criminal activities, which led to Litvinenko’s dismissal by Putin.

This is from Alex Goldfarb's book Death of a Dissident:

Putin never made a secret of what he thought of Sasha [Litvinenko]. In December 1998, he told Yelena Tregubova, the Kremlin correspondent for Kommersant […], "I believe that these officers made a scandal simply to develop a job market for themselves […]. I fired Litvinenko and disbanded his unit […] because FSB officers should not stage press conferences. This is not their job. And they should not make internal scandals public."

Although Litvinenko—essentially Russia's Edward Snowden—was not allowed to leave Moscow, he fled to Turkey. After being turned away at the US embassy, he made his way to London, where he was granted political asylum and wrote Blowing Up Russia, which became the basis for the documentary Assassination of Russia, detailing evidence of FSB involvement in the 1999 apartment bombings. Both the movie and the book are banned in Russia.

Litvinenko stayed alive for a few more years during which he exposed Russia's patronage of international terrorist groups, but was poisoned months after accusing Putin of having sex with young boys and using secretly filmed sex tapes of powerful people to blackmail them. Of course, this is a common practice of intelligence agencies around the world.

This is from an Epoch Times article by Joshua Philipp:

A scholar on Soviet Russia has uncovered claims that […] Yuri Andropov [the leader of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union from 1982 to 1984] […] [created] child trafficking and pedophile networks to blackmail business leaders and politicians.

Details on the program were uncovered by Jeffrey Nyquist […]. His main source is the grandson of a former member of the Soviet Central Committee who opposed the program and was possibly killed because of his opposition. Two other sources of his were defectors from the Soviet Union who revealed information on Soviet experiments on pedophilia and sexual perversion. […]

Nyquist said […] the overall system […] would have given the Soviets and later post-Soviet participants significant power in establishing networks of influence and control. He noted that even just among business leaders, since they often fund politicians and political causes, by blackmailing them "you're suddenly getting into the fringes of the political system. You're able to penetrate the political system."

Putin, who is as Machiavellian as many a president or intelligence chief, used the FSB-staged apartment bombings that killed about 300 people to justify a Russian military offensive against Chechnya. Ostensibly, the goal was to eliminate the Islamists Putin said had been responsible for the bombings. But even though the Chechen government condemned the bombings and the Islamist attack on Dagestan and was fighting the Islamists, Putin did not cooperate with the Chechen government in any way, despite the existing peace treaty between Russia and Chechnya. Instead, he launched an all-out war—killing tens of thousands, mostly civilians—which succeeded in reintegrating Chechnya into Russia.

This is from Jonathan Littell's paper "The Security Organs of the Russian Federation":

As the country stood in shock before this unprecendent wave of terrorism, Prime Minister Putin blamed Chechnya […] for harboring terrorists and vowed to pursue them anywhere, declaring, in a phrase now famous, that he would even […] "waste them in the ****house." His firm demeanor combined with his use of crude criminal slang drove his popularity ratings (which hovered around 2% when he was nominated) through the ceiling and propelled him to the forefront of Russia’s political class. The failed bombing of a building in Ryazan on September 22 openly exposed the FSB's involvement; when FSB Director Patrushev announced that it had in fact been an exercise (half an hour after Interior Minister Rushailo stated it was a failed terrorist act), few believed the excuse; a week after the incident, Alexander Lebed, answering a Le Figaro journalist who asked him if he thought the government had organized the terrorist attacks, created a sensation by saying out loud what many were thinking: "I am almost convinced of it." None of this, however, did anything to derail Putin's rise. On September 23, he ordered the bombing of [Chechnya's capital] Grozny[.] […]

Most of the theories put forth suggesting that the Dagestan incursions and the […] [apartment building] bombing campaign were part of a deliberate plan to start a war with Chechnya, so as to build up Putin's image and insure his election, place [oligarch, media mogul, and deep state insider Boris] Berezovsky squarely at the center of the plot. […] For Dagestan, most of the evidence rests on Berezovsky's known links to the Chechen Islamic radicals, several transcripts of phone conversations between him and the radical leader Movladi Udugov, leaked to the Russian press in September 1999, and the extensive eyewitness evidence that Russian troops guarding the border with Chechnya were ordered back before the incursion, were on several occasions forbidden from engaging the rebels, and provided them with a "corridor" back out of Dagestan (initial federal bombings of Grozny, while targeting a market and other civilian areas, mysteriously spared both Basayev and Khattab’s command posts, whose locations were well known to Russian intelligence). There are also numerous reports, partly substantiated by Berezovsky himself, that he paid several million dollars to Basayev […].

Putin then installed the Kadyrov dynasty, which has supported Putin's war and ruled with an iron fist ever since. Chechnya has become notorious for providing Putin with ruthless kill teams and falsified election results, with approval and voter turnout typically reaching 99% and sometimes even exceeding 100%.

[christian]

Posted by Baby Steps (here)
We are being asked to believe that years or murderous shelling of the Donbass people is not a war crime

Militant separatism in the Donbas was launched by Igor Girkin, who was Russian intelligence. He admitted to using civilians as human shields. Girkin said:

"Ukrainian military men said to me why are you sitting like cowards, go out into the field, don't hide behind civilians. Well sorry! Go out into the field to be killed? I'm not Don Quixote, after all!"

People didn't want to be part of his insurgency. He complained about this publicly in a video on May 17, 2014. Girkin said:

"Where are the young guys? […] I never would’ve thought that not even a thousand men in the entire region [of the Donbas] are ready to risk their lives. […] They're just waiting for the army from Russia that can do everything for them."

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=KIHdrSm6jrU

The day after his video was released, Girkin received reinforcements from the Russian Imperial Legion, a motley crew of ultranationalists, white supremacists, and neo-Nazis, including Alexander Zhuchkovsky, who has openly talked about his role in escalating the Donbas War. This is from his book 85 Days in Slavyansk:

Strelkov [Igor Girkin] and his Crimean company were the first group of volunteers to cross the Russian border into the Donbas. They would become the core of the Slavyansk garrison, and later the armed forces of the Donetsk People's Republic. […]

I wrote about the circumstances of my arrival in Donbas on my social media pages at the time. As a result, I received many messages from those who wanted to come. We kept in touch with the people who had helped us cross the border […], and with their help we organized two border crossings. The crossings were in locations that prevented the Ukrainians from detaining volunteers, and had signalmen who would alert volunteers if there were Ukrainians nearby.

Volunteers would arrive in the Rostov region in Russia, usually near the village of Millerovo. There, they would meet guides, cross the border, then head off from Luhansk to Donetsk and then onto Slavyansk. […]

Oleg Melnikov and I coordinated the flow of Russian volunteers to Donbas over the next year and a half. In that period, several thousand people came to the Donbas to join the militia. These volunteers found information on how to volunteer for the war on our VKontakte social media page […] as well as the Russian nationalist websites Sputnik and Pogrom and Right View. […]

The aforementioned website Right View is run by the Russian Imperial Movement, an organization led by Stanislav Vorobyov and Denis Gariev. The leaders were both residents of Saint Petersburg and run a military sports club there—the Imperial Legion. The Legion recruited, trained, equipped, and dispatched about 20 groups to Donbas over the course of the war.

Other neo-Nazi groups on the Russian side in the Donbas war were the Slavic Union, Russian National Unity, and Rusich, all of whom have swastika-style logos. Leaked phone calls from Sergey Glasyev and leaked emails from Vladislav Surkov confirm Russian involvement in the Donbas war. Even Ivan Katchanovski, who exposed the Maidan massacre as a Ukrainian false flag, found that the separatists in the Donbas were effectively controlled by Russia and that the Russian army intervened on Ukrainian territory since 2014. Russia started and kept fighting the Donbas war all along. There were Ukrainians involved as well, but Russia started it and Russia kept it going.

This is from Ivan Katchanovski's paper "The Separatist War in Donbas":

Various sources show that, in spite of continuing denial by the Russian government, direct Russian military intervention in Donbas began at the end of August 2014. It took the form of incursions by several battalion-size units in order to prevent a defeat of separatist forces and attacks of Donetsk and Luhansk cities. These include a report by the ministry of defense of Ukraine [...] as well as reports by separatists, videos of Russian military convoys, videos of captured Russian soldiers and equipment, first-hand reports by Western media and eyewitnesses, and released satellite images of Russian military vehicles on the Ukrainian side of the border. [...] The Russian forces were usually involved in the combat from a distance, such as shelling the Ukrainian positions from artillery, multiple rockets, and tanks. There are videos and other evidence that they started shelling of the Ukrainian positions from the Russian territory near the border in July 2014. […]

[T]here is evidence, including separatist sources, that suggests that the separatist republics in Donbas became de facto client states of Russia at the end of summer 2014. Soon after the direct Russian military intervention in August 2014, almost all separatist units in Donbas were brought under the de facto overall command of Russian military ‘curators’ or advisors. Most of the original separatist commanders in charge of such units, including Strelkov, were forced to leave Donbas for Russia. The remaining commanders were partly incorporated into the new [...] units, which were equipped and trained by the Russian military. Some of the original separatist commanders were arrested or killed, like Aleksey Mozgovoy, for resisting such incorporation [...].

[Russian Bear]

I want to answer about Crimea. Whose Crimea?

Russian soldiers in Crimea 2014, beginning of the operation:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=tHICv932cyk

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Hn75BKrA_dU

Crimeans are happy that they are part of Russia:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=sTpkZVUh6Sw

Crimeans are happy that they are part of Russia, the city of Sevastopol:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=UTb-6xgQGpY

Crimeans are happy that they are part of Russia, the city of Kerch:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=LXSGdRQH7lw

Crimeans in the city of Kerch beat up Ukrainian agitators who called for support of Ukraine. Crimeans made it clear that they want to be part of Russia and this was the case in every city:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=WMKraUk0BSQ

Putin speaks about Crimea:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=hPkqUX9rqj4

I want to tell you that I live in Crimea myself, I am a native Crimean, I was born in Ukraine. I am Russian-Ukrainian. I saw with my own eyes everything that happened. All Crimeans walked with Russian flags and with tears in their eyes met Russian soldiers. And the Ukrainian agitating authorities who came to agitate Crimea were simply trampled to the point of a bloody fight. People with military personnel approached Ukrainian military bases. Here in Crimea, everyone is for Russia and supports the war. I still remember those times when a huge number of helicopters were flying. One Russian soldier was standing at a position, I approached him and asked, are you Russian? (Although I knew he was Russian) He answered me: No, an American! I laughed at that. All the girls and children loved to take pictures with Russian soldiers nearby. Someone gave them flowers.

On March 18, 2014, a referendum was held in Crimea, in which the residents of the peninsula voted to join the Russian Federation. The majority of Crimeans supported this decision. On April 11 of the same year, the Constitution of the Republic of Crimea was adopted. About how the reunification of the peninsula with Russia took place.

Day of the reunification of Crimea with the Russian Federation
In March 2014, Crimea was annexed to Russia as a result of a referendum held after the change of power in Ukraine. The overwhelming majority of votes of the residents of Crimea (96.77%) and Sevastopol (95.6%) were cast for the inclusion of the territories into the Russian Federation.

The Day of Reunification with Russia in the Republic of Crimea is celebrated annually on March 18. This day was officially declared a public holiday and a day off based on amendments made to the law "On Holidays and Memorable Dates in the Republic of Crimea". The relevant amendments were approved by the State Council of Crimea in late February 2015.

Similarly, in the city of Sevastopol, March 18 is also celebrated as the Day of the City's Return to the Russian Federation. This date was enshrined as an official holiday and a day off under the law "On Holidays and Memorable Dates in the City of Sevastopol". This decision was made by the Legislative Assembly of Sevastopol in early March 2015.

How Crimea was moving towards Russia
Crisis of power or Crimean spring
The Crimean spring is a period that began with the political crisis in Ukraine in November 2013. At that time, Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych refused to sign the Association Agreement with the European Union. This step caused a surge of mass protests in Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities. Participants in the demonstrations demanded the resignation of the president and the government of the country.

While in Crimea, where the population was predominantly Russian-speaking, these protests did not find wide support. In early February 2014, the Presidium of the Supreme Council of Crimea decided to conduct a survey of the population about the status of the region against the backdrop of the threat of nationalist forces coming to power.

A coup d'état took place in Kyiv at the end of February, as a result of which representatives with nationalist attitudes and an anti-Russian position came to power. This event forced President Yanukovych to leave the country. The next day, February 23, Ukraine passed a law that banned the use of the Russian language at the official and public levels, including its regional use.

Protests
The residents of Crimea expressed their unwillingness to give up the Russian language and did not recognize the legitimacy of the new Ukrainian government. As a result, they held protests outside the building of the Supreme Council of the republic, demanding the separation of Crimea from Ukraine. Similar events also took place in Sevastopol and other settlements throughout the peninsula. Local residents began to create self-defense units.

On February 26, two opposing groups gathered in front of the building of the Supreme Council of Crimea: supporters of reunification with Russia and supporters of the new Ukrainian government. During these meetings, clashes occurred, 30 participants were injured and two people died, and the meeting of the Supreme Council was interrupted.

The next day, February 27, the work of the Supreme Council resumed. A decision was made to resign the government of the republic, which supported the new government in Kyiv, and a new head of government was appointed - Sergei Aksyonov, the leader of the "Russian Unity" movement. In addition, the date for the referendum on the status of Crimea was set - May 25, 2014.

Referendum and annexation of Crimea to Russia
On March 1, 2014, Aksyonov appealed to Russian President Vladimir Putin with a request to guarantee peace and stability on the peninsula during the preparation and holding of the referendum on the status of Crimea. Due to the tense situation, the date of the referendum was postponed from May 25 to March 30.

On the same day, the Crimean parliament received support from the Sevastopol City Council on the issue of holding a referendum. In Simferopol, Sevastopol and other places in Crimea, so-called "polite people" were seen - armed men in uniform who controlled the order. Russian President Vladimir Putin later clarified that these were servicemen of the Marine Corps, Airborne Troops and special forces of the GRU.

Five days later, on March 6, the Supreme Council of Crimea appealed to the President of Russia with a request to annex Crimea to Russia as a subject of the Federation. On the same day, it was decided to postpone the referendum date from March 30 to March 16. In preparation for the referendum, on March 11, the Supreme Council of Crimea and the Council of Deputies of Sevastopol adopted a declaration of independence of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol.

How the voting took place
The referendum was held in Crimea and Sevastopol on March 16. The majority of voters voted for joining the Russian Federation. The next day, March 17, an appeal was sent to Russia with a request to include Crimea in the Russian Federation as a subject. The Sevastopol City Council similarly voted to include the city in the state as a subject.

On the day of the vote, the Supreme Council of Crimea was renamed the State Council of the Republic of Crimea, and the Sevastopol City Council became the Legislative Assembly of the city. On the same day, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree recognizing the Republic of Crimea as a sovereign and independent state.

Reunification of territories
March 18 is officially recognized as the Day of Reunification of Crimea with the Russian Federation. Then Putin, Aksyonov and the head of the city of Sevastopol Alexey Chaly signed an agreement according to which the Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol became part of Russia as new subjects of the federation.

What is Crimea famous for
The Republic of Crimea is a unique and strategically important region of the Russian Federation, located in the Azov-Black Sea region. It is known as one of the largest tourist and health resort centers of the country.

Favorable natural and climatic conditions attract vacationers and people wishing to undergo treatment. The region is also famous for its resorts, which annually receive many tourists from both Russia and other countries.

In addition, Crimea is an important manufacturing center, in particular, a major food producer. The region is home to Russia's main shipbuilding facilities in the Black Sea.

Over the past ten years, the gross regional product of Crimea and Sevastopol has increased by 8.7 times, and Crimea's income has increased fivefold, while Sevastopol's income has increased by 4.5 times. Since 2015, 1.5 trillion rubles have been invested in the development of the regions, which indicates significant efforts to improve living conditions and infrastructure.

The Crimean Bridge, which connects the Black Sea Peninsula with Russia via rail and road, has become a striking symbol of the rapprochement of territories. This structure runs across the Tuzla Spit, connecting the Kerch Peninsula with the Taman Peninsula.

There is a documentary that tells in detail how everything happened:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=l_npES1HfTI

Additional information (Conclusion):
The Crimean government asked Russia for protection and acceptance of the peninsula into Russia. Crimea had autonomy under Ukraine. When I was at school, I always wrote Autonomous Republic of Crimea on every notebook. After the referendum, Crimea lost its autonomy because we self-determined and began to be called simply the Republic of Crimea. Autonomy is the right to independently exercise state power or governance. Ukrainian nationalists went to Crimea with orders to kill all Crimeans who openly support Russia. If the Russians had not come to Crimea, then all pro-Russian Crimeans would have been killed, Crimea would have been covered in blood. The Russians protected the Crimean citizens. When the Ukrainian nationalist echelons arrived, they were afraid of the Russians and did not follow Kyiv's order, they turned around.

If the Russian Federation had not decided to return Crimea, a massacre would have begun on the peninsula, carried out by Ukrainian nationalists, who had already advanced to the rebellious peninsula in 2014.

Nobody voted at gunpoint, that's Western propaganda. I voted voluntarily for unification with Russia, nobody even knew what I chose. Everyone voted voluntarily for Russia anyway, nobody even had to be forced. Everyone was just happy.

[norman]

@Russian Bear, how do you feel about the Bolshevik driven genocide of tens of millions of Christians ?

[christian]

Posted by Russian Bear (here)
All Crimeans walked with Russian flags

Certainly not. The Crimean Tatars, who were expelled by Stalin in the 1940s and only returned after the collapse of the Soviet Union, mostly opposed the coup. In fact, on February 26, 2014, thousands of Crimean Tatars staged the largest act of resistance against the Russian takeover of Crimea. Here you can see a photo.



Since then, Crimean Tatars have again been persecuted by the Russian government and have suffered disproportionately from forced conscription into the Russian army. Other dissidents and religious minorities, including Christians not affiliated with the Russian state-sanctioned church, also face repression.

That being said, my research confirms that a majority of Crimeans wanted to join Russia in 2014. I think that should have been respected by Ukraine and the UN, despite the illegal nature of how the coup in Crimea was accomplished with the help of the Russian army. Then again, any genuine humanitarian must denounce the tyrannical government overreach of the new Crimean authorities.

Lastly, I find it very telling that you didn't respond to the most serious allegation I made against Putin, namely that his career started with major false flag attacks and a brutal war of aggression against Chechnya, revealing him to be just as ruthless as political leaders in Western countries.

[Vicus]

Whispering giant: Russia's quiet power leaves the West in the dust



Global responsibility and Moscow's foreign policy: Between autonomy and a changing world.

One of the central paradoxes of Russia's foreign policy is this: while its primary goal has always been to secure full autonomy in its decision-making, success has often hinged on the international environment in which it pursues that aim. Even today, as Russia enjoys a degree of internal stability unmatched in the past 25 years, global shifts are helping shape the country's ability to resist what can only be described as the increasingly destructive efforts of the collective West.

Chief among these global changes is the unmistakable decline of Western Europe's centrality in world affairs. Though the region still remains geographically and symbolically important - given its proximity to Russia and its alignment with the United States - it has lost the capacity to act as an independent player in global politics. Simply put, Western Europe no longer matters as much. It is no longer the center of decision-making or initiative, but a stage on which others perform.

The true centers of gravity today are countries like China and India. Their behavior no longer forms the "background noise" of international affairs - it drives global developments. For Russia, this transformation is both a strategic opportunity and a conceptual challenge.

On the one hand, it liberates Moscow from the old and often fruitless task of seeking allies within the West to safeguard its interests, particularly along its most dangerous frontiers. On the other hand, it compels Russia to reconsider the nature of its role in the world. What does global responsibility look like for a nation whose foreign policy has never been driven by messianic ideals or the desire to impose its values on others?

A civilization apart

Historically, Russia's strategic posture has not been animated by ideological expansionism. Unlike the Western European colonial empires, Russia never pursued dominance over distant territories to extract resources or spread its worldview. Even during the height of its imperial strength, such as in the 19th-century annexation of Central Asia, the Russian Empire did not develop a colonial policy comparable to that of Britain or France. The reason lies not in a lack of capacity, but in a fundamentally different orientation: Russia has always been more concerned with preserving its internal sovereignty and strategic autonomy than with exporting its model.

Even the oft-cited concept of "Moscow as the Third Rome" is misunderstood in the West. It was never a call to global proselytizing. Unlike the United States, which often ties its foreign policy to ideological missions, Russia's approach is deeply pragmatic and rooted in the idea of national self-preservation.

The Soviet period, of course, was an exception. The revolutionary zeal of 1917 gave Moscow a temporary ideological edge, and during the Cold War, the USSR promoted its values as part of a broader geopolitical confrontation. But even then, ideological outreach was quickly subordinated to the central strategic aim: maintaining national stability in opposition to American-led containment.

Divide and endure

Another consistent feature of Russia's foreign policy has been the tactical use of divisions within the West. Whether confronting Sweden, Napoleonic France, or Nazi Germany, Russia always benefited from securing at least one Western partner. In the Crimean War of the 1850s and again during the Cold War, Russia suffered political setbacks in part because the Western front was unusually united.

After the Cold War ended unfavorably for Moscow, Russian strategy relied on the hope that the EU would eventually drift from Washington's orbit and reclaim some degree of autonomy. That, clearly, has not happened. Internal crises, the erosion of elite leadership, and the rise of bureaucratic inertia have left Western Europe politically paralyzed. When the Ukraine crisis escalated into a military confrontation, the region's powers not only failed to act independently - they leaned even harder on the United States.

This failure of EU emancipation has not strengthened Washington, however. On the contrary, Western Europe's strategic irrelevance only underscores the West's shrinking role in global affairs. That chapter of world history - where Europe stood at the helm - is now closed.

A global stage, a national strategy

Today, Russia faces a world where resistance to Western pressure no longer requires fractures within the Western alliance. What matters now is the emergence of a truly global system - one in which power is no longer concentrated in Euro-Atlantic hands. In this environment, Russia's ability to assert its interests has improved not because the West is weaker per se, but because the world is more balanced.

The failure of the previous US administration to "isolate" Russia is significant not only as a diplomatic defeat for Washington, but as evidence of this wider trend. The global South has not turned against Russia. On the contrary, many emerging powers are increasingly assertive in defining their own paths, free of Western tutelage. This structural shift works to Russia's advantage.

And yet, this new reality also imposes obligations. In a world that is waiting for Russia's presence, Russia must now ask: what kind of global actor does it wish to be?

This is not a question of abandoning its historical pragmatism or inward-facing strategic culture. Rather, it is about integrating that realism with the unavoidable demands of global responsibility. Unlike the missionary democracies of the West, Russia does not seek to reshape the world in its own image. But as one of the few nations capable of independent action on the global stage, it must now participate in shaping that world, not simply reacting to it.

This is the conceptual challenge of the coming years. How can Russia remain true to its tradition of self-defined interest while also engaging with a multipolar world that increasingly demands initiative, leadership, and presence?

The answer will not be found in grand ideological blueprints or universalist visions. It will lie, as it always has for Russia, in a careful balancing of national sovereignty with the strategic realities of a changing global order.

Comment: It's time. The country shunned by conventional thinking and dictatorial power, becomes the potential keeper of global balance and forward unity for those who see, choose and follow.

https://www.sott.net/article/500053-...st-in-the-dust

[Russian Bear]

Yes, I witnessed that there were Tatars who did not want to be in Russia. But there were Tatars who wanted to be part of Russia. The overwhelming majority of votes of the residents of Crimea (96.77%). The remaining 3.23% did not want to, which included the Tatars. The majority wins. We do not have a general mobilization of Tatars, no one is calling them to the front. There was a partial mobilization, every citizen is obliged to defend his Motherland. Everyone who wanted to leave Russia did so.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=llfqYTRZ8qo

I am answering the question about why Russia fought with Chechnya. Who needed it?

Even during the period of Gorbachev's "Perestroika", there were people who wanted to make the Chechen and Ingush republics independent and self-sufficient. All this was done at a time when the USSR was already beginning to collapse. Serious consequences began to emerge when the President of Chechnya Dudayev, together with 14 other republics, declared independence in 1991. As a result of such news, dual power was formed in Chechnya itself. Dudayev initially began to pursue a terrible policy: 40 deputies were beaten, Vitaly Kutsenko, the chairman of the city council, was killed and thrown out of the window. During the collapse of the USSR, Dudayev finally said that the Chechen Republic was an independent state. Then, the separatists held elections in Chechnya, where Dudayev won. But at a meeting of the RSFSR, these elections were recognized as illegitimate.

The victory of the separatists in Chechnya caused disapproval in the Ingush land, as a result of which Ingushetia turned into a republic, which included several districts. At the same time, there were problems with North Ossetia, so in 1992, Russian troops entered there to suppress the separatists. It was assumed that the next action of the military would be the suppression of the Chechen separatists by Russian troops, but Gaidar, who served for the United States, did everything possible to prevent this. But it is worth thinking about this, because if our troops had initially entered the territory of Chechnya, they would certainly have been able to suppress the separatists very quickly.

In the short period after these events, the situation only heated up and in December 1994, Russian troops entered the territory of Chechnya. Due to the poor weapons of the Russian military. This was due to the fact that the USSR collapsed and a lot of things were simply sold or destroyed. As a result of the first military conflict, agreements were signed between Russia and Chechnya and the withdrawal of Russian troops from the territory of the Chechen Republic. In fact, Chechnya was an independent republic, but legally not recognized by either Russia or the West.

The issue was the unity of the country. The secession of the Chechen Republic from Russia would have led to the separation of other parts of Russia. In addition, terrorist organizations financed by America came to Chechnya, where with the help of America they would conduct subversive activities against Russia. Imagine that every state in America would ask for independence and leave the USA? What do you think America would do? Of course it would stop the collapse of its country!

"If we separate from Russia, everyone will have a golden faucet with camel milk in their home." The main reason for the war in Chechnya

From November 23 to 25, 1990, the First Chechen National Congress, better known as the National Congress of the Chechen People, was held in Grozny. The participants of the congress elected the Executive Committee, the chairman of which was General of the USSR Air Force Dzhokhar Dudayev.

The first native of Chechnya to rise to the rank of general, he commanded great respect from the people. In addition, Dudayev increased his popularity with the help of a proven political weapon - populism.

The general's simple theses easily reached the minds of the residents of Chechnya. Russia is robbing Chechnya. Without Russia, the republic will prosper. The Chechens are a proud, intelligent and strong nation, in which (unlike some) there is no gene of slavery.

One of Dudayev's most famous statements was the following:

We do not get even two percent of our oil. For the amount of oil that Russia has taken out of Chechnya over the years, we could pave gold roads. If we separate from Russia, everyone will have a golden faucet with camel milk in their home. Russia is a rotten state that will fall apart from one push.

In fact, this excerpt from Dudayev's speech contains the answer to the question of why the war in Chechnya began. And the answer is very simple: oil.

In Chechnya, there is an opinion that there is so much oil in the republic that it could become a second Saudi Arabia, if not for the Russians. Oh, these "golden taps with camel milk"!

Listening to the general at rallies, many Chechens believed that the oil river would bring them unprecedented prosperity. Rivers of milk and banks of jelly.

But then Dudayev became president, Chechnya essentially became independent from Russia, but there were no golden taps in the houses of Chechens. Moreover, not only camel milk, but even ordinary milk, bread, and in many villages, drinking water suddenly disappeared.

The republic, prosperous under the USSR, sank into an abyss of poverty much greater than "neighboring" Russia. And this was long before the first Chechen war!

The populists who had seized power gained access to the coveted oil, but for some reason rivers of milk did not flow into Chechnya, and the pockets of ordinary Chechens became completely empty.

Under the general amnesty declared by Dudayev, thousands of criminals were released from prison. "They were illegally imprisoned by the Soviet government!" - they shouted in the squares. Crime flooded the streets of Grozny, and not only the "occupiers" but also the Chechens got it.

The Chechen intelligentsia of the Soviet era, for whom Pushkin's word meant something, was pushed to the sidelines of life. Such concepts as wages and pensions were gradually forgotten by the Chechen people. Schools, libraries, institutes, factories and plants were closed en masse.

It turned out that Chechnya did not even produce enough food to feed the people. Bread, eggs, milk, butter, fruits and vegetables - all this was imported. Imported from Russia.

The sown area of ​​the mountainous republic is 189 thousand hectares, while, for example, the sown area of ​​the Oryol region alone is 1.3 million hectares. Moreover, the population of Chechnya is 1.5 million people, and the population of the Oryol region is 724 thousand people.

What does this mean? That Chechnya does not have its own grain, flour, bread. Everything is from Russia. But Dudayev, speaking about the golden tap with camel milk, of course, did not mention this. His goal was completely different.

The same is true for all other food products. Moreover, even gasoline in what would seem to be an oil republic, under Dudayev became much more expensive than in Russia. And there was no fuel, they had to buy canisters from resellers at exorbitant prices.

However, the most important fact that the general did not tell his people is that there is not much oil in Chechnya. The wells are old, the reserves are depleted. Thus, in 2014, after law and order were restored in Chechnya, Rosneft produced only 447 thousand tons of oil (0.23% of its volume). For comparison: in 2020, 32.623 million tons were produced in Tatarstan.

The revenues received from Chechen oil are not even close to covering the republic's expenses. Chechnya's budget is almost 100% formed by subsidies from the federal budget.

I recently watched a video of a travel blogger. He walked through the market in Grozny. He asked where certain products were from. Absolutely everything was imported from Russian regions, as well as from Azerbaijan and Turkey. The blogger wanted to buy something Chechen, but he never found it.

Oil populism about golden taps with camel milk allowed Dudayev to reach the heights of power, but turned into a big disaster for the Chechen people. Yes, the general's entourage got rich selling oil on the black market, but ordinary Chechens did not get a penny from this money.

Approximately the same story happened with the former Soviet republics - Moldova, Georgia, Ukraine, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan. The same rhetoric about "golden taps", and then - a broken trough.

It turned out that Russia gives more than it takes.


Additional information (Conclusion):
The issue was the unity of the country. The secession of the Chechen Republic from Russia would have led to the separation of other parts of Russia. In addition, terrorist organizations financed by America came to Chechnya, where with the help of America they would conduct subversive activities against Russia. Imagine that every state in America would ask for independence and leave the USA? What do you think America would do? Of course it would stop the collapse of its country!

The USSR has already told 15 republics: I don't need you, leave me, I give you freedom, live independently. And now territories within Russia itself have begun to separate, and then Russia itself has begun to disintegrate into small parts. This could not be allowed. We must defend our Motherland.

And the rest are just reasons for secession from Russia, they believed the lie. I want to say that now the Chechen Republic lives well and prospers as part of Russia and Chechen soldiers are fighting in Ukraine for Russia. You can also tell Great Britain to give independence to Ireland and Scotland, because they want it so much. I don’t think Great Britain is ready to tear itself into small pieces, which would be strange.

There were 2 Chechen wars. When the first Chechen war was going on, the Russians were winning it and took the militants into a cauldron to finally defeat them. But then the Generals betrayed them and signed peace with the terrorists. It was an offensive defeat for Russia. These agreements are called the Khasavyurt Agreements.

The Khasavyurt Agreements, symbolizing the final chord of the first Chechen campaign, in fact, of course, were neither a peace treaty, nor a capitulation, nor a serious document at all that could entail any serious legal consequences. Strictly speaking, this was nothing more than a declaration of intent, since even the ceasefire agreements had been reached earlier, during the negotiations between Lebed and Maskhadov on August 15 and 22 in the villages of Starye Atagi and Novye Atagi

Khasavyurt Accords: Defeat or Betrayal? August 31, 1996 was a landmark moment that marked the end of the Chechen war. Alexander Lebedev and Aslan Maskhadov signed the Khasavyurt Accords, which implied the withdrawal of Russian troops from Chechnya and the cessation of all military action. According to the document, the status of the Chechen Republic was to be determined by December 31, 2001. Although Chechnya declared its independence, no state recognized it.
This was a real blow to the army. The signing of the agreement was perceived as a betrayal: Lebedev and Berezovsky essentially admitted Russia's defeat in the war with the bandits. This was not only a humiliation for the soldiers and officers, but also a serious insult to those who had finally learned to wage war and successfully fought the militants.
A striking example of the military's attitude to the agreement can be cited in the words of General Troshev: "You are a general, you can think whatever you want, but your task is to remain silent and listen to what Lebedev and I are saying. Got it?" 🔥
Troshev, like many of his colleagues, believed that "any stop to the war is a half-measure and a crime." In his opinion, the complete destruction of the militants was the only path to stability. "I and most of the officers are ashamed that this general is our former comrade-in-arms. No one has done more harm to the army than Lebed," Troshev said, hoping for his public repentance. 🤨
Troshev was sure that in 1996 it was necessary to "finish off" the militants, and the army was already close to this. For him, negotiations are a betrayal, and the Khasavyurt agreements will forever remain a symbol of weakness.

In short: during the period 1991-1994, the Chechens killed, by various measures, from 24,000 to 30,000 Russians, Armenians, Jews and Ingush.

Also, Chechen bandits began to carry out raids in small groups on Dagestan and Ingushetia, the slave trade flourished, and later - with one of his decrees Dudayev legalized it!

A journalist asks Putin:
I would like to ask a question about Chechnya in connection with the large number of reports of human rights violations, about the facts of illegal actions of military personnel. Do you think it is necessary to change your approach to the settlement of the Chechen problem?

Putin's answer:
You know, I have spoken a lot about this topic, you are probably familiar with it, I will now approach it from a slightly different angle. Representatives of the media from Arab countries know that we are witnessing a certain radicalization of the Muslim world, and this is very worrying for many leaders of Muslim countries, and countries of the former Soviet Union and our more distant colleagues and friends.
Here is one of the metastases of this radicalization, it has penetrated into the North Caucasus. After all, you just mentioned Chechnya, but what, in fact, did not suit Chechnya in 1999? After all, de facto it was granted full state independence.
What, in fact, made some people with weapons in their hands break into the territory of Dagestan and demand the separation of additional territories from the Caspian to the Black Sea from the Russian Federation and the formation of the United States of Islam? Was it the need to fight for the independence of Chechnya that pushed them to do this, but you and I understand that this is nonsense, delirium, it has nothing to do with the interests of the Chechen people. But, having understood this once, having understood that this territory can be used as a springboard for an attack on the Russian Federation, for rocking the Russian Federation, Russia will not enter this river a second time. In any case, this would be an absolutely unforgivable mistake. We must respect the opinion and mood of the Chechen people without any doubt, but we must not allow ourselves to be deceived, as the radicals are trying to do. They are trying to replace their own fundamentalist aspirations and goals with the interests of the Chechen people, and when we fight against them, they claim that we are fighting against Chechnya and its population. And someone picks this up either consciously or without understanding the essence of the events. This is my approach, and I do not intend to change it.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by christian (here)
Russia invaded Crimea and parts of the Donbas in 2014

Posted by christian (here)
In fact, on February 26, 2014, thousands of Crimean Tatars staged the largest act of resistance against the Russian takeover of Crimea.

It wasn't an 'invasion'. (Of course, I know you know it wasn't, but words matter!)

For anyone reading this who might not know the history, a referendum was held. (Does the west "stand for democracy" or not...?!)

The people spoke. From Wikipedia:

The official result from the Autonomous Republic of Crimea was a 97 percent vote for integration of the region into the Russian Federation, with an 83 percent voter turnout, and from Sevastopol there was also a 97 percent vote for integration with Russia, with an 89 percent voter turnout.

[Russian Bear]

If you want, I can publish an article on this topic. In short. The USSR was built on the murder of a legitimate tsar with his wife and innocent children and their servants. This bloody power was built on the bones and blood of an innocent royal family and his children. The country was flooded with fratricidal blood. Which was financed by the West. The propaganda of communism was utopian and poisonous. But the socialist system showed itself well. Socialism is good, the propaganda of communism is bad. The Soviet power destroyed a huge number of Orthodox churches and monasteries. They killed priests and monks. These are terrible crimes. But after the Second World War, the repressive machine of the USSR stopped and people were allowed to live peacefully, without fear of anyone. So the Russian people suffered greatly from this, but in the end, times changed for the better. People especially warmly remember the era of Brezhnev, Yuri Andropov and Chernenko. Gorbachev is hated in Russia because he is a traitor along with Yeltsin. Therefore, yes, I condemn the times of persecution of Orthodox Christians by the Soviet authorities and other repressions against innocent people. I do not know English and translate everything through Google Translate, please take this fact into account.

[Jaak]

Posted by Russian Bear (here)
In addition, terrorist organizations financed by America came to Chechnya, where with the help of America they would conduct subversive activities against Russia.

Can confirm this part . After soviet union collapsed Estonia made deal with Russia to collect all the rubles in Estonia and give them to Russia .
2.3 billion rubles was collected but instead of giving them to Russia as promised the corrupt government sold the rubles to Chechens who payd for it in dollars.
Why would Chechens buy rubles? Value of rubles was dropping quickly in that period and where did they get the dollars which had much higher value ?
Only logical answer would be that Chechens were used as middle man for USA who needed rubles to pay their agents in Russia.
The amount of dollars the corrupt government got is still unknown , some have sayd it was around 25 million.

[Open Minded Dude]

Posted by christian (here)
Lastly, I find it very telling that you didn't respond to the most serious allegation I made against Putin, namely that his career started with major false flag attacks and a brutal war of aggression against Chechnya, revealing him to be just as ruthless as political leaders in Western countries.

There is another very serious allegation here although you do not say it directly but just quote an accuser (or a source that says so about this accuser). Quote from above:

"Litvinenko stayed alive for a few more years during which he exposed Russia's patronage of international terrorist groups, but was poisoned months after accusing Putin of having sex with young boys and using secretly filmed sex tapes of powerful people to blackmail them. Of course, this is a common practice of intelligence agencies around the world."

Do you believe the source you quote via Wayback (link) 'Chechen Press' is reliable and that there is even something true in these allegations? I mean, we really don't know anyone of these people personally. So who knows. So it could ALL be a facade indeed and everyone in power is a literal devil.

But as you know, Putin has - despite his dark sides that every leader has - an IMAGE of being a very decent man and moreover also a devoted Christian (even with some of us in the West recognizing this). Being a gay pedophile raping young boys is certainly a very strong allegation and does not fit that picture. Would you believe it yourself? Just wondering. I'm not a Putin fanboy but this is hard to believe, even presumably for (most of) Putin's critics.

[christian]

Posted by Russian Bear (here)
The Chechen intelligentsia of the Soviet era, for whom Pushkin's word meant something, was pushed to the sidelines of life. Such concepts as wages and pensions were gradually forgotten by the Chechen people. Schools, libraries, institutes, factories and plants were closed en masse.

I find your entire answer quite odd. I talk about Russian false flag attacks killing hundreds to justify a war of aggression against Chechnya killing tens of thousands, and you tell me about bad governance in Chechnya? I think bad governance is still better than Chechens being slaughtered en masse by the Russian army on the basis of false flag attacks against the Russian people.

[christian]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by christian (here)
Russia invaded Crimea and parts of the Donbas in 2014

It wasn't an 'invasion'. (Of course, I know you know it wasn't, but words matter!)

For anyone reading this who might not know the history, a referendum was held. (Does the west "stand for democracy" or not...?!)

The Russian army invaded Ukrainian territory in Crimea in February. In the Donbas, Russian paramilitaries invaded by April, and the Russian army at the latest by August. The Russian army entered Ukrainian territory illegally; that's why I say Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014. In Donbas, Russian paramilitaries started the war, and the Russian army took part in the war on the separatist side. In Crimea, Russian soldiers seized the parliament and pushed certain parliamentarians to hold a session to replace the government. Several Crimean MPs later stated they were physically blocked from entering, while others said they were pressured or forced to vote at gunpoint to hold a referendum. It's not certain if there was even a quorum. As I have heard from a Crimean refugee and as has been confirmed by many others, dissidents were targeted ahead of the ensuing referendum. They were threatened either in person or through anonymous text messages, some were kidnapped, beaten up, their homes were raided, etc. While my research does confirm that a majority of Crimeans wanted to join Russia, I wouldn't call the referendum or the overall events that preceded the annexation democratic. The referendum was a pseudo-democratic veneer for a popular but illegal coup that, although largely bloodless, was accompanied by the brutal repression of dissidents.

[christian]

Posted by Open Minded Dude (here)
Do you believe the source you quote via Wayback (link) 'Chechen Press' is reliable and that there is even something true in these allegations? I mean, we really don't know anyone of these people personally. So who knows. So it could ALL be a facade indeed and everyone in power is a literal devil.

But as you know, Putin has - despite his dark sides that every leader has - an IMAGE of being a very decent man and moreover also a devoted Christian (even with some of us in the West recognizing this). Being a gay pedophile raping young boys is certainly a very strong allegation and does not fit that picture. Would you believe it yourself?

Since when are people who appear to be devoutly religious less likely to abuse children?

Chechen Press published articles from dissidents, including Litvinenko. His work on the false flag apartment bombings of 1999 is very good. Putin had a long career in intelligence. Pedophile ritual abuse networks are common in the highest levels of intelligence agencies. I don't think there are exceptions, especially not in any of the world's most powerful countries. It therefore seems highly unlikely that Putin would not be involved in these things.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=lZxoZ_TEsy4

[Russian Bear]

Alexander Litvinenko
An experienced operative, FSB Lieutenant Colonel Litvinenko, had been in close contact with Boris Berezovsky since the mid-1990s (Berezovsky was also an agent of British intelligence and did much to harm Russia), who at that time was a powerful "gray cardinal" of the Russian government. In 2000, Alexander fled to London, as did his friend and patron: a number of criminal cases were brought against both of them in Russia.

In England, Litvinenko became an agent of British intelligence MI6, transmitting information about the Russian mafia in Europe and its connections with Russian officials; he was sent on business trips to Spain, Italy, Estonia and Georgia.

He denied the fact of disclosing state secrets, since, according to him, since 1991 he no longer worked in military counterintelligence, but strictly within the country, in the profile of "fighting terrorism and organized crime."

The West uses various methods to slander Vladimir Putin and makes crazy accusations without evidence.

These videos and photos have no evidence. Putin was married and has 2 daughters. He loves children, like any other father. He kissed the boy as a joke, like a father flirting with children to cheer them up or something. Western media just makes up all sorts of slander and lies. Litvinenko was a traitor and worked for foreign intelligence, slander was created to order, like in his time on Rasputin, to undermine the prestige and authority of the leader by various methods.

Article about Rasputin for those interested: https://projectavalon.net/forum4/sho...=1#post1670629

This is not the first time that Britain has used such dirty methods.
Page 92 of the London court report: Litvinenko accused Putin. Falsified slander.

I will tell you a real story about Vladimir Putin that took place.

"I will kill 11 people, and I will keep the last bullet for myself": how KGB lieutenant colonel Vladimir Putin dispersed a crowd in Dresden in 1989

1989: an interesting historical fact from the life of KGB lieutenant colonel Vladimir Putin

This story is more than 30 years old, but despite the fact that its participant was a world-famous person, few people have heard about it.

The story that will be discussed is closely connected with the fall of the Berlin Wall and it happened on December 5, 1989. The building in which the GDR Ministry of State Security Stasi was located was surrounded by an angry crowd.

People broke into the building, sweeping away everything in their path. The German secret services understood that they would not be able to prevent such an attack, the only thing they could still do was destroy almost all the documents related to their activities.

The crowd that broke in got only a small part of the dossiers and folders, and the political prisoners housed on the territory of the inner prison were finally released. But the story did not end there. Next door was a two-story mansion belonging to the residency of the USSR State Security Committee.

At nine o'clock in the evening, several employees were in the mansion, watching with horror what was happening in the neighboring Stasi building. Futile attempts to contact the chief, who by this time had long since left the residency, were unsuccessful, and they were forced to ask for help from a neighboring military unit. Help was refused.

The leadership did not dare to send people to guard the building without permission from the capital, and it was not possible to contact Moscow at that time.

There was no choice. The issue had to be resolved on their own. And KGB Lieutenant Colonel Vladimir Putin, who that evening was the senior in the residency building, took up the matter. At that time, he was 37 years old.

A security group, consisting of eight border guards, was called in due to the alarm. They quickly positioned themselves in the window openings, with machine gun barrels "looking" out onto the street.

Putin planned a diplomatic solution to the issue, and he headed for the exit to try to talk to the aggressively minded people, who were ready to repeat everything that had happened earlier in the Stasi.

He asked his main question: what do the people who had come to the mansion want? The crowd responded immediately: they need to inspect the residency building. To this, Putin explained that, based on an interlegal agreement, inspecting the mansion was impossible. In addition, the building had no relation to any German structures, but was the property of the Soviet Army.

During his explanations, doubts arose among the people about his belonging to the Soviet state, since he spoke German too well.

Putin was not embarrassed by such doubts; he confidently stated that he was a translator (this was what his legend said). But people still doubted, for the translator the German speech was too clear and without any accent.

In addition, someone managed to notice that a car with German license plates was parked near the building. But even here Putin, without losing his composure, replied that the use of such a car is regulated by the relevant agreement.

The crowd did not calm down, the lieutenant colonel assessed the situation, seeing that there were enough people in an inadequate state among the crowd, which contributed to the manifestation of greater aggression.

And then he continued his speech in pure German, asking them to keep their tempers "under control". In addition, he explained that the fall of the Berlin Wall was a common holiday for everyone, but now he is on duty, guarding a building that belongs to the Soviet Union.

He is a soldier and a patriot of his country. Probably, each of those who came to this building now, in Putin's place would have behaved in exactly the same way, fulfilling their duty.

The crowd that was pressing on him fell silent, and he continued:

- I am an officer of the Soviet Army, I am an excellent marksman. With 12 bullets in reserve, believe me, I can kill 11 people, and I will keep the last one for myself.

He tried to convince the crowd to leave in peace, because otherwise, he would have to do his duty and then there would be casualties, and no one wanted that.

Having finished his monologue, he slowly walked to the central entrance of the building. No one in the crowd said a word, the people began to disperse in silence.

Much later, paratroopers were sent to guard the mansion, but there was no need for this now. None of the Germans crossed the threshold of the residency that night after the meeting.

[Russian Bear]

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=hPkqUX9rqj4

The Crimean government asked Russia for protection and acceptance of the peninsula into Russia. Crimea had autonomy under Ukraine. When I was at school, I always wrote Autonomous Republic of Crimea on every notebook. After the referendum, Crimea lost its autonomy because we self-determined and began to be called simply the Republic of Crimea. Autonomy is the right to independently exercise state power or governance. Ukrainian nationalists went to Crimea with orders to kill all Crimeans who openly support Russia. If the Russians had not come to Crimea, then all pro-Russian Crimeans would have been killed, Crimea would have been covered in blood. The Russians protected the Crimean citizens. When the Ukrainian nationalist echelons arrived, they were afraid of the Russians and did not follow Kyiv's order, they turned around.

If the Russian Federation had not decided to return Crimea, a massacre would have begun on the peninsula, carried out by Ukrainian nationalists, who had already advanced to the rebellious peninsula in 2014.

Nobody voted at gunpoint, that's Western propaganda. I voted voluntarily for unification with Russia, nobody even knew what I chose. Everyone voted voluntarily for Russia anyway, nobody even had to be forced. Everyone was just happy.

[Russian Bear]

I told you: The issue was the unity of the country. The secession of the Chechen Republic from Russia would have led to the separation of other parts of Russia. In addition, terrorist organizations financed by America came to Chechnya, where with the help of America they would conduct subversive activities against Russia. Imagine that every state in America would ask for independence and leave the USA? What do you think America would do? Of course it would stop the collapse of its country!

The USSR has already told 15 republics: I don't need you, leave me, I give you freedom, live independently. And now territories within Russia itself have begun to separate, and then Russia itself has begun to disintegrate into small parts. This could not be allowed. We must defend our Motherland.

And the rest are just reasons for secession from Russia, they believed the lie. I want to say that now the Chechen Republic lives well and prospers as part of Russia and Chechen soldiers are fighting in Ukraine for Russia. You can also tell Great Britain to give independence to Ireland and Scotland, because they want it so much. I don’t think Great Britain is ready to tear itself into small pieces, which would be strange.

There were 2 Chechen wars. When the first Chechen war was going on, the Russians were winning it and took the militants into a cauldron to finally defeat them. But then the Generals betrayed them and signed peace with the terrorists. It was an offensive defeat for Russia. These agreements are called the Khasavyurt Agreements.

The Khasavyurt Agreements, symbolizing the final chord of the first Chechen campaign, in fact, of course, were neither a peace treaty, nor a capitulation, nor a serious document at all that could entail any serious legal consequences. Strictly speaking, this was nothing more than a declaration of intent, since even the ceasefire agreements had been reached earlier, during the negotiations between Lebed and Maskhadov on August 15 and 22 in the villages of Starye Atagi and Novye Atagi

Khasavyurt Accords: Defeat or Betrayal? August 31, 1996 was a landmark moment that marked the end of the Chechen war. Alexander Lebedev and Aslan Maskhadov signed the Khasavyurt Accords, which implied the withdrawal of Russian troops from Chechnya and the cessation of all military action. According to the document, the status of the Chechen Republic was to be determined by December 31, 2001. Although Chechnya declared its independence, no state recognized it.
This was a real blow to the army. The signing of the agreement was perceived as a betrayal: Lebedev and Berezovsky essentially admitted Russia's defeat in the war with the bandits. This was not only a humiliation for the soldiers and officers, but also a serious insult to those who had finally learned to wage war and successfully fought the militants.
A striking example of the military's attitude to the agreement can be cited in the words of General Troshev: "You are a general, you can think whatever you want, but your task is to remain silent and listen to what Lebedev and I are saying. Got it?" 🔥
Troshev, like many of his colleagues, believed that "any stop to the war is a half-measure and a crime." In his opinion, the complete destruction of the militants was the only path to stability. "I and most of the officers are ashamed that this general is our former comrade-in-arms. No one has done more harm to the army than Lebed," Troshev said, hoping for his public repentance. 🤨
Troshev was sure that in 1996 it was necessary to "finish off" the militants, and the army was already close to this. For him, negotiations are a betrayal, and the Khasavyurt agreements will forever remain a symbol of weakness.

In short: during the period 1991-1994, the Chechens killed, by various measures, from 24,000 to 30,000 Russians, Armenians, Jews and Ingush.

Also, Chechen bandits began to carry out raids in small groups on Dagestan and Ingushetia, the slave trade flourished, and later - with one of his decrees Dudayev legalized it!

A journalist asks Putin:
I would like to ask a question about Chechnya in connection with the large number of reports of human rights violations, about the facts of illegal actions of military personnel. Do you think it is necessary to change your approach to the settlement of the Chechen problem?

Putin's answer:
You know, I have spoken a lot about this topic, you are probably familiar with it, I will now approach it from a slightly different angle. Representatives of the media from Arab countries know that we are witnessing a certain radicalization of the Muslim world, and this is very worrying for many leaders of Muslim countries, and countries of the former Soviet Union and our more distant colleagues and friends.
Here is one of the metastases of this radicalization, it has penetrated into the North Caucasus. After all, you just mentioned Chechnya, but what, in fact, did not suit Chechnya in 1999? After all, de facto it was granted full state independence.
What, in fact, made some people with weapons in their hands break into the territory of Dagestan and demand the separation of additional territories from the Caspian to the Black Sea from the Russian Federation and the formation of the United States of Islam? Was it the need to fight for the independence of Chechnya that pushed them to do this, but you and I understand that this is nonsense, delirium, it has nothing to do with the interests of the Chechen people. But, having understood this once, having understood that this territory can be used as a springboard for an attack on the Russian Federation, for rocking the Russian Federation, Russia will not enter this river a second time. In any case, this would be an absolutely unforgivable mistake. We must respect the opinion and mood of the Chechen people without any doubt, but we must not allow ourselves to be deceived, as the radicals are trying to do. They are trying to replace their own fundamentalist aspirations and goals with the interests of the Chechen people, and when we fight against them, they claim that we are fighting against Chechnya and its population. And someone picks this up either consciously or without understanding the essence of the events. This is my approach, and I do not intend to change it.