A complete asshole, or the last war of the Russian Empire

Alik Bahshi

Verified User
Alik Bakhshi

A complete asshole, or the last war of the Russian Empire



In Putin's Russia, where any bold word against the will of the Kremlin can be interpreted as treason, an incredible event has occurred, which is hard to believe, but which is quite expected, because sooner or later the truth will still be clothed in words, and these words were spoken by the commander of Russian mercenaries Prigozhin, driven to despair:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ivFdOt4Oco


Prigozhin boldly and offensively accuses Putin, calling him a grandfather, of failures at the front, explaining that neither Commander-in-Chief Putin nor Defense Minister Shoigu have ever served in the army, and "how can you win a war if suddenly this grandfather turns out to be a complete asshole." Prigozhin has no doubts, saying that the counteroffensive of the Ukrainian Armed Forces "will begin on the ground, and not on TV, because so far in our country everyone thinks that everything can be done on TV." Prigozhin's words are entirely true - in Russia, TV plays the role of a shepherd's whip, which the silent flock obeys. Putin understands the importance of TV in managing the masses, and one of his first steps in power was to deprive the people of independent television. It must be said that the Russian people do not resist the tricks of the Kremlin master at all and obediently follow all his instructions. The Constitution of Russia has become a whore. In Russia, Putin is not the guarantor of the Constitution, but the Constitution has become Putin's guarantor. It seems that the activities of the Nazi propagandist Goebbels had a great influence on Putin, which consisted of the words: "A lie told once remains a lie. A lie repeated a thousand times becomes the truth." Putin strictly follows Goebbels' instructions. It is difficult to give an example of Putin telling the truth. Lies have become Russia's calling card. (1) It seems that Putin has decided to transfer his Russian experience of fooling the masses to Western democracies. False propaganda has flooded not only Russia, taking advantage of the freedom of the media in democratic countries, Putin has set himself the goal of using planted propagandists to deceive the world community, to present Russia as a peaceful democratic country, while hiding his secret goals, which consist of restoring the Russian empire within the borders of the former USSR. By the way, I have been writing about Putin's upcoming revanchism since the very moment he became the master of the Kremlin (2,3,4). Unfortunately, neither cowboy Bush Jr., who called the Russian dictator nothing less than "friend Putin", nor the overly cautious Obama, who saw through Putin's treachery by the end of his second term as president, have done anything to stop the insolent Putin, who has bitten the bit. The tolerant West silently looked on at the brutal massacre of the Chechen people and lightly chided them for the war with Georgia. I would like to give an excerpt from my article (5), in which I predicted Russia's attack on Ukraine immediately after the end of the Sochi Olympics:

"Will the West show principledness or will it surrender Ukraine, as it surrendered Chechnya, allowing Putin to brutally deal with the Chechen people? Or will it continue to buy Russian energy resources, preferring a purely pragmatic approach, ignoring Sakharov's fair words that the most pragmatic approach is a moral one. One thing is clear here: Russia will not invade Ukraine before the Sochi Winter Olympics, so as not to repeat the failed Moscow Olympics of 1980. Therefore, the Ukrainians need to hurry up with joining the EU before the end of the Sochi Olympics."

Here we must honestly say that the Ukrainians themselves are to blame for the misfortune that has befallen them. The complete indiscriminate selection of people for the power structures is astounding. Was it really not clear what Putin's protégé, the twice-convicted Viktor Yanukovych, was like? Democracy is certainly good, but in Ukraine democracy has been turned into a game for oligarchs, sometimes presidential power, sometimes parliamentary, and there is no need to even talk about corruption and venality in the power structures. Endless swearing and fighting in the corrupt parliament between the protégés of the oligarchs - all this could not help but affect the country's defense capability. How could they lease the naval base in Sevastopol to the Russian Empire, and then extend the lease for 25 years? Greed has clouded Kyiv's judgment. Ukrainian politicians have forgotten the role played by Russian military bases in the Baltic countries, with the help of which Moscow overthrew the government there in 1939 and held referendums en masse for their entry into the USSR. Instead of following the example of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and carrying out reforms in the country in accordance with EU requirements, Ukrainian politicians, concerned only with their own personal interests, created a favorable environment for invasion, which was used, albeit belatedly, by the revanchist Putin. Under the guise of conducting military exercises near the borders of Ukraine, a powerful invasion army was created, which did not go unnoticed by America. Fortunately, by this time Ukraine had a new president, Zelensky, who had managed to take care of organizing a proper welcome for the Russians. The lethal weapons that Ukraine had received, which Obama had earlier recklessly refused to provide, helped to thwart Putin's plans for the rapid completion of the so-called special operation. Russian tanks burned like matchboxes from the hits of the "javelin". Putin's blitzkrieg had failed miserably. Putin's hope was that as soon as the Russian hordes crossed the border, the Ukrainian army would run away in fear, and in two or three days Russian tanks would be throwing flowers on the streets of Kyiv. I have no doubt that Putin's agents in Kyiv had already prepared flowers for this occasion somewhere in the basements. Contrary to Putin's plans, it turned out that the Ukrainian people did not want to part with their independence. The future of the Ukrainian people, which the fascist Putin (7) has encroached on, having formalized the plan for its liquidation in his article written on the eve of the invasion, the thesis of which was that Russians and Ukrainians are one people, now depends on the outcome of the battle with the Empire of Evil. However, the fact that a Ukrainian soldier is ready to give his life for the freedom of his people was not included in the plan of the Kremlin revanchist. Yes, Putin is a pragmatist, but he does not want to understand, or rather, with the psychology of a St. Petersburg bandit, he is unable to understand that pragmatism excluding morality will inevitably lead to failure or crime, as happened. One cannot help but recall the words of Sakharov:

"Ultimately, the moral choice turns out to be the most pragmatic."

The West appreciated the courage of the Ukrainian soldier, and today, in fact, he is a defender of not only his homeland, but also a defender of civilization and democracy, which was expressed in the provision of military assistance by NATO. Perhaps Putin did not expect such unity of Western countries in their determination to resist his revanchist aspirations to restore the empire. A special operation, designed for two or three days, turned into a large-scale war of attrition, for which Putin was clearly not prepared. Hence the discontent among the commanders of the Russian invaders, who are experiencing a shortage of not only material resources for successfully waging the war, but also suffering enormous losses among the personnel in the troops, which was expressed in Prigozhin's insulting words addressed to Putin. I believe that Prigozhin now needs to be very careful and wash his own underwear in order to avoid the fate of Navalny. But the main thing in what happened is that discontent in the Russian army can become widespread, and then defeat is inevitable. Russia's defeat in the war will inevitably be followed by Putin's departure, general chaos and the collapse of the empire. I don't think Putin will make it to The Hague in time, the desperate people will crucify him at the gates of the Kremlin first, and Russia will return to its historical borders and regain its former name of Muscovy. (
Cool


1. The Empire of Lies and its main liar. 06/20/14 . https://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/22317.html
2. Chechnya, who's next? Israel. Our country. 12/11/96.
3. Money, war and politics, or Chechnya and how to crush the vermin. Israel. Our country. 10/14/99.
4. A terrible price to pay for protection from pink revolutions. 12/14/05. . https://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/3149.html
5. Whose Crimea. 06.02.06. https://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/4030.html
6. Ukraine as a victim of the West's immorality towards Russia. 13.12.13. https://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/20891.html
7. Hitler's ghost haunts Europe. 25.04.18. https://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/38049.html
8. The first president after Putin will be the first president of Muscovy. 21.06.2022
https://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/83920.html

15.05.2023
 
Alik Bakhshi

A complete asshole, or the last war of the Russian Empire



In Putin's Russia, where any bold word against the will of the Kremlin can be interpreted as treason, an incredible event has occurred, which is hard to believe, but which is quite expected, because sooner or later the truth will still be clothed in words, and these words were spoken by the commander of Russian mercenaries Prigozhin, driven to despair:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ivFdOt4Oco


Prigozhin boldly and offensively accuses Putin, calling him a grandfather, of failures at the front, explaining that neither Commander-in-Chief Putin nor Defense Minister Shoigu have ever served in the army, and "how can you win a war if suddenly this grandfather turns out to be a complete asshole." Prigozhin has no doubts, saying that the counteroffensive of the Ukrainian Armed Forces "will begin on the ground, and not on TV, because so far in our country everyone thinks that everything can be done on TV." Prigozhin's words are entirely true - in Russia, TV plays the role of a shepherd's whip, which the silent flock obeys. Putin understands the importance of TV in managing the masses, and one of his first steps in power was to deprive the people of independent television. It must be said that the Russian people do not resist the tricks of the Kremlin master at all and obediently follow all his instructions. The Constitution of Russia has become a whore. In Russia, Putin is not the guarantor of the Constitution, but the Constitution has become Putin's guarantor. It seems that the activities of the Nazi propagandist Goebbels had a great influence on Putin, which consisted of the words: "A lie told once remains a lie. A lie repeated a thousand times becomes the truth." Putin strictly follows Goebbels' instructions. It is difficult to give an example of Putin telling the truth. Lies have become Russia's calling card. (1) It seems that Putin has decided to transfer his Russian experience of fooling the masses to Western democracies. False propaganda has flooded not only Russia, taking advantage of the freedom of the media in democratic countries, Putin has set himself the goal of using planted propagandists to deceive the world community, to present Russia as a peaceful democratic country, while hiding his secret goals, which consist of restoring the Russian empire within the borders of the former USSR. By the way, I have been writing about Putin's upcoming revanchism since the very moment he became the master of the Kremlin (2,3,4). Unfortunately, neither cowboy Bush Jr., who called the Russian dictator nothing less than "friend Putin", nor the overly cautious Obama, who saw through Putin's treachery by the end of his second term as president, have done anything to stop the insolent Putin, who has bitten the bit. The tolerant West silently looked on at the brutal massacre of the Chechen people and lightly chided them for the war with Georgia. I would like to give an excerpt from my article (5), in which I predicted Russia's attack on Ukraine immediately after the end of the Sochi Olympics:

"Will the West show principledness or will it surrender Ukraine, as it surrendered Chechnya, allowing Putin to brutally deal with the Chechen people? Or will it continue to buy Russian energy resources, preferring a purely pragmatic approach, ignoring Sakharov's fair words that the most pragmatic approach is a moral one. One thing is clear here: Russia will not invade Ukraine before the Sochi Winter Olympics, so as not to repeat the failed Moscow Olympics of 1980. Therefore, the Ukrainians need to hurry up with joining the EU before the end of the Sochi Olympics."

Here we must honestly say that the Ukrainians themselves are to blame for the misfortune that has befallen them. The complete indiscriminate selection of people for the power structures is astounding. Was it really not clear what Putin's protégé, the twice-convicted Viktor Yanukovych, was like? Democracy is certainly good, but in Ukraine democracy has been turned into a game for oligarchs, sometimes presidential power, sometimes parliamentary, and there is no need to even talk about corruption and venality in the power structures. Endless swearing and fighting in the corrupt parliament between the protégés of the oligarchs - all this could not help but affect the country's defense capability. How could they lease the naval base in Sevastopol to the Russian Empire, and then extend the lease for 25 years? Greed has clouded Kyiv's judgment. Ukrainian politicians have forgotten the role played by Russian military bases in the Baltic countries, with the help of which Moscow overthrew the government there in 1939 and held referendums en masse for their entry into the USSR. Instead of following the example of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and carrying out reforms in the country in accordance with EU requirements, Ukrainian politicians, concerned only with their own personal interests, created a favorable environment for invasion, which was used, albeit belatedly, by the revanchist Putin. Under the guise of conducting military exercises near the borders of Ukraine, a powerful invasion army was created, which did not go unnoticed by America. Fortunately, by this time Ukraine had a new president, Zelensky, who had managed to take care of organizing a proper welcome for the Russians. The lethal weapons that Ukraine had received, which Obama had earlier recklessly refused to provide, helped to thwart Putin's plans for the rapid completion of the so-called special operation. Russian tanks burned like matchboxes from the hits of the "javelin". Putin's blitzkrieg had failed miserably. Putin's hope was that as soon as the Russian hordes crossed the border, the Ukrainian army would run away in fear, and in two or three days Russian tanks would be throwing flowers on the streets of Kyiv. I have no doubt that Putin's agents in Kyiv had already prepared flowers for this occasion somewhere in the basements. Contrary to Putin's plans, it turned out that the Ukrainian people did not want to part with their independence. The future of the Ukrainian people, which the fascist Putin (7) has encroached on, having formalized the plan for its liquidation in his article written on the eve of the invasion, the thesis of which was that Russians and Ukrainians are one people, now depends on the outcome of the battle with the Empire of Evil. However, the fact that a Ukrainian soldier is ready to give his life for the freedom of his people was not included in the plan of the Kremlin revanchist. Yes, Putin is a pragmatist, but he does not want to understand, or rather, with the psychology of a St. Petersburg bandit, he is unable to understand that pragmatism excluding morality will inevitably lead to failure or crime, as happened. One cannot help but recall the words of Sakharov:

"Ultimately, the moral choice turns out to be the most pragmatic."

The West appreciated the courage of the Ukrainian soldier, and today, in fact, he is a defender of not only his homeland, but also a defender of civilization and democracy, which was expressed in the provision of military assistance by NATO. Perhaps Putin did not expect such unity of Western countries in their determination to resist his revanchist aspirations to restore the empire. A special operation, designed for two or three days, turned into a large-scale war of attrition, for which Putin was clearly not prepared. Hence the discontent among the commanders of the Russian invaders, who are experiencing a shortage of not only material resources for successfully waging the war, but also suffering enormous losses among the personnel in the troops, which was expressed in Prigozhin's insulting words addressed to Putin. I believe that Prigozhin now needs to be very careful and wash his own underwear in order to avoid the fate of Navalny. But the main thing in what happened is that discontent in the Russian army can become widespread, and then defeat is inevitable. Russia's defeat in the war will inevitably be followed by Putin's departure, general chaos and the collapse of the empire. I don't think Putin will make it to The Hague in time, the desperate people will crucify him at the gates of the Kremlin first, and Russia will return to its historical borders and regain its former name of Muscovy. (
Cool


1. The Empire of Lies and its main liar. 06/20/14 . https://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/22317.html
2. Chechnya, who's next? Israel. Our country. 12/11/96.
3. Money, war and politics, or Chechnya and how to crush the vermin. Israel. Our country. 10/14/99.
4. A terrible price to pay for protection from pink revolutions. 12/14/05. . https://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/3149.html
5. Whose Crimea. 06.02.06. https://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/4030.html
6. Ukraine as a victim of the West's immorality towards Russia. 13.12.13. https://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/20891.html
7. Hitler's ghost haunts Europe. 25.04.18. https://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/38049.html
8. The first president after Putin will be the first president of Muscovy. 21.06.2022
https://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/83920.html

15.05.2023
ok deep state.

:tardthoughts:
 
Alik Bakhshi

A complete asshole, or the last war of the Russian Empire

I'm just going to address the title of your thread/article for now. Simply equating Putin to an insulting epithet isn't productive, just as doing so with Trump or Biden before him isn't productive. Putin has been at the pinacle of Russia's leadership for over 2 decades and frankly, his actions make a lot more sense to me then many of those done by Biden and Trump when it comes to the war in Ukraine.
 
I'm just going to address the title of your thread/article for now. Simply equating Putin to an insulting epithet isn't productive, just as doing so with Trump or Biden before him isn't productive. Putin has been at the pinacle of Russia's leadership for over 2 decades and frankly, his actions make a lot more sense to me then many of those done by Biden and Trump when it comes to the war in Ukraine.
Undoubtedly, Putin’s actions are meaningful; he wants to restore Russia within the borders of the USSR.
 
Undoubtedly, Putin’s actions are meaningful; he wants to restore Russia within the borders of the USSR.

That notion is one that's been peddled by the mainstream media for a while, but I've seen no actual evidence for it. American Professor and Statesman Jeffrey Sachs shot this notion down in a speech he gave in February to European Parliament. He goes into where this mess -really- started, with the Euromaidan coup in 2014. Quoting from an article that's mainly his speech:
**
As you know, Viktor Yanukovych was elected as president of Ukraine in 2010 on the platform of Ukraine’s neutrality. Russia had no territorial interests or designs in Ukraine at all. I know. I was there off-and-on during these years. What Russia was negotiating during 2010 was a 25-year lease to 2042 for Sevastopol naval base. That’s it. There were no Russian demands for Crimea, or for the Donbas. Nothing like that at all. The idea that Putin is reconstructing the Russian empire is childish propaganda. Excuse me.

If anyone knows the day-to-day and year-to-year history, this is childish stuff. Yet childish stuff seems to work better than adult stuff. So, there were no territorial demands at all before the 2014 coup [in Ukraine]. Yet the United States decided that Yanukovych must be overthrown because he favored neutrality and opposed NATO enlargement. It’s called a regime change operation.

There have been around one hundred regime-change operations by the U.S. since 1947, many in your countries [speaking to the MEPs] and many all over the world.

(Political scientist Lindsey O’Rourke documented 64 U.S. covert regime-change operations between 1947 and 1989, and concluded that “Regime change operations, especially those conducted covertly, have oft en led to prolonged instability, civil wars, and humanitarian crises in the affected regions.” See O’Rourke’s 2018 book, Covert Regime Change: America’s Secret Cold War. After 1989, there is ample evidence of the C.I.A. involved in Syria, Libya, Ukraine, Venezuela, and many other countries.)

That’s what the C.I.A. does for a living. Please know it. It’s a very unusual kind of foreign policy. In the American government, if you don’t like the other side, you don’t negotiate with them, you try to overthrow them, preferably, covertly. If it doesn’t work covertly, you do it overtly. You always say it’s not our fault. They’re the aggressor. They’re the other side.

They’re “Hitler.” That comes up every two or three years. Whether it’s Saddam Hussein, whether it’s [deposed Syrian President Bashar] al-Assad, whether it’s Putin, that’s very convenient. That’s the only foreign policy explanation the American people are ever given. Well, we’re facing Munich 1938. We can’t talk to the other side. They’re evil and implacable foes. That’s the only model of foreign policy we ever hear from our government and mass media. The mass media repeats it entirely because it’s completely suborned by the U.S. government.

**

Full article:
 
That notion is one that's been peddled by the mainstream media for a while, but I've seen no actual evidence for it. American Professor and Statesman Jeffrey Sachs shot this notion down in a speech he gave in February to European Parliament. He goes into where this mess -really- started, with the Euromaidan coup in 2014. Quoting from an article that's mainly his speech:
**
As you know, Viktor Yanukovych was elected as president of Ukraine in 2010 on the platform of Ukraine’s neutrality. Russia had no territorial interests or designs in Ukraine at all. I know. I was there off-and-on during these years. What Russia was negotiating during 2010 was a 25-year lease to 2042 for Sevastopol naval base. That’s it. There were no Russian demands for Crimea, or for the Donbas. Nothing like that at all. The idea that Putin is reconstructing the Russian empire is childish propaganda. Excuse me.

If anyone knows the day-to-day and year-to-year history, this is childish stuff. Yet childish stuff seems to work better than adult stuff. So, there were no territorial demands at all before the 2014 coup [in Ukraine]. Yet the United States decided that Yanukovych must be overthrown because he favored neutrality and opposed NATO enlargement. It’s called a regime change operation.

There have been around one hundred regime-change operations by the U.S. since 1947, many in your countries [speaking to the MEPs] and many all over the world.

(Political scientist Lindsey O’Rourke documented 64 U.S. covert regime-change operations between 1947 and 1989, and concluded that “Regime change operations, especially those conducted covertly, have oft en led to prolonged instability, civil wars, and humanitarian crises in the affected regions.” See O’Rourke’s 2018 book, Covert Regime Change: America’s Secret Cold War. After 1989, there is ample evidence of the C.I.A. involved in Syria, Libya, Ukraine, Venezuela, and many other countries.)

That’s what the C.I.A. does for a living. Please know it. It’s a very unusual kind of foreign policy. In the American government, if you don’t like the other side, you don’t negotiate with them, you try to overthrow them, preferably, covertly. If it doesn’t work covertly, you do it overtly. You always say it’s not our fault. They’re the aggressor. They’re the other side.

They’re “Hitler.” That comes up every two or three years. Whether it’s Saddam Hussein, whether it’s [deposed Syrian President Bashar] al-Assad, whether it’s Putin, that’s very convenient. That’s the only foreign policy explanation the American people are ever given. Well, we’re facing Munich 1938. We can’t talk to the other side. They’re evil and implacable foes. That’s the only model of foreign policy we ever hear from our government and mass media. The mass media repeats it entirely because it’s completely suborned by the U.S. government.

**

Full article:
Yanukovych is Putin's protégé, he promised the people of Ukraine to become a member of the EU, but refused to fulfill his promise. He fled to Putin when Maidan happened. And the fact that Putin annexed Crimea, is that not the annexation of a worse territory? What right did he have to do that? And didn't Putin send tanks to Georgia in 2008? Did Russia have the right to attack Ukraine because the Ukrainians ousted Yanukovych? If, for example, a coup occurs in Bulgaria, will Russia have the right to send an army into Bulgaria? And how do you like this Nazi opinion of Putin’s that as such a people like Ukrainians do not exist, in his opinion it is the Russians. Every country has the right to choose its own path. And the main thing here is that Ukraine did not intend to threaten Russia. The only explanation for Russian aggression is the seizure of Ukraine, which Putin explains by the fact that Russians live there. But Russians live not only in Ukraine, they also live in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Georgia, Azerbaijan, what if Putin also takes advantage of this circumstance to attack these countries.
 
Last edited:
That notion is one that's been peddled by the mainstream media for a while, but I've seen no actual evidence for it. American Professor and Statesman Jeffrey Sachs shot this notion down in a speech he gave in February to European Parliament. He goes into where this mess -really- started, with the Euromaidan coup in 2014. Quoting from an article that's mainly his speech:
**
As you know, Viktor Yanukovych was elected as president of Ukraine in 2010 on the platform of Ukraine’s neutrality. Russia had no territorial interests or designs in Ukraine at all. I know. I was there off-and-on during these years. What Russia was negotiating during 2010 was a 25-year lease to 2042 for Sevastopol naval base. That’s it. There were no Russian demands for Crimea, or for the Donbas. Nothing like that at all. The idea that Putin is reconstructing the Russian empire is childish propaganda. Excuse me.

If anyone knows the day-to-day and year-to-year history, this is childish stuff. Yet childish stuff seems to work better than adult stuff. So, there were no territorial demands at all before the 2014 coup [in Ukraine]. Yet the United States decided that Yanukovych must be overthrown because he favored neutrality and opposed NATO enlargement. It’s called a regime change operation.

There have been around one hundred regime-change operations by the U.S. since 1947, many in your countries [speaking to the MEPs] and many all over the world.

(Political scientist Lindsey O’Rourke documented 64 U.S. covert regime-change operations between 1947 and 1989, and concluded that “Regime change operations, especially those conducted covertly, have oft en led to prolonged instability, civil wars, and humanitarian crises in the affected regions.” See O’Rourke’s 2018 book, Covert Regime Change: America’s Secret Cold War. After 1989, there is ample evidence of the C.I.A. involved in Syria, Libya, Ukraine, Venezuela, and many other countries.)

That’s what the C.I.A. does for a living. Please know it. It’s a very unusual kind of foreign policy. In the American government, if you don’t like the other side, you don’t negotiate with them, you try to overthrow them, preferably, covertly. If it doesn’t work covertly, you do it overtly. You always say it’s not our fault. They’re the aggressor. They’re the other side.

They’re “Hitler.” That comes up every two or three years. Whether it’s Saddam Hussein, whether it’s [deposed Syrian President Bashar] al-Assad, whether it’s Putin, that’s very convenient. That’s the only foreign policy explanation the American people are ever given. Well, we’re facing Munich 1938. We can’t talk to the other side. They’re evil and implacable foes. That’s the only model of foreign policy we ever hear from our government and mass media. The mass media repeats it entirely because it’s completely suborned by the U.S. government.

**

Full article:
Yanukovych is Putin's protégé, he promised the people of Ukraine to become a member of the EU, but refused to fulfill his promise.

I've seen no evidence that Yanukovych is Putin's "protégé". What I -have- seen evidence of is that Yanukovych was trying to find a balance between Russian and western interests. The west was having none of it. A good article that gets into the details:

Quoting the relevant section:
**
SEPTEMBER
The Ukrainian cabinet unanimously approves the draft of the long-awaited Ukraine-EU Association Agreement. Yanokuych is expected to officially sign the agreement at the EU’s “Eastern Partnership Summit” in Vilnius on November 28th and 29th.

Russia – Ukraine’s major creditor and biggest trade partner – warns that this treaty would “cause chaos”, break the terms of an existing treaty between Ukraine and Russia, and lead to Ukraine’s economy collapsing. As a counteroffer, they suggest Ukraine sign a new deal with the Eurasian Economic Union.

NOVEMBER
The Ukrainian government issues a decree suspending preparations for the association agreement (AA). Deputy Prime Minister Yuriy Boyko warns the current terms of the agreement would “seriously damage the economy”.

“Pro European” demonstrations begin in Maidan square within days of the decree being issued. A poll run by the Kyiv Post finds an even split on joining the EU vs the Eurasian customs union: 39% for, 37% against.

Yanukovych attends the Eastern Partnership Summit on the 28th, but does not sign the Association Agreement, instead suggesting a new tri-lateral agreement between Ukraine, Russia and the EU. Russia is open to negotiating such a deal, but EU rejects this offer completely.

Despite not signing the AA, Yanukovych tells the press that Ukraine still intends to work for closer ties with the EU: “an alternative for reforms in Ukraine and an alternative for European integration do not exist…We are walking along this path and are not changing direction”.

Prime Minister Mykola Azarov echoed this: “I affirm with full authority that the negotiating process over the Association Agreement is continuing, and the work on moving our country closer to European standards is not stopping for a single day”.

Nevertheless, this is ubiquitously covered in the Western media as Yanukovych “refusing to sign the association agreement in favour of closer ties with Russia”.

**

So tell me, why do you think there was media silence on Yanukovych's efforts to find a deal that worked for -everyone-, not just western interests?
 
[Yanukovych] fled to Putin when Maidan happened.

Indeed, and for good reason. From what I've read, he was being targetted for assassination:
 
And the fact that Putin annexed Crimea, is that not the annexation of a worse territory? What right did he have to do that?

After the bloody Euromaidan massacre, it appears that Crimeans did not want to share the same fate. So they held a referendum to rejoin Russia. The vote to rejoin Russia won by a landslide and Russia agreed to annex Crimea back to Russia:

As you may know, Crimeans never agreed to leave Russia to begin with, back in 1954. If you'd like to read up on the transfer of Crimea from the Russian SSR to the Crimean SSR, here's an article that I think is good:
 
After the bloody Euromaidan massacre, it appears that Crimeans did not want to share the same fate. So they held a referendum to rejoin Russia. The vote to rejoin Russia won by a landslide and Russia agreed to annex Crimea back to Russia:

As you may know, Crimeans never agreed to leave Russia to begin with, back in 1954. If you'd like to read up on the transfer of Crimea from the Russian SSR to the Crimean SSR, here's an article that I think is good:
'Firstly, the bloody massacre was carried out by Yanukovych, after which he had to flee from the outraged Ukrainian people to his protégé Putin. Secondly, the voting in Crimea took place after Russian soldiers appeared there.
 
And didn't Putin send tanks to Georgia in 2008?

Perhaps he did, but let's get a bit of context as to Georgia's history with Russia and the west. Former Marine Intelligence Officer and U.N. Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter, who married a Georgian, sums up the years of the 20th century in Georgia up until 2008 like so:
**
For most of the 20th Century Georgia enjoyed peace and prosperity as part of the Soviet Union, where Georgians lived in harmony with their Russian neighbors.

In 1991 Georgian nationalists led Georgia down a path of national suicide, prematurely declaring independence from the Soviet Union, and foregoing the normalization of relations with Russia in the false pursuit of western prosperity.

The West ignored Georgia.

In 1991-92 Georgian nationalists instigated a Civil War in South Ossetia which tore Georgia apart, leading to civil conflict and ethnic cleansing.

Russia intervened as a peacekeeper.

The West ignored Georgia.

In 1992-93 Georgian nationalists instigated a Civil War in Abkhazia which led to the loss of that territory, the deaths of tens of thousands, and more than 250,000 Georgians ethnically cleansed.

Russia offered to intervene to save Abkhazia. The Georgian government rebuked the Russian offer.

The West ignored Georgia.

In 1993 Georgian nationalists started a Civil War that threatened to tear Georgia apart.

Russia offered to intervene to save Georgia.

Georgia accepted the Russian offer.

Georgia was saved.

The West ignored Georgia.

In 2003 the West pushed Georgia to overthrow its government (the so-called “Rose Revolution”), tempting Georgia with promises of EU and NATO membership.

In 2003 the West had Georgia deploy troops to Iraq.

In 2004 the West had Georgia deploy troops to Afghanistan.

In both conflicts Georgian boys were killed and wounded fighting in a war that had nothing to do with Georgia, and everything to do with preserving western hegemony.

The Russians did nothing to Georgia.

In 2008 Russia was engaged in active negotiations with Georgia for the return of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

That same year the West ordered the Georgian government to stop negotiations, and instead use the Georgian army, which the West had helped build, to invade South Ossetia.

Georgia invaded, killing Russian peacekeepers in their sleep.

Russia counterattacked, destroying the Georgian army.

Russia stopped short of taking Tbilisi, which was left undefended.

The West did nothing to help Georgia.

**

Full article:

Note that this is someone whose wife's father played a part in the 1992-1993 Georgian civil war. He wrote an article about that war here:
 
Did Russia have the right to attack Ukraine because the Ukrainians ousted Yanukovych?

I've provided evidence that it wasn't just Ukrainians who took a part in ousting Yanukovych, but you may have noticed that Russia did -not- attack Ukraine after Yanukovych was ousted. Instead, Russia tried for 8 years to find a peaceful solution to the Ukrainian civil war that ensued. Putin even brought this up in the speech he gave on the day he began what he called his military operation in Ukraine on February 24, 2022. Here's the part where he gets into Ukraine's civil war:
**
This brings me to the situation in Donbass. We can see that the forces that staged the coup in Ukraine in 2014 have seized power, are keeping it with the help of ornamental election procedures and have abandoned the path of a peaceful conflict settlement. For eight years, for eight endless years we have been doing everything possible to settle the situation by peaceful political means. Everything was in vain.

As I said in my previous address, you cannot look without compassion at what is happening there. It became impossible to tolerate it. We had to stop that atrocity, that genocide of the millions of people who live there and who pinned their hopes on Russia, on all of us. It is their aspirations, the feelings and pain of these people that were the main motivating force behind our decision to recognise the independence of the Donbass people’s republics.

**

Source:

Putin isn't completely clear as to why he choose February 24, 2022 as the time to start his military operation in Ukraine, but Former Swiss Intelligence Officer Jacques Baud elaborates on the final days before Putin made the decision to do so:
**
In fact, as early as February 16 [2022], Joe Biden knows that the Ukrainians began to shell the civilian populations of Donbass, putting Vladimir Putin in front of a difficult choice: to help Donbass militarily and create an international problem or to sit idle and watch Russian speakers from the Donbass being run over.

If he decides to intervene, Vladimir Putin can invoke the international obligation of “ Responsibility To Protect ” (R2P). But he knows that whatever its nature or scale, the intervention will trigger a shower of sanctions. Therefore, whether its intervention is limited to the Donbass or whether it goes further to put pressure on the West for the status of Ukraine, the price to be paid will be the same. This is what he explains in his speech on February 21.

That day, he acceded to the request of the Duma and recognized the independence of the two Republics of Donbass and, in the process, he signed treaties of friendship and assistance with them.

The Ukrainian artillery bombardments on the populations of Donbass continued and, on February 23, the two Republics requested military aid from Russia. On the 24th, Vladimir Putin invokes Article 51 of the United Nations Charter which provides for mutual military assistance within the framework of a defensive alliance.

In order to make the Russian intervention totally illegal in the eyes of the public we deliberately obscure the fact that the war actually started on February 16th. The Ukrainian army was preparing to attack the Donbass as early as 2021, as certain Russian and European intelligence services were well aware… The lawyers will judge.

**

Full article:
 
And how do you like this Nazi opinion of Putin’s that as such a people like Ukrainians do not exist, in his opinion it is the Russians.

Ukraine as a country that included Crimea only existed for 25 years, from 1991 to 2014. While it's true that Ukraine had existed in the past, it did -not- include Crimea, and its existence was very short lived. Wikipedia reports:
**
The 20th century began with a renewed struggle for Ukrainian statehood. Following the collapse of empires during World War I, the Ukrainian People’s Republic (UPR) was proclaimed in 1917 with Kyiv as its capital. Meanwhile, in the western territories, the West Ukrainian People’s Republic (WUPR) was established in 1918, centered in Lviv. Both republics sought to unite, forming the Unification Act (Act Zluky) on 22 January 1919. However, their independence was short-lived. The UPR faced constant military conflict with Bolshevik forces, Poland, and White Army factions. By 1921, following the Soviet-Ukrainian War, Ukrainian lands were divided: the eastern territories became the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (part of the USSR), while western Ukraine was absorbed by Poland, Romania, and Czechoslovakia.
**

Source:
 
I've provided evidence that it wasn't just Ukrainians who took a part in ousting Yanukovych, but you may have noticed that Russia did -not- attack Ukraine after Yanukovych was ousted. Instead, Russia tried for 8 years to find a peaceful solution to the Ukrainian civil war that ensued. Putin even brought this up in the speech he gave on the day he began what he called his military operation in Ukraine on February 24, 2022. Here's the part where he gets into Ukraine's civil war:
**
This brings me to the situation in Donbass. We can see that the forces that staged the coup in Ukraine in 2014 have seized power, are keeping it with the help of ornamental election procedures and have abandoned the path of a peaceful conflict settlement. For eight years, for eight endless years we have been doing everything possible to settle the situation by peaceful political means. Everything was in vain.

As I said in my previous address, you cannot look without compassion at what is happening there. It became impossible to tolerate it. We had to stop that atrocity, that genocide of the millions of people who live there and who pinned their hopes on Russia, on all of us. It is their aspirations, the feelings and pain of these people that were the main motivating force behind our decision to recognise the independence of the Donbass people’s republics.

**

Source:

Putin isn't completely clear as to why he choose February 24, 2022 as the time to start his military operation in Ukraine, but Former Swiss Intelligence Officer Jacques Baud elaborates on the final days before Putin made the decision to do so:
**
In fact, as early as February 16 [2022], Joe Biden knows that the Ukrainians began to shell the civilian populations of Donbass, putting Vladimir Putin in front of a difficult choice: to help Donbass militarily and create an international problem or to sit idle and watch Russian speakers from the Donbass being run over.

If he decides to intervene, Vladimir Putin can invoke the international obligation of “ Responsibility To Protect ” (R2P). But he knows that whatever its nature or scale, the intervention will trigger a shower of sanctions. Therefore, whether its intervention is limited to the Donbass or whether it goes further to put pressure on the West for the status of Ukraine, the price to be paid will be the same. This is what he explains in his speech on February 21.

That day, he acceded to the request of the Duma and recognized the independence of the two Republics of Donbass and, in the process, he signed treaties of friendship and assistance with them.

The Ukrainian artillery bombardments on the populations of Donbass continued and, on February 23, the two Republics requested military aid from Russia. On the 24th, Vladimir Putin invokes Article 51 of the United Nations Charter which provides for mutual military assistance within the framework of a defensive alliance.

In order to make the Russian intervention totally illegal in the eyes of the public we deliberately obscure the fact that the war actually started on February 16th. The Ukrainian army was preparing to attack the Donbass as early as 2021, as certain Russian and European intelligence services were well aware… The lawyers will judge.

**

Full article:
Lets not pretend that we are talking about equals when we speak of civil war....one side are the abusers driven by racist hate, the other the victims.

The Russians stood with the victims.

Ethnic Russians we are told are Orcs.
 
Back
Top