Feb 24, 2022·edited Feb 24, 2022Liked by Caitlin Johnstone

Dark times, but it's not like they've descended suddenly or mysteriously. Excising the word detente from the American diplomatic vocabulary was a deadly choice, not easily justified, and may well carry the ultimate price. For some it already has.

Expand full comment

I would like to hear more from Putin, his reasons for his stand. agree with your comments and concerns. US needs to focus on easing tensions, detente.

Expand full comment

Here you are. Please help by sharing these links however you can. The mass media will certainly not do it. This is a concrete way we can help -- not Putin, but the cause of peace.

Transcript of Putin's speech on Monday (Feb. 21): http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67828?fbclid=IwAR1iZGiyqNtX-W1W3Jlynou6ewq2eBSERQipodFdnSCM3BeM_ydLzlVHF90

Transcript of Putin's Feb. 22 press conference: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67838?fbclid=IwAR2rLWoMy5gKY-twgKrSOhzXphNuu-gN9Hzps95m8AvJIrkL_UB5DmEumKU

Putin's speech today (Feb. 24): http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67843?fbclid=IwAR3xO24-GDe_gDaDkV-VtfV3rShGtaYIIrkwXe-8nthw3g-_5NUb6xtSo0I

Expand full comment

Thanks for these links. Very interesting. Many of the points made by Putin highlight the breathtaking superficiality and manipulated nature of the American press. I’d like to hear an attempted American rebuttal at the UN. It’s a shame that in 2022 that American hubris blocks the use of this organization to mediate. The Sec Council veto has to be pulled.

Expand full comment
Feb 24, 2022·edited Feb 24, 2022

How many times has the United States vetoed a vote by the UN to reign in Israel under the ridiculous fiction that it unfairly singles out Israel, as if more than one country is occupying Palestine and appropriating property and lives? We need a UN that doesn't exist to simply rubber-stamp American foreign policy goals. I'd like to see teeth put into the International Criminal Court as well.

Expand full comment

I was somewhat amazed, Riff, to see the Sec-Gen of the UN in New York, ask Russia to end the entry into Ukraine. Am I so out of touch in thinking that this was an unusual action by this man, given that we have heard little from the same source on the brutal reprisals in Myanmar, the criminal actions by the US, the UK Israel and others in Yemen for years, the bombings in Lebanon and Syria by Israel, the lack of support in Laos and Cambodia in the cleanup of the US bomb droppings after Vietnam, the Cameroon activities and on it goes, ad nauseam.

Once upon a time, areas which required some form of intervention to assist peaceful transitions justified a UN Force as a mediator. Not any more, so it seems. Myanmar would have benefitted greatly with such assistance, now far too late, a fine Prime Minister deposed and spending four years in a prison. What a sham organisation.

What role does the UN play in 2022 other than being a US controlled social club for well paid envoys, dancing to a US tune to support a veto or two or a resolution that seldom, if ever, gets enforced.

As for resolutions concerning Palestine's rights, even after passing with a massive vote against Israel, ( as required, a big 'NO' vote from the USA, two bribed smaller Pacific countries, populations of just 10,000 or so, on the promise of something needed like sewerage plant)) Palestine gets the order of the big finger from that feeble organisation as they have done for years, the UN being well passed its use-by-date.

Expand full comment

all that will change after Putin's action to break that stanglehold.

Expand full comment

Thank you! Without trying to straw-man Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski & Bo Calloway in Afghanistan (before they found a wealthy young freedom fighter to back). I'm noticing that my Schlumberger stock's kicking ass?



Expand full comment

Kremlin site seems to be down right now. Do you happen to have a copy of his speeches, or know where I can find them?

Expand full comment
Feb 25, 2022·edited Feb 25, 2022

Putin's address to the nation 24th Feb. Part 3 (final part).

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.

I would like to additionally emphasise the following. Focused on their own goals, the leading NATO countries are supporting the far-right nationalists and neo-Nazis in Ukraine, those who will never forgive the people of Crimea and Sevastopol for freely making a choice to reunite with Russia.

They will undoubtedly try to bring war to Crimea just as they have done in Donbass, to kill innocent people just as members of the punitive units of Ukrainian nationalists and Hitler’s accomplices did during the Great Patriotic War. They have also openly laid claim to several other Russian regions.

If we look at the sequence of events and the incoming reports, the showdown between Russia and these forces cannot be avoided. It is only a matter of time. They are getting ready and waiting for the right moment. Moreover, they went as far as aspire to acquire nuclear weapons. We will not let this happen.

I have already said that Russia accepted the new geopolitical reality after the dissolution of the USSR. We have been treating all new post-Soviet states with respect and will continue to act this way. We respect and will respect their sovereignty, as proven by the assistance we provided to Kazakhstan when it faced tragic events and a challenge in terms of its statehood and integrity. However, Russia cannot feel safe, develop, and exist while facing a permanent threat from the territory of today’s Ukraine.

Let me remind you that in 2000–2005 we used our military to push back against terrorists in the Caucasus and stood up for the integrity of our state. We preserved Russia. In 2014, we supported the people of Crimea and Sevastopol. In 2015, we used our Armed Forces to create a reliable shield that prevented terrorists from Syria from penetrating Russia. This was a matter of defending ourselves. We had no other choice.

The same is happening today. They did not leave us any other option for defending Russia and our people, other than the one we are forced to use today. In these circumstances, we have to take bold and immediate action. The people’s republics of Donbass have asked Russia for help.

In this context, in accordance with Article 51 (Chapter VII) of the UN Charter, with permission of Russia’s Federation Council, and in execution of the treaties of friendship and mutual assistance with the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Lugansk People’s Republic, ratified by the Federal Assembly on February 22, I made a decision to carry out a special military operation.

The purpose of this operation is to protect people who, for eight years now, have been facing humiliation and genocide perpetrated by the Kiev regime. To this end, we will seek to demilitarise and denazify Ukraine, as well as bring to trial those who perpetrated numerous bloody crimes against civilians, including against citizens of the Russian Federation.

It is not our plan to occupy the Ukrainian territory. We do not intend to impose anything on anyone by force. At the same time, we have been hearing an increasing number of statements coming from the West that there is no need any more to abide by the documents setting forth the outcomes of World War II, as signed by the totalitarian Soviet regime. How can we respond to that?

The outcomes of World War II and the sacrifices our people had to make to defeat Nazism are sacred. This does not contradict the high values of human rights and freedoms in the reality that emerged over the post-war decades. This does not mean that nations cannot enjoy the right to self-determination, which is enshrined in Article 1 of the UN Charter.

Let me remind you that the people living in territories which are part of today’s Ukraine were not asked how they want to build their lives when the USSR was created or after World War II. Freedom guides our policy, the freedom to choose independently our future and the future of our children. We believe that all the peoples living in today’s Ukraine, anyone who want to do this, must be able to enjoy this right to make a free choice.

In this context I would like to address the citizens of Ukraine. In 2014, Russia was obliged to protect the people of Crimea and Sevastopol from those who you yourself call “nats.” The people of Crimea and Sevastopol made their choice in favour of being with their historical homeland, Russia, and we supported their choice. As I said, we could not act otherwise.

The current events have nothing to do with a desire to infringe on the interests of Ukraine and the Ukrainian people. They are connected with the defending Russia from those who have taken Ukraine hostage and are trying to use it against our country and our people.

I reiterate: we are acting to defend ourselves from the threats created for us and from a worse peril than what is happening now. I am asking you, however hard this may be, to understand this and to work together with us so as to turn this tragic page as soon as possible and to move forward together, without allowing anyone to interfere in our affairs and our relations but developing them independently, so as to create favourable conditions for overcoming all these problems and to strengthen us from within as a single whole, despite the existence of state borders. I believe in this, in our common future.

I would also like to address the military personnel of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

Comrade officers,

Your fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers did not fight the Nazi occupiers and did not defend our common Motherland to allow today’s neo-Nazis to seize power in Ukraine. You swore the oath of allegiance to the Ukrainian people and not to the junta, the people’s adversary which is plundering Ukraine and humiliating the Ukrainian people.

I urge you to refuse to carry out their criminal orders. I urge you to immediately lay down arms and go home. I will explain what this means: the military personnel of the Ukrainian army who do this will be able to freely leave the zone of hostilities and return to their families.

I want to emphasise again that all responsibility for the possible bloodshed will lie fully and wholly with the ruling Ukrainian regime.

I would now like to say something very important for those who may be tempted to interfere in these developments from the outside. No matter who tries to stand in our way or all the more so create threats for our country and our people, they must know that Russia will respond immediately, and the consequences will be such as you have never seen in your entire history. No matter how the events unfold, we are ready. All the necessary decisions in this regard have been taken. I hope that my words will be heard.

Citizens of Russia,

The culture and values, experience and traditions of our ancestors invariably provided a powerful underpinning for the wellbeing and the very existence of entire states and nations, their success and viability. Of course, this directly depends on the ability to quickly adapt to constant change, maintain social cohesion, and readiness to consolidate and summon all the available forces in order to move forward.

We always need to be strong, but this strength can take on different forms. The “empire of lies,” which I mentioned in the beginning of my speech, proceeds in its policy primarily from rough, direct force. This is when our saying on being “all brawn and no brains” applies.

We all know that having justice and truth on our side is what makes us truly strong. If this is the case, it would be hard to disagree with the fact that it is our strength and our readiness to fight that are the bedrock of independence and sovereignty and provide the necessary foundation for building a reliable future for your home, your family, and your Motherland.

Dear compatriots,

I am certain that devoted soldiers and officers of Russia’s Armed Forces will perform their duty with professionalism and courage. I have no doubt that the government institutions at all levels and specialists will work effectively to guarantee the stability of our economy, financial system and social wellbeing, and the same applies to corporate executives and the entire business community. I hope that all parliamentary parties and civil society take a consolidated, patriotic position.

At the end of the day, the future of Russia is in the hands of its multi-ethnic people, as has always been the case in our history. This means that the decisions that I made will be executed, that we will achieve the goals we have set, and reliably guarantee the security of our Motherland.

I believe in your support and the invincible force rooted in the love for our Fatherland.

Expand full comment

Putin's address to the nation 24th Feb. Part 2.

This array includes promises not to expand NATO eastwards even by an inch. To reiterate: they have deceived us, or, to put it simply, they have played us. Sure, one often hears that politics is a dirty business. It could be, but it shouldn’t be as dirty as it is now, not to such an extent. This type of con-artist behaviour is contrary not only to the principles of international relations but also and above all to the generally accepted norms of morality and ethics. Where is justice and truth here? Just lies and hypocrisy all around.

Incidentally, US politicians, political scientists and journalists write and say that a veritable “empire of lies” has been created inside the United States in recent years. It is hard to disagree with this – it is really so. But one should not be modest about it: the United States is still a great country and a system-forming power. All its satellites not only humbly and obediently say yes to and parrot it at the slightest pretext but also imitate its behaviour and enthusiastically accept the rules it is offering them. Therefore, one can say with good reason and confidence that the whole so-called Western bloc formed by the United States in its own image and likeness is, in its entirety, the very same “empire of lies.”

As for our country, after the disintegration of the USSR, given the entire unprecedented openness of the new, modern Russia, its readiness to work honestly with the United States and other Western partners, and its practically unilateral disarmament, they immediately tried to put the final squeeze on us, finish us off, and utterly destroy us. This is how it was in the 1990s and the early 2000s, when the so-called collective West was actively supporting separatism and gangs of mercenaries in southern Russia. What victims, what losses we had to sustain and what trials we had to go through at that time before we broke the back of international terrorism in the Caucasus! We remember this and will never forget.

Properly speaking, the attempts to use us in their own interests never ceased until quite recently: they sought to destroy our traditional values and force on us their false values that would erode us, our people from within, the attitudes they have been aggressively imposing on their countries, attitudes that are directly leading to degradation and degeneration, because they are contrary to human nature. This is not going to happen. No one has ever succeeded in doing this, nor will they succeed now.

Despite all that, in December 2021, we made yet another attempt to reach agreement with the United States and its allies on the principles of European security and NATO’s non-expansion. Our efforts were in vain. The United States has not changed its position. It does not believe it necessary to agree with Russia on a matter that is critical for us. The United States is pursuing its own objectives, while neglecting our interests.

Of course, this situation begs a question: what next, what are we to expect? If history is any guide, we know that in 1940 and early 1941 the Soviet Union went to great lengths to prevent war or at least delay its outbreak. To this end, the USSR sought not to provoke the potential aggressor until the very end by refraining or postponing the most urgent and obvious preparations it had to make to defend itself from an imminent attack. When it finally acted, it was too late.

As a result, the country was not prepared to counter the invasion by Nazi Germany, which attacked our Motherland on June 22, 1941, without declaring war. The country stopped the enemy and went on to defeat it, but this came at a tremendous cost. The attempt to appease the aggressor ahead of the Great Patriotic War proved to be a mistake which came at a high cost for our people. In the first months after the hostilities broke out, we lost vast territories of strategic importance, as well as millions of lives. We will not make this mistake the second time. We have no right to do so.

Those who aspire to global dominance have publicly designated Russia as their enemy. They did so with impunity. Make no mistake, they had no reason to act this way. It is true that they have considerable financial, scientific, technological, and military capabilities. We are aware of this and have an objective view of the economic threats we have been hearing, just as our ability to counter this brash and never-ending blackmail. Let me reiterate that we have no illusions in this regard and are extremely realistic in our assessments.

As for military affairs, even after the dissolution of the USSR and losing a considerable part of its capabilities, today’s Russia remains one of the most powerful nuclear states. Moreover, it has a certain advantage in several cutting-edge weapons. In this context, there should be no doubt for anyone that any potential aggressor will face defeat and ominous consequences should it directly attack our country.

At the same time, technology, including in the defence sector, is changing rapidly. One day there is one leader, and tomorrow another, but a military presence in territories bordering on Russia, if we permit it to go ahead, will stay for decades to come or maybe forever, creating an ever mounting and totally unacceptable threat for Russia.

Even now, with NATO’s eastward expansion the situation for Russia has been becoming worse and more dangerous by the year. Moreover, these past days NATO leadership has been blunt in its statements that they need to accelerate and step up efforts to bring the alliance’s infrastructure closer to Russia’s borders. In other words, they have been toughening their position. We cannot stay idle and passively observe these developments. This would be an absolutely irresponsible thing to do for us.

Any further expansion of the North Atlantic alliance’s infrastructure or the ongoing efforts to gain a military foothold of the Ukrainian territory are unacceptable for us. Of course, the question is not about NATO itself. It merely serves as a tool of US foreign policy. The problem is that in territories adjacent to Russia, which I have to note is our historical land, a hostile “anti-Russia” is taking shape. Fully controlled from the outside, it is doing everything to attract NATO armed forces and obtain cutting-edge weapons.

For the United States and its allies, it is a policy of containing Russia, with obvious geopolitical dividends. For our country, it is a matter of life and death, a matter of our historical future as a nation. This is not an exaggeration; this is a fact. It is not only a very real threat to our interests but to the very existence of our state and to its sovereignty. It is the red line which we have spoken about on numerous occasions. They have crossed it.

Expand full comment

Putin's address to the nation 24th Feb. Part 1.

February 24, 2022


The Kremlin, Moscow

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Citizens of Russia, friends,

I consider it necessary today to speak again about the tragic events in Donbass and the key aspects of ensuring the security of Russia.

I will begin with what I said in my address on February 21, 2022. I spoke about our biggest concerns and worries, and about the fundamental threats which irresponsible Western politicians created for Russia consistently, rudely and unceremoniously from year to year. I am referring to the eastward expansion of NATO, which is moving its military infrastructure ever closer to the Russian border.

It is a fact that over the past 30 years we have been patiently trying to come to an agreement with the leading NATO countries regarding the principles of equal and indivisible security in Europe. In response to our proposals, we invariably faced either cynical deception and lies or attempts at pressure and blackmail, while the North Atlantic alliance continued to expand despite our protests and concerns. Its military machine is moving and, as I said, is approaching our very border.

Why is this happening? Where did this insolent manner of talking down from the height of their exceptionalism, infallibility and all-permissiveness come from? What is the explanation for this contemptuous and disdainful attitude to our interests and absolutely legitimate demands?

The answer is simple. Everything is clear and obvious. In the late 1980s, the Soviet Union grew weaker and subsequently broke apart. That experience should serve as a good lesson for us, because it has shown us that the paralysis of power and will is the first step towards complete degradation and oblivion. We lost confidence for only one moment, but it was enough to disrupt the balance of forces in the world.

As a result, the old treaties and agreements are no longer effective. Entreaties and requests do not help. Anything that does not suit the dominant state, the powers that be, is denounced as archaic, obsolete and useless. At the same time, everything it regards as useful is presented as the ultimate truth and forced on others regardless of the cost, abusively and by any means available. Those who refuse to comply are subjected to strong-arm tactics.

What I am saying now does not concerns only Russia, and Russia is not the only country that is worried about this. This has to do with the entire system of international relations, and sometimes even US allies. The collapse of the Soviet Union led to a redivision of the world, and the norms of international law that developed by that time – and the most important of them, the fundamental norms that were adopted following WWII and largely formalised its outcome – came in the way of those who declared themselves the winners of the Cold War.

Of course, practice, international relations and the rules regulating them had to take into account the changes that took place in the world and in the balance of forces. However, this should have been done professionally, smoothly, patiently, and with due regard and respect for the interests of all states and one’s own responsibility. Instead, we saw a state of euphoria created by the feeling of absolute superiority, a kind of modern absolutism, coupled with the low cultural standards and arrogance of those who formulated and pushed through decisions that suited only themselves. The situation took a different turn.

There are many examples of this. First a bloody military operation was waged against Belgrade, without the UN Security Council’s sanction but with combat aircraft and missiles used in the heart of Europe. The bombing of peaceful cities and vital infrastructure went on for several weeks. I have to recall these facts, because some Western colleagues prefer to forget them, and when we mentioned the event, they prefer to avoid speaking about international law, instead emphasising the circumstances which they interpret as they think necessary.

Then came the turn of Iraq, Libya and Syria. The illegal use of military power against Libya and the distortion of all the UN Security Council decisions on Libya ruined the state, created a huge seat of international terrorism, and pushed the country towards a humanitarian catastrophe, into the vortex of a civil war, which has continued there for years. The tragedy, which was created for hundreds of thousands and even millions of people not only in Libya but in the whole region, has led to a large-scale exodus from the Middle East and North Africa to Europe.

A similar fate was also prepared for Syria. The combat operations conducted by the Western coalition in that country without the Syrian government’s approval or UN Security Council’s sanction can only be defined as aggression and intervention.

But the example that stands apart from the above events is, of course, the invasion of Iraq without any legal grounds. They used the pretext of allegedly reliable information available in the United States about the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. To prove that allegation, the US Secretary of State held up a vial with white power, publicly, for the whole world to see, assuring the international community that it was a chemical warfare agent created in Iraq. It later turned out that all of that was a fake and a sham, and that Iraq did not have any chemical weapons. Incredible and shocking but true. We witnessed lies made at the highest state level and voiced from the high UN rostrum. As a result we see a tremendous loss in human life, damage, destruction, and a colossal upsurge of terrorism.

Overall, it appears that nearly everywhere, in many regions of the world where the United States brought its law and order, this created bloody, non-healing wounds and the curse of international terrorism and extremism. I have only mentioned the most glaring but far from only examples of disregard for international law.


Expand full comment

Putins Questions and answers 22nd Feb. Part 2 of 2.

Alexander Yunashev: Alexander Yunashev, Life.

Mr President, yesterday, in your address to the Russian people you cited Zelensky, and it seems to be not for the first time, as saying that Ukraine might get nuclear weapons again and Ukraine might join the nuclear club.

Vladimir Putin: …I just said this.

Alexander Yunashev: Are these just statements or is the threat of nuclear weapons being deployed in Ukraine at our border real?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: I have just mentioned it. We take it that these words were primarily addressed to us. I want to say that we have heard them. Ever since Soviet times, Ukraine has had fairly broad nuclear competencies, they have several nuclear power units and the nuclear industry is fairly well developed, they have dedicated schools, there is everything there to solve this issue much faster than in those countries which are solving matters from scratch. I will not enumerate them, you know all about it anyway. This is number one.

They only lack one thing – uranium enrichment systems. But this is a matter of technology, it is not unsolvable for Ukraine, it can be remedied quite easily. As to delivery vehicles, I think I already said in yesterday’s address that they have old Soviet-made Tochka-U missiles with a range of 100 plus kilometres, 110 kilometres. This is also not a problem in view of the competencies, say, at Yuzhmash, which used to manufacture intercontinental ballistic missiles for the Soviet Union.

What is the threat to us? The appearance of tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine is a strategic threat to us. Because the range can be extended from 110 kilometres to 300, to 500 – and that is it, Moscow will be in the strike zone. This is a strategic threat to us. And that is how we took it. We definitely must and will take it very seriously.

Andrei Kolesnikov: Andrei Kolesnikov, Kommersant newspaper.

Mr President, do you think it is possible in today’s world to resolve problems with force and remain on the side of good? This is my first question.

The second one is more technical, if you will. In your view, how far might troops advance: up to the contact line, to the administrative borders of the DPR and LPR, or somewhere else?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: First, I did not say our troops would enter right away, after our meeting here. That is first. Second, it is absolutely impossible to predict the detailed path of possible actions. It depends on the concrete situation that is unfolding on the ground, as they say.

Regarding the question if all issues can and must be resolved by force or if it is possible to remain on the side of good. Well, why do you think that good must always be frail and helpless? I do not think that is true. I think good means being able to defend oneself. We will proceed from that.

Thank you. All the best to you.

Expand full comment

Putins Questions and answers 22nd Feb. Part 1 of 2.

Vladimir Putin answered media questions

The President took a number of questions from reporters about recognition of the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics.

February 22, 2022


The Kremlin, Moscow

Pavel Zarubin: Pavel Zarubin, Rossiya TV Channel.

Your decisions and statements yesterday have certainly evoked a stormy international response, a real uproar.

And, of course, there is a lot of speculation about how Putin allegedly wants to restore Russia to the borders of the Russian Empire. You have already said that this is not the case but in what borders have the DPR and the LPR been recognised? After all, Donetsk and Lugansk regions are large and Russian people live there as well.

And a question that suggests itself: what will happen with the Minsk agreements now? Russia has insisted on their implementation for seven years now.

And, of course, I have to ask you to comment on the latest news. The Federation Council has just approved your request to deploy the Armed Forces of Russia abroad. What can you tell us about this? How big could this operation get?

Thank you very much.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Deploying the Armed Forces abroad. Second, the borders of the DPR and the LPR, and the Russian Empire, right?

Pavel Zarubin: And the Minsk agreements. What will happen with them now?

Vladimir Putin: Let us start with the Minsk agreements – the Minsk Package of Measures to settle the situation in southeastern Ukraine. That is what they are called.

It is not seven but almost eight full years that we have been working on this. By “we”, I mean Russia, and yours truly was the author of these documents. Therefore, I would like to emphasise again that we were interested in seeing this package of measures implemented, because it was the result of a compromise.

The leaders of the two then unrecognised republics signed these documents. Incidentally, one of them was killed in a terrorist act. He was killed by the special services of Ukraine, an agent of these services. There is no question here. This is an obvious thing, simply an outright political assassination.

But what matters is that the leaders of the two republics signed these documents. We managed to broker this compromise at that time. By the way, it was not easy to do this because initially the leaders of these entities did not want to take part in the Minsk agreements and to sign their names to these documents. But a compromise was reached nonetheless, which was real progress towards achieving a settlement by peaceful means.

As it was said yesterday during the Security Council meeting, over all these years, the efforts of the current Kiev authorities reduced it all to naught. So, the Minsk agreements were dead long before yesterday’s recognition of the people’s republics of Donbass. They were killed not by us and not by the representatives of these republics, but by the current Kiev authorities.

In fact, yesterday's event – the recognition of these republics – was dictated precisely by the fact that the Ukrainian leadership had publicly declared that they were not going to abide by these agreements. Not going to abide by them. Well, what else can you say to that? The top officials have publicly said so.

What more is there to wait for? Should we wait for this abuse of people to continue, this genocide of the almost four million people who live in these territories? It is unbearable to watch. You can see for yourself what is going on there. Well, how can you continue to put up with that? As a matter of fact, that is all there is to it.

When we spoke to our European colleagues, they all said the same thing: “Yes, this is the way forward,” but in reality they were unable to force their partners in the current leadership in Kiev to do so. So, we were compelled to take this decision and, in this sense, indeed, the Minsk agreements do not exist anymore. Why abide by them if we have recognised the independence of these entities?

With regard to the borders within which we will recognise these republics, we did recognise them, which means we recognised their foundational documents, including the Constitution, and the Constitution stipulates their borders within the Donetsk and Lugansk regions at the time when they were part of Ukraine. But we expect, and I want to emphasise this, that all disputes will be resolved during talks between the current Kiev authorities and the leaders of these republics. Unfortunately, at this point in time, we realise that it is impossible to do so, since hostilities are still ongoing and, moreover, they are showing signs of escalating. But I hope this is how it will turn out in the future.

Regarding the use of the Armed Forces abroad. Well, of course. By all means. We signed treaties yesterday, and these treaties with the Donetsk People's Republic and the Lugansk People's Republic contain relevant clauses that say that we will provide these republics with appropriate assistance, including military. Since there is an ongoing conflict there, we make it clear by this decision that, if need be, we plan to fulfill our obligations.

Please, go ahead.

Veronika Ichyotkina: Good afternoon. TASS news agency. A question about Donbass as well.

Obviously, Ukraine cannot or does not want to recognise the sovereignty of the DPR and the LPR, and they are certainly unhappy about our decision to recognise the sovereignty of the republics.

After what happened yesterday and today, do you see any prospects for improving relations between Moscow and Kiev? If so, what should Moscow and Kiev do to make it happen? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: You know, we discussed these issues with our European partners during our talks and meetings for many hours. In fact, we also spoke with the Americans about these issues more than once.

I think this was not said in public, but I will say it. Naturally, this question suggests itself: what should both sides, or Kiev do for the situation to be considered settled in the long-term historical perspective so that we could live in peace and there would be no conflicts, to say nothing of armed conflicts?

I will reveal this dark secret to you. Ultimately, there is nothing secret about this. The first thing that everyone should do is to recognise the will of the people who live in Sevastopol and in Crimea. I have said this many times but I want to stress it again. In what way was this expression of popular will any worse than what happened in Kosovo? In no way. It is just that their decisions were made by parliament and ours at a nationwide referendum.

I would like to emphasise once again: nobody could have herded people into polling stations with machineguns or bayonets. They came there of their own free will and made their decision to reunite with Russia. This decision must be respected. If those countries that argue against it consider themselves democracies, they must recognise it eventually. A referendum is the highest form of democracy. This is my first point.

The second. We have spoken about this publicly many times and, in effect, this is the subject of our sharpest dispute with Washington and NATO. We are categorically opposed to Ukraine joining NATO because this poses a threat to us and we have arguments to support this. I have repeatedly spoken about it in this hall.

On this point, of course, we are proceeding from what many people are saying, including in the capitals of Western countries, I mean that the best decision would be for our colleagues in the Western countries not to lose face, so to say, and for Kiev itself to refuse to join NATO. In effect, in so doing, they would translate the idea of neutrality into life. This is my second point.

My third point, unfortunately, is not relevant any longer. I have always said that the Donbass issue had to be resolved through peace talks and implementation of the Minsk agreements.

Finally, the all-important fourth point. Everything mentioned so far could be upset in a second if our so-called partners continue to pump the current Kiev authorities full of modern types of weapons. Therefore, the most important point is the demilitarisation, to a certain extent, of today’s Ukraine because it is the only factor that can be objectively controlled, monitored and responded to.

Everything else can change completely in either direction overnight, the way, for example, the current Ukrainian leader made the previous leader persona non grata by initiating criminal proceedings against him for his allegedly treacherous actions, because he disapproved of the Minsk agreements.

These potential agreements, which I have just mentioned, could be repudiated the same way, if they were to be approved by the current leadership. He would just leave for Washington, Paris or Berlin and that’s it, while we would be left with an “anti-Russia” armed to the teeth. This is totally unacceptable, particularly now, after Ukraine’s current authorities have declared their nuclear ambitions.

Please, go ahead.


Expand full comment

Part 8 (Final)

Many Ukrainian airfields are located not far from our borders. NATO’s tactical aviation deployed there, including precision weapon carriers, will be capable of striking at our territory to the depth of the Volgograd-Kazan-Samara-Astrakhan line. The deployment of reconnaissance radars on Ukrainian territory will allow NATO to tightly control Russia’s airspace up to the Urals.

Finally, after the US destroyed the INF Treaty, the Pentagon has been openly developing many land-based attack weapons, including ballistic missiles that are capable of hitting targets at a distance of up to 5,500 km. If deployed in Ukraine, such systems will be able to hit targets in Russia’s entire European part. The flying time of Tomahawk cruise missiles to Moscow will be less than 35 minutes; ballistic missiles from Kharkov will take seven to eight minutes; and hypersonic assault weapons, four to five minutes. It is like a knife to the throat. I have no doubt that they hope to carry out these plans, as they did many times in the past, expanding NATO eastward, moving their military infrastructure to Russian borders and fully ignoring our concerns, protests and warnings. Excuse me, but they simply did not care at all about such things and did whatever they deemed necessary.

Of course, they are going to behave in the same way in the future, following a well-known proverb: “The dogs bark but the caravan goes on.” Let me say right away – we do not accept this behaviour and will never accept it. That said, Russia has always advocated the resolution of the most complicated problems by political and diplomatic means, at the negotiating table.

We are well aware of our enormous responsibility when it comes to regional and global stability. Back in 2008, Russia put forth an initiative to conclude a European Security Treaty under which not a single Euro-Atlantic state or international organisation could strengthen their security at the expense of the security of others. However, our proposal was rejected right off the bat on the pretext that Russia should not be allowed to put limits on NATO activities.

Furthermore, it was made explicitly clear to us that only NATO members can have legally binding security guarantees.

Last December, we handed over to our Western partners a draft treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on security guarantees, as well as a draft agreement on measures to ensure the security of the Russian Federation and NATO member states.

The United States and NATO responded with general statements. There were kernels of rationality in them as well, but they concerned matters of secondary importance and it all looked like an attempt to drag the issue out and to lead the discussion astray.

We responded to this accordingly and pointed out that we were ready to follow the path of negotiations, provided, however, that all issues are considered as a package that includes Russia’s core proposals which contain three key points. First, to prevent further NATO expansion. Second, to have the Alliance refrain from deploying assault weapon systems on Russian borders. And finally, rolling back the bloc's military capability and infrastructure in Europe to where they were in 1997, when the NATO-Russia Founding Act was signed.

These principled proposals of ours have been ignored. To reiterate, our Western partners have once again vocalised the all-too-familiar formulas that each state is entitled to freely choose ways to ensure its security or to join any military union or alliance. That is, nothing has changed in their stance, and we keep hearing the same old references to NATO’s notorious “open door” policy. Moreover, they are again trying to blackmail us and are threatening us with sanctions, which, by the way, they will introduce no matter what as Russia continues to strengthen its sovereignty and its Armed Forces. To be sure, they will never think twice before coming up with or just fabricating a pretext for yet another sanction attack regardless of the developments in Ukraine. Their one and only goal is to hold back the development of Russia. And they will keep doing so, just as they did before, even without any formal pretext just because we exist and will never compromise our sovereignty, national interests or values.

I would like to be clear and straightforward: in the current circumstances, when our proposals for an equal dialogue on fundamental issues have actually remained unanswered by the United States and NATO, when the level of threats to our country has increased significantly, Russia has every right to respond in order to ensure its security. That is exactly what we will do.

With regard to the state of affairs in Donbass, we see that the ruling Kiev elites never stop publicly making clear their unwillingness to comply with the Minsk Package of Measures to settle the conflict and are not interested in a peaceful settlement. On the contrary, they are trying to orchestrate a blitzkrieg in Donbass as was the case in 2014 and 2015. We all know how these reckless schemes ended.

Not a single day goes by without Donbass communities coming under shelling attacks. The recently formed large military force makes use of attack drones, heavy equipment, missiles, artillery and multiple rocket launchers. The killing of civilians, the blockade, the abuse of people, including children, women and the elderly, continues unabated. As we say, there is no end in sight to this.

Meanwhile, the so-called civilised world, which our Western colleagues proclaimed themselves the only representatives of, prefers not to see this, as if this horror and genocide, which almost 4 million people are facing, do not exist. But they do exist and only because these people did not agree with the West-supported coup in Ukraine in 2014 and opposed the transition towards the Neanderthal and aggressive nationalism and neo-Nazism which have been elevated in Ukraine to the rank of national policy. They are fighting for their elementary right to live on their own land, to speak their own language, and to preserve their culture and traditions.

How long can this tragedy continue? How much longer can one put up with this? Russia has done everything to preserve Ukraine’s territorial integrity. All these years, it has persistently and patiently pushed for the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 2202 of February 17, 2015, which consolidated the Minsk Package of Measures of February 12, 2015, to settle the situation in Donbass.

Everything was in vain. Presidents and Rada deputies come and go, but deep down the aggressive and nationalistic regime that seized power in Kiev remains unchanged. It is entirely a product of the 2014 coup, and those who then embarked on the path of violence, bloodshed and lawlessness did not recognise then and do not recognise now any solution to the Donbass issue other than a military one.

In this regard, I consider it necessary to take a long overdue decision and to immediately recognise the independence and sovereignty of the Donetsk People's Republic and the Lugansk People's Republic.

I would like to ask the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation to support this decision and then ratify the Treaty of Friendship and Mutual Assistance with both republics. These two documents will be prepared and signed shortly.

We want those who seized and continue to hold power in Kiev to immediately stop hostilities. Otherwise, the responsibility for the possible continuation of the bloodshed will lie entirely on the conscience of Ukraine’s ruling regime.

As I announce the decisions taken today, I remain confident in the support of Russia’s citizens and the country’s patriotic forces.

Thank you.

Expand full comment

Thank you so much! :D

Expand full comment

You're welcome. ;-) I've added his questions and answers from the 22nd Feb., and will add his address of 24th Feb.

Expand full comment

You're the best! 👍

Expand full comment

Part 7

A monument to Alexander Suvorov was recently demolished in Poltava. What is there to say? Are you renouncing your own past? The so-called colonial heritage of the Russian Empire? Well, in this case, be consistent.

Next, notably, Article 17 of the Constitution of Ukraine stipulates that deploying foreign military bases on its territory is illegal. However, as it turns out, this is just a conventionality that can be easily circumvented.

Ukraine is home to NATO training missions which are, in fact, foreign military bases. They just called a base a mission and were done with it.

Kiev has long proclaimed a strategic course on joining NATO. Indeed, each country is entitled to pick its own security system and enter into military alliances. There would be no problem with that, if it were not for one “but.” International documents expressly stipulate the principle of equal and indivisible security, which includes obligations not to strengthen one's own security at the expense of the security of other states. This is stated in the 1999 OSCE Charter for European Security adopted in Istanbul and the 2010 OSCE Astana Declaration.

In other words, the choice of pathways towards ensuring security should not pose a threat to other states, whereas Ukraine joining NATO is a direct threat to Russia's security.

Let me remind you that at the Bucharest NATO summit held in April 2008, the United States pushed through a decision to the effect that Ukraine and, by the way, Georgia would become NATO members. Many European allies of the United States were well aware of the risks associated with this prospect already then, but were forced to put up with the will of their senior partner. The Americans simply used them to carry out a clearly anti-Russian policy.

A number of NATO member states are still very sceptical about Ukraine joining NATO. We are getting signals from some European capitals telling us not to worry since it will not happen literally overnight. In fact, our US partners are saying the same thing as well. “All right, then” we respond, “if it does not happen tomorrow, then it will happen the day after tomorrow. What does it change from the historical perspective? Nothing at all.”

Furthermore, we are aware of the US leadership’s position and words that active hostilities in eastern Ukraine do not rule out the possibility of that country joining NATO if it meets NATO criteria and overcomes corruption.

All the while, they are trying to convince us over and over again that NATO is a peace-loving and purely defensive alliance that poses no threat to Russia. Again, they want us to take their word for it. But we are well aware of the real value of these words. In 1990, when German unification was discussed, the United States promised the Soviet leadership that NATO jurisdiction or military presence will not expand one inch to the east and that the unification of Germany will not lead to the spread of NATO's military organisation to the east. This is a quote.

They issued lots of verbal assurances, all of which turned out to be empty phrases. Later, they began to assure us that the accession to NATO by Central and Eastern European countries would only improve relations with Moscow, relieve these countries of the fears steeped in their bitter historical legacy, and even create a belt of countries that are friendly towards Russia.

However, the exact opposite happened. The governments of certain Eastern European countries, speculating on Russophobia, brought their complexes and stereotypes about the Russian threat to the Alliance and insisted on building up the collective defence potentials and deploying them primarily against Russia. Worse still, that happened in the 1990s and the early 2000s when, thanks to our openness and goodwill, relations between Russia and the West had reached a high level.

Russia has fulfilled all of its obligations, including the pullout from Germany, from Central and Eastern Europe, making an immense contribution to overcoming the legacy of the Cold War. We have consistently proposed various cooperation options, including in the NATO-Russia Council and the OSCE formats.

Moreover, I will say something I have never said publicly, I will say it now for the first time. When then outgoing US President Bill Clinton visited Moscow in 2000, I asked him how America would feel about admitting Russia to NATO.

I will not reveal all the details of that conversation, but the reaction to my question was, let us say, quite restrained, and the Americans’ true attitude to that possibility can actually be seen from their subsequent steps with regard to our country. I am referring to the overt support for terrorists in the North Caucasus, the disregard for our security demands and concerns, NATO’s continued expansion, withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, and so on. It raises the question: why? What is all this about, what is the purpose? All right, you do not want to see us as friends or allies, but why make us an enemy?

There can be only one answer – this is not about our political regime or anything like that. They just do not need a big and independent country like Russia around. This is the answer to all questions. This is the source of America’s traditional policy towards Russia. Hence the attitude to all our security proposals

Today, one glance at the map is enough to see to what extent Western countries have kept their promise to refrain from NATO’s eastward expansion. They just cheated. We have seen five waves of NATO expansion, one after another – Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary were admitted in 1999; Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia in 2004; Albania and Croatia in 2009; Montenegro in 2017; and North Macedonia in 2020.

As a result, the Alliance, its military infrastructure has reached Russia’s borders. This is one of the key causes of the European security crisis; it has had the most negative impact on the entire system of international relations and led to the loss of mutual trust.

The situation continues to deteriorate, including in the strategic area. Thus, positioning areas for interceptor missiles are being established in Romania and Poland as part of the US project to create a global missile defence system. It is common knowledge that the launchers deployed there can be used for Tomahawk cruise missiles – offensive strike systems.

In addition, the United States is developing its all-purpose Standard Missile-6, which can provide air and missile defence, as well as strike ground and surface targets. In other words, the allegedly defensive US missile defence system is developing and expanding its new offensive capabilities.

The information we have gives us good reason to believe that Ukraine’s accession to NATO and the subsequent deployment of NATO facilities has already been decided and is only a matter of time. We clearly understand that given this scenario, the level of military threats to Russia will increase dramatically, several times over. And I would like to emphasise at this point that the risk of a sudden strike at our country will multiply.

I will explain that American strategic planning documents confirm the possibility of a so-called preemptive strike at enemy missile systems. We also know the main adversary of the United States and NATO. It is Russia. NATO documents officially declare our country to be the main threat to Euro-Atlantic security. Ukraine will serve as an advanced bridgehead for such a strike. If our ancestors heard about this, they would probably simply not believe this. We do not want to believe this today either, but it is what it is. I would like people in Russia and Ukraine to understand this.

Expand full comment

Part 6 (long isn't it!)

There is no independent judiciary in Ukraine. The Kiev authorities, at the West’s demand, delegated the priority right to select members of the supreme judicial bodies, the Council of Justice and the High Qualifications Commission of Judges, to international organisations.

In addition, the United States directly controls the National Agency on Corruption Prevention, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau, the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office and the High Anti-Corruption Court. All this is done under the noble pretext of invigorating efforts against corruption. All right, but where are the results? Corruption is flourishing like never before.

Are the Ukrainian people aware that this is how their country is managed? Do they realise that their country has turned not even into a political or economic protectorate but has been reduced to a colony with a puppet regime? The state was privatised. As a result, the government, which designates itself as the “power of patriots” no longer acts in a national capacity and consistently pushes Ukraine towards losing its sovereignty.

The policy to root out the Russian language and culture and promote assimilation carries on. The Verkhovna Rada has generated a steady flow of discriminatory bills, and the law on the so-called indigenous people has already come into force. People who identify as Russians and want to preserve their identity, language and culture are getting the signal that they are not wanted in Ukraine.

Under the laws on education and the Ukrainian language as a state language, the Russian language has no place in schools or public spaces, even in ordinary shops. The law on the so-called vetting of officials and purging their ranks created a pathway for dealing with unwanted civil servants.

There are more and more acts enabling the Ukrainian military and law enforcement agencies to crack down on the freedom of speech, dissent, and going after the opposition. The world knows the deplorable practice of imposing unilateral illegitimate sanctions against other countries, foreign individuals and legal entities. Ukraine has outperformed its Western masters by inventing sanctions against its own citizens, companies, television channels, other media outlets and even members of parliament.

Kiev continues to prepare the destruction of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate. This is not an emotional judgement; proof of this can be found in concrete decisions and documents. The Ukrainian authorities have cynically turned the tragedy of the schism into an instrument of state policy. The current authorities do not react to the Ukrainian people’s appeals to abolish the laws that are infringing on believers’ rights. Moreover, new draft laws directed against the clergy and millions of parishioners of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate have been registered in the Verkhovna Rada.

A few words about Crimea. The people of the peninsula freely made their choice to be with Russia. The Kiev authorities cannot challenge the clearly stated choice of the people, which is why they have opted for aggressive action, for activating extremist cells, including radical Islamist organisations, for sending subversives to stage terrorist attacks at critical infrastructure facilities, and for kidnapping Russian citizens. We have factual proof that such aggressive actions are being taken with support from Western security services.

In March 2021, a new Military Strategy was adopted in Ukraine. This document is almost entirely dedicated to confrontation with Russia and sets the goal of involving foreign states in a conflict with our country. The strategy stipulates the organisation of what can be described as a terrorist underground movement in Russia’s Crimea and in Donbass. It also sets out the contours of a potential war, which should end, according to the Kiev strategists, “with the assistance of the international community on favourable terms for Ukraine,” as well as – listen carefully, please – “with foreign military support in the geopolitical confrontation with the Russian Federation.” In fact, this is nothing other than preparation for hostilities against our country, Russia.

As we know, it has already been stated today that Ukraine intends to create its own nuclear weapons, and this is not just bragging. Ukraine has the nuclear technologies created back in the Soviet times and delivery vehicles for such weapons, including aircraft, as well as the Soviet-designed Tochka-U precision tactical missiles with a range of over 100 kilometres. But they can do more; it is only a matter of time. They have had the groundwork for this since the Soviet era.

In other words, acquiring tactical nuclear weapons will be much easier for Ukraine than for some other states I am not going to mention here, which are conducting such research, especially if Kiev receives foreign technological support. We cannot rule this out either.

If Ukraine acquires weapons of mass destruction, the situation in the world and in Europe will drastically change, especially for us, for Russia. We cannot but react to this real danger, all the more so since, let me repeat, Ukraine’s Western patrons may help it acquire these weapons to create yet another threat to our country. We are seeing how persistently the Kiev regime is being pumped with arms. Since 2014, the United States alone has spent billions of dollars for this purpose, including supplies of arms and equipment and training of specialists. In the last few months, there has been a constant flow of Western weapons to Ukraine, ostentatiously, with the entire world watching. Foreign advisors supervise the activities of Ukraine’s armed forces and special services and we are well aware of this.

Over the past few years, military contingents of NATO countries have been almost constantly present on Ukrainian territory under the pretext of exercises. The Ukrainian troop control system has already been integrated into NATO. This means that NATO headquarters can issue direct commands to the Ukrainian armed forces, even to their separate units and squads.

The United States and NATO have started an impudent development of Ukrainian territory as a theatre of potential military operations. Their regular joint exercises are obviously anti-Russian. Last year alone, over 23,000 troops and more than a thousand units of hardware were involved.

A law has already been adopted that allows foreign troops to come to Ukraine in 2022 to take part in multinational drills. Understandably, these are primarily NATO troops. This year, at least ten of these joint drills are planned.

Obviously, such undertakings are designed to be a cover-up for a rapid buildup of the NATO military group on Ukrainian territory. This is all the more so since the network of airfields upgraded with US help in Borispol, Ivano-Frankovsk, Chuguyev and Odessa, to name a few, is capable of transferring army units in a very short time. Ukraine’s airspace is open to flights by US strategic and reconnaissance aircraft and drones that conduct surveillance over Russian territory.

I will add that the US-built Maritime Operations Centre in Ochakov makes it possible to support activity by NATO warships, including the use of precision weapons, against the Russian Black Sea Fleet and our infrastructure on the entire Black Sea Coast.

At one time, the United States intended to build similar facilities in Crimea as well but the Crimeans and residents of Sevastopol wrecked these plans. We will always remember this.

I would like to repeat that today such a centre has already been deployed in Ochakov. In the 18th century, soldiers of Alexander Suvorov fought for this city. Owing to their courage, it became part of Russia. Also in the 18th century, the lands of the Black Sea littoral, incorporated in Russia as a result of wars with the Ottoman Empire, were given the name of Novorossiya (New Russia). Now attempts are being made to condemn these landmarks of history to oblivion, along with the names of state and military figures of the Russian Empire without whose efforts modern Ukraine would not have many big cities or even access to the Black Sea.

Expand full comment

Part 5

A stable statehood has never developed in Ukraine; its electoral and other political procedures just serve as a cover, a screen for the redistribution of power and property between various oligarchic clans.

Corruption, which is certainly a challenge and a problem for many countries, including Russia, has gone beyond the usual scope in Ukraine. It has literally permeated and corroded Ukrainian statehood, the entire system, and all branches of power.

Radical nationalists took advantage of the justified public discontent and saddled the Maidan protest, escalating it to a coup d'état in 2014. They also had direct assistance from foreign states. According to reports, the US Embassy provided $1 million a day to support the so-called protest camp on Independence Square in Kiev. In addition, large amounts were impudently transferred directly to the opposition leaders’ bank accounts, tens of millions of dollars. But the people who actually suffered, the families of those who died in the clashes provoked in the streets and squares of Kiev and other cities, how much did they get in the end? Better not ask.

The nationalists who have seized power have unleashed a persecution, a real terror campaign against those who opposed their anti-constitutional actions. Politicians, journalists, and public activists were harassed and publicly humiliated. A wave of violence swept Ukrainian cities, including a series of high-profile and unpunished murders. One shudders at the memories of the terrible tragedy in Odessa, where peaceful protesters were brutally murdered, burned alive in the House of Trade Unions. The criminals who committed that atrocity have never been punished, and no one is even looking for them. But we know their names and we will do everything to punish them, find them and bring them to justice.

Maidan did not bring Ukraine any closer to democracy and progress. Having accomplished a coup d'état, the nationalists and those political forces that supported them eventually led Ukraine into an impasse, pushed the country into the abyss of civil war. Eight years later, the country is split. Ukraine is struggling with an acute socioeconomic crisis.

According to international organisations, in 2019, almost 6 million Ukrainians – I emphasise – about 15 percent, not of the wokrforce, but of the entire population of that country, had to go abroad to find work. Most of them do odd jobs. The following fact is also revealing: since 2020, over 60,000 doctors and other health workers have left the country amid the pandemic.

Since 2014, water bills increased by almost a third, and energy bills grew several times, while the price of gas for households surged several dozen times. Many people simply do not have the money to pay for utilities. They literally struggle to survive.

What happened? Why is this all happening? The answer is obvious. They spent and embezzled the legacy inherited not only from the Soviet era, but also from the Russian Empire. They lost tens, hundreds of thousands of jobs which enabled people to earn a reliable income and generate tax revenue, among other things thanks to close cooperation with Russia. Sectors including machine building, instrument engineering, electronics, ship and aircraft building have been undermined or destroyed altogether. There was a time, however, when not only Ukraine, but the entire Soviet Union took pride in these companies.

In 2021, the Black Sea Shipyard in Nikolayev went out of business. Its first docks date back to Catherine the Great. Antonov, the famous manufacturer, has not made a single commercial aircraft since 2016, while Yuzhmash, a factory specialising in missile and space equipment, is nearly bankrupt. The Kremenchug Steel Plant is in a similar situation. This sad list goes on and on.

As for the gas transportation system, it was built in its entirety by the Soviet Union, and it has now deteriorated to an extent that using it creates major risks and comes at a high cost for the environment.

This situation begs the question: poverty, lack of opportunity, and lost industrial and technological potential – is this the pro-Western civilisational choice they have been using for many years to fool millions of people with promises of heavenly pastures?

It all came down to a Ukrainian economy in tatters and an outright pillage of the country’s citizens, while Ukraine itself was placed under external control, directed not only from the Western capitals, but also on the ground, as the saying goes, through an entire network of foreign advisors, NGOs and other institutions present in Ukraine. They have a direct bearing on all the key appointments and dismissals and on all branches of power at all levels, from the central government down to municipalities, as well as on state-owned companies and corporations, including Naftogaz, Ukrenergo, Ukrainian Railways, Ukroboronprom, Ukrposhta, and the Ukrainian Sea Ports Authority.

Expand full comment

Part 3

Even two years before the collapse of the USSR, its fate was actually predetermined. It is now that radicals and nationalists, including and primarily those in Ukraine, are taking credit for having gained independence. As we can see, this is absolutely wrong. The disintegration of our united country was brought about by the historic, strategic mistakes on the part of the Bolshevik leaders and the CPSU leadership, mistakes committed at different times in state-building and in economic and ethnic policies. The collapse of the historical Russia known as the USSR is on their conscience.

Despite all these injustices, lies and outright pillage of Russia, it was our people who accepted the new geopolitical reality that took shape after the dissolution of the USSR, and recognised the new independent states. Not only did Russia recognise these countries, but helped its CIS partners, even though it faced a very dire situation itself. This included our Ukrainian colleagues, who turned to us for financial support many times from the very moment they declared independence. Our country provided this assistance while respecting Ukraine’s dignity and sovereignty.

According to expert assessments, confirmed by a simple calculation of our energy prices, the subsidised loans Russia provided to Ukraine along with economic and trade preferences, the overall benefit for the Ukrainian budget in the period from 1991 to 2013 amounted to $250 billion.

However, there was more to it than that. By the end of 1991, the USSR owed some $100 billion to other countries and international funds. Initially, there was this idea that all former Soviet republics will pay back these loans together, in the spirit of solidarity and proportionally to their economic potential. However, Russia undertook to pay back all Soviet debts and delivered on this promise by completing this process in 2017.

In exchange for that, the newly independent states had to hand over to Russia part of the Soviet foreign assets. An agreement to this effect was reached with Ukraine in December 1994. However, Kiev failed to ratify these agreements and later simply refused to honour them by making demands for a share of the Diamond Treasury, gold reserves, as well as former USSR property and other assets abroad.

Nevertheless, despite all these challenges, Russia always worked with Ukraine in an open and honest manner and, as I have already said, with respect for its interests. We developed our ties in multiple fields. Thus, in 2011, bilateral trade exceeded $50 billion. Let me note that in 2019, that is before the pandemic, Ukraine’s trade with all EU countries combined was below this indicator.

At the same time, it was striking how the Ukrainian authorities always preferred dealing with Russia in a way that ensured that they enjoy all the rights and privileges while remaining free from any obligations.

The officials in Kiev replaced partnership with a parasitic attitude acting at times in an extremely brash manner. Suffice it to recall the continuous blackmail on energy transits and the fact that they literally stole gas.

I can add that Kiev tried to use dialogue with Russia as a bargaining chip in its relations with the West, using the threat of closer ties with Russia for blackmailing the West to secure preferences by claiming that otherwise Russia would have a bigger influence in Ukraine.

At the same time, the Ukrainian authorities – I would like to emphasise this – began by building their statehood on the negation of everything that united us, trying to distort the mentality and historical memory of millions of people, of entire generations living in Ukraine. It is not surprising that Ukrainian society was faced with the rise of far-right nationalism, which rapidly developed into aggressive Russophobia and neo-Nazism. This resulted in the participation of Ukrainian nationalists and neo-Nazis in the terrorist groups in the North Caucasus and the increasingly loud territorial claims to Russia.

A role in this was played by external forces, which used a ramified network of NGOs and special services to nurture their clients in Ukraine and to bring their representatives to the seats of authority.

It should be noted that Ukraine actually never had stable traditions of real statehood. And, therefore, in 1991 it opted for mindlessly emulating foreign models, which have no relation to history or Ukrainian realities. Political government institutions were readjusted many times to the rapidly growing clans and their self-serving interests, which had nothing to do with the interests of the Ukrainian people.

Essentially, the so-called pro-Western civilisational choice made by the oligarchic Ukrainian authorities was not and is not aimed at creating better conditions in the interests of people’s well-being but at keeping the billions of dollars that the oligarchs have stolen from the Ukrainians and are holding in their accounts in Western banks, while reverently accommodating the geopolitical rivals of Russia.

Expand full comment

Part 2

Lenin criticised this plan and suggested making concessions to the nationalists, whom he called “independents” at that time. Lenin’s ideas of what amounted in essence to a confederative state arrangement and a slogan about the right of nations to self-determination, up to secession, were laid in the foundation of Soviet statehood. Initially they were confirmed in the Declaration on the Formation of the USSR in 1922, and later on, after Lenin’s death, were enshrined in the 1924 Soviet Constitution.

This immediately raises many questions. The first is really the main one: why was it necessary to appease the nationalists, to satisfy the ceaselessly growing nationalist ambitions on the outskirts of the former empire? What was the point of transferring to the newly, often arbitrarily formed administrative units – the union republics – vast territories that had nothing to do with them? Let me repeat that these territories were transferred along with the population of what was historically Russia.

Moreover, these administrative units were de facto given the status and form of national state entities. That raises another question: why was it necessary to make such generous gifts, beyond the wildest dreams of the most zealous nationalists and, on top of all that, give the republics the right to secede from the unified state without any conditions?

At first glance, this looks absolutely incomprehensible, even crazy. But only at first glance. There is an explanation. After the revolution, the Bolsheviks’ main goal was to stay in power at all costs, absolutely at all costs. They did everything for this purpose: accepted the humiliating Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, although the military and economic situation in Kaiser Germany and its allies was dramatic and the outcome of the First World War was a foregone conclusion, and satisfied any demands and wishes of the nationalists within the country.

When it comes to the historical destiny of Russia and its peoples, Lenin’s principles of state development were not just a mistake; they were worse than a mistake, as the saying goes. This became patently clear after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Of course, we cannot change past events, but we must at least admit them openly and honestly, without any reservations or politicking. Personally, I can add that no political factors, however impressive or profitable they may seem at any given moment, can or may be used as the fundamental principles of statehood.

I am not trying to put the blame on anyone. The situation in the country at that time, both before and after the Civil War, was extremely complicated; it was critical. The only thing I would like to say today is that this is exactly how it was. It is a historical fact. Actually, as I have already said, Soviet Ukraine is the result of the Bolsheviks’ policy and can be rightfully called “Vladimir Lenin’s Ukraine.” He was its creator and architect. This is fully and comprehensively corroborated by archival documents, including Lenin’s harsh instructions regarding Donbass, which was actually shoved into Ukraine. And today the “grateful progeny” has overturned monuments to Lenin in Ukraine. They call it decommunization.

You want decommunization? Very well, this suits us just fine. But why stop halfway? We are ready to show what real decommunizations would mean for Ukraine.

Going back to history, I would like to repeat that the Soviet Union was established in the place of the former Russian Empire in 1922. But practice showed immediately that it was impossible to preserve or govern such a vast and complex territory on the amorphous principles that amounted to confederation. They were far removed from reality and the historical tradition.

It is logical that the Red Terror and a rapid slide into Stalin’s dictatorship, the domination of the communist ideology and the Communist Party’s monopoly on power, nationalisation and the planned economy – all this transformed the formally declared but ineffective principles of government into a mere declaration. In reality, the union republics did not have any sovereign rights, none at all. The practical result was the creation of a tightly centralised and absolutely unitary state.

In fact, what Stalin fully implemented was not Lenin’s but his own principles of government. But he did not make the relevant amendments to the cornerstone documents, to the Constitution, and he did not formally revise Lenin’s principles underlying the Soviet Union. From the look of it, there seemed to be no need for that, because everything seemed to be working well in conditions of the totalitarian regime, and outwardly it looked wonderful, attractive and even super-democratic.

And yet, it is a great pity that the fundamental and formally legal foundations of our state were not promptly cleansed of the odious and utopian fantasies inspired by the revolution, which are absolutely destructive for any normal state. As it often happened in our country before, nobody gave any thought to the future.

It seems that the Communist Party leaders were convinced that they had created a solid system of government and that their policies had settled the ethnic issue for good. But falsification, misconception, and tampering with public opinion have a high cost. The virus of nationalist ambitions is still with us, and the mine laid at the initial stage to destroy state immunity to the disease of nationalism was ticking. As I have already said, the mine was the right of secession from the Soviet Union.

In the mid-1980s, the increasing socioeconomic problems and the apparent crisis of the planned economy aggravated the ethnic issue, which essentially was not based on any expectations or unfulfilled dreams of the Soviet peoples but primarily the growing appetites of the local elites.

However, instead of analysing the situation, taking appropriate measures, first of all in the economy, and gradually transforming the political system and government in a well-considered and balanced manner, the Communist Party leadership only engaged in open doubletalk about the revival of the Leninist principle of national self-determination.

Moreover, in the course of power struggle within the Communist Party itself, each of the opposing sides, in a bid to expand its support base, started to thoughtlessly incite and encourage nationalist sentiments, manipulating them and promising their potential supporters whatever they wished. Against the backdrop of the superficial and populist rhetoric about democracy and a bright future based either on a market or a planned economy, but amid a true impoverishment of people and widespread shortages, no one among the powers that be was thinking about the inevitable tragic consequences for the country.

Next, they entirely embarked on the track beaten at the inception of the USSR and pandering to the ambitions of the nationalist elites nurtured within their own party ranks. But in so doing, they forgot that the CPSU no longer had – thank God – the tools for retaining power and the country itself, tools such as state terror and a Stalinist-type dictatorship, and that the notorious guiding role of the party was disappearing without a trace, like a morning mist, right before their eyes.

And then, the September 1989 plenary session of the CPSU Central Committee approved a truly fatal document, the so-called ethnic policy of the party in modern conditions, the CPSU platform. It included the following provisions, I quote: “The republics of the USSR shall possess all the rights appropriate to their status as sovereign socialist states.”

The next point: “The supreme representative bodies of power of the USSR republics can challenge and suspend the operation of the USSR Government’s resolutions and directives in their territory.”

And finally: “Each republic of the USSR shall have citizenship of its own, which shall apply to all of its residents.”

Wasn’t it clear what these formulas and decisions would lead to?

Now is not the time or place to go into matters pertaining to state or constitutional law, or define the concept of citizenship. But one may wonder: why was it necessary to rock the country even more in that already complicated situation? The facts remain.


Expand full comment

Part 1

Feb. 21

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Citizens of Russia, friends,

My address concerns the events in Ukraine and why this is so important for us, for Russia. Of course, my message is also addressed to our compatriots in Ukraine.

The matter is very serious and needs to be discussed in depth.

The situation in Donbass has reached a critical, acute stage. I am speaking to you directly today not only to explain what is happening but also to inform you of the decisions being made as well as potential further steps.

I would like to emphasise again that Ukraine is not just a neighbouring country for us. It is an inalienable part of our own history, culture and spiritual space. These are our comrades, those dearest to us – not only colleagues, friends and people who once served together, but also relatives, people bound by blood, by family ties.

Since time immemorial, the people living in the south-west of what has historically been Russian land have called themselves Russians and Orthodox Christians. This was the case before the 17th century, when a portion of this territory rejoined the Russian state, and after.

It seems to us that, generally speaking, we all know these facts, that this is common knowledge. Still, it is necessary to say at least a few words about the history of this issue in order to understand what is happening today, to explain the motives behind Russia’s actions and what we aim to achieve.

So, I will start with the fact that modern Ukraine was entirely created by Russia or, to be more precise, by Bolshevik, Communist Russia. This process started practically right after the 1917 revolution, and Lenin and his associates did it in a way that was extremely harsh on Russia – by separating, severing what is historically Russian land. Nobody asked the millions of people living there what they thought.

Then, both before and after the Great Patriotic War, Stalin incorporated in the USSR and transferred to Ukraine some lands that previously belonged to Poland, Romania and Hungary. In the process, he gave Poland part of what was traditionally German land as compensation, and in 1954, Khrushchev took Crimea away from Russia for some reason and also gave it to Ukraine. In effect, this is how the territory of modern Ukraine was formed.

But now I would like to focus attention on the initial period of the USSR’s formation. I believe this is extremely important for us. I will have to approach it from a distance, so to speak.

I will remind you that after the 1917 October Revolution and the subsequent Civil War, the Bolsheviks set about creating a new statehood. They had rather serious disagreements among themselves on this point. In 1922, Stalin occupied the positions of both the General Secretary of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) and the People’s Commissar for Ethnic Affairs. He suggested building the country on the principles of autonomisation that is, giving the republics – the future administrative and territorial entities – broad powers upon joining a unified state.


Expand full comment

Part 4

Even two years before the collapse of the USSR, its fate was actually predetermined. It is now that radicals and nationalists, including and primarily those in Ukraine, are taking credit for having gained independence. As we can see, this is absolutely wrong. The disintegration of our united country was brought about by the historic, strategic mistakes on the part of the Bolshevik leaders and the CPSU leadership, mistakes committed at different times in state-building and in economic and ethnic policies. The collapse of the historical Russia known as the USSR is on their conscience.

Despite all these injustices, lies and outright pillage of Russia, it was our people who accepted the new geopolitical reality that took shape after the dissolution of the USSR, and recognised the new independent states. Not only did Russia recognise these countries, but helped its CIS partners, even though it faced a very dire situation itself. This included our Ukrainian colleagues, who turned to us for financial support many times from the very moment they declared independence. Our country provided this assistance while respecting Ukraine’s dignity and sovereignty.

According to expert assessments, confirmed by a simple calculation of our energy prices, the subsidised loans Russia provided to Ukraine along with economic and trade preferences, the overall benefit for the Ukrainian budget in the period from 1991 to 2013 amounted to $250 billion.

However, there was more to it than that. By the end of 1991, the USSR owed some $100 billion to other countries and international funds. Initially, there was this idea that all former Soviet republics will pay back these loans together, in the spirit of solidarity and proportionally to their economic potential. However, Russia undertook to pay back all Soviet debts and delivered on this promise by completing this process in 2017.

In exchange for that, the newly independent states had to hand over to Russia part of the Soviet foreign assets. An agreement to this effect was reached with Ukraine in December 1994. However, Kiev failed to ratify these agreements and later simply refused to honour them by making demands for a share of the Diamond Treasury, gold reserves, as well as former USSR property and other assets abroad.

Nevertheless, despite all these challenges, Russia always worked with Ukraine in an open and honest manner and, as I have already said, with respect for its interests. We developed our ties in multiple fields. Thus, in 2011, bilateral trade exceeded $50 billion. Let me note that in 2019, that is before the pandemic, Ukraine’s trade with all EU countries combined was below this indicator.

At the same time, it was striking how thSome industrial and financial groups and the parties and politicians on their payroll relied on the nationalists and radicals from the very beginning. Others claimed to be in favour of good relations with Russia and cultural and language diversity, coming to power with the help of their citizens who sincerely supported their declared aspirations, including the millions of people in the south-eastern regions. But after getting the positions they coveted, these people immediately betrayed their voters, going back on their election promises and instead steering a policy prompted by the radicals and sometimes even persecuting their former allies – the public organisations that supported bilingualism and cooperation with Russia. These people took advantage of the fact that their voters were mostly law-abiding citizens with moderate views who trusted the authorities, and that, unlike the radicals, they would not act aggressively or make use of illegal instruments.

Meanwhile, the radicals became increasingly brazen in their actions and made more demands every year. They found it easy to force their will on the weak authorities, which were infected with the virus of nationalism and corruption as well and which artfully replaced the real cultural, economic and social interests of the people and Ukraine’s true sovereignty with various ethnic speculations and formal ethnic attributes.

Expand full comment

It's back up now (10:00 German time, Feb. 25).

Expand full comment

You can read excerpts from his speech here: https://consortiumnews.com/2022/02/24/what-putin-says-are-the-causes-aims-of-russias-military-action/ Turns out there is a lot we are not being told by western media, for example, I had no idea: https://twitter.com/akarlin0/status/1496875288394874884

Expand full comment

I want to second the Joe Lauria analysis of what Putin said.

I'd also like to add this Jimmy Dore/Max Blumenthal exchange the summarized the situation well in just 30 minutes. (And believe me, that's short!)


Expand full comment

The only way that you are likely to hear "more from Putin", Vera, is on pages like this one.

Personally, I feel that the Donbas matter justified the actions taken and I am confident that Russia will limit their military action as much as they can. (When you think on it, nothing could compare to the US generated wars over the past 80 years). Already it seems that many Ukrainian soldiers are handing in their weapons, seeing the writing on the wall and unless they have been living in a vacuum, are aware of the evil US connections to all their present problems, driven from 7800 kilometres away in Washington.

Ukrainians of old age can certainly remember the 1932-1933 Holodomor, the starvation of their country by Stalin who at the time was on the way to becoming a valued ally of the West. Good old "Uncle Joe" as he was known and revered during the second world war and in all western countries around the world. So for those Ukrainians, very low in numbers now, it was the equal in numbers of deaths to the well promoted holocaust, but without all the hype, museums and on. But a very sad period. Death by slow starvation for multi millions of Ukrainians.

Since those days, changes have occurred until based on the world domination schedule of Washington, and the "buying off" of a Ukrainian government, selected for its subservience to all things American, it has been the platform for a new Cold War initiative by all the various incumbents in the White House, one no better than the other. An easy mark for the US 'tried and proven' politically corrupt practices with their ultimate intention to be sitting with its NATO forces right on the border, stirring away like a mischievous child.

'Enough', said Putin and here we are today.

Let us hope that somewhere in the USA there will be enough rational thinkers who may, on analysis of past actions, realise that they do not own the world and have no claim to anything outside of their own domain. That could eliminate the need for a fleet of foreign nuclear-powered, nuclear-armed submarines being based off the coast of Florida in international waters with the aim of equalising the current US / NATO bases on the very doorstep of Russia and dotted around the globe....800 bases and rising, all commencing after World War II, 87 years in the past.

The world needs to do better than to accept the likes of a an white imperialist team of a Biden (previously a Trump) in the USA, a feckless Johnson in the UK, an arrogant Trudeau based in Canada and a little US bag carrier called Morrison on an island called Australia.

There are better people out there, surely.

Expand full comment

I am depressingly impressed with the uniform mediocrity of our American political class, regardless of party. As de Tocqueville noted so long ago, "In the United States, the majority undertakes to supply a multitude of ready-made opinions for the use of individuals, who are thus relieved from the necessity of forming opinions of their own."

Expand full comment

Agree! Interestingly the Dems are much more for a real US war military involvement per today’s WaPo. Not that they would enlist or send their children, mind you. This privilege is mainly reserved for the poor, the Black and the unemployed. I’ve often wondered if the economy isn’t manipulated to ensure adequate cannon fodder.

Reading the usual Dem talking heads, it seems they want Joe B to be seen as a War President because they think that will translate into Re-election Express.

Watching the American media massage and caress the “ news” is ever fascinating. Mostly about the gaming of what they claim is democracy.

The Ukrainians were foolish to think the Americans would save them from their own foolish flirtations. What did they think would happen?

Expand full comment

Dear Caitlin, and pardon the "dear" but it's because I'm feeling a little lonesome these days, what with even the German Linke stepping up to the Putin-bashing plate to denounce his Ukraine moves "in the strongest possible terms" as a "war of aggression, which is contrary to international law and cannot possibly be justified." They have pinned this brave statement, agreeing with virtually every MSM and official narrative outlet in the world, on their Facebook page. I fully agree with you. This is sickening.

The Linke ("Left," a German political party for those who don't know) think they are being "consistent" by denouncing any and all violations of international law, but the real reason is that they fear that if they don't they will be accused of being Putin stooges. As you have pointed out, many much worse "violations of international law" have gone virtually unnoticed by all those who are now screaming about Ukraine, and Ukraine and its Western supporters are more to blame for the current situation than Russia. This is what the Linke should be saying, but they are not.

Putin has explained this at length in recent speeches and press conferences -- but who reads them, and who can read them, since they are not made available via the Western MSM? It is not "necessary" to condemn the Russian actions. It IS necessary to understand how the US and its European allies have been systematically driving Russia into this corner for the past 20 years, until they have finally decided that the only way to get out of it is what they are doing now.

That doesn't mean it's good and it doesn't mean we have to approve of it or join the chorus of condemnation. It does mean that it is perfectly understandable and that we in the West bear the responsibility for it. If we listen to what Putin says we will understand this. It's not complicated.

What Die Linke et al. should do now, instead of jumping on the "condemn Putin" bandwagon, is -- as you also rightly say -- force the US et al. and Ukraine to finally deal substantively with the Russian demands re their national security. They are clear: no nuclear weapons (or infrastructure for them, i.e. convertible "ABM" sites) in Ukraine OR in Eastern Europe. It's bad enough that the Brits, French and Germany have them, especially since everyone knows that Washington has its fat finger on all the buttons, but that would be the next step.

Yes, even little Germany has options. We should say: Denuclearize Ukraine and Eastern Europe -- with clear and binding agreements -- or we will drop all economic sanctions, resume NordStream 2, and even drop out of NATO. We should do this anyway, but we could use the threat first to get a response.

But Germany and all the other US vassals are quite ill with Stockholm syndrome so it won't be easy.

Expand full comment
Feb 24, 2022·edited Feb 24, 2022

As a fellow German, I'm with you - our politicians are just so infuriatingly spineless and sanctimonious.

Expand full comment
Feb 24, 2022·edited Feb 24, 2022

Good for you! Didn’t the ridiculous NATO invasion of Afghanistan teach anything?

I’m equally disappointed in Germany. Now is precisely the time to make clear to the world you are more than being America’s obedient schnauzer.

Expand full comment

They seem to be showing more in the other direction.

Expand full comment

i go by my simple principle: whatever DC, bansksters, and corporate media oppose (and they are always in agreement with each other in foreign policies), i support. there's no better measure to go by. i haven't been wrong for the last 50 years.

under the US military occupation (1945-1950), 95% of the political leadership -- mostly socialist-communist as the population was then -- plus hundreds of thousands of politically active civilians were mass-murdered all across South Korea. that led to the Korean War. this decision by Putin to drive the genocidal zionist regime out of Kiyiv reminded me of Kim Il-sung's attempt into South Korea in 1950. China and USSR were in no shape to stop the US / Japan / EU imperialists, unfortunately, in those days.

the last few days has seen a momentous shift in the way the world is understood and run. the world has changed with that decision to break the destardly zionist cycle of exploitation and wars.

Expand full comment

There's that old nut about judging what's important by what we're not allowed to talk about. The American political class's lockstep support for Israel would certainly top that list of prohibited topics. National arguments can be had regarding abortion, China, gay marriage, Pentagon budgets, term limits, war and peace, medicare for all; but Israel? You either love it or love it a lot. Entire columns could be devoted to this topic and the rancid outcomes of this unquestionable policy, but just know that you are not alone in questioning it. One day I hope we as a nation can finally have that discussion.

Expand full comment

The situation is not unprovoked, spontaneous and unprepared. As usual, there is a method to US madness, and Caitlin describes it ably.

Expand full comment

This piece by Caitlyn's cousin Diana at Consortium News offers a pretty clear perspective...


Expand full comment

The very best perceptive example of US Foreign Policy. Thank you, Jim.......and Diana

Expand full comment

her invaluable book "fool's crusade: Yugoslavia" pretty much made her a pariah in the zionist dominated "intellectuals" and "authors" circles in the west.

Expand full comment

Thanks. Spot on comments as usual. Hopefully this doesn't go on too long.

Expand full comment

I imagine, once somebody mysteriously blows up Nord Stream 2, gas lines across Syria, Afghanistan and Mongolia... Joe & Kerry's kids are back at work and hundreds-of-thousands of new wells are fracked in WV, PA & NY or some sick kid, forced back after four days, with 105° fever, unable to get oxygen from his destroyed aveoli turns a key, somewhere... It'll end plenty quickly?

Expand full comment

If you think it's easy to blow up undersea pipelines, how easy will it be to arrange accidents on decrepit poorly maintained Bain Capital levered gas lines, or drop a shale oil train off a bridge and break it? The oligarchy only play nasty where they can't be hurt in kind, so the poor are what dies.

Expand full comment

PS: Bomb trains are filled with dilute bitumen (Hillary's TD Bank speech for TransCanada about Keystone XL protestors being Rooski agents, was verbatim from Rick Berman!)

Expand full comment

Oilgarchs 48" gas pipelines & fracked ethane wells explode every few days. Or passenger trains derail amidst bomb trains in red-lined neighborhoods. Think Catastrophe Capitalism is any accident? Watched EM abandon 32K' deep Blackbeard, a few years before Obama helped BP destroy the Gulf. Someotherbody bought and completed it, now they're FRACKING out there.




Expand full comment

In deed, the only thing keeping Warren Buffet from blaming every death on Putin/Russia that his trains cause is the fear that the insurance combines (of which he is a partner) would enforce the war clause on his claims.

Expand full comment

I'm directly across the Hudson from one of 15 "new gas-fired" peaking plants, convently plopped-down amidst red-lined essential workers (the new Black) while scores-of-thousands died, enriching my yuppie neighbors, skedaddled to upstate "vacation cottages" two years back. There's pretty constant Canadian Dilbit consists, going by or sitting like those tankers all around that flipped Amtrak train. With Hoschul & Adams, here & Biden in DC; we're guessing, even IF Williams' Constitution Pipeline's 9yr rusted 36" pipes aren't installed, scores-of-thousands new wells fracked in NY or Russian reactors in Queens or The Bronx... to move DNC's slumlords' carbon footprint to PA or Canada, bitumen could be greenwashed by COVID survivors ravaged lungs?

Expand full comment
Feb 24, 2022·edited Feb 24, 2022

The CIA is a criminal organization. Their interference in US politics is particularly pernicious.

Maybe news outlets should stop hiring all of the people who run this agency to help "analyze" and report the news? Maybe journalists should be skeptical of their planted stories?

ACLU (Feb. 11, 2022) -- Newly declassified documents reveal that the CIA has been secretly conducting massive surveillance programs that capture Americans’ private information.


Jake Sullivan, Hillary strategy advisor had a KEY role in launching Russia-gate hoax – he is now national security advisor to Biden.

Same people that launched the Russia-gate hoax are now hollering (in reality celebrating) that Russia invaded Ukraine. All to "save democracy" there -- in order to distract from the fact that St. Obama organized in 2014 bloody coup against democratically elected Ukraine government.

St. Obama installed Biden and his CIA pal Brennan as de facto governors of Ukraine -- immensely enriching US "elite" and posting and removing government members, judges and heads of industry with billions of corrupting cash -- in "fight against corruption".

US War party’s key exports are – coups, wars and all-encompassing corruption.

All together -- a tragedy for two beautiful Slavic nations that share so much in their culture -- a tragedy created by the US War party that concocted the Russia-gate hoax.

Expand full comment

As this German I know told me once - "I don't care about people east of Vienna". So two "beautiful Slavic nations" fighting each other is exactly what the doctor ordered.

Expand full comment

Ukraine - eastern and western - was a part of Russia from 1783 until 1991, with a brief two year break during the Bolshevik Revolution. From 1991 until 2015, it was basically a client state of Russia. Before 1783 - going back to the 1600s, the eastern part - including Donetsk and Luhansk - was in Russia, the western part was a part of Poland. Before then, it was settled by Cossacks - escaped serfs from Poland - and was ruled by a general - a "hetman" - and before that, it was Scythians and Greeks. So Ukraine has been a part of Russia except for the last 7 years, for as long as the United States has been a country - the Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783. And that idiotic comment about Russian warships in the Black Sea made by Biden - who is writing this stuff for him? - it's totally ignorant of history, Russia has had a naval base at Novorossisk since 1725 - it was created by Catherine the Great.

Biden is doing it because his economic policy is pure shite and he wants the Democrats to not go down in flames like they so richly deserve: "In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of war, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people." James Madison, 29th June, 1787.

For a good background on Ukraine, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4 - "Why is Ukraine the West's Fault", Prof. John Mearsheimer

And I forgot to mention that there is a rocket engine manufacturing plant complex at Kiev... that's another part of the Russian military industrial complex. And Kiev was the first capital of Russia, from the 900s until 1254, when Moscow was settled and became the capital. https://www.ancient-origins.net/history-ancient-traditions/kievan-rus-0013926

Expand full comment

Russian leaders would not be doing what they're doing if they weren't supremely confident that the US and NATO do not have an effective military response in Eastern Europe. The reason the US and NATO do not respond is that their military leaders have a visceral fear as well as strong military intelligence that the Russian leaders are correct.

Expand full comment

All they had to do is pay attention to this particular part from Putin's address:

"Now several important, very important words for those who might be tempted to interfere with the current events from the outside. Whoever might try to interfere with us, and moreover, create threats for our country, for our people, must know that Russia’s response will be immediate and will lead you to such consequences with which you in your history have not yet met. We are ready for any development of events. All the necessary decisions in this respect have been made. I hope I will be heard."

Whom do you think he was referring to with "have never met in your history"? Hint: Europe has suffered plenty in the past.

Expand full comment

Brilliantly expounded!

Expand full comment

I have been 100% onboard with the desire to see peace through the Minsk Accords, or their forceful substitute, until yesterday. Until then I considered Vladimir Putin to be the sanest and most rational political figure on the world’s stage. As of now, my trust in his rational decision making has been reduced to ZERO. While I understand the background and history of what has been happening between Russia and NATO for the last 30+ years, yesterday’s escalation in size and scope has been utterly disproportionate, reckless, and dangerous. Growing up in the USSR, I lived in both, Ukraine and Russia. I understand profoundly Russo-Ukrainian culture, which is the most of Ukraine. I opposed the 2014 coup d’état, war in Donbas and supported Minsk Accords. Ukraine, goaded by the West, failed not only to implement the accords, but made things progressively worse. Even worse, it begged to be an American puppet state. I understand why the country got to where it was yesterday. Had Russia engaged in peace keeping operation in Donbas as in effect to fulfill the Minsk Accords, I would have been 100% supportive. However, this is not what happened yesterday. What happened yesterday left me in the neutral territory from where I see no escape. How does it end? How does Putin pacify central Ukraine (where I am from), let alone the West? What is the escape route, what is the solution? I am despondent. For years I have been trying to reconcile my nationalist and separatist friends. Where does one go from here? Do I condemn my nationalist friends for engaging in a partisan warfare, turning the country into another Vietnam? Or do I congratulate my separatist friends for their chance to avenge? I can’t do both or either. Russia’s yesterday decision to start such an extensive conflict leaves me with no answer, other than anger at the apparent loss of the moral compass by Vladimir Putin, which might very well turn out to be a curse for the Russian nation for years to come.

Expand full comment

How about reading the white book I referenced for starters? Going through the materials about Odessa massacre? "Gorlovka Madonna"? Need I go on?

You "understand profoundly" Russo-Ukrainian culture. What a guy! Maybe you should have advised the clown who is your president to understand it better.

And, I assume, you understand Russian. Let me know which specific points from Putin's yesterday's address you disagree with and why. Keep the timeline and logical thread while doing so.

Expand full comment

I have never supported the clown president or the one before him. If you read my comment how I intended to put it, I have always been pro-Donbass. But this is not what happened yesterday. Here is my book on the subject. https://www.amazon.ca/Ukraine-Battlefield-Memories-Alex-Posoukh-ebook/dp/B071F4556G

Expand full comment

So what has happened yesterday? Was it not explained in Putin's address? With which I asked you to point me out specifically what your problem was?

Instead I have to read your book exactly why? Is the answer there? Are you a prophet?

Expand full comment

There is a simpler way to view this. Both the US and Russia were playing Realpolitik. Apparently the US did not take the Russians seriously. This was a mistake. In Realpolitik, mistakes generally result in war, sometimes disastrous wars. Similar mistakes occurred in 1905-1914, the 1930s, the 1950s, and so on up to the present mistake.

As long as people follow psychopaths -- which is what Realpolitik is -- the mistake will be repeated. No use going into the details.

Expand full comment

i have no intention to take any more bullshit from the wall street parasites than i have to to survive. so i don't read all their bullshit you gather to prove it's bullshit yet one more time.

i simply hope Putin, Xi, Kim, Iran, Obrador, etc will successfully build alternatives for other weaker nations to join asap, while i do my bit by not contributing to or participate in the evil empire.

Expand full comment

Brilliant. Thank you for writing and sharing.

Expand full comment