The Ukrainian conflict explained in historical context: Interview with Sergei Glaziev, advisor to President Putin

Ukraine: HUGE settling of scores

[Link]
The WAR for the Ukraine: What’s the real story?

The Latest and Biggest Battle Between East and West Converges in the Ukraine

And of course, you know it was the West that created the USSR, right? Berlin sends in Lenin, Washington sends in Trosky by way of London... and later the same group of friends help setup Hitler and his beloved nazis, which we currently assist in Ukraine... To know your enemy, means to know who your real friends are and who is not.

Putin is playing this game of chess 'old school' and allowing us to shoot ourselves in the feet and poop in our pants until no one wants to play with us. The BRICS and others can see the writing on the wall, only they don't seem to see that Big Momma is coming in to do her cyclical spring cleaning.... someone has to clean up all those poopy pants... and like it or not, the stench just can't be ignored and everyone in the sandbox will suffer from direct or indirect participation... such as silence, which is far from golden. The West doesn't want to stop pooping in its pants, nor in everyone's else's pants and will continue to do so until forced to stop. That is just the way it is... this usual means war... if Russia thinks they can avoid it.... Good luck, as no one else ever has.... but as they always say on Wall Street, 'this time it's different'... yea, right... they say that everytime.

"That’s how it was in the ‘30s, when the Great Depressiion gave way to an arms race, and then to the Second World War" - Mr. Glazyev forgot that the one who started that arms race was Russia."

No, that was Germany I believe, with Wall Street money.

"The global crisis began in 1929. And in 1930 Russia starts its program of total militarization of the economy when the West was in a deep crisis and made absolutely no real threat for Rusians."

What are you suggesting, that WW2 was Russia's fault? (Ha, this is interesting! We're retrospectively calling the 'USSR' Russia...)

"The general idea of the five-years plans (pyatiletka) was that Russia is to get able to fight against all Capitalist world simultaneousely and to win."

Whatever evils you ascribe to 1930s USSR, you should probably know that the 5-year plans were also a Wall Street affair:

[Link]
"And I would like to remind Mr Glazyev that Russia entered the Second World War 17 September 1939 as Hitler's ally in the war against Poland. Further to the secret pact with him in August Russains will sign a "Treaty of friendship and border" with Hitler on September 28 . And in November, when the Wehrmacht will rest, they will begin the invasion of Finland. In 1940 they annexed Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania under the threat of a force and then they forced the Romanians to give them Bessarabia and Bukovina. Only after that Hitler would give the order to develop Barbarossa plan. Before that I see no sign that he thought of a war with Russia."

Interesting revision of history! So you're saying that Hitler tried to stop evil Russia - I mean, USSR - from taking over the world?

"When Hitler attacked Russia in 1941, he had no idea that this country is fully optimized for a total war. And that Russia fanatically prepared for such a war the whole previous decade."

Oleg, the whole of eastern Russia was destroyed by Germany. 20+ million people were slaughtered. The only way 'Russia' survived was to shift its entire industrial base west of the Urals (and the surviving population) and rebuild an army from scratch.

"And all that time it was a constant Moscow refrain of the "Western threat for Russia"."

There IS a constant Western threat for Russia; and there has been for centuries.

"I heard it in 1968 (I lived in a Soviet harrison in East Germany then) when Russian tanks rolled into Czechoslovakia - "If we're late - it would be NATO there in three days". The same refrain of Western threat was in 1980 in Afghanistan. In March 2014 they captured Crymea "to prevent appearance of NATO bases" there. Now they fight in Eastert Ukraine for "not having NATO bases there"."

You should listen to Zbigniew Brzezinski boasting about how he goaded 'Russia' into war in Afghanistan: [Link]
As for NATO bases in eastern Europe and encircling Russia... I don't need to remind you that that is precisely what has happened, do I?!

"And when Mr.Glazyev tells of America's bad role in Europe - and that "... President Putin has been consistently putting forward, we were able to develop a mutual program for development a general development zone with a preferential trade regime from Lisbon to Vladivostok" - you can can have no doubts.

That means not only "preferential trade regime" - it means Russia from Vladivostok to Lisbon and Putin regime for that area. "Great Russia that everyone respects and fears"."

I think - going by Putin's track record - that when he says his vision is a Eurasian space that is economically fair and humanitarian, he is not just saying that in order to covertly bring about a global gulag. We already have that, remember? Near-universal debt slavery to Wall Street is here, now. Americans think torturing human beings is ok. Democracy is whatever the West says it is. Whatever about a hell that may come, we are in a hell NOW.

"So what is that interview about? I think it is about Russia's need in Western technologies and Western investments to build an updated military superpower."

I think it's about Russia being at the cutting-edge of innovative ideas and technologies, but realizing the urgency of the crossroads we find ourselves at: that either the bulk of the world's population and resources come together cooperatively... or the planet implodes under the weight of US-led greed.

"Look at the Russian budget figures on listening to Mr. Glazyev. A state sector in Russia is more than 50%. And the defence budget is to grow from 18% (!) in 2014 to 21% in 2017. But you must add to the figure the Russian "state security". It is as big as 14% in the 2014. I think all "special operations" like nowadays in Eastern Ukraine have financing from there. So 32% of the Russian budget 2014 for the defence and "security" in the country where state sector dominates. It lools like a war budget - isn't it?"

Sort of. It is a war budget, but a DEFENSIVE war budget. 'Russia' has been under constant attack since its foundation 1,000 years ago. You won't ever see Su-27s dropping 'democracy' from the air over Somalia...

"The budget costs for Russian economy will decrease from 16% to 12% within the period. The same is a trend of the budget on health and education. Guns instead of butter"

Yeh, looks like Russia's going to need it.

So you live in kiev? And in moscow the nazi fascist have also taken over the government waging war on their own people? Seems you have a special view of reality. Send my greetings to Yats.

Glazyev is a clever man. He talks in a way to appeal to the majority and not the history buffs(they have to read between the lines).

'USSR' or 'Russia', which is it?!

USSR, brought to Russia by the West, destroyed Russia, totally destroyed it.

So to compare USSR with Russia today is like comparing apples and oranges.

Oh, you live in Kiev?

Is it true they banned Russian TV there?

That would be a very Soviet thing to do.

Ok, so tell me: how are the millions of your fellow-countrymen in Donetsk and Lugansk doing?

Yes, all the time. RT is awesome! I like LifeNews too. And RIA Novosti is way better than Reuters.

Right, but your friend's friend didn't come to slaughter anyone, while your own US-imposed government has slaughtered thousands of your fellow countrymen.

YOU are the one living in 'Pravda' now.

Putin called the collapse of the Soviet Union "the greatest tragedy of the twentieth century" because by then conditions had normalized again. The Bolshevik terror was long over. He also called it that because without the USSR the USA was free to become even more aggressive and destructive all over the world.

Putin was being politically astute when he said this. He has built Russian again on national pride. You cannot reject your country's past if you want to encourage national pride, especially when that pride is informed by an anti-Western stance. The SU stood against the West, and Putin's Russia does the same, but that is where the similarity ends.

I think to understand who started it would be useful to take look at the beginning of the story. The Bolsheviks sounded as ultraradicals on seizure of power in 1917 - and behaved as the ultras in foreign policy, breaking all conceivable rules and regulations. This was a direct path to self-imposed isolation in the world. Moreover, self-isolation - this is a normal way of existence for traditional Muscovite power. In fact the Bolshevik coup in 1917 was a sign of a massive protest of the Russian heartland against Russian elite attempts to drag Russia to the west for two hundred years. It returned Russia to its roots.

Nonsense! Upwards of 60 million Russians (and other ethnicities, Ukrainians included) were killed following the Bolshevik coup. It was the worst expression of genocide in known history.

"Hence the mass of the parallels between the realities of the kingdom of Muscovy of Ivan the Terrible - and Stalin's Russia of the 30s. By the way, Stalin ordered to make a three-hour long blockbuster "Ivan the Terrible" and personally oversaw the course of filming."

Actually, 'Ivan the Terrible' is a distortion in translation. The more accurate moniker was 'Ivan the Awesome', or 'Ivan the Mighty'. The early Soviets completely rewrote Russian history to project their own totalitarian nature back in time and justify the 'necessity' of their brutal repression of Russians.

"As a result of these conquest wars of the Bolshevik Russia (RSFSR) in 1918-20 the USSR appears on the map."

No, 19th Century Tsarist Russia was bigger than the USSR ever was. The British imperialists knew perfectly well where Russia was on the map... because it was in their way!

"I do not think that it was the result of external rather than internal forces - although I understand what you mean telling of the outer influence."

The only internal revolutionary movement in Russia in the years leading up to the 1917 revolution was a relatively tiny number of terrorists whose propaganda agitated impressionable university students. Just as today, they were a 'fifth column', funded and supported from without by powerful bankers with a vested interest in bringing 'regime change' to Russia. It had no firm, popular support though and only came to power thanks to the madness of WW1.

"Do you know that the Red Army had under its banner 200 former tsarist generals and almost 35,000 former Tsarist officers in the 1919?"

Of course they did, they had no other choice. The country was falling apart and it took until the mid-1920s to take control of the whole country.

"These imperials quickly recognised Bolsheviks as an effective "lands collector" under their ultra revolutionary slogans. Much more effective than the White movement was. And these generals and officers turned the Red Army to a victorious force that will win and absorb the young democratic national republics appeared in the neighborhood."

"young democratic national republics..." Goodness, you make that sound so romantic! You should probably read my article here where I explain that 'democratic movements' - like all revolutionary movements - were manipulated, if not outright instigated, by British 'geopolitical strategists': [Link]
The 'Young Turks' movement, the Balkan nationalists, Polish and Ukrainian liberators, they were all instruments of intrigue through which Western powers 'contained Russia.' I'm sorry to reduce your nationalist beliefs to their basic and cynical essence, but how else can I help you realize that still today Ukrainians are being used by Western powers who do not give a damn about "young democratic national republics"?

"Just in two months on seizure of power in Russia - in January 1918 - the Bolsheviks started invasion of Ukraine followed by series of invasions to another republics appeared on ruines of the Russian empire the same time as Soviet Russia itself. And attack of Poland, an attempt to capure Finland in 1939 and capturing the Baltic states in the 1940 were just a final of Russian plan to get back the lands of the Russian Empire."

Yes, and many, many crimes were committed. The whole region was set alight. Russia was then the most advanced and just country in the world, which is why so many peoples gladly accepted annexation under Tsarist rule. They weren't bombed into submission! And all that was destroyed by the imposition of tyranny.

"So Russia was in the WW I loosers - together with Germany."

Yes, under the cover of WW1, Russia was attacked and destroyed. Germany, coincidentally, was the second most advanced and just nation-state.

"And Russian attempt of revenge was back in 1919-20. It ended by the unsuccessful war with Poland. And as soon as the West plunged into crisis in 1929 - Russians begin frantic preparations for a new large-scale war, putting all the resources available to that and squeezing all the juice out of their poor country. And if the Germans will announce the transition to Totalenkrieg in 1943 - Russia has begun the transition to it in the early 30s - and by the beginning of the WW II was already in the that mode."

Right, but all of that is post-Bolshevik coup. They weren't ordinary Russians doing that: they were Western-controlled Jews.

"As a result - 30 000 tanks and 20 000 war planes. Hitler could then only dream of such striking power."

Again, what is your point here? That WW2 was actually a Soviet plot to take over the world?

« I think that a delay in taking Ukraine into NATO was a big mistake. Otherwise the world had not got Ukrainian crisis and Russia would be much less aggressive at the moment. And Crimea would not be turned into a huge carrier put forward to the borders of the EU and NATO. »

Here in the West, awake and aware people have a very different perception of NATO and the EU.

« the figures of Russian budget for nearest years I mentioned before are a nice illustration how “humanitarian” Russia is to get soon. »

I see, so it's not about the crimes Russia has committed, but the crimes it will commit! So I guess Russia is guilty of 'pre-crime'?

« Once again – never listen to what they say. Look at the things they are doing. »

That's exactly what SOTT.net and most alternative media in the West has been doing for years. And what they say matches with what they do, in contrast to Western strategies, which talks peace while delivering war and destruction.

« Kremlin accepts laws more stringent restriction of civil liberties almost every month. The Federation Council unanimously voted in favor of all the possibility of sending troops to Ukraine - and only one member voted against. Russian society is ready to tear apart itself any dissenter without the NKVD or the gulag. And I'm sure - if tomorrow Putin announces that Russia has entered the public execution of "enemies of the people" - the answer will be universal applause... »

Pure Western propaganda! It's very clear that Russia's legislation is designed to confront 'regime change' Western NGOs and their agents within Russia.

« of course, the things go wrong in Western democracy. But do we need to choose between Western democraty in its actual version and the Putin model? I wonder that you do not see what the Putin model is. I think it is some mix of the bolshevism, nazism and modern media. The result is awful. Aggressive, bitchy, xenophobic and insane 100-million Russian mob. And Putin, which can easily target its rage where he wants. »

I see, you are a russophobe. Well, I can't blame you given the amount of lies about Russia, both in history and today. But really, in today's information age, this excuse is becoming less acceptable by the day.

« I am afraid that a closer look at Russian history will give a very different picture. All invasions to Russia after Batu Khan were actually return an unfriendly visits after the Muscovites themselves invaded to their close or distant neighbors. All of them! - Whether the Poles in the 17th century, the Swedes in the 18th or the French in the 19th Even Hitler attacked Russia after they divided Poland together with him, and then self-ate part of Finland, and then Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia as a whole, and Romania - in part. And I do not find any example of a non-aggression response in Russia over the past 800 years. »

Then you need to read more. Try this: [Link]

« I'm not sure that the Russian killed 60 million of their compatriots. And it is not in the fugures. »

Actually, I was wrong. Solzhenitsyn gave a figure of 66 million. His book was published in Russian in 2002. It has still not been translated into English.

« I think more important to the topic is the fact that the first leader of Bolshevism in Russia that unleashed a civil war with millions of victims became a kind of Russian saint. And the second one, that put to death much more is the beloved historical figure for Russians. When this Ghoul died I'm not sure that the Russian killed 60 million of their compatriots. And it is not in the numbers. I think it is more important to the topic of the fact that the first leader of Bolshevism in Russia that unleashed a civil war, became Russian saints. And second, that killed most of the victims, to this day - the most revered historical figure in Russia. When this Ghoul died the Russians crushed about a thousand people in a stampede during a funeral in Moscow. »

I see, now that I've pointed out that Bolshevik terror was imposed on Russians, and not originating from Russians, you want to stop talking about that! Worse, you somehow twist the Russian holocaust to present the victims as the perpetrators.

« You'll hardly understand anything in Russia, until you realise how little meaning for Russian have their human victims. More precisely - the sacrifices that they reckon "for Russia." »

Wow, you really do hate Russians. Are you a supporter of Stepan Bandera by any chance?

« In doubt - ask which way Russia buries hundreds of its "volunteers" and the soldiers that died for some unknown reason in the battles in SE Ukraine. In any way. Their government not even consider it necessary to speak of these victims at all. Even the casualties of Russian army in World War II they could not count with an accuracy of at least a million for a long time. And if you go to the east of Germany - look at the graves of Russian soldiers. They are there almost in every town - such as in Grossenhain, where I lived. And almost all of them - "brotherhood graves". Even in 1945, when it was possible not to hurry up and do everything humanly, they dumped their dead in a common grave - a few hundred soldiers altogether. This is the real price of human life in Russia. And it's terrible. And I know about it - I lived there for some years. »

So, if I follow your paralogical thinking here, Russians being buried in mass graves ... is evidence of Russian barbarity??

« I know that the translation is incorrect. But in the Brirish forum I have to use your usual names for historical persons like that. However, Ivan actually committed genocide in the Novgorod lands and almost exterminated local ethnicity (Novgorodtsy are treated as a certain etnicity by some scientists). Remains of elite were relocated to lands around Moscow , and Muscovites were settled there instead. The Russian geneticists (Balanovsky) could not find almost no traces of Novgorodtsy in the gene pool of the residents of the region. »

Yes, the sacking of Novgorod was terrible. Let's keep some perspective though: the numbers killed there were equalled in the first 20 minutes of America's Shock and Awe campaign in Iraq in 2003. Yes, the same America whose great and glorious NATO and EU projects you welcome into your country.

The context that is excised from Official History is that the aristocratic noble families in Novgorod and Moscow were conspiring with Danish, Livonian and Polish aristocrats to subvert and 'contain' this growing country to the east. The people loved Ivan IV because he protected them from the oligarchs. Most sources on Ivan IV are extremely hostile towards him because of this.

« That eatly Moscow practice reminds me a famine in the Kuban. In early 1933 Moscow deported Ukrainian cossaks village (stanitsa) Poltavskaya and other Ukrainian villages to Syberia. Instead of the retired Red Army soldiers were moved there with their families. The order barred to recruit settlers in Ukraine and the Cossack lands Don - practically all of them were ethnic Russians. At the same time the Ukrainian language in local schools and the official document management was replaced by the Russian language. »

'Moscow' did a lot of evil things then. Would those evil things have happened under the late Tsarist empire?

« you can google who and why provided the 300 millionth loan to the Japan so it could buy weapons and start a war with Russia. War, which ended for Russia by defeat and the First Russian Revolution. »

Yes, Jacob Schiff and the House of Rothschild arranged for Japan to attack a relatively undefended part of Russia. Something that you are grateful for, apparently.

« Meanwhile do not forget that lots of Russians themselves dreamed to crush Tzarism. »

That is a lie. Nicholas II is now SAINT Nicholas II. The people loved their king, and have not forgotten him.

« sorry - NOT the country but the Empire. It was a normal process of crush of some European empires after the WWI. And it led to the series of national states on their ruines. Russia made extraordinary efforts to turn the wheel of a history backwards. »

Blaming the victims again. What happened in Russia was NOT "normal" and was far worse than anywhere else. Here, read Ouspensky's letters to Orage in England: [Link]
« The late stage of that we see at the moment in SE Ukraine, don't we? »

What we see in SE Ukraine is the direct result of the same old American-controlled empire doing regime change in Kiev in February this year: giving power to neo-Bolsheviks whose destructive urges have been unleashed on those who are resisting the 'democratic revolution'.

« you treat all democratic countries as a result of "manipulations"; not? »

It depends on the country and the era, but yes, in general, all liberal democracy is a mask for ruthless oligarchial control by a hidden elite.

« I guess that you threat the dictator regimes or monarchies as somewhat natural »

Again it depends on the country and the era, but yes, in general, 'dictator regimes and monarchies' represent the natural order of things. Strong leaders with conscience keep psychopathic oligarchs at bay. 'Monarch' has become a dirty word because history has been rewritten by the victors. 'Monarchs' today are just public figureheads, the real power lies with the transnational banking elite.

The origin of the word 'dictator' is even more illuminating: it comes from Rome, where the optimate senators (the oligarchs) ruled the 'Republic' with an iron grip. It wasn't really a republic, it was an empire, although it kept pretending to be a republic, and it was ruled by the few for the few. Then Julius Caesar came along and changed everything by breaking all their rules. The oligarchs hated him, but the people loved him so much they made him 'son of god'. This is what the myth of Jesus Christ was based on, the attempt by Julius Caesar to impose a new model of living on the world, where humanitarian values and international law would actually mean something and the oligarchs would be forever kept in control.

His project ultimately failed of course. The oligarchs assassinated him and Rome then formally became an empire, but not the just and 'democratic' empire Caesar was trying to achieve. Under the weight of its militaristic overreach, moral degeneracy, and cruel treatment of its subjects, Rome then collapsed in a firestorm of burning rocks from the skies, deluges, plague and massive earthquakes.

The elites since then have completely distorted this history so that when people hear the name 'Casear', they associate it with 'dictator', which is a 'bad' thing. Not necessarily. It depends on who is doing the dictating. Is it a psychopath? Or is it an intelligent man who has a conscience, and a plan?

« Sorry for my question - aren't you Russian? »

No, I am not Russian.

Listen, you need to read this book. It's also available in Polish (actually, it was originally written in Polish) and in German: [Link]

The Orange Revolution, like the Maidan Revolution, were Western interventions in the Ukraine. Conditions for ordinary Ukrainians worsened after each 'revolution'.

As for Ukrainian historiography, even the Wikipedia page on Ukraine just copies the same medieval origins of Russia, the Kievan Rus!

[Link]
'Russia' IS 'Ukraine' and vice versa!

« nothing new for us. In fact Ukrainians were alone as hell since 1918 when we started the project »

Yes, 'the Ukrainian nation-state' is a modern project, the result of Western intrigues and 'great games'.

« Since 1918, we are balancing between two fires. »

Yes, I pity 'eastern Europeans'. They are quite schizophrenic from being in the middle of this centuries-old West-East tug-of-war between two types of civilizations.

« And we understand that without the West Moscow would drown us all in the Dnieper without any mental confusion »

Yes, during the 'Red Terror'. Russia today is nothing but brotherly towards Ukrainians.

« Kiev - the central axis of their ideological myth - is Ukrainian. »

Kiev WAS the first real 'Russian city'.

« I have no illusions about the myopia of the West and almost complete atrophy of feeling of self preservation in Europe today. Her sunset that Spengler declared more than a hundred years ago, is before our eyes. And it does not diminish our drive - because long ago a famous Russian classic noted that Ukrainians as a nation are completely self-sufficient. Our self-sufficiency and aspiration to the liberty is gagging our northern neighbor not for the first time. »

The Ukrainian nation-state project has been a complete disaster!

« Does the West understand that if you do not fork out for Ukraine to stop Russian bear which again grew huge claws, on that line - I hope so. Otherwise you should spend huge amounts of money on defense - much more than for that kind of the bear-protection. I hope that someone in the West realises that. But it's certainly not you, my dear opponent »

You understand that the Western peoples have lost all sovereignty... and yet you call on their masters to deliver you your sovereignty. Have you heard of the term 'wishful thinking'?

« the fact is that no-one except Russians themselves tells of that "gladly annexations". I have quite different exapmples - how Russians suppressed the national minorities. And early story was within the so-called Cheremissian wars in mid-Volga »

Hang on, you're again citing Medieval examples to support your argument about Russian intentions today?

« "Yes, under the cover of WW1, Russia was attacked and destroyed" - by whom attacked? »

The same global oligarchial elite attacking Russia today, the Washington-London-Tel Aviv Axis of Evil.

« But initially the Bolsheviks were Russian and the Jews made "opportunistic" minority in Russian Communist party as Mensheviks. »

Leon Trotsky? You're splitting hairs, Oleg. It's undisputed that Jews dominated the Bolsheviks and earlier 'revolutionary' groups in the Russian empire. It could not have happened with money from Wall Street and Germany.

« "Again, what is your point here? That WW2 was actually a Soviet plot to take over the world?" - initially - without doubts. In the lettering of German Embassy in Moscow with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs you can find talks with Russians in 1940 about the forthcoming division of the British Empire, new coalition of Russia with Germany. Italy and Japan, etc. Stalin got so enthusiastic about that that he did not want to believe in 1941 that everything has changed and Germans will invade Russia. It is a major reason of unexpected German attack that caused destraction of Russian armies at the border. Another reason is that Stalin prepared his own Drang nach West. But it's another issue »

Very interesting. Meanwhile, over in Washington, Truman was saying this:

"If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible."

So, whatever about what Stalin MIGHT have thought, or MIGHT have done, the RESULT was the utter destruction (again) of Europe and Russia. A power over and above Stalin manipulated this situation to come about. America then steps in once the Soviets win the war against the Nazis... and the rest is history.

« Anyway during the WWII and as a result Russia:

1 annexed Lithuania
2 Latvia
3 Estonia
4 Galicia
5 Volyn
6 West Belarus
7 East Prussia
8 South Sakhalin
9 Part of the Kuril Islands »

Yes, the Allied powers had no other choice because the USSR won the war. These were previously part of the Russian empire.

« Received under its direct political control Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, North Korea, and partial control - Romania. Promoted communism in the Balkans - with access to the Mediterranean Sea. »

Yes, as agreed with Winston Churchill, who then immediately started the Cold War propaganda against Moscow, propaganda which STILL anchors in the minds of millions of people in the borderlands.

« Now try to convince me that Russia did not prepare the Second World War - and initially did not have any selfish purposes in it. »

Stalin, having somewhat de-Bolshevik-ized the USSR, sought to protect its interests from yet another wave of Western invaders. He was betrayed, ruthlessly, by those who prepared the Second World War: the same Western oligarchial elites who prepared the Bolshevik revolution, the First World War, the atomic bomb, the 'Cold War' as a cover for going all over the world and bombing defenceless people from the air (something no Russian government of any form has ever done), and the same oligarchial elite who did 9/11 in order to launch a 'War on Terror' and crack down on all dissent anywhere in the globe.

Putin's Russia is saying 'No more!'

You, like most Westerners, have been programmed to project all the world's problems onto the one source that stands in the way of the complete takeover of this planet by psychopaths.

"Russian Bolshevism was a return back to the standards of the pre-Peter Muscovy. And among those standards were self-isolation, xenophobia and terrible hatridge and fears of the West. I think this fear the Muscovites got from their teachers - the Mongols."

This is the same Russian historiography they teach in the West... and it's completely wrong. In fact, it's as much of a projection - a reversal of the truth (or reversive blockade, for those who know what I mean) - as the tsunami of lies against Russia is today. Man, russophobia runs deep and wide. What is UP with that??!

"Among the Mongols it was an ancient belief that the death of them is to come from the west. Hence, perhaps, appeared an ultimatum of Khan Guyuk to the Pope and to the Western world on the whole in the 13th century."

Yes, the Shamballah legends. Wow, so you think those myths referred to Russians too!? Holy moly, what it must be like to be inside your head.

"Beyond that, the Bolsheviks were still a military junta. And any junta fears to be deposed. Hence the permanent fear in the Kremlin that the West will come and clean the junta. And in a complete self-isolation these fears of them have reached fantastic proportions. All that entered in resonance with traditional Russian militarism and the idea of ​​a worldwide expansion of Bolshevism."

Yes, then Wall Street and Germany funded regime change, aka Bolshevism, which destroyed Russia.

"As a result, Russia of the 30s turned into a giant military camp where millions of country slaves and industrial semi-slaves worked from dawn to dusk to create a Russian militarnoy superpower. This way by the end of the 30sa appears a huge, unprecedented army - the largest and most powerful in the world."

Kind of. It became so AFTER Wall Street front man Adolf Hitler destroyed one third of Russia. Isn't it interesting that IN SPITE OF having Bolshevism imposed on them, Russia still didn't become an aggressive global empire like Holland, England, France, or USA. All its foreign/external actions remained focused on securing its own borders, just as it is today.

"And before a start of a second round of attacks on Britain (Hitler's general purpose) - he decided to remove unreliable ally in the east."

... yeh, go on. You were saying something about Stalin's plans for global domination? But Hitler thwarted those plans? Right...