NewsReal: Ukraine Gambit - US Attempting to Destroy Russia

Dear friends,

May be , is that Russia will destroy USA and his dummies allies...........

Keep in touch

The United States can send up to 5,000 troops, ships and planes to Eastern European and Baltic countries, the New York Times reports, citing informed sources from the US administration.

According to the publication's interlocutors, US President Joe Biden mummy is considering the deployment of several thousand American troops, as well as warships and aircraft in the Baltic states and Eastern Europe.

According to the newspaper's source, on Saturday at a meeting at Camp David (the residence of the current US Golem president in Maryland), senior Pentagon officials presented Biden with several options that would allow US military assets to be moved much closer to home. border with Russia.

Options include sending between 1,000 and 5,000 troops to Eastern European countries, with the ability to increase that number by 10 times if "the situation gets worse."

The galloping Alzeimer-suffering mummy president of the United States is expected to make a decision this week, he will ask Tutankamon what to do

PROJECT LOOKING GLASS: FROM THE MOUTHS OF THE WHISTLEBLOWERS [Link]

THE WEAPONS SUPPLIED BY THE UNITED STATES TO THE UKRAINE WILL NOT HELP THE UKRAINIAN ARMY FORCES TO REJECT THE OFFENSIVE OF THE RUSSIAN ARMY

The United States and its allies are increasing military assistance to Ukraine, but American military equipment and weapons will not help Kiev in its confrontation with Russia. The American edition of Foreign Policy writes it.

The military assistance of the collective West sent to Ukraine will not contribute to the solution of the protracted crisis and, moreover, will not intimidate Putin and will not help the Ukrainian army to repel the Russian army offensive, if it takes place.

This conclusion was reached by analysts from the Rand Corporation's expert structure, which is engaged in military research commissioned by the Pentagon.

The weapons supplied to Ukraine will not play a serious role in the collision of the Ukrainian armed forces with the Russian army, their levels are too different. The modern Ukrainian army was created to counter the Donbas militia and does not pose a serious threat to Russian troops.

Despite Kiev’s strong statements on the capabilities of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and seven years of "containment" of the Russian army, in fact, the Ukrainian army did not clash with Russian troops. All the clashes in the Donbass took place with militias, ie civilians trained by Russian instructors. The Russian army intervened directly in the conflict only twice, near Ilovaisk and Debaltseve. Both clashes resulted in a crushing defeat for the Ukrainian armed forces and nothing from the modern arsenal, such as aircraft and missiles, was used there. In case of war, Russia will not send tanks....

In Ukraine, as planned in Kiev, but will inflict a series of air and missile attacks on concentrations of troops, headquarters, airports and warehouses. The capabilities of the Russian army give them the opportunity to wage war from a distance, no one will attack the Ukrainian military fortifications created in the Donbass on the front, they will simply be bypassed. No American and British weapons like the NLAW ATGM will help the Ukrainian armed forces. Furthermore, we must not rely on the sanctions of the West, which threaten the United States. If Russia is ready to start a war, then it is aware of all the consequences and ignores them.

The military balance between Russia and Ukraine is so unbalanced in Moscow's favor that any help Washington can provide in the coming weeks will mean little (...)

If the United States is to help Ukraine, then Washington must seek diplomatic ways to resolve the conflict and not increase the supply of useless weapons, giving Kiev unwarranted self-confidence................

In fact, the purpose of the US is not to "help Ukraine", but to send it to the slaughterhouse by provoking the armed intervention of Russia in defense of the Donbass which, as the article says, will take place by unleashing a firestorm with air attacks who will solve the matter in a few hours. The real enemy of the Ukrainian people is precisely that crazy Zelensky who, moreover, is not even "Ukrainian" in the strict sense.........

This is all priming the public. It is all theater. The globalists are preparing a false flag in my view.

USA Trying to ruin Russia is like a dying man trying to run a Marathon. It is bout time they started to analyse their own problems, recognise the enemy and like many countries before them ---purge the system.

Ukraine is catastrophically inferior to Russia in many military aspects, so there can be no large-scale hostility between the two countries. This opinion was expressed by the Kiev political scientist Viktor Savinov broadcast on the Politeka channel .

According to him, the state of the Ukrainian fleet leaves much to be desired, as it is unable to carry out a single missile launch.

For this reason, the entire southern border of the country was threatened with an unimpeded landing.

“The most formidable weapon that the Ukrainian fleet has is a 20 mm gun. Against the Kalibr missile, which flies 1,500 kilometers and destroys objects much larger than the objects that the Ukrainian fleet is, this is not a war " , underlined the expert.

Another problem, in his opinion, was the colossal backlog in the aviation sector: Ukraine today has a maximum of 77 aircraft ready for combat operations and all of them do not exceed the fourth generation.

Russia meanwhile has much greater potential, he noted.

“Russia has fifth generation aircraft and strategic nuclear bombers, against which Ukraine has no means of destruction. Consequently, Russia has overwhelming dominance at sea, overwhelming dominance in the air, "summed up Savinov.

Seems to read again the FAKE Tale of David and Goliath, where in this debate , is GOLIATH to have the TRUTH................

Nazi Ukrainians, Nazi Usa's, Nazi Europe, Nazi............ ecc:

PLEASE STOP, or all of you will be CANCELLED from the Planet Earth

I don't know, if the USA will be geographically where Russia is now, and Russia where the US now resides.

The USA feels "safe", GIVEN THAT it is like a FAR ISLAND, with 2 Oceans separating it from the rest of Planet Earth, unlike Russia, the most gigantic country in the world, which has borders with dozens of states ... ..................

I think that, if it were the other way around, the USA would have already DISAPPEARED from Planet Earth ................, many but many YEARS AGO................

USA feels SAFE, just because is ISOLATED from the rest of the Planet..........., due for " technical news ", THAT TALE is Finish...

Russia might sort of be the new "Afghanistan" on the stage....

moreso then they already have been in history.

It is cold on the northern steppes and in much of Russia,

and Russia seems to be the new " Graveyard of Empires ".

Can you say France. Can you say Germany.

Both them died in the cold of Russia.

Good for Russia and who needs effing bankers.

I salute Russians. They have fortitude indeed.

BK

poem - 12422 1042 est of empire fixing to meet its end!? Seems as such to me. Obvious.

All bullies eventually get killed. (#76)

Commander of "OOS" of Ukraine Named Number of Regions Russia "Could Capture"

Russia can attack from different directions and take over eight regions of Ukraine, including Dnepropetrovsk, Odessa and Kharkiv.

This was stated by the commander of the operation of the occupation forces, Lieutenant General Alexander Pavlyuk in an interview with the Times.

According to him, in this case, Ukraine will lose all major military and industrial facilities, including access to the Black Sea .

“The Russians are considering several options, but only Donetsk and Luhansk in the east will not be good for them. They want to hurt the whole country and manipulate the whole of Ukraine through this wound, " Pavlyuk said.

He claims that Russia has deployed 54 tactical combat teams, including 36 Iskander medium-range ballistic missiles, some of which could reach Kiev.

Among the various scenarios, there is a date for a potential invasion: this is February 20, when the Olympic Games will end in Beijing, and in Belarus, joint military exercises with Russia on the border with Ukraine will end.

"This is the date that worries us," admitted Pavlyuk.

He assures that both the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the Territorial Defense will stand up to protect the country ( like Kamikazes )

“We have created territorial defense departments, which means that there will be more than 100,000 volunteers ready to take up arms. Even now, weapons are being distributed to people who are ready to fight, " the OOS commander told the Americans

RAT LINES :

Countries have offered the opportunity for some consular workers to leave the country. In Germany they were offered to pay the road. Australia, in turn, advised ordinary citizens to leave Ukraine as well.

A representative of the department said that relatives and friends of German diplomats in Ukraine who wish to leave the country can do so at the expense of the German foreign ministry.

"I can inform you that a decision has been made that allows family members of employees of our representative offices in Ukraine, as well as members of employees of German organizations in Ukraine, such as the Goethe Institute, the Academic Exchange Service, the opportunity to leave voluntarily Ukraine, "said Christopher Burger, who represented the ministry. He added that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or the employer of those who want to leave will cover the travel expenses.

"This is a measure we have taken to ensure the safety of the people we are responsible for there," he explained.

In addition, the Australian government has begun evacuating families of diplomats from Kiev, where its embassy in Ukraine is located, reports the Sydney Morning Herald.

Ukrainian citizens were advised to leave the country as soon as possible for security reasons. They have been warned that air traffic between states could change or even stop in a short time. The government also said that the consulate's capacity in Ukraine to provide services "may be limited due to local circumstances".

Australian citizens who remain in the country are advised to reconsider their personal plans, taking into account the need to ensure their safety. They were also advised to prepare to take refuge in a safe place if necessary, to be especially vigilant and to register with the foreign ministry.

No one in America who is thinking wants this to happen. It's ridiculous. We import the world through our borders and we're going to go to war to protect Ukraine's?

R.C.

While the European Union plans to impose strong sanctions on the Kremlin in the event of an invasion of Ukraine, Germany has decided to "slow down".

The German Foreign Ministry opposed Russia's disconnection from the SWIFT system. As part of the discussion of possible sanctions against Russia in the Council of Foreign Ministers of the European Union, the German Foreign Ministry removed this issue from consideration.

"Although gas and oil are seen as a possible lever, an EU diplomat said the opposition, led by Germany, appears to have withdrawn a proposal to separate Moscow from the SWIFT global payment system from the discussion," writes Euractiv , citing a diplomat in the EU. .

On 24 January in Brussels, EU foreign ministers discussed the security situation in Europe and the new sanctions against Russia. During the discussion, the issue of Russia's disconnection from SWIFT was ruled out by German Foreign Minister Annalena Burbock.

Furthermore, according to sources, the German government said it "will not participate in the arms speculation" and once again rejected Ukraine's request for military assistance.........................

What do Golem Joe Biden now????

" Has anyone, as of yet, stopped the inevitable? "



Another SELF-BURNING , may be an EVANGELIST, CALVINIST, DOHME, CRIPTO-JEW, FRANKIST, SABBATHIAN, GESUIT, BUDDIST, ISLAMIC, ecc.............

My FRIEND:

do not exist the INEVITABLE, exist just DUMMIES like you ...........

Not that anyone is interested, but I change my avatar. I have never done war stuff. It's an inverted image, with colours changed of a Polish Pirat glider, I used to fly, when I went solo, a long time ago in England

I do like SOTT, but I have to admit, some of your avatars here are completely brilliant, oh, and your links too, and articles, but I mainly read blogs like this for the comments.

"Notable in the last 24 hours has been the move to have British, French and German talks with Moscow without the Americans present"

I sincerely hope that is true, because Russia, is Europe's Natural Trading Partner. They have got the Gas. I have met quite a few Russians, mainly at foreign destinations, and they seem perfectly normal, generous, and you can have a nice conversation with them, like you are talking to Scousers. I am not saying the Americans I have met, are that different. They are very friendly, some are highly intelligent, but most of them coat their words with bullshit, whilst Russians and Scousers (and people from Oldham), just say what we think.

The Novichok / Salisbury stuff was a complete Fabricated story, before it even started. I posted on Craig Murray's blog, at the time it was happening - All the photographers, firemen and support crew, were already there, before it started.. Craig Murray, read what I wrote, and added a lot more the following day. He deleted my post and banned me. Good Man. It was him that went to jail. Not me. Well of course he has contacts in The British Establishment. He used to work there.

I am convinced that most of these media stories are co ordinated.

The CIA tell MI6 (or the other way) - we are doing our next production.

They talk to each other, and ask - Have you asked The Russians?

Well what do think? or in some cases The Iranians.

Is it O.K. if we do a photo shoot on a boat, coming very close to Iranian Seatime Border (Ask Craig Murray about that - he used to draw them from his desk in The Foreign Office in Whitehall, which my mate says, is getting short of desk space, cos of all the Party People Carrie has invited.

I think the Russia / Ukrainian thing is total bollocks too.

But something really horrible has happened over the last 2 years, to the vast majority of the human race.

I am not going to blame Boris, and I am not going to blame the Queen. The Queen, and her Mother, and even Princess Diana, portrayed Great Morality and a Feel Good Factor

Prince Philip, and Prince Charles have no morals, no sense, no charisma, no humanity.

They are The Virus.

They are trying to kill us all, and are having some success.

I think the Booster jab, finally got my Ex, which is a bit sad, cos she campaigned for years for WASPI. To get her pension 6 years late, last year, and then be jabbed to death, is what it is like for a large number of women about my age.

Prince Charles is Not Fit For Purpose.

In Fact None of Them Are.

Personally, I think nothing much if anything will happen in the Ukraine, and there is a fair chance, I may meet some of these Russians again at Cyprus Rocks 2022 in October.

Why is it so hard, for Europeans to Tell the Americans to F@ck Off?

Most of them are full of sh1t, and don't even know where England is.

Tony

I thought of a completely different angle.

I've been absolutely stunned by the level of vitriol directed toward Russia by the U.S. for many years. The U.S. has constantly antagonized Russia for no reason nor any direct purpose visible to the world citizen. The U.S. has economically/financially sanctioned Russian personnel and Russia via contrived, labored reasoning. Paul Craig Roberts Jan. 18 [Link] column:

The only reason not to defuse a dangerous situation by giving a security guarantee to Russia is that the West has hostile intentions toward Russia. These hostile intentions are a manifestation of insanity.

Psychopathy is another name for insanity.

What if? (For reports are difficult to untangle and dicipher.) Suppose you wanted to make a stand against The Banking Cartel? Although Russia has a central bank and is frequently listed as a Rothschild-controlled central bank, "Putin Announces Total Independence from 'Rothschild-Controlled' US Dollar," [Link] Mar. 2, 2021. [Bold is mine.]

"Addressing the Russian Parliament following his inauguration, Vladimir Putin said that stating [sic] 'total independence' from the worldwide banking cartel and Rothschild global money providing organizations would be the 'biggest gift' he could provide to future generations.

'We used to behave naïvely, but now we see that the WTO [the World Trade Organization] rules are all too often broken, the restrictions are imposed for political reasons, which they call sanctions. Plus more and more of them are imposed to secure its favorite competitive advantages,' Putin said....

'They said we could not do it, they said we would be destroyed,' Putin told personnel and senior associates at an event last year.

'Our future generations will be born without Rothschild chains around their wrists and ankles.... This is the best present we can provide.'

Russian Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin likewise spoke at the occasion and applauded Putin’s accomplishment in driving the Rothschilds out of the country

'They do not go quickly,' Kudrin stated.

'But we have shown it is possible.'

'The greatest tradition that can be passed on to your kids and grandchildren is not cash or other material things built up in life, however, rather a tradition of liberty from enslavement.' Putin declares Russia to be finally free from the ‘icy grip’ of Lord Jacob Rothschild."

Perhaps the real reason behind the "Ukrainian conflict," as behind all conflicts worldwide, involves the Banksters who want full financial control of a country's banking system or they levy war to destabilize, weaken, and militarily conquer the region.

Intuitive conclusion: the "Financial Sector" of The 13 Families (They designate sectors to deal with politics, religion, finances, etc. according to the "Hidden Hand" dialogue published years ago.) had projected control in all countries by now. They don't have that control. They're behind schedule.

In fact, some, like Syria (no central bank), have been completely intractable because of the chaotic nature of Turkey-Kurd-U.S.-Israel-terrorist mercenaries vs Syria-Iran (no central bank)-Hezbollah-Russia. Makes sense that they would strip Syria of her oil in a brilliant display of spite and impatience. Syria's oil reserves are among the richest in the region = lucrative = $$$$. U.S.-sanctioned companies pull the oil and export through Iraq with U.S. military acting as protection. Which is probably why the U.S. will not leave Iraq. Iraq acts as a conduit for plundered assets which go directly to...? You guessed it. BlackRock and Vanguard.

The manufacturing of the "Ukraine Crisis" exists only as another attempt to topple the current Russian .gov and extend Bankster Hegemony. Once the banking sector is controlled worldwide, everything falls into place.

F-35C Lightning II has landing mishap on USS Carl Vinson24 January 2022 From U.S. Pacific Fleet Public Affairs [Link]

The unexpected raid by Russian and Syrian fighters on the Golan Heights has become a cause for panic for Israel. Against the background of the fact that Russia still does not recognize the transfer of the Golan Heights under the control of the Israeli army and in response to the uncontrolled attacks of the Israeli air force on Syria, it became known that a large group of Su -35, Su- 34 and MiG-29 completed a raid on the Golan Heights. Israel is known to have activated its air defense systems, but only after the fighter jets were able to get close to the attack range. At the same time, the IDF did not dare to attack Syrian MiG-29 fighters due to the risk of shooting down Russian aircraft.

At the moment, it is known that the flight was scheduled. At the same time, Russian and Syrian pilots are alleged to have carried out attacks not only against ground targets, but also against air targets, probably having trained to attack Israeli fighters in the event of repeated cases of IDF aggression against the Arab Republic, which, of course, will take place. Russian nuclear submarines are already in service off the US coast.

Against the backdrop of the clearly aggressive US attitude towards Russia, information has emerged that at least two Russian nuclear submarines carrying nuclear weapons could be located off the coast of the United States. According to some reports, one of the Russian submarines is located near the east coast of the United States, while the second is located off the west coast of the United States, and presumably another Russian submarine may be in Arctic waters.

The situation in relations between the US and Russia is extremely tense. At the same time, despite Russia's attempts to solve the problem through diplomacy, the United States not only evades it by adopting increasingly aggressive measures, but also threatens Russia by relocating its troops to Eastern Europe and to Russia's borders. This is probably why Russian nuclear submarines are in service off the coast of the United States, preparing to respond immediately to any provocation from Washington.

"20 warships, boats and support vessels of the Baltic fleet have left their permanent bases and entered designated areas of the Baltic Sea to carry out tasks as part of planned combat training activities," reports the district press service western military.

In response to NATO provocations, Russia has sent 20 warships into the Baltic Sea, most of which are tactically armed and capable of carrying out thorough attacks on key NATO military bases in Europe within minutes. At the moment, a group of more than 20 Russian warships are in the waters of the Baltic Sea, however, in all likelihood, in the near future, Russian warships will begin to show the West their willingness to go to a confrontation if NATO will not stop the provocations against Russia.

It is known that Russian warships will practically carry out combat missions, including tactics for the destruction of surface, underwater and air targets. Furthermore, it is truly remarkable that both electronic fire and combat are involved. This indicates the fact that the Russian side is ready to demonstrate a position of strength to the West.

Shortly before, several NATO countries decided to send their warships to the Baltic Sea to create tension along the Russian borders, however, it is obvious that the Russian fleet that has entered the exercises will force the Alliance to withdraw.

Russia could decide within a week to deploy nuclear weapons in Latin America.

Russia is ready to make the decision to deploy its nuclear weapons, missiles, military bases and infrastructure in Latin American countries after the United States and NATO have given an official written response to Russia's demands for security guarantees. Given the sabotaged US-NATO talks on January 12-14, the official response is likely to include a refusal to provide security guarantees to the Russian side.

At the moment it is known that Russia has already held preliminary negotiations with Venezuela and Cuba on the possible deployment of Russian military infrastructure on the territory of these states. This is demonstrated by the fact that Caracas has already confirmed its willingness to provide Russia with the necessary military-technical support in the event of an official request.

Given the clear threat to national security and Russia's sovereignty, the decision to deploy Russian military bases in Venezuela and Cuba could be made within a single week. At the same time, initially, it will probably be about the transfer of Russian strategic bombers to these countries.

US plans to use the Ukraine against Russia is discussed on page 46 of ‘The Grand Chessboard’ by Zbigniew Brzezinski (1997).

This is preplanned aggression against Russia by the US State Department.

If Blinken Doesn’t Want a Russian Invasion of Ukraine Why Is He Provoking One

Paul Craig Roberts

Some time ago I wrote about the falsification by historians of World War I. Now we are watching the falsification of history in Ukraine. What is essentially a US invasion of Ukraine is called a Russian invasion, and the conflict that Washington is provoking is being blamed on Russia.My generation associated dystopias, such as George Orwell’s 1984 , with the Soviet Union, a country in which explanations were controlled and criticism of Stalin would land a person in the Gulag.We thought of the United States and our life in America much differently.

But with the passage of time the difference between life in the Soviet Union in the 20th century and life in the Western world today is disappearing.Today, the journalist Julian Assange is undergoing the same kind of state terror and torture as any Soviet dissident, if not worse. It was a mistake for my generation to associate Orwell’s Memory Hole and falsified history only with the Soviet Union. Falsified history was all around us. We just didn’t know enough to spot it.

The Western media is as controlled as the Soviet media was, with print, TV, and public radio serving as a propaganda ministry for government and the interest groups that control government. Social media, such as Facebook, youtube, and Twitter are systematically denying their platforms to those who express views not supportive of the ruling order and its agendas.It has turned out to be easy to get rid of the First Amendment guarantee of free speech as the media have neither the ability nor the intention of exercising it.

What living and learning has taught me is that history tends to always be falsified, and historians who insist on the truth suffer for it. It has been established that many of the ancient historians are unreliable, because they were “court historians” who sought material benefit by writing to please a ruler.In my time many an historian has written for income from book sales by enthralling the public with tales of glorious victories over demonized enemies that justified all the sons, grandsons, brothers, fathers, uncles, husbands, friends, and cousins who were sacrificed for the sake of capitalist armaments profits.No publisher wanted a truthful account that no one would buy because of the stark portrayal of the pointlessness of the deaths of loved ones. Everyone, or almost so, wants to think that their loss was for a noble cause and was “worth it.”With few exceptions, English speaking historians have put the blame for both world wars on Germany. This is false history.The first real historian of World War I, or what was called at the time the Great War or the World War, was Harry Elmer Barnes. Barnes was Professor of Historical Sociology at Smith College and the William Bayard Cutting Fellow in History at Columbia University. His book, The Genesis of the World War , was published in 1926 by Alfred A. Knopf in New York.Instead of covering up, as expected, the allied crimes and treachery against Germany, Barnes told the truth. The German Kaiser, a relative of the British and Russian royal families, was known throughout the world as a peacemaker, praised by the New York Times for that role.It is a known and indisputable fact that the German government acted for peace until Germany, the last power to mobilize, had to mobilize or be overrun by Russia and France, who were allied with the British against Germany.Never before in history has the very last power to mobilize been blamed for starting a war. But facts never get in the way of court historians.The genesis of the war was the desire for Constantinople on the part of two of the Russian Tsar’s ministers, and the French president’s desire to regain Alsace-Lorraine, territory lost to Germany in the 1870 Franco-Prussian war.These schemers used Austria’s response to the assassination of the Austrian archduke in Serbia, which they likely orchestrated, to declare war as Germany was the protector of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire.American president Woodrow Wilson secured an armistice to the World War, which had senselessly destroyed millions of lives, by promising Germany that if she agreed to an armistice, there would be no territorial losses for Germany and no reparations. When Germany agreed to the armistice, it was Germany that occupied territories of the opposing camp. There were no foreign troops on German territory.As soon as Germany disengaged, the British put into effect a food blockade that forced starving Germans to submit to the exploitative Versailles Treaty that violated every promise that President Wilson had made.Some intelligent people, including the most famous economist of the 20th century, John Maynard Keynes, said that the Versailles Treaty, an exercise in coverup for who caused the war, guaranteed a future war. And Keynes, not the grasping corrupt establishment, was right. Hitler originated in Germany’s gratuitous humiliation, and his political party’s efforts to put a disassembled Germany back together resulted in WW II.For his truth-telling efforts, Harry Elmer Barnes was declared by the court historians to be a German agent paid to write a false history. As Barnes’ voice was greatly outnumbered by the court historians making money and enjoying university appointments by telling lies, the history of the Great War remained, for most, falsified throughout the 20th century.Barnes was vindicated in 2014 when Christopher Clark at Cambridge University published The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914 .

Clark added to Barnes’ evidence that the Great War resulted from a plot by two Russian government ministers and the president of France to steal coveted territory from Turkey and Germany. The facts and the documentation stand complete.But one hundred years after the war who is around to care?

All the people who died in the war as well as their bereaved families who suffered from the plot of three evil men are dead and gone.

The consciousness of the world has already been distorted by a century of false history, a false history that set up Germany for blame again, this time for World War II. Now in our present time, we are watching liars set up World War III with false reports about Russia. World War III is likely to be a terminal war for humanity. For the demise of the human race and life on the planet we can thank liars.Consider the irresponsible US Secretary of State Antony Blinken. He is in the news warning US embassy staff in Kiev, Ukraine, that Russian troops and tanks could be pouring over the Ukraine border at any moment. The asseertion that Russia is going to invade Ukraine has been a mainstay of US propaganda for some time.If Blinken really believes this, why did the US not forestall the expected invasion by giving Russia the security protection she needs by agreeing to no further expansion of NATO? Why, instead, did Blinken keep the prospect of Ukraine’s membership in NATO open and send more arms and more US military personal to train Ukrainian troops in the use of the American weapons? Blinken understands very well that no amount of weapons in Ukrainian hands could stop a Russian invasion.It seems that Blinken wants conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Why? Several reasons become apparent once the question is asked. It makes the Russian Threat real and solidifies Washington’s hold on Europe. It calls forth more budget and power for the US military/security complex, and it improves Biden’s faltering chances in the elections.Biden is damaged goods. He often seems to not really be there. He has allowed into America many illegal aliens and sent them into red states. He has angered many with his vaccine mandates, with his prosecutions of several hundred Trump supporters as “insurrectionists,” and he has normalized sexual perversion by appointing them to high office. These and other ideological moves have annoyed many Americans who are ready to show their disapproval at the voting booth.A war rescues the Democrats. Here come the Russians. They won’t stop with Ukraine, and so on. People rally around the president in war time. This is a plausible reason that Washington turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to Russia’s security concern and is instead worsening Russia’s concern by pouring arms into Ukraine and planning joint military exercises with the Ukrainian army.We are once again watching a war being set up for selfish reasons.

[Link]

Let's back in the History:

The truth is that Poland, which had long been under Russian rule, was re-established as an independent state from Germany and Austria in 1916. In thanks for this generous act, regular units of the Polish army joined the armed bands of Korfanty and began to seize German provinces such as Upper Silesia and West Prussia.

In response to German electoral victories in every province where a plebiscite was held, they began a period of terror and, thanks to French support, Poland was allowed to hold these German provinces.

With the Treaty of Versailles, Poland was given a "corridor" to the Baltic Sea, along with large areas of West Prussica that were populated by Germans. This "corridor" completely separated East Prussia from the Reich, making trade and communications difficult or impossible.

During the Allied peace treaty talks, Lloyd Gorge, British Prime Minister at the time of the First World War, pointed to this place on the map and predicted: "this is where the next world war will begin"

Unlike Western leaders, Hitler had realistically assessed the dangers posed by the Bolshevik Soviet Union. He realized that Germany would not be able to resist the Soviet Union without an alliance with Poland. For this reason he signed a non-aggression pact with Poland in 1934.

President Pilsudski, in turn, realized that he could not carry out hostilities simultaneously against his two powerful neighbors, Germany and the Soviet Union. In addition to taking over the German provinces, Poland had got its hands on the Belarusian and Ukrainian provinces after the Russian empire weakened following the First World War.

The present eastern border of Poland, which the Soviet Union established in 1939, corresponds to the ethnic border. With its wars of aggression, Poland had crossed this line by making the Soviet Union its enemy.

The German minority was deprived of civil rights in the 1920s, and in the 1930s it was subjected to acts of terror, murder and rape, especially in the months leading up to September 1939.

Under the non-aggression pact, German newspapers were not allowed to talk about the Polish atrocities on German minorities, which led to a million Germans emigrating. Another million remained behind in German provinces which the Poles had taken over.

A folk song about the Poles, which originated among the defense fighting units in Upper Silesia, was rewritten in the collections of National Socialist songs implying that the struggle was not against the "Pjorunje" but rather against the "Bolschewikes".

Hitler seriously wanted an agreement with Poland.

Until April 1939, National Socialist propaganda continued to mention the names of the deceased President Pilsudski and Foreign Minister Beck among the "great statesmen of Europe".

In contrast to his leaders, who along with their friends and relatives had owned vast landholdings in the now-occupied Polish provinces, Hitler did not insist on re-establishing the 1914 border. Instead, he offered the considerable concession to limit German requests to a plebiscite. only in West Prussia and nowhere else.

He proposed that in the event of a plebiscite in favor of Germany, the city and the port of Gdingen remain Polish territory, together with an extra-territorial communication route extending from Poland to the port via West Prussia.

In the event of a plebiscite in favor of Poland, Germany would be allowed to build an extra-territorial communication route from Pomerania to East Prussia in order to eliminate tedious border controls on both sides.

Furthermore, Danzig, which was 98% German and under the mandate of the League of Nations, would be allowed to be part of the Reich, maintaining the preference expressed by the population of the city itself.

Both publicly and privately, Hitler asserted that this would be Germany's last territorial request, thus eliminating the crime perpetrated at Versailles.

Although his proposal was decidedly moderate, the Poles reacted stubbornly, supported in their hard line by Great Britain. For 300 years England pursued a policy of "balance of power" allying itself with the second most powerful nation, against the strongest opponent. This policy allowed England to cover its back while building a world empire. In accordance with this plan, England in 1935 reached a maritime agreement with Germany which limited the German fleet to one third of the British one (at that time France was militarily stronger than Germany).

Hitler wanted to reassure England that a naval rearmament would never happen again. Emperor William initiated it in his time and led to the declaration of war by Great Britain in 1914.

By 1938 Germany had become stronger than France and, wanting England to maintain its "balance of power" strategy, it again adopted an anti-German policy.

This led the British government to protest Austria’s annexation to the Reich, although 99% of Austrians voted in favor of unification in the plebiscite.

Britain has never recognized the right of self-determination of other nations, both in India (where those who were in favor of independence were shot) and in Ireland (where almost the entire population was annihilated for not agreeing to submit. to the English domain).

It is a mistake to argue that the entry of German troops into Czechoslovakia on March 15, 1939 brought about a change in British policy towards the Reich.

The following must be said about Czechoslovakia: in this crudely put together country, a minority of Czechs ruled three million Germans, as well as Slovaks, Ruthenians, Poles and Hungarians. All these ethnic groups wanted to join their respective nations but the Czechs brutally prevented them from doing so. The reason for this was that under the Treaty of Versailles France could pursue a policy of accretion to Germany's neighbors, so it could count on strong allies in the next war against the Germans.

After Austria was reunited with the Reich, the problem arose of annexing the millions of Germans who lived under Czech rule.

Hitler proposed self-determination but the Czechs responded by escalating the repression.

They went to great lengths to provoke Hitler, including a general mobilization on May 21, 1938 to deal with an alleged and imminent attack by Germany, which turned out to be a pretty and good invention. As there was no attack, the Czech press with the French and English triumphantly announced that their firm military measures had dissuaded Hitler from the invasion, which caused the Reich to lose prestige.

The American ambassador in Paris clearly recognized the bellicose nature of the Czech mobilization and called it, in a report to President Roosevelt, a "provocation for another war in Europe".

In order to assess the situation, the British government sent Sir Runciman to the Sudetenland region. In his report on September 16, 1938, he wrote: “I have great sympathy for the cause of the Germans in the Sudetenland. It is difficult to be ruled by a foreign nation and my impression is that the Czechoslovakian government towards the Sudetenland demonstrates such a lack of tact and understanding, together with intolerance and discrimination, that dissension among the German population must inevitably lead to indignation and rebellion".

On the basis of this, the British government urged the Czechs to grant a plebiscite in the Sudetenland region. The French government, which had a mutual assistance treaty with Czechoslovakia, did the same thing, as France was unwilling to go to war with Germany over the Sudetenland. The Czech government rejected the suggestion of a plebiscite because it would serve as a precedent for other ethnic minorities. However, he agreed to cede the Sudeten provinces without a plebiscite as these regions, bordering the Reich, were almost entirely populated by Germans.

This is how the Munich Pact was born.

It was not the result of Hitler's threats and extortion but rather of an agreement between all parties that enshrined that Sudeten Germans legitimately belonged to the Reich.

It is important to note that both England and Germany agreed to secure Czechoslovakia's borders as soon as its other problems with other minorities were resolved.

Neither Hitler nor anyone else guaranteed national borders as Czechoslovakia never solved the problems of its minorities.

In March 1939, both the Slovaks and the Ruthenians declared independence; whereupon the Poles invaded Czechoslovakia and occupied the Olsa region which was populated by Poles.

The Hungarians did the same, occupying the border areas that were populated by Hungarians.

As Czechoslovakia ceased to exist, its president Hacha flew to Berlin on March 15, 1939 and placed what was left of his country under the protection of the Reich. He feared that Poland and Hungary would follow the Czech example and divide the Czech regions among themselves.

The Reich then formed the Protectorate of Bohemia and Maeren, which guaranteed an exclusively Czech administration except in the military and foreign policy fields.

Hitler was concerned about the threats to German cities and industrial areas that came from Czech air bases. As it felt betrayed by the Sudeten agreement and by the Western powers, Czechoslovakia adopted close relations with the Soviet Union which had already stationed 300 aircraft in the Czech regions.

Hitler, who knew that a war with the Soviet Union was inevitable, could not allow the Czech provinces to serve as a support area and "aircraft carrier" for the Soviet Union.

Hacha remained in office and attended the parade on April 20, 1939 as a guest of the Reich, standing next to Hitler. It is evident that Hitler did not violate the Munich Pact.

When Prime Minister Chamberlain was questioned in the Lower House about the entry of German troops into Prague on March 15, 1939, he said:

“In our opinion, the situation has changed significantly since the Slovak parliament declared its independence. This explanation produced the effect that the state, whose borders we intended to guarantee, collapsed internally and ceased to exist. Based on this, the situation that the honorable Secretary of the Colonies described and which he always considered as temporary, has now ceased to exist. "

Only two days later, however, in stark contrast to what was explained to the British Lower House, Chamberlain condemned "the German invasion" in his speech in Birmingham on March 17, 1939; and on March 31, 1939, he signed an agreement with the Polish government in which Great Britain promised its support in the event of war. He promised this not only in case Poland was attacked, but also if Poland started a war, for example because of its alleged "rights" to Gdansk.

Both things contradicted in word and spirit with Chamberlain's written message which he held in his hand upon his return from Munich, to which he proudly referred and for which he was enthusiastically applauded by the crowd. At that time he announced "Peace in our age".

In this announcement Hitler and Chamberlain stipulated that any question concerning their common interests would be dealt with in mutual consultations.

So how did England encourage Poland to go to war with Germany?

After March 15, 1939, Roosevelt exerted strong pressure on the British government to "finally exercise opposition" against "Nazi tyranny", otherwise he would have applied methods of coercion against Britain. It is impossible to determine exactly what threats he made, as his correspondence is not yet available to historians.

Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal wrote in his diary that US Ambassador Joseph Kennedy pointed out that Chamberlain was convinced that America and the Jews were forcing Britain to go to war. This, however, is only part of the story.

Senior British German-phobic diplomat Vansittart and Romanian ambassador Tileda played an important role. Immediately after German troops entered Czech territory, Tileda announced that during the German-Romanian economic negotiations Germany had threatened to invade Romania if it was not allowed to extract Romanian oil.

This was an absurd statement, as Germany and Romania had no common border, between them there was a distance of 400 kilometers.

The British believed it, however, and London, Paris and New York newspapers spread false news about a threat of a German attack.

Indeed, German-Romanian trade relations were cordial. Nobody made threats of any kind. It could be that Tileda's false claims about German threats were inspired by Romania's need for British economic assistance and that Romania was desperately trying to get England to give it to him. It could be that Tileda had been bribed by the anti-German Vansittart, who was determined to come to an understanding between Tileda and Chamberlain.

In any event, these false claims greatly alarmed the financial City of London. The City had no economic interests in Poland or the Czech state, but had interests in Romania where most of the oil wells were in the hands of English owners. Such claims led British business circles to take an anti-German road.

Not to be underestimated is the fact that Chamberlain was neither a pacifier nor a Germanophile, as his biographer carefully points out. He simply realized that a war against Germany could not be won in 1939. The British regular army was relatively small, it had only recently introduced conscription and its air force was inferior to the Luftwaffe.

As Hitler understood perfectly well, Chamberlain was buying time so that he could replace Germany as the main power on the continent, as soon as Britain, which had enormously increased its weapons program, had adequately trained men and related means. What Chamberlain hoped in his heart was a political upheaval in Germany due to the declaration of war. He came to this hope because numerous opponents of Hitler, including the secretary of the German ambassador in London Kordt, the priest Goerdeler, the head of the German military counter-intelligence Canaris, the secretary of state Weizsaecker (number two after the German foreign minister) and Army General Beck, had joined the opposition and established contacts with the British government.

At first, due to the universal principle "right or wrong, my country comes first", the British believed that contact with the German opposition was a trick to make them take false steps. On the basis of very precise details that were revealed to them, they came to believe in the honesty and correctness of the data provided by the Hitlerite opposition.

For example: Hitler was surprised by the sudden mobilization of the British fleet, the excavation of air shelters and gas mask exercises in London in the summer of 1939.

All of this came in response to a report by opposition individuals that Hitler planned a surprise attack with over a thousand bombers.

British journalist John Colvin, in search of a scoop, had close ties to the British secret service and met with opposition circles that included high-ranking officials. These officials told him that the British agreement on the Sudeten crisis had denied them the possibility of overthrowing Hitler and the National Socialist regime in a coup.

They suggested that Britain take a much tougher line with Germany, including a declaration of war. They believed that this would make Hitler so unpopular in Germany that the generals would be able to overthrow him.

On March 29, 1939, before the Anglo-Polish Pact, Colvin met Chamberlain on the advice of Churchill. He told him that there was a good chance that German generals Beck and von Witzleben, H. von Bismarck and Major von Kleist-Schmenzien would revolt and stop Hitler. Chamberlain then asked if it would be an advantage for these people if England would give a guarantee to the Poles and Colvin replied: "yes, it would help."

The guarantee was given.

Churchill, who had said that his life's mission was to bring another Thirty Years' War against Germany, when he met Colvin again after the war, jovially announced: he gave war! ”Chamberlain's diary also gives evidence that the German opposition played a decisive role in the British declaration of war. On September 3, 1939, he wrote that he did not believe that England could win the war and was hoping for a revolt in Germany. On September 10, 1939, he wrote to his sister: "what I hope for is not a military victory but rather a failure of the German national front." Because the British guarantee of March 31, 1939 gave Poland carte blanche in its negotiations with Germany, Poland intensified the persecutions against the German minority. Kidnappings were the order of the day, speaking German in public was forbidden, German associations and newspapers were suppressed, the German consul in Krakow was assassinated, etc ... It is irrelevant whether it was the Poles or the Germans attacking the Gleiwitz radio station; anyone who reads the White Paper of the German-Polish War will find endless and unchallenged murders and attacks committed by Poles in the weeks and months prior to September 1, 1939.For example: citizens of German origin who attempted to leave Poland were killed and German commercial planes flying between Pomerania and East Prussia were targeted by Polish anti-aircraft artillery. Such provocations could only be intentional. In June 1939, Pilsudski's successor, Marshal Rydz-Smigly, smugly addressed the Polish military officers saying: "Poland wants war with Germany and Germany will not be able to avoid war even if he wanted to ". He probably pictured himself on a white horse at the head of victorious Polish troops marching through the Brandenburg Gate. The German counterintelligence was able to crack the Polish secret code and so the Germans learned that Warsaw had given instructions to the Polish ambassador Lipski, that under no circumstances should he intervene or offer concessions to Germany. Furthermore, the German opposition informed Roosevelt that Germany was planning an attack on Poland. It also informed the Polish ambassador, the Polish government and the French government. None of them were worried. They were confident that in the event of war they would penetrate deep into Germany because internal unrest would break out, so the United States, England, France and Poland trusted in the German opposition's promises to carry out a coup if Hitler did. invaded Poland and the Western powers had declared war on Germany. This is surprising considering the fact that, as several inquiries have shown, 90% of the Germans supported Hitler. Germany's enemies, as well as its internal opposition, must have known that the opposition had no consensus among the German people. Despite everything they continued to urge Poland and Great Britain to enter the war. Even on 20 July 1944, despite the heavy losses suffered by Germany in the war, the members of the opposition still did not have enough strength to declare themselves opponents of Hitler. On the contrary, they prepared an explanation to be given following Hitler's anticipated death: that the SS had carried out a coup and that the Wehrmacht was now taking power. current system as "heroes"! The fact that Chamberlain, knowing of the desire for war of the Poles, the French and the Americans, gave the green light to the Polish war policies and did not urge Poland to accept the moderate German demands, can only be explained with the fact that he too wanted war on 1 September 1939.

Another sign was the fact that in England the evening edition of the Daily Mail newspaper of August 31, 1939 was seized. The edition reported the history of the German proposals concerning the Polish corridor and the response given by Poland, which was the general mobilization. The newspaper was forced to publish a different evening edition.

English Navy Minister Cooper, who was pro-war, was concerned when he learned of the German proposal, which he considered moderate and reasonable. He telephoned the Daily Telegraph asking that the German proposal be presented as unfavorably as possible. The German ambassador in Berlin did everything to keep the moderation of the German proposal a secret as long as possible.

Regime media occasionally admit that Hitler had not planned a world war on September 1, 1939. Numerous witnesses reported that Hitler was shocked to receive the British and French declaration of war. When it comes to this, however, it is implied that he was cheating like he had done it before, but this time he had gone wrong.

In this regard it must be said that Hitler carefully assessed public sentiment in England and France. Many French people were not thrilled with the prospect of "dying for Gdansk". “Mourir pour Danzig” was precisely the phrase on everyone's lips. What Hitler did not suspect, as Germans traditionally hold sworn oaths sacred, was that influential figures in the military, foreign minister and news agencies were conspiring with the enemy to carry out "regime change".

These individuals likely believed the enemy propaganda that it aimed to replace Hitler rather than annihilate Germany.

As for the Russian-Soviet war, there is no doubt - in the light of the revelations of Russian secret agent Suvorov - that what the Germans suspected in 1941 was based on facts: the Reich threw up the Russian offensive which, like today we know, it was scheduled for July 6, 1941. This explains why millions of Soviet soldiers were quickly surrounded and taken prisoner. They should have moved from hidden positions towards the border before unleashing the attack. This also explains why huge quantities of artillery pieces and mountains of ammunition were collected at the border along with millions of leather boots, detailed maps of the Red Army's targets in Germany and so on.

When the regime media blather about "the surprise attack on an unsuspecting Soviet Union in 1941" it was nothing more than a gigantic lie.

Starting the Anglo-German War in September 1939, which he so ardently desired, Roosevelt violated the directives inherent to neutral nations countless times. Already in 1939 he was spying on German merchant ships with American cruisers, who called on British cruisers to sink them. He also froze German assets, supplied the British with war material on credit, "leased" them 50 destroyers, and had British convoys escorted by American warships.

Hitler, who was determined not to provoke the United States, did not respond to any of these provocations. He even forbade German submarines to defend themselves with torpedoes in case they were attacked by American destroyers, remembering Washington's pretext for entering the First World War in 1917.

The Mayan calendar keyed on the motions of Venus. Their take was that wars break out when Venus stands direct to end its retrograde period. Venus stands direct on January 28 ending its current retrograde period that started on December 18. The tension is nearly ramped up to maximum. If no war is initiated by January 29, we're safe for another retrograde cycle of 18 months.

This nonsense over Ukraine is a key element in distracting the population of the world whilst the powers that be get away with murder.

If ever a example was needed, look no further than that Puppet Johnson. He writing off Billions of debt on loans ??????

Getting away with breaking the law.

He is responsible for the presentation of misinformation that's resulted in mass deaths and unforgivable hardships.

And now is going to War with Russia whilst the country's in a mess and the prices of everything skyrocket.

There all as thick as thieves looking to rob humanity of its last breath.

us and russia IS trying to destroy eachother these days.

i hope they both will fail.

[Link]

*Yawn*

Why did I feel sleepy while reading this?

I am reminded of those desert agave plants, known as "100-year cacti" which grow for 100 years, then put out a magnificent flower spike up to 30 feet tall, with many thousands of flowers, and then the plant dies.

Such, perhaps, will be the fate of the human race. We have existed for hundreds of thousands of years, and have now reached a flowering of civilization which is a marvel to behold. Now, we have genetically engineered organisms which are going to kill half of us, and are about to engage in fratricidal war which will kill the rest.

Perhaps, these end times are one last magnificent flowering, like the 100-year cactus which develops for a century, puts on a breathtakingly beautiful display, then dies.

Lemuel Gulliver I've got cactus 🌵🌵🌵🌵🌵🌵 on the lounge and kitchen windowsills, they were very small when we first bought them, giant spikey things now that are well settled in their respective locations.

You've instilled a notion now 🤔 that said cactus talk amongst each other when my partner and I have retired to bed 😴 😴

Their topic of conversation, time ⏰

They'll probably happily acknowledge that time is plentiful for them but that bloke who looks after us, 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 and the rest of them

No wonder they all look so smug when I open the curtains in a morning

Hmm 🤔 2 for the price of 1

I swear on the news when they showed the satellite photos of the Russian tanks and trucks, it looked like they were parked up to form the words "LET’S GO BRANDON"

But that wouldn’t be Putin’s style, probably my imagination playing tricks.

AI DRONES PROGRAMMED TO KILL SPECIFIC TARGETS DO EXIST TODAY-AN THEY WANT FACIAL RECOGNITION FROM US [Link]

The ailing West comes out of the needle of hegemony, burning with hatred for Russia.

The media space is full of numerous messages on the theme of the mythical "Russian aggression". It seems that every publication, politician, social activist or journalist more or less "capable" is trying to have the time to speak.

The flow of fakes is so powerful that not everyone can separate the wheat from the chaff.

Only one thing saves: the knowledge of history and the understanding of the essence of geopolitical processes in the modern world. Is that what we have now?

The collective West is threatening Russia, trying to put pressure on it, justifying itself with imaginary concern for the walking "square".

German political scientist Alexander Rahr explains this by saying that civilians want to make our country seem weak.

"In reality, Western Russophobes don't have a plan and generally don't know how to deal with Russia."

American rhetoric, like European rhetoric, pursues a very specific goal: to inspire its citizens that the West is superior to the Russians in terms of morality, in the economic and financial sphere. Silence on military power!

The West is trying to show us a place in a world that has succumbed to the United States and Moscow responds with a display of "military muscle".

We are also threatened with disconnection from SWIFT.

The last one is a laugh. Washington can only dream of it. Russia has its own system - SPFS , so the threats of the Americans are on our side.

It will only be worse for the EU and the states.

First, the financial markets will be destabilized and it is unclear for how long. And secondly, the West will be on the run when it contributes to the development of an alternative payment infrastructure.

Domination in this situation is not even worth dreaming of.

I am glad that in Moscow they have finally stopped tolerating the antics of the Russophobic idiots, having clearly outlined their position in relation to the Alliance itself.

NATO expansion east is not to our liking. This is a real threat that no one will ignore. Stoltenberg and other dummies can sing whatever they want, but we shouldn't even dream that the Kremlin agrees to play by the rules that are imposed on us.

Russia has its own vision of the structure of international life and will not allow EU states and countries to impose their rules on us.

By the way, in this regard, the position of the Belarusian leader pleases.

Alexander Lukashenko openly stated that aggression is growing in the world, the struggle for resources and the redistribution of sales markets has intensified. He warned that if Belarus or Russia were attacked, our countries would unite to crush the enemy.

We don't want war, but the answer will be given.

I would add - not adequate, but superior.

The enemy must be eliminated so that he cannot raise his head. Otherwise with the West it is impossible. Those are still creatures.

I agree with former Ogonyok editor-in-chief Vitaly Korotich , who managed to live in the United States for ten years:

"We are talking about the fact that today the Americans have raised a question that I would formulate as the elimination of Russia from humanity in general."

The Americans are intentionally fomenting hysteria by convincing the world community that Russia will finally invade Ukraine.

Like, look how many military units she has!

Only now Russian troops do not cross state borders and plans for invasion are not appreciated. As for "squeezing out", Korotich recalled that they are trying to remove Russia from international organizations and ban Europe from trading with us.

Only in Washington they do not know how to reverse all this in order not to go to war with Russia. They don't even need a local conflict.

It's just that the US is now simply collapsing as a drug addict. They are just starting to come out of the needle of hegemony, resisting at the same time, shocked at the sight of Russia's growing power.

The Russians dared to beat the crown from America, dispelling the myth of the greatness of the collective West.

The world saw instead of the navel of the Earth only an overseas navel.

The events in Syria, Ukraine, and other states where Americans are trying to play tricks on us have shown what America's military might and diplomacy are worth.

Speaking of which, the resurgence of the Soviet Union also scares them for good reason. US dominance is a thing of the past. The drug called "hegemony of power" is almost over and the sick psyche of the Russophobes continues to collapse.

[Link]

Reforms of the 1990s: a terrible catastrophe for Russia and its consequences

30 years ago, in January 1992, the so-called "Gaidar reforms" began in Russia. Even today, 30 years later, the range of evaluations of these reforms and their consequences remains very wide.

Numerous economists believe that there were no alternatives to these reforms, and the economic situation at the end of 1991 was a dead end, and at that point the political leadership had no choice but to initiate sharp, swift and radical changes.

Other experts, on the contrary, point out that Gaidar's shock therapy led to catastrophic consequences for the Russian economy: a crushing decline in industry and agriculture, a sharp decline in investment activity, the destruction of the complex defense, the collapse of the social sphere, an increase in unemployment and crime.

There are also ambiguous evaluations of the reforms, when it is said that the general course of the reforms was chosen correctly, but any costs, social consequences, etc. have not been taken into account. objective assessment of what happened?

The set of reform measures has been reduced to five main areas: price liberalization, tight monetary and budgetary policy, privatization of state-owned assets, liberalization of foreign economic relations and exchange rate stabilization.

Since January 2, 1992, the prices of basic food and consumer goods have been released, with the exception of the prices of bread, milk, energy, housing and communal services.

At the same time, it was believed that prices would rise slightly, by 2.5-3 times, and then the market would return to equilibrium, as demand restrictions would work. And then competition and the struggle for the consumer will stimulate economic growth. But the economy reacted very differently. Prices began to rise rapidly and continuously, and in 1992 alone, prices increased 26 times!

Against the background of hyperinflation, a sharp decline in industrial production began, enterprises began to work in the way of producing less, selling at a higher price.

At the same time, interest rates on bank deposits remained frozen, which led to a rapid and complete zeroing of deposits. The population very quickly, literally in a few months, lost all their savings.

In addition, working capital in corporate accounts disappeared very quickly and fatally, which undermined investment activity in the sector for a long time and in the summer of 1992 led to a large-scale crisis of mutual defaults.

But in addition to their own funds, businesses also have access to borrowed funds. And, if in 1992 interest rates on bank loans were still very low, then, starting in mid-1993, the Central Bank switched to an expensive money policy, which began to oppress the real sector even more.

Under conditions of high interest rates, credit resources began to devolve to the short-term money market, that is, to speculative operations that yielded fast and high profits, and not to the productive sector. In the stock and foreign exchange markets, fortunes were made in a short time, while the industry effectively lost access to credit.

Tight monetary policy also contributed to a sharp increase in the money shortage. By reducing the money supply, the government and the central bank have brought businesses into a chronic hunger for money, which has led to the rather rapid emergence of other forms of non-monetary economic relations: bartering, non-payment, mutual clearing, as well as the circulation of various types of money surrogates, such as bills of exchange, debt receipts, etc. Wage delays were widely practiced, as was the issuance of wages in natural products.

Over time, the shortage of money has only increased. The nominal money supply has grown, but its growth has lagged significantly behind the rise in prices. This has meant a contraction in the real money supply, which has led to a chronic monetary deficit.

The monetization of the economy (ratio between M2 money supply in% and GDP) has been in constant decline during the entire reform period from 1992 to 1998, in fact it can be said that in the mid-1990s the economy became demonetarized .

As noted by M.F. Montes and V.V. Popov in the book "Asian virus" or "Dutch disease"? the level of monetization of the Russian economy was one of the lowest in the world: "according to the results of 1996, out of almost 150 countries for which data are available, only Armenia, Guinea-Bissau, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Turkmenistan lower rates (less than 8%) ".

The volume of non-payments also grew steadily throughout the reform period and reached gigantic proportions in 1998, exceeding 40% of GDP. By the late 1990s, commodity-money exchange covered only about 20% of the entire economy, and 80% existed in a cashless regime.

The course announced by the government to pursue a strict budgetary policy meant in fact the rejection by the state of its financial obligations towards the budgetary organizations, as well as the enterprises that worked on state orders.

Consequently, the entire public sector, extremely important for the development of the country (science, education, health, social sphere, armed forces, law enforcement agencies) found itself in a situation of chronic underfunding.

The outflow of personnel from scientific and educational institutions has acquired incredible proportions, which have questioned the possibility of entering the development trajectory even in the long term.

Businesses working on state orders were also in a grim situation, as the state often refused to pay for products already produced or delayed payments or paid orders for an incomplete amount.

Fiscal policy was no less rigid during this period. Compared to the pre-reform period, the tax burden on businesses has increased significantly, which further complicates the work of businesses.

By setting high tax rates, the government hoped to solve the budget deficit problem, but it only had the opposite effect.

Businesses and corporations have begun to avoid paying taxes, using a variety of methods for this: using black money for settlements, underestimating real income and turnover, as well as other manipulations with reporting.

As a result, the shadow economy in Russia flourished quite rapidly, the level of which in the 1990s was around 40% of GDP.

Tax evasion was often of a forced nature, as businesses were deprived of working capital and evaded tax payments to somehow ensure the functioning of productive activities.

But there were other reasons as well. Because the state was extremely weak, often unable to exercise a control function, many companies went into the shadows simply to increase their revenues and profits.

One way or another, but tax collection in the 1990s declined sharply, which led to an even greater increase in the budget deficit and thus to further underfunding of the entire public sector.

Indeed, in the mid-1990s, the Russian economy entered a self-collapse regime: funding cuts - drop in production - reduction of fiscal deductions to the budget - increase in the budget deficit - even greater reduction in the balance of payments , etc.

The privatization of the economy only began at the end of 1992 and was of a marked nomenclature and criminal nature. Neither the employees of corporate enterprises, nor the broad masses of the people could participate in this process, since by that time they had already been deprived of all their savings, burned during hyperinflation.

Therefore, privatization was mainly carried out by distributing state-owned tidbits to "their people", as well as various types of shadow and criminal structures.

In a context of constant budget deficits, it would be entirely possible to use the sale of real estate to generate additional budgetary revenue, but this tool has never been used.

To privatize as quickly as possible, businesses were sold for junk money. (.............)

So, for example, in a memorandum from the former chairman of the State Property Committee, VP Polevanov, to Prime Minister VS Chernomyrdin, it was noted: "The 500 largest privatized enterprises in Russia worth at least $ 200 billion are were actually sold for next to nothing - about $ 7.2 billion. US ". Of course, this nature of privatization has created a breeding ground for crime, corruption and other abuses.

The liberalization of foreign economic relations was based on the abolition of the state monopoly on foreign trade. Access to foreign markets was open to all economic subjects, both public and private.

Along with this, the convertibility of the ruble and the free exchange of currencies were introduced. The liberalization of foreign trade also included measures such as the lowering of customs duties, the abolition of restrictions and quotas on the sale of products abroad, the reduction of licenses, etc.

As a result, commercial activity very quickly began to leave the degrading sphere of production for foreign trade, where the rate of profit was measured in thousands of percent. The result of this policy was the active sale of raw materials abroad and the wholesale purchase of imports.

Supporters of the reforms point out that, thanks to government measures, as early as 1992, they managed to get rid of the shortage of raw materials and fill the shelves.

But to this we must add that the filling of the shelves took place mainly due to imports, that is, precisely, for having undermined the food security of the country.

Already then, in the early 1990s, a colonial economy model began to take shape, based on the export of raw materials and the purchase of imports. In addition, consumer goods and food prevailed in the import structure, and hardly any capital goods, such as machinery and equipment, were purchased.

The growth of imports was also stimulated by the currency corridor policy in the financial market. On 8 July 1995, a currency corridor was introduced in Russia. This meant that the government and the central bank undertook to keep the ruble against the dollar within certain limits.

This was done in order to contain inflation, as well as to achieve greater stability and predictability in the market.

The corridor's boundaries have changed over time, but the ruble really managed to stay within the assigned limits for three years: from July 1995 to August 1998. To maintain the exchange rate, the monetary authorities used a number of various instruments : foreign exchange interventions, high interest rates, GKO issuance, etc.

At the same time, the exchange rate of the ruble against the dollar lagged behind inflation, which actually meant the strengthening of the real exchange rate of the ruble.

In an open economy, an expensive ruble has led to a decrease in exports, an increase in imports and, consequently, a weakening of the trade balance.

The volume of imports increased steadily in the years following the reform, from 1992 to 1997 inclusive, and in the first half of 1998, according to official data, the share of imported goods represented almost half of total retail turnover.

The growth in imports dealt another blow to the domestic industry, which was already in a deplorable state. Artificially cheaper imports filled the shelves, thus blocking access to markets for domestic producers.

Domestic industry, deprived of budget support and working capital, crushed by high taxes and exorbitant loans, was also losing markets.

The result of the economic policy of the 1990s was a massive decline in industry and agriculture, as well as a profound degradation of the entire public sector.

The decline in industrial production in the period from 1992 to 1998 was about 52%, that is, during the entire reform period, Russia has lost more than half of its entire industrial potential.

The overall economic decline was about 42% of GDP, more than during the Great Depression in the United States and roughly the same that Russia lost between 1914 and 1922.

As a result, we have had the defeat of the country's scientific and industrial potential, the colonial structure of the economy, the nature of the commodities of exports and dependence on imports.

The 1990s are believed to have been a period of transformation and reform, during which the Russian economy successfully transitioned from a planned and directive economy to a modern market model.

But something completely different actually happened, which is still poorly described in economics textbooks. What was formed on the ruins of the Soviet planned economy cannot in any way be called a market. Because the blood of a market economy is money. And money is the main driver of the market and the main incentive for economic activity.

The Russian economy, on the other hand, has been demonetarized, that is, drained of blood. The money circulated only in the export-import sector and in the banking and financial infrastructures serving this sector.

The real sector of the economy ran out of money. Deprived of funds, the real sector was rapidly collapsing and increasingly losing its functionality.

In conditions of chronic financial hunger, economic entities began to use other non-monetary methods of commodity relations: bartering, mutual agreements, debt receipts, payments in kind, etc. That is, there was no transition to the market, but rather a return to pre-bourgeois and archaic forms of economic relations.

The return to archaic relations in the economy was accompanied by the same return to the field of government.

Regional separatism was gaining more and more strength. In addition to Chechnya, which was actually an independent territory and transformed into a medieval terrorist enclave, Tatarstan also had a sovereign position, declaring itself a sovereign state and subject to international law. That is, the country has gradually lost only one space.

A regression is also observed in the social sphere, where poverty and crime are growing rapidly and the educational and cultural level of the population is falling sharply. In Chechnya itself, kidnappings and the slave trade flourished at that time.

Therefore, the widespread assessment of the 1990s as a transition period to the market seems to me fundamentally wrong. In fact, there has been a return to the archaic in economic relations, combined with the destruction of statehood and the regression in the social sphere.

The situation began to change only after the 1998 crisis, when another cabinet of ministers was formed and a different economic course began.

The rejection of the main parameters of the previous exchange rate and the move to a softer fiscal and monetary policy, combined with flexible state regulation, have allowed for consolidation processes to begin. But this is a completely different story:

The rise to the highest office of Russia, or the most powerful statesman in the world, proved even faster: on December 31, 1999, unexpectedly, Yeltsin resigned and, as foreseen by the Constitution, Putin became interim president. of the Russian Federation.

The presidential elections of 2000 were held on March 26: Putin won in the first round and was sworn in as president on May 7, 2000. After announcing his intention to consolidate presidential power in the country, during May 2000 he issued a decree that divided the 89 federal subjects of Russia among 7 federal districts headed by its representatives for the purpose of facilitating federal administration.

In July 2000, as had a law proposed by him and approved by Parliament, Putin acquired the right to revoke the mandate of the heads of these federal entities.

Compared to the Yeltsin presidency, where there was a whirlwind of successive prime ministers in office (5 in the two-year period 1998-1999), President Putin impressed a change in stability at the head of the government, ruled for almost the entire four-year period by Mikhail Kas'janov, who had already been Putin's first deputy premier in 2000. In December 2000, the president approved the Amending Law of the Russian Federation's anthem.

After only, 22 YEARS, Russia is born again, thanks to VLADIMIR PUTIN