Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

History

Donald Trump at G7: ‘Crimea is Russian because everyone there speaks Russian’

The Donald reportedly awestruck the G7 by what we all know – Crimea is Russia

Published

on

1,699 Views

Donald Trump just blew the minds of G7 leaders, when he, according to Buzzfeed, casually said:

“Crimea is Russian because everyone who lives there speaks Russian.”

That one sentence was enough to trigger lamentation, and impotent helpless rage in the stenographers union, also known as western media. Trump also allegedly said that Ukraine is one of the most corrupt countries in the world.

According to Transparency International, after more than 4 years from the “revolution of dignity” Ukraine has 130 rank in corruption perception, among 176 states, “out-performed” by such countries as Guatemala, Nigeria, Turkmenistan and Somalia.

This is something Ukrainians are all aware of, as they suffer daily under a government that literally tried to legalize corruption.

NO JOKE: Ukraine coup regime introduces bill to legalize corruption

Buzzfeed claimed that Trump told this to G7 leaders via “two diplomatic sources”, who just so happen to be anonymous. Half of the sources the corporate media uses these days have been anonymous lately.

Still, it’s no secret Trump has been known to, at times, say reasonable things about Russia, as he seems to understand at least in theory, that ‘getting along with Russia is a good thing’. He certainly says it many times, but the jury is still out on whether he means it, or is actually capable of achieving better relations. To be clear, it’s not Russia which has done anything to cause the bad relations.

While we don’t have a video of Trump saying those words, he has recently spoken on camera about Russia in relation to the G7.

Specifically, Trump said:

Russia should be in this meeting. Why are we having a meeting without Russia being in the meeting. I would recomend Russia should be in the meeting, it should be a part of it. Whether you like it or not, and it may not be politically correct, but we have a world to run, and at the G7, which used to be the G8, they through Russia out. They should let Russia come back in, because we should have Russia at the negotating table.

Trump was referencing the fact that Russia was expelled from the G8, which then became the G7, when Russia was accused of invading Crimea, even as it’s pro-Russian people voted to rejoin Russia in a democratic referendum. All that considered, Trump’s comment about Russia being in the G7, and his allegedly stating that Crimea is Russian, triggered the Western media, who just couldn’t handle the truth, and basic logic. Below is a tweet that sums up the western reaction:

Suffice to say, Trump saying that Crimea is Russian drove his haters, and the Russophobes crazy.

It must be remembered, however, that as of now, Buzzfeed is the original source for this story, even as it’s been reported on by RT, as well as many mainstream sites like The Hill, The Daily Beast, and others.

Ever still, without definitive proof, like a direct statement from Trump, or video evidence, we must remember that as of now, this is only based on reports.

It’s possible Trump said it, as he has been known to say surprisingly sober things about Russia occasionally, at least when compared to his colleagues.

It’s also possible it’s simply fake news, designed to get  #Russiagate cultists, and the #resistance movement “screeching”, as RT put it. Even if he said and meant every word of it, in this climate, and for that above reason, it’s highly likely he may deny it, or simply deny to comment on it, and so we may never know whether or not he said it.

Still, it doesn’t change the fact that it’s completely true. Crimea is Russia, however, Trump’s view seems to be only influenced by basic logic. He knows that the population of Crimea is mostly ethnic Russian, so it seems natural that Crimea is Russian, however there is more to it.

Ukraine itself, her people and her history, are in fact, Russian.

How are Ukrainians Russians?

And let me be clear, I am not saying that Ukraine is currently, or should (or should not) be a member of the Russian Federation. The only way for this to happen, is for the Ukrainian people to choose to join Russia, as Crimeans have already done. When I say Ukraine is Russian, what I am trying to say, is that it is Rusian.

Ukrainians are Rusians

Ukrainian cities, people, culture, and language are descended from Kievan Rus’, along with Russia and Belarus equally. These three peoples are all Rus’ folk. When I say they are Rusians, in this case, I do not mean Carpatho-Russian/Rusyn, though they to belong to Rus, but I am referring to the Ancient Land of Rus’, the first East Slavic State

Kievan Rus’ – ancient Russia

Ukrainians don’t deny that the ancient nation which existed on the territory of modern Ukraine was called Rus’. They claim it as their own, in fact, calling it Ukraina-Rus’ (adding the word Ukraine to it, which was not used historically for the nation).

The Borderland of Rus’

The word Ukraine, originally meant, and still means, borderland, a fact supported by even official Ukrainian language academic sources.

The word Ukraine even appears in a 16th-century translation of the Gospel of Matthew (Matthew 19:1), called the Peresopnytsia Gospel, in which the word Ukraine refers to the shoreline, of either the Jordan River, or the Sea of Galilee.

Historically, the term for what Ukrainians considered “Ancient Ukraine”, but in reality was the motherland of Modern Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians equally, are Rus’.

Ukrainians do not deny their connection to Rus’, but they simply claim that they are true descendants of the citizens of this state, as opposed to Russians. That is absurd, if you think about it. The map below shows Kievan Rus’ was spread equally among the territories of the modern Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus. How are Berlin folk more German than Bavarians?

Kievan Rus’ principalities in shades of green. Moscow is not yet a great city, but would be located near Vladimir-Suzdal.

If Ukrainians are Rusian, why are they called Ukrainian?

Ukrainians, or rather, the current forces in power, within Ukraine, claim that they are the true descendants of Rus, as noted, they think they’re more Rusian than the Russians. If one thinks about that for a moment, they realize it is ridiculous. If Rus’ is the state, then the obvious ethnonym for its people would be Rusian, or Rusky.

From Rus’ to Russia – Ot Rusi do Rossii

The extra s, in Russian, is a result of Russian people choosing to use the Greek spelling for Rus’ – Rossia, to reflect the belief that Moscow was (is) the Third Rome, when Ivan the Great married Sophia Paloelogos, the niece of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Emperor.

Eventually, the term Rus’ in Russian began to refer to the ancient period, before Ivan the Great in the 15th century, and Rossia began to be used for modern Russia, from the Renaissance period onward.

It is obvious, however, that Russia is related to the word Rus’, and likewise, Belarus is clearly related as well, but how do you get Ukraine from Rus? Simple…you don’t.

The Ukrainian identity was pushed on the native people of the modern Western Ukraine (Galicia and Bukovina provinces), who called themselves historically Ruthenians (which is Latin for Rusian), but were encouraged to replace this word entirely with Ukrainian.

This was part of the plot of the Austro-Hungarian government, with the aim to root out in those people, their self identification as closely related to Russians, and their growing aspirations to join Russian Empire.

The grim history of Ruthenian oppression before WWI, and their mass repressions and murders in 1914-1917 by Austria-Hungary is comprehensively described by Rostislav Ischenko in his book “Galicia vs Novorossia: the future of Russian World

Different parts of modern Ukraine, after the 1300s, were occupied and ruled by many different powers, especially Poland-Lithuania and Austro-Hungary. It was from these Empires, that some Ukrainians developed a mentality that they were different from Russians. It was an intentional plan – divide and conquer.

Before that came to pass, Ukraine was a part of the Ancient Rus’, however, it was the invasion of the Mongolians that began the division, when Kiev fell in 1240, ending the Kievan Rus period. The territory of what is now modern Russia remained under Mongol Yoke, while the territory of modern Ukraine and Belarus would be dominated by Poland and Lithuania, who by the 16th century, would merge into a single state – the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

Europe in 1402

During the Mongol-Tatar Yoke (1237-1480)  Russians had to pay tribute to the Golden Horde (Mongols) and Russian princes had to receive as confirmation of their power “yarlyks” from Mongol khans.

Still, Mongols did not intermingle much with Russians, nor did they attempt to change their religion in a major way. Mongols were steppe nomads, and unlike Europeans, they had little interest in physically occupying and culturally/ethnolinguistically assimilating Europeans, like Russians, who were too foreign to them.

They left the Russians be, so long as they accepted this vassal relationship, but this also meant that Russians would still be able to think independently, not being ruled by a people who wanted to ethnically erase them. There was still room for Russian national development, so Russia eventually overthrew the Mongols, when the Moscowite princes managed to reunite other principalities of the former Kievan Rus.

Ukraine, however, was not so lucky to be occupied by an Empire that did not care to meddle in their internal affairs.

From Rus’ to Ukraine

Culturally similar Slavic Poles, and their Lithuanian partners heavily influenced the culture, and day to day life of Ukraine, as they ruled and occupied it. Ukraine, or rather, what was the central and western parts of Kievan Rus’, was partitioned into the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and their self-rule ceased to exist completely.

The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth ruled Ukraine, and began to try and change the people, to make them more similar to their Polish-Catholic overlords. This culminated in the Ukraine of Brest (1595-1596), a treasonous union, when the Vatican got some Orthodox Bishops to unite with the Roman Catholic Church, betraying the locals who were Orthodox Rusians (Ruthenians). They went to bed Orthodox, and woke up Catholic.

Reunification of Russia and Ukraine

Eventually, for this and many reasons, including severe economic oppression of Rusians, the Cossacks, Orthodox warriors who lived in the wild fields of Southern Ukraine united under Bogdan Khmelnitsky, and in 1654, drove the Poles away from the central Ukraine, and decided to pledge allegiance to the Russian Czar to reunite with Russia. When they resisted the West, and rejoined their people, Zaporozhian Cossacks (the ancestors of many Ukrainians), did in 1654, what Crimeans did in 2014.

Pereyaslav Rada of 1654, by Mikhail Khmelko “Forever with Moscow, Forever with the Russian People”

This map below shows the evolution of the Ukraine’s territory. Notice how Austro-Hungary eventually ruled far Western Ukraine, and the further west you go, the longer it was until union with Russia. Austro-Hungary kept control of Galicia and Bukovina, and it was from there, they forced many Ruthenians to identify as Ukrainians, in the 19th century, up until WW1. To be clear, there was no true ethnic difference between a Ruthenian or a Ukrainian, it was not like they were two separate nations.

The name Ukraine was rather a cultural project, designed to make Ruthenians forget their connection to Rus’, and make them more docile vassals of western powers.

They wanted them to forget all about ‘Holy Rus’, Great Rus’, Orthodox Rus’, and by extension, not wish to recreate Kievan Rus’, by joining with Russia.

This was described extensively by famous Russian-Ukrainian Saint Lavrenty of Chernigov.

Crimea

Crimea, which had been ruled by Tatars since the beginning of Mongol-Tatar Yoke, had never a part of Ukraine at any point in its history. It began as a Greek colony, and then became a part of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire.

In 1475, the Ottoman Empire conquered the Genoese colonies, and also the last bastion of the Byzantine Empire, the Principality of Theodoro, inhabited by Orthodox Christians (Greeks, Alans, Goths, etc.) by up to 200 thousand people.

The maps above shows the point at which Crimea was rejoined with Russia. Crimea’s history essentially goes, in a very abridged way:

  • Ancient peoples: Greeks/Scythians, Persians, 600 B.C to 63 B.C.
  • Roman Empire 63 B.C.
    • Eastern Roman Empire 800s to 1220s Mongol invasion. Tatars spread across all of the Pontic Steppe and Crimea.
  • Venise and Genose briefly rule in 13th century
  • Crimean Khanate begins in 1449, and continues until 1783
    • Between 1475-78, Ottomans invade, establish presence in what is now Southern Ukraine, Crimean khanate becomes vassal of Ottomans.
  • New Russian Period, Catherine the Great liberates Crimea in 1783, and Crimea joins the Russian Empire as a part of Novorossia.
  • Soviet period between 1921-1991
    • Khrushchev gives Crimea to Ukrainian Soviet Republic in 1954
  • Crimea becomes a part of independent modern Ukraine in 1991
  • Crimeans vote to rejoin Russia in 2014

In short, as you can see, Crimea was never a part of any Slavic country at all until 1783, when it joined the Russian Empire. Crimea certainly was never a part of Ukraine in old history.

It is also worth noting that the accession of Crimea in 1783 was peaceful, the result of diplomatic negotiations between Russia, the Ottoman Empire, and the Crimean Khan Girey.

New Russia (Novorossia)

Effectively all of the cities in Southern Ukraine, including Odessa, Mikolaiv, Kherson, as well as Crimean Sevastopol, Simferopol, Yalta, etc. were built in this period (late 18th century) by the Russian Empire. They were NOT part of Ancient Kievan Rus, and much like the concept of “Ancient Ukraine”, they did not exist.

They were not part of the old Russia, or the Ukraine occupied by Poland, but instead, they were cities built in the frontier, in the borderlands and Wild Field, that during the Ancient Rus period was raided by Polovtsians (Cumans), Khazars and Pechenegs, and became New Russia in the 18th century.

For this reason, the southern portion of Ukraine was called New Russia (Novorossia), to contrast with Little Russia (Malorossia), which is the term used for the central region which was formally Kievan Rus’ (Kiev, Cherkassy, Pereslavl, Poltava, Chernigov, etc.

Ukraine is Two Countries

In the most simplistic of ways, you can say that when talking about Ukraine, you are speaking about two different countries: the East and the West.

Ukraine was once divided during the Polish period, along the River Dnipro into left and right bank Ukraine for this reason.

In general, this is an accurate division, reflected in Ukraine’s demographics, and mindsets displayed broadly across these regions. Indeed, the country  is historically divided into East and West.

While the West is distinct from the East, this does not mean that historically speaking, the West, even Lviv was any less Rusian than the East. The West was simply occupied for the longest period of time by Poland and Austro-Hungary, so the Russian culture was persecuted and suppressed  there the most.

Still, in Galicia, the far western region, in Zakarpattya (Transcarpathia), we can see the suffering of Russians quite acutely, in the persecution of the Carpatho-Russians, also called Rusyns, and their intellectual movement, the Galacian Russophiles, whose feelings of brotherhood with Russians can be summed up in the words of Father Ivan Naumovich. This Carpatho-Russian Priest wrote a book called “A Glimpse into the Future” which reads:

The time has come . . . to cross our Rubicon and say openly so that everyone can hear it: We cannot be separated by a Chinese wall from our brothers and cannot stand apart from the linguistic, ecclesiastical, and national connection with the entire Russian world!

Carpatho-Russians were brutally persecuted by Austria-Hungary for their culture and even mere possession of Russian literature. They were often under forced pressure to convert from ancestral Russian Orthodoxy to the Uniate Catholic Faith, and to identify as Ukrainians.

History repeats itself. For centuries the Great Pochaev Lavra was a fortress of Orthodoxy under years of Uniate persecution. There, Saint Job of Pochaev, together with Polish-Lithuanian Prince of Ruthenian blood, Konstantine Vasil Ostrogski, fought to preserve the Church Slavonic language, by printing the first book in this old Slavic tounge, when Catholics were trying to force everything to be served in Latin.

Those events in Western Ukraine were in the 16th-17th century, but that persecution never ended, and continued under Austro-Hungary and even into the 21st century.

A perfect example of this suffering, is the life of Hieromartyr Saint Maxim Sandovich, a Priest born in Lemkivshina, a Ruthenian land now in modern Poland. He studied at the great Pochaev Lavra, showing how history repeats itself.

Pochaev continues to grow today, with a new MASSIVE cathedral built and finished a few years ago

I wrote about Saint Maxim here, in an article graciously republished by the wonderful people at OrthoChristian (Pravoslavie.ru).

He was murdered in front of his family, and pregnant wife by the Austro-Hungarian authorities, and his final words were

“Long Live the Russian People! Long Live Holy Russia and all Slavs! Long Live the Holy Orthodox Faith!”

His story is a microcosm of what happened to the Russian people, when the Carpathian Mountains in Galicia became like a Second Golgotha, when the Rivers Tisa and Bug flowed with blood like the Nile. There, the Russian spirit was kept in bondage, and it still suffers greatly to this day. Luckily, the Russian Spirit is among the few which knows how to flourish like a phoenix in suffering.

Far Western Ukraine, however, has always been more hostile to Russian culture, as it was the birthplace of the Uniate sect, and later, where the Austro-Hungarians began their policy of Ukrainianization from the 19th century until WW1.

Famous WW2 Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera, who united with Hitler, was a Uniate, and he continued this legacy of purging Russian culture from Ukraine. His “Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists” (OUN) became the source of servicemen to Waffen-SS division Galicia.

Bandera envisioned the Ukraine as a classic one-party state, with himself in the role of führer (providnyk), and expected that a new Ukraine would take its place under the Nazi umbrella.

A declaration of Bandera’s union with Hitler

Bandera was officially proclaimed a Hero by the Ukrainian government in 2010 and idolized by ultra nationalists after the Maidan coup in 2014.

Uniates and Nationalists marching with Bandera portraits, and right sector (banned in Russia) flags, along with those of Sloboda party

It was the rise of this extreme neo-Nazism, which we saw in Korsun, Cherkasy region, in February 2014, when Ukrainian armed extremists attacked 8 buses with Crimeans, who participated in the anti-Maidan protests, and were returning home after the snipers massacre.

The Crimeans were brutally beaten, and the extremists allegedly killed some.

This was another event which caused Crimeans to want to leave Ukraine, and return to Russia.

It was the mass murder in Odessa, in May 2014, when scores of innocents, including pregnant women, were burned alive which convinced Crimeans that they made the right decision.

Four Years after Odessa Pogrom – Neo-Nazism still rampages in Ukraine

This form of extreme Ukrainian nationalism comes primarily from Far Western Ukraine (Galicia), and that is what makes the far west distinct from the near west and central regions.

Even to this day you can find people in Malorossia, and in Novorossia (a majority in Donbass), who feel they are brothers with Russians. Most speak Russian as a primary language anyways, and you’d be hard pressed to find someone who does not have some form of relatives in Russia.

I would argue from personal experience, that the people of these regions are merely being silent about what they truly feel about Ukraine and Russia, taking the attitude of “Moya hata za Krayu” (it’s none of my business).

Many would express Pro-Russian views if they felt safer. You can still hear people saying: Россия, Україна и Беларусь, вместе мы – святая Русь – (‘Rossia, Ukrainina, i Belorus’, vmesto my Svyataya Rus’) or Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus, together, we are Holy Rus’.

I have believed this since my earliest memories, and this is confirmed by the words of Orthodox Saints like Lavrenty of Chernigov, who was born in 1868 in Chernigov, Russian Empire, and reposed (died) on the Feast of Theophany, 1950, Ukraine CCP.

These regions could theoretically, in the future, unite with Russia, however Galicia (and some in Malorossia today) may never want that.

Many Western Ukrainians, however, truly see themselves as different from other Ukrainians, and Russophilia has almost been completely erased from history there.

While Far Western Ukraine can still be grouped politically and culturally with central Ukraine, generally speaking, it is the only region where Uniates are a majority in some areas, and where the Ukrainian nationalist sentiment is the highest. Galicia is very different from the rest of Ukraine.

Ukraine is Three Countries

As a result, Ukraine is really, more like three countries, rather than two:

  1. Little Russia – Malorossia, Central Historical region of Rus’)
  2. New Russia – Novorossia was southern and eastern Ukraine)
  3. Galicia–Volhynia – the far west, the only region ruled by both Poland AND Austro-Hungary. This region includes Transcarpathia.

Three Ukraines: note the small Yanokovich voters in Zakarpattia (transcarpathia) in the far west, the blue beside the massive red

Ukraine is best understood as a merging of several historical regions, all of them related to an extent, but some having more in common with neighboring countries (Russia or Poland), than they do with other regions of Ukraine. Ukraine is not a united nation-state.

Ukrainians in fact, have the Soviet Union to thank, for repatriating Carpatho-Russians from Slovakia and Poland to Ukraine, and forming the Ukrainian state, which would not have existed were it not for the Bolsheviks.

Despite the narrative about Soviet oppression (the Bolsheviks oppressed Russians the most of any Soviet people), the Soviet Union did what the Russian, Austro-Hungarian, and Polish-Lithuanian Empires never could do – not only united the left bank and right bank Ukraine, but also substantially enlarged its territory, by assigning Novorossia (including Crimea) to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic that they established.

Upon Khrushchev’s initiative, on 300th anniversary of the Ukraine’s reunification with Russia,  Crimea was transferred from the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (that became Russian Federation in 1991) to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in violation of the Constitution of the USSR, and without asking for the opinion of Crimea population, further complicating things, though Crimea was always predominantly Russian speaking.

I have written about the languages of Ukraine here, for those interested.

Ukrainian Leader says Half of Ukraine is Mentally Retarded

In conclusion, if President Trump truly said Crimea is Russian, he is very right. Crimea is Russian both by self-determination of its people, when they voted on 16 March 2014 for reunification with Russia, as well as obvious logic.

Crimea, was in fact, the site of the baptism of Equal-to-the-Apostles High King (Grand Prince) Vladimir of Kiev, beginning the period known in history as Holy Rus’ or Holy Russia.

Crimea has been filled with the stories of great Russians, like Saint Luke, the Archbishop of Crimea, who also happened to be not only a Physician, but one of the most talented surgeons in Russian history. Check out the above link to learn more. From a secular perspective, he was an amazing surgeon, and Christians believe his medical talents were in fact, miraculous. He created many unheard of, and lifesaving surgery methods for the first time in human history.

Crimea was once an Ancient Greek colony, leaving behind wonders like this Dormition Caves Monastery, which later was expanded on by Russian monks.

Crimea is a crucial part of Russian history and culture, and if President Trump recognizes that, he is not “siding with Russia”, he is simply being smart, by accepting the obvious fact which was always there. Crimea is Russian.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
6 Comments

6
Leave a Reply

avatar
6 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
6 Comment authors
Red Pilled ThoughtCrimesRastislav Veľká MoravaAM Hantsregolo gelliniCheryl Brandon Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Red Pilled ThoughtCrimes
Guest
Red Pilled ThoughtCrimes

great detail

Rastislav Veľká Morava
Guest
Rastislav Veľká Morava

Ukraine in Slavic Languages is ukrajina or u-krajina, which translates to “on the borderlands, part of a larger group” That is why it is a small “u” and it was/is called the Ukraine, even in the English Language.

So called “Ukraine” is an artificial country created by the Bolsheviks, with no basis in reality, and with no binding history.

AM Hants
Guest
AM Hants

Slightly off topic, but, this article, so needs sharing and viewing. Does fit in with the above, just not covering Crimea.

A Young Russian Explains Why the West Reminds Him of the USSR
A lying media, suffocating political correctness, former Marxists now in the establishment… https://russia-insider.com/en/politics/young-russian-explains-why-west-reminds-him-ussr/ri23747

regolo gellini
Guest
regolo gellini

Fantastic info that we in the West ignore completely . Thank you for a wonderful history lesson.

Cheryl Brandon
Guest
Cheryl Brandon

$chumpinstein got it half right but, it is the geography that is also important which he left out!History was left out wilfully asm, $chumpinstein doe snot known anythiny about Russia except ; it is a great place to put a golf course/hotel???

RussG
Guest
RussG

Fabulous article, and thanks for the history/geography lesson. Yes, Crimea is Russian without any doubt.

Latest

Is the Violent Dismemberment of Russia Official US Policy?

Neocons make the case that the West should not only seek to contain “Moscow’s imperial ambitions” but to actively seek the dismemberment of Russia as a whole.

The Duran

Published

on

Authored by Erik D’Amato via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity:


If there’s one thing everyone in today’s Washington can agree on, it’s that whenever an official or someone being paid by the government says something truly outrageous or dangerous, there should be consequences, if only a fleeting moment of media fury.

With one notable exception: Arguing that the US should be quietly working to promote the violent disintegration and carving up of the largest country on Earth.

Because so much of the discussion around US-Russian affairs is marked by hysteria and hyperbole, you are forgiven for assuming this is an exaggeration. Unfortunately it isn’t. Published in the Hill under the dispassionate title “Managing Russia’s dissolution,” author Janusz Bugajski makes the case that the West should not only seek to contain “Moscow’s imperial ambitions” but to actively seek the dismemberment of Russia as a whole.

Engagement, criticism and limited sanctions have simply reinforced Kremlin perceptions that the West is weak and predictable. To curtail Moscow’s neo-imperialism a new strategy is needed, one that nourishes Russia’s decline and manages the international consequences of its dissolution.

Like many contemporary cold warriors, Bugajski toggles back and forth between overhyping Russia’s might and its weaknesses, notably a lack of economic dynamism and a rise in ethnic and regional fragmentation.But his primary argument is unambiguous: That the West should actively stoke longstanding regional and ethnic tensions with the ultimate aim of a dissolution of the Russian Federation, which Bugajski dismisses as an “imperial construct.”

The rationale for dissolution should be logically framed: In order to survive, Russia needs a federal democracy and a robust economy; with no democratization on the horizon and economic conditions deteriorating, the federal structure will become increasingly ungovernable…

To manage the process of dissolution and lessen the likelihood of conflict that spills over state borders, the West needs to establish links with Russia’s diverse regions and promote their peaceful transition toward statehood.

Even more alarming is Bugajski’s argument that the goal should not be self-determination for breakaway Russian territories, but the annexing of these lands to other countries. “Some regions could join countries such as Finland, Ukraine, China and Japan, from whom Moscow has forcefully appropriated territories in the past.”

It is, needless to say, impossible to imagine anything like this happening without sparking a series of conflicts that could mirror the Yugoslav Wars. Except in this version the US would directly culpable in the ignition of the hostilities, and in range of 6,800 Serbian nuclear warheads.

So who is Janusz Bugajski, and who is he speaking for?

The author bio on the Hill’s piece identifies him as a senior fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis, a Washington, D.C. think-tank. But CEPA is no ordinary talk shop: Instead of the usual foundations and well-heeled individuals, its financial backers seem to be mostly arms of the US government, including the Department of State, the Department of Defense, the US Mission to NATO, the US-government-sponsored National Endowment for Democracy, as well as as veritable who’s who of defense contractors, including Raytheon, Bell Helicopter, BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin and Textron. Meanwhile, Bugajski chairs the South-Central Europe area studies program at the Foreign Service Institute of the US Department of State.

To put it in perspective, it is akin to a Russian with deep ties to the Kremlin and arms-makers arguing that the Kremlin needed to find ways to break up the United States and, if possible, have these breakaway regions absorbed by Mexico and Canada. (A scenario which alas is not as far-fetched as it might have been a few years ago; many thousands in California now openly talk of a “Calexit,” and many more in Mexico of a reconquista.)

Meanwhile, it’s hard to imagine a quasi-official voice like Bugajski’s coming out in favor of a similar policy vis-a-vis China, which has its own restive regions, and which in geopolitical terms is no more or less of a threat to the US than Russia. One reason may be that China would consider an American call for secession by the Tibetans or Uyghurs to be a serious intrusion into their internal affairs, unlike Russia, which doesn’t appear to have noticed or been ruffled by Bugajski’s immodest proposal.

Indeed, just as the real scandal in Washington is what’s legal rather than illegal, the real outrage in this case is that few or none in DC finds Bugajski’s virtual declaration of war notable.

But it is. It is the sort of provocation that international incidents are made of, and if you are a US taxpayer, it is being made in your name, and it should be among your outrages of the month.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Vladimir Putin visits Serbia, as NATO encircles the country it attacked in 1999 (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 171.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss Russian President Vladimir Putin’s official visit to Serbia.

Putin met with Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic to further develop bilateral trade and economic relations, as well as discuss pressing regional issues including the possibility of extending the Turkish Stream gas pipeline into Serbia, and the dangerous situation around Kosovo.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via RT


Russian President Vladimir Putin got a hero’s welcome in Belgrade. The one-day visit to the last holdout against NATO’s ambitions in the Balkans may have been somewhat short on substance, but was certainly loaded with symbolism.

Even before he landed, the Russian leader was given an honor guard by Serbian air force MiGs, a 2017 gift from Moscow to replace those destroyed by NATO during the 1999 air campaign that ended with the occupation of Serbia’s province of Kosovo. Russia has refused to recognize Kosovo’s US-backed declaration of independence, while the US and EU have insisted on it.

Upon landing, Putin began his first official trip of 2019 by paying respects to the Soviet soldiers who died liberating Belgrade from Nazi occupation in 1944. While most Serbians haven’t forgotten their historical brotherhood in arms with Russia, it did not hurt to remind the West just who did the bulk of the fighting against Nazi Germany back in World War II.

After official talks with Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic, Putin visited the Church of St. Sava, the grand Orthodox basilica set on the spot where the Ottoman Turks torched the remains of the first Serbian archbishop back in 1594, in an effort to maintain power.

Sava, whose brother Stefan became the “first-crowned” king of medieval Serbia, was responsible for setting up the autocephalous Serbian Orthodox Church exactly eight centuries ago this year. For all its own troubles, the Serbian Church has sided with Moscow in the current Orthodox schism over Ukraine.

Russian artisans have been working on the grand mosaic inside the basilica, and asked Putin to complete the design by placing the last three pieces, in the colors of the Russian flag.

Whether by sheer coincidence or by design, Putin also weighed in on Serbia’s culture war, giving interviews ahead of his visit to two daily newspapers that still publish in Serbian Cyrillic – while the majority of the press, whether controlled by the West or by Vucic, prefers the Latin variant imported from Croatia.

Western media usually refer to Serbia as a “Russian ally.” While this is true in a historical and cultural sense, there is no formal military alliance between Moscow and Belgrade. Serbia officially follows the policy of military neutrality, with its armed forces taking part in exercises alongside both Russian and NATO troops.

This is a major source of irritation for NATO, which seeks dominion over the entire Balkans region. Most recently, the alliance extended membership to Montenegro in 2017 without putting the question to a referendum. It is widely expected that “Northern Macedonia” would get an invitation to NATO as soon as its name change process is complete – and that was arranged by a deal both Macedonia and Greece seem to have been pressured into by Washington.

That would leave only Serbia outside the alliance – partly, anyway, since NATO has a massive military base in the disputed province of Kosovo, and basically enjoys special status in that quasi-state. Yet despite Belgrade’s repeated declarations of Serbia wanting to join the EU, Brussels and Washington have set recognition of Kosovo as the key precondition – and no Serbian leader has been able to deliver on that just yet, though Vucic has certainly tried.

Putin’s repeated condemnations of NATO’s 1999 attack, and Russian support for Serbia’s territorial integrity guaranteed by the UN Security Council Resolution 1244, have made him genuinely popular among the Serbs, more so than Vucic himself. Tens of thousands of people showed up in Belgrade to greet the Russian president.

While Vucic’s critics have alleged that many of them were bused in by the government – which may well be true, complete with signs showing both Vucic and Putin – there is no denying the strong pro-Russian sentiment in Serbia, no matter how hard Integrity Initiative operatives have tried.

One of the signs spotted in Belgrade reportedly said “one of 300 million,” referring to the old Serbian joke about there being “300 million of us – and Russians.” However, it is also a send-up of the slogan used by current street protesters against Vucic. For the past six weeks, every Saturday, thousands of people have marched through Belgrade, declaring themselves “1 of 5 million” after Vucic said he wouldn’t give in to their demands even if “five million showed up.”

The opposition Democrats accuse him of corruption, nepotism, mismanagement, cronyism – all the sins they themselves have plenty of experience with during their 12-year reign following Serbia’s color revolution. Yet they’ve had to struggle for control of the marches with the nationalists, who accuse Vucic of preparing to betray Kosovo and want “him to go away, but [Democrats] not come back.”

There is plenty of genuine discontent in Serbia with Vucic, who first came to power in 2012 on a nationalist-populist platform but quickly began to rule as a pro-NATO liberal. It later emerged that western PR firms had a key role in his party’s “makeover” from Radicals to Progressives. Yet his subsequent balancing act between NATO and Russia has infuriated both the NGOs and politicians in Serbia beholden to Western interests, and US diplomats charged with keeping the Balkans conquered.

Washington is busy with its own troubles these days, so there was no official comment to Putin’s visit from the State Department – only a somewhat pitiful and tone-deaf tweet by Ambassador Kyle Scott, bemoaning the lack of punishment for $1 million in damages to the US Embassy during a 2008 protest against Kosovo “independence.” Yet as far as Western media outlets are concerned, why Moscow seems to be vastly more popular than Washington on the streets of Belgrade nonetheless remains a mystery.

By Nebojsa Malic

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Curious Bedfellows: The Neocon And Progressive Alliance To Destroy Donald Trump

The neocon metamorphosis is nearly complete as many of the neocons, who started out as Democrats, have returned home, where they are being welcomed for their hardline foreign policy viewpoint.

Published

on

Authored by Philip Giraldi via OffGuardian.com:


The Roman poet Ovid’s masterful epic The Metamorphoses includes the memorable opening line regarding the poem’s central theme of transformation. He wrote In nova fert animus mutatas dicere formas corpora, which has been translated as “Of shapes transformed to bodies strange, I purpose to entreat…”

Ovid framed his narrative around gods, heroes and quasi-historical events but if he were around today, he would no doubt be fascinated by the many transformations of the group that has defined itself as neoconservative.The movement began in a cafeteria in City College of New York in the 1930s, where a group of radical Jewish students would meet to discuss politics and developments in Europe. Many of the founders were from the far left, communists of the Trotskyite persuasion, which meant that they believed in permanent global revolution led by a vanguard party. The transformation into conservatives of a neo-persuasion took place when they were reportedly “mugged by reality” into accepting that the standard leftist formulae were not working to transform the world rapidly enough. As liberal hawks, they then hitched their wagon to the power of the United States to bring about transformation by force if necessary and began to infiltrate institutions like the Pentagon to give themselves the tools to achieve their objectives, which included promotion of regime change wars, full spectrum global dominance and unconditional support for Israel.

The neocons initially found a home with Democratic Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson, but they moved on in the 1970s and 1980s to prosper under Ronald Reagan as well as under Democrat Bill Clinton. Their ability to shape policy peaked under George W. Bush, when they virtually ran the Pentagon and were heavily represented in both the national security apparatus and in the White House. They became adept at selling their mantra of “strong national defense” to whomever was buying, including to President Obama, even while simultaneously complaining about his administration’s “weakness.”

The neoconservatives lined up behind Hillary Clinton in 2016, appalled by Donald Trump’s condemnation of their centerpiece war in Iraq and even more so by his pledge to end the wars in Asia and nation-building projects while also improving relations with the Russians. They worked actively against the Republican candidate both before he was nominated and elected and did everything they could to stop him, including libeling him as a Russian agent.

When Trump was elected, it, therefore, seemed that the reign of the neocons had ended, but chameleonlike, they have changed shape and are now ensconced both in some conservative as well as in an increasing number of progressive circles in Washington and in the media. Against all odds, they have even captured key posts in the White House itself with the naming of John Bolton as National Security Adviser and Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State. Bolton’s Chief of Staff is Fred Fleitz, a leading neocon and Islamophobe while last week Trump added Iran hawk Richard Goldberg to the National Security Council as director for countering Iranian weapons of mass destruction. Goldberg is an alumnus of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which is the leading neocon think tank calling incessantly for war with Iran.

Meanwhile, the neocon metamorphosis is nearly complete as many of the neocons, who started out as Democrats, have returned home, where they are being welcomed for their hardline foreign policy viewpoint. Glenn Greenwald reports that, based on polling of party supporters, the Democrats have gone full-Hillary and are now by far more hawkish than the Republicans, unwilling to leave either Syria or Afghanistan.

The neocon survival and rejuvenation is particularly astonishing in that they have been wrong about virtually everything, most notably the catastrophic Iraq War. They have never been held accountable for anything, though one should note that accountability is not a prominent American trait, at least since Vietnam. What is important is that neocon views have been perceived by the media and punditry as being part of the Establishment consensus, which provides them with access to programming all across the political spectrum. That is why neocon standard-bearers like Bill Kristol and Max Boot have been able to move effortlessly from Fox News to MSNBC where they are fêted by the likes of Rachel Maddow. They applauded the Iraq War when the Establishment was firmly behind it and are now trying to destroy Donald Trump’s presidency because America’s elite is behind that effort.

Indeed, the largely successful swing by the neocons from right to left has in some ways become more surreal, as an increasing number of progressive spokesmen and institutions have lined up behind their perpetual warfare banner. The ease with which the transformation took place reveals, interestingly, that the neocons have no real political constituency apart from voters who feel threatened and respond by supporting perpetual war, but they do share many common interests with the so-called liberal interventionists. Neocons see a global crisis for the United States defined in terms of power while the liberals see the struggle as a moral imperative, but the end result is the same: intervention by the United States. This fusion is clearly visible in Washington, where the Clintons’ Center for American Progress (CAP) is now working on position papers with the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI).

One of the most active groups attacking President Trump is “Republicans for the Rule of Law,” founded by Bill Kristol in January 2018, as a component of Defending Democracy Together(DDT), a 501(c)4 lobbying group that also incorporates projects called The Russia Tweets and Republicans Against Putin. Republicans Against Putin promotes the view that President Trump is not “stand[ing] up to [Vladimir] Putin” and calls for more aggressive investigation of the Russian role in the 2016 election.

DDT is a prime example of how the neoconservatives and traditional liberal interventionists have come together as it is in part funded by Pierre Omidyar, the billionaire co-founder of eBay who has provided DDT with $600,000 in two grants through his Democracy Fund Voice, also a 501(c)4. Omidyar is a political liberal who has given millions of dollars to progressive organizations and individuals since 1999. Indeed, he is regarded as a top funder of liberal causesin the United States and even globally together with Michael Bloomberg and George Soros. His Democracy Fund awarded $9 million in grants in 2015 alone.

Last week, the Omidyar-Kristol connection may have deepened with an announcement regarding the launch of the launch of a new webzine The Bulwark, which would clearly be at least somewhat intended to take the place of the recently deceased Weekly Standard. It is promoting itself as the center of the “Never Trump Resistance” and it is being assumed that at least some of the Omidyar money is behind it.

Iranian-born Omidyar’s relationship with Kristol is clearly based on the hatred that the two share regarding Donald Trump.

Omidyar has stated that Trump is a “dangerous authoritarian demagogue… endorsing Donald Trump immediately disqualifies you from any position of public trust.”

He has tweeted that Trump suffers from “failing mental capacity” and is both “corrupt and incapacitated.”

Omidyar is what he is – a hardcore social justice warrior who supports traditional big government and globalist liberal causes, most of which are antithetical to genuine conservatives. But what is interesting about the relationship with Kristol is that it also reveals what the neoconservatives are all about. Kristol and company have never been actual conservatives on social issues, a topic that they studiously avoid, and their foreign policy is based on two principles: creating a state of perpetual war based on fearmongering about foreign enemies while also providing unlimited support for Israel. Kristol hates Trump because he threatens the war agenda while Omidyar despises the president for traditional progressive reasons. That hatred is the tie that binds and it is why Bill Kristol, a man possessing no character and values whatsoever, is willing to take Pierre Omidyar’s money while Pierre is quite happy to provide it to destroy a common enemy, the President of the United States of America.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending