EDITORIAL: Obama Panics Eastern Europe



Obama Panics Eastern Europe

In yet another display of his awesome commitment ot democratic values an human rights, U.S. President Barack Obama’s stomach-churning inconsistency and weakness in Moscow recently has driven our Eastern European allies into a frenzy of panic.  Nearly two dozen prominent leaders including Poland’s Lech Walesa and the Czech Republic’s Vaclav Havel have written an open letter to Obama imploring him not to send signals to the Russians which could lead them to believe they are free to gobble up their former Soviet slave states in the region.  The Polish government itself has specifically endorsed the appeal.

As we’ve already said quite clearly, Obama’s performance in Moscow was an outrage.  He complimented Vladimir Putin publicly, yet didn’t say anything openly in personal support of any of the opposition leaders he met with.  He talked about Georgian territorial integrity in an offhand way, but so far he’s done nothing to show personal support for the Georgian government. And worst of all, he’s given the Russians reason to think he’ll back away from the missile defense system the U.S. has proposed for Eastern Europe, which to the Russians implies he’ll back away from protecting them entirely.  So naturally, the Eastern Europeans are panicking.

This is what happens when you elect a president with no foreign policy experience and no exectutive experience:  a disaster.  Obama is stumbling, and stumbling badly.  Recent polls show his approval slipping below 50% on key issues like healthcare and the deficit, and his weakness and inconsistency on foreign policy is obvious to everyone.

To Obama’s credit, he has at least dispatched Vice President Joe Biden to Ukraine and Georgia right on the heels of his visit to Moscow, and the U.S. has recently held joint military manoevers with Georgia.  But this only means that, at best, he’s sending mixed messages to the Russians, something they can only interpret as weakness and an invitation to engage in further aggression towards Ukraine and Georgia, to say nothing of Russian civil society at home.

In just a few short months in office, Obama has sold out American values in the name of being “reasonable” and “resetting” the arrogance of the Bush administration.  Just like Jimmy Carter before him, whose pathetic weakness invited the USSR into Afghanistan, Obama is creating a situation in which a massive loss of liberty could occur in post-Soviet space.  The leaders of Eastern Europe are right to be worried, and its time for those who believe in American values to step forward and pressure Obama to abandone his crazy “new” ideas before irreversible harm is done.  John McCain should be ashamed of his silence, and must now step forward to lead the loyal opposition.

189 responses to “EDITORIAL: Obama Panics Eastern Europe

  1. Actually it was more like na invitation to re-evaluate the relationship and a warning, but to some, lesser degree.

    Russian caused danger is more instability it could export abroad rather than a direct aggression – which cannot be dismissed regarding the Balts, but Russian Federation has no strenght to subjugate someone larger, like Poland.

    Still it is seen in Poland as a mile stone – either a change in the relations or its actual end.
    The second would be unfortunate of course, from American point of view as well because loyal allies are a rare commodity nowadays at there is already enough ‘not very interesting’ background to support much colder attitude towards the USA.

    May I remind to some that there is still no recession at least in Poland ?
    So trolls please spare words about economic meltdown and other nonsense.

    Not that there will be no stupid words at all, after all you can always use your usual Tzarist-Soviet ‘evergreens’ – whores of the West, lapdogs, fascists etc economy you can leave alone and think about your, own all-too-visable problems.

    • Who gives a damn about you Poles and why are you so scared of us Russians?
      I mean ,if somebody would present us Poland on a table we wouldn`t take it.
      What has your country to offer?
      It is a poor agrar state with no Polish owned industries which mainly exports labor force and Polish prostitutes …
      In 1939 before the war with Germany broke out you bragged about how you would march into Berlin after a few days,and what happened?
      Your mighty Polish army got smashed and Poland got conquered in two weeks by the Germans…

      • Dear CG,

        You must stop reading that soviet encyclopedia. It only makes you more brain-dead than you are already.


  2. @”Just like Jimmy Carter before him, whose pathetic weakness invited the USSR into Afghanistan”

    Actually, the Soviets invited themselves, as the KGB fed Brezhnev a false info saying Amin was a CIA spy :) While in fact Carter and Brzezinsky supported the anti-Amin mujahideen forces and the blindly-loyal Amin’s last call was to the Moscow to save him from the “counter-revolutionaries” (Soviet commandos dressed as Afghan soldiers)… A really funny story of a stupid stooge and his idiot puppet-masters.

  3. I don’t see anything productive about sending Joe Biden anywhere except an institution. I think it is heartless for them to keep carting that poor mentally challenged man around as if he were a politician just so that people can laugh at him (I have been guilty of this in the past) and to make Obama look intelligent by comparison. It wasn’t funny when they made him a Senator and it’s not funny now.

    • To Snake Oil Baron: AMEN! to your observations on idiot Joe Biden. You echo my thoughts about him, exactly. Poor man, at least he is good for a laugh. Yet, helping B. Obama sell out America to her enemies, is not really that funny, is it?

  4. <>

    Actually, it was Jimmy Carter’s and Zbigniew Brzezinski brilliant plan to provoke USSR into an Afghan war and to nurture Islamic terrorism and Bin Laden, that let to the fall of Communism:


    The CIA’s Intervention in Afghanistan

    Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski

    Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998

    Question: Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. Is that correct?

    Brzezinski: Yes. Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

    Q: But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

    B: It isn’t quite that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

    Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today?

    B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

    Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

    B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

    Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

    B: Nonsense!

  5. Belarus,Ukraine,and Kazakstan will be incorporated into Russia in a few years.
    There does not exist an Ukranian nation,they are Russians.
    That is our goal and we will pursue it utmost fanaticism.
    And if necessary we will go to a nuclear war with the US over that.
    We will not tolerate a American knife on our throat in our provinces.
    And it really doesn`t matter to us who is in the White House,Obama,McCain or Donald Duck.
    That is why we are diversifying our export routes of commodities away from the West to China,diversyfy our economy and rebuild our army.
    In five years time we will be ready for war.

  6. To ‘CG’: In five years, you will all have to learn Chinese, as your capital will be Bejing.
    Rots of ruck, comrades!
    You will have to swallow all your boasting and threats.

    • Don`t worry about them.There are only 200.000 Chinese in Russia and they are our allies.
      Together with them we will take down the American “world order” and establish a new one.

      Say goodbye to the dollar as a reserve currency,in Yekaterinburg we cleared the way with the Chinese,why do you think the Americans desperately wanted to take part in this conference but were snubbed,hehe

      • To ‘CG’: Lay off your rot-gut cheap bathtub vodka. It is poisoning your brain. “There are only 200,000 Chinese in Russia and they are our allies”…??? (ha, ha…how do you know they are your friends?….and where do you get that small count?).
        Sorry pal, but there are a lot more Chinese in China, who can easily be….in…Russia, real fast, such as via military tanks and trucks and bombers and missils, etc. And also, by ox-cart, and on foot too. It’s not that far away, not far at all. Sure, they are all your ‘allies’…??? Get used to Chop Suey and Fried Rice.
        But yes, what China does to you, is not the immediate threat to your Paradise on Earth.
        Your gangster criminal government (you know, the ones paying you to lie here…those guys) is destroying Russia by so many divergent methods.
        Your pathetic lies and distortions and threats here, and those of your other internet goons, will not save your rear-ends. Your gross corruption alone, is doing Russia in. That corruption poisons every level of Russian life.

      • “They are our allies.” Wasn’t that what Stalin said as well about the Nazis after the Soviets signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? That worked out real well too.


  8. Biden walked into Yushchenko’s office and said, hey, Mr. President, where are the cranes? You rent cranes, like Uhaul rents trucks, right?

    Ha,ha. Ho Ho Ho, Biden laughs at his own jokes.

  9. Yushchenko asked Biden if he would support the independence of Ukraine and Geogia. Biden agreed to support an independent Ukraine. On Georgia, he said that was a different matter because the last time Georgia sought independence Sherman had to burn down the capital.

  10. Quote : “…invitation to engage in further aggression towards Ukraine and Georgia…”
    The word “further” seems to imply that there have been previous instances of Russian agression against Georgia & the Ukraine. Which is strange, to say the least, because I cannot recall any such instances.

    • So I guess you missed the Black Sea Fleet and Russian frontal aviation bombing the Georgian defenders and civillian population of Sokhumi in 1992-94, the Russian creation of and assistance to “separatist” terrorists, the Russian supply, trianing and equipping of the separatist militia’s and the Russian planning and execution of the ethnic cleansing campaign in 1993 & 1994.

      Then there is the situation last August, where Russian “peacekeepers” (now there is an oxymoron) helped separatists to shell georgian villages all through June and July, set roadside bombs, blew up the police station in Gori, and then complained when the Georgians retaliated against these ever increasing attacks on Georgia.

      The Russian invasion of Georgia was accompanied by a wave of Russian planned ethnic cleansing in South Ossetia, including the destruction of ethnic Georgian villages that pre date the arrival of the Ossetians by several thousand years.

      Then there was the attack on the Khodori gorge in west Georgia, with further ethnic cleansing of the Georgian inhabitants.

      • I see. Apparently, you´ve never heard of the Georgian punitive expedition against South Osetia back in 1920, which was one of the reasons for the Osetians to demand independence or at least autonomy from Georgia. You missed the campaign in Georgia from 1989 onwards to cleanse the country of foreign elements – which lead to the expulsion of thousands of Osetians from Georgia – & following that, the Georgian 1992 military campaign against South Osetia. What you also obviously didn´t notice was that the Georgian retaliation attacks of last August were carried out against civilian targets.
        And what about instances of so-called Russian agression against the Ukraine ?

        • “I see. Apparently, you´ve never heard of the Georgian punitive expedition against South Osetia back in 1920”

          Mensheviks vs Bolsheviks? Apparently, you’ve never heard the entire Rusian Civil War (and it’s extensions such as the Polish-Bolshevik War or the Finnish Civil War with the Russian Bolsheviks on one side) in which more people died than in WWI. Georgia was actually relatively peaceful.

          “What you also obviously didn´t notice was that the Georgian retaliation attacks of last August were carried out against civilian targets.”

          Such as? Compare with the Russian conduct in Chechnya. Russian propaganda was full of stories of “genocide”: massacres, rapes, people-mass-burned-in-a-churches and what not (stopping very short of eating babies, but had stories of babies shot), 1,400-2,000 civilians killed in few hours, all lies.

          • To remind you:

            “Georgia launched a cruel, cynical aggression against South Ossetia; our citizens died — residents and peacekeepers” said Mr. Medvedev on Sunday. “The form this aggression took is nothing less than genocide because Georgia committed heaviest crimes — civilians were torched, sawed to pieces and rolled over by tanks,” he added. He proposed a special international tribunal be set up for Georgian crimes against humanity. Meeting refugees from South Ossetia earlier, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin also accused Georgia and said it was committing “complete genocide.”

          • South Osetian uprising against the Georgians, against which the latter reacted violently, resulting in the death of 3000 to 7000 South Osetians. Although the Osetians were supported by the Bolsheviks, I don´t think that should be an excuse for burning villages & killing women & children.
            Georgian attacks (artillery & missiles) on civilian targets in Tskhinvali in the night of 7-8 August were confirmed by OSCE observers.

            • They fired only a short inititial barrage and went in with ground forces the same night (they had night vision so they actually had an advantage). The attack was concentrated on a military targets (such as the Russian base, completely destroyed) and the government district (the adjoining old Jewish district got hit through colleteral damage). Most of the town suffered little to no damage and much of population was evacuated before the conflict (most of these who left were combatants, mostly local volunteer militiamen who then run anyway and regrouped only in Russia). The tanks fired at the basements because it’s where RPG gunners were located. There were no 2,000 (or 1,6000, or 1,4000) Ossetian killed at all, in the whole conflict not only of the barrage, even counting the combatants (btw, for Russia classifies the losses of Ossetian irregulars as “civilians victims” – in Chechnya they would be “destroyed bandits”). There were of course no “sawed to pieces and rolled over by tanks”.

              In August of 2008, the Russians (their military, politicians, public) gave a fake collective *GASP!* at the use of Georgia’s old Grad systems in the attack. Well, I’ll tell you an example story about Russia and Grads. In 1996, a band of “Chechen bandits” attacked a town in Dagestan, took lots (and by “lots” I mean thousands) of hostages, then agreed to release most of them, but were sneak-attacked anyway in a Dagestani village on the way back. So they were there – Chechens, hostages, Dagestani (Russian) villagers – and the Russians pounded them for days, including with GRADs. The reasoning for GRADs’ use, against just few dozens-hundreds Chechens, but shielded by many more Russian (not even ethnic Chechen) civilians AND Russian prisoners of war?

              And these are not even the worst accusations. Russian generals still have not answered the toughest questions of all: How did rebel leaders get away? Why did they [in context: the generals] say the hostages were dead when they were alive? And why did they use Grad missiles on the village? “The usage of the Grad multiple rocket launchers was mainly psychological,” Gen. Mikhail Barsukov of the Federal Security Service said, laughing.


              • And yeah, the FSB said the hostages are dead before they gave order for artillery to open fire. They said it beacuse they excepted to kill EVERYONE in the village, they simply failed in their efforts. (And later mockingly laughed about this anyway.)

                But this was not “nothing less than genocide”, or “complete genocide”. This was, you know, a valian battle against bandtitism.

                Incidentally, Litvinenko was also thrown there. He and and a bunch of fellow desk-jockey FSB officers from Nalchik were each given a camoflage uniforms and an Avtomat Kalashnikova. Your namesake and his pals even did some macho photos I’ve seen, posing on tanks and doing their best Russian Rambo impressions. However a friendly fire “psychological effect” Grad salvo eventually fell on their group, almost killing him years some very Russian tea did the job in London.

                And while breaking-through from the village, the Chechens even captured a Grad truck.

                A condensed story of this act of not-genocide:


                The rebels, and the hostages, are the remainder of a siege that began January 9 when a group of nearly 200 Chechen rebels led by Salman Raduyev stormed an airport in the Dagestani Republic town of Kizlyar in southern Russia. When Russian troops got the best of them, the rebels regrouped and captured a Kizlyar hospital, taking nearly 3,000 hostages. They later released most of the hostages, and made their way aboard buses toward the Chechen border, still holding more than a hundred captives. The convoy was cut off and surrounded by Russian forces in Pervomaiskaya.

                After a two-day standoff, Russian forces nearly blasted the tiny town out of existence with GRAD rockets and other heavy weaponry, enraging the residents as well as the hostages.

                Russia declared that most of the Chechen rebels had been killed, but it was later learned that Raduyev and some of his men broke through forces surrounding the town and escaped back to the mountains of their separatist republic, taking dozens of hostages with them.

                Raduyev and fellow guerrilla commander Shamil Basayev told journalists in the Chechen village of Novogrozny that they would continue terrorist acts until Russia withdraws its troops and recognizes Chechnya’s independence, the ITAR-Tass news agency said.

                Chechen commanders displayed only a fraction of their claimed catch during a news conference Tuesday. Numbered among the hostages were three Dagestani interior ministry policeman, who accused the Russian army of using them as “cannon powder” in the battle for Pervomaiskaya last week.

                The raiders also refused to free 29 Russian power plant workers whom they want to trade for captive rebel fighters. According to ITAR-Tass news, a Russian spokesman said the Chechens had added new conditions to the swap.

                The Chechens now admit that they lost 35 fighters in the Pervomaiskaya assault, the heaviest toll of any single battle in their latest bid for independence. They said half of the rebel and hostage casualties occurred as they attempted to escape the village.

                “When we made the break,” said a hostage, “We went together. The Chechen weren’t using us as live shields; they were in the front leading the way out.”

                If and when the Chechens honor their pledge to release most of their captives, the policemen will not be among them. They have said that non-civilians will only be set free if Moscow agrees to a prisoner exchange.

                One of the remaining hostages said he was bitter at Moscow’s total disregard for their innocent lives. “Russia betrayed us,” he said, “they broke the agreement with the Chechens.”

                Having cited the execution of all the hostages as justification for launching their deadly assault on Pervomaiskaya, the Russian authorities are now hearing evidence to the contrary — evidence which could inflict further political damage on President Boris Yeltsin and his field commanders.

        • I have heard of the punitive expedition, it was a result of Bolshevik (Communist) Russian and Ossetian attacks on Georgian villages in Samachablo, when the Russians were attempting to overthrow the Georgian government and install a Bolshevik dictatorship in what was up till then a Social democratic state.

          As Robert rightly points out, Russia and Russians are full of lies, deceptions, and no trace of honour whatsoever.

          As for the “campaign to clear Georgia of its foreign elements”, more Russian BS.

          There are more Ossetians living in Tbilisi than in South Ossetia, and more Russians and Ukrainians for that matter. No body asks (or wants) people who grew up here and have loyalty to their country to leave.

          Ossetians served in the Georgian army during the last war (quite a few actually), as did ethnic Russians.

          Contrast this with the Russian deportations of Georgians an

          Tell me Alex, how do you justify Russian (real) genocide against the Chechens, but condemn the Georgian for attempting to retain their ancient territories (which have been part of their state for longer than the cess pit of Russia has existed)?

          • Quote : “Russia and Russians are full of lies, deceptions, and no trace of honour whatsoever.”

            If that is really what the two of you believe then of course you cannot expect me to continue this discussion.


            Perhaps you have some other explanation for why Russians choose to be governed by a proud KGB spy who can open their mail and eavesdrop on their Skypes and tell them what to think and know on TV? If so we’d dearly love to hear it.

            • Hi Alexander,

              Do you call this “TRUTH” ??

              It is interesting how Bukharin was described in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia. The second edition (1951) does not have an item devoted to him. That is an illustration of Soviet censorship.

              According to the first edition, however (Volume 8, 1927), he was “an outstanding theoretician of communism, an economist and a sociologist.”

              But Volume 33 of the first edition (printed in 1938) tells us that Bukharin, together with Trotsky and Zinoviev, were Gestapo agents hired to spy on the Soviet Union. He is also said to have organized attempts to kill Lenin, Stalin and Sverdlov.

              Other accusations, added in Volume 49 (page 419), were assassinations of S.M. Kirov, W.R. Meazhinsky, W.W. Kujbyshev and Maxim Gorky. Why would Bukharin want to kill the great Russian writer Gorky? Didn’t Stalin know that many Russians would ask this question? Yes, he anticipated this. And he knew what to do with those who dared to ask.

            • “Why did Russians choose to be governed by a proud KGB spy?”

              Why did Americans choose to be governed by a proud CIA spymaster George Bush Sr?


              You’re repeating silly Soviet propaganda without thinking. Do you like embarrassing yourself?

              Bush never had anything to do with the CIA before he ran it as an administrator. Putin was a career chekist.

              Moreover, the USA has no history of Gulag archipelago and mass murder to overcome. It’s been a stable democracy for 200 years.

              Whenever American virtues like free elections and press come up, Russians say: “Russia is a different country!” But when Russian vices come up, suddenly America is quite relevant? Your comments show a total lack of basic intelligence and fairness, repeating your government’s propaganda like a bleating goat.


              • Bush’s involvement with the CIA was hardly limited to him just being the 11th in history Director of Central Intelligence
                January 30, 1976 – January 20, 1977
                in 1976-77.


                In 1953, Bush started Zapata Petroleum. By 1958, the new company was drilling on the Cay Sal Bank in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. These islands had been leased to Nixon supporter and CIA contractor Howard Hughes the previous year and were later used as a base for CIA raids on Cuba. The CIA was using companies like Zapata to stage and supply secret missions attacking Fidel Castro’s Cuban government in advance of the Bay of Pigs invasion. The CIA’s codename for that invasion was “Operation Zapata.”

                In 1981, all Securities and Exchange Commission filings for Zapata Off-Shore between 1960 and 1966 were destroyed. In other words, the year Bush became vice president, important records detailing his years at his drilling company disappeared. In 1969, Zapata bought the United Fruit Company of Boston, another company with strong CIA connections.

                In 1964, Bush campaigned against the Civil Rights Act.

                We should also remember that as the US President, Bush invaded Panama, abducted its president Noriega in order to prevent Noriega from detailing how CIA ran drug smuggling operations in order to finance the Iran-Contra affair.


                CIA involvement and drug trafficking

                Noriega worked with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from the late 1950s to the 1980s, and was on the CIA payroll for much of this time, although the relationship had not become contractual until 1967.

              • Quote : “…the USA has no history of Gulag archipelago and mass murder to overcome. ” (La Russophobes reply to Phobophobe.)
                Really ? What about the Native Americans ? They just died out, like the dodo ?

                • They are still there Alexander, they did not die out, and unlike you Russian scum, the Americans have apologised (repeatedly) and are trying to make amends through affirmitive action programs and enabling the Native American population to run their own affairs.

                  Compare this with Russian cultural imperialism where even today the Russian government is trying to destroy minorities through “Russification”

                • “They just died out, like the dodo ?”

                  There’s more of them there now than anytime before.

                  And during the Contact/Conqest era, the great most of the deaths were from the new European diseases.

                  Number of the Indians who were killed is actually very small by comparison, I believe more of them killed each other in the same time period (althrough many more died from accidental or deliberate hardships inflicted on them by the colonists or the government).

                  On the other hand, you had stuff like The Indian Vaccination Act already back then (which was then limited or denied to some tribes by the Army, but still given to the others). So even nearly 200 years ago (1830s, tens of thousands vaccinations) there were government efforts to ensure they won’t simply “just die out” (the aim back then was their removal to the reservation areas, and not quite “dead or alive”).

                  Incidents such as the brutal massacre at Sand Creek actually shocked and disgusted the government and military authorities at the time:

                  Others not so much, but cruelty was not an officially-approved as state policy. While Russian colonialism/expansionism at the southern frontiers at the same time was much more brutal and deadly (to-this-day “great hero” Yermolov and the others). And the policy of pacification-through-murder in the Caucasus continues, to this day.

                • “They are still there Alexander, they did not die out”

                  You are a genocide apologist, sir. Yes, several hundred of thousand of Native Americans, who used to populate the entire American continent, have survived. So what?

                  More Jews than that survived the Nazi Holocaust, but what kind of a monster would say: “They are still there”?

                  Your indifference to the deaths of millions of Native Americans is beyond evil.

                  You are the second Stalin, only more genocidal.

                  How about the crime of slavery against millions of African-Americans? Do you dismiss that too? “”They are still there”, right?

                  • “Yes, several hundred of thousand of Native Americans, who used to populate the entire American continent, have survived. ”

                    See my answer already.

                    “So what?”

                    And so there are now millions of them (inclduing 2.5 million pure Indians and many more of mixed races).

                    More then ever before the contact (and before they were almost-wiped out by the diseases, the biggest wave of which was contracted from the early Spanish expeditions seeking Eldorado in the north).

                    • > And so there are now millions of them
                      > More then ever before the contact

                      And there are probably more Jews in the World today than before the Holocaust.

                      You sound like a beef rancher: “There are more cows than ever before. So who cares if I slaughtered them?”

                      Jewish and Native Americans are humans too, as much as you. Not cows, but humans. And if a million dies, their death is not “replaced” by the birth of others 200 years later.

                      And the deaths of millions of humans is a tragedy to everybody except to monsters like you.

                      > “So what”?

                      That’s what, monster.

                  • “deaths of millions of Native Americans”

                    Maybe if you count the natural deaths, such as from old age, in these hundreds of years. Do you?

                    North American (north of Mexico) Indian population was always small (there are now more of them than ever) and scarce.

                    And so the massacres were also small by necessity (so not one of them would reach anywhere near the level of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Praga#Massacre by the Russian imperialists at the time, for example – or maybe even if all of them were counted altogether and then confronted to only this one single incident of this typical Russian behaviour).

                    Check out this list (which, mind you, also listens the massacres of the whites by the Indians):


                    • So, how did it happen that before the Pilgrims came to Plymouth Rock, the entire North America belonged to the Native Americans, and now very little does?


                      Native Americans

                      Scholars estimate that approximately 10 million pre-Columbian Native Americans resided in the present-day United States. That number has since fallen to approximately 2.4 million.

                  • Well you certainly do not recognise Russian crimes “Phobeophobe” so enough with your hypocrisy.

                    Besides, Alexander was claiming the US made the Native Americans extinct “like the Dodo” and that is what I was correcting.

                    As for my attitiude to what happened to them, see the rest of my post, words like “the Americans have apologised (repeatedly) and are trying to make amends” would kind of give a rational person the idea that I was opposed to what happened to them.

                    My comment would be taken “Thank God they are still there” rather than how you choose to interpret it.

                    Besides, Russia has comitted far more, and far greater genocides during its imperial expansion than the US. Against the Poles, Georgians, Chechens, Ingush, Circassians, against the small nomadic tribes of Siberia who were hunted for sport by the Russian military and Cossacks, against the Finns and Lapps, against the Latvians and Estonians, against the Crimean Tartars and the Meshkian Turks.

                    Time to grow up “Phobophobe” and get an education.

  11. > The last time Georgia sought independence, Sherman had to burn down the capital.

    That’s the diference between Lincoln and Milosevic:

    Lincoln started the Civil War and brutally suppressed the perfectly legal independence of the country of the Confederate States of America, killing a huge number of both Confederate soldiers and civilians and burning down largest cities. The number of casualties was 970 000. Thus, he became the most beloved person in history.

    But Milosevic is the most hated person in history, even though he tried to do exactly the same thing as Lincoln: to preserve the Union through force, and with much fewer casualties.

    • @Phobophobe

      “But Milosevic is the most hated person in history, even though he tried to do exactly the same thing as Lincoln”

      Oh. You mean Lincoln’s aim was to exterminate many (in massacres and camps) and forcibly expell the rest all the white Southern people from the territory of the pre-war United States?

      And Lincoln also let the states with no Yankee “holy graves there” simply go away (Slovenia after only 10 days of low-scale shooting, Macedonia with no war whatsoever)?

      This while creating rape camps for non-Yankee women elsewhere?

      “The number of casualties was 970 000.”

      Actually not that many. And the great most of them military (and most of them from disease, too – 2/3).

      Not really that big too, given the large population and immigration – while the total population of Bosnia was only 4 million. That is almost 10 times lower than the American in the 1860s (which actually rose sharply despite the war, including from immigration) – while the Bosnian fell by several hundred thousand from the war (from deaths and emmigration).

      And all of them were from the same nation and their religion was not a dividing point (Croats are Catholics, Bosnians and Kosovars are mostly Muslims).

      And the Confederate aim was actually to conquer Washington (and not just to repel the Yankee armies).

      And so on.

      Try again.

  12. Actually the confederates wanted the war much more than Lincoln did.

    Thats why they fired on fort Sumtner.

    Thats why they attacked the north.

    You do remember that the “Johnny Rebs” were fighting to keep the right to hold other men in slavery don’t you? Or are you too stupid to understand why the northern states considered slavery to be a heinous crime?

    The Union victory resulted in the emancipation of millions of african americans.

    Slobodan wanted the enslavemement (and eradication) on non Serbs.

    • Keep on jabbering as long as you want :
      Abkhazia and South Ossetia are independent and the Russian army will protect its independence.
      Bye,bye gypsy Georgians…


      You seem to be illiterate, unaware of the meaning of the words you are using. The RUSSIAN army can’t protect OSSETIAN independence. Only the OSSETIAN army can do that, you moron. Would you like NATO to guarantee Russian “independence”? Think a little before you write, it will help you look like less a fool. Marginally less.

      • Then why is NATO/KFOR protecting the independence of Kosovo?

        • “Then why is NATO/KFOR protecting the independence of Kosovo?”

          Sample picture of “NATO/KFOR” before the Russians got bored and left Kosovo:

          • And? What’s wrong with a picture of KFOR peacekeepers peacefully standing around their KFOR vehicle doing nothing? Does every picture of a Russian soldier, even if he is a UN peacekeeper, throw you into an uncontrollable epileptic fit?

            • No, I just showed you a sample picture of what you called “NATO/KFOR protecting the independence of Kosovo”.

              To prove you how stupid this statement was.

              The KFOR (and not any “NATO/KFOR”) are peacekeeping territory to avoid the reneval of the ethnic armed conflict between ethnic Albanian and Serb populations.

              And the Russian contingent was known to be very openly taking the Serb side in this strife, but they eventually grew bored of this or something and so they decided to “betray their Serbian brothers” and left in 2003. (*shrug*)

  13. @Quote : “Russia and Russians are full of lies, deceptions, and no trace of honour whatsoever.” If that is really what the two of you believe then of course you cannot expect me to continue this discussion.

    And what do you except? Medvedev speaking about “nothing less than genocide” in which “civilians were torched, sawed to pieces and rolled over by tanks”; Putin talking about “complete genocide” (complete? 100% exterminated?)… When the Russian aircraft blew up the apartment blocks in Gori I didn’t think it was “genocide” or whatever, I thought they were throwing unguided rocks as always and probably meant to hit the nearby tank base. You know, it’s a war. But then they continued to bomb Gori even after the Georgian soldiers fled the city. A demilitarized city was still a target for them. So who did the Russian military try to kill? Random remaining peaceful citiziens (Georgians had no militia in the conflict)? Well, so they did, they also killed a Dutch cameraman. And now they continue to lie that they didn’t kill him with cluster bomb (actually it was their one of their vaunted Iskander missiles), they say they didn’t use cluster bombs. No, they only repelled hordes of bloodthirsty Georgian soldiers (allegedly running around with chainsaws in their hands, “sawing” the peace-loving Ossetians “to pieces” by thousands in their “total genocide” – according to the Russian top leadership), did not do any war crimes, much less sponsor ethnic cleansing (even if this intent was openly admitted by proud Kokoity).

    About the “genocide”:
    (and another gem: Russia’s U.N. ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, said his nation is a victim of a “disinformation campaign of spectacular proportions.” He said Russian troops “have never occupied Gori.”)

  14. Let me remind you what the Gerogian Presdient Shevardnadze said about Georgia’s aggression and genocide against Ossetians last August:


    And here is what the President of the Nixon Center for Peace and Freedom Dimitri Simes says:


    “The Bush administration and some Europeans encouraged Kiev’s belligerence vis-à-vis Moscow for years without thinking of the consequences. This blind support of Russia’s neighbors against Russia contributed to Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili’s disastrous decision to use force in South Ossetia. “

    • “Let me remind you what the Gerogian Presdient Shevardnadze said about Georgia’s aggression and genocide against Ossetians last August”

      Oh. And “what the Gerogian Presdient Shevardnadze” said about “Georgia’s aggression and genocide” in the early 1990s, or the later tensions and clashes during his presidency? Let us remind:

      In an October 11 state-of-the-nation address, Shevardnadze said Georgia strives to restore Tbilisi’s authority over both Abkhazia and Ossetia, while refraining from threatening armed action. “Restoring the country’s territorial integrity should not be seen as a one-off act that will immediately abolish all state structures that exist de facto in Abkhazia and the Tskhinvali zone at present,” Shevardnadze said. “It will be an evolutionary, multi-stage process.” Kokoyev has indicated he is not interested in negotiations. On October 15, he indicated that he would shun a meeting with the Georgian president. “I do not and will not contact Shevardnadze,” Kokoyev told the Prime-News agency. The Ossetian leader characterized Shevardnadze as “one of the main criminals guilty of genocide against Ossetians” during the armed conflict between Georgian government forces and Ossetian separatists.


      And also “let me remind” (for example):

      Shevardnadze also urged Russia’s parliament to back down from threats to recognize two breakaway Georgian provinces, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, as independent. “Terrorism feeds on these roots of aggressive separatism, aggressive nationalism,” Shevardnadze said. “Let the Abkhazians and South Ossetians have no illusions about achieving independent states.”

      or this:

      Georgia’s former president Eduard Shevardnadze said Russia will live to regret its recognition of rebel regions and called for a boycott of the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, in remarks published Thursday. Shevardnadze, who was also a foreign minister of the former Soviet Union, said that Moscow’s move would “encourage separatist movements within ethnically diverse Russia.” ”They will live to regret it,” Shevardnadze told Japan’s Asahi Shimbun newspaper. “This will lead to discussions to recognise the independence of Chechnya and Dagestan,” he added, referring to two regions in the Caucasus that have sought freedom from Russian rule for centuries. Shevardnadze supported calls raised by some US lawmakers to strip Russia of the 2014 Winter Olympics, to be held on the Black Sea resort of Sochi, or to boycott the Games if they go ahead.

  15. “ Lincoln’s aim was to exterminate and forcibly expell?”

    Milosevic’s aim was not to exterminate or expel Bosnians or Croats. Quite the opposite: he wanted them to remain part of Yugoslavia, just as Lincoln wanted the Confederates to remain a spart of USA. Thus, Yugoslavia had the same civil war as did USA 130 years earlier. Civilian casualties on all sides of the Yugoslav civil war were “collateral damage”, not the goal.

    “Slobodan wanted the enslavemement (and eradication) on non Serbs”

    Nothing of the sort. Slobodan wanted to preserve Tito’s Yugoslavia intact. To claim that Tito, himself a Croat, “enslaved and eradicated non-Serbs” would be even more ridiculous than your usual drivel here.

    The parallel between the US and the Yugoslav Civil Wars is quite strong, especially in terms of motivation of various sides. The main rule of foreign policies has always been: “divide-and-conquer” your opponent in order to weaken him, while keeping yourself united. That’s why Lincoln wanted to preserve the unity of USA, and that’s why Clinton wanted to destroy the unity of Yugosalvia. Divide and conquer! United we stand – divided we fall!

    “Not really that big too, given the large population…”

    The population of USA in 1860 was 31,443,321. The population of Yugoslavia in 1990 was 32,765,020.

    The number of people who died in the Yugoslav Civil War is 134,000. The number of people who died in the American Civil War is 620,000.


    • @”Milosevic’s aim was not to exterminate or expel Bosnians or Croats. Quite the opposite: he wanted them to remain part of Yugoslavia, just as Lincoln wanted the Confederates to remain a spart of USA. Thus, Yugoslavia had the same civil war as did USA 130 years earlier. Civilian casualties on all sides of the Yugoslav civil war were “collateral damage”, not the goal.”

      Yeah, totally. Just look how they were strongly encouraged to remain 1) alive 2) “part of Yugoslavia” (curiously known as “Republiska Srpsa” and not “Yugoslavia”), for example, in Visegrad.

      In the very first says and weeks of the war, the violence unprovoked, the town first occupied by the JNA forces and then given to the local Serbs. Just check out the “collateral damage” that followed. Only one man, Milan Lukić, personally(!) killed at least(!) 132 men, women and children of Visegrad (as proven in the UN court http://www.icty.org/sid/10188 – sentenced to life) – in all thousands were murdered there (in massacres and in concentration camps), the women raped, the rest expelled (all of them – and they were lucky to be alive), their houses systematically looted and destroyed. Some 3,000 citiziens of the town were either murdered with extreme brutality (not just shot, but mostly killed with knives, one-by-one, children first as their parents watched, or burned alive in groups).


      And this horror of what you called “collateral damage and not aim” was everywhere, in every captured city, town and village in Bosnia, just with more or less brutality – the official state policy of what the Serbs dubbed “ethnic cleansing”, giving a birth to the new term. The infamous Srebrenica slaughter was not an isolated incident, it was just the largest massacre of them all, a crowning achievement of the Serb separatism in Bosnia.

    • “The population of Yugoslavia in 1990 was 32,765,020.”

      And the population of Bosnia, where the great most people died, was only 4 million.

      Before the war: 4.4 million
      After the war: 3.9 million

      While the population of the USA actualy increased during the Civil War.

      “Clinton wanted to destroy the unity of Yugosalvia.”

      The original Yugoslavia broke up in 1991-92, before Clinton even became president. After the total failure of half-hearted (and half-assed) 10-day Slovenia operation, Milosevic supported only the Serb separatists in Bosnia (and Croatia). Territories with no “holy Serb graves” (Slovenia and Macedonia) were let go. The “ancient Serbian lands” beyond Serbia were however to be won and “ethnically cleansed” for the Greater Serbia project.


      That’s why the JNA (by this time really just the Serbian army) created the Serb insurgent states in Croatia and Bosnia (and in the case of Bosnia the JNA forces there were actually simply renamed as the VRS – “Serb Republic [in Bosnia] Army”). No, the Lincoln’s war was not to create any minority (black?) separatist “republics” in the CSA and then brutally “cleanse” them from the Southerners.

      • Btw, it’s quite analogous to Putmedev’s Georgia policy – a former fellow federative republic invaded by the Russian army and volunteer paramilitaries to create some “independent” Russian republics, ethnically cleansed of non-Russians (althrough not quite nearly that brutal – rather just looting and destruction than mass murder and rape camps, quickly and with much more success, so far).

      • “While the population of the USA actualy increased during the Civil War.”

        Of course it did. Everybody wants to come to America (especially to places like California, Boston and New York which saw no war), and everybody wants to leave Islamic hellholes like Bosnia and Albania.

        But I bet the population of the sate of Georgia,which (like Bosnia) experienced horrible fighting, decreased singnificantly during the American Civil War.

        “Bosnian fell by several hundred thousand from the war (from deaths and emmigration).”

        Yes, emigration but not deaths. The total death tally was 36 000 in Serbia and 64 000 in Bosnia. As opposed to 660 000 in the American Civil Wars.

        No matter how you spin it (and you are a great spinner, better than Roger Federer), these numbers will remain steadfast as a sanity check.

        But you are welcome to try again.

        • @”California, Boston and New York which saw no war”

          But they saw conscription through the entire war (and even draft riots). Unlike Slovenia and Macedonia and even the Serbian-Montengrin draftees actually stayed out of the most war.

          @”As opposed to 660 000 in the American Civil Wars.”

          In a huge war which changed warfare (ironclads, submarine, trenches instead of formation tactics), in which the great most(!) of the dead were soldiers who died from disease in their own army camps, which had no extermination of civilians or organized mass rapes (and thus no international efforts from the shocked world to limit/stop the atrocities).

          At the same time, the Russians commited genocide against the Caucasians (mostly massacred or expelled, more like Milosevic-way).

          What happened to the Circassians:

          @”and everybody wants to leave Islamic hellholes like Bosnia”

          Ah so, they (Muslims) suddenly decided to flee “Islam”…


          “you are a great spinner”

          And you are either an idiot, a bastard, or an internet troll.

        • “The total death tally was 36 000 in Serbia and 64 000 in Bosnia.”

          A lie. The total was about 100,000 in Bosnia. Serbia’s (and Montenegrin) losses were small – in all wars only several thousands troops (regulars and paramilitaries) and a handful of civilians (mostly in 1999).

          Their only war was Kosovo, besides this their forces were always based on the local Serbs in the other countries (JNA troops from Serbia were withdrawn after just few weeks, leaving only the Bosnians Serbs now renamed “VRS”) and in Croatia the JNA actually still had a lot of other nationals in the ranks (even as most of them were rather busy trying to desert and return home).

  16. Dear CG/Alexander,

    You stated:

    ***There does not exist an Ukranian nation, they are Russians.

    The word “further” seems to imply that there have been previous instances of Russian agression against Georgia & the Ukraine. Which is strange, to say the least, because I cannot recall any such instances.

    And what about instances of so-called Russian agression against the Ukraine ?***

    This response is a continuation to your silly comments above.

    Spin-doctor semantics are useful for useful idiots. Maybe you think that you can tell me when you think that the word Ukrainian appeared, but I will tell you why.

    Muscovy [moskali] stole the name Rus from the Ukrainian people. So, when you say Kievan Rus, you are referring to the present day Ukraine.

    Ukrainian is an East Slavic language spoken in Ukraine and in Ukrainian communities in neighboring Belarus, roosha, Poland, and Slovakia. Ukrainian is a lineal descendant of the colloquial language used in Kievan Rus (10th–13th centuries).


    Since the middle of the seventeenth century the modern name Ukraine (Ukrayina) (first found in the twelfth century chronicles) was used sporadically, until it was reintroduced in the nineteenth century by a conscious effort of several writers concerned about the awakening of the Ukrainian national awareness.[12] It was not until the twentieth century when the modern term “Ukraine” started to prevail while Little Russia gradually fell out of use.

    Stealing other peoples’ culture, traditions, heritage, etc. is a common policy, procedure and practice of the kremlin. The GENOCIDE [and stealing] of the UKRAINIAN people, UKRAINIAN language, UKRAINIAN culture, and UKRAINIAN traditions, has been going on for centuries!

    Ukraine suffered “colossal” looting during World War II

    Research challenges Russians’ claim that they own many cultural valuables from the independent state

    Mr. Kot said Russian museums rarely want to cooperate in determining just how much looted Ukrainian art they possess. At the end of the 1990s, however, Ukrainian researchers learned Russia was in possession of 26 mosaics and frescoes from the walls of the 12th-century St Mikhail’s Cathedral in Kiev that the Soviets destroyed in the 1930s. After years of negotiations, 11 of the frescoes, held in the Hermitage, were returned to Ukraine in two shipments: February 2001 and February 2004. The others remain in Russia.

    [rest of article at:]


    Here is a map of Muscovy in 1500AD:

    After the moskali occupied Ukraine, in the 17th century, the moskali decided to call themselves’ “greater rooshan”, and Ukrainians “Little Russians”. That is when the kremlin’s GENOCIDE of the Ukrainian people, history, language, culture, and traditions – began.

    President Yushchenko has put a halt to this genocide, and has tried to curb the further malicious russification of Ukraine. This is the main reason why the kremlin tried to assassinate President Yushchenko, and promotes daily disinformation about him.

    As Ukraine and its people underwent the process of nation-building in the last eleven hundred years, Little Russia, even in the historic context, can only loosely be considered as merely a contemporary equivalent for the word Ukraine. The term has become an archaic one, and anachronistic usage in the modern context is considered strongly offensive by Ukrainians, as it often used to imply the denial of a separate Ukrainian national identity, an opinion not uncommon among Russian nationalists.

    >> 1720. Peter I’s ukase banning the publication and printing of books in Ukrainian.

    >> 1722 When the Austrian monarchy made Galicia a province in 1772, Habsburg officials ***REALIZED*** that the local East Slavic ***PEOPLE WERE DISTINCT*** from BOTH Poles AND Russians. Their own name for themselves, Rusyny, was similar in sound to the German term for Russians, Russen. Austria ADOPTED the ethnonym Ruthenen (Ruthenians), and continued to use it officially until the empire fell apart in 1918.

    >> 1769. Ban by the kremlin on Ukrainian ABC books.

    >> 1784. Only “Pure Russian” is allowed as the language of instruction at the Kyiv Religious Academy. {BEFORE THE MOSKALI CAME, UKRAINIAN WAS THE LANGUAGE OF KIEV}

    From 1840 on the term “Little Rus” for Ukrayina and “Malorosy” for Ukrainians began to fall out of fashion. In the 1880s and 1900s, the popularity of the ethnonym Ukrainian spread and the term “Ukraine” became a substitute for “Ruthenia” among the Ruthenian/Ukrainian population of the Russian Empire. In time the term “Ruthenian” became restricted to western Ukraine, an area then part of the Austro-Hungarian state.

    >> 1863. Ban on printing any books in Ukrainian except for “belles-lettres.”

    >> 1866. “Strict surveillance” over Ukrainian belles-lettres is introduced.

    >> 1876. Ban on importing or bringing from abroad any books “in the Small-Russian dialect”; theatrical plays in Ukrainian, public recitals in Ukrainian and even the texts in Ukrainian accompanying the music notes are banned.


    In 1876 however, with the publication of the Ems Ukaz stage performances by kobzars and bandurists were officially banned. Paragraph 4 of the decree was specifically aimed at preventing all music, including ethnographic performances in the Ukrainian language. As a result blind professional musicians such as the kobzars turned to the street for their sustenance.

    >> 1895 Ban on children’s books in Ukrainian.

    >> 1910 Concerned about potential revolutionary activity, Interior Minister Pyotr Stolypin restored the ukaz’s restrictions and shut down the Prosvita societies and Ukrainian-language publications. Russian-language press and the kremlin launched a campaign against the idea of Ukrainian autonomy or separatism. In the meantime, Ukrainian self-identity would grow in Austro-Hungarian Galicia, out of reach of Russian imperial authorities.

    >> 1917 After expelling the government forces, the Rada announced an autonomous Ukrainian Republic, still maintaining ties to Russia, on November 22, 1917.

    >> 1918 On January 25, 1918, the Tsentralna Rada issued its Fourth Universal (dated January 22, 1918), breaking ties with Bolshevik Russia and proclaiming a sovereign Ukrainian state.

    >> 1918 The West Ukrainian People’s Republic was proclaimed on November 1st, 1918.


    >> 1920’s The kremlin closes or destroys all churches in UKRAINE and kills about 3,000 UKRAINIAN priests.

    >> 1922 On March 19, 1922 lenin commands – Top Secret For members of the Politburo:

    Now and only now, when people are being eaten in famine-stricken areas, and hundreds, if not thousands, of corpses lie on the roads, we can (and therefore must) pursue the removal of church property with the most frenzied and ruthless energy and not hesitate to put down the least opposition.

    In addition, it will be more difficult for the major part of our foreign adversaries among the Russian emigres abroad, i.e., the Socialist-Revolutionaries and the Milyukovites [Left Wing Cadet Party], to fight against us if we, precisely at this time, precisely in connection with the famine, suppress the reactionary clergy with utmost haste and ruthlessness.

    The instructions must come down to this, that he must arrest more if possible but not less than several dozen representatives of the local clergy, the local petty bourgeoisie, and the local bourgeoisie on **SUSPICION** of direct or indirect participation in the forcible resistance to the decree of the VTsIK on the removal of property of value from churches. Immediately upon completion of this task, he must return to Moscow and personally deliver a report to the full session of the Politburo or to two specially authorized members of the Politburo.

    At this meeting pass a secret resolution of the congress that the removal of property of value, especially from the very richest lauras, monasteries, and churches, must be carried out with ruthless resolution, leaving nothing in doubt, and in the very shortest time. The greater the number of representatives of the reactionary clergy and the reactionary bourgeoisie that we succeed in shooting on this occasion, the better because this “audience” must precisely now be taught a lesson in such a way that they will not dare to think about any resistance whatsoever for several decades.

    [Translation from the Library of the US Congress]

    >> 1920’s The kremlin kills 8,000,000 – 9,000,000 Ukrainians during lenin’s famine, and the forced “collectivization” of Ukraine, etc. In their continuing GENOCIDE of the Ukrainian people, culture and language, they called Ukrainians – Kulaks, rather than Ukrainians, to rationalize their GENOCIDE of the Ukrainian people. Also, the kremlin attacked the Ukrainian churches when the Ukrainian churches were helping the millions (1,000,000’s) of Ukrainians that were starving to death.

    >> 1927 The Central Committee in the kremlin decreed that Russian was a special language within the Soviet Union.

    >> 1928 Restrictions came into force that directly affected the lifestyle of the traditional kobzars, and stopped them from traveling without a passport and performing without a license. Restrictions were also placed on accommodations that were not registered and also on manufacturing or making banduras without a license.

    >> 1930’s [+ or -] Most Ukrainians have had relatives in the gulags! There were about 18,000,000+ people sent to the gulags, and some of the camps were 90% Ukrainian! You do the math. HOLODOMOR was not the only GENOCIDE orchestrated by the kremlin against the Ukrainians! In their continuing GENOCIDE of the Ukrainian people, culture and language, they called Ukrainians “ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE”, rather than Ukrainians, to rationalize their GENOCIDE of the Ukrainian people.
    My 90% figure comes from a book “ZA POLYRNYM KOLOM”, Lviv-Poltava, 2001.

    PS Several of my family members were sent to the gulags. Most of them were Ukrainian teenage girls. None of them were able to give birth when they returned. If you can think, then you can figure out the reasons. [I would explain, but vulgar language is not allowed in this forum.] How many Ukrainian children missed the opportunity to be born in Ukraine?

    >> 1930 After relocating many Ukrainians to Kazakhstan, the kremlin begins to orchestrate another GENOCIDE on the territory of Kazakhstan. By 1932, about 80% {?} of the non-rooshans in the territory of Kazakhstan are exterminated and some villages did not have any living children.


    >> 1932-33 The KREMLIN REMOVES ALL FOOD FROM Ukrainian villages, does not allow food to enter Ukraine, does not allow Ukrainians to leave Ukraine, or their villages, and creates GENOCIDE by starvation in Ukraine! {ten million (10,000,000) Ukrainians are killed in this GENOCIDE called HOLODOMOR!} Dead bodies, from starvation, litter the streets of Kiev, like cigarette butts in NYC. Meanwhile, there are no dead bodies on the streets of moscow! In fact, there are banquets in moscow. In fact, dead bodies, from an artificially forced starvation {PRONOUNCED GENOCIDE}, were strewn in the streets, throughout all of the cities in the Ukrainian territory that was occupied by the moskali! Now the kremlin will have to re-rewrite their history books {AGAIN} and claim that dead bodies littered moscow in 1932-33, also?

    >> 1934 This is a quote from a communist leader speaking in the Kharkiv region in 1934:

    “Famine in Ukraine was brought on to decrease the number of Ukrainians, replace the dead with people from other parts of the USSR, and thereby to kill the slightest thought of any Ukrainian independence.”
    – V. Danilov et al., Sovetskaia derevnia glazami OGPU_NKVD. T. 3, kn.2. Moscow 2004. P.572

    >> 1930s In the 1930’s the authentic kobzar tradition of wandering musicians in Ukraine came to an end; there was also a wave of arrests of bandurists in the Kuban. Many of these arrested bandurists received relatively light sentences of 5-10 years camp detentions or exile, usually in Siberia. Also, most of the Ukrainian bandurists were killed!

    Throughout the 1930s bandurists were constantly being arrested and taken off for questioning which may have lasted some months. Many were constantly harassed. Whereas in the early 1930s those incriminated received relatively light sentences of 2-5 years the period starting with 1937-38 the sentences were often fatal and immediate – death by shooting. In 1937-38 large numbers of bandurists were executed. Documents have survived of the many individual executions of bandurists and kobzars of this period. So far the documentation of 41 bandurists sentenced to be shot have been found with documents attesting to approximately 100 receiving sentences of between 10-17 years. Often those that were arrested were often tortured to obtain a confession. Sentences were pronounced by a Troika and were dealt out swiftly within hours or days of the hearing. The families of those that were executed were often told that the bandurist had been sent to a camp without the right to correspond.

    Many bandurists and kobzars were persecuted by the authorities that controlled Ukraine at various times because of the association of the bandura to the Cossack past and aspects of Ukrainian history which the kobzars would glorify in their songs and epics.

    Kobzars were usually blind musicians and poets. When the kremlin exterminated {pronounced – GENOCIDE} them, the kremlin was also destroying the culture, traditions, and history of the Ukrainian people.

    It is hard to establish the exact number of bandurists who were persecuted in various ways. As more information has been coming to light, the number of musicians who were arrested, interned or executed has continued to rise. It is unmatched in any other folk music or bardic tradition in Europe.

    >> 1939 On March 15 Carpatho-Ukraine declared its independence as the “Republic of Carpatho-Ukraine”, with the Reverend Avhustyn Voloshyn as head of state.
    “The First Constitutional Law of Carpatho-Ukraine” of March 15, 1939 defined the new status of the country as follows:

    1. Carpatho-Ukraine is an independent state.
    2. The name of the state is: Carpatho-Ukraine.
    3. Carpatho-Ukraine is a republic, headed by a president elected by the Sojm of Carpatho-Ukraine.
    4. The state language of Carpatho-Ukraine is the Ukrainian language.
    5. The colors of the national flag of the Carpatho-Ukraine are blue and yellow, blue on top and yellow on the bottom.
    6. The state emblem of Carpatho-Ukraine is as follows: a bear on a red field on the sinister side, four blue and three yellow stripes on the dexter side, as well as the trident of Saint Volodymyr the Great.
    7. The national anthem of Carpatho-Ukraine is “Sche ne vmerla Ukraina” (“Ukraine has not perished”).
    8. This act comes valid immediately after its promulgation.
    9. map:

    10. The Ukrainian battle against the Nazi supported Hungarians’ attack on Carpatho-Ukraine may be considered the first battle of WWII.

    >> 1939-41 The kremlin closes or destroys churches in Western UKRAINE and kills most of the UKRAINIAN priests, and replaces the pulpits with KGB, to shrive the Ukrainian people.

    >> 1942 The kremlin allows rooshan orthodox church to reopen to assist them in the war and the KGB are given pulpits to stand on, and work as priests, and shrive the people.

    >> 1946 The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is outlawed by the kremlin.

    The UGCC was for forty-three years the single largest banned religious community in the world.
    The UGCC had 18 eparchies, 3,433 communities, and 2,136 clergy members. The UGCC’s members, who constituted a majority of the believers in western Ukraine, numbered approximately four million.

    Major Archibishop Lubomyr Cardinal Husar is the present head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.[1]

    The UGCC uses the Ukrainian language.

    >> 1954 December 31, 1954 The 83rd Congress [USA] 2ed session, SPECIAL REPORT NO. 4, stated, “The Ukrainian people who have suffered greatly from the aggression and GENOCIDAL policy ……………….. moscow has resorted to all possible measures to deny their national existence as a people with their own distinct culture. …………

    [I typed this from the original thirty-six (36) page report that my father gave me.]

    >> 1956 In February 1956, Nikita Khrushchev in his speech On the Personality Cult and its Consequences condemned the deportations as a violation of Leninist principles, asserting that the Ukrainians avoided such a fate “only because there were too many of them and there was no place to which to deport them.”

    >> 1989 The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is legalized.

    >> 1991 Free, at last! {AGAIN!}

    >> 2004 rooshan Orthodox “priests” {in eastern Ukraine} are telling the people that THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY appeared to them and told them that Yushchenko must lose and yanykovych must win the election.

    Also, before the elections in 2004, in Eastern Ukraine, people were saying, “How can anybody vote for Yushchenko? Do you not know that Yushchenko murdered his wife, chopped her up, cooked her, and ate her?”.



    PS Also, many years ago, the kremlin published Ukrainian-English, and English-Ukrainian dictionaries and substituted rooshan words for the Ukrainian words.


    We’re letting this up, but in future please try to control yourself. This comment is far too long.

    • LES,

      Are you the same person as the notorious Ukrainian nationalist Bandurist of the Wikipedia “fame”, who denies Holocaust, who even started a new Wiki entry titled “Jewish Murderers”, and got upset when the Wiki community removed it?

    • Why don´t you mention the war ? When people like you collaborated with the nazi´s ? Don´t be shy – judging from the comments posted here, one can only conclude that people here really sympathize with Hitler, who, after all, only tried to free the world from communism & from those terrible Russians. Right ?

      • Actually many (most?) Russians in the occupied territories sided with or cooperated with the Germans.

        Heard of General Vlasov have we?


        Or the Russian liberation Army


        Or the Hiwi’s (who made up 25% of German combat strength at Stalingrad)


        Then there was the Russian state collaboration with Nazi Germany including the joint invasion of Poland.

        Soviet and Nazi collaboration

        In Moscow in August of 1942, Churchill asked Stalin how he had come to sign the pact with Hitler in 1939. Stalin replied that he thought that England must be bluffing; he knew that Britain had only two divisions that could be mobilized at once, and he thought that Britain must know how bad the French Army was and what little reliance could be placed on it. He could not imagine that Britain would enter the war with such weakness. On the other hand, he said he knew Germany was certain ultimately to attack Russia. He was not ready to withstand that attack; by attacking Poland with Germany he could make more ground, ground was equal to time, and he would consequently have a longer time to get ready. However, none of this was true. To Stalin himself and most Party functionaries, the pact was not a necessity, but a highly congenial alliance.

        Probably Stalin’s most successful propaganda coup of all was the propagation of the myth that Soviet territorial acquisitions in 1939 were designed to establish a forward strategic line in case of a German attack. This tale has received wide acceptance, but eighteen months later when Hitler launched his invasion, virtually nothing had been accomplished in the way of fortifications, defensive lines or military airfields to exploit ground gained by the Nazi-Soviet Pact. In fact, the national armies of Finland, Romania and the Baltic States would have protected Stalin’s flanks. As it was, Finland and Romania were turned into effective allies of the Germans, and the Baltic States provided Hitler with excellent troops.

        Hitler gained a great deal from the pact. Provision was made for the supply from Russia of a million tons of grain for cattle, 900,000 tons of mineral oil, 100,000 tons of cotton, 500,000 tons of phosphates, 100,000 tons of chrome ore, 500,000 tons of iron ore, 300,000 tons of scrap iron and pig iron, and numerous other commodities vital to the German war effort.

        While Hitler was fighting Britain and France, the Soviet Union was supplying him with his raw materials. Not only that, but they were helping Hitler to break Britain’s blockade by supplying rubber and other essential supplies by transporting them on the Trans-Siberian Railway. It is interesting to note that while Stalin was supplying Hitler with thousands of tons of grain, his own people were starving.

        It is very clear that what both Hitler and Stalin wanted was the complete dismemberment of Poland. Polish soldiers held captive in the Soviet Union were told that “…by being on good friendly relations with Germany the land would never again be an independent country. Poland is dead forever.”

        While the Soviet Union held back from joining Germany as a belligerent, she furnished Germany with military co-operation far beyond that which the United States was giving Britain at that time. The German navy was allowed facilities at Murmansk on a scale which contrasts favorably in many ways with restrictions placed on Allied use of the same port between 1941 and 1945.

        The German liner “Bremen” found refuge there, as did a succession of blockade breaking vessels; and measures violating international law were adopted by the soviet authorities to allow the Germans to escape with a captured American merchant ship,

        “City of Flint”. German auxiliary cruisers were equipped at Murmansk for raids on British shipping.

        More than this, the Soviets actually allowed Germany her own naval base on Soviet soil near Murmansk. It proved to be a valuable base for U-boats operating in the North Sea, and played an important role helping supply Hitler’s invasion of Norway. The Soviets helped a German raiding cruiser, “Schiff 45”, to make her way through the ice around Siberia to the pacific, where she sank and captured 64,000 tons of allied shipping. In this and other ways the Soviet Government lent enormous assistance to the otherwise extremely vulnerable German Navy.

        The main reason that Stalin opposed Britain and France was because he considered them to be capitalists and imperialists and therefore enemies of communism. Stalin had respect for the Nazis because they were revolutionary, totalitarian, and Hitler was ruthless. Hitler also had a respectful admiration for Stalin, and Goebbels believed that Communists and Nazis were cut out of the same cloth.

        In France in particular Communist subversion of the war effort was intense, and when France was defeated the Party declared that French imperialism has just suffered its greatest defeat in history.

        An article in Pravda in May 28, 1940 said the following: A certain part of the Estonian intelligentsia regards the occupation of Norway and Denmark by the Germans as an aggression, as an enslavement of small nations. This part of the intelligentsia preaches a loyal attitude towards England and expresses its hatred of Germany and everything German… The ruling circles of Estonia are trying to remain neutral with regard to the events in the west… The Estonian Press likewise tries to avoid awkward problems and emphasizes its loyalty towards England.

        It should be noted that both Denmark and Norway were neutral countries as were Holland and Belgium when they were attacked.

        All collaboration with the Nazis ended on June 22, 1941 when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union.
        After their experiences with the Soviet Union, is it any wonder that the Baltic States and Eastern Europe do not want Russia meddling in their internal affairs, to be in their “Sphere of Influence?” If they have really changed, wouldn’t they give back what they took?

        Many Eastern Europeans emigrated to Canada, and when Soviet Union or the Russian language is mentioned, you get a look that says “Hey, we’ve had enough of them. We were forced to learn Russian…My father spent time in Russian POW camps, so and so was sent to Siberia or was shot…” They are just now throwing off the vestiges of this colonial power. However, in the Soviet press, all was rosy, the Russians were “welcome” everywhere, and interviews were made to show how everyone “loved” the Russians and how they just can’t get enough of their wonderful help. Why then so much military activity at the borders? Who is there to shoot at, where is the enemy? The truth was that all the countries would have enjoyed a standard of living close to that of Germany and Finland without this “Soviet assistance,” instead they were thrown into poverty and incarceration within their own country or Siberia, or worse. Like the old saying goes, “with friends like that who needs enemies?”
        Germany conquered one part of Poland, and Russia conquered the other part of Poland. Poland was caught in the middle before America even became involved in World War II. Poland was wiped out from both sides. After capturing a large number of prisoners, they said, “Hey Joseph, what do you want us to do with all of these prisoners?” He said, “Oh, they are just Poles; execute them.” They put hoods over their heads, tied their hands behind their backs, jerked them up as hard as they could, put ropes around their necks, and marched them out to the edge of a hill, and one by one they shot at least 14,500 Polish officers in the back of the head. How can you shoot prisoners of war? What about the Geneva Convention? Hey Joseph, don’t you know that it’s not nice to shoot people in the back of the head while they can’t resist? So why wasn’t Joe brought before the courts in The Hague?
        Treaties and conventions are meaningless to a communist. They are only a means to get ahead, and they have no intention of keeping their treaties.

        Communists teach their students a simple technique. They ask them to bring a board, a hammer, and a nail. The teacher says, “Boys and girls, I’m going to pound this nail into this board. Now, watch closely.” He takes the hammer and slams it down on the head of the nail, BOOM! He says, “Now, should I keep pushing on the hammer, PUSH, PUSH, PUSH?” “No, no, no, teacher. Draw the hammer back until you are ready to strike again.” They pull back and strike again. That’s the way you pound a nail. You don’t hit it and keep pushing because you’ll never drive it in that way. Then the teacher says, “That’s right boys and girls this is the way that we are going to take over this world. We are going to strike and take a country, and then we are going to back up and say, We’ve changed; we’re nice now. Send us your aid.” Then, we are going to strike and take another one, and back up and say, “Hey, we’ve changed. Send us more money please.” Robert T. Weaver

        Today, President V. Putin, a leader who is a far cry from Gorbachev, is telling the Baltic states how they should handle their Russian speaking population, that was forced on them in the Soviet era. This was a plan to move Russia to the Baltic, and as such, Putin has no right to complain now when the plan is left unfinished. Those Russians can learn their host language if they want to stay. Better yet, let them go to their spiritual home in Russia if they love their mother tongue so much. That is a lot kinder than what they did to those people – sending them away forever to Siberia, or other remote areas with nothing.


        • Most Russians indeed. Let me guess : there never were such things as either the partizan (guerilla) movement or the extermination of the Slav (Russian) population by the Germans, right ? And, of course, if only the Bolsheviks would have surrendered Leningrad, all those lives would have been spared. (Never mind that the nazis planned to completely destroy the city.)

          • No, there were partisans all right, though the effective units tended to be soldiers who were cut off in the great sweeping German offensives of 1941 & 1942.

            My wifes great uncle was a Georgian Razvedchik (scout) attatched to partisans around leningrad during the “Battle of the Trains”, however the effectiveness of the Soviet partisans (most were actually Ukrainians & Byelorussians, not Russians) was vastly over rated, as was that of the French resistance, for propaganda purposes.

            The fact remains that (like in France) the majority of the population in the occupied zones tried to get on with the occupiers.

            This is a historical fact Alex. You may not like it, but it is a fact.

            The Germans comitted many horrific atrocities on the eastern front, but no more than the Russians did themselves.
            It is interesting that during the German retreats of 1944 & 1945, that huge numbers of Soviet citizens followed the withdrawing Germans rather than come under the control of the Russian government again.

            BTW, when did I say Leningrad should have been surrendered?

            • “The Germans comitted many horrific atrocities on the eastern front, but no more than the Russians did themselves.”
              You cannot seriously mean this.
              Ever heard of the nazi “Generalplan Ost”?
              And nevertheless the poultion in the occupied territories “tried to get on with the Germans”?
              You know – neo-nazis (both in the West & Russia) claim the same sort of things. You don’t happen to post on say Stormfront once in a while ?

              • Oh I don’t know, all those deportations, mass killings of the “politically unreliable”, the partisans massacres of “collaborators” (ie those trying to survive in between two corrupt and monstrous governments), the shooting of ones own soldiers for failing to advance against the most professional and ruthless army the world has ever seen due to poor training, tactics and equipment (have you ever heard of NKVD barrage/blocking battalions Alex?)

                Russian actions in “liberated” countries such as Poland were no better than those of the Nazi’s.
                Instead of exterminating Jews, the Russians “liquidated” entire classes of people (teachers, doctors, students, policemen, mayors that sort of thing). The only difference was that the Germans were racist pigs, and the Russians were classist pigs.

                You were both as bad as each other.

                As Churchill said when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union “Its a pity they both can’t lose”

                As for the collaboration of civillians, and the extremely large number of Soviet citizens (including Russians) who signed up to serve the Germans either in the police, as hiwi’s, in the RLA, and even in the SS, sorry bucko, these are documented facts.

                Personally I feel sorry for them, especially those from ethnic minorities who had been previously opressed by the Russians, stuck in between the two most reprehensible governments in history.

                What an awful choice to have to make.

                • This will be my last comment, as having a discussion with the likes of you is like – I don’t know, handling dead rats or something like that. Something dirty anyway.
                  The nazis torched hundreds of Russian villages with their inhabitants. I don’t mention Khatyn because I know what you will say to that (btw why is revisionism not OK when it’s about the jews & holocaust, but it’s not a problem when you’re dealing with Russians?), but there were scores of other villages who befell the same fate. How many villages did the Red Army burn in Eastern Europe ?
                  “The Russians “liquidated” entire classes of people ” – not true. According to “The Black Book of Communism”, 1 million people died in eastern Europe as a result of communism, which includes (I suppose) the victims of show trials & purges conducted by eastern European communist governments themselves. A large number, sure, but not comparable to the 20 million (civilian) victims in the war as a result of nazi genocidal policies.
                  “I feel sorry for them, especially for the minorities” – well I think you only feel sorry for the minorities : I cannot imagine, after all you’ve said before, that you would feel sorry for Russians for even one second.
                  The only reason I took a look at this blog is that some idiot, who had a link to it on his site, assured me that is was all irony. Like hell it is – this is a blatantly racist site. So I’m out of here – I really need a long & cleansing shower.

          • And then there is:

            In Russia proper, ethnic Russians were allowed to govern the Lokot Republic, an autonomous sector in Nazi-occupied Russia. Military groups under Nazi command were formed, such as the notorious Kaminski Brigade, infamous because of its involvement in atrocities in Belarus and Poland, and the 30th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (2nd Russian). [73]

            Ethnic Russians also enlisted in large numbers into the many German auxiliary police units. Local civilians and Russian POWs, as well as Red Army defectors were encouraged to join the Wehrmacht as “hilfswillige”. Some of them also served in so-called Ost battalions which, in particular, defended the French coastline against the expected Allied invasion.


        • Oh geez Andrew, don’t do any more copy-paste floods like that.

          I remember an ironic story of a Russian SD unit (a large one, I think a regiment) called Druzhina. After brutally massacring many villages for the Germans, they defected to the partisans (along with their commander!), renamed themselves “The 1st Antifascist Brigade” or something like that. The Germans attacked and destroyed them. Good riddance.

          • Oh, it was actually a brigade, even. It’s largely forgotten now, but someone wrote a book about them:


            Complete history of the most effective anti-partisan pro-German Soviet formation raised by the Nazi SD in World War II. The unit eventually defected back to the Soviet mold and thereupon a hunt was organized by the Germans to try to locate and destroy the unit. With dozens of extremely rare photos, maps, documents, orders of battle, the author traces the history of the unit from inception to operations, to defection and ultimately to its destruction. Munoz has, for the first time covered the story fully and answers the question of how, who, what, where, and why of this esoteric SS unit.

        • > Or the Hiwi’s

          Those were Ukrainian Cossacks:

          Soldiers mobilized by German troops, so-called Cossack sections, attached to German divisions.

          My Jewish ancestors knew very well how it feels to be pogrommed by the Ukrainain Cossaks.

          Notice how whenever Ukrainians did something bad – they are referred to as “Russians”.

          But when Stalin did soemthing bad to both Russians and Ukrainians (like the Great Famines), only the Ukrainian suffering is publicised and these victims are no longer called “Russians”. In this case, they are called “Ukrainians”.

          • From your link

            Hiwi is a German abbreviation. It has two meanings, “voluntary assistant” (Hilfswilliger, literally one willing to help) and “assistant scientist” (Hilfswissenschaftler).

            Hilfswilliger (“voluntary assistant”)
            The word entered into several languages during World War II when German troops enlisted volunteers from the occupied territories for supplementary service (drivers, cooks, hospital attendants, ammunition carriers, messengers, sappers, etc.).

            This term from World War II times is often associated with collaborationism, and, in the case of the occupied Soviet territories, with anti-Bolshevism (and widely presented by Germans as such). Some Soviet hiwis were pressed into combat in the ranks of the German Army (Wehrmacht Heer) in desperate situations, such as with the German Sixth Army at Stalingrad, where they added up to about 25% (50,000) of the front-line strength. Some German divisions had a higher ratio—for example, the 71st and 76th Infantry had parity between German and “Hiwi” manpower.[1]

            A captured “Hiwi” told his People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs (Narodnyy Komissariat Vnutrennikh Del, or NKVD) interrogators: “Russians in the German Army can be put into three groups:

            First: Soldiers mobilized by German troops, so-called Cossack sections, attached to German divisions.
            Second: Voluntary Assistants (Hilfswillige) – Local civilians or Russian prisoners who volunteer or Red Army soldiers who desert to join the Germans. These wear full German uniform with their own ranks and badges. They eat like German soldiers and they are attached to German regiments.
            Third: Russian prisoners doing the dirty jobs, kitchens, stables and so on. The categories are treated differently, volunteers treated best.”[2]
            Hiwis were referred to as “former Russians” by the Soviet authorities, regardless of the circumstances of them joining, and their fate at the hands of the NKVD was most likely death or the gulag.[3]

            The reliance upon “Hiwis” exposed a gap between Nazi ideologues and pragmatic German Army commanders. Nazi leaders, such as German dictator Adolf Hitler, regarded all Slavs as “sub-human” (untermensch) and therefore of no value to the “Aryan” German Army. On the other hand, the manpower was needed[4] and German Intelligence had recognised the need to divide the Soviet people. The contradiction was sometimes disguised by their reclassification as Cossacks.[5] Colonel Groscurth (Chief of Staff, XI Corps) wrote to General Beck: “It is disturbing that we are forced to strengthen our fighting troops with Russian prisoners of war, who are already being turned into gunners. It’s an odd state of affairs that the “Beasts” we have been fighting against are now living with us in closest harmony.”[6] One quarter of 6th Army’s front-line strength were Hiwis[7]

            The main body of Cossacks in the Nazi German service were DON Cossacks, not Ukrainians Cossacks, my lying friend.



            BTW, on the subject of pogroms, what exactly is it that your Jewish relatives are doing in the west bank & gaza?

  17. If anybody thinks that we are dealing with a bandura musician gone mad, he is mistaken. This is the new, revisionist version of history that Yuschenko wants to tell the West. The reality, as every sane Ukrainian knows, is totally different. For example, here is what the Ukrianian authorities say about the Golodomor/Holodomor:
    Kiev, July 15 2009
    Vlodimyr Nalivajchenko, the head of Ukraine’s security agency SBU (former KGB), officially states that the crime of Golodomor was committed by Ukrianian authorities, the Ukrainian Communist Party and the Ukrainian security forces. Other parties – including the Russian Federation – have nothing to do with this.

    • So thats why the orders came from the Kremlin is it?

      Thats why Stalin and Yezhov were so pleased with the results?

      I guess the great purges never happened either?

      The majority of the victims were Ukrainians, Georgians, Latvians, Estonians, Lithuanians, Azeris, Kazakhs, Turkomen, and other ethnic groups with strong nationalist movements.

      You obviously have a very limited understanding of how the Soviet system worked.

      If you really think that the “Union Republics” had any say in decision making you are at best a fool.

      All decisions of any substance, even down to approval for buildings, were made in Moscow, the state governments of soviet republics were “rubber stamps” and God help them if they did not do as they were told.

      The Soviet Union, as with the Tsarist empire before it, was run for the benefit of its largest republic, Russia.

      The other republics were asset stripped of their produce, mineral resources, timber, livestock, and had their best and brightest (who usually wanted freedom for their peoples) either murdered by the secret police or deported to the gulags.

      From the inane nature of some of your posts one can only come to the conclusion that you are another one of the “useful idiots” that so amused Stalin with their slavish worship of all things Russian and communist.

      • Quote “The Soviet Union, as with the Tsarist empire before it, was run for the benefit of its largest republic, Russia.”

        Which probably explains why RSFSR (Russia) was the only Union republic that contributed more to the Union budget than it received & why it had the lowest living standard of all the Union republics.

        • That would be another Russian lie.

          Look at how people were forced to live in central asia, and the Caucasus in comparrison with Russia.

          Dirt roads, no running water, open sewrage until the late 80’s.

          Typical Russian BS.

          Why do you think they all wanted you Russian scum gone?

          Could it be the state theft of their resources, produce, and the like.

          I keep hearing Russian racists spout this line of yours, but sorry dimwit, the evidence does not back you up.

          • 1. My name is Alexander not “scum” or “dimwit”. The fact that we have different opinions does not entitle you to abuse me.
            2. “Look at how people were forced to live in central asia, and the Caucasus in comparrison with Russia.”
            Have you ever been to a Russian village ?
            3. Both the contribution of the RSFSR to the Union budget & the lower living standard in the RSFSR are acknowledged facts. Acknowledged, among others, by Western specialists who point to these facts as an explanation for the popularity of Russian nationalist slogans in the late 1980s. The “Democratic Russia” movement used this fact as an argument to support its drive for sovereignity of the RSFSR from the Soviet Union.

            • Well interestingly enough, Republics like Georgia had more than 70% of GNP taken and squandered by Moscow.

              A reason, along with repression, russification, and racism, to hate Russia.

              Not to mention genocide by the Russians and their proxies.

            • “Republics like Georgia had more than 70% of GNP taken and squandered by Moscow.”

              A totally insane lie. On the contrary, the products and natural resources of developed republics like Russia, Belarus and the Baltics were used to support the backward republics like Moldova, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Central Asia.

              Had it been your way, then the break-up of USSR would have made Russia poor and “Republics like Georgia” rich.

              Yet in the Soviet Union, Georgians were by far the wealthiest of all nationalities.

              And now, after the fall of the USSR? Well, judge for yourself what the CIA Factbook says about GDP:


              · 57 Russia 15,800
              · 73 Belarus 11,800

              · 107 Bhutan 5,600
              · 109 Namibia 5,400
              · 110 Guatemala 5,200

              · 117 Georgia 4,700

              Worse than Africa and Guatemala.

              No wonder that today many (if not most) employed Georgians are employed as guest workers in Russia.

              • Well thats the economic figures.

                70% of Georgia’s GNP was reserved and taken by Moscow. Historical fact.

                Georgia was a major exporter of steel, hydro electricity, minerals (very mineral rich country, including gold, iron, manganese etc), and they tended to be more highly educated than Russians too.

                What Russia did during the breakup of the USSR was to demolish (literally) many of the factories, steelworks, and hydro generation plants. Russia also engineered the overthrow of the government and the ensuing civil war and separatist movements in Abkhazia & South Ossetia, just as it did to Azerbaijahn in Nagorno-Karabakh.

                A lot of Georgians work in Russia, but there are now more working in western Europe and the US.

                Besides its a bit like all those Russians working at the supermarket checkouts in NZ, Australia, Canada & the US. LOL

                Besides, I would not laugh too loud, Georgia’s economy is still growing unlike yours.

              • “Historical fact.”

                No. Historical facts are those that are supported by reputable citations and references, which is what I try to do. Your unreferenced fantasies are just that: your fantasies.

                > Besides, I would not laugh too loud, Georgia’s economy is still growing unlike yours.

                Really? Then let’s return to this issue in 20 years when Georgia finally catches up to Africa and Russia catches up to Finland. Here are the latest growth figures available to the CIA:


                CIA – The World Factbook

                GDP – real growth rate: (2008 est.)

                Georgia – 2.4%
                Russia – 6%

                As I said: it’s all your unreferenced fantasies, disproved by real facts.

                • Hmmm, when did “estimates” become facts?

                  • “Hmmm, when did “estimates” become facts?”

                    When CIA published them in their annual World Factbook for year 2009. The freshest information there is always labeled as “estimates”. If you don’t like this practce – contact the CIA directly.

        • “RSFSR (…) had the lowest living standard of all the Union republics.”

          Haha. “We in Moscow are only so poor because of those damn Russians-exploiting rich bastards of Tajikistan.”? Are you for real? :)

    • I also suggest that you read some of the articles on this site here


    • Dear photophobe,

      I guess that just because you gave a link, written in rooshan by the kremlin, we must assume that the kremlin trumps over forty (40) countries on this planet???

      Kyiv, November 17 (Interfax-Ukraine) –

      Representatives of around 40 countries will come to Ukraine to participate in events dedicated to the memory of the 75th Anniversary of the Holodomor Famine in 1932-1933, Presidential Press Secretary Iryna Vannykova said at a briefing in Kyiv on Monday.


    • “I guess that just because you gave a link, written in rooshan by the kremlin”

      Dear LESS, this is the official position of the Ukrainian SBU based on its just finished investigation. Do you know what SBU is? It is Ukraine’s FBI, which is in charge of the entire Golodomor investigation expressed last week.

      But if you don’t trust anything written in “rooshan”, here is the same material in Ukrainian:


      And if your Ukrainian is as bad as your “rooshan”, here it is in English:


      SBU blames past Ukrainian regime, not Russia, for inducing Holodomor, SBU head says

      June 16 2009

      Ukraine does not blame Russia or other countries for orchestrating the artificial famine in Ukraine in 1932-1933, Security Service of Ukraine Head Valentyn Nalyvajchenko said in his interview with The Nezavisimaya Gazeta.

      “There are no claims to third parties, Russia or any other country,” he stressed.

      “The crime was committed in Ukraine, its perpetrators and organizers will be established by investigation. As evidenced by declassified archives, they were representatives of the Ukrainian authorities, the Communist party of Ukraine and its law-enforcement agencies,” the SBU chief said.

      • Dear phobophobe,

        Your spin-doctor semantics are useful only for useful idiots. The SBU investigation is an investigation and can not come to a conclusion until an investigation is compleated. Please refrain from making yourself look like an unbeliveable useful idiot. Thank you.



      • Dear photophobe,

        You stated:

        **Dear LESS, this is the official position of the Ukrainian SBU based on its just finished investigation.**

        As usual, you make a false statement, which is a blatant lie!

        The link that you provided states:

        We hope to submit case materials to court by November,” Nalyvajchenko said.

        I have seen many comments, on many web pages that use your typical kremlin propagandist strategy. You intentionally put disinformation in your comment, then add links that say otherwise, [or distort the facts in the article, or link to a KGB created source] and hope that people assume that you know what you are talking about and therefore do not read the links; this way you find useful idiots to spread your malicious disinformation.



        PS The best [and only] response that you and alexander gave to my above [and below] comment were lies? Pathological liars have lost the ability to discern between truth and falsehood. Even more, they hate those who dare to confront them with the truth. Why is that?
        Simple, because their ideas are bankrupt and they cannot afford to debate them and be proven the frauds that they are.

        You must be an avid understudy of Hitler:

        “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”
        Adolf Hitler quotes (German Chancellor, leader of the Nazi party, 1889-1945)

        I guess that the next thing that you will try to do is to convince me of is that Hitler did not kill the Jews, but all the Jews committed suicide?

        “I’m not upset that you lied to me, I’m upset that from now on I can’t believe you”

        Friedrich Nietzsche quotes

  18. “The majority of the victims were Ukrainians, Georgians, Latvians, Estonians, Lithuanians, Azeris, Kazakhs, Turkomen, and other ethnic groups with strong nationalist movements.”

    I may be mistaken, but wasn’t Stalin himslef a Georgian? How about Beria? Wasn’t he a fellow Georgian too?

    Weren’t tens and tens of millions of Russians victims of Stalin’s crimes? Where did you get the information that this Georgian monster Stalin killed Russians less enthusiastically than, say, “Turkomen” or Estonians?

  19. Stalin was 1/2 Ossetian, 1/2 Georgian, and according to V.I.Lenin, all Russian at heart.

    Just like Hitler, who was an Austrian who became an ultra nationalist German (and we still talk about GERMAN crimes in WW2, not Austrian ones), Stalin became an ultra nationalist Russian, where he is still adored to this day (3rd greatest Russian in history by popular acclaim), his crimes are swept under the carpet, and in the latest Russian high school history book he is lauded as a great leader, and his crimes described as ” a correct response to the problems being faced”

    Despite being of part Georgian ancestry, Stalin subjected Georgia to the most severe purging of his reign, according to KGB archives you were 4 times more likely to be killed or deported from Georgia than from Russia.

    Then there is also Stalins “Russification” policy, where the ethnic minorities were to be effectively wiped out by the destruction of their languages and cultures and the substitution of Russian language and “culture” (such as it is).

    “Although born in Georgia, Stalin became a Russian nationalist and significantly promoted Russian history, language, and Russian national heroes, particularly during the 1930s and 1940s. He held the Russians up as the elder brothers of the non-Russian minorities.”

    Encyclopaedia Britannica

    As for Beria, yes scum, but far less of one than those he replaced such as Yezhov and Yagoda, both of whom were the ones responsible for the great purges.
    If you have any understanding of the history of the purges you would know that Beria was brought in to wind them down. It was Russians that gave the orders for the purges, and the brunt fell on the ethnic minorities of the USSR.


    With regards to the victims of Communist crimes, Russians suffered far less severely in relation to their % of population than the ethnic minorities of the USSR.

    The same thing happened during WW2, the Russian government deliberately used ethnic minorites to destruction (often while deporting their civil populations while the men were at the front). Stalin wanted to do this to the Georgians as well in 1951, but there were too many to do at once, and Beria stonewalled this and other deportations untill after Stalins death (like I said, scum but not as bad as those he replaced).

    Interstingly enough the Russians are still erecting new statues of Stalin, and there are more statues of Stalin in North & South Ossetia (where he is considered the great Ossetian man) than anywhere else in the world.

    Try learning some history.

    • Why Russian “culture” ? You don´t think there is such a thing as Russian culture ?
      Ethnic minorities were not “wiped out” – in fact most of the minorities in the Far North only received achance to develop their culture after 1917.
      Stalin promoting Russian history is not a crime, especially considering that in the 1920s Russian history was subject to absolute vilification.
      The Russians that gave orders for the purges were the Georgian Stalin & the Jew Yagoda.
      The brunt of purges of war did not fall disproportionally on ethnic minorities.
      Name one instance of a new statue for Stalin rected since 1956 in Russia.
      Check your facts.

  20. Really?

    I suggest you check your facts Alexander

    There is a nice new shiny statue of Stalin in Sochi, it was even shown on Russian TV for its unveiling.


    From Interfax:

    Russian human rights organizations criticized the decision to set up a monument for Soviet-era leader Josef Stalin in North Ossetia.

    “This may only be regretted. It’s good the monument will not appear in Moscow,” Human Rights Movement leader Lev Ponomaryov told Interfax on Wednesday.

    “Stalin is one of the bloodiest dictators. Most people remember him as an embodiment of the peak of communist terror. Stalin was exterminating his own people,” Ponomaryov said . . . .

    It is not the first statue of “the Father of the Nations” to have appeared in Russia in 2005. Stalin’s bas-relief was restored in Kaliningrad and busts of Stalin were set up in Krasnoyarsk and in Yakutia’s Mirny.
    What’s next? Statues of Pol Pot in Cambodia and Hitler in Germany?



    The man who gave the orders for the great purges was Yezhov, a Russian.


    Ethnic minorities such as the Balts, Ukrainians, Georgians, Azeri’s etc all suffered massive repression of their cultures under Russian rule, both Tsarist and Communist, but your ignorance shows why Russians are still loathed in former Soviet states.

  21. Baku, May 5 – In an action that will only add to the controversies surrounding the Sochi Olympics, a Russian businessman with ties to the Kremlin announced yesterday that next Sunday a Russian foundation with which he is associated will unveil a statue in Sochi commemorating the meeting of Stalin, FDR and Churchill at Yalta at the end of World War II.


  22. Stalin museum is ‘an insult to millions sent to death in Gulag’

    By Andrew Osborn in Moscow
    Saturday, 18 February 2006

    The imminent opening of a museum devoted to Josef Stalin has stirred outrage among relatives of the millions he persecuted and has prompted claims that Stalinism is on the march again.

    After a number of delays, a “Stalin museum” dedicated to the once venerated Father of the People is to be opened at the end of March in Volgograd, the Second World War “hero city” once known as Stalingrad.

    The project is being financed by local businessmen but will controversially enjoy pride of place in the official complex that commemorates the epic Second World War Battle of Stalingrad.

    The museum will display a writing set owned by the dictator, copies of his historic musings, a mock-up of his Kremlin office, a Madame Tussauds-style wax representation of him and medals, photographs and busts.

    Svetlana Argatseva, the museum’s curator, said she felt the project was justified. “In France, people regard Napoleon and indeed the rest of their history with respect. We need to look at our history in the same way.”

    But Eduard Polyakov, the chairman of a local association of victims of political repression, is among those who believe the project is an insult to the millions who suffered in Stalin’s purges and were sent to their death in the Gulag. “I don’t even want to hear about this,” he said.

    “In the Stalingrad area, 100,000 families suffered from political repression and were forcibly resettled because of their ethnicity. How can people spit into our souls like this?”

    The scandal comes half a century after Stalin’s cult of personality was officially dismantled and the crimes he perpetrated against his own people exposed.

    Coming up, on 25 February, is the 50th anniversary of the “secret” speech made by Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev in 1956 denouncing Stalin, an event that ushered in “de-Stalinisation” and saw monuments to the autocrat torn down across the country.

    Ironically, however, though the former dictator appears to be enjoying a mini-revival. Actors playing “Uncle Joe” are in serious demand as TV and theatrical productions about the Stalin era flourish and the modern-day Communist party says his crimes were “exaggerated”.

    The comeback of a man whose bloodied hands are often compared to Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot and Mao Zedong, has alarmed the more liberal wing of Russia’s political class. The Soviet Union’s last leader Mikhail Gorbachev has warned that neo-Stalinism is on the march again while Russia’s first post-Soviet President Boris Yeltsin has said he can’t understand why Stalin is still so popular.

    Between 30 and 40 per cent of poll respondents regularly rate Stalin’s achievements as “positive” and a survey last year named him the most revered Communist leader the USSR produced. Admirers cite his turning the Soviet Union into a superpower, the country’s defeat of fascism and the “order” he enforced. According to Mr Gorbachev, Russia is going through a dangerous period.

    “We can see what was seen in the 1930s even now,” he said earlier this week. “Portraits of Stalin and a renaissance of Stalinism can be observed in the mass media and in theatres. Some attempts are being made to preserve Stalinism and this is very serious.”

    The total number who died under Stalin’s regime is disputed but Western historians put the figure at 20 million.


    • Even the Georgian government freely admits that Georgian independence movement started as indignation at Khruschev’s denounciations of Stalin’s crimes in 1956:

      Soviet Georgia

      Material is from A. Mikaberidze, Historical Dictionary of Georgia (2007)

      The Georgian youth, raised under the Stalinist regime, came to idolize the late Soviet leader and Khruschev’s sudden criticism of Stalin was met with deep resentment. Following Khruschev’s speech, on 5 March 1956, a demonstration was organized near the Stalin monument on the bank of the Kura River to mark the third anniversary of Stalin’s death…As demonstrations paralyzed the entire Tbilisi, the Georgian Communist leadership was unable to cope with situation… Following the events of 1956, the issues of the language and culture assumed unprecedented importance in Georgia.

      • “Even the Georgian government freely admits that Georgian independence movement started as indignation at Khruschev’s denounciations of Stalin’s crimes”

        Wrong. The Goergian independence movement was crushed by Stalin (by then already one of the leaders of the Russian Soviet regime).


        The youths of 1956 were brainwashed by Stalinism, 35 years later so they were born already in the Soviet Union.

      • Actually there was a big Georgian revolt in 1905, and again against the Bolsheviks in 1924, followed by 2 decades of the worst repression of the Soviet period.

        As for the 1956 Tbilisi riots:

        Reaction in Georgia
        In spite of Stalin’s heavy-handed suppression of Georgian nationalism, Khrushchev’s policy of de-Stalinization was, paradoxically, a blow to the Georgian national pride.[5] The younger generation of the Georgians, not fully acquainted with the darker side of Stalin’s rule[3] and bred on the panegyrics and permanent praise of the “genius” of Stalin, was proud to consider him being a Georgian that ruled over great Russia, and, as believed widely, dominated the world.[5] Now, Stalin’s denigration was seen as a symbol for the mistreatment of Georgian national consciousness at the hands of the Russian/Soviet rulers.[3] Patriotic sentiment mixed with political protest was further inflamed by the sarcastic and bitter manner in which Khrushchev ascribed all horrors of the era to the “genial” leader Stalin, whom, as he ironically put it, the Georgians so much enjoyed calling “the great son of the Georgian nation”.[6] Eduard Shevardnadze, then a Komsomol leader in Kutaisi and would-be President of post-Soviet Georgia, later recalled that Khrushchev’s ironical remark on Georgians at the end of his speech was particularly hurtful to the pride of Georgian youth.[7]

        The painful reaction caused by de-Stalinization in Georgia has been variously interpreted. It has been seen by many as a revival of Stalinism and by others as the first open expression of Georgian nationalism since the abortive revolt in 1924.[3] Sergei Arutiunov of the Russian Academy of Sciences relates:

        The shift of loyalty demanded of them at that moment was too enormous to execute easily. For people with a Transcaucasian background, Khrushchev’s speech was by no means a revelation. But many Georgians reacted in a rather peculiar way. Consider the peasants in Kardenakhi, the native village of my grandfather, and in many other villages from whom I had learnt the truth about the GULAGs already in the early 1940s. These people never referred to Stalin in other terms than as the “moustached one”, or more explicitly, “that moustached beast” (es ulvashiani mkhetsi) even in a circle of trusted people. Now, they promptly displayed portraits of Stalin on the windshields of their tractors and lorries… This was a surprising diametrical shift. However, while among Russians, it was a shift from one sort of conformity to another conformity, in Georgia the shift was from one non-conformist behavior to another kind of non-conformist behavior.”


        I would ask you to get your facts right, but since you are so obviously incapable of the simplest research……

  23. > It was Russians that gave the orders for the purges

    Oooh, actually, it was Comrade Stalin, a Georgian, that gave the orders for the purges. All his NKVD/KGB henchmen like Yagoda and Ezhov were disposable tools in his hands whom he used and then quickly executed. Yagoda, a Jew, lasted as the head of NKVD for 2 years from 1934 to 1936. Yezhov, a Russian, lasted as the head of NKVD for 2 years from 1936 to 1938. Only Beria, a sadist sexually perverse Georgian, survived as the head of NKVD for 15 years from 1938 to 1953. You do the math, stalinist genius.

    > Beria was brought in to wind them down

    Oh, we have a Beria admirer here. So, those damn russkies were comitting all the purges, but your beloved Comrade Stalin eventually found out about these terrible crimes in 1938 and immmediately brought in Comnrade Beria to stop them eh? And from 1938 to 1953, Stalin and Beria committed no more horrible crimes, eh? Tell that, for example, to all those Baltic people who suffered horribly from Beria and Stalin. Or to Chechens, Germans, Crimean Tatars, Ingushes and other victims of Stalin’s genocides.

    Don’t you know that Stalin’s schizophrenia was getting worse with each passing year? His 1937 purges, which were aimed against fellow Bolshevik leaders and didn’t effect average people much, look like innocent pranks compared to the horrors unleashed on tens of millions of innocent civilians in the 1940s and 1950s. How can you deny the vast majority of Stalin’s crimes? This may work in Georgia, but the rest of the World knows the truth.

    > “With regards to the victims of Communist crimes, Russians suffered far less severely in relation to their % of population than the ethnic minorities of the USSR.”

    Reference please for this lie.

    > we still talk about GERMAN crimes in WW2, not Austrian ones

    That’s what **you** do. Educated people know that Austrians were more likely to be SS members than Germans, and when talking about Nazi crimes, per capita we blame Germans and Austrians equally. However, uneducated boobs think that Germans were somehow more guilty than Austrians, just as these same uneducated boobs think that Russians were somehow more guilty than Georgians and other non-Russian Bolsheviks.

    Let me repeat my demand: provide proof that the tens of millions of Russian victims of Stalin were less numerous than those of other nationalities.

    • “The former Soviet Republic of Georgia is historically reputed for its cultural diversity and nationalist chauvinism; as a republic of the USSR and as an independent state, Georgia’s past has often been disrupted by ethnic strife and civil war. Prideful traits and stubborn spirit made Georgia a rebellious subject of the Soviet Union, especially during the fearsome reign of Joseph Stalin. Stalin’s notorious “purges,” which killed up to 30 million Soviets, wreaked the most damage in Georgia: ironically, Stalin’s birthplace.”


      As previously stated “phobophobe”, Beria was scum, just not quite as bad as Yezhov and Yagoda.

      Stalin wanted the purges wound down when he realised that his psychotic purging of the political structure of the state was weakening his hold on power rather than strengthening it.

      So no, I am not a Beria admirer, or a Stalin admirer, they both act too much like Russians for my liking. Ivan the terrible springs to mind.

      The majority of deaths in Stalins hellish reign were from political repression of nationalist groups such as the Ukrainians, Georgians, Chechens, Ingush, Crimean tartars etc. In the case of the last 3, the ENTIRE population was deported to Siberia.

      For example, less than 5% of the Georgian intelligentsia survived the purges of the 30’s, this means that 95% were killed.

      “Bolsheviks were a minority in the independent Georgia of 1917-1921; it was the Russian Red Army that forced the Georgians to the bolshevism of the Soviet Union. In addition, their fellow countryman, Joseph Stalin – a totally Russified person, as described by his daughter Svetlana (Alillueva), |7 | and a Great Russian chauvinist, as Lenin eventually came to realize |8 | – did everything possible to devastate the Georgian nation and its church together with his Russian and Georgian “traitor and renegade” friends, Grigorii Ordzhonikidze and Lavrentii Beria. Ordzhonikidze, along with other commanders of the Red Army and leaders of socialist Georgia, murdered a large number of Georgian intellectuals, churchmen, and peasants, and drove many others, especially from the intelligentsia, into exile. Beria then managed to reduce the number of Georgian politicians, writers, artists, and scholars; only 5 percent of them survived the slaughter of the 1930s. Georgians are very aware that proportionately far more Georgians than Russians died in these terrible years.

      Perestroika finally made it possible to talk of the purges. Not by chance was the first cinematic treatment of this terrible period a Georgian film – “Pokaianie” (Repentance), by Tengiz Abuladze.

      Perestroika also made it possible to speak publicly about other facts of Soviet-Russian domination and imperialism. Georgia, for example, had been able to retain only 30 percent of its GNP; 70 percent belonged to Moscow, that is, to Moscow’s all-Soviet ministries – “the center,” “center,” as it was called.”


      The majority of the trigger men were Russians.

      Stalin and the Soviet Union were just the Tsar and “mother Russia” with a new name, power was concentrated in Moscow, 70% of the Party were Russians as opposed to 51% of the Soviet population being Russian.

      The simple fact remains that Stalin saw his power base as being the Russian people, who worshipped him far more than the other ethnic groups of the USSR, including Georgians, just as the Russians still worship him today.

      The puges of the 1930’s were the “high water mark” of Stalins terror, although crimes did occur after this period, particularly in the post war 1945-53 period, they lacked the intensity of the “Great Purges” (which funnily enough is why they are called “the Great Purges”) and your comment that they did not effect the common people much is retarded in the extreme.

      The majority of Stalin’s post 1938 repression was once again directed at “Non Russian” elements of society, as shown by the mass deportations of Tartars, Meshkian Turks, Ingush, Chechens, Volga Germans, Pontic Greeks, and all other ethnic groups considered non-slavic (ie non Russian) and therefore unreliable.

      This was also matched by Stalins “Russification” policy which sought to destroy the non Russian elements of the USSR by erasing their cultural identities, another form of genocide.

      Then there is the “great famine” in the Ukraine, Caucasus (north & south) and central asia where strong nationalist (anti-Russian) sentiments existed amongst the farmers, and a man made famine was used to break them.

    • “70% of the Party were Russians as opposed to 51% of the Soviet population being Russian.”

      What year are these data from? What is the source?

      Here for you is the list of Politburo members right after the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 sorted by birth republic:

      Russia 43%
      Bubnov, Kamenev, Lenin

      Ukraine 43%
      Zinoviev, Sokolnikov, Trotsky

      Georgia 14%

      And here is the list of Politburo in 1931 when Golodomor started:

      Russia 40%
      Kalinin, Kirov, Kuybyshev, Molotov

      Ukraine 20%
      Voroshilov, Kaganovich

      Georgia 20%
      Stalin, Ordzhonikidze

      Poland 10%
      Stanislaw Kosior

      Latvia 10%
      Jan Rudzutak

      • The politburo was not the whole party.

        • But:

          1. You still haven’t given me any references to support your fantasy that under Stalin, 70% of Party members were Russians.

          2. Average party members had no voice. They were puppets who for 60 years voted unanimously for everything that the Politburo told them to do. Until 1953 – for Stalin and Beria, after 1953 – against their memory, without any pause. Even when Khruschev ordered them to grow corn in the Polar Circle.

          • Georgia on His Mind: Lenin’s Final Fight against “Great-Russian Chauvinism”

            As the Russian Army swept into Gori from where the Georgian Army had launched its assault on Tshkinvali they came face to face with its most infamous son. The statue of Josef Vissiaronovich Djugashvili, aka Stalin, still gazes down on the town of his birth. Stalin would have absolutely approved of the iron response the Putin-Medvedev regime gave to the reckless attack on South Ossetia by the Saakashvili regime. Stalin, despite his birth, was one of the great oppressors of all minority groups, but with particular ruthlessness towards Georgia.

            Lenin, Luxemburg and the National Question
            Many are aware that, in his final months, Lenin became aware of the danger posed by Stalin and began to take steps against him. What few remember, however, is that it was over the issue of Georgia and the Caucasus that Stalin’s real political character was fully revealed to him. Lenin’s position on nationalism was a complex one. He was painfully aware that the Tsarist Empire had been built on the seizure and oppression of hundreds of minorities. One of his greatest hatreds was thus “Great Russian chauvinism”. This was one of the reasons why he saw the national question in an entirely different way from Rosa Luxemburg. Luxemburg, born Polish and Jewish, was from two of the oppressed minorities in the Russian Empire. Whereas Lenin saw the national question as primarily a political issue, she saw that it was the shift in the stage which capitalism had reached that had rendered all support by Marxists for “national liberation” as antiquated. In the epoch of imperialism there was no point supporting any future bourgeois national revolutions. Looking at the Polish bourgeoisie in the 1890s, she considered it incapable of founding a new independent nation since it would always be tied “by chains of gold” to one imperialism or another. Lenin did not at first link the national question to the issue of imperialism. He considered it a powerful force which had to be taken into account when addressing any political issue. For our tendency there is no question that Lenin was wrong and nowhere was this revealed more than in Imperialism — the Highest Stage of Capitalism where he put his faith in the overthrow of capitalism in the struggle against imperialism by the oppressed people of the colonies. The decolonisation which followed World War II demonstrated that imperialism could actually benefit from conceding so-called national independence. Neo-colonialism was a lot more profitable than an increasingly expensive military occupation. The retreat from Empire of the old colonial power thus did not provoke the crisis of the system that Lenin had hoped for. As the isolation of the Russian working class from the rest of the world’s workers became more obvious in the 1920s, the error on the national question was to have dire consequences for many workers around the world. The failure of the European working class to come to the aid of the Russian Revolution also mistakenly encouraged the Communist International to promote alliances with the national “anti-colonial” bourgeoisies in places like China and Turkey. In both places, these same bourgeoisies bided their time and carried out savage massacres of their working class “allies”.

            “Great Russian Chauvinism”

            However within the territory of the old Russian Empire the question of the constitutional arrangement of the new society was a slightly different one. Lenin was convinced that any future union of proletarian states had to be a voluntary one. This was why the first declarations of the new Soviet power stated that each national territory had the right to determine its own future “up to the point of secession”. Rosa Luxemburg castigated this policy as allowing the local bourgeoisie, with the aid of German imperialist forces, to take over working class territory as in Finland and the Ukraine. This was true enough but it is unlikely that any policy statement actually made much difference since the Bolsheviks were in no position to materially help their working class allies in these areas in 1918. It was only after the collapse of German imperialism that the Russian Civil War could enter, for example the Ukraine. By 1920, at the Ninth Party Congress, Lenin was already warning “Scratch some communists and you will find Great Russian chauvinists.”

            With over 70% of the Communist Party membership being of Great Russian origin Lenin was concerned about this, but the worst “Great Russian chauvinists” were actually from the minority nationalities of the former Tsarist Empire. First amongst these was the Georgian, Stalin, who by virtue of his origins, had been made Commissar for Nationalities following the October Revolution.


  24. “And there are probably more Jews in the World today than before the Holocaust.”

    Actually, no. You’re wrong, like you always are.

    (But well, at least you wrote “probably” here.)

    “And the deaths of millions of humans is a tragedy to everybody except to monsters like you.”

    There were no “millions of deaths” of American Indians because of the activities by the United States government or its citiziens. Period.

  25. “The youths of 1956 were brainwashed by Stalinism, 35 years later so they were born already in the Soviet Union.”

    Gamsakhurdia, Saakashvili and all their men too were born in the Soviet Union. So, maybe their treatment of minorities like Ossetians and Abkhazians under Gamsakhurdia’s neo-Nazi slogan “Georgia for Georgians!” was also Soviet-style? If those Soviet-born Georgian youths in 1956 were dead wrong in their political views, who says that the Gamsakhurdia regime and followers weren’t?

    If modern Georgia has such great rulers, why does every new President have to remove the previous one through a civil war and/or a revolution? Tell me: if a Russian opponent of Putin died a sudden death the way Badri died just months after Saakashvili pogrommed and closed Badri’s Imedi TV, Badri challenged Saakashvili in the presidential elections and had to emigrate to London after the loss – wouldn’t everybody in the world accuse Putin of killing him? Badri is to Saakashvili as Trotsky is to Stalin.

    And how about the persecution of Okruashvili for his revelations about Saakashvili’s corruption?

    • Saakashvili actually has more to do with the United States then with the Soviet Union.

      Gamsakhurdia (a tragic figure, in life and death) was quite insane.

      “If modern Georgia has such great rulers, why does every new President have to remove the previous one through a civil war and/or a revolution?”

      Maybe because the Georgians are smarter then the Russians, who in their vast majority either lick their leaders’ asses (no matter what), cower in fear, or continue to drink themselves to death (or all of above).

      Badri died of heart attack.

      I actually know too little about “the persecution of Okruashvili for his revelations about Saakashvili’s corruption” to make any comment, so maybe rather ask Andrew as he lives there.

      • “Gamsakhurdia was quite insane.”

        Yes, he was. And the way he handled minorities was as insane as he was insane himself. No wonder the Ossetians and Abkhazis had to rebel against the crazyman Gamsakhurdia, like Kosovars rebelled against the evil man Milosevic at about the same time in the early 1990s.

        • Actually Ardzinba & Gamsakhurdia got on fine (Ardzinba gave him refuge when he was overthrown) , it was Schevernadze that Ardzinba hated.

    • No, because Badri died from congenital heart failure caused by too many years of:

      1. Heavy smoking.

      2. Heavy eating.

      2. Massive drinking.

      He was not killed by the following metheods beloved of the Russians

      1. Shot in the head at close range in a stairwell.

      2. Shot by assasins in a public street while running for his life.

      3. Kidnapped and driven out into the forest where the body is found with multiple gunshot wounds.

      4. Killed by having his tea spiked with a rare radioactive material.

      5. Beaten to death.

    • “He was not killed by the following metheods beloved of the Russians”

      When KGB killed people, it did so using undetectable and fairly inexpensive in-house poisons that made the death look like a heart attack.

      I am sure that the modern successors of KGB – be it Russia or Ukraine or Georgia – till have those poisons and, if they wanted to kill somebody abroad, they would use these poisons. They would never use Polonium, which costs $10 000 000 per vial and is totally detectable.

      That’s why Badri’s death fits the profile better than Litvinenko’s death, which to me seems like a clear case of 3 Russian ex-KGB and 1 Italian mafioso smugglers mishandling their precious merchandise.

      BTW, how about ther murder of Prime Minister Zhvania? Do you really believe that he was killed and then moved to another apartment by the security men without Saaka’s orders?


      Shevardnadze says Georgia’s former PM Zhvania was murdered

      Okruashvili said in Imedi TV’s “programme that he possessed information that the body of the dead prime minister was brought to the apartment where it was discovered. The wife of Zurab Zhvania, said that this has only confirmed the information Zhvania’s family had from the very beginning regarding the prime minister’s death.

  26. “Scholars estimate that approximately 10 million pre-Columbian Native Americans resided in the present-day United States. That number has since fallen to approximately 2.4 million.”

    Actuallyby different estimates some 2-18 million (no one really knows). And, repeating ONCE AGAIN, great most of them were wiped out by diseases generations before the US declaration of independence (including for example the mysterious Mound Builders, a high-culture civilization completely destroyed by the initial epydemics).

    You know “Phobophobe”, I’ll just quote Encarta for you, so you’ll get any other source than “enotes.com”:

    European settlement of the Americas drastically reduced the Native American population. The European conquest was primarily a biological one. Explorers and colonists brought a wide range of deadly communicable diseases directly from crowded European cities. These diseases spread quickly among Native Americans, who had no immunity to them. Transmitted through trade goods or a single infected person, measles, smallpox, and other diseases annihilated entire communities even before they had seen a single European. From the 16th century to the early 20th century, 93 epidemics and pandemics (very widespread epidemics) of European diseases decimated the native population. To cite only one example, in the American Southwest, the Pueblo population fell by 90 to 95 percent between 1775 and 1850. In addition to smallpox and measles, explorers and colonists brought a host of other diseases: bubonic plague, cholera, typhoid fever, scarlet fever, pleurisy, mumps, diphtheria, pneumonia, whooping cough, malaria, yellow fever, and various sexually transmitted infections.

    Despite the undisputed devastation wreaked on Indian populations after European contact, native populations showed enormous regional variability in their response to disease exposure. Some peoples survived and, in some cases, even returned to their pre-contact population level. Others disappeared swiftly and completely. Today, as scholars explore the magnitude of the Native American population decline, they are finding that the issues are much more complex than was previously assumed. Archaeological evidence indicates that illness was increasing in the Native American population in many regions before the arrival of Columbus, probably in response to problems of population density, diet, and sanitation.

  27. “So, how did it happen that before the Pilgrims came to Plymouth Rock, the entire North America belonged to the Native Americans”

    You forgot about Spaniards.

  28. And the Dutch, and the French.

    Seems Phobophobe is not very good at history, or anything else for that matter.

  29. Dear alexander phobophobe,

    Your generic kremlin responses to my above comment shows that you are just some more kremlin orphen clones.

    Saying that Ukrainians are Bandera Nazis is just quoting the soviet encyclopedia and a standard policy of the kremlin.

    Bandera’s followers argued that the Nazis had crushed Ukrainian independence and that many members of the OUN-B had been arrested, deported to concentration camps or shot. Members of Bandera’s underground cited how Stepan Bandera was currently confined at the Sachsenhausen concentration camp, his two brothers had been imprisoned (and later executed) in the Auschwitz concentration camp and other family members had been arrested and shot in the outskirts of Lviv.

    Moscow Special Services Again Play the ‘Jewish Card’ against Ukraine, Kyiv Writer Says
    July 09, 2009
    Paul Goble

    But an even more intriguing if necessarily more narrowly focused consideration of this question was offered by Moses Fishbein, a Jewish Ukrainian poet, in a commentary entitled “The Jewish Card in Russian Operations against Ukraine” that was published by the “Kyiv Post” ten days ago (www.kyivpost.com/opinion/44324).


    During his speech at an expanded session of Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB), which was held on 29 January 2009, the president of the Russian Federation, Dmitry Medvedev, revealed an FSB special operation in a few brief sentences: “An unstable sociopolitical situation persisted in a number of neighboring states, there were continued attempts to enlarge NATO, including by means of granting Georgia and Ukraine accelerated membership in the alliance.

    Naturally, all this required precise and well coordinated work on the part of all special security, defense, and law enforcement structures, and quite a high level of coordination of their activities. I must say straight away that on the whole the Federal Security Service successfully carried out all its tasks.”

    However, there is a concrete stipulation among the direct tasks of the FSB concerning the halting and prevention of leaks of state and military secrets. The FSB’s special operation, aimed at preventing Ukraine’s accession to NATO, is one of the Kremlin’s biggest secrets—and Mr. Dmitry Medvedev was instrumental in leaking this very secret.

    The Russian special services continue to carry out special operations aimed at undermining Ukraine’s sovereignty and independence. The members of the FSB and Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service were rewarded for their success in isolating Ukraine. In recent months, the number of personnel in the FSB structures that deal with Ukraine has increased by 1.5 times, and this increase is reminiscent of the 1950s, when the underground Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) was active in Ukraine.

    One aspect of Russia’s special operations against Ukraine is the so-called “Jewish card.” But first, a little history lesson is in order here. When did the imperialist gamblers begin playing the “Jewish card” on Ukrainian territory?

    Russia’s special services are seeking to destabilize the situation in Ukraine, undermine its sovereignty and independence, create a negative image of this country, block its integration into European and Euro-Atlantic structures, and turn Ukraine into a dependent and manipulated satellite. In their special operations against Ukraine they attribute exceptional importance to the “Jewish card.”

    They want to set the Ukrainians and Jews against each other by means of the well known method of “Divide and conquer.” They will not succeed in either dividing us or ruling over us.

    Moses Fishbein is a distinguished Ukrainian poet and translator, winner of the Vasyl Stus Prize, and a member of the Ukrainian Center of the International PEN Club and the National Union of Writers of Ukraine. This is a paper delivered at the 26th Conference on Ukrainian Subjects at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, on June24-27, 2009.




  30. “You forgot about Spaniards”
    “And the Dutch, and the French.”

    Of course! The Brits and Americans have no monopoly on genocide.

    Thanks, guys, for refuting your own claim that Western European countries have never committed any crimes against humanities.

    Let’s add Germans, Portugese, Italians and Belgians – and we get the full picture.

    And in that picture let’s not forget the crimes against Africans, who were brought to the Americas as slaves by the Americans, English, French, Portugese, Spanish and Dutch, and were treated worse than cattle.

    • A bit like how Russians treated Poles, Balts, Georgians, Ukrainians, Azeri’s, Chechens, Ingush, Kazakhs, Tatars, etc.

      Being a serf in Russia was slavery of the worst sort.

    • You forgot, quite conveniently, that those crimes were committed by Europeans 500, 400, 300, 150 years ago. I am sure that Ghengis Khan and Tamerland and such killed even more people in their day. But we are talking about the Soviet crimes that took place within the living memory of the persons who are still alive. It’s not the same thing for many reasons

    • “And in that picture let’s not forget the crimes against Africans, who were brought to the Americas as slaves by the Americans, English, French, Portugese, Spanish and Dutch, and were treated worse than cattle.”

      And then how the Brits launched a war on slavery, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Africa_Squadron or how the Americans fought a civil war on this issue. So I guess they evolved a bit.

      Meanwhile in Russia the state policy in the Caucasus was murder: 200 years ago, 100 years ago, today in July 2009.

  31. “The majority of Stalin’s post 1938 repression was once again directed at “Non Russian” elements of society, as shown by the mass deportations”

    Majority? Bull. Read Solzhenitsyn’s GULAG Archipelago about the mass repressions against ethnic Russians and against the Russian Church.

    Average workers in Moscow were sent to GULUG for being 10 minutes late for work. Average workers and peasants were sent to GULAG just for using newspapers, containing Stalin’s portraits, as toilet paper.

    If you hated your boss, you could go to the KGB office, tell them that you have heard your boss make a political joke — and boom! Your boss is in GULAG, and you now sit in his chair!

    It was totally insane for everybody all over USSR.

    • I do not disagree that it was bad for everyone, but it was worse for the minorities, particularly those with strong independance movements such as Ukraine & Georgia.

      Georgians arrested by the NKVD were 4 times more likely to be simply executed (after torture) than their counterparts in Russia, as were Ukrainians.

      Historical fact. Of course you are too Russian and too hypocritical to admit it.

      I suggest you read this article (registration required)


      “Russification” was also a major crime, which is, according to the UN human rights charter, a form of genocide. This is also a historical fact.

      As for repression against the Russian “church” (which betrayed its Orthodox principles long ago by becoming an opressive tool of Peter the Great), well it comitted many repressions of its own, not least the crushing of the Georgian and Ukrainian Orthodox Churches which are far older (there are 2nd & 3rd C Churches in Georgia) than those of Russia.

  32. A Monument to the Terror
    Visiting Georgia’s Museum of the Soviet Occupation is like watching a perfectly staged, cathartic tragedy. by MELIK KAYLAN
    Tuesday, September 4, 2007 12:01 A.M. EDT

    TBILISI, Georgia–Upon entry, the museum feels more like a mausoleum, which is as it should be. You walk into a large, bunker-like space, dark but strangely welcoming, oddly calming. With the sad intimacy of a voyeur peering from darkness to washes of light, you peer at the wall-mounted exhibits. Searing bouquets of memory, they seem to rise at you. After all, the Museum of the Soviet Occupation here is a kind of mausoleum, one that chronicles the merciless quashing of a national destiny for over 80 years–that of Georgia by Moscow under the Soviet system and beyond, from 1919 to the Rose Revolution in late 2003. It may sound like a grim prospect, but the experience of touring the single space for an hour is a humanizing and stirring one, never depressing, rather as if one had just watched a perfectly staged, cathartic tragedy. And it ends in a resurrection of hope with scenes from the Rose Revolution’s democratic triumph.

    You tour the cavernous oblong clockwise, returning to the entrance. Looking from there, two near exhibits cut across your line of sight, the first and last, leaving a narrow middle view to the far end, where you can discern a menacingly lit table with a clunky old telephone just visible on it. This, you realize, would be your first glimpse of the distant commissars who signed your death warrant, peremptorily, after you walked across just such an endless room. A beastly metal object squats inside the entrance, a fat Maxim machine-gun of World War l vintage, black and oily. It points at an extraordinary display, the first exhibit, a life-size wood-slatted cattle car pierced with holes and fiercely lit from within. The myriad light beams come at you like dawn rays. Something awful happened during the night, the exhibit suggests, and here is the morning-after stillness. You imagine the bodies inside and even the chatter of birdsong nearby. This is how the Red Army executed in bulk, 100 people at a time.

    You walk around the cattle car into the main space, and along the wall stretches a line of photos, documents, letters, manifestoes–all human scale, digestible, affecting, like an album of mementos. There’s a Declaration of Independence document from 1919 by the short-lived Democratic Georgian Republic. The republic, like so many others in the Russian orbit, was squashed in the 1920s by the onset of the Terror, which continued unabated into the 1930s. Black-and-white photographs of bewhiskered, often uniformed figures–executed officers, politicians and clergy–stalwarts of ancien régime manhood, follow intermittently. Such images can seem lazy and repetitive, but here are so modestly and poignantly presented, so fragile as objects, that they sadden the heart. As do a collage of death warrants on aging sepia paper, and pictures of soon-to-be executed Georgian Royal family members. And a short silent film loop shows a grainy alleyway scene, a bullet-to-the-head sepia murder of a citizen with a puff of pistol-smoke.

    There was no resisting the omnivorous human thresher: The Terror simply cut down Georgian society en masse, with some 72,000 people shot and 200,000 deported to the Gulag out of four million. The artifacts of repression left behind have a malevolent mute power: three primitive steel doors, hanging by chain, from prison cells, their brutally solid metal keys in a glass case.


    • By the way, it should be mentioned that the numbers in the above article are for 1937, and for aTbilisi.

      The repression in Kutaisi and the rest of west Georgia where the majority of rebellions ocurred during the period 1921-1938 was far worse. They also do not iclude those in internal exile or forced labour within the borders of the GSSR.

      Georgia had a population of nearly 5.5 million in 1921 when the red army invaded, by 1941 this had dropped to a little over 4 million due to Russian political repression, meaning nearly 1.5 million of 5.5 million had died or dissappeared under Stalins terror around 27% of the population.

      Of this 4 million, 770,000 men were sent to the front in ww2, over 300,000 were killed, the highest service and loss rate per capita of the entire USSR.

      • It seems that by 1926, due to the mass repressions, deportations, and executions, that Georgia’s population could have dropped as low as 2.6 Million.

        Which is even worse.

      • > “Georgia had a population of nearly 5.5 million in 1921 ”

        Look, Andrew, these are not simply fantasies of yours. These are vicious pathological lies. Here is the truth:


        Democratic Republic of Georgia

        Population – 1919 est. – 2,500,000

        The territory of the Democratic Republic of Georgia included some territories that today belong to other countries. It was circa 107 600 sq. km, compared to 69 700 sq. km in modern Georgia.

        And now look at:


        Georgia: Total population with and without Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

        This graph clearly shows that Georgia’s population in 1921 was around 2.3 million.

        > by 1926, due to the mass repressions, deportations, and executions, that Georgia’s population could have dropped

        No, it didn’t drop. It grew from 2.3 mln in 1921 to 2.6 mln in 1926.

        In fact, except for the naturally flat period in 1940-50 due to World War II, the population of Soviet Georgia grew rapidly from 1921 to 1992. Of course, as soon as Georgia became independent – that’s when it population started to plummet and continues to do so.

        As I said many times – Stalin and other Soviet leaders were much better for Georgia than the leaders of modern Georgia.

        In any case, your ability to spew out hundreds of lies per day is record-breaking.

        > Which is even worse.

        True. Nothing is worse than a pathological liar-propagandist like you. From now on, I am going to assume that everything that you claim without citations – is a lie. I simply have no time to research every lie of yours. Either provide references and citations – or don’t post.

        • The number of 5.5 million was a genuine mistake and is the estimated population of the Trans Cucasian Democratic Federative Republic, of which Georgia was a constituent part.


          • “estimated population of the Trans Cucasian Democratic Federative Republic, of which Georgia was a constituent part.”

            Better yet, since Georgia was also a constituent part of the entire Soviet Union, you, if that fitted your purposes, could also claim that the population of Georgia was 250 million, right? :-)

        • “The number of 5.5 million was a genuine mistake”

          No, it wasn’t. If you thought that you were telling the truth, you would have provided the source. In that case, I would have immedeately looked at your reference and politely pointed out your mistake.

          But it was not an honest mistake. It never is with you. You purposefully hide your sources, so that the reader wouldn’t be able to see the truth.

          BTW, have you ever given me the source for you claim that “70% of Georgia’s GNP was taken by Moscow”? I asked you several times.

          • Here it is again

            Stalin, despite his birth, was one of the great oppressors of all minority groups, but with particular ruthlessness towards Georgia.

            With over 70% of the Communist Party membership being of Great Russian origin Lenin was concerned about this, but the worst “Great Russian chauvinists” were actually from the minority nationalities of the former Tsarist Empire. First amongst these was the Georgian, Stalin, who by virtue of his origins, had been made Commissar for Nationalities following the October Revolution.


          • I asked: “Have you ever given me the source for you claim that “70% of Georgia’s GNP was taken by Moscow”?

            Andrew replied: “Here it is again: With over 70% of the Communist Party membership being of Great Russian origin …”

            Do you think that I am such a retard that I will confuse “70% of Georgia’s GNP” with “70% of the Communist Party membership”?

            Do you take me to be **that** stupid? Or are you **that** stupid yourself?

            • Oops, wrong one.

              Perestroika also made it possible to speak publicly about other facts of Soviet-Russian domination and imperialism. Georgia, for example, had been able to retain only 30 percent of its GNP; 70 percent belonged to Moscow, that is, to Moscow’s all-Soviet ministries – “the center,” “center,” as it was called.

              It is especially in this sphere that national autonomy and self-determination are now urged.|9 | There has been, the Georgians feel, terrible exploitation of their natural resources and production by the center, with the Georgian Communist party executing commands from Moscow. In addition, there have been unbelievable material privileges of higher-ranking members of the party, the nomenclature. Above all has loomed the devastating exploitation of Georgian resources without any investment in their maintenance to prevent the terrible pollution of Georgian air and soil.

              Until recently, no doctor’s or candidate’s thesis could be defended at a Georgian university or institute; every piece of scholarly research had to be translated into Russian and submitted to Moscow, the theme of the research having been accepted by the center in advance. This has now changed; an academic degree can be given by Tbilisi State University or Georgian Academy of Sciences, although until 1991 the thesis still had to go to Moscow in Russian translation. Confirmation by the notorious VAK (the Supreme Academic Committee) is now only a formality, no longer a political and national issue. Georgian research institutes, however, still cannot independently use their own scientific or economic innovations, and are hindered in making use of them in joint ventures with Western scholars or firms. The Russians have not been willing even to consider Georgian innovations for Soviet use-on the grounds, Georgians are convinced, of national prejudice and envy.


  33. As for what Stalin thought about Georgia:

    Stalin was a native Georgian, and at one time something of a nationalist. He changed his tune after joining the Communist party. This is what he said following the USSR’s reannexation of Georgia in 1921 (Georgia had been annexed following the Revolution, and then given its independance the year before):

    “…You must draw a white-hot iron over this Georgian land!… You will have to break the wings of this Georgia! Let the blood… flow until they give up all their resistance! Impale them! Tear them apart!”

    Putin, an admirer of Stalin and his methods, evidently agrees.

  34. > ““Russification” was also a major crime, which is, according to the UN human rights charter, a form of genocide.”

    Really? How about “Anglofication”? How the hell did all Scots, Irishmen, Welsh, Native Americans, Australian Aboriginees, Boers etc end up speaking English and forgetting their own languages?

    The fact is that all 12 non-Slavic ex-Soviet republics and even fellow Slavic Ukraine now speak their own languages, so no genocide there. In fact, if you read history, you will find out that it was the Russian Tzars who switched Finland from speaking Swedish back to speaking Finnish and switched Latvians from speaking German back to speaking Latvian.

    But the Irish have forever abandoned their Gaelic language and speak English. That’s genocide, isn’t it?

    And how about Georgia “georgiafying” Abkahzia and S. Ossetia, ha?

    Not only that, but yet another insane Georgian president Gamsakhurdia not only campaigned on a genocidal slogan: “Georgia for Georgians!” but declared that he wanted to ethnically cleanse S. Ossetia from Ossetians:


    Cambridge Information Group

    The ethnic minorities in Georgia were becoming more alienated as Georgian nationalism grew at the prospect of independence and the end of Russian dominance. The abolition of the South Ossetian autonomous region by the Georgian government in December 1990… In 1990 the Georgian President, Zviad Gamsakhurdia, called on South Ossetians to return to their “real” homeland in neighbouring North Ossetia in Russia… which appeared to be a move to further quash any minority rights.


    Georgian was made the official language of the region in the 1930s, and many Georgians were resettled there to dilute the Abkhaz population, although this only increased tensions. Because of these measures, by 1991 only a fifth of the population of Abkhazia were ethnic Abkhaz, the remainder being made up mostly by Georgians.


    Soviet Abkhazia

    March 1921: The Abkhazian Soviet Socialist Republic was established independently of Georgia. 1922: Abkhazia was a signatory to the formation of the USSR acting as a sovereign Abkhazian Republic. .. 1931: Stalin (Georgian) and Beria (Mingrelian) reduced Abkhazia to the status of an autonomous Republic within Georgia. 1937 – 1953: Forced mass immigration into Abkhazia was carried out from Western Georgia (Mingrelia) by Stalin and Beria.

    During the period of enforced georgianisation (1937-1953), the Abkhaz were deprived of the right to teach their children in their native language; all Abkhaz schools and institutions were closed from the school-year 1945-46. The Abkhaz were only compelled to study in Georgian schools. The Abkhaz script was altered, against the will of the Abkhaz people, to one based on Georgian characters in 1938. Despite the reintroduction of schooling in Abkhaz following the deaths of Stalin and Beria in 1953…

    In other words, it was Georgians Stalin and Beria that spearheaded the destruction of minority cultures and languages, and Rusians like Khruschev who restored them in 1953 after the two Georgian monsters were buried.

    So, don’t give me this crap that Stalin and Beria weren’t genocidal Georgian nationalists!

    > “according to the UN human rights charter, a form of genocide.”

    Exactly. Thanks for admitting that Georgia has committed two genocides.

  35. Well not really.

    The Russians tried for centuries to destroy the Georgian language, through banning, supression of the Church, and other such actions.

    In the Stalinist period, Georgian high schools taught in RUSSIAN, Georgian universities taught in RUSSIAN, the Church preached in RUSSIAN, and as previously stated, linked to and documented, Stalin was considered to be the “great Russian nationalist” with his Russification policy.

    During the period 1921 to 1956 Georgia was administered directly from Moscow (due to the “lack of political reliablity” (nationalism) endemic in the republic) and all decisions made regarding education, the economy, political repression were made by Moscow.

    Russia ran a typical campaign between the Georgians and Abkhaz of “divide & conquer”.

    Try reading “Conflict in the Caucasus” by Svetlana Chervonnaya


    She gives a very good history of the ethnography of Abkhazia from around the bronze age to the breakup of the USSR, unfortunately for you it demolishes most of the BS you will find on Circassian world.

    She also details Russian crimes in the province over the last 200n years.

    She is a well respected ethnographist so I suggest you listen to what she has to say.

    Gamsakhurdias comments, while stupid, should be viewed in the context of Ossetian actions both in Samachablo and Ingushetia, at this time the Ossetians were conducting secessionist campaigns (politically) in Tshkinvali, which has been a Georgian town for nearly 2000 years (the Ossetes only came into Georgia in the late 12th C due to mongol pressure), and were conducting a ruthless cleansing campaign which culminated in armed conflict, with the Ingush.
    His “Georgia for Georgians” slogan was no different to Ardzinba’s “Abkhazia for Abkhazians” or the Ossetian racial slogans, and “Russia for Russians” that were common at the time. He was not alone in his stupidty by any means.

    Funnily enough, what you Russians forget is that there are more Ossetians living in Tbilisi and around Gori than there are in all of “South Ossetia”, they have the option of attending Ossetian language schools, and Ossetian was taught in State schools in South Ossetia even up until the Georgian villages were levelled by the Russians in 2008.
    Ossetians served in the Georgian military last August alongside their kartlian, imeretian, Mingrelian, Adjarian, Armenian, and Azeri Georgian neighbors.
    Surely if any “genocide” was planned the Georgians would start there?

    In all the years I have been living here I have never seen racism at any level even close to that which I have seen in Russia.

  36. “In the Stalinist period, Georgian high schools taught in RUSSIAN”

    Bull. Not only Georgian but even Abkhazian schools were forced to be taught in GEORGIAN. Read my reference and mourn that your fantasies never have any references.

    Here is a new reference for you:


    The making of the Georgian nation

    Ronald Grigor Suny

    By the end of the first quarter century of post-Stalinist evolution, …. produced neither Russification nor assimilation in Georgia.

    Abkhazis fought against Georgian rule during the years of Russian Revolution and Civil War. During the Stalin years, Abkhazis suffered … steady imposition of the Georgian culture and language.

    • The problem is that until the 1980’s, Georgia (like most so called republics) was administered from MOSCOW, the “union republics” had no say in decision making.

      Obviously you have little to no understanding of the Soviet “nationality policy”

      “Against the background of these huge crimes came the programmes to cripple the Abkhazian language, to restrict the sphere of its of its application, bringing to nought its role in the people’s culture and memory. The replacement if Abkhazian writing first with Georgian and then with Cyrillic scripts (1937), and the abolition of Abkhazian at secondary schools and in the system of preliminary education……..ALL THIS FORMED PART AND PARCEL OF THE NATIONAL POLICY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY AND THE SOVIET STATE.

      All the peoples of the USSR found themselves in the orbit of this policy REGARDLESS of the status that was conferred on – or arbitrarily taken away from – a republic, region, or any other territorial unit; regardless of the borders that were drawn and re-drawn, of the high flown words about equality, freedom, autonomy, and friendship between peoples that were solemnly pronounced on different occasions and forgotten at once, and of many other fine things that had noting to do with reality

      At the same time, the card, detly played in Abkhazian political history, aimed at gradual transformation of a republic formed on a treaty basis into an autonomous one, was not a futile exercise, and although the words were devoid of juridicial sense, political reality, value and truth, playing with them proved surprisingly easy im order to maintain in the public conciousness and psychology the sense of wounded dignity, jealous envy of their neighbours and a host of political myths that, for the communist dictators, facilitated the task of dividing and ruling in a multi-national country.

      In the Abkhaz social consciousness, a myth was cultivated that Abkhazia – because of the malicious intent of its neighbours, the Georgians – was fraudulently deprived of the status of a sovreign republic and artificially turned into an autonomous republic in 1931

      However, under the totalitarian regime, neither the so called “Union Republics” nor any other autonomous formations possessed any genuine autonomy and the human and ethnic rights of the peoples were equally flagrantly violated on the whole territory of the Soviet Union”

      Pg 29-30 “Conflict in the Caucasus” Svetlana Chervonnaya

      “Having long since turned into a national minority within the boundaries of Abkhazia, and despite their natural population growth, every year the Abkhazian people found themselves increasingly surrounded by other nationals, primarily Georgians, and the number of Abkhazians began to decline stedily. Divide and rule, the tactics of the communist leadership, are plain to see.”

      “Permanent tension in Abkhaz-Georgian relationships was maintained: and it is not difficult to understand in whose long term interests this was done. A not so sublte blackmail of the Georgian leadership was resorted to at a high level “If you don’t behave yourself we shall punish you by cutting off Abkhazia from Georgia”. This was usually followed by the exposure of some trouble making nationalists among the Abkhazians.”

      Pg 31-32 “Conflict in the Caucasus” Svetlana Chervonnaya.

    • > The replacement if Abkhazian writing first with Georgian ……..ALL THIS FORMED PART AND PARCEL OF THE NATIONAL POLICY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY AND THE SOVIET STATE.

      Agree. The Georgian genocides against Abkhazi and Ossetian cultures and the replacement of their languages by the Georgian language were indeed the national policy of the Soviet state while the genocidal Soviet leaders Stalin and Beria were alive.

      Can we blame the first Georgian President Gamsakhurdia’s genocides also on the Soviet state? :-)

      • Gamsakhurdia did not commit any Genocides.

        Ardzinba and Yeltsin certainly did.

      • You also fail to recognise the fact that Ms Chervonnaya was also referring to POST Stalin Soviet/Russian government.

        Of course given that you are a pathological liar yourself, this is not surprising.

        As she said, the actions of the MOSCOW government were done for the benefit of its divide and rule program of supressing non slavic ethnic groups (including Georgians).

        BTW, I apologise unreservedly for my mistake regarding Georgia’s pre revolutionary population level.

  37. http://www.nr2.ru/242097.html

    The Crimean Cossacks selebrated the Russian Navy Day by hanging up the St. Andrew flag (the Russian Navy flag) and the Russian national flag on the Ilias-Kaya mountain, Laspi Area in Crimea. They also set a round-the-clock guard against the Ukrainian security service officers who might remove the flags.

  38. I wrote:

    “This graph clearly shows that Georgia’s population in 1921 was around 2.3 million. ”

    Actually, it looks more like 2.1 or at most 2.2 mln.

    Compare that with 2.5 mln in 1919. Thus, during the time when Georgia was independent, its population dropped from 2.5 mln to 2.1 mln. But as soon as it again became part of Russia in 1921, its population skyrocketed to 2.6 mln in 1926 and to 5.6 mln in 1992. But in 1992 Georgia regained independence and immediately started losing population again, down to 4.6 mln today. That’s losing 1 million (i.e., 18%) in 17 years!

    Do you detect a pattern here?

    And one more question, Andrew: don’t you realise that given desires on the part of neighboring islamic giants – Persian and Turkish Empires – to subjugate and/or exterminate christian peoples like Georgians, Armenians and Ossetians, the Georgian King Erekle’s decision in 1783 to choose the fellow orthodox christian Russian Emperors as Georgia’s suzerains was correct and wise?

    Just look at the neighbouring christian nation of Armenia. Its northern half became part of the Russian Empire and is now the free, happy and proud nation of Armenia. But the southern half of Armenia came under Turkish control. Where is it now? Still in Turkey. But there are no Armenians there any longer. They were all exterminated in the horrible holocaust:

    Total number of Armenian deaths generally held to have been between one and one-and-a-half million…. It is widely acknowledged to have been one of the first modern genocides… the systematic, organized manner the killings were carried out to eliminate the Armenians.

    Aren’t you glad that, unlike Armenia, Georgia managed to avoid genocide at the hands of islamists by getting protection from and swearing allegiance to Russian Emperors?

    • Considering that the Tsarist Russians were every bit as bad as the communists, no.

      Russia broke every clause of the agreement between itself and the Georgians monarchs.

      Russia guaranteed the continuation of Georgian laws (which at the time were considerably more liberal than Russian laws), the continued independance of the Georgian church, and the continuation of the Georgian Royal family.

      It is interesting to note that after the annexation by Russia of west Georgia, the Russian yoke was considered so onerous that the Imeretian King Solomon II and his people appealed to the Ottomans for aid against Russia.


      “In his letters, Alexander heavily criticized Russian treatment of Georgian national culture and even compared it with the pillaging by Ottomans and Persians who had invaded Georgia in the past.In one of the letters he states: The damage which Russia has inflicted on our nation is disastrous. Even Persians and Turks could not abolish our Monarchy and deprive us of our statehood. We have exchanged one serpent for another.[2]””

    • “Aren’t you glad that, unlike Armenia, Georgia managed to avoid genocide at the hands of islamists”

      Wrong. Completely secular nationalists and reformers.


      And one the Young Turk leaders actually advocated using Armenians to kill the equally uppity Arabs.

      The other two preffered using Turks and Kurds (and actually military forced labor and desert) to kill the Armenians.

    • You want to know what happened to Georgians, Russians and Armenians who had the misfortune of living in Persia? And to what length Russian patriots went to protect Armenians from barbaric Persians? Here is the first example that comes to mind:


      Aleksandr Griboyedov (January 15, 1795 – February 11, 1829) was a Russian diplomat, playwright, and composer.


      Several months after his wedding to the 16-year-old daughter of his friend Gerogian Prince Chavchavadze, Griboyedov was suddenly sent to Persia as Minister Plenipotentiary…

      Soon after Griboyedov’s arrival at Tehran, a mob stormed the Russian embassy. The incident began when an Armenian eunuch escaped from the harem of Persian shah Fath Ali Shah, and two Armenian girls escaped from that of his son-in-law. All three sought refuge at the Russian embassy. As agreed to in the Treaty of Turkmenchay, Armenians living in Persia were permitted to return to Eastern Armenia. However, the Shah demanded that Griboyedov return the three. Griboyedov refused as he knew what sort of fate awaited them if he did. This caused an uproar throughout the city and several thousand Persians encircled the Russian compound demanding their release.

      There, he and the rest of the Cossacks held out even further until the mob broke through and slaughtered them all. Griboyedov’s head was cut off and his body thrown into a rubbish heap. The eunuch was one of the first killed in the assault on the embassy.

      His body was for three days so ill-treated by the mob that it was recognized only by an old scar on the hand. His body was taken to Tiflis, Georgia and buried in the monastery of Saint David (Mtatsminda Pantheon). His 16-year-old Georgian widow, Nino, on hearing of his death, gave premature birth to a child who died a few hours later. She lived another thirty years after her husband’s death, rejecting all suitors and winning universal admiration for her fidelity to his memory.

  39. “One the Young Turk leaders actually advocated using Armenians to kill Arabs. The other two preffered using Turks and Kurds to kill the Armenians.”

    So, your point is that had the Georgians not joined the Russian Empire, they would have been exterminated not by religious Turks but by secular Turks? OK, I can agree with that.

    • No, there are very large numbers of ethnic Georgians living in eastern Turkey (called Laz) they did not suffer massacres due to the Turks during WW1, nor did the Georgian population of Adjara suffer massacres during the Turkish/German occupation in WW1

      “In Turkey, Georgians form the majority in parts of Artvin Province east of the Çoruh River in Shavsheti (შავშეთი) region (Upper Machakheli in the north of Borçka district, Imerkhevi in the north of Şavşat district, and Murgul district) and in individual villages along the Çoruh valley of Livana (ლივანა) vicinity in the territory of the ancient Georgian regions of Tao-Klarjeti (Klarjeti (კლარჯეთი) is presently a village renamed officially as Bereket in Ardanuç district), southwards to the district of Yusufeli (Kiskim) in Amier-Tao (ამიერტაო) subregion. They also live as Chveneburi (ჩვენებური) muhajirs in various provinces. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the prime minister of Turkey, pronounced his Georgian origins during a visit to Georgia in 2004.[19] The total population of people of Georgian descent in Turkey is estimated to be from 200,000 to 1,500,000.”


      The ancient kingdom of Colchis and its successor Lazica (locally known as Egrisi) was located in the same region the Laz speakers are found in today, and its inhabitants probably spoke an ancestral version of the language. Colchis was the setting for the famous Greek legend of Jason and the Argonauts.

      Today most Laz speakers live in Northeast Turkey, in a strip of land along the shore of the Black Sea. They form the majority in the Pazar (Atina), Ardeşen (Art’aşeni) and Fındıklı (Vitze) districts of Rize, and in the Arhavi (Arkabi), Hopa (Xopa) and districts of Artvin. They live as minorities in the neighbouring Çamlıhemşin (Vijadibi) and Borçka districts. There are also communities in northwestern Anatolia (Karamürsel in Kocaeli, Akçakoca in Düzce, Sakarya, Zonguldak, Bartın), where many immigrants settled since the Russo-Turkish War (1877-1878) and now also in Istanbul and Ankara.

      The Laz in Georgia are chiefly centered in the country’s southwestern autonomous republic of Adjara. The largest Laz villages n Adjara are: Sarpi, Kvariati, Gonio and Makho. The Laz also live in Batumi, Kobuleti, Zugdidi and Tbilisi.

      An expatriate community of the Laz is also present in Germany where they have migrated from Turkey since the 1960s.


      Try again.

    • “So, your point is that had the Georgians not joined the Russian Empire, they would have been exterminated not by religious Turks but by secular Turks?”

      My point is you don’t know s*** on the topics you talk about, or maybe you wanted to scare people with “islamists” in what was an ethnic and not religious matter. A lot of Armenians were also killed by Ataturk’s Revolutionaries.

      And by the way, the Armenians (Armenian irregulars and Russian soldiers) also massacred a quite large number of Turks (and Kurds) in WWI (we’re talking about hundreds of thousands, maybe even over million). But I guess you won’t read about this on Wikipedia.

      • Very true, they tend to forget that bit.

        • No wonder, the world is heavily biased against Turkey.

          Two examples:

          During the Greek war of independence the Greeks massacred Jews along with Muslims (completely exterminated them in some areas), yet the Jews in the other countries still supported the Greek side.

          The Poles actually rescued Austria from Turks in their “Holy League” quasi-crusade in 1683, and in return Austria took part in partitions of Poland in the next century (which were never recognised by Turkey, of all countries).

  40. “70% of Georgia’s GNP was reserved and taken by Moscow. Historical fact.”

    Bull. Even if somebody aptly named “Fairy Von Lilienfeld” claims so, this is a fantasy. But here are the facts that aptly explain how much Georgia depended on Russia and Baltics for its economic prosperity:


    US Department of State

    Background Note: Georgia

    In the postwar period, Georgia was perceived as one of the wealthiest and most privileged of Soviet republics, and many Russians treated the country’s Black Sea coast as a kind of Soviet Riviera.

    Several of the Soviet Union’s most notorious leaders in the 1920s and 1930s were Georgian, such as Joseph Stalin, Sergo Orjonikidze, and Lavrenti Beria.


    The Soviet Socialist Republic of Georgia was one of the most prosperous areas of the former Soviet Union. The political turmoil after independence had a catastrophic effect on Georgia’s economy. The cumulative decline in real GDP is estimated to have been more than 70% between 1990 and 1994, and by the end of 1996, Georgia’s economy had shrunk to around one-third of its size in 1989.

  41. Now thats funny, it attributes that to political turmoil that was instigated by Russia in its deliberate attempts to destabilise Georgia.

    Civil wars, the deliberate demolition of Georgian factories by the collapsing soviet government, the Russian instigation of two secessionist conflicts and the resulting ethnic cleansing by Russian sponsored forces and volunteers, all had a massively negative effect on the Georgian economy, along with the horrific legacy of Soviet government and its resultant corruption, particularly the later years of the Scheverdnadze government.

    An example of Russian economic vandalism was the burning of the largest furniture factory in Samtredia during the occupation of the city by Russian “peacekeepers” in the 1992-3 Schevernadze-Gamsakhurdia civil war in west Georgia. The factory, the main source of work in the city aside from the railyards, was entered by the peacekeepers and burnt to the ground “by accident” the peacekeepers also laid waste to the private agricultural plots and were involved in looting of private property and the destruction of livestock, beehives etc.

    Of course this could just be typical Russian vandalism.

    As for your comment “Bull. Even if somebody aptly named “Fairy Von Lilienfeld” claims so, this is a fantasy. But here are the facts that aptly explain how much Georgia depended on Russia and Baltics for its economic prosperity:”

    The article you give as a “refutation” makes no reference to the % of GNP taken by the central government in Moscow.

    So therefore you are a pathological liar yourself phobophobe.

    Russia has a long history of economic opression and vandalism, as was shown in last Augusts war when Russian aircraft bombed economic targets in Georgia ranging from commercial ports to cement factories, the burning of holiday centres in Surami, the fire bombing of Georgian state forests, and (unsuccessful) attacks near the BTC pipeline.

    “Indeed, as the chronology included in this paper shows, Russia had been meticulously preparing an invasion of Georgia through the substantialmassing and preparation of forces in the country’s immediate vicinity. Scholars will debate whether Russian tanks were already advancing insideGeorgian territory when Georgian forces launched their attack on Tskhinvali; yet there seems little doubt that they were at least on the move toward the border. And the scope of the Russian attack leave little doubt: it immediately broadened from the conflict zone of South Ossetia, to includethe opening of a second front in Abkhazia and systematic attacks on military and economic infrastructure across Georgia’s territory. Within days, tens of thousands of Russian troops and hundreds of tanks and armored vehicles roamed Georgian roads. Russia’s subsequent decisions to ignore the terms of a cease-fire agreement it signed, and to recognize the independence of the breakaway republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, all complete the picture of long-hatched plan. The purpose was not merely related to South Ossetia or even Abkhazia: it served to punish Georgia and expose the inability of the west to prevent Russia from moving aggressively to restore its primacy over the former Soviet Union’s territory, irrespective of the wishes of the governments and populations of the sovereign countries on that area. It is indeed the predetermined nature of this war that makes its implications so far-reaching. It constituted Moscow’s first military aggression against a neighboring state since the invasion of Afghanistan in 1978; and it took place, this time, against a member state of European institutions such as the OSCE and the Council of Europe, and to that a country on track to integration with NATO.

  42. As for the Russian policy towards ethnic minorities:

    The extensive multinational empire that the Bolsheviks inherited after their revolution was created by Tsarist expansion over some four centuries. Some nationality groups came into the empire voluntarily, others were brought in by force. Russians[24], Belarusians and Ukrainians shared close cultural ties while, generally, the other subjects of the empire shared little in common — culturally, religiously, or linguistically. More often than not, two or more diverse nationalities were co-located on the same territory. Therefore, national antagonisms built up over the years not only against the Russians but often between some of the subject nations as well.

    For many years, Soviet leaders maintained that the underlying causes of conflict between nationalities of the Soviet Union had been eliminated and that the Soviet Union consisted of a family of nations living harmoniously together. In the 1920s and early 1930s, the government conducted a policy of korenizatsiya (indigenization) of local governments in an effort to recruit non-Russians into the new Soviet political institutions and to reduce the conflict between Russians and the minority nationalities. One area in which the Soviet leaders made concessions perhaps more out of necessity than out of conviction, was language policy. To increase literacy and mass education, the government encouraged the development and publication in many of the “national languages” of the minority groups. While Russian became a required subject of study in all Soviet schools in 1938, in the mainly non-Russian areas the chief language of instruction was the local language or languages. This practice led to widespread bilingualism in the educated population, though among smaller nationalities and among elements of the population that were heavily affected by the immigration of Russians, linguistic assimilation also was common, in which the members of a given non-Russian nationality lost facility in the historic language of their group.[25]

    The concessions granted national cultures and the limited autonomy tolerated in the union republics in the 1920s led to the development of national elites and a heightened sense of national identity. Subsequent repression and Russianization fostered resentment against domination by Moscow and promoted further growth of national consciousness. National feelings were also exacerbated in the Soviet multinational state by increased competition for resources, services, and jobs, and by the policy of the leaders in Moscow to move workers — mainly Russians — to the peripheral areas of the country, the homelands of non-Russian nationalities.[26]

    By the end of the 1980s, encouraged in part by Gorbachev’s policy of glasnost, unofficial groups formed around a great many social, cultural, and political issues. In some non-Russian regions ostensible green movements or ecological movements were thinly disguised national movements in support of the protection of natural resources and the national patrimony generally from control by ministries in Moscow


    After the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks in October 1917 (November 1917), Russian domination of political, economic, and cultural life in the Soviet Union continued despite the rule of Joseph V. Stalin, who was Georgian by birth

    The domination by Russians has been evident in almost every phase of Soviet life and has increased in the 1970s and 1980s. In 1972, 62.5 percent of the members of the Politburo, the highest organ of the CPSU, were Russians. In 1986 the percentage of Russians rose to 84.6 and then to 89 in 1989. Generally, Russians were the party second secretaries and the chiefs of the Committee for State Security (Komitet gosudarstvennoi bezopasnosti–KGB) in non-Russian republics. Russians also constituted a majority of CPSU membership, amounting to about 61 percent in the 1980s.


  43. “In 1986 the percentage of Russians rose to 84.6 and then to 89 in 1989. ”

    Notice how the rise in the percentage of Russians in the Politburo took place in parallel with Perestroika, Glasnost, rise of democracy, freedoms, the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the peacefully letting all 15 republics to go their separate ways.

    Sure beats the times in the 1920s and 1930s, when Russians accounted for about 40% of Politburo, and the mad Georgian man Stalin terrorised the country.

    • Hi phobophobe,

      I see that you are still trying to white-wash the kremlin.

      Read This:


      Now read what an honorable man has to say! I guess that the kremlin will try to dispose of him, just like the hundreds (1,000’s) of intelligent honorable journalists that the kremlin removed {PRONOUNCED KILLED}! Meanwhile, useful idiots constantly come to this website and complain when we mourn the intelligentzia that the kremlin is still culling? Shame! {“VSTYD I HANNBA”}

      Now read this:





      “A half-truth is a whole lie”
      Yiddish Proverb quotes

      “He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts… for support rather than illumination.” – Andrew Lang (1844-1912)

  44. “Civil wars … Russian sponsored forces …. had a massively negative effect on the Georgian economy…’

    Well, if you don’t want to have civil wars, don’t elect insane Presdients who have to be removed from office through a civil war. And don’t have Georgian Presidents (like Shevardnadze) ask Russian troops to defeat the forces of the insane civil war instigators (like your Gamsakhurdia):


    Zviad Gamsakhurdia – the first democratically elected President of the Republic of Georgia in the post-Soviet era…

    The political dispute turned violent on September 2, when an anti-government demonstration in Tbilisi was dispersed by police… Skirmishes between the two sides occurred across Tbilisi during October and November with occasional fatalities resulting from gunfights. Paramilitary groups — one of the largest of which was the anti-Gamsakhurdia “Mkhedrioni”, a nationalist militia with several thousand members — set up barricades around the city.

    Coup d’état

    On December 22, 1991, armed opposition supporters launched a violent coup d’etat and attacked a number of official buildings including the Georgian parliament building, where Gamsakhurdia himself was sheltering. Heavy fighting continued in Tbilisi until January 6, 1992, leaving at least 113 people dead. On January 6, Gamsakhurdia and members of his government escaped. A Military Council made up of Gamsakhurdia opponents took over the government on an interim basis. One of its first actions was to formally depose Gamsakhurdia as President. It reconstituted itself as a State Council and appointed Gamsakhurdia’s old rival Eduard Shevardnadze as chairman in March 1992.

    The 1993 civil war

    Gamsakhurdia soon took up the apparent opportunity to bring down Shevardnadze. He returned to Georgia on September 24, 1993, establishing what amounted to a “government in exile” in Zugdidi in western Georgia. He concentrated on building an anti-Shevardnadze coalition drawing on the support of the regions of Mingrelia and Abkhazia. He also built up a substantial military force that was able to operate relatively freely in the face of the weak state security forces. After initially demanding immediate elections, Gamsakhurdia took advantage of the Georgian army’s rout to seize large quantities of weapons abandoned by the retreating government forces.

    A civil war engulfed western Georgia in October 1993 as Gamsakhurdia’s forces succeeded in capturing several key towns and transport hubs. Government forces fell back in disarray, leaving few obstacles between Gamsakhurdia’s forces and Tbilisi.

    Russia, Armenia and Azerbaijan expressed their support for Shevardnadze’s government. While the support from Armenia and Azerbaijan was purely political, Russia quickly mobilized troops to aid the Georgian government. On October 20, around 2,000 Russian troops moved to protect Georgian railroads and provided logistical support and weapons to the poorly armed government forces. The uprising quickly collapsed and Zugdidi fell on November 6.

    If not for Russia’s military help, you guys would still be fighting your 1993 civil war between yourselves.

    • Like I said, some help, Russian “assistance” mainly consisted of raping, looting, destruction of homes and businesses, the usual sort of thing that accompanies the Russian military wherever it goes.

      Just see last august for details.

    • @”And don’t have Georgian Presidents (like Shevardnadze) ask Russian troops to defeat the forces of the insane civil war instigators (like your Gamsakhurdia)”

      I think you meant “military coup leaders (like Shevardnadze) ask Russian troops to defeat the forces of the Georgian President”?

      @”Paramilitary groups — one of the largest of which was the anti-Gamsakhurdia “Mkhedrioni”, a nationalist militia with several thousand members — set up barricades around the city.”

      Ah, the Mkhedrioni, valiantly fighting the “civil war instigators”…

      You like quoting Wikipedia, eh?


      In 1993, worsening civil strife in Abkhazia prompted the Mkhedrioni and National Guard to launch a joint operation in the region to root out separatists and Gamsakhurdia supporters. This resulted in a disastrous defeat for the pro-government forces, who were driven out of Abkhazia along with virtually the entire ethnic Georgian population of the region: over 10,000 people were killed in the fighting. In September 1993, Gamsakhurdia took the opportunity to launch an armed uprising in western Georgia in an attempt to return to power. The Mkhedrioni played an important role in suppressing the uprising and were for a while given semi-official status as the “Georgian Rescue Corps”. Russian intervention ensured Gamsakhurdia’s defeat and on December 31 he reportedly committed suicide, though it has also been stated, and widely believed within Georgia, that he was murdered. Mkhedrioni forces were alleged in press reports to be responsible for his death, but they denied this.

      The Mkhedrioni were subsequently given responsibility for rooting out “Zviadists” in western Georgia, which they did with a brutal efficiency that was widely criticised by foreign governments and international human rights organisations. Shevardnadze responded by gradually limiting the organisation’s power. Although Ioseliani remained head of the supposedly civilianised organisation, it continued to function as a private army. In early 1995, Shevardnadze ordered it to disarm, accusing it of deep involvement in organised crime. He narrowly escaped assassination in a bomb attack on August 29, 1995, which he blamed on a shadowy coalition of “mafia forces” including Ioseliani and others. Other acts of political violence were also blamed on the Mkhedrioni. The organisation was outlawed and Ioseliani imprisoned, although many regarded the claim that it had been involved in the bombing as being inconclusively proven.

      In spite of its banning, the Mkhedrioni continues to have a somewhat shadowy existence in Georgian politics. A number of members, led by Tornike Berishvili, recreated it in 1999 as an ostensibly political rather than paramilitary organisation. It has been claimed that the Mkhedrioni has had relations with Chechen separatists and continues to be involved in criminal and paramilitary activities, including continued guerrilla attacks in Abkhazia. Jaba Ioseliani was released from prison in an amnesty in April 2000 and resumed his post as head of the Mkhedrioni, declaring his intention to run for President and participate in the November 2003 parliamentary elections. However, Ioseliani died of a heart attack in March 2003.

      When the Mkhedrioni failed to secure registration to stand in elections under its own name, it reconstituted itself in November 2002 as a political party called the Union of Patriots in alliance with former Gamsakhurdia supporters. It was again refused registration by the government. Its leader Badri Zarandia was assassinated on January 8, 2003.

  45. Peaceful break up?

    Well I guess if you don’t count the Russian troops being sent to attack the Latvian TV station and the Latvian interior ministry leaving several dead, or the Russian troops killing unarmed protestors in Tbilisi outside the parliament building on april 9th 1989, or the Russian instigation of separatist conflicts (war by proxy) in several of its neigbours, or the Russian attempts to crush through sheer brute force the independance movements in Chechnya, Ingushetia, Daghestan, Russian actions in central asia, the list goes on.

    Not very peaceful really, though not as bad as it could have been I do admit.



    Also, the governments of Brezhnev & Andropov (both ethnic Russians) were extremely repressive in their own right. It is often forgotten that the terror did not begin or end with Stalin, it began with Lenin then Stalin, Khrusche, Brezhnev and Andropov continued it, only Gorbachev had the courage to put an end to it.

    • > Also, the governments of Brezhnev & Andropov (both ethnic Russians)

      Brezhnev was a Ukrainian, and Andropov was a Jew.

  46. Well you are right about Brezhnev, but Andropov was a son of a Don Cossack and a Russianised German woman.


  47. However, for a balanced look at Jewish involvement in the crimes of Lenin & Stalin, this is a good article.

    I hope you enjoy it Phobophobe

    Stalin’s Jews

    We mustn’t forget that some of greatest murderers of modern times were Jewish

    Published: 12.21.06, 23:35 / Israel Opinion

    Here’s a particularly forlorn historical date: Almost 90 years ago, between the 19th and 20th of December 1917, in the midst of the Bolshevik revolution and civil war, Lenin signed a decree calling for the establishment of The All-Russian Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution and Sabotage, also known as Cheka.

    Within a short period of time, Cheka became the largest and cruelest state security organization. Its organizational structure was changed every few years, as were its names: From Cheka to GPU, later to NKVD, and later to KGB.

    We cannot know with certainty the number of deaths Cheka was responsible for in its various manifestations, but the number is surely at least 20 million, including victims of the forced collectivization, the hunger, large purges, expulsions, banishments, executions, and mass death at Gulags.

    Whole population strata were eliminated: Independent farmers, ethnic minorities, members of the bourgeoisie, senior officers, intellectuals, artists, labor movement activists, “opposition members” who were defined completely randomly, and countless members of the Communist party itself.

    In his new, highly praised book “The War of the World, “Historian Niall Ferguson writes that no revolution in the history of mankind devoured its children with the same unrestrained appetite as did the Soviet revolution. In his book on the Stalinist purges, Tel Aviv University’s Dr. Igal Halfin writes that Stalinist violence was unique in that it was directed internally.

    Lenin, Stalin, and their successors could not have carried out their deeds without wide-scale cooperation of disciplined “terror officials,” cruel interrogators, snitches, executioners, guards, judges, perverts, and many bleeding hearts who were members of the progressive Western Left and were deceived by the Soviet regime of horror and even provided it with a kosher certificate.

    All these things are well-known to some extent or another, even though the former Soviet Union’s archives have not yet been fully opened to the public. But who knows about this? Within Russia itself, very few people have been brought to justice for their crimes in the NKVD’s and KGB’s service. The Russian public discourse today completely ignores the question of “How could it have happened to us?” As opposed to Eastern European nations, the Russians did not settle the score with their Stalinist past.

    And us, the Jews? An Israeli student finishes high school without ever hearing the name “Genrikh Yagoda,” the greatest Jewish murderer of the 20th Century, the GPU’s deputy commander and the founder and commander of the NKVD. Yagoda diligently implemented Stalin’s collectivization orders and is responsible for the deaths of at least 10 million people. His Jewish deputies established and managed the Gulag system. After Stalin no longer viewed him favorably, Yagoda was demoted and executed, and was replaced as chief hangman in 1936 by Yezhov, the “bloodthirsty dwarf.”

    Yezhov was not Jewish but was blessed with an active Jewish wife. In his Book “Stalin: Court of the Red Star”, Jewish historian Sebag Montefiore writes that during the darkest period of terror, when the Communist killing machine worked in full force, Stalin was surrounded by beautiful, young Jewish women.

    Stalin’s close associates and loyalists included member of the Central Committee and Politburo Lazar Kaganovich. Montefiore characterizes him as the “first Stalinist” and adds that those starving to death in Ukraine, an unparalleled tragedy in the history of human kind aside from the Nazi horrors and Mao’s terror in China, did not move Kaganovich.

    Many Jews sold their soul to the devil of the Communist revolution and have blood on their hands for eternity. We’ll mention just one more: Leonid Reichman, head of the NKVD’s special department and the organization’s chief interrogator, who was a particularly cruel sadist.

    In 1934, according to published statistics, 38.5 percent of those holding the most senior posts in the Soviet security apparatuses were of Jewish origin. They too, of course, were gradually eliminated in the next purges. In a fascinating lecture at a Tel Aviv University convention this week, Dr. Halfin described the waves of soviet terror as a “carnival of mass murder,” “fantasy of purges”, and “essianism of evil.” Turns out that Jews too, when they become captivated by messianic ideology, can become great murderers, among the greatest known by modern history.

    The Jews active in official communist terror apparatuses (In the Soviet Union and abroad) and who at times led them, did not do this, obviously, as Jews, but rather, as Stalinists, communists, and “Soviet people.” Therefore, we find it easy to ignore their origin and “play dumb”: What do we have to do with them? But let’s not forget them. My own view is different. I find it unacceptable that a person will be considered a member of the Jewish people when he does great things, but not considered part of our people when he does amazingly despicable things.

    Even if we deny it, we cannot escape the Jewishness of “our hangmen,” who served the Red Terror with loyalty and dedication from its establishment. After all, others will always remind us of their origin.


  48. Robert wrote: “Young Turk leaders advocated using Armenians to kill the equally uppity Arabs. The other two preffered using Turks and Kurds to kill the Armenians.”

    Robert then expressed his sympathy for the “unfairly” criticized Turks: “No wonder, the world is heavily biased against Turkey.”

    Luckily for you, Robert, there are/were people in Europe who shared your sympathy for Turkey and its genocidal ways:


    Adolf Hitler, Chancellor of Nazi Germany

    [August 22, 1939]

    My decision to attack Poland was arrived at last spring. Originally, I feared that the political constellation would compel me to strike simultaneously at England, Russia, France, and Poland….

    Our strength consists in our speed and in our brutality. Genghis Khan led millions of women and children to slaughter — with premeditation and a happy heart. History sees in him solely the founder of a state. It’s a matter of indifference to me what a weak western European civilization will say about me.

    …. with orders to them to send to death mercilessly and without compassion, men, women, and children of Polish derivation and language. Only thus shall we gain the living space (Lebensraum) which we need. Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?

    No wonder you want the world to forget the past genocides – that way it will be easier to commit new ones.

    • “Luckily for you, Robert, there are/were people in Europe who shared your sympathy for Turkey and its genocidal ways:”

      Unluckily for you, there’s no real record of your favourite witness Adolf H. ever uttering these words. Source of this (alleged text)? An “informant” of an American journalist.

      (Btw: In the context of the crimes against Poles alone, much more damning is for example the FACT that Hitler ordered that the German troops would act with total impunity while dealing with the native population – of course, for example a murder of an ethnic German by a soldier would still be a crime.)

      Wikipedia article on Armenian genocide (not “Armenian Holocaust” as in your link) is as biased as it can be. Hundreds of thousands of victims (Turkish, Kurdish, Azeri) of the Armenians and Russians are not even mentioned there (or if are, I didn’t find it – but I’ve been not looking much).

      In Greece, the Greeks and Turks massacred each other (in their war of independence, the Greeks were also killing all Muslims AND Jews) – but the biased western public opinion (even Jews!) entirely took side of the Greeks and the press only reported the Turkish atrocities. In the Balkan Wars, check out what happened to the local Turks and Muslims when they lost (even if it won’t be in Wikipedia, and I checked and yes, it’s probably not there just as I thought). And as I said, one version of the plan to secure the eastern part of the falling empire at war was to re-settle the troublesome Armenians (as rebelious as ever, siding with the enemy) to deal with the troublesome Arabs (btw Arabs: half million of civilians died in WWI in Syria alone).

      But now, in your anti-Muslim bias it was because of the Turks being “islamists”, even if they were secular. (But in you twisted world-view, even the Muslims fleeing the Serbs in the bloody spring of 1992 were rather “escaping Islamic hellhole” they lived in all their lives.) My “informant” says Adolf rather said: “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Muslims?” (By “christianists”, I guess.)

      “No wonder the world did forget the past genocides – that way it will be easier to commit new ones.” (How about, say, what the Russians – or maybe rather “christianists”, according to you – did to the Muslim populations east of Turkey in the mid-19th century? You love quoting ciracassianworld.com, check out there if you like.)

      • Ah, and let’s have some “russaphobe” accent here.


        What drove the Armenians and the Turks apart?

        First and foremost, there were the Russians. Regions where Christians and Muslims had been living together in relative peace were torn asunder when the Russians invaded the Caucasian Muslim lands. Most Armenians were probably neutral, but a significant number took the side of the Russians. Armenians served as spies and even provided armed units of soldiers for the Russians. There were significant benefits for the Armenians: The Russians took Erivan Province, today’s Armenian Republic, in 1828. They expelled Turks and gave the Turkish land, tax-free, to Armenians. The Russians knew that if the Turks remained they would always be the enemies of their conquerors, so they replaced them with a friendly population—the Armenians.

        The forced exile of the Muslims continued until the first days of World War I: 300,000 Crimean Tatars, 1.2 million Circassians and Abkhazians, 40,000 Laz, 70,000 Turks. The Russians invaded Anatolia in the war of 1877-78, and once again many Armenians joined the Russian side. They served as scouts and spies. Armenians became the “police” in occupied territories, persecuting the Turkish population. The peace treaty of 1878 gave much of Northeastern Anatolia back to the Ottomans. The Armenians who had helped the Russians feared revenge and fled, although the Turks did not, in fact, take any revenge.

        Both the Muslims and the Armenians remembered the events of the Russian invasions. Armenians could see that they would be more likely to prosper if the Russians won. Free land, even if stolen from Muslims, was a powerful incentive for Armenian farmers. Rebellious Ottoman Armenians had found a powerful protector in Russia. Rebels also had a base in Russia from which they could organize rebellion and smuggle men and guns into the Ottoman Empire.

        The Muslims knew that if the Russians were guardian angels for the Armenians, they were devils for the Muslims. They could see that when the Russians triumphed Muslims lost their lands and their lives. They knew what would happen if the Russians came again. And they could see that Armenians had been on the side of the Russians. Thus did 800 years of peaceful coexistence disintegrate.

        But it was not until Russian Armenians brought their nationalist ideology to Eastern Anatolia that Armenian rebellion became a real threat to the Ottoman State.

        Although there were others, two parties of nationalists were to lead the Armenian rebellion. The first, the Hunchakian Revolutionary Party, called the Hunchaks, was founded in Geneva, Switzerland in 1887 by Armenians from Russia. The second, the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, called the Dashnaks, was founded in the Russian Empire, in Tiflis, in 1890. Both were Marxist. Their methods were violent. The Hunchak and Dashnak Party Manifestos called for armed revolution in the Ottoman Empire. Terrorism, including the murder of both Ottoman officials and Armenians who opposed them, was part of the party platforms. Although they were Marxists, both groups made nationalism the most important part of their philosophy of revolution. In this they were much like the nationalist revolutionaries of Bulgaria, Macedonia, or Greece.

        Unlike the Greek or Bulgarian revolutionaries, the Armenians had a demographic problem. In Greece, the majority of the population was Greek. In Bulgaria, the majority was Bulgarian. In the lands claimed by the Armenians, however, Armenians were a fairly small minority. The region that was called “Ottoman Armenia,” the “Six Vilâyets” of Sivas, Mamüretülaziz, Diyarbakir, Bitlis, Van, and Erzurum, was only 17% Armenian. It was 78% Muslim. This was to have important consequences for the Armenian revolution, because the only way to create the “Armenia” the revolutionaries wanted was to expel the Muslims who lived there.

        Beginning in earnest in the 1890s, the Russian Armenian revolutionaries began to infiltrate the Ottoman Empire. They smuggled rifles, cartridges, dynamite, and fighters across ill-defended borders into Van, Erzurum, and Bitlis provinces along the routes shown on the map. The Ottomans were poorly equipped to fight them. The problem was financial. The Ottomans still suffered from their terrible losses in the 1877-78 War with Russia. They suffered from the Capitulations, from debts, and from predatory European bankers. It must also be admitted that the Ottomans were poor economists. The result was a lack of money to support the new police and military units that were needed to fight the Revolutionaries and restrain Kurdish tribes. The number of soldiers and gendarmes in the East was never sufficient, and they were often not paid for months at a time. It was impossible to defeat the rebels with so few resources.


        The result was that it was nearly impossible for the Ottomans to properly punish the rebels. The Europeans demanded that the Ottomans accept actions from the revolutionaries that the Europeans themselves would never tolerate in their own possessions. When the Dashnaks occupied the Ottoman Bank, Europeans arranged their release. European ambassadors forced the Ottomans to grant amnesty to rebels in Zeytun. They arranged pardons for those who attempted to kill sultan Abdülhamid II. The Russian consuls would not let Ottoman courts try Dashnak rebels, because they were Russian subjects. Many rebels who were successfully tried and convicted were released, because the Europeans demanded and received pardons for them, in essence threatening the sultan if he did not release rebels and murderers. One Russian consul in Van even publicly trained Armenian rebels, acting personally as their weapons instructor.


        There were two factors that caused the Ottoman loss in the East in World War I:

        The first was Enver Pasha’s disastrous attack at Sarikamis. Enver’s attack on Russia in December of 1914 was in every way a disaster. Of the 95,000 Turkish troops who attacked Russia, 75,000 died. The second factor, the one that concerns us here, was Armenian Revolt.

        As World War I threatened and the Ottoman Army mobilized, Armenians who should have served their country instead took the side of the Russians. The Ottoman Army reported: “From Armenians with conscription obligations those in towns and villages East of the Hopa-Erzurum-Hinis-Van line did not comply with the call to enlist but have proceeded East to the border to join the organization in Russia.” The effect of this is obvious: If the young Armenian males of the “zone of desertion” had served in the Army, they would have provided more than 50,000 troops. If they had served, there might never have been a Sarikamis defeat.

        The Armenians from Hopa to Erzurum to Hinis to Van were not the only Armenians who did not serve. The tens of thousands of Armenians of Sivas who formed chette bands did not serve. The rebels in Zeytun and elsewhere in Cilicia did not serve. The Armenians who fled to the Greek islands or to Egypt or Cyprus did not serve. More precisely, many of these Armenian young men did serve, but they served in the armies of the Ottomans’ enemies. They did not protect their homeland, they attacked it.

        In Eastern Anatolia, Armenians formed bands to fight a guerilla war against their government. Others fled only to return with the Russian Army, serving as scouts and advance units for the Russian invaders. It was those who stayed behind who were the greatest danger to the Ottoman war effort and the greatest danger to the lives of the Muslims of Eastern Anatolia.


        Even Dashnak leaders admitted the Dashnaks were Russian allies. The Dashnak Hovhannes Katchaznouni, prime minister of the Armenian Republic, stated that the party plan at the beginning of the war was to ally with the Russians.

        Since 1910 the revolutionaries had distributed a pamphlet throughout Eastern Anatolia. It demonstrated how Armenian villages were to be organized into regional commands, how Muslim villages were to be attacked, and specifics of guerilla warfare.

        Before the war began, Ottoman Army Intelligence reported on Dashnak plans: They would declare their loyalty to the Ottoman State, but increase their arming of their supporters. If war was declared, Armenian soldiers would desert to the Russian Army with their arms. The Armenians would do nothing if the Ottomans began to defeat the Russians. If the Ottomans began to retreat, the Armenians would form armed guerilla bands and attack according to plan. The Ottoman intelligence reports were correct, for that is exactly what happened.

        The Russians gave 0.24 million rubles to the Dashnaks to arm the Ottoman Armenians. They began distributing weapons to Armenians in the Caucasus and Iran in September of 1914. In that month, seven months before the Deportations were ordered, Armenian attacks on Ottoman soldiers and officials began. Deserters from the Ottoman Army at first formed into what officials called “bandit gangs.” They attacked conscription officers, tax collectors, gendarmerie outposts, and Muslims on the roads. By December a general revolt had erupted in Van Province. Roads and telegraph lines were cut, gendarmerie outposts attacked, and Muslim villages burned, their inhabitants killed. The revolt soon grew in December, near the Kotur Pass, which the Ottomans had to hold to defend against Russian invasion from Iran, a large Armenian battle group defeated units of the Ottoman army, killing 400 Ottoman soldiers and forcing the army to retreat to Saray. The attacks were not only in Van: The governor of Erzurum, Tahsin, cabled that he could not hold off the Armenian attacks that were breaking out through the province; soldiers would have to be sent from the front.

        By February, reports of attacks began to come in from all over the East — a two-hour battle near Mus, an eight-hour battle in Abaak, 1,000 Armenians attacking near Timar, Armenian chettes raiding in Sivas, Erzurum, Adana, Diyarbakir, Bitlis, and Van provinces. Telegraph lines to the front and from Ottoman cities to the West were cut, repaired, and cut again many times. Supply caravans to the army were attacked, as were columns of wounded soldiers. Units of gendarmerie and soldiers sent to reconnect telegraph lines or protect supply columns themselves came under attack. As an example of the enormity of the problem, in the middle of April an entire division of gendarmerie troops was ordered from Hakkâri to Çatak to battle a major uprising there, but the division could not fight through the Armenian defenses.

        Once careful preparations had been made, Armenians revolted in the City of Van. On April 20, well-armed Armenian units, many wearing military uniforms, took the city and drove Ottoman forces into the citadel. The rebels burned down most of the city, some buildings also being destroyed by the two canons the Ottomans had in the citadel. Troops were sent from the Erzurum and Iranian Fronts, but they were unable to relieve the city. The Russians and Armenians were advancing from the north and the southwest. On May 17 the Ottomans evacuated the citadel. Soldiers and civilians fought their way southwest around Lake Van. Some took to boats on the Lake, but nearly half of these were killed by rebels firing from the shore or when their boats ran aground. Some of the Muslims of Van survived at least for a while, put in the care of American missionaries. Most who did not escape were killed. Villagers were either killed in their homes or collected from surrounding areas and sent into the great massacre at Zeve.

        The ensuing suffering of the Muslims and Armenians is well known. It was a history of bloody warfare between peoples in which all died in great numbers. When the Ottomans retook much of the East, the Armenian population fled to Russia. There they starved and died of disease. When the Russians retook Van and Bitlis Provinces, they did not allow the Armenians to return, leaving them to starve in the North. The Russians wanted the land for themselves. It is also well known that Armenians who remained, those in Erzurum Province, massacred Muslims in great numbers at the end of the war.

        My purpose here is not to retell that history. I wish to demonstrate that the Ottomans were right in considering the Armenians to be their enemies, if further proof is needed. The map shows proof that the Armenian rebels in fact were agents of Russia.

        The Armenians of the Ottoman East rebelled in exactly those areas that were most important to the Russians. The benefit of the rebellion in Van City, the center of Ottoman Administration in the Southeast is obvious. The other sites of rebellion were in reality more important: Rebellion in Erzurum Province cut the Ottoman Army off from supplies and communications. The rebellion was directly in the path of the Russian advance from the North. The Armenians rebelled in the Saray and Baskale regions, at the two major passes that the Russians were to use in their invasion from Iran. The Armenians rebelled in the region near Çatak, at the mountain passes needed for the Ottomans to bring up troops to the Iran frontier, the passes needed for the Ottoman retreat. The Armenians rebelled in great numbers in Sivas Province and in Sebinkarahisar. This would seem to be an odd place for a revolt, a region where the Armenians were outnumbered by the Muslims ten to one, but Sivas was tactically important. It was the railhead from which all supplies and men passed to the Front, basically along one road. It was the prefect site for guerilla action to harass Ottoman supply lines. The Armenians also rebelled in Cilicia, the intended site for a British invasion that would have cut the rail links to the South. It was not the fault of the rebels that the British preferred to attempt the madness at Gallipoli instead of an attack in Cilicia that would surely have been more successful.

        All these regions were the very spots a military planner would choose to most damage the Ottoman war effort. It cannot be an accident that they were also the spots chosen by the rebels for their revolt. Anyone can see that the revolts were a disaster for the Army. The disaster was compounded by the fact that the Ottomans were forced to withdraw whole divisions from the Front to battle the Armenian rebels. The war might have been much different if these divisions had been able to fight the Russians, not the rebels. I agree with Field-Marshall Pomiankowski, who was the only real European historian of World War I in the Ottoman Empire, that the Armenian rebellion was the key to the Ottoman defeat in the East.

        Only after seven months of Armenian rebellion did the Ottomans order the deportation of Armenians (May 26-30, 1915).

        • Reading some more paragraphs at random:

          “The Russians gave 0.24 million rubles to the Dashnaks to arm the Ottoman Armenians.”

          Wow. The whopping sum of 240 thousand rubles?! That should be almost enough to buy each Armenian soldier a cup of coffee and a croissant at Starbuck’s happy hour. Scraping the bottom of the barrel, eh? :-)

  49. Robert wrote: “I think you meant “military coup leaders (like Shevardnadze) ask Russian troops to defeat the forces of the Georgian President”?”

    According to the international community, at that time, Shevardnadze was recognized as the Chief of State of Georgia. Gamsakhurdia was nothing. He was ousted. Here is what the US government wrote in 1993:



    Chief of State: Chairman of Parliament Eduard Amvrosiyevich SHEVARDNADZE (since 10 March 1992).

    Other political or pressure groups: supporters of ousted President GAMSAKHURDIA remain an important source of opposition and instability

    However, I perfectly understand why you prefer Gamsakhurdia:

    Robert wrote: “Gamsakhurdia was quite insane.”


  50. “In Greece, the Greeks and Turks massacred each other (in their war of independence, the Greeks…”

    War of independence? If Turks were such nice guys, why did Greeks have to fight for independence from them after 4 centuries of slavery? And if the Turks didn’t want too be killed by Greeks, Kurds, Arabs, Armenians, Balkanians etc – they had a very easy solution: stop enslaving all these peoples. You condemn Russia for being an Empire, but the Turkish Ottoman Empire is fine?


    Ottoman Greece

    Most of Greece was part of the Ottoman Empire from the 14th century until its declaration of independence in 1821.

    Taxation and the “tribute of children”

    These practices are called the “tribute of children”, whereby every Christian community was required to give one son in five to be raised as a Muslim and enrolled in the corps of Janissaries, elite units of the Ottoman army.

    • “they had a very easy solution: stop enslaving all these peoples.”

      We’re talking about the era of imperisalism here. And you except the Turks to be the most progressive nation in the world? An so the failure of this is the supposed reason why the Greeks murdered thousands of their JEWISH neighbours?

      “You condemn Russia for being an Empire, but the Turkish Ottoman Empire is fine?”


      And neither was the Russian Empire’s practice of instigating ethnic conflicts in the Ottoman Empire (and mind you, not quite vice-versa – but of course, the Russians would kill/deport most of rebelious Muslims right away, so maybe this is why).

      “These practices are called the “tribute of children”, whereby every Christian community was required to give one son in five to be raised as a Muslim and enrolled in the corps of Janissaries, elite units of the Ottoman army.”

      And in the end not as much as “elite units” but the usurper military rulers in the style of the late-period Preatorian Guards, who would depose sultans on their whim – and they were universally hated by everyone. Opressed Ottomans (now, that’s something, don’t you think?) finally got rid of them in a quite spectacular way by killing the last damn one of them.

      • Yes, and the Armenians & Greeks were pretty nasty themselves to the Jewish population of the Ottoman empire:

        The Ottoman experience proves that anti-Semitism is an ‘old Armenian habit’. The main reason for anti-semitism among the Ottoman Armenians was mainly religious biases. For the Christian Armenians the Jews were in great sin. It was a common belief among the Armenians that the Jews slaughter young Christian Armenians and use their blood at the Passover feast. In Amasya province for instance local Armenian priests and notables claimed that an Armenian woman had seen Jews slaughter a young Armenian boy and use his blood for religious purposes. Stanford J. Shaw describes the following events:

        “Several days of rioting and pillaging and attacks on Jews followed, with Armenian mobs devastating the Jewish quarter of the city, beating men, women and children alike. The Armenian notables convinced the local Ottoman governor to imprison several Jewish leaders, including Rabbi Yakub Avayu, who was accused of having supervised the blood letting. They were said, after undergoing severe torture, to have confessed to their crimes and were hanged. Later, however, the Armenian boy who supposedly had been murdered was found and a new Ottoman governor punished the accusers, though nothing could be done about the Jews who had suffered in the process.”[3]

        As Abraham Ben-Yakob put it, the Armenian and Greek attacks against the Armenians continued in the following years:

        “There were literally thousands of incidents in subsequent years, invariably resulting from accusations spread among Greeks and Armenians by word mouth, or published in their newspapers, often by Christian financiers and merchants who were anxious to get the Jews out of the way, resulting in isolated and mob attacks on Jews, and burning of their shops and homes.”[4]

        Apart from the religious prejudices, the Jewish community in the Empire dramatically rose in numbers and their influence over the administration and economy increased, and this development made the Christian subjects (Armenians, Greeks etc.) worried. Unfortunately this competition between the Jews and Christians resulted in a long series of attacks against the Jews by the Armenians and Greeks, who simply did not want to lose their influential position in terms of politics and economy. In these assaults many Jews were assassinated. When the Europeans increased their economic and political influence over the Ottoman Empire they publicly supported the Ottoman Christians and the Armenians and Greeks gained a clear privilege in trade, which was unfavourable to the Jews. The local Armenians and Greeks had the American and the European diplomats and businessmen with them, while the Jews had to rely on their own sources and their good relations with the Ottoman bureaucracy. In addition, as the Armenians and Greeks got richer and more influential, harassments and the constant attacks against the Jews increased as witnessed in Izmir during the 19th century. The competition between the Armenians and the Jews was severe in Palace and the financial system in particular. When the Armenian bankers sustained monopoly over the Ottoman financial system they did everything to get the Jews out of the Palace, and even libelled Jews by accusing the Jews of not being loyal to the Sultan. As a result of these slanders, many Jews lost their life.[5]

        Another dramatic development for the Jews was the impact of the European military victories and conquests of Ottoman territories by the European armies, because when the Christian European armies occupied the Ottoman possessions they were supporting their Christian ‘brothers’, Armenians, Greeks and Bulgarians, and punishing the Jews and Muslims alike.[6] Consequently the Jews became the most loyal ones to the government in the 19th century and this also worsened the relations between the nationalist Armenians and the Jews. The radical Armenians perceived the Jews as the agent of the state against their ‘revolutionary’ movement. Even some Armenians would claim that some of the responsible officers for the 1915 events, which the Armenians see these events as ‘genocide’, were Jews, freemasons or supported by the Jews or freemasons. Although this kind of claims cannot be considered as serious or scholarly, they are useful to understand the degree of the Armenian anti-semitism.

        The fourth negative development for the Ottoman Jews was the nationalist-separatist movements in the Arab territories, the Balkans and in Anatolia. The only protector of the Jews in these regions was the Ottoman state and its governor because the Arabs and the Christians hated the Jews due to the tradition and religion. That is why the Jews became more and more loyal to their state, and this more annoyed the nationalist groups, particularly the Greeks and the Armenians. In many Greek uprisings for instance the Jews supported the Ottoman State against the rioters as witnessed in the Ottoman – Greek War in 1897 for Crete island. The Ottoman security forces had to intervene to protect the Jews from the Armenians, Greeks and the Arabs especially in the 19th century. In Syria in particular the Christian Arabs and Armenians hated the Jews as a result of the religious biases.[7]

        In summary, the Armenians continually attacked the Jews for the religious reasons and for personal and ethnic interests. In the words of Shaw, ‘the attacks were brutal and without mercy. Women, children, and aged Jewish men were frequently attacked, beaten and often killed’.[8] These attacks inevitably caused a severe tension and nourished mutual hate between the Armenians and the Jews. As a result the Jews sometimes co-operated with other ethnic groups against the Armenians as Shaw puts it:

        “Jewish resentment against the continued persecution and ritual murder attacks by Greeks and Armenians led to such hatred that, for example, many Jews actively assisted the attacks of Kurds and Lazzes on the Armenian quarters of Istanbul in 1896 and 1908, showing the Kurds where Armenians lived and where many of them were hiding and joining them in carrying away the booty. The result was even greater Armenian hatred for Jews than had been the case before, leading to further persecution and attacks in subsequent years’”[9]

        In addition to the assaults against the Jewish people the Armenians and Greeks made enormous efforts to keep the Jews out of the Palace and other important official places. Furthermore they tried to prevent constructing new synagogues in Istanbul. Guleryuz’s research on Turkish Jewry’ gives an example:

        “Greeks and Armenians agitated widely to prevent Jews from constructing new synagogues when needed in the Empire. The best example of this came with Greek and Armenian opposition to the construction of a new Jewish synagogue at Haydarpasha in 1899. Sultan Abdul Hamid II allowed the synagogue to be built, and assured its opening despite the protests by sending a contingent of soldiers from the nearby Selimiye barracks, leading the contregation to adopt the name Hemdat Israel synagogue, but also the word Hemdat was close to the name of their benefactor, Sultan Abdul Hamid.”[10]

        In conclusion, anti-Semitism was a strong tradition among the Ottoman Armenians, and as will be seen it would be revived in the modern ages.


  51. Russian supression of the Georgian language began in the 19th Century.

    The late 19th century was marked by the intensification of Pan-Slavist policies that proved ominous for the non-Russian minorities. The Russian officials never recognized the existence of a single Georgian nation and instead contrived various ethnic groups of “Kartvelian origin.” In 1872, the Russian government banned the use of the Georgian for instruction. In an effort to weaken the nationalist revival, it also tried a subtler plan of introducing teaching in the primary schools and public worship in other Kartvelian languages, Megrelian and Svan, which had never before been used for these purposes. The fulfillment of this design would have meant the fragmenting of national unity. Although the Georgian intelligentsia succeeded in undermining this policy, it appeared less successful in Abkhazia, where Russian liturgy and education resulted in the gradual Russification of the local population, which shared a common historical and cultural heritage with the Georgians


    As for the “nationality” policies of the Russian communist state (Russification) it was very real.

    Some, such as the Georgians and Latvians resisted very strongly, however the policy of Stalin, Khruschev, and their successors was to Russify the USSR.

    “These policies toward the nationalities were reversed in the 1930s when Stalin achieved dictatorial control of the Soviet Union. Stalin’s watchwords regarding nationalities were centralism and conformity. Although Georgian, Stalin pursued a policy of drawing other nationalities closer to the Russian nationality ( sblizhenie–see Glossary). He looked toward Russian culture and language as the links that would bind different nations together, creating in the process a single Soviet people who would not only speak Russian but also for all intents and purposes be Russian. Native communist elites were purged and replaced with Russians or thoroughly Russified persons. Teaching the Russian language in all schools became mandatory. Centralized authority in Moscow was strengthened, and self-governing powers of the republics were curtailed. Nationalities were brutally suppressed by such means as the forced famine of 1932-33 in the Ukrainian Republic and the northern Caucasus and the wholesale deportations of nationalities during World War II, against their constitutional rights. The Great Terror and the policies following World War II were particularly effective in destroying the non-Russian elites. At the same time, the onset of World War II led Stalin to exploit Russian nationalism. Russian history was glorified, and Soviet power was identified with Russian national interests. In the post- World War II victory celebration, Stalin toasted exclusively the Russian people while many other nationalities were punished as traitors.

    The death of Stalin and the rise of Nikita S. Khrushchev to power eliminated some of the harshest measures against nationalities. Among the non-Russian nationalities, interest in their culture, history, and literature revived. Khrushchev, however, pursued a policy of merger of nationalities ( sliianie–see Glossary). In 1958 he implemented educational laws that further favored the Russian language over native languages and aroused resentment among Soviet nationalities.

    Although demographic changes in the 1960s and 1970s whittled down the Russian majority overall, they also led to two nationalities (the Kazaks and Kirgiz in the 1979 census) becoming minorities in their own republics and decreased considerably the majority of the titular nationalities in other republics. This situation led Leonid I. Brezhnev to declare at the Twenty-Fourth Party Congress in 1971 that the process of creating a unified Soviet people had been completed, and proposals were made to abolish the federative system and replace it with a single state. The regime’s optimism was soon shattered, however. In the 1970s, a broad national dissent movement began to spread throughout the Soviet Union. Its manifestations were many and diverse. The Jews insisted on their right to emigrate to Israel; the Crimean Tatars demanded to be allowed to return to Crimea; the Lithuanians called for the restoration of the rights of the Catholic Church; and Helsinki watch groups (see Glossary) were established in the Georgian, Lithuanian, and Ukrainian republics. Petitions, samizdat (see Glossary) literature, and occasional public demonstrations voiced public demands for the rights of nationalities within the human rights context. By the end of the 1970s, however, massive and concerted efforts by the KGB had largely suppressed the national dissent movement. Nevertheless, Brezhnev had learned his lesson. Proposals to dismantle the federative system were abandoned, and a policy of further drawing of nationalities together (sblizhenie) was pursued.

    Language has often been used as an important tool of the nationality policy. According to the Constitution, the Soviet Union has no official language, and all languages are equal and may be used in all circumstances. Every citizen has the right to be educated in his own language or any language chosen by him or his parents. Nevertheless, demography and Soviet policies have made Russian the dominant language. Under Brezhnev, Soviet officials emphasized in countless pronouncements that the Russian language has been “voluntarily adopted” by the Soviet people as the language of international communication, has promoted the “social, political, and ideological unity” of Soviet nationalities, has enriched the cultures of all other nationalities in the Soviet Union, and has given “each Soviet people access to the treasure of world civilization.” Russian has been a compulsory subject in all elementary and secondary schools since 1938. In the schools of all the republics, where both a national language and Russian were used, science and technical courses have been mainly taught in Russian. Some higher education courses have been available only in Russian. Russian has been the common language of public administration in every republic. It has been used exclusively in the armed forces, in scientific research, and in high technology. Yet despite these measures to create a single Russian language in the Soviet Union, the great majority of non-Russians considered their own native language their first language. Fluency in Russian varies from one non-Russian nationality to another but is generally low, especially among the nationalities of Soviet Central Asia. A proposal in the 1978 Georgian Republic’s constitution to give the Russian language equal status with the Georgian language provoked large demonstrations in Tbilisi and was quickly withdrawn.”

    “The policy toward the Georgian Orthodox Church has been somewhat different. That church has fared far worse than the Russian Orthodox Church under the Soviet regime. During World War II, however, the Georgian Orthodox Church was allowed greater autonomy in running its affairs in return for the church’s call to its members to support the war effort. The church did not, however, achieve the kind of accommodation with the authorities that the Russian Orthodox Church had. The government reimposed tight control over it after the war. Out of some 2,100 churches in 1917, only 200 were still open in the 1980s, and the church was forbidden to serve its faithful outside the Georgian Republic. In many cases, the regime forced the church to conduct services in Old Church Slavonic instead of in the Georgian language. ”


  52. Wiki: >> “every Christian community was required to give one son in five to be raised as a Muslim.”

    Robert: > “would depose sultans on their whim – and they were universally hated by everyone.”

    Yes, always blame the victim! Rob the mother of her child at gun point, make him an orphan who doesn’t know his parents, raise him in vicious and ruthless military conditions to be vicious and ruthless, teach him Islam at gun point – and then blame this victim for being vicious and ruthless!

    It is as disgusting as a murderer complaining that his victim fought back! How can you not see how disgusting your entire argument has been?

    • About as disgusting as your defence of Russian tyrrany and imperialism.

      Russia was and is a genocidal state, just look at its recent behaviour in the Caucasus.

    • Wow, I didn’t read Robert’s post to the end and missed another gem:

      > Opressed Ottomans

      Oppressed by whom?

      > finally got rid of them in a quite spectacular way by killing the last damn one of them.

      So, you steal infant babies from their mothers, bring them up as vicious killers, educate them in the Muslims faith – and then slaughter “the last damn one of” of these victims of yours? You should be glad that you weren’t old enough to stand trial at Nuremberg, sir. You are the most disgusting person I have had conversation with.

      • Oh, really? Well, f*** you too. Now go back to your Jihad Watch.

        • > go back to your Jihad Watch

          I don’t have to do that on my own. My government is doing it for me. FYI, we, Americans, are officially at war with Jihadists. We have the whole Department of Homeland Security doing the Jihad watch, along with the CIA, FBI and most other agencies. We had to sacrifice our privacy and our civil liberties to the Patriot Act because of your Jihadists.

          It wasn’t Russians who slaughtered thousands of innocent American civilians on September 11, 2001. And it is not the Russians who pose the greatest threat to us, Americans.

          But I guess your presence here is to deflect American attention from our real enemies to imaginary ones.

          • Well even some democrats recognise the threat Russia is to the US.

            The Russian Threat To U.S. Security

            Douglas E. Schoen, 01.14.09, 12:01 AM EST
            Obama’s foreign-affairs test has already begun

            While all eyes are on the Gaza crisis, the major threat that Russia poses to U.S. security is being overlooked.

            Neither the outgoing nor the incoming administrations have effectively addressed the Russia problem. And with President-elect Barack Obama only weeks away from taking office, he must remember Joe Biden’s warning that the incoming president will face an international test within six months of taking office. Russia is that international challenge, and it’s imperative we start paying attention now–because the test has already begun.

            The most obvious evidence of this risk came straight from President Dmitry Medvedev’s mouth during an end-of-the-year interview. Medvedev made it clear that military force will continue to be an option for Russia. “Russia’s interests must be secured by all means necessary,” he said. “First of all, by international and legal tools … but, when necessary, by using an element of force.”

            Russia also recently announced a massive increase in the size of its military, and it is commissioning the construction of 700 new strategic nuclear weapons. Further, the deputy secretary of Russia’s Security Council, General Yury Baluyevsky, has already said his work will inevitably lead to a greater role for the military in the country’s foreign policy, as well as “the legitimate use of nuclear weapons as a tool for strategic deterrence.”

            This comes on the heels of unconfirmed reports that Russia agreed to supply an S-300 anti-aircraft system to Iran. Although it hasn’t been verified, the rumor must not be taken lightly. Both Russia and Iran tell inconsistent stories. And if this advanced surface-to-air missile system is sold to Iran, it will make any attack by the U.S. or Israel not only dangerous but also more likely to fail.

            Magnifying this danger are new reports claiming that Russia is selling other types of missile systems to Syria, Libya and Venezuela. Furthermore, Russia announced a strengthening of military ties last week with China through a hotline between their two armies. It’s a symbolic act, but one that clearly illustrates Russia’s intentions.

            Russia also targeted U.S. allies when it cut off much-needed natural gas supplies to Ukraine on Jan. 1; it did not resume sending gas through Ukraine until Monday morning. Russia’s actions against Ukraine were devastating to the delicate nation and disrupted fuel delivery to a number of Western European countries for which Ukraine routes gas

            Russia claimed the sanctions were in response to Ukraine’s supposed $2 billion debt to Moscow. But they were also a sign that Russia is flexing its political muscle to prevent Ukraine (and Georgia) from gaining NATO membership.

            The Obama administration must take immediate action. But for his efforts to be successful, Obama must not negotiate without preconditions. He’s already taken a step in the right direction by announcing that NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia is a possibility.

            The U.S. must be forceful in how it bargains with Russia over this point. The U.S. cannot back down on NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia–unless Russia is ready to cooperate and make some major changes. Specifically, Russia must proactively work to discourage Iran’s nuclear ambitions, work with the U.S. constructively on North Korean disarmament and immediately halt any arms sales to nations that are state sponsors of terrorism.

            The test that Vice President-elect Joe Biden spoke of is already upon us, and it’s one neither the Bush nor Obama administrations have a strategy to tackle. Now the uncertainty is whether the new administration is prepared to ace it.

            Douglas E. Schoen, a Democratic consultant, pollster and writer, has been a campaign consultant for more than 30 years and is the co-author of Chavez: The Threat Closer to Home, which will be released this month by the Free Press.


            And also

            U.S. Intelligence Uncovers ‘Russian Threat’
            // Moscow is charged with energy arm-twisting and computer espionage
            U.S. Congress held annual hearings on security issues, based on the report by National Intelligence Director Michael McConnell. Along with al-Qaeda, Iraq, and Iran, U.S. intelligence officials listed Russia and China among the outer threats. Moscow and Beijing are charged with using their growing economic influence in the world for advancing their own political goals, and with cyber-terrorism. Kommersant’s special correspondent Dmitry Sidorov reports from Washington.
            U.S. Senate Select Committee On Intelligence held annual hearings on national security issues, attended by top intelligence officials, including National Intelligence Director, Admiral Michael McConnell; CIA Director, General Michael Hayden; FBI Director Robert Mueller; Defense Intelligence Agency Director, Major General Michael Maples; and Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research Randall Fort. McConnell was the main speaker, presenting his 45-page-long report on the situation in 15 countries.

            This year’s hearings are notable for the unexpected unanimity displayed by intelligence chiefs when discussing McConnell’s report. Covert competition among different agencies of U.S. intelligence passed into a proverb long ago. It is no secret that CIA officers are reluctant to share information with their colleagues from the National Intelligence, and vice versa. Also, the FBI always disliked people “across the river” (the CIA), and the latter reciprocated.

            This time, however, intelligence chiefs seemed to have undergone drastic changes: they did their best to display readiness for constructive cooperation. So, CIA head Michael Hayden underlined the recently-appeared progress in special services’ cooperation, which did not prevent him from making a cautious reservation, though. He said that overcoming the in-house code of conduct “will take certain time”.

            Meanwhile, McConnell’s report was as surprising as the climate at the hearings. Although the part devoted to Russia was not as extensive as the parts about Iraq, Iran, and al-Qaeda, it was the most sensational one. It is for the first time that the leading U.S. intelligence service listed Russia among chief threats to U.S. national security.

            However, it turned out the U.S. special services believe it is not the only threat coming from Russia now. The second threat is cyber-terrorism. “We assess that nations, including Russia and China, have the technical capabilities to target and disrupt elements of the US information infrastructure and for intelligence collection,” said McConnell.

            “The assessment is based on the analysis of Russia’s last-year cyber-attack on Estonia at the height of the Bronze Soldier conflict, and some other actions of Russian special services,” explained a source close to the U.S. intelligence. The source refrained from giving specific examples, though.

            Speaking of the political situation inside Russia and its possible scenarios, the U.S. intelligence chief estimated it the following way: “In March, Russia is set to reach […] the first on-schedule change in leadership since communism and the first voluntary transfer of power from one healthy Kremlin leader to another.” By the way, McConnell avoided using the word ‘election’ when describing the upcoming authority change in Russia.

            Moreover, McConnell said the process is “clouded, however, by President Putin’s declared readiness to serve as prime minister under his hand-picked successor, Dmitry Medvedev, a move that raises questions about who will be in charge of Russia after Putin’s presidential term expires in May”.

            “The Medvedev-Putin ‘cohabitation’ raises questions about the country’s future and the implications for Western interests.” “While many of the essential features of the current system are likely to endure, including weak institutions, corruption, and growing authoritarianism, we will be alert for signs of systemic changes such as an indication that presidential powers are being weakened in favor of a stronger prime minister, McConnell summed up the political situation in Russia.

            The report focuses on analyzing the instruments of Russian diplomacy’s pressure for the nearest four years, including energy-trade and military capabilities. U.S. intelligence services see the threat to U.S. and its western partners’ national security in Moscow’s energy policy as well. “Aggressive Russian efforts to control, restrict or block the transit of hydrocarbons from the Caspian to the West—and to ensure that East-West energy corridors remain subject to Russian control—underscore the potential power and influence of Russia’s energy policy,” said McConnell.

            The official also noted teething changes in the Russian army which is overcoming “a long, deep deterioration in its capabilities that started before the collapse of the Soviet Union”. At the same time, McConnell believes the Russian army has not yet reached “Soviet era operations”, and “still faces significant challenges”, such as “demographic, health problems, and conscription deferments”. “Strategic nuclear forces remain viable, but Russia’s defense industry suffers from overcapacity, loss of skilled and experienced personnel, lack of modern machine tools, rising material and labor costs, and dwindling component suppliers,” adds McConnell.

            While discussing Russia, senators also touched upon Moscow’s relations with Iran. Senator Evan Bayh wondered why Russians supply nuclear fuel for atomic power plants to Iran.

            “Russians are in talks with Iran, using the supplies of fuel for its peaceful nuclear program to show that Moscow is keeping everything under control,” replied McConnell. “Russians also explain to Iranians they can expect a lot if they agree to the international community’s offers,” he added. “I hope the matter is precisely so,” replied Bayh. In his turn, Christopher Bond, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, evaded the question whether the U.S. regards Moscow’s military-equipment cooperation with Iran and Syria as a threat to its national security as well. “There is a whole range of threats,” said Bond evasively. “Each of them is quite serious, and I wouldn’t select any of them as the top one,” he said.

            Meanwhile, a source close to the U.S. intelligence said the threats list includes a suspicion that Moscow-Tehran nuclear cooperation might be beyond the framework of current international agreements.

            Beside Russia, the Senate Committee also heatedly discussed Iraq, al-Qaeda, and special services’ methods applied against international terrorism, questioned not only by human rights defenders, but also by congressmen. Chief news was that U.S. intelligence top officials acknowledged facts of using the so-called water torture during the questioning of terrorism suspects. The torture makes a suspect feel as if they are drowning. When asked whether these prohibited methods were used, CIA Director Michael Hayden had to admit the practice indeed took place. However, he stressed that water torture was applied only to three high-ranking Al-Qaeda members, and not recently, but over five years ago.


    • “Yes, always blame the victim! Rob the mother of her child at gun point, make him an orphan who doesn’t know his parents, raise him in vicious and ruthless military conditions to be vicious and ruthless, teach him Islam at gun point – and then blame this victim for being vicious and ruthless!”

      They were as much “victims” as the Russian Civil War’s orphans who were adopted by Dzerzhinsky’s henchmen (in the Orwell’s fable Animal Farm they were the dogs Jessie and Bluebell).

      Except the Janissaries were more than just the enforces of the ruling regime, or elite soldiers they were in earlier times – when, as you probably think, everyone had just excellent human rights records.

      Like for example this one Romanian national hero, valiant Turk-fighter and defender of the western world, Vlad Dracula the Impaler. (I wonder who had so-obviously “thought him Islam at gun point”, so he became such a “vicious and ruthless” individual that he inspired a monster of vampire lore? Wait, he was a Christian hero? Oh, I see.)

      And so the “victims” eventually became the opressors of everyone in the country (tax money going to them), the backwards, super-corrupt bastards, eventually ruling the empire with the sultans as their puppets (the sultans who would object to their power would be deposed, imprisoned, murdered). “Fighting back”, my ass. Just a greedy military shadow regime exploiting the weakness of their state.

      Encyclopedia Britannica:

      In the late 16th century the celibacy rule and other restrictions were relaxed, and by the early 18th century the original method of recruitment was abandoned. The Janissaries frequently engineered palace coups in the 17th and 18th centuries, and in the early 19th century they resisted the adoption of European reforms by the army. Their end came in June 1826 in the so-called Auspicious Incident. On learning of the formation of new, westernized troops, the Janissaries revolted. Sultan Mahmud II declared war on the rebels and, on their refusal to surrender, had cannon fire directed on their barracks. Most of the Janissaries were killed, and those who were taken prisoner were executed.

      • >>> Opressed Ottomans

        >>Oppressed by whom?

        So, who were these “Opressed Ottomans” who killed “the last damn one of them”?

        > Sultan Mahmud II

        So, let me get it straight: this “oppressed Ottoman” who killed the Janucars — was the Sultan? So, who exactly “oppressed” this absolute ruler of the Ottoman Empire? His concubines? His eunuchs?

  53. Wow. Had I posted one hundredth the volume that Robert and Andrew post – I would have been immediately banned from this blog. But I guess, russophilia is a taboo here, while Andrew’s russophobic and Robert’s christianophobic verbal diarrheas are celebrated for their sheer volume.

  54. Ah, so you’re not from Jihad Watch? Really? Okay then, go back to Little Green Footballs. Talk there about how the valiant Christian knight Dracula came to the rescue of western civilization, how the Christian separatists were alright to exterminate the Muslims and Jews, and how the 19th century “Janucars” were former Christian children and not just a bunch of corrupt and backwards power-hungry Turkish Muslims. Because if you continue here, it will now be a monologue until you’re banned.

    • > Ah, so you’re not from Jihad Watch?… will now be a monologue until you’re banned.

      It would indeed be highly symbolic of this blog if an American libertarian were banned at the request of a Jihadist Christianophobe and genocide apologist like yourself. It would speak volumes as to which side of the War on Terror this blog is on.

      But then again, the story banning of me would make a great reading in other blogs, especially the ones dealing with the American war with islamic extremism.

  55. New Russia, New Threat: Working with the West Is No Longer the Goal as the Kremlin Flexes Its Muscle and Rethinks Its Role in the World
    Michael A. McFaul
    Los Angeles Times, September 2, 2007

    On Aug. 17, Russian President Vladimir V. Putin announced that a dozen missile-carrying strategic bombers, accompanied by support and tanker planes, will be permanently airborne. Their mission: to protect Russian territory. From whom?

    Putin didn’t name the enemy that caused the resumption of such flights after a 15-year hiatus. But only one other country has similar air capability — the United States.

    Twenty-four-hour bomber missions is one of many recent flexes of Russian military muscle. Last month, Putin presided over a joint military exercise in Russia of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a new club of autocratic and semi-autocratic regimes including China and most of the former Soviet republics in Central Asia.

    Also in August, Georgian officials reported that Russian planes had entered Georgian airspace and launched a missile at a Defense Ministry radar. The missile did not explode.And earlier this year, the Russian leader approved a seven-year, $200-billion rearmament plan to build planes, missiles and ships.

    Did the Cold War sneak back?

    Thankfully, no.

    Should the United States be worried about a new Russian threat?


    Early in his tenure as general secretary of the Communist Party, Mikhail S. Gorbachev moved to end Soviet isolation from the outside world by integrating his country into the West. He withdrew Soviet troops from Eastern Europe, signed arms control treaties that dramatically reduced Soviet nuclear arsenals, and allowed Soviet citizens to travel to the West. The results were profound: The Cold War ended.

    Throughout the 1990s, President Boris N. Yeltsin pursued the same foreign policy goal with even greater vigor. He sought to join such Western multilateral institutions as the G-7, the World Trade Organization, the European Union and even the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

    Yeltsin’s successor, Putin, also began his term cozying up to the West, a policy course that gained momentum after 9/11, when Putin placed Russia firmly on the side of the West in the global war on terrorism.

    But today, integration with the West is no longer a goal of Russian foreign policy. Putin instead seeks to balance his and other nations’ power against that of the West and the United States in particular. Resuming strategic-bomber missions, conducting joint military exercises with other countries and threatening U.S. allies such as Georgia reflect the fundamental shift in Kremlin thinking about global politics and constitute new potential threats to U.S. influence.

    Why the turn?

    First, Putin has rebuilt autocracy at home by undermining the power of regional leaders, independent media, both houses of parliament, independent political parties and civil society. At the same time, he has increased the role of the Federal Security Service, the successor to the KGB, in governing Russia and has arbitrarily politicized such state institutions as the courts, tax collectors and the police. Putin’s regime also has made it increasingly difficult for U.S. business and nongovernmental organizations to operate in Russia. As Russia’s retreat from democratic values increasingly becomes a source of tension between it and the West, Moscow, in turn, sees less value in trying to cooperate with NATO, the European Union and the U.S.

    Second, as Russia has drifted toward autocracy and away from Western norms of governance, Putin and his government increasingly portray the United States as Russia’s No. 1 enemy. If Americans watched Russian state-controlled television, they would be shocked to learn that the U.S. is surrounding Russia with military bases, fomenting pro-American revolutions in countries neighboring Russia and seizing Russian natural resources.

    President Bush, of course, has many more immediate security challenges than trying to rekindle a balance-of-power game with Russia in Central Asia, Georgia or Ukraine. But the Kremlin’s new need for an enemy has reframed previous Russian-U.S. efforts at cooperation — be it joint investments in oil production; the opening of U.S. military bases in Central Asia to fight a common enemy, the Taliban; or building a shared missile defense system — into issues of zero-sum competition between Moscow and Washington.

    At times, Putin himself has described these U.S. “schemes.” For instance, in April, he warned, “There is a growing influx of foreign cash used directly to meddle in our domestic affairs. . . . Not everyone likes the stable, gradual rise of our country.” In May, Putin said that threats to Russia from the West “are not diminishing. They are only transforming, changing their appearance. In these new threats, as during the time of the Third Reich, are the same contempt for human life and the same claims of exceptionality and diktat in the world.”

    Finally, American weakness is driving Russian assertiveness. When the U.S. emerged as the world’s undisputed superpower in the 1990s, Russia looked weak in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union and subsequent economic depression. Today, according to the Kremlin, fortunes have turned. The U.S. is bogged down in unwinnable wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and morally discredited in the eyes of the international community as a unilateral, interventionist power and violator of human rights.

    By comparison, Russia sees itself as stronger and more respectable. As Guantanamo remains open and Iraqi civilian casualties mount, intermittent U.S. complaints about democratic erosion inside Russia do not resonate with Russian elites or citizens. Instead, Russian leaders point to giant inflows of foreign investment, Russia’s victorious bid to host the 2014 Winter Olympics and Bush’s continued courtship of Putin as evidence that only hard power — not values — matters in international politics.

    The probability of direct military conflict between Russia and the U.S. is very low. At the same time, an autocratic, anti-Western Russia poses serious trouble for America and its allies. Putin’s Russia sells military equipment to Syria, Iran, China and Venezuela. It supports the development of Iranian nuclear technology and blocks Kosovo independence. It has cut off gas to Ukraine, imposed economic sanctions on Georgia and launched a cyber war against a NATO ally, Estonia. A Russia less constrained by Western values, institutions or opinion might be tempted to pursue even more provocative policies, such as deploying military power to secure independence for the territory of Abkhazia inside Georgia.

    Michael McFaul is a Hoover fellow and professor of political science at Stanford University.


    • Baiting the Bear

      Eric Kraus

      The St. Petersburg Times, December 21, 2004

      Even a cursory look at history shows that the breakup of major empires has not usually been a peaceful, beneficent process. The Soviet Union is perhaps the single great exception to this rule – an empire which declared itself defunct and voluntarily disbanded – neither compelled by the external pressure of crushing military defeat nor devastated by internal revolution. In their haste to put an end to the Soviet nightmare, Russia’s leaders may have neglected to secure the country’s legitimate interests.

      Recognizing that the Soviet Union could not win the Cold War, Mikhail Gorbachev saw an opportunity for radical reform within the existing political structures; yet these reforms – clumsy, unpopular, both too little and too late – simply hastened the implosion of the empire. In the ensuing chaos, the impetuous and brilliantly opportunistic Boris Yeltsin saw his chance to strike a crippling blow against his old enemies in the Communist Party. In view of their precarious political situations, both Gorbachev and especially Yeltsin desperately sought Western alliances. Given the imperative of smashing the Communist juggernaut before it could regroup, as well as their admirable wish to put an end to Soviet imperialism, both men showed an almost childlike trust in the good faith of the West.

      Perhaps unfortunately, rather than negotiating guarantees for Russia’s right to live peaceably within secure and defensible borders, they countenanced not just the abandonment of its imperial ambitions, but also the trampling of its very legitimate security concerns. Both men believed they had firm reassurances regarding the limits of NATO’s military penetration into the Commonwealth of Independent States.

      Yet perhaps the temptation for the West to take advantage of Russian weakness and passivity simply proved too great. Russia increasingly finds itself surrounded by a potentially hostile alliance. Certainly, in situations such as Serbia where there has been a sharp divergence between Russian and Western interests, NATO’s repeated promises to take Russian interests into account have proved fraudulent.

      Frequently described as “expansionist,” current Russian foreign policy is in fact anything but; it is purely defensive, aimed at the preservation of at least a minimal sphere of influence within Russia’s historical heartland. From a historical standpoint, this is eminently comprehensible. Russia has been repeatedly invaded and devastated by Western armies: Twice in the last century, the western half of the country was reduced to rubble, and each time, it struggled to reconstruct in the face of a hostile West. Indeed, since the Crimean War, the main thrust of Russian foreign policy has been to establish buffers against foreign incursions.

      The Cold War was fought largely by proxy. Much like the unfortunate Guatemalans and Argentines who spent decades living in terror of U.S.-trained death squads, or the several million Southeast Asian peasants slaughtered in what must be counted a singular approach to the preservation of their freedom, East Europeans paid a terrible price for the Soviets’ attempt to export their version of paradise.

      In the end, the Soviet system was indeed bankrupt – but it was dismantled from within before it could come crashing down upon Western Europe. In this, the West has been incredibly lucky. Nevertheless, there remains an opportunity to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

      Whereas Russia willingly countenanced the loss of countries that had been integrated into the Soviet Union by force, Ukraine is different. The Russian state was born in 13th-century Kiev, and the eastern part of Ukraine is ethnically, linguistically and culturally part of greater Russia. Furthermore, were Ukraine to join NATO, Russian borders would become indefensible – Russia’s greatest nightmare. It is, of course, not sufficient for a country to have legitimate interests – they must be advanced with dexterity and skill. The appallingly mishandled Ukrainian elections represent a failure of Russian diplomacy – the choice between East and West need never have been posed in such stark terms. While there was gross political manipulation by both sides, the Russians lost the media war. The East European tail has wagged the European dog as the ex-satellites attempt to cripple their old enemy – understandable, given their wretched postwar histories, but distinctly unhelpful for building a stable world.

      There now is little doubt that Western interests will emerge triumphant. Whether they take this as an opportunity to build bridges while respecting Russia’s historic interests, or instead seek to establish a puppet state to contain Russia, will largely determine the future of Eurasia – and a threatened, cornered bear is a dangerous beast indeed.

      Triumphant in the Cold War, some Western commentators have developed an irritating propensity toward self-congratulation. The totally illegal U.S. invasion of Iraq – based on forged evidence and brute force – demonstrates the painful reality that international relations remain based upon power; the era of imperium is not over – its justifications have simply been revised.

      The best security remains the ability to inflict unacceptable pain on any potential aggressor. It is thus hardly surprising that Russia is rebuilding her nuclear deterrent, rushing to develop a new class of intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of penetrating missile defenses.

      Fortunately, less devastating policy levers abound. Unlike its amateurish political diplomacy, Russian economic diplomacy has rung up a series of impressive successes. Unified Energy Systems is consolidating ownership of the energy industry throughout the CIS. Gazprom – sitting atop the world’s largest gas reserves and now seeking to build a world-class oil business – is a key player in global energy, courted by East and West alike.

      Russia is the world’s second-largest arms exporter. Like the Europeans, it takes an increasingly jaundiced view of American unilateralism. Even in Ukraine, Russian oligarchic interests are likely to outbid outgoing Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma’s cronies in the privatization of state assets. The European Union is struggling to integrate its new members, and with the Turks already waiting in line, will be unable to welcome 50 million impoverished European peasants within our lifetime. President Vladimir Putin’s irony was palpable when he recently invited them to do just that.

      When Putin assumed the presidency, Russia was still recovering from the lost decade of the ’90s and desperately needed time to rebuild. Deeply indebted, politically unstable and impoverished, Russia was pervaded by depression, insecurity and humiliation. Its transformation over the past five years has been little short of miraculous. For all the warts – corruption, poverty, pollution and demographic decline – Russia is an increasingly self-assured and prosperous place. It is absurd to imagine that a stronger and more self-confident Russia should continue to kowtow to the West.

      The breaking point is within view, but there is time to step back from the brink. For Europe to have any positive influence upon local political developments, the dialogue must be transformed into one between equals. While well-intentioned Western economic advice was largely responsible for the catastrophic outcome of the ’90s, the example of a friendly, prosperous and stable European Union could still prove of huge political benefit to the Westernizing elements within the Russian elite. The Western powers have grown accustomed to dealing with a weak and passive Russia. It is time they adjusted to the new realities.

      Eric Kraus is chief strategist for Sovlink Securities, Moscow. He contributed this comment to The St. Petersburg Times.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s