Bitcoin Forum

I'd like to start a topic on Russia in general and the historical transformations that it suffered through. This is brought about by a discussion with iCEBREAKER that I had on Donetsk thread, but I also had similar discussions with people before. The discussion will be quoted below.

The main theme is: Russia is not USSR. But you are welcome to post other questions, concerns, observations related to Russia and its policies, past and present.

After the quote exchange below, I will make two separate posts. One covering the question of propaganda, and the other of my view on Russia as a victim of USSR.


My reply:


iCEBREAKER then wrote:


And my reply:


With that I tried to show that blaming Russia/Russians for the deeds of USSR, just because the capital of USSR was in Moscow is the same as blaming Belgians for the crimes of EU, just because the EU HQ is in Brussels, but the message didn't get through.


So here is my final attempt to clarify:

A small note about propaganda.

I moved to the West in the late teens. Having grown in a family that was critical of the Soviet system, while living in the USSR, I grew pretty much immune to the social propaganda. In the West, I was surprised to discover that social propaganda is very much a part of everyday life, and is almost a copycat of the Soviet one. My propaganda immunity remained needed. :) Take, for example, a passage from a Soviet song "Eh, how wonderful it is to live in a Soviet land", and the Norwegian mantra, often cited on the MSM pages that we live in the richest, most socially secure country in the world...

When it comes to present-day Russian social propaganda, it is mainly saying that, yes, there are problems in Russia, but they can be overcome if people build strong families, bear children and adhere to Christianity. Christianity/religion (RF is a multi-religion state, so the balance is kept between the three major confessions) is used to the point of obvious indoctrination, even though Church and State are officially separated.

Present-day political propaganda, is interesting to observe. Russia has a tendency to exaggerate the facts and their meaning/consequences, while keeping all of the logic connections and the context intact. Western political propaganda, on the other hand, twists the facts, often either taking them out of context or rearranging the context altogether to suite the need.

I just don't find it credible that Russia wasn't calling the shots politically in the USSR. Do you have (respected) sources to substantiate such a claim? I studied US-Soviet relations during the Cold War in college, and asking me to believe the the Russian satellites were politically and militarily more important than Moscow is a great stretch, to put it politely.

I am not saying that the other republics were more important politically (with the exception fro Ukraine during Hrushjov period). Though many republics were demanding, had strong lobby, as we would say now.

Militarily, all republics contributed proportionally. That also meant that the losses were proportional. Tens of millions Russian perished during both The War and from the Soviet repressions. Russia still hasn't come around after the demographic hit of those years.

What I am saying is that Russia under USSR was a shadow of its former self pre-1917 coup d'etat. Yes, the shots were called from Moscow, but who were in power there then? How was the money distributed? Russia (RSFSR (http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%A1%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%A4%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%A1%D0%BE%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%A0%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0) as it was called then) dissolved politically into shadows during USSR era. It had its own government but it had little say over the running of RSFSR, unlike the local governments of the other republics.

Note that RSFSR lost its territories on the whim of the leaders of USSR and through other machinations, without consulting the government and population of RSFSR. For example, Kazahstan and Kirgizija became republics within USSR (and are now separate states), but before 1930s they were a part of RSFSR. Lenin wrote off Novorossia to Ukraine. Stalin presented Georgia (his homeland) with Abhazia and South-Sossetia. Hrushjov made a generous personal gift to Ukraine, bypassing USSR's constitution and not consulting with RSFSR government - Crimea.

RSFSR was the economic donor of USSR to its own detriment. Whole cities were built in the Central Asian republics and Baltics were industrialised, while Russia coughed up the money. (Interestingly, only Belarus managed to preserve the industry and economy that it got from USSR. All the other republics squandered their inheritance.)

Interesting is also the Western portrayal of events from that time. If an event was positive, you'd largely see it hailed as an achievement of USSR (which is correct), while if an event is negative, then it becomes "those Russians".

I see the 20th century as a lost century for Russia. Only now is it somewhat starting continuation of the path it was walking before 1917.

I hope Russia does something about US terrorist plundering of the middle east and now Ukraine.... Even if it means everyone on earth dies - we need to reboot humanity everyone in the west is evil and just thinking about themselves.

Nationalistic revisionism at best.  Riga was the largest city under the Swedish Empire and later it didn't need Russian help in industrialization.  On the contrary, most of the early industry in the Russian Empire was in Congress Poland, Baltic states and Finland and this technical expertise and capital came from the Baltic sea trade network.


As for Central Asia - this might be true for Tajikistan but countries like Kazakhstan have cities like Astana that were largely built after 1990 and are more modern than anything you can find in Russia.  Vladimir Putin himself should know that - he was somebody who grew up in the squalors of St. Petersburg and the squalors are still present in Russia.   Typical household in Russia often consists of two working adults making less than $10,000 a year and real estate prices in the large cities rivals California.

Why do you bother asking if you are never interested in what other people have to say on this?

You're always complaining that Russia was just a victim of the USSR dictatorship, yet you seem to like that style of leadership.


Crimea river...

Have you considered that the USSR was just Russia's alter-ego? They just changed the label so that Russia would not get blamed after a future "coup" or "collapse". People sometimes do similar things with limited-liability companies. If it goes bankrupt, they just start a new company under a different name. Or, if they want to try something different, they won't want to risk damaging the label of the old brand, so they create a second company.

ussr was a great place until stalin died. most of the information we get about it comes from descendants of russian and russian empire aristocrat exiles who are still pissed of they lost property and power. there were no man made famines no tens of millions killed by the regime and the incarceration rate was lower than 2014 usa.

present day russia is defending its people who are unfortunate enough to have ended up on wrong sides of borders after ussr broke up in countries where majority populations wish to sell out to nato/eu for more mcdonalds and iphones. good for them.

I don't see where you find revisionism here.

Riga: The keyword here is "under Swedish Empire" - until 1721. All industrialisation happened there while it was part of the Russian Empire. Latvia, like Estonia, Finland and Ukraine became states as the result of the coup d'etat in Russia. I'll touch that in a later post.

Now, Astana (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B0#.D0.90.D0.BA.D0.BC.D0.BE.D0.BB.D0.B8.D0.BD.D1.81.D0.BA). Here you really have to learn history. The previouse name of the city - Celinograd, as it was called since 1961, and before that is was the city called Akmolinsk. Celinograd comes from the word "celina" - "virgin lands", and commemorated the development of such empty lands during the big constructions projects of the Soviet Union. Btw, millions of Russians were sent either voluntarily or "compulsory voluntarily" to build/raise the southern republics and Siberia. You can read more about this project of 1955-1965 here (http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%86%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%8B).

And about revisionism in general. Russian history was heavily revised during the Soviet period. A lot of the pre-1917 history was either perverted, defamed or sent into oblivion, redacted. It is interesting to observe how the Western historian are now actively revising the history of USSR, but are embracing the Soviet revisions that damaged Russia. Food for thought?

Do you understand Russian? I would expect that if you studied US-Soviet relations, then you'd want to study the original sources. In case you do, I'd recommend the following historical work: Aлeкcaндp Eлиceeв: "Pyccкиe в CCCP - Пoтepпeвшиe или пoбeдитeли?" (Alexander Eliseev: "Russians in USSR - Victims or victors?") ISBN: 978-5-9955-0129-9 It's a well-researched work that looks at the title questions from all angles. I remember I did not completely agree with all of his conclusions, but the information presented is pretty comprehensive and he provides references for future research.

---

Relevant reading at this point would be:

Deconstructing Russophobia
http://russia-insider.com/en/2014/11/17/07-03-54pm/russophobia


Black myths about Rus – From Ivan the Formidable until our time
http://stanislavs.org/black-myths-about-rus-from-ivan-the-formidable-until-our-time/

Let me play a devil's advocate role for a while.
There are a couple of reason for why some set equation sign between Russia and USSR.

Before the coup d'etat of 1917, several of what later became republics were part of Russian empire, either integrally as a national component (Malorossia, Novorossia, Belorussia), as results of peace treaties (Latvia, Estonia, Finland), or as unions brought forth by mutual military or economic interests (Tadjikistan, Georgia).

Now, taking a step back, it is a sad irony that Soviet ideology was built on the works of Marks and Engels - two vocal russophobes, who in their works wrote that Russia must be broken up. Lenin, a half-German, was also a russophobe with a personal grudge against the royal family. It is now wonder that when Lenin came to power through the coup d'etat, he promptly set about breaking up Russia. Ironically, he is the founding father of at least 4 states: Ukraine, Finland, Latvia and Estonia. About 1.5 million Russian people died as a result of orders that can be traced to Lenin. He also pushed for abolishing Cyrillic alphabet and Westernising Russia, The russophobic policy later prevailed in the Soviet Union. While other republics could demonstrate their national identities, it was unaceptable to declare oneself as Russian, you were immediately stamped as chauvinist. There were many other manifistations of russophobia in USSR, Russian national conciousness was seen as a threat to the existence of USSR's elites.

Nevertheless, all the territories that were part of greater Russia (with the exception of Finland) later came under the umbrella of Soviet Union, and Russian was the lingua franca of the USSR. So, from the outside it very much looked like Russia, while politically, on the inside, Russia was bleeding its lands... The use of Russian language is persistent today. It is gruesome to watch Georgian and Ukrainian extremists convene in the Ukrainian coup government and discuss how all things Russian must be exterminated... using Russian language as their common tongue.

(By the way, if people want to understand what happened in Russia in 1917, look at Ukraine in 2014. Less than 100 years after, the events are repeating themselves, down to such details as Polish intervention.)

These same regions were later again ejected at terminal velocity when USSR was broken up. And they are gyrating back, whether the West wants it or not. Some doing so because of the national identity, other out of economic sensibilities, but it's a process that already started. Russia, true to its pre 1917 policy will welcome into the Federation those who want to join, while creating mutually-profitable economic ties with those who wish to stay for themselves. No force needs to be applied. ;)

As a post-scriptum to the above, a quote from Patrick J. Buchanan:
A Foreign Policy of Russophobia
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/buchanan/a-foreign-policy-of-russophobia/

Why russian keep invade other country?
I don't understand.
At present, invade other country can't bring any to their own people.

Was it "bloodless"?


You're being way too paranoid and small-minded about patriotic labels, and you are missing the bigger picture.

Apparently, the Brits have to call themselves "British" on their census forms, instead of English. Is England being "destroyed from within by the evil British Empire"? No, the idea is laughable. England basically IS Great Britain, and the different label is just political correctness to make the satellite states feel more comfortable. What is far more likely is that for example the Scottish and Welsh cultures are gradually being eroded and diluted due to the overwhelming dominance of the English language.

Do you think the imperialistic Russians could have just told the Estonians and Latvians "come, volunteer to join Russia! The name of your country will change to Russia, but that's just a minor technicality to save ink on maps. Everything else will be the same. You'll be able to keep your own little quirky culture, and trade will improve. We'll allow you to export more goods to Moscow."

Wow! Sounds like a great deal, right? ::)

Of course nobody would ever buy that bullshit. As usual, it would be a long and expensive war. The Russians just needed a better story (to reduce military costs), and Soviet ideology was that story.

"Hey look! We're not Russia any more! Those guys are gone. We have grown beyond such primitive patriotic labels. We are now a friendly Union! Here's a leaflet explaining Marx' Dialectical Gobbledegook. We invite you to join us! By the way, pay no attention to our giant Russian Soviet army, they're just doing unrelated exercises next to your border for no reason. Oh and... if you do decide to join us peacefully, we would require you teach the Russian language in your schools. It's just a small technicality to promote friendly relations while Moscow steals all your stuff makes really good trade deals with you."


::)
Of course it is. That was one of the most important parts of the "Soviet" expansion.

Invade what country? Ukraine? Because Psaki told you there is a YouTube video of it, while avoiding giving any hard evidence?
Believe me, if Russia invaded anyone, you'd know by the hysterical howling in the West and a lot of satellite and ground imagery coming directly from CIA (and not from YouTube).
And what did you mean by that last sentence? It does not make sense.

Even if Russia has invaded other countries, we can surely agree that they are only border countries that are of major strategic importance to them. They don't get involved in frivolous conflicts around the world like certain other groups of nations.

Calm down Ruski. I wasn't defending the USA's imperialism, I was pointing out how flawed the quoted logic is.

He-he. I wasn't very agitated. :P Yes, that logic is flawed (and my comment further showed it), and I would actually take objection to NUFCrichard's reply saying that "Russia invaded other countries". Peace.

:D  I just find it ridiculous that one kind of hegemony can be "better" than another kind. Whether it's the US interfering in the Middle East or Russia interfering in border countries, imperialism is imperialism. These nations ought to be leaving independent nations alone for the good of the planet.

The very best indication that USSR is not Russia, is the following open letter:
(Moving this post down the thread as I find this letter extremely important. Perfect - top spot of page 2. Skip if you already read it.)

Descendants of the White Emigration Against Russophobia in Western MSM
http://stanislavs.org/descendants-of-the-white-emigration-against-russophobia-in-western-msm/

The above link for more information.
Letter in Russian: http://www.russkymost.net/spip.php?article71
Letter in French: http://www.russkymost.net/spip.php?article70
The letter and interview with Prince Shakhovskoy: http://www.rg.ru/2014/12/25/pismo.html


PS: An article about it on RT:
http://rt.com/politics/217551-russia-emigrants-letter-history/

On that I fully agree with you. And on topic: USSR did quite a lot of "communism building" (read: interfering) by pouring money into African, Eastern-European and South American states, expecting to buy loyalty. Modern Russia's approach is different - fair trade opportunities, so there is less interference and more offering of opportunities.

The more I read about the coup d'etat of  October 1917 in Russia, the more I come to the conclusion that it was the first "colour revolution" - the red one. The goals then were just as they are now: to destroy a state and to steal its gold reserve.

Consider the following article in Siberian Times:

http://siberiantimes.com/other/others/features/where-in-siberia-is-the-last-tsar-of-russias-missing-gold/

The posts here are living proof that the West will never understand the difference between Russia and the former USSR!
The only thing they understand is Manifest Destiny!!

A good short article by Lada Ray on the 1917 coups in Russia, answering some earlier points in this thead:

Was 1917 Russian Revolution an Early Maidan? Russian Analyst Nikolay Starikov on EU, Armenia Maidan and Greece
https://futuristrendcast.wordpress.com/2015/07/12/was-1917-russian-revolution-an-early-maidan-russian-analyst-nikolay-starikov-on-armenia-maidan-and-greece

They are also atheist-sodomites.

It's not that simple... For example Grand Duchy of Finland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Duchy_of_Finland)

"During the Finnish War between Sweden and Russia, the four Estates of occupied Finland were assembled at the Diet of Porvoo on 29 March 1809 to pledge allegiance to Alexander I of Russia who in return guaranteed that the laws and liberties as well as religion would be left unchanged."

"The autonomy of Finland was at first encouraged by the Russians in part due to the relatively developed governmental structures in Finland (as compared to the emperor-centered Russia of early 19th century) and in part as a deliberate policy of goodwill to win over the minds of the Finnish people. The autonomous status led Finns to develop their own ideas of nationalism and constitutional monarchy, which they could to a large extent implement in practice with the assent of the Tsar."

The famous Cimean Prosecutor General, Natalia Poklonskaja characterises the abdication of Nikolai II as illegitimate, saying that the paper was signed by a pencil and was lacking all the required legal procedures and forms:

http://www.gazeta.ru/social/news/2015/07/15/n_7379549.shtml?%D0%B2

I wrote the following piece as a follow-up on a note abut the invasion and subsequent destruction of Yugoslavia by USNATO. I called it the murdered elephant in the room, which the Western media does not want to notice. Here is another such elephant:

---

... I want to add another dead elephant in the room, an event that few in the West speak of, or even know about. Yet destruction of Yugoslavia ties directly with this event. It happened between the 21st of September and the 5th of October 1993. Back then, the Western MSM praised this event as the ultimate defence of the young Russian democracy, while in reality, it was the exact opposite.

At that time Russian Parliament, seeing where Yeltsin was steering the country, was preparing to pass impeachment of the President. It is a completely democratic process, designed to balance the presidential power and to trigger a preliminary election. Yeltsin’s reaction was all but democratic.

He passed directive #1400, disbanding the Parliament. When the Parliament refused to comply, he (with the backing of the “well-wishers” from across the pond) ordered army into the streets of Moscow. The Parliament building and the TV tower Ostankino were surrounded. People went out to the streets to defend the Parliament. Then there came the terrible order to open fire. People were shot down by concentrated machine gun fire from armoured vehicles, the Parliament was shelled from tanks.

Here is a footage of the shelling of the Parliament:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbGJkoc3JLI

The exact number of victims of the 1993 massacre is unknown – most documents from that time were destroyed – but is officially estimated to be approximately 200. According to the analysis in the following article (in Russian), the numbers may have been a magnitude higher.

http://www.km.ru/v-rossii/2012/10/04/istoriya-rossiiskoi-federatsii/693919-4-oktyabrya-1993-goda-vlast-ustroila-boiny

The massacre also marked the descent of Russia into a period of near-destruction, a period of lawlessness and dismemberment of the industry and defence. A period, known in Russia as “The Wild 90s”. An example of the desolation of Russia can be gleaned from an article that I translated a while back:

http://stanislavs.org/for-russia-90s-were-worse-than-wwii/

Russia became totally incapacitated, which, in turn allowed USNATO in 1999 to start an unpunished invasion of Yugoslavia, not fearing any opposition. And even then, some politicians in Russia tried to show protest. When USA started the bombings, Russian Foreign Minister Prjamakov was en route to USA on a diplomatic mission. Upon hearing of the news, he ordered that the plane be turned back right over the Atlantic Ocean in protest.

A link to the excerpt from the book “The Forgotten Victims of 1993”:
http://oct1993.narod.ru/doc/zabyitie_zhertvi.htm
It contains many witness descriptions of the executions of the defenders (even those, who were unarmed, already wounded or surrendered), and later falsification of the numbers of the murdered people.

From the site above, there is an interesting document by parliamentary Andronov, who from the besieged Parliament, on the day before the massacre conducted negotiation with representatives of the AMERICAN embassy, trying to prevent the bloodshed. Americans anyway gave the order to open fire, he says, adding that the bloodshed in Moscow in 1993 was directly authorised by Clinton.
http://oct1993.narod.ru/doc/14.doc

Doesn’t it feel on some level like the coup d’etat in Ukraine in 2014?

---

This bit of neglected/forgotten history is very important to remember an understand both for the Western and for the Russian audience alike. That event does bare a lot of similarities to the US-staged coup d'etat in Ukraine last year, with the difference that in the 1993 Russia USA were protecting their asset/puppet Yeltsin from losing power, while in Ukraine they were installing puppet Poroshenko into power.

The 1993 massacre was in a way the second colour revolution Russia suffered during the 20th century, the first one being in February 1917. An it explains current loathing of Russians toward the openly stated USA's goal of replacement of leadership in Russia. The blood from the previous such "democratisation" has still not been washed away from the collective memory.

Hmm... another one among Billary's crimes against humanity. Some 2,000 unarmed people were massacred on the orders of the drunkard Boris Yeltsin and his American masters. They were murdered for trying to prevent Yeltsin from illegally disbanding the democratically elected parliament, to continue with his puppet regime.

It's been a while since I posted here. Most discussions went in other topics.

In the meantime, I did a few translations and publications, pertaining to various periods from the Russian history.

USSR:
http://stanislavs.org/who-and-how-transferred-crimea-into-ukrainian-soviet-socialist-republic-in-1952-1954/

The Wild 90's and Desolation of Yeltsin:
http://stanislavs.org/for-russia-90s-were-worse-than-wwii/
http://stanislavs.org/the-wild-90s-in-russia-as-reflected-in-peoples-memory/
http://stanislavs.org/boris-yeltsin-demon-or-hero/

WWII:
http://stanislavs.org/sophie-against-canaris-she-fought-for-ussr-but-became-hero-of-russia/
http://stanislavs.org/wwii-veteran-stanislav-lapin-i-had-my-own-score-with-hitler/
http://stanislavs.org/life-is-such-a-simple-yet-cruel-thing/

The history of the Borderlands, aka Ukraine - both past and present:
http://stanislavs.org/denouncing-everything-soviet-then-return-the-territories/
http://stanislavs.org/and-what-about-restoration-of-territorial-integrity-of-russia/
http://stanislavs.org/how-malorossia-was-turned-into-the-patch-quilt-of-discord-that-is-ukraine/

Various:
http://stanislavs.org/nikolay-starikov-estonia-should-pay-back-the-money-for-which-peter-the-great-bought-it-from-sweden-300-years-ago/
http://stanislavs.org/russia-means-peace/
http://stanislavs.org/birds-eye-perspective-on-the-russian-federation/

And a little extra about writing off various debts, which Russia is too generous with.
A translation from the following article in AiF (in Russian):
http://www.aif.ru/politics/world/attrakcion_nevidannoy_shchedrosti_komu_vygodna_restrukturizaciya_kreditov

In 2008 Russia forgave $12 billion of Iraqi debt; $4.5 billion to Libya, $4.7 billion to Algiers. See infographics for the last 10 years:
http://static1.repo.aif.ru/1/60/545728/c/d41236bbee9dfc22b0d799df0c10db50.jpg

But what about Russia itself? Russia repaid all Soviet debts, took on all the debts of the former republics, and more:

Heights of insanity from Yeltsin. When his own people were starving, he was busy repaying tens of billions of USD worth Soviet era debt which was owed to various Western nations. And Putin was no better. What was the need to write off the Libyan and Algerian debt? In 2008, the per-capita GDP in these two nations were bigger than the same in Russia.

Russia like a bear cornered.
Decreased oil prices caused a big economic crisis in Russia.
But at same time Russia has never given up its Pan-slavist aspiration. Russia wants war because it wants to descent to hot waters. Russian economy is in a bad situation and a war machine gives economy a new fresh breath.   

If Russia wanted war, you would have had it already in 2014. Well, USSR would not have stopped at Berlin in 1945, come to think of it.

Russia wants peace. Russia wants cooperation and trade. Russia wants that its lands are not constantly viewed with hunger by the trans-atlantic pack of hungry wolves. You should leave the cold war wordings behind.

As for "pan-slavist aspirations"... What's wrong with that? What's wrong with reminding the Slavs that they are, in fact, Slavs? What's wrong with wanting people to be friendlier to each other? What's wrong with wanting them to remember their common history, culture, language? Linguistically, a Russian can read Bulgarian or Serbian almost without a vocabulary, and Slovakian with only a minor effort of imagination...

The only "wrong" in that is from the viewpoint of the Western "divide and conquer" strategy that's been systematically applied to the Slavic people, creating "different" by concentrating on some minor, local, variations, rather then promoting cooperation by pointing out the huge commonalities - something that Russia should do.

In my view, Russia has not been doing nearly enough on that front to even warrant an accusation of having "pan-slavist aspirations". Russia should have been much more proactive and forward.

For those interested in an example on how those divisions were implemented, I can recommend reading my translation of the article:

Galician Intellectuals Wishing to Deprive Ukrainian of the Cyrillic Alphabet
http://stanislavs.org/galician-intellectuals-wishing-to-deprive-ukrainian-of-the-cyrillic-alphabet/

and Lada Ray's extended commentary to the article:
How to Reformat People’s Consciousness and Keep them as Obedient Slaves
https://futuristrendcast.wordpress.com/2016/03/28/how-to-reformat-peoples-consciousness-and-keep-them-as-obedient-slaves/

I've finished translating a larger documentary on the history of Malorossia and Galicia, and the creation of Ukraine in the XXth century.

Project ‘Ukraine’. Documentary by Andrei Medvedev (with English subtitles)
http://stanislavs.org/project-ukraine-documentary-by-andrei-medvedev-with-english-subtitles/


Alas, YouTube censored the video on the grounds of some bogus copyright claims.

Until I find a venue to publish the subtitled version, here are 5 easy steps that will allow you to watch it with subtitles on your desktop machine:

• Download the video above, using KeepVid (http://keepvid.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DbvpAeGeqd4Q)
• Download the subtitles (http://stanislavs.org/subs/Project%20'Ukraine'.%20A%20film%20by%20Andrei%20Medvedev.ass)
• Download and install VLC (http://www.videolan.org/vlc/) for your operating system
• Make sure that the video and the subtitle files have the same name
• Play the video in VLC – subtitles will load automatically

Full transcript of the translated subtitles is also available at
http://stanislavs.org/project-ukraine-documentary-by-andrei-medvedev-with-english-subtitles/

Almost two years have passed since the oil prices collapsed, and the Russians are doing relatively well (at least when compared to the other oil producing nations such as Azerbaijan, Angola, Nigeria, Venezuela, Norway, and Saudi Arabia). The Forex reserves are growing, and the unemployment and inflation is stable.

Are you serious ? .... ? Really ? You take the truth when it is ok for u ... and you do like all the time in russia ... deny deny deny ... and 10 years later ... ho yes !

Can you recall us what Poutine told in public about Crimea when it has been annexed by "little greens men" ...

First, WE HAVE NO ARMY IN CREMEA....

Then ... WE LIBERATE Crimea ....

And ... Nuclear weapons was ready for any attack over Crimea ...

For you this is not a way of path for WAR ?

Where are coming all weapons and Advanced tech in East of Ukraina ??? China black market ?

They denied again and again ... let's speak about the rape of URSS army after the second war ... where about 2 millions german wife were raped / killed by URSS army ... this great and glory army ...

URSS ... Staline killed more people than the second war ... and the lie about Katyn massacre ? The lie about the shutdown of plane of Korean Air ?

All the time Russia lie ... and lie ... so why we would beleive them now ?

People talk BS!! They confuse actual  Russia with old URSS ...URSS was  a Bolshevik and atheist federation and then was transformed in a communist federation. The bolshevism was based on Marxism!! Marxism/Bolshevism/Communism ( even socialism and capitalism) promotes atheism !!

Who was Marx?!! who was Lev Troțki? or Lenin?
What said Marx? only the people who produce something, must live, who is weak, must die! natural selection? Yeahh Marx was inspired by Darwinism and French socialist revolution.

Marx promoted the violence, because, he said, that's the only way to change something!

How many people was killed by those atheistic ideas ? how many was killed by jew bolshevism? More then 55 million!! Most of them were Christians!! thousands of church were destroyed. More then 9 million of Ukrainians were killed!! More then 22 million of Russians  were killed!!
Million of Romanians , Bulgarians, Serbian, Polish, Belarusian, Hungarians were killed!! This is the MARXISM!! This is the face of ATHEISM!!

Who brought the bolshevism in Russia?

I'm not a Russian and  country has suffered from Bolshevism and Communism!

Right now Russia is not the same!! There are problems but everywhere problems persist ( americans or germans have no problems? )

Before posting bullshits, people must learn what was(is) the connections between SOCIALISM MARXISM ATHEISM BOLSHEVISM DARWINISM even NAZISM and FEMINISM? What is the political correctness??

And now who bring the war in our world? Russia?

STOP TALKING BULLSHITS !!!!!

If we don't learn from history, history can repeat!!

Saksham, the problem is not in those guys being atheists - just see how many religious leaders destroyed their countries. The problem was in their attitude towards Russia. Marx, Engels, Lenin were ardent russophobes. Destruction of Russia and its population was what they primarily wanted. Lenin's creation of Ukraine and Belarussia was one such destructive "divide and conquer" step...
Later Soviet leaders were more preoccupied with power than with the well-being of the country. The only exception in my view would be Andropov.

But you are right in that the modern Western propaganda machine is doing everything trying to maintain the equality sign between modern Russia and USSR in the minds of the electorate.
 

---

Now, for those wishing to learn more about the administrative structure of oblast's, okrug's, krai's, republics and autonomies that comprise the Russian Federation (as well as a historic look at USSR and the Russian Empire), head over to

Lada’s Guide to the 85 Subjects of the Russian Federation
https://futuristrendcast.wordpress.com/2015/07/29/ladas-guide-to-the-85-subjects-of-the-russian-federation/

https://futuristrendcast.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/russian_regions-en-svg.png?w=888&h=809

I think we already in it..and you got another problem.

And it`s sad, but the only way we can neutralize these situations is if both people come forward and disarm certain # of bases.

Heres just a closer look to what I saw under with russia and the new cold war thats going on:

Vice - covers this 1st handed on the ground
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkW4eW7TMvM