0 $
2,500 $
5,000 $
340 $
MAY 2021

Nikolai Patrushev: “One gets the impression Europe has forgotten the horrors of WW2”

Support SouthFront

 Nikolai Patrushev: "One gets the impression Europe has forgotten the horrors of WW2"
Interview conducted by Ivan Yegorov and published by Rossiyskaya Gazeta; extract translation by J.Hawk
Concerning the post-Soviet space, it’s the situation in Ukraine that’s attracting the most attention. How can that crisis be solved?
Patrushev: First of all, I’d like to turn attention to the nature of the current crisis in Ukraine, which is the result of an West-organized anti-constitutional coup to which the inhabitants of several regions could not acquiesce.  The most acute conflict is between Kiev and the self-proclaimed Donbass republics, conflict that is being kept hot by Kiev’s military and punitive actions against their own citizens.
In February we had the second anniversary of the phased plan to peacefully resolve the conflict that was the product of tremendous efforts. The parties to the conflict (Kiev and DPR/LPR) should have started implementing it right away. Today it’s more difficult to do it, and it seems Kiev is in no condition to fulfill its part of the Minsk Agreements–nobody’s in actual control of the situation in Ukraine, the current president doesn’t even have the monopoly on the use of force. Poroshenko is rejecting compromise solutions to the crisis that were proposed by a variety of civic and political activists. It is evident that the various branches of government in Kiev are unprepared to abandon the use of force in the matters of normalizing the situation in the country’s south-east.

But there is no alternative to a peaceful resolution.

Russia continues to operate on the assumption that DPR and LPR are parts of Ukraine, but at the same time we cannot allow the genocide of the Russian-speaking population of the Donbass. In the absence of political guarantees to prevent ethnic cleansing, in the absence of a law on the special status of the Donbass, the conflict cannot be resolved. Reintegrating the territories outside of Kiev’s control is possible only by preserving its genuine autonomy, and that requires a direct political dialogue with the representatives of the two republics.

How should we react to the facts suggesting that Europeans are unconcerned with their fellow citizens joining Ukrainian nationalist battalions?

Patrushev: Europe is not merely unconcerned by the nationalist formations in Ukraine, but it also doesn’t condemn the crimes committed by Ukrainian neo-Nazis. The burning and shooting of people at the Labor Union House in Odessa, the murder of politicians and journalists in Kiev, threats leveled at Great Patriotic War veterans, the radicals’ assault on anything and everything that represents some sort of link to Russia–all of that remains unpunished.

And it’s no accident. Neo-Nazi ideas are being reborn in Europe. According to available data, there are over 500 neo-Nazi and radical nationalist groups in Europe, often youth ones. They have 7 million members.

There is major proliferation of neo-Nazi ideas not only in Ukraine, but also in Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, where the governments are facilitating the growth of Russophobia, anti-semitism, and neo-Nazism.

Several European countries’ governments have either turned a blind eye on, or actively supported, neo-Nazi marches, torch parades with demonstrative displays of Nazi symbols. Nazi criminals are being rendered honors, ceremonial burials are being held. Memorials to SS legionaries are being built, including in the place of destroyed monuments to Soviet soldiers who brought liberation.

Nationalist groups are creating mobile militant detachments which may be used to organize acts of civil disobedience and mass riots in their own and other countries. One gets the impression Europe has forgotten the horrors of World War 2.

Nikolai Patrushev: "One gets the impression Europe has forgotten the horrors of WW2"

Events in Ukraine are a one of clearest examples of the consequences of “color revolutions” inspired by the West around the world. Should one expect similar measures being aimed at Russia?

Patrushev: You are correct, “color revolutions” are by now a traditional policy instrument used by some countries to destroy statehood and sovereignty under the guise of democratization. But the country where a “color revolution” takes place nearly always collapses into chaos and then becomes subject to external control.

Western technologists have not abandoned their plans to implement “color scenarios” in our country. They are not very choosy in their choice of methods to promote protest sentiments, which range from exploiting temporary socio-economic problems to outright lies.

As a rule, one can expect an increase in opposition group activism on the eve of federal election campaigns. It’s no accident that the West appropriates money and material resources for NGOs in Russia and creates the so-called “independent” Russian-language media. While simultaneously intensifying its propaganda activity on Russian territory using the Internet.

I want to emphasize we are on top of the situation. Our law enforcement and intelligence services have amassed considerable experience in rapidly defusing provocations and unlawful acts. Attempts to pursue a “color revolution” in our country are doomed to fail.


The media paid considerable attention to the “chemical” incident in the Idlib Province, which served as apretext for the subsequent US airstrike on the Shayrat airbase. Can such actions be justified, and what is their impact on counter-terrorist operations in the Middle East?

Patrushev: Arbitrary use of force is absolutely unacceptable in international relations, and cannot be justified under any circumstances.

But it raises the question: why was Assad accused of using chemical weapons, instead of first establishing who used them? Who benefited from that? And why is the struggle against terrorism being transformed into actions against the government of a sovereign state which itself is waging an active struggle against ISIS and other bandits? One should carefully analyze what exactly is being done in order to facilitate a ceasefire and the political resolution in Syria.

Russia categorically condemns any use of chemical weapons. The guilty parties should be held to strict account. That’s why our country has insisted and continues to insist on a thorough and objective investigation of the alleged chemical incident in Khan-Sheykhoun on April 4.

One must also note that the government in Damascus eliminated its chemical weapons potential in accordance with the established procedures. Already in early 2016, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) announced that such weapons were transported out and destroyed outside of Syria’s borders, and that the US accepted OPCW conclusions.

Remarkably, Western media still prefer not to mention the proven fact that chemical weapons and highly toxic chemicals have been used by terrorists, including in Aleppo.

Did US policy change with the new administration in the White House? How do you assess the prospects for security cooperation with the US?
Patrushev: An objective assessment of their government’s policies should be performed by US citizens. Concerning the change of course of US policies  with the coming of the new administration, there are a number of opinion polls conducted in the US.

However, irrespective of who the US president is and of the current trends in US domestic politics, one should remember that our countries, being the biggest nuclear powers, bear special responsibility for ensuring international security. That places a major responsibility on us before our peoples and also before the whole world. We are expected to implement agreements on the main international problems, to effectively coordinate our actions, so as to facilitate the strengthening of global stability.

We are ready to collaborate with the West. In spite of all the difficulties, we continue seeking points of agreement. We can see that, in spite of the coordinated efforts to contain Russia, there are nevertheless efforts to preserve certain areas of cooperation. We maintain contacts between our foreign policy and national security entities, there is collaboration between our respective business circles. Naturally, we’d rather not see such cooperation be reduced to a list of lost opportunities.

Will the “Russian threat” factor will continue to be used by the West in the future, mainly in order to justify the growth of defense expenditures?

Patrushev: Indeed, the US right now lists Russia as one of its main threats, but not only to increase military expenditures. In doing so they are also hurting Russia-Europe relations, which have always been greater by an order of magnitude than the scope of US-Russia cooperation. 

The new US leadership does not intend to abandon the idea of preserving America’s dominant role in the world, and will seek that preservation using a comprehensive application of political, diplomatic, economic, information, and military measures.

We are also analyzing the ongoing changes in the activities of NATO and its individual members. Some of them undertook to rapidly equip their forces with modern precision-guided munitions, claiming it was urgently necessary to do so due to the need to deter Russia on NATO’s eastern flank.

Russia, for its part, is forced to react by adopting military, political, and other measures in order to, among other things, to improve its armed forces’ combat capabilities.

But this state of affairs need not continue.

Both NATO and we face a whole range of common threats and challenges, on which we should focus. And we should make it a joint effort. The only way out of the situation is to transition to planned, long-term joint efforts based on respecting mutual security concerns.

There are examples of how such dialogue can develop.


What is currently being done to make sure the Arctic becomes an economic asset for Russia, and also a zone of guaranteed peace?

Patrushev: There exists a long tradition and culture of cooperation in the Arctic. Russian seafarers have been finding a common language with the inhabitants of Norway, Sweden, Iceland, and Finland long before diplomatic relations were established. There were brotherly ties established within international polar expeditions which explored near-Polar areas.

We remember the heroic efforts by Soviet, American, British, Norwegian, and Danish sailors who brought tens of Arctic convoys into Murmansk during WW2.

Russia is acting on the assumption that there is no and should not be any potential for conflict. International norms clearly define the rights of coastal and other states. The Arctic today is an arena of peaceful cooperation in preventing and addressing man-made and ecological catastrophes and disasters, combating poaching, ensuring safe navigation along the Northern route, establishing a network of global maritime communications and navigation system.
Russia’s Arctic zone represents a major proving ground for international cooperation in both basic and applied scientific research concerning Earth’s nature and climate, including the resilience of Arctic ecosystems.
It would be impossible to ensure the effective functioning of the Arctic zone without state support, therefore the state is in the process of creating a comprehensive transport and energy infrastructure, a network of communications systems, including through reliance on dual-use military facilities in order to assist civil services in ensuring both the socioeconomic development of these regions and to facilitate rescue operations.
The Northern Sea Route (NSR) is continuing its growth. If in 2014 it was used to transport 7.5 million tons of cargo, in 2016 that number rose to 7.5 million tons.
When taking into consideration hydrocarbon extraction in all the regional projects, by 2022 the amount of cargo transported may increase to 40 million tons. State efforts aim at creating an attractive investment climate for further expansion of the NSR by establishing a benign tax regime and other forms of relief to investors, special economic zones in Arctic sea ports, flexible tariffs on icebreaker and pilot services.
Nikolai Patrushev, we are speaking on the even of the 25th anniversary of establishing the Russian Federation Security Council, all of whose decisions are closely tied to our country’s history, to the need to address specific issues. In retrospect, could you name the most important decisions made by the Security Council in the last 25 years?
Patrushev: I’ll say this–every Security Council meeting or session under the President’s chairmanship deals with the most pressing current problems.
It’s enough to recall the decisions concerning the neutralization of unlawful militant formations and restoring constitutional order in the Chechen Republic, which allowed us to stabilize the situation int he region, ensure the country’s territorial integrity.
In response to Georgia’s war on South Ossetia in August 2008, the Security Council adopted decisions to compel Georgia to make peace, recognize the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and assist them in developing their statehood.

Top priorities have always included combating international terrorism, including following the negative turn of events in Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Libya, and threats emanating from the Afghan-Pakistani zone of instability. These factors were also taken into account when preparing proposals for cooperation with CIS member-states, in ensuring the safety of the Olympic and Paralympic Games in Sochi and other major sports events.

The Security Council has identified the main aspects of transforming the Armed Forces, took measures to improve the  social conditions of servicemembers, law enforcement officials, military veterans, and their families.

When necessary, we make corrections in strategic planning documents. Thus, in accordance with a Security Council decision, made during the July 2015 session, the new Russian Federation Economic Security Strategy through 2030 was developed. The document was approved on May 13 by President Vladimir Putin.
The strategy defines both the challenges and threats to the country’s economic security, and also the state’s main tasks in terms of preventing crises in every sphere of the economy and preventing the lowering of the citizens’ quality of life.
In the nearest future, we intend to develop the Strategic Forecast for Russia, the Foundations of Russian State Policy for Protecting Citizens and Territories Against Emergencies through 2030, and the Foundations of State Policy to Ensure Industrial Security through 2025, and other documents.
We are also paying particular attention to ecological restoration of territories, stimulating technological retooling of industries, reducing harmful emissions, maximizing waste processing.

It is very difficult to list all the topics with which the Security Council deals. Its work is structured depending on the situation in the realm of international and regional security.

Support SouthFront



  1. Ma_Laoshi says:

    Well I hope it’s true that Russia is adequately protecting itself. But why wasn’t this expertise adequately shared with Latin America, especially Brazil? With experience how the USSR bankrupted itself on its empire, I appreciate that Russia doesn’t *want* an empire. But they could still stand by their friends instead of this… passivity.

    Seems that for now, much of the world is still Washington’s oyster. People never learn to “just say no” when some freshly-printed dollars are waved in front of their nose.

    1. Daniel Castro says:

      Fact is Russia and Brazil never were close allies, BRICS is just some circunstancial economic relationship, it isn’t even an alliance.

      Actually, there is no point in developing an alliance with a country without a government dedicated into turning its country into a powerfull and sovereign economic and military player, and the last brazilian government with such characteristics was Gen. Geisel in the 70’s.

      Lula and his PT are corrupt politicians more occupied selling impossible dreams to the poor population so they can perpetuate themselves in power, than develping the country, their actions only weakened brazilian economy and military forces, hence the country became useless from geopolitic point of view. There is no point for any major power in try an alliance with Brazil, or even control it, the only things it has to offer is cheap iron ore and agropecuary commodities, and our military are just laughable.

      1. Solomon Krupacek says:

        so, you are fascist. like your new presiadent, a cia agent, who is briber and corrupt, too. but did not accept fact, he should be finished, too.

        1. Daniel Castro says:

          Funny, the way I see it here you are the fascist, I am just patriot man who don’t believe on socialist delusions, the country should be militarily strong, independent, with a healthy economy and people, the type of government being implemented doesn’t really matter.

          1. Solomon Krupacek says:

            you like fascist generals.

            you are fascist

          2. Daniel Castro says:

            Who said they were fascists? They were not fascist, and in fact during their rule worshiping nazifascism became a crime. They only took power because Brazil was under threat of a violent revolution with leftist revolutionary militias infiltrated by external agents, of course they commited some violent acts to preserve order, however the ammount of deaths during their rule was not even close the one which happened in Cuba.

          3. Solomon Krupacek says:

            they were. all dictators in atin america were fascists. not nazi like in germany, but dascists as salazar in portugal, franco in spain, pinocshet in chile.

            otherwise the guy above you was right. and you only confirmed his truth. you wrote, there was not big cooperation between brasil and russia. yes, he pointed on the sam thing. and this is default of russia. the russian empire, the soviet union and now russia is simply not able to make normal relations with other countries. therefore lost always everything again anad again and began from zero again and again. russia is simply cold and defect. russia is not able to normal communications. never invested into partnerships. therefore brics is something what does not exists. brasil is under fascist rule nov, russia is weak and alone, india is enemy of china, china is enemy of india and latent enemy of russia, south africa … south africa? does xist yet? i did not hear about it last years.
            so, again, as former SU/russia pissed on cuba and vietnam, so pisses now on other countries. did in case of syria, when lett run jihadist terror long years and did not help, iran – not friend and also can not be friend a teocratic state. china discussed. and no other country is in close contact. belarus after crimea stepped back from russia, kazachstan, too.
            if russia once fall, this is only its failure. never was able to find friends and build up real partnerhoods with other countries.

          4. Daniel Castro says:

            Like I’ve said, says who? The zionist MSM of course… First, unlike Pinochet, here we never had one single dictator, and it also wasn’t just one single block in the army, reasearch and you will understand there was an inner conflict inside the military junta, they had different views about brazilian future, and they even were killing each other. Catelo Branco died on a “colision” with a brazilian military airplane, Costa e Silva got “sick” suddenly, and died, then the only real fascist and CIA asset took power, Garrastazu Medici, he was in collusion with Richard NIxon and brought CIA agents to Brazil to teach our military torture methods, in 1974 however the moderate military placed Ernesto Geisel in power, he was not like Medici and distanced himself from USA, and moved forward for the democratization of Brazil. You really shouldn’t try to teach me the history of my countries just spreading generalizations and prejudice.

            I already heard your discourse about Russia, we’ve debated over this and you know my opinion, no need to argue again. Just know this, latin people are very forgiving and uderstanding, certainly Cuba has no hard feelings for Russia, they know it was not the russian people which betrayed the socialist block, it was only the corrupt leaders.

          5. Real Anti-Racist Action says:

            Wait, does fascist mean you stand for your tribal peoples in your lands?
            Or does fascist mean you genocide 45,000,000 people in Holodomor’s?
            I am confused… Was Stalin fascist for being a Georgian-surpremisist who was racist against Russians and Europeans? OR was he a good guy because he supported gulag camps to wipe out women and children? I am talking about pre-World War 2 here by the way.
            Please state… Is FDR a fascist for the nuclear holocaust against Japanese?
            Is Lincoln fascist for burning all the woman and children to death by burning Atlanta to the ground?
            Was Churchill a fascist for carpet bombing indigenous Europeans to death by the millions 3 months before the first German bomber ever flew over the UK-Empire?
            I only seek to understand if you just call people you hate a name, or if you will apply the name equally to everyone…
            Including to Putin who killed the Polish government in the Russian woods a few years back. lol

          6. Gabriel Hollows says:

            What do you think against the current protests against Temer?

          7. Daniel Castro says:

            Temer is for all purposes finished, those people protesting are provocateurs, their goal is not ousting Temer, which is already finished, their goal is bringing their supreme leader lula back to presidency so he himself can avoid jail and establish a disfunctional socialist regime of misery and crimes, much like in Venezuela.

        2. Real Anti-Racist Action says:

          Wait, does fascist mean you stand for your tribal peoples in your lands?
          Or does fascist mean you genocide 45,000,000 people in Holodomor’s?
          I am confused… Was Stalin fascist for being a Georgian-surpremisist who was racist against Russians and Europeans? OR was he a good guy because he supported gulag camps to wipe out women and children? I am talking about pre-World War 2 here by the way.

          1. Solomon Krupacek says:

            genocide 45,000,000 people in Holodomor

            theis is for you:


          2. Solomon Krupacek says:

            this new president kills indians, too

          3. Real Anti-Racist Action says:

            Indians killed all of the indigenous Clovis people and indigenous Solutreans of America. Sadly it is called tic for tac. Even though I do not agree with genocide.

      2. Ma_Laoshi says:

        Wait, didn’t Brazil under Lula have much stronger economic indicators than under the fascist generals? I guess you fall on the other side of that issue (I admit I don’t know anything about Geisel, but if he was a “Gen.” then he didn’t have many qualifications for civilian development). But yes all the evidence is that the PT is pervasively corrupt–just like every other Brazilian party. And yet, for a country you claim doesn’t matter anyway, the US were surely hell-bent on helping topple Brazil’s democracy–it was one of their main spying targets together with Germany.

        The larger point stands: the American Empire is still by far the most powerful entity in the world. The only chance for countries opposing its hegemony is to stick together, as well as getting their act together domestically. The world isn’t seeing much of either.

        1. Daniel Castro says:

          Brazil under Lula was ripping the profits of GWB era of high commodity prices, nothing to do with Lula, the prior governmment (which was also bad fo several reasons) had estabilized our economy and we were under excelent conditions for growth, Lula took all the profits from that time and burned them all with poorly thought welfare, olympics, world cup and artificial economic growth.

          Of course USA is interested in spreading chaos on any country in this world, aftar all Brazil is still BRICKS, we hold tremendous potential to chalenge any country in this world if will managed, destabilization attempts on us is routine for CIA, if they don’t keep us in check they will soon have a very powerfull rival chalenging them on the atlantic. But, as our democratic governemnts made us irrelevants. that’s just a potential, on practical therms we are meaningless.

          Of course brazilian dictatorship had many problems, at that time there were very few economists with independent thought not only in Brazil, but across the globe, however our military made much more for the country than the democracy we have now.

          1. Ma_Laoshi says:

            No fan of back-and-forth fascism accusations–at least not prematurely. ;-) I can see the point in what you’re saying. And yet, if you industrialize and build a “strong, independent country” in a way that doesn’t benefit the majority of the population, you’ll be standing on thin ice in your own way. From what I know, it seems Venezuela never invested its oil wealth in long-term development, a problem well predating Chavez. Doesn’t mean that leftist movements in the region were all the same.

            Anyway, by now it’s mostly too little, too late. People gloating over the USA should study how Obama brought Latin America to heel without breaking a sweat.

          2. Daniel Castro says:

            People should benefit by getting jobs, good government services, and a healthy economy, not by receiving an allowance directly from the government, this will only make them slaves, and this is what the latin america left has been doing.

    2. Tudor Miron says:

      Do you think that Russian saying to those guys cooking haos in Brasil or Venesuela or any other places that this is bad for their people would change much? Do you think that those that got ousted didn’t know whats going on? Russia was offering friendship to Brasil and it is still open :) What Russia learned from what you call “bancrupted itself on its Empire” is that “friendship” should NOT be “one way road”

      1. Ma_Laoshi says:

        Not an expert on Latin America. But going by Ukraine: yes I think the people who got ousted didn’t remotely oversee what was going on until it was too late. Letting foreigners buy up your media–indeed your politicians and entire parties, granting visas to known provocateurs at the height of a national-security crisis… Were they informed that this was going on? Of course. Had they internalized that they were under attack from an existential threat? Not even close.

        Of course, as soon as you move against these forces, you’ll see hostile Soros op-eds in the Guardian and EU subsidies will dry up. Big f’ing deal. When the survival of your country is at stake, you close the US embassy before letting the barbarians trample over it. Maybe you “just say no” to the next NGO euro shoved your way. Hungary is learning to speak up that keeping the jews under control is PROTECTING their democracy; I hope others can learn from that.

        1. Tudor Miron says:

          Thanks for your well thought reply. It’s not that I’m really arguing with you. I just say that it is very hard to help someone who wants to “seat on two chairs in the same time”.

  2. chris chuba says:

    Fascinating interview. Russia blundered by not contesting the U.S. claim that Assad used Sarin in a WMD attack in Idlib.

    I know that there are a lot of fish to fry, that Russia established those ‘de-escalation zones’, and set up a big offensive in Eastern Syria BUT they should have helped Assad take Khan Shaykhun first. And then forced the OPCW to investigate the area, by gunpoint, if necessary. The problem is that in the information war in the U.S., Russia went from being the ‘bad boys’ into war criminals who help poison babies. Having U.S. citizens believe this nonsense is a long term problem for Russia. It will help the Neocons justify future acts of aggression.

    Russia should not waste resources trying to get Americans to like them but they should try to keep out of the ‘nazi war criminal’ zone.

    1. Ma_Laoshi says:

      “Russia should not waste resources trying to get Americans to like them” Then why do you propose exactly that? Putin fans and Putin demonizers seem united in ascribing to the man some superpowers which he in fact does not possess. Putin does not control the NATO press; jews do. If they want to write “Putin baby-killer” there’s nothing Russia can do about it. What the Kremlin could do is stop encouraging this slander by being influenced by the nonsense which is printed in their sordid pages. What they also could do is sink the f’ing ships attacking their ally, thus showing what happens when you mess with the wrong guy.

      1. chris chuba says:

        I am acknowledging that Russian cannot and should not try to counter every lie that is told about them in Western media. This is impossible. I am saying that they should be aware of it to realize that there are some things that are more damaging than others and worry about the really big lies.

        Khan Shaykhun was a really big deal. Tillerson made the point that since Russians are at the airbase that they would have known about the preparations of the WMD attack. So the Russians went from being ‘mischief makers’ to ‘people helping Assad’s Chemical Weapon arsenal’. This undos all of the good that Putin’s 2013 work where he bailed out Obama. In a matter of days, the Russians dropped down to another level of evil in the eyes of the U.S. public. It’s okay for the U.S. to think that the Russians are ‘gangsters’ and ‘criminals’ but it’s dangerous to let the U.S. public put Russia into the ‘genocidal war criminal zone’.

        The only response that Russia gave to Khan Shaykhun was to say that it should be investigated. Russia could have supported an immediate offensive to take the ground at Khan Shaykhun so that it could be investigated by the OPCW. I know that the U.S. was hindering investigation but focusing a lot of energy here would have been worth it.

        Now it is too late. The Neocons have won. In a year, the Neocons will suggest another arms race or deployment to contain the new evil empire and Khan Shaykhun will be in the collective psyche of the U.S. public.

        1. Ma_Laoshi says:

          Immediately taking Khan Shaykhun? Through tens of kms of Al-Qaeda Central? Since neither of us presumably will be leading the charge, again in my eyes this sounds as if you assume that the Putinator has some secret world-control device in his batcave under the Kremlin. As if he can just Make It Happen. And then what? You better believe that copy “Russia is racing to hide the evidence” was lying ready on the relevant desks in case it’d be needed. We now know the truth about the Iraq and Libya wars; nothing much changed, because nobody ever cared.

          As much as I would like to see mutual goodwill develop, you see that another interpretation of the same events is that “Putin bailing out Obama” didn’t help Russia in US politics *at all*. This is so because the US didn’t *want* rapprochement with the Russkies. The chemical-weapons deal may have been right or wrong, and the way to
          judge it is considering whether it was right for Syria first, Russia

          On his way out the door, Obama still expelled dozens of Russian diplomats, and confiscated Russian property. As usual, the Kremlin did not retaliate, so as to not prejudice its equations with the incoming administration. The reward: “Putin baby killer”.

          Russia will never be loved; it will be respected or not based on its own strength. Grinding the moderates into dust is as good a way to go about that as any other. Is this even a real discussion or just concern-trolling. When have Americans or Israelis, before raising a little hell, ever paused to think “What are the Russians going to write about us?”

        2. Tudor Miron says:

          Nah, they didn’t :) at list this time. It is officially stated (and documented) in UN that Russia proposed investigation. “If those “freedom fighters” allow to enter that area. If they are not freedom fighters but terrorists Russia also proposed a joint special forces operation to capture Khan Shaykhun area and probe the territory for signs (impossible to completely clear those from the dirt, walls, trees, bushes etc., etc) of chemical weapons. US led coalition and Nato declined saying that this is too dangerous. Now there’s no point to “rediscover” this case. We offered investigation but you declined. We can say that there’s evidence that
          “Obama himself together with his buddy Trump conducted that chemical attack. What? No evodence? Need to investigate? Ah, OK that’s fair.
          What about Assad? Doesn’t need evidence to be declared guilty? Oh, wait a minute” :)
          Russia has its bases (mostly) covered it’s just that MSM didn’t write about it.

  3. Solomon Krupacek says:


    the west understand only to hits.

  4. Rodney Loder says:

    Black flag is the false flag, it’s all been going on for ages, WW2 the Murmansk convoys mentioned, but nothing in conjunction with today, but as I recall, the jews caused the war “focus was the same as APIAC” dammed good job they did too, saving the Soviet Union I mean, American influentials in Britain went to great lengths to hide their travel plans from Churchill for fear of getting sunk as an inducement for US entering the war, it took Pope J Paul, working with the Russian Orthodox to finish the Soviets on behalf of the jews, funny how things change.
    About the Donbass the most colourful character of that colour revolution was Sashko Bilyi there were reports he shot himself twice in the one night, a good lad was, as a comparison for a Trump act alike go no further.

  5. Fred says:

    They are mostly likely students and young unemployed recruited by Soros with Rothschild money.

  6. Real Anti-Racist Action says:

    European will not forget the Holodomor!!! The Holodomor was the beginning and cause of the 2nd World War. You cannot ethnically cleanse 45-million indigenous tribal peoples and not expect them to perceive you as a threat.
    The only reason ethnic-Europeans are alive today is because of the brave White Russian Army and their allies who fought tong in cheek to stop those who were racist against Europeans.

  7. gustavo says:

    Europe do not care about pass wars, they are always thinking in the next one.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *