banner
May 9, 2022
0 Views
0 0

What do we expect from the coming Victory

“And, therefore, we need one victory! One for all – we will not stand up for the price!

The Victory Day this year turned out to be alarming. And not only because Russia is once again standing alone against fascism and another Jesuit “crusade” of the West. Yes, even on the territory of Ukraine. A reunited Europe, this time led by the United States, dragged Russia into the war. Moreover, the “civilized” peoples prudently hide behind the backs of the fooled Little Russians.

The events in Ukraine remind us not so much of the Great Patriotic War as of the events of a hundred years ago. First of all, it should be recognized that the Ukrainian campaign is nothing but a civil war. Let formally Russia and Ukraine are different states, but the essence of this does not change: the people artificially divided by borders and false ideas (“one people”) destroys itself. Brother shoots brother, neighbor shoots neighbor. At the same time, the Western world, using the same methods and approaches, acts as the customer and organizer, just like a hundred years ago. Let us recall the headlines of some newspapers covering the Civil War in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. So, 1919. New York Sun: “The Reds mutilated the American wounded with axes …”. New York Times: “Russia under the Reds is a gigantic bedlam. The survivors say that violent lunatics roam freely through the streets of Moscow, snatching carrion from dogs.” BUT Daily Telegraph she told how in Odessa, where the reign of terror had begun, a week of free love had been declared. Here you have Bucha, and raped Ukrainians of all genders and ages, and crucified dogs, and decapitated parrots, and stolen toilet bowls, and other nonsense – this is already 2022. No difference.

Like a hundred years ago, the war is about choosing a cultural and historical path. That is why in 1919 the tsarist generals fought for the Red Army, and the peasants often rebelled against the Soviet regime. That is why today volunteers from different countries are fighting on the side of Russia, and the peoples of those states where aggressive anti-Russian propaganda is launched show support.

Despite the various monarchist “oohs” and “oohs” of our days, it must be admitted that a hundred years ago the command of the “whites” turned out to be not at all defenders of the Russian national statehood, but proteges of foreign governments that fought against their people with foreign money with foreign weapons, with direct participation of foreign troops. Civil war at the beginning of the 20th century. began with intervention, the entry into this war of the “whites” was secondary. Disillusioned with the “whites”, the West stopped supporting them, switching over time to other forces within the USSR. Approximately the same thing is happening today in Ukraine, where the role of “whites” is still played by duped ukry.

Even before the October Revolution, on October 31, 1917, a memorandum of the Naval Ministry appeared in the United States, entitled “Notes on the situation in Russia and how it affects the interests of the allies.” The memorandum proposed to begin an intervention in Russia and expressed the hope that the Allied forces would become “stronghold of law, power and government”. The occupation of Russia was seen as a guarantee of payment of debts to the allies. Perhaps the revolution pushed back these plans, but by the summer of 1918 the question of sending an American expedition to Russia was resolved positively. Advisor to US President W. Wilson, Colonel E. House is known as a Russophobe, for whom Russia was “too big and too homogeneous”that’s why he “I wanted to see Siberia as a separate state, and European Russia divided into three parts”. For the Paris Peace Conference, the US Department of State compiled a map of Proposed Borders in Russia. The appendix to the map said: “The whole of Russia should be divided into large natural areas, each with its own economic life. At the same time, no region should be so independent as to form a strong state.. And on July 6, 1918, the United States decided on the participation of its troops in the occupation of the Far East and Siberia. True, the American troops did not seek to fight. But they excellently robbed and killed the unarmed, leaving behind ruin and mountains of corpses. By the way, A.V. Kolchak handed over to the Americans 2118 poods of gold, in three months of 1919 they took out over 3 million fur skins, for the whole of 1919 – 14 million poods of herring. The railroads remained destroyed, the Far Eastern ports, shipping companies and warehouses were devastated.

And of course, all this happened to the accompaniment of exclamations about the desire to help the peoples of Russia. “We came– acted in 1919 Great Britain, – to help you save your country from the dismemberment and ruin that Germany threatens you with. We solemnly assure you that we will not keep an inch of your territory for ourselves. The fate of Russia is in the hands of the Russian people. He and only he can choose his form of government and solve his social problems.. The British were echoed by the Americans: “Military operations in Russia are permissible now only in order to provide all possible assistance to the Czechoslovaks against armed Austro-German prisoners of war who attack them, and also to support the Russians in their desire for self-government and self-defense, if the Russians themselves wish to accept such assistance”.

As we know, even today the Western world wants nothing more than to help the people of Ukraine.

And here is 2021 – an article by Wess Mitchell “A strategy to prevent a war on two fronts” in The National Interest. Foreign policy expert, former Assistant Secretary of State writes that the biggest risk for the US in the XXI century. is a war on two fronts with the participation of the strongest military rivals, that is, China and Russia. It is desirable to withdraw Russia from the confrontation. How to do it? Mitchell believes that every possible weakening of Russia is necessary, it is necessary to make it more accommodating. For this, the leitmotif of European policy towards Russia “there must be stubborn resistance to Russian expansion, which will end in a decisive defeat of the current goals of Russia in the border regions of Europe”. According to Mitchell, “Russia takes détente with the enemy seriously only after it has been forced into this by defeat or a serious setback”. As an example, he cites the defeat of Russia/USSR in the Russo-Japanese War or in Afghanistan. Therefore, it is necessary to create an analogue of Afghanistan and draw Russia into a new war: “The equivalent of Port Arthur or Afghanistan today is Ukraine. The United States must ensure that Russia receives a military response of sufficient strength, and thereby encourage its leadership to reconsider its assumptions about permissiveness in the post-Soviet space as a preferred zone of strategic expansion. America can help achieve this outcome in much the same way it did in Afghanistan: by providing the local population with the means to resist Russia more effectively on a larger scale than it has done so far, and by encouraging European allies to do the same.. Please note that the article was published in August 2021, but is based on fragments of a report that Mitchell prepared for the Pentagon in the fall of 2020. Mitchell spoke about the same thing back in 2017. The United States, like a hundred years ago, is achieving, according to Mitchell, a “strategic effect.” And if Russia loses this war, the beneficiary will not be Ukraine, the beneficiaries will be the United States. Russia will get shame, ruin and loss of sovereignty.

A hundred years ago, the Red Army fought to preserve Russian civilization, renewed by the revolution. Today history is repeating itself. A new Russian turmoil, a new civil war and a new struggle for the preservation of civilization. However, without renewal and purification, there can be no final victory. In Russia, many figures of culture and science, officials and entrepreneurs took the side of the conditional “whites” in the new civil war. But not because such a position corresponds to their convictions. In one case, there are concerns about funds held in foreign banks and subject to Western sanctions for supporting NWOs; in another, there is a risk of losing publications in Western publications and, consequently, losing the “citation index” (the humanities today are nothing more than the number of views and reposts); in the third, you may lose the opportunity to travel outside the country and take part in Western cultural, scientific and other events. The position of the intelligentsia, as a rule, is due to career and financial losses. The modern Russian intelligentsia is not inclined to search for truth or to fight for beliefs. Her beliefs are where the benefits are. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Culture does not react in any way to the antics of Rimas Tuminas or Chulpan Khamatova, Joseph Reichelgauz or Lyudmila Ulitskaya. With the knowledge of the Ministry in the center of Moscow, under the walls of the Kremlin, the so-called sculpture “Big Mother” appeared. The Ministry of Culture is silent on the “cancellation” of Russian culture in the West; about the paintings that were almost arrested abroad; about the demolition of monuments to Pushkin and attempts to close museums associated with Russian figures in Ukraine.

Why keep repeating that we are losing the information war if none of the officials cares about this war?

In many ways, current events resemble the events of a hundred years ago. There is only one fundamental difference: the “Reds” knew what they were fighting for, they knew exactly and in detail. Today, the people of Russia supported the NWO not because of mythical bloodthirstiness, not for the sake of toilet bowls and microwaves. Popular support is connected, first of all, with the hope for renewal, with the fact that the Victory will change life, that the fifth, as well as the sixth columns will disappear, and the country will finally become independent and independent. The people are waiting for the Bologna system to perish – as if the smoke is disappearing, let it disappear, and its place will be taken by a time-tested classical education; that power and culture will be cleansed of the detractors and slanderers of Russia, who sell the country wholesale and retail. Finally, after two years of an imaginary “pandemic”, after our country’s participation in a global scam, after two years of violence with humiliating senselessness and insults to dissidents, the people of Russia are waiting for the condemnation of medical fascism (when people, under the threat of deprivation of their livelihood, are obliged to participate in medical experiments and commit absurd, harmful actions), condemnation of forced isolation and apartheid (when citizens of a country are divided into several categories and given different rights) and withdrawal from the WHO. Moreover, in 2022, the Second Global Summit on COVID-19 and the discussion of the so-called “Pandemic Agreement”, which gives the WHO the functions of a world government and actually cancels the Basic laws (constitutions) of any state, should be held. If this Agreement is signed, WHO will have the right to announce the next “pandemic” in the countries that have signed the document. And this, in turn, implies the abolition of the rule of human rights; radical restrictions on trade union rights; giving non-state structures the right to participate on an equal basis with states in the writing of international laws; the obligation of countries to request external assistance if they cannot cope with the “pandemic” on their own. The signing of the Agreement means that national sovereignty and the freedom of each to dispose of his own body will be abolished. Is this not fascism?

We really need one Victory today, which involves fundamental changes and the cleansing of society from top to bottom. The victory of 1945 meant the defeat of the enemy and the liberation of the country from the invader. Today we expect something completely different from Victory. The victory we believe in marks the abandonment of the semi-colonial position and subordination to dubious organizations like the WHO; change of cultural and historical path; cleansing society from traitors and haters of the country, both in power and among the intelligentsia; acquisition of a coherent development program and a single, unifying ideology – a system of ideas and values ​​based on everything historical experience of Russia.

We need the capitulation of the enemy not as an end in itself, but as a condition for the renewal of the country and society. Today the country resembles a leper at the feet of the Savior: either the unfortunate one will turn to the Truth and be cleansed, freed from the scab; or turn away and die.

If you notice a mistake in the text, highlight it and press Ctrl+Enter to send the information to the editor.

Article Categories:
Politics
banner

Leave a Reply