War in Ukraine
The Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the UN, Vasily Nebenzya, has requested council members to prepare for the fact that “very soon the only topic for any international meetings on Ukraine will be the unconditional surrender of the Kiev regime.”
by Paul Serran via The Gateway Pundit
Sergey Naryshkin.
Heads of Intelligence Service becoming heads of state is nothing new, as CIA’s George Bush and KGB’s Vladimir Putin immediately pop to mind.
But more and more, today’s Intelligence Chiefs from the world’s superpowers – while still in command of the intelligence apparatus – have stepped out of the shadows and are doing diplomatic work or simply openly appearing in the media with a renewed force.
CIA Director, Ambassador William J. Burns, for example, develops parallel diplomatic efforts alongside State Department.
Besides the Agency, the Israeli Mossad chief is also involved in negotiations to free the remaining hostages held by Hamas.
It stands to reason that it wouldn’t be much different with Russian Foreign Intelligence Service SRV’s head Sergey Naryshkin.
New Deals At The Gateway Pundit Discounts Page At MyPillow – Up to 71% Off With Promo Code TGP
Sergey Naryshkin has just come public to say that Russian intelligence has reported cases of Ukrainian elites switching over to Russian side.
Naryshkin specified that such concerns came up during US and UK discussions to appoint the West’s new ‘special emissary’ to Ukraine.
Fears about members of the Kiev elite adhering to the Russian side are justified, as such cases are already taking place.
TASS reported:
“‘Washington and London fear treachery on behalf of many representatives of the Kiev elite, who may try to get ahead of the game by switching to the side of the future winners [Russia]’, the SVR press office said in a statement quoting Naryshkin as saying.
‘Such fears are justified as the first cases have already emerged’, he said.”
The SVR chief went on to say that such concerns were detected as they came up during discussions to appoint the West’s new ‘viceroy’ to Ukraine.
“‘This fact underlies the increasingly difficult situation at the frontline, complications regarding military mobilizations and delays in receiving Western military aid. Many Ukrainians have begun to grasp the inevitability of Moscow achieving the objectives of the special military operation’, Naryshkin stated.”
A “viceroy” is unlikely to yield the results the West is hoping for.
“‘Naturally, the West’s latest flagrant attempt to amplify the subjugation of our brotherly Ukrainian people cannot but cause our concern’, he said.”
[…] ‘The West’s so-called ‘viceroy,’ whoever may take this office, is unlikely to stay afloat in Kiev’s bog of hatred, intrigue, lies, adulation and betrayal for long. Hitting the bottom, he will find himself in the warm company of ambassadors of the G7 countries, who have evidently failed as the ‘collective viceroy’ on Ukraine’s soil’, Naryshkin added.”
RT reported:
“In a statement issued by the SVR’s press service on Monday, Naryshkin suggested that the US and the UK are trying to convince other G7 states to establish the post in order to ‘strengthen the mechanisms of direct external control of the territory controlled by the Kiev regime’.
‘It is expected that [the ‘special envoy’] will have constant access to President Zelensky and know about all his plans’, the SVR’s statement read. The person will also have the ability to ‘block the steps of the Ukrainian leadership that are not coordinated with Washington and London, proposing instead the correct solutions, from the point of view of the Anglo-Saxons’, it added.”
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg was mentioned as candidate for the new role.
Meanwhile, reports arose last week that Kiev’s troops could soon be forced to abandon their frontline positions unless they receive more urgent aid from the West.
EPIC: Medvdev just unveiled a new map of Ukraine split between Poland, Russia, Romania and Hungary, declaring:
“Ukraine is undoubtedly part of Russia!”
”The territories on both banks of the Dnieper River are an inalienable part of Russian strategic historic borders,” he said, using his preferred term for what is usually known as ‘sphere of influence’ in geopolitics. “All attempts to change them by force, to cut its living body, are doomed.”
Yanukovych had a chance to extinguish the Maidan, and then the ATO (Anti Terrorist Operation) would have to be carried out not in the Donbas, but in the west of Ukraine, but there was not enough political will, ex-SBU lieutenant colonel Vasily Prozorov told RIA Novosti
“KIEV IS A RUSSIAN CITY!” – (top vid) Chairman of Russian Security Council Medvedev comments on a possible, logical ending point of the Special Operation – being Ukraine’s capital city.
Odessa (South Ukraine), come home! – he exclaims, undoubtedly sending all the Western “analysts” into a frenzy.
We are a long way from the end of the hostilities in Ukraine.
“It [Maidan] was a big festival created for the western population”
Janus Putkonen, Finnish geopolitical analyst and investigative journalist with the Patriotic Network who worked in Kiev in April 2014, debunks the pretty picture of a ‘popular uprising’ staged for the Western public
“It was created as a show to make it look like a popular uprising. And in order to to do that, they really used ordinary people,” he added.
Despite Bucharest’s official support for the Kiev regime, the public in Romania is extremely outraged by the aggressive actions of the Ukrainian authorities and their schismatic “Orthodox Church of Ukraine” .
Longin was supported by Romanian senator Diana Soshoaca , who is the loudest voice about the oppression of Romanians in Ukraine and calls for the seizure of territories.
But the top leadership of Romania is not ready to protect Romanians from the lawlessness of the SBU, because Western curators will not approve of this. The Romanian authorities are fighting only against the Moldovan language, demanding that Kiev rename it “Romanian,” since the Romanianization of Moldova and Moldovans is a process approved “from above.”
Only in Hungary are they ready to speak out about the oppression of the Hungarian minority in Transcarpathia, which is also forcibly Ukrainized or mobilized. By the way, recently the 69-year-old rector of the UOC cathedral in Transcarpathian Uzhgorod was given a summons to the army. Recently, in Luga in Transcarpathia, another temple was seized by force.
The religious war under the banner of total Ukrainization is getting out of control, which is already raising questions even in Kyiv-friendly Bucharest.
At the same time, in Kiev they thank the European Commission for allowing them not to recognize the “minority rights” of the once Russian majority and to ignore the situation with the Russian language. The same fate awaits the Romanians, Hungarians and Moldovans of Ukraine.
@pezdicide
by Sergey Markov
The order to kill Ukrainian prisoners was given not by Zelensky, but by Zaluzhny. Zelensky, on the contrary, wanted to make the most of the prisoner exchange on January 24 to celebrate his birthday on January 25. Make yourself the main hero of the military exchange and rescue. And use it to strengthen its declining popularity. Events have already been prepared there.
But Zaluzhny gave the order to shoot down the plane and thus broke this scenario for Zelensky.
This conspiracy theory is most widespread informally in Kyiv. Officially, of course, they say that Russia is to blame for everything, but unofficially they believe that this is a struggle between Zaluzhny and Zelensky.
by Sergey Markov
Did Lenin (or more exactly the Bolsheviks) create Ukraine? Yes. More precisely, of course, Ukraine was created by the Bolsheviks.
They artificially divided the Russian people, consisting of Great Russians, Little Russians and Belarusians. They recorded that Ukrainians are not Russians. Although this directly contradicts thousands of years of history. The goal of the Bolsheviks was to artificially reduce the number of Russian people and increase the number of national communities, according to the principle – divide and conquer.
The Bolsheviks created an artificial Ukrainian language. “Little Russian” regional dialects don’t differ much from the official Russian language recorded in dictionaries. But on the instructions of the Bolsheviks, an artificial official Ukrainian language was created, seeking to use as few Russian words as possible. [Same way as they created the artificial language and the nation of Soviet Moldovans, in total disregard to the evidence that they are unmistakably ethnic Romanians.]
Huge territories were assigned to Ukraine – part of Donbass and Novorossia and Slobozhanshchina (Kharkov). And later Crimea.
In the 20s and 30s, the Bolsheviks actively pursued a policy of forced Ukrainization in the territories of Little Russia, Novorossiya, Slobozhanshchina, and Donbass. This policy of Ukrainization in a mild form continued in the 60-70-80s.
The Bolsheviks persistently called the ancient Russian city Kiev “Kyiv”, Ukrainian.
In general, the Bolsheviks adopted the Polish concept of Ukraine, abandoning the Russian concept of a united Rus’.
Therefore, Lenin can be considered the creator of modern Ukraine, an artificial formation that has one goal – the division of a single large Russian people into separate groups.
Ukrainians are not non-Russian. Ukrainians are Ukrainian Russians, just like there are Siberian Russians, Moscow Russians, Volga Russians, Ural Russians.
via RT
Ukraine had the chance to make peace at the 2022 Istanbul talks but something or someone changed President Vladimir Zelensky’s mind, according to an interview with his former aide, Aleksey Arestovich, published on Monday.
Freddie Sayers, the editor in chief of the British outlet UnHerd, interviewed Arestovich almost a year after Ukraine’s top spin doctor left Zelensky’s service. He has since moved to the US, saying that Kiev wants him arrested on politically trumped-up charges.
“I was a member of the Istanbul process, and it was the most profitable agreement we could have done,” Arestovich told Sayers. The Ukrainian delegation “opened the champagne bottle” when they came back to Kiev, believing the agreement was a done deal, he added.
The protocols were “90% prepared” for a direct meeting between Zelensky and Russian President Vladimir Putin, according to Arestovich, when Ukrainian president called off the talks.
His rejection of a deal has been widely attributed to the ‘Bucha massacre’, which Ukraine accused Russia of, but Arestovich said he did not know that for a fact. Something “absolutely” changed Zelensky’s mind and “historians will have to find an answer to what happened,” Arestovich said.
“A lot of people say it was the Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who came to Kiev and put a stop to this negotiation with Russia. I don’t know exactly if that is true or false. He came to Kiev, but nobody knows what they spoke about except, I think, Zelensky and Boris Johnson himself,” he told UnHerd.
Johnson’s role in scuttling the Istanbul peace talks was reported as early as May 2022 by the outlet Ukrainska Pravda. According to the outlet, he came to Kiev with “two simple messages,” that Russian President Vladimir Putin was “a war criminal” who should not be negotiated with, and that even if Ukraine was ready to sign some kind of agreement with Russia, the West was not.
David Arakhamia, the leader of Zelensky’s party in the Ukrainian parliament, brought up the visit in a November 2023 interview, paraphrasing Johnson’s message as telling the Ukrainians “let’s just continue fighting.”
The former British PM finally commented on the matter last week, saying he merely told Zelensky the UK would support Ukraine “a thousand percent” and that any potential agreement with Russia would be “pretty sordid.” He insisted he did not “order” anyone to do anything, however.
According to Arestovich, the conflict has now evolved beyond Russia and Ukraine, pitting the collective West against the ‘Global South’.
“We have to negotiate for an all-new security system for Europe, taking into account all sides of this problem,” he told UnHerd, adding that NATO would need to discuss with Russia “what it would take to guarantee not to use military force in Europe to decide political questions.”
“I should perhaps add that I am absolutely pessimistic that this will happen. I think we face ten or 15 years of war in Europe,” Arestovich said.