-
Putin believes that Ukraine is historically part of Russia and it's independent existence is only tolerable if the country is firmly in Russia's sphere of influence.
-
He believes the CIA engineered a coup that overthrew the legitimate government of Ukraine and replaced it with a western puppet regime in 2014.
-
He believes the modern nationalist Ukrainian state draws from the legacy of Nazi collaboration during WWII and poses a direct threat to Russian national security. Removing this particular nationalist influence is a key goal of the military operation, which he seeks to achieve through negotiation.
-
Russia expressed interest in joining NATO during the Clinton administration but was rejected. This lead Russia to feel geopolitically isolated and cut off from the whole western project.
-
He believes the west is obsessed with weakening Russia as much as possible and that NATO is nothing more than an anti-Russian alliance.
-
Putin thinks China is now more powerful than the United States and more relevant.
-
He believes our government is controlled by an entrenched bureaucracy that cannot be changed through elections.
-
He believes the US and European Union are extorting taxpayers to fund Ukraine's war. He sees no reason why the US continues to support Ukraine.
Putin Interview Summarized
RUSSIAN SALT MINES 🇷🇺
This is only partially true. It was both formed under Tsar Peter I as a formal state of Kieven Rus (it actually existed as the same people doing the same thing in the same way in the same region for a long time before that), but it was ALSO a principality of the Scythian Empire. Proving that takes a fair bit of time, but you can start here. (Please appreciate the response in that link is short (relative to the topic), and a response to something else, so the context may be a bit wonky, but there is plenty there to get you started).
Well, I agree, but I disagree with the implication. They were a Principality already of the Scythian Empire, both before the Scythian Genghis Khan came calling AND before they became the larger state of Kievan Rus. They paid the new Scythian Emperor Genghis Khan tribute instead of whatever Khan of the Scythian Empire they were paying tribute to before. No conquering needed. What do you think a Principality is?
Not exactly. It's form of government was the same as the rest of the Empire of Scythia, which is "you keep what you kill" (as I call it). It was similar to the Game of Thrones style of government mixed with the Dothraki mixed with Necromunda. The weak paid Tribute to the strong. They gave slaves, they gave conscripts, they gave whatever was demanded of them. They were a subject State to whoever held dominance over them. As far as I can find, the Principality of Russia (Kievan Rus) was never the dominant Khanate until it was, starting around 1500 and ending in the early 20th century when they finally wiped out all traces of the scope of the Scythian Empire from history.
Again, proving that takes a lot of work, since it has been hidden from history. I've written up a few hundred pages on the Empire of Scythia (called "Tartary" by Genghis Khan) to prove exactly that. I will publish it at some point.
Which is exactly why you are missing so much context from your "fact checking". Genghis Khan was a Scythian. Once he became Emperor (Khan of Khans) he renamed the Scythians (they actually called themselves the Aria, or Aryans) into the Tartarians (which I think means "Hell" or "the underworld," though I'm not sure about that one). By wiping out the Empire of Tartary, and the true origins of the Aryan Race (AKA the Royal Scythians, the ruling Aristocracy of the Scythian/Tartarian Empire) from history, the Cabal and the present day Ruling Aristocracy has hidden their connection to the Empire of Scythia. They hid that this Empire was the largest and longest lasting empire of all history (at least the antediluvian history), covering most of Asia and Europe, and lasting for between 2500 and 5000 years. They hid their form of government, their multi-ethnicity, their origins of pretty much everything we think of as our culture, religion, philosophy, etc.
My research suggests all of history has been rewritten. Understanding the Empire of Scythia/Tartary plays a huge part in understanding the level of fuckery there.
I'm not sure what "quickly" means to you. They lasted as a formal state (Khanate) for a few hundred years. Longer than the US.
I'm not sure what the rest of (5) is for, you didn't say anything against what I said, and I mostly agree.
Can you share this research about Scythian to Tartarians and how they may have lasted for between 2500 and 5000 years?
I would like to. Unfortunately what I have is a book length effort that is not presently complete. I am really bad about publishing anything until I feel the argument for that section is complete. I will get to it at some point.
I was told by someone I sound like Asha Logos and they assumed I had seen his stuff. I had not (at that time). I have since watched a couple of his videos from his series "Conspiracy? Our Subverted History". I disagree with some of his assessment. He doesn't seem to understand the Cabal at all (or pretends that he doesn't) so a lot of his conclusions are wrong imo, but overall, his information and statement of relevant facts is really good. I haven't seen all of that body of work, but I've seen enough that I recommend it.
Of note, the key element to understanding the Scythian Empire is, I believe, in understanding its ruling Aristocracy (i.e. the Aryan Race). It is through this ruling family that the Empire of Scythia is best understood. They are noted by specific phenotypes (blond/red hair, blue/green eyes). These phenotypes occur in the noted leadership of all of the "disparate tribes" of the region throughout history. The evidence for this comes from the burial mounds of what is obviously the Ruling Class (buried with lots of gold e.g.),. It also comes from the same pattern of mounds (same burial rights), the phenotypes of the occupants, and the explicitly stated historical records by all pre 20th century historians going all the way back to the 3rd millennia BC.
In today's history they are all labeled as "strictly nomads," even though they also have cities, trade routes, roads, etc.. They are labeled as "different groups" because the different groups are predominantly of different ethnicity (depending on region and time) even though all the various tribes are provably all multi-ethnic and have the same phenotypes in the Ruling Class.
As important as the information about them is (and relevant to today), I think it is more important to see how history has been hidden/rewritten regarding them. By doing this research on Tartary, it opened my eyes on these methods. I recommend looking out for that in your research (though you probably already do, I just thought I would note it because it was so fruitful for me in this particular research).
Slyver, LatetotheShow: I'm upvoting both of you FWIW. Yes, there's a great deal of history we now have to clean up. Discussion (hopefully in good faith) should help with some of that cleanup. But I have to toss a curve ball, only for discussion:
What if you're both right?
I been brushing up against QED in following the Q thread (Quantum Electrodynamics). There's discussions that we're bouncing across changing history in deriving a better future with some of the unknown tech that's used against us (think Mandala effect; not everyone remembers an old movie happening the same way as it currently is when they saw it 30 years ago, yet the older folk specifically remember it all happening the same different way). Given a long enough timeline of these events happening, could history simply be different on this timeline??
My head hurts, I think I need some chocolate milk (reference Men In Black 3)...
Slyver is at it again with his hyper, self defeating skepticism about all of history
The philosophical assumption behind the statement "All of history has been rewritten" suggests a form of skepticism or epistemic uncertainty about the reliability of historical narratives. This assumption implies that there is no objective or accurate account of history available to us, as all historical records have been tampered with or manipulated in some way.
However, the statement also presents a paradox or self-defeating quality because if all of history has truly been rewritten, then the claim itself could be subject to the same skepticism. If all historical narratives are suspect, then the assertion that "all of history has been rewritten" is itself a historical claim and therefore subject to the same doubts about its accuracy and reliability.
for someone to confidently claim that all of history has been rewritten would require access to some sort of privileged perspective or objective truth about history, which seems contradictory given the assumption of widespread historical manipulation.
This is not the assumption. Indeed, I think most of what we have is true and I have stated that many times. Most lies, most propaganda, most of The Matrix are based on the truth. But history (as we understand the term) is not "the facts" in isolation. It is the facts and the connections between those facts that make up the story, the conclusions. "History" is the story we tell each other about those conclusions.
I think that most fuckery in our history is in what's left out, purposefully destroyed or otherwise silenced by shoving things down the memory hole, or through derisive ad hominem designed to keep certain facts quiet and not looked at, immediately dismissed because they are in "the bad box." Over the top of the box of facts that is allowed (''the good box"), with it's missing but essential context, is the overarching narrative that fills in the gaps and makes the connections in the incomplete and carefully crafted fact list. That is how history has been rewritten. That can be shown by showing facts that have been left out, and that there is sufficient evidence that it has been done intentionally.
If you click the link in my previous post you will see exactly such evidence, even though it is a tiny fraction of my research for that particular case of revision.
If you read my report, you will see an exhaustive case made for how such an historical revision develops (in a different context), and that it is intentionally done.
This is faulty logic. If all (or a meaningful portion) of history has been rewritten, all that would need to be done to make the case is provide evidence that there are substantial portions that have been removed, that their removal is intentional, and that the inclusion of those purposefully removed portions indicates that the overarching narrative that is presently accepted is false.
I'm not sure why you have tried to continuously make this argument, but it is fundamentally flawed, at least as formed.
While uncovering omitted or suppressed historical facts can certainly challenge prevailing narratives, it does not necessarily mean that all of history has been rewritten. It may indicate selective interpretations or biases within historical accounts, but it does not automatically validate the assertion that all historical narratives are suspect or fundamentally false.
In essence, while your argument correctly underscores the significance of critically analyzing historical narratives and considering omitted evidence, it does not fully resolve the logical paradox of claiming that "all of history has been rewritten" without appealing to a privileged perspective or objective truth.
Not to get into the wordplay, but you are touching on a point I try to make repeatedly: radical skepticism is the rejection of epistemology. If all history (or a huge part) is a lie, then any other account of history can also be a lie. Another way of putting it might be " 'Question everything' is fine so far as it goes, but if you cannot accept answers, it is a denial of everything."
But have fun with this. Interesting to watch.
You are sticking on the word "all." Fine, I will concede that it was a poor choice of words. It is impractical and probably impossible to prove "all". As stated, "history" is a story. Showing that the conclusions of any particular story in a box of stories is false requires looking at each story in turn.
However, if it can be shown that numerous examples of "official history" are false by the methods I have described, and it can be shown that picking a story at random out of that "box of all" follows the same patterns, it naturally casts doubt on the conclusions (historical narrative) of the entire box.
If it can further be shown that all of what we today call "history" (the entire box of currently accepted stories) has the same source (same group doing all of the publishing of the allowed books of conclusions), that brings sufficient doubt to the entire box that making the statement of "all history" is not so far fetched, even if it can't necessarily be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Having said all that, none of my conclusions or statements of fact rely on this off-hand statement of "all," so I am not sure why you are so fixated on it. It is not an axiom for anything I've said, and no conclusion relies on it.