-
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 🇷🇺
There's a fair bit of essential context he left out of the story. For example:
There's a fair bit more, but it takes a lot to go through. When you are forced, by "The Greatest Secret Never Told" to leave out both the Scythian Empire and the Khazarian Jewish state (and all their associated tyranny), as well as the hiding of the origins of the Ashkenazi Jews, and their association to the original Jews and Babylon, you leave out quite a bit of important history.
You have quiet a few inaccuracies in your post. I'll address them one by one.
Russia as we know it was formed under Tsar Peter I. Before that it was a combination of different Pricedoms that fought amongst themselves(kind of like the Germans were before Bismarck). The main players were Muscovy and Novgorod.
The Mongols didn't conquer all of them, but just a handful of principalities to the south, which weren't even Russian, but Khazarian(more on that in a second). Muscovy was a vassal of the Mongol Empire, and paid tribute. Novgorod avoided such a fate.
When the Mongols showed up, Russia or Kievan Rus as it is now known was a confederation of independent pricendoms with different forms of government. For example: Muscovy was a Tsardom(Monarchy) while Novgorod was an Oligarchic Republic. The notion that the Slavs were always under someone's occupation is false. They spent most of their history as free people because they were exceptionally good warriors.
The Scythians were a dying force by the time the Slavs made it onto their current homelands. They might have exerted some initial influence, but as far as I know they disappeared around the 9th century. The notion that they dominated the Slavs is false.
Same thing wit the Khazars. They were quickly assimilated by the Slavic princendoms. They disappeared around the time the Slavic pricendoms were being formed, which led to the formation of the Kievan Rus. They would eventually fall due to the Mongol invasion, but would rise from the ashes 2 centuries later.
Fun fact of the day: Have you ever wondered why the collective west hates the Eastern Slavs so much?
The answer is in this link: https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/wi-cyril-and-methodius-convert-the-khazars-to-christianity.118536/
Cyrill and Methodius were the brothers who invented the current cyrilic alphabet used by modern day Russians. They were also monks and devout Christians. They comited the unspeakable sin of converting Khazarian jews to Christianity. And the Russians continued doing that for centuries. If you have been following the satanists, then you know that death is preferable to being converted to Christianity.
Since then, the Jesuits that have infiltrated the Anglo-Saxon society and waged war against the Eastern Slavs(Russians, Ukranians, Bielorussians) etc for comiting this "war crime" against them. That's why the Jesuits are so hell bent on opposing Russia at every turn. It's been a thing since at least the 14th century.
To my knowledge, the Russians are so far the only civilization that managed to mass convert Khazarians/Satanists to Christianity.
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.
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.