Address by the President of the Russian Federation February 21, 2022 22:35 The Kremlin, Moscow President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Citizens of Russia, friends, My address concerns the events in Ukraine and why this is so important for us, for Russia. Of course, my message is also addressed to our compatriots in Ukraine. The matter is very serious and needs to be discussed in depth. The situation in Donbass has reached a critical, acute stage. I am speaking to you directly today not only to explain what is happening but also to inform you of the decisions being made as well as potential further steps. I would like to emphasise again that Ukraine is not just a neighbouring country for us. It is an inalienable part of our own history, culture and spiritual space. These are our comrades, those dearest to us – not only colleagues, friends and people who once served together, but also relatives, people bound by blood, by family ties. Since time immemorial, the people living in the south-west of what has historically been Russian land have called themselves Russians and Orthodox Christians. This was the case before the 17th century, when a portion of this territory rejoined the Russian state, and after. It seems to us that, generally speaking, we all know these facts, that this is common knowledge. Still, it is necessary to say at least a few words about the history of this issue in order to understand what is happening today, to explain the motives behind Russia’s actions and what we aim to achieve. So, I will start with the fact that modern Ukraine was entirely created by Russia or, to be more precise, by Bolshevik, Communist Russia. This process started practically right after the 1917 revolution, and Lenin and his associates did it in a way that was extremely harsh on Russia – by separating, severing what is historically Russian land. Nobody asked the millions of people living there what they thought. Then, both before and after the Great Patriotic War, Stalin incorporated in the USSR and transferred to Ukraine some lands that previously belonged to Poland, Romania and Hungary. In the process, he gave Poland part of what was traditionally German land as compensation, and in 1954, Khrushchev took Crimea away from Russia for some reason and also gave it to Ukraine. In effect, this is how the territory of modern Ukraine was formed. But now I would like to focus attention on the initial period of the USSR’s formation. I believe this is extremely important for us. I will have to approach it from a distance, so to speak. I will remind you that after the 1917 October Revolution and the subsequent Civil War, the Bolsheviks set about creating a new statehood. They had rather serious disagreements among themselves on this point. In 1922, Stalin occupied the positions of both the General Secretary of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) and the People’s Commissar for Ethnic Affairs. He suggested building the country on the principles of autonomisation that is, giving the republics – the future administrative and territorial entities – broad powers upon joining a unified state. Lenin criticised this plan and suggested making concessions to the nationalists, whom he called “independents” at that time. Lenin’s ideas of what amounted in essence to a confederative state arrangement and a slogan about the right of nations to self-determination, up to secession, were laid in the foundation of Soviet statehood. Initially they were confirmed in the Declaration on the Formation of the USSR in 1922, and later on, after Lenin’s death, were enshrined in the 1924 Soviet Constitution. This immediately raises many questions. The first is really the main one: why was it necessary to appease the nationalists, to satisfy the ceaselessly growing nationalist ambitions on the outskirts of the former empire? What was the point of transferring to the newly, often arbitrarily formed administrative units – the union republics – vast territories that had nothing to do with them? Let me repeat that these territories were transferred along with the population of what was historically Russia. Moreover, these administrative units were de facto given the status and form of national state entities. That raises another question: why was it necessary to make such generous gifts, beyond the wildest dreams of the most zealous nationalists and, on top of all that, give the republics the right to secede from the unified state without any conditions? At first glance, this looks absolutely incomprehensible, even crazy. But only at first glance. There is an explanation. After the revolution, the Bolsheviks’ main goal was to stay in power at all costs, absolutely at all costs. They did everything for this purpose: accepted the humiliating Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, although the military and economic situation in Kaiser Germany and its allies was dramatic and the outcome of the First World War was a foregone conclusion, and satisfied any demands and wishes of the nationalists within the country. When it comes to the historical destiny of Russia and its peoples, Lenin’s principles of state development were not just a mistake; they were worse than a mistake, as the saying goes. This became patently clear after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. Of course, we cannot change past events, but we must at least admit them openly and honestly, without any reservations or politicking. Personally, I can add that no political factors, however impressive or profitable they may seem at any given moment, can or may be used as the fundamental principles of statehood. I am not trying to put the blame on anyone. The situation in the country at that time, both before and after the Civil War, was extremely complicated; it was critical. The only thing I would like to say today is that this is exactly how it was. It is a historical fact. Actually, as I have already said, Soviet Ukraine is the result of the Bolsheviks’ policy and can be rightfully called “Vladimir Lenin’s Ukraine.” He was its creator and architect. This is fully and comprehensively corroborated by archival documents, including Lenin’s harsh instructions regarding Donbass, which was actually shoved into Ukraine. And today the “grateful progeny” has overturned monuments to Lenin in Ukraine. They call it decommunization. You want decommunization? Very well, this suits us just fine. But why stop halfway? We are ready to show what real decommunizations would mean for Ukraine. Going back to history, I would like to repeat that the Soviet Union was established in the place of the former Russian Empire in 1922. But practice showed immediately that it was impossible to preserve or govern such a vast and complex territory on the amorphous principles that amounted to confederation. They were far removed from reality and the historical tradition. It is logical that the Red Terror and a rapid slide into Stalin’s dictatorship, the domination of the communist ideology and the Communist Party’s monopoly on power, nationalisation and the planned economy – all this transformed the formally declared but ineffective principles of government into a mere declaration. In reality, the union republics did not have any sovereign rights, none at all. The practical result was the creation of a tightly centralised and absolutely unitary state. In fact, what Stalin fully implemented was not Lenin’s but his own principles of government. But he did not make the relevant amendments to the cornerstone documents, to the Constitution, and he did not formally revise Lenin’s principles underlying the Soviet Union. From the look of it, there seemed to be no need for that, because everything seemed to be working well in conditions of the totalitarian regime, and outwardly it looked wonderful, attractive and even super-democratic. And yet, it is a great pity that the fundamental and formally legal foundations of our state were not promptly cleansed of the odious and utopian fantasies inspired by the revolution, which are absolutely destructive for any normal state. As it often happened in our country before, nobody gave any thought to the future. It seems that the Communist Party leaders were convinced that they had created a solid system of government and that their policies had settled the ethnic issue for good. But falsification, misconception, and tampering with public opinion have a high cost. The virus of nationalist ambitions is still with us, and the mine laid at the initial stage to destroy state immunity to the disease of nationalism was ticking. As I have already said, the mine was the right of secession from the Soviet Union. In the mid-1980s, the increasing socioeconomic problems and the apparent crisis of the planned economy aggravated the ethnic issue, which essentially was not based on any expectations or unfulfilled dreams of the Soviet peoples but primarily the growing appetites of the local elites. However, instead of analysing the situation, taking appropriate measures, first of all in the economy, and gradually transforming the political system and government in a well-considered and balanced manner, the Communist Party leadership only engaged in open doubletalk about the revival of the Leninist principle of national self-determination. Moreover, in the course of power struggle within the Communist Party itself, each of the opposing sides, in a bid to expand its support base, started to thoughtlessly incite and encourage nationalist sentiments, manipulating them and promising their potential supporters whatever they wished. Against the backdrop of the superficial and populist rhetoric about democracy and a bright future based either on a market or a planned economy, but amid a true impoverishment of people and widespread shortages, no one among the powers that be was thinking about the inevitable tragic consequences for the country. Next, they entirely embarked on the track beaten at the inception of the USSR and pandering to the ambitions of the nationalist elites nurtured within their own party ranks. But in so doing, they forgot that the CPSU no longer had – thank God – the tools for retaining power and the country itself, tools such as state terror and a Stalinist-type dictatorship, and that the notorious guiding role of the party was disappearing without a trace, like a morning mist, right before their eyes. And then, the September 1989 plenary session of the CPSU Central Committee approved a truly fatal document, the so-called ethnic policy of the party in modern conditions, the CPSU platform. It included the following provisions, I quote: “The republics of the USSR shall possess all the rights appropriate to their status as sovereign socialist states.” The next point: “The supreme representative bodies of power of the USSR republics can challenge and suspend the operation of the USSR Government’s resolutions and directives in their territory.” And finally: “Each republic of the USSR shall have citizenship of its own, which shall apply to all of its residents.” Wasn’t it clear what these formulas and decisions would lead to? Now is not the time or place to go into matters pertaining to state or constitutional law, or define the concept of citizenship. But one may wonder: why was it necessary to rock the country even more in that already complicated situation? The facts remain. Even two years before the collapse of the USSR, its fate was actually predetermined. It is now that radicals and nationalists, including and primarily those in Ukraine, are taking credit for having gained independence. As we can see, this is absolutely wrong. The disintegration of our united country was brought about by the historic, strategic mistakes on the part of the Bolshevik leaders and the CPSU leadership, mistakes committed at different times in state-building and in economic and ethnic policies. The collapse of the historical Russia known as the USSR is on their conscience. Despite all these injustices, lies and outright pillage of Russia, it was our people who accepted the new geopolitical reality that took shape after the dissolution of the USSR, and recognised the new independent states. Not only did Russia recognise these countries, but helped its CIS partners, even though it faced a very dire situation itself. This included our Ukrainian colleagues, who turned to us for financial support many times from the very moment they declared independence. Our country provided this assistance while respecting Ukraine’s dignity and sovereignty. According to expert assessments, confirmed by a simple calculation of our energy prices, the subsidised loans Russia provided to Ukraine along with economic and trade preferences, the overall benefit for the Ukrainian budget in the period from 1991 to 2013 amounted to $250 billion. However, there was more to it than that. By the end of 1991, the USSR owed some $100 billion to other countries and international funds. Initially, there was this idea that all former Soviet republics will pay back these loans together, in the spirit of solidarity and proportionally to their economic potential. However, Russia undertook to pay back all Soviet debts and delivered on this promise by completing this process in 2017. In exchange for that, the newly independent states had to hand over to Russia part of the Soviet foreign assets. An agreement to this effect was reached with Ukraine in December 1994. However, Kiev failed to ratify these agreements and later simply refused to honour them by making demands for a share of the Diamond Treasury, gold reserves, as well as former USSR property and other assets abroad. Nevertheless, despite all these challenges, Russia always worked with Ukraine in an open and honest manner and, as I have already said, with respect for its interests. We developed our ties in multiple fields. Thus, in 2011, bilateral trade exceeded $50 billion. Let me note that in 2019, that is before the pandemic, Ukraine’s trade with all EU countries combined was below this indicator. At the same time, it was striking how the Ukrainian authorities always preferred dealing with Russia in a way that ensured that they enjoy all the rights and privileges while remaining free from any obligations. The officials in Kiev replaced partnership with a parasitic attitude acting at times in an extremely brash manner. Suffice it to recall the continuous blackmail on energy transits and the fact that they literally stole gas. I can add that Kiev tried to use dialogue with Russia as a bargaining chip in its relations with the West, using the threat of closer ties with Russia for blackmailing the West to secure preferences by claiming that otherwise Russia would have a bigger influence in Ukraine. At the same time, the Ukrainian authorities – I would like to emphasise this – began by building their statehood on the negation of everything that united us, trying to distort the mentality and historical memory of millions of people
I've been seeing a lot of "You don't need to have HIV to have AIDS, only a low T-Cell count" type comments which are flat out false!
Maybe the vax gives you HIV or AIDS/VAIDS. Speculation and debate is necessary and the discussions are warranted, however, we can not change definitions to suit a narrative. That's what their side does and spreading misinformation discredits this site.
Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome: A disease of the immune system due to infection with HIV. HIV destroys the CD4 T lymphocytes (CD4 cells) of the immune system, leaving the body vulnerable to life-threatening infections and cancers. Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) is the most advanced stage of HIV infection. To be diagnosed with AIDS, a person with HIV must have an AIDS-defining condition or have a CD4 count less than 200 cells/mm3 (regardless of whether the person has an AIDS-defining condition).
https://clinicalinfo.hiv.gov/en/glossary/acquired-immunodeficiency-syndrome-aids
There are many things that can give someone low T-cell count: pneumonia, flu, herpes simplex virus, chemotherapy, etc. This is not synonymous with having AIDS.
Yes, Fauci's a liar. Yes, big pharma has been covering things up for forever. Yes, the vax is dangerous. This does not justify us spreading falsehoods! It is our obligation as truth-seekers to utilize the internet and fact check statements before writing/upvoting them. Thank you!
For those unfamiliar, in 2011 an anon claiming to be a Rothchild started a thread that lasted over a year. There were many interesting responses from this poster, even if it was fake, he reminded me of an elitist villain like Lex Luthor with the witty cynicism of Stephan Molyneux. The read was entertaining to say the least.
To read it for yourself, open the following link and save it, or simply save it, it is just html, then open it in a new window.
https://ia803402.us.archive.org/1/items/rofschildv1/IAmARofschildAxeMeAQuestion.html
There were many topics said 'Rofchild' touched on: bloodline superiority, RH- blood types descending from the Nephilim, the implementation of "the next big thing" in total global control over the slaves (us), energy vampirism, the FED, karma and veganism, etc. One of my favorite parts in the AMA was this question/answer regarding the All Seeing Eye:
Q: OP, why do we(at least I) keep seeing the eye in pyramid? I see it a lot, like as a painting in a movie scene. Why? I guess it is a message to the viewers subconsciousness? What is the significance? Nothing is conincidence, right? Is it relevant to "the next big thing"?
A: Hello Mr. Turkey and Welcome!
I must say that you ask a question, at least in a roundabout way, which has some significance.
The all seeing eye DOES relate to the subconscious. What most, if not all have missed is the astounding fact that the subconscious is actually ALIEN to the human host.
I've given up on the Socratic method with the lump-heads on this forum, so presumably this is CLEAR and straight-forwarded enough for even the dimmest wit to understand.
Humans everywhere are anxiously awaiting the so-called ALIENS...never once stopping to consider they arrived long ago and inhabit the original humans inhabiting this planet.
This has NOTHING to do with everything I have explained previously of bloodlines et al...these are very separate and distinct fields of study.
The subconscious controls the human, and the subconscious is an ALIEN presence in humans. Not hard to go back and estimate when all THIS took place!
Laughing out Loud!!
What humans "know" via the conscious brain is analogus to that of other dumb beasts...cow, oxen, horse...those are your intellectual equals!
Laughing out Loud!
You are possessed and your meat-eating is thinly veiled blood sacrifice! Chew on that for awhile!
So you can see that your many so-called illusions of dominion of the earth are far from true. You can also see that you might want to stop with the blood sacrifice which nourishes your parasites.
"They" hate light and certain kinds of energy which come from a plant based diet. One can influence the parasite by changing the condition of the host!
Laughing out loud!
What a terrifying notion. An alien parasite subconscious is within us?
Anyone familiar with topic feel free to chime in! I noticed that Rothchild says drinking is frowned upon in his family and they only do so on occasion for celebrations. I wonder what his family thought of Lynn de Rothchild and her drunken spat with Q.
What do you guys think? I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on this topic. Do you think Rothchild was insinuating that Covid and Vax passports would be the new and improved form of societal control that supposedly "NO ONE would be able to opt out of", but Q and Donald Trump ruined it with Operation Warp Speed?
There is a lot of misinformation circulating about this drama which has created a dichotomy in our ranks. I am here to offer what I know on this subject. But I am learning more as time goes on and if anyone has any additional info they would like to share, preferably with sources, that would be appreciated.
What started it all was the Rittenhouse/Tucker interview. According to this Breitbart article:
Rittenhouse said, “I was in jail for 87 days, and this goes — this follows in with Lin Wood, who — Lin Wood was raising money on my behalf, and he held me in jail for 87 days, disrespected my wishes, put me on media interviews-which I should never have done, which he said, oh, you’re going to go talk to The Washington Post, which was not a good idea. Along with John Pierce, they said I was safer in jail instead of at home with my family.”
He added that his time in jail was “87 days of not being with my family for defending myself and being taken advantage [of], being used for a cause by these — by John Pierce and Lin Wood, trying to solicit — not solicit, trying to raise money so they can take it for their own benefit, not trying to set me free.”
Rittenhouse further stated that he could have been out of jail by mid-September, but his lawyers wanted to keep him in jail until November 20.
Here is Lin Wood's telegram link of a receipt of his organization's contributions to the Rittenhouse case: https://t.me/linwoodspeakstruth/7395
Assuming the statement is true and has not been edited, Fight Back had raised the funds sometime in November.
In my opinion, it looks like Rittenhouse is in the wrong and Lin Wood could sue and win. But can you imagine the implications of WOOD v. RITTENHOUSE? Lin would lose lots of support from his conservative base, regardless if he's right or not.
I feel sympathetic for Lin Wood. I am curious how this ordeal will end up. What do you all think?
