Memphis Belle

To log onto UNITYINCHRIST.COM’S BLOG, Click Here
Unity in Christ
About the Author
Does God Exist?

The Book of Acts
the Prophets & Prophecy

Song of Solomon

OT History
Early Church History
Church History
Sabbatarian Heritage
The Worldwide Church Of God
Messianic Believers

America-Modern Romans

Latin-American Poverty

Ministry Principles

Topical Studies
Guest Book
Utility Pages
Share on Facebook
Tell a friend:

Chapter 5

 History of the Soviet Union: 1985 through 1991

The Russian Federation 1991 through 2022


1985-1987-1990: Mikhail Gorbachev begins Perestroika & Glasnost. Perestroika means “restructuring” in Russian and Glasnost means “Openness” implying truth. With incredible skill and determination he works within the Supreme Soviet of the whole Soviet Union, and the supreme soviets of the 15 different republics within the Soviet Union to bring about a restructuring which introduce democracy and a free market economy in the Soviet Union. He struggles with President Reagan to end the Cold War and reduce standing armies and eliminate nuclear weapons on both sides, East and West, in spite of Reagan’s inept lack of understanding and cooperation. He ends up getting the Nobel Peace Prize for ‘turning swords to plowshares.’


1990-1991: Mikhail Gorbachev works tirelessly to help create a “Union Treaty” which will help maintain the Soviet Union, the U.S.S.R. as a union of one super-state in the form of 11 to 15 independent, free republics united together under one nationally elected government over all the republics (the new democratically elected “Center”). He almost succeeds.


August 1991: A coup attempt temporarily removes Mikhail Gorbachev from office as leader of the Soviet Union, which delays the signing of the Union Treaty by the 15 republics of the Soviet Union, a deadly delay, which stretches out to December 1991.


December 8, 1991: Boris Yeltsin, leading the Russian Federation, along with Belorussia, and the Ukraine, create the C.I.S. (Confederation of Independent States), effectively ending the U.S.S.R. and Gorbachev’s attempts to get the Union Treaty signed, spelling the deathblow to Gorbachev’s attempts to create a confederated union of all the republics in the U.S.S.R. (President George H.W. Bush’s lack of real support of Mikhail Gorbachev, and his secret backing of Boris Yeltsin, contributed to the defeat of what Gorbachev was trying to achieve, a truly peaceful democratic Soviet Union, functioning with a free market economy. The results of which brought about the following economic, political and social disaster inside the new “Russian Federation.” “Gorbachev in his Memoir “Alone With Myself” reflected that Yeltsin was preferred by Bush’s inner circle and eventually Bush himself, as “His goals--to dismember and liquidate the USSR--matched the goals of the American leadership…” and that “A weakened Russia under Yeltsin was more in line with the US interests than the prospect of a renewed [peace-loving and peaceful] USSR that Gorbachev was struggling for.” Then under president Clinton “Russians bristled as Clinton pushed for involvement in the energy-rich Caspian Basin and expanded NATO to include Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic. Many Russians were coming to believe [and this was before Putin] the US was imposing a reverse Iron Curtain on Russia’s borders.” [quoted from part III of Oliver Stone’s “Untold History of the United States dvd series.] 

As we’ll see, Mikhail Gorbachev was promised by the U.S. and the West that NATO would not expand further east into previous Warsaw Pact nations or former Soviet republics.



A Look At What Happened To Gorbachev’s Reforms In Greater Detail

Mikhail Gorbachev was in many ways a member of the sixties generation, his worldview strongly shaped by Khrushchev’s de-Stalinization campaign and inspired by ideas of socialist reform promoted in the 1960s by liberal economists and scientists in the USSR and in Eastern Europe.” [“THE GATES OF EUROPE, A History Of Ukraine” by Serhii Plokhy, p. 312, par. 3.] “The rhetoric of “acceleration” soon gave way to the policy of “perestroika” or restructuring, which took decision-making authority away from ministries in Moscow and invested it not in the regions and republics, as under Khrushchev, but in the individual enterprises…“Glasnost” or openness, which exposed the central bureaucracies and local bosses to criticism from below, which Moscow-based media now encouraged.” [ibid. p. 313, par.1]

Semi-Free Elections Enter Into The USSR

In the USSR and Ukraine 1989 saw the arrival of mass politics with the first semi-free elections to the new Soviet parliament…” [ibid. p. 315, par.3] “In the summer of 1990, the Ukrainian parliament followed in the footsteps of its counterparts in the Baltic republics and Russia, declaring Ukraine a sovereign country, the declaration did not stipulate the republics secession from the USSR but gave its laws precedence over those of the Union.” [ibid. p.316, par.1] The center in Moscow and Gorbachev himself lost control of these reforms as they roared down the political tracks, making the center in Moscow powerless to stop the republics’ assertion of sovereignty. In October 1990 Gorbachev struggled to get his new “Union Treaty” passed, which was designed to save the Soviet Union by giving its constituent republics greater autonomy. In essence each republic was to have its own constitution and native leader, but would remain united under the center in Moscow in regards to a common military defense and military, and currency and perhaps a central tax structure. The republics would be democratically free within themselves. The Baltic republics, sensing they were free, broke away from the USSR and Moscow, after Gorbachev briefly tried to hold onto them, but failed. A cascade of eastern Warsaw Pact nations, Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Romania, Georgia, Azerbijan and Armenia sought and were given their freedom by Gorbachev and Moscow. It was essential that the Ukraine remain a member of the USSR in order for the new “Union Treaty” to be a politically and ethnically balanced union of 15 free and independent republics united militarily under the center in Moscow. “The communist majority in the Ukraine parliament wanted broad autonomy within a reformed Union [Soviet Union]. That was also Gorbachev’s aim.” [ibid. p.318, par.1]

Attempted Coup Against Gorbachev

On August 19, 1991 hard-line communist plotters led by the KGB chief and others had Gorbachev, who was vacationing in the Crimea, taken prisoner and attempted to take him out of power in a coup. The coup failed. “Gorbachev returned to Moscow, but proved incapable of regaining power. In fact, he fell victim to another coup, led this time by Yeltsin, who took advantage of the weakening center to start Russia’s takeover of the “union.” He [Yeltsin] forced Gorbachev to rescind decrees appointing his people as heads of the army, police, and security forces, and then suspended the activities of the Communist Party, leaving Gorbachev no choice but to resign as its General Secretary. Russia was effectively taking over the “union.”—an unexpected turn of events that diminished interest in the union among those republics that had wanted to be part of it until August 1991. Ukraine [understandably, totally not trusting Boris Yeltsin as the new head of the “union”] was now leading the way out. On August 24, 1991, the day after Yeltsin took control of the “union” government, the Ukrainian parliament held a vote on independence.” [ibid. p.319, par.2] “On August 1, 1991 President George H.W. Bush flew to Kyiv from Moscow to urge Ukraine to stay in the USSR…by the end of November, the White House, initially concerned about the possibility of chaos and nuclear war in the post-Soviet state, would endorse that vote [for Ukrainian independence].” [ibid. p.317, par.3 & p.318, par.2] President Bush had tried for his friend Mikhail, until Yeltsin wrecked it all.

The End Of The Soviet Union

The vote for Ukraine’s independence spelled the end of the Soviet Union. Those participating in the referendum [over the “Union Treaty”] had changed not only their own fate but the course of world history. Ukraine freed the rest of the Soviet republics still dependent on Moscow. Yeltsin made a final attempt to convince Kravchuk [Ukraine’s first president] to sign a new “union treaty” when he met with him…Yeltsin had explained to the president of the United States more than once that without Ukraine, Russia would be outnumbered and overruled by the Muslim republics. A union including neither Ukraine nor Russia, with its huge energy resources, had no political or economic attraction for the other republics. [So] At Belavzha the three leaders of the Slavic republics—Yeltsin, Kravchuk, and Stanislau of Belarus—created a new international body, the Commonwealth of Independent States, which the central Asian republics joined on December 21, 1991. The Soviet Union was no more. On Christmas Day, December 25, 1991, Gorbachev read his resignation speech on national television. The red banner of the Soviet Union was run down the flagpole of the Kremlin’s senate building, to be replaced with the Russian tricolor—red, blue and white. Kyiv’s colors were blue and yellow. There was no longer a symbolic link between Moscow and Kyiv.” [ibid. p.321, par.3 & p.322, par.1-2] So we see that the Ukraine couldn’t trust Yeltsin the way they would have trusted Mikhail Gorbachev. Yeltsin destroyed Gorbachev’s dream of a free democratic USSR composed of a union of free democratic republics united under its center in Moscow.

Yeltsin Then Went On To Destroy Russian Democracy

Like many post-Soviet countries, during its first years of independence Ukraine underwent major political crisis caused by economic decline and social dislocation, and focused on relations between the presidency and parliament, both institutions having been created in the political turmoil of the last years of the Soviet Union. Russia [unlike the Ukraine] resolved the conflict in September 1993 when President Yeltsin ordered tanks to fire on the Russian parliament building and the Russian authorities arrested Russia’s vice president, both accused of instigating a coup against the president. Yeltsin’s advisors rewrote the constitution to limit the power of the parliament, turning it into something more of a rubber stamp than an active agent in the Russian political scene.” [ibid. p.327, par.2] So we see Boris Yeltsin effectively neutered the Russian parliament, well in advance of Vladimir Putin. The Russian Federation had truly become a dictatorial “Presidential Democracy,” which in the year 2000 Vladimir Putin would step into as Russia’s next president.

The Ukraine Is Now Essentially A Free And Independent Nation

The emergence of an independent Ukrainian state in 1991 created the conditions for turning the dissident’s dream into a reality. In institutional terms, that meant joining the European Union economy and society, and counter-balancing the enormous political, economic, and cultural sway that Moscow continued to have over its former province. The realization of full sovereignty for Ukraine became closely associated with the aspiration to join the European community of nations.” [ibid. p.326, par.2] The quotes for this short explanation of Gorbachev and Yeltsin are taken from “THE GATES OF EUROPE, A History Of Ukraine” by Serhii Plokhy. His excellent history book spans the entire history of Ukraine, from 500BC right up to the year 2020. He conclusively shows that from around 1648 to present the peoples living in Ukraine have sought alliances with neighboring empires in an attempt to secure its independence as a free nation on its own. Most, if not all these alliances prove fickle, denying the Ukrainians the freedom they so much desired.

U.S. Meddling In Russian Politics

Former CIA chief of Russia Analysis, George Beebe said, “We were heavily involved in promoting then President Yeltsin’s reelection in 1996. So the Russians think we’ve been knee deep in Russian domestic politics quite clearly and they’ve objected to it.” [We actually saw to it that Mikhail Gorbachev was politically “cut off at the knees” by Boris Yeltsin in 1991, causing Gorbachev’s political failure and the collapse of the Soviet Union. This has been unproven, as those that did it covered their tracts pretty well.]

Oliver Stone said in his Untold History of the United States, “U.S. involvement in propping up the tottering Yeltsin candidacy in 1996 was so open that Time had a cover story on July 15, 1996, titled “Yanks to the Rescue: The Secret Story of How American Advisors Helped Yeltsin Win,” and Hollywood produced a 2003 feature film Spinning Boris, starring Jeff Goldblum and Liv Schreiber. Despite Yeltsin’s single-digit approval ratings, disastrous war in Chechnya, and ruinous presidency, Bill Clinton decided to pull out all the stops and throw U.S. weight behind his Russian ally. Clinton knew he couldn’t make a nominating speech for “ol’ Boris,” but decided that “we’ve got to go all the way in helping in every other aspect.” He later admitted, “I want this guy to win so bad it hurts.” It was the Russian people, however, who would suffer as Clinton arranged for the IMF to give Russia more than $10 billion in the run-up to the election, which Yeltsin, taking direction from American political advisors, strategically deployed to eke out a victory.” [ibid. Untold History of the United States, p. 705-706, par. 1-4, & 1, sel. parts] And we all know what Yeltsin succeeded in doing during his ten horrible years in office, he destroyed the Russian economic and social structure so badly that it took installing a strongman-dictator, Vladimir Putin into office to straighten things out for the poor Russians. BLOWBACK!

President Bill Clinton’s Caspian Sea Adventures

U.S. financial advisors to Yeltsin and Russia destroyed the Russian economy during the entire 1990s. President Clinton as well was messing with former the former Soviet Union’s Caspian Sea oil reserves in those Soviet republics around the Caspian Sea that were given their freedom under Gorbachev. It was, during Clinton’s administration, and onward, of course into Bush-II’s, that a secret motive for the U.S. being in Afghanistan was for the purpose of building a pipeline to carry oil from the Caspian Sea region through Afghanistan into Pakistan and the Arabian Sea. It was an oil company named Unocal. A State Department official said, “By Unocal prevailing, our influence will be solidified, the Russians will be weakened and we can keep Iran from benefiting.” Unocal pulled out all stops to win approval of its pipeline.” [“Untold History,” p. 489, par. 2]

1991-2000: Boris Yeltsin’s totally inept years of leadership brings the Russian Federation through ten long and painful years of utter economic, social and political chaos. As Mikhail Gorbachev predicted, “chaos can only give rise to dictatorial methods and forms of rule” which is exactly what happened when Vladimir Putin came to power in the year 2000 as President of the Russian Federation. The poor Russian people couldn’t take it anymore, and willingly voted in a strongman to solve their economic, social and political woes. They, the Russians, had never known a democracy, and when the only application of it in their lives was under the inept leadership of Boris Yeltsin, they turned to the only solution that they were familiar with, strong centralized leadership from the top down. In a few short years from 2000 onward, Vladimir Putin straightened out the Russian economy, and got it really humming, based solidly on their rich oil and natural gas and uranium exports to bolster the rest of their economy and kick-start the rest of Russian industry, from manufacturing, electronics, to excellent high-end software. Everything manufactured in the Russian Federation, for that matter is high-end quality, from tractors to tanks, to fighter aircraft, to electronics, to computers, to software. Their non-GMO agricultural products are being marketed in western Europe with great success.

 Bush-II Double-Cross of Putin & Russia

Bush-II abrogated the ABM Treaty with Putin’s Russia in 2001, destabilizing the balance of power in the nuclear world. Simultaneously his motive for war in Iraq was revealed by Michael Klare who has written extensively on the subject of Middle East and Iraqi oil. He said “Controlling Iraq is about oil as power, rather than oil as fuel. Control over the Persian Gulf translates into control over Europe, Japan, and China. It’s having our hand on the spigot.” And we all know how well that adventure went. Bush-II expanded NATO closer to Russia’s borders--effectively encircling Russia with U.S. and NATO military bases, some in former Soviet republics. This second wave of expansion included: Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia in March 2004. Bush-II also made it clear he wanted to add Georgia, Ukraine and Belarus to NATO to further isolate Russia. Bush’s nuclear policy (the cancellation of the ABM Treaty being an integral part of it, coupled to a missile defense system being developed), coupled to the decline of Russia’s nuclear arsenal and China’s slow rate of modernization gave the U.S. a 1st-Strike capability that neither Russia nor China could effectively retaliate against. These events, written about in an article in Foreign Affairs Magazine “sent heads spinning” in Russia, “with visions of Dr. Strangelove.” Putin immediately announced that Russia would spend “whatever was necessary to maintain its deterrent capability.” Putin now would pull out all stops to modernize Russia’s nuclear deterrent--all this in response to Bush-II’s abrogating the ABM Treaty in 2001 and actively pursuing the development of a missile defense system. Add to this this insanity of Bush and Rumsfeld floating the idea to the Defense Department of weaponizing Outerspace. Between NATO expansion, U.S. nuclear policies and our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S.-Russian relations were getting pretty bad. Putin said of Bush-II’s cancellation of the ABM Treaty was so the U.S. could pursue “ultimate unilateral military advantage in order to dictate every sphere in the future.” The U.S. goal of having an ABS missile defense system was to intercept Russia’s missiles, leaving Russia effectively defenseless after a U.S. 1st-Strike. So from 2004 onward Vladimir Putin has had Russia embarking on a total upgrade of Russia’s nuclear arsenal—with five new and modern nuclear weapons systems. And don’t forget, even without those new weapons systems, Russia has “the capability to reduce the U.S. into a pile of radioactive soot” as analyst Geist warned. “They’re sending us a message that they’re not OK with our missile defense posture—they’re willing to go full Strangelove on us.” This goes all the way from Bush-II in 2003 to Trump in 2018, as the U.S. has gone forward and installed its ABS systems in both Poland and Romania.

Vladimir is shrewd and smart. Why do I say that? Because on foreign policy, he is doing everything the United States should be doing in the Middle East. He backed up the election of President Sissi in Egypt, helping him defeat the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization which helped spawn ISIS, and he was doing more to fight ISIS in Syria and Iraq than we were. Naturally his interests are to maintain Russia’s Naval Base in Tartus, Syria, as well as establish more than a toe-hold in the Middle East, with perhaps exerting control via Egypt (now an ally of the Russian Federation) over the Suez Canal. Sources: Gorbachev’s Memoirs (about 2.5 inches thick); Marin Ketusa’s book about Putin and the Russian Federation, titled “The COLDER WAR” along with related current events articles, and Oliver Stone’s The Untold History of the United States.

Let’s Understand Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin

The Lost Decade For The Russian Federation  

Years 1991-2000: “To understand where Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin is taking Russia, you need to go back to the country’s lost decade, the years after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989. If you were an average Josef Vodka caught up in the chaos that followed the demise of communism, it was a time of hardship, dislocation, and frightening uncertainty…If you were Vladimir Putin, it was a time of anger, and hardening---and preparing….It was 10 dismal years of lawlessness presided over by politicians who had been left bewildered by the task of bringing their country into the modern world. The sad decade saw the ascent of wildly profitable criminal syndicates and a coterie of oligarchs feeding on government privatization plans, becoming billionaires overnight. While the few celebrated, morale among the ordinary Russian sank…When the communist economy ground to a halt, no one in the government of the newborn Russian Federation knew what to do. Free markets were just beginning to emerge. Sizable and mature private businesses didn’t exist. There were no banks competent to judge credit risks. Almost no one understood stocks, bonds, commodities, or any kind of market other than the black one that had long flourished---and continued to do so. Property rights were a slogan with uncertain application. The ruble was worthless outside the country while internally inflation ran wild. Jobs disappeared, leaving millions unemployed. Infrastructure was crumbling. Millions of Russians fell into destitution.” [“The COLDER WAR” by Marin Katusa, pp. 3, 5-6, selected parts.]

June 1996 (through 1998): Vladimir Putin is invited to join the Yeltsin administration. In 1998 Yeltsin installs Putin as head of the FSB (successor to the KBG, which is now called the SVR). Barely a year later, Vladimir Putin is given the office of Prime Minister (five of whom had politically failed before him). At the time Putin entered Moscow, Yeltsin’s economic policies were failing on a grand scale, his army was fought to a standstill in Chechnya. Vladimir Putin knew he could do better and do it right, and he did when his chance came-- through eight drawn-out years of Russian aggression against Chechnya where Vladimir Putin’s Russian army obliterated the Chechnyan cities and towns, a precursor to what he has just done in the Ukraine now in 2022. The real Vladimir Putin was revealing himself during this eight year period of slaughter of innocent Chechnyan men, women and children, but the world wasn’t watching, and took little notice. But US foreign policy’s undermining of Mikhail Gorbachev under president’s Bush-1 and Clinton essentially put Putin in power, setting us and the poor Ukraine up for major blowback 22 years later. But I’m getting ahead of myself, so let’s continue our history lesson.

March 2001: Vladimir Putin is elected President of the Russian Federation with 53% of the vote. “The reign of Vladimir Putin had begun. Like Peter the Great, the historical figure he most admired, he vowed to restore his country as a power of consequence. He knew it wasn’t going to happen easily. But he believed he had been endowed with all the right qualities to bring it off: physical stamina, a keen intellect, a deep understanding of the ways of politics in the real world (and the role that energy plays), and an unwavering boldness of vision…Next in Putin’s sights: the oligarchs.” [The COLDER WAR, p. 15, par. 1]

Marin Katusa goes on to warn the U.S. “Be wary of U.S. media’s portrayal of Putin as a purely one-dimensional ogre. True, he can be as ruthless as he needs to be. But he’s not Stalin, who saw an enemy’s face at every window. Putin is practical. He knows he needs the cooperation of other powerful and able people to realize his vision. He doesn’t care who you are if you can help him and agree to play by his rules. There’s no evidence he’s personally misogynistic, homophobic, or anti-Semitic (though he exploits Russian homophobia when it suits his purpose)…The oligarchs want to be rich. Putin is distinguishable from them only in that he has a grand vision for Russia. In every other way, he is one of them, and can comfortably coexist with them---as long as everyone understands who runs the club.” [ibid. The COLDER WAR, p. 36, par. 3 emphasis mine]

What follows, as well as what has been written so far, describes why Vladimir has grown to hate the United States of America, and view the United States as Russia’s #1 enemy.

[Putin’s] “Vision and Ten Principles 

Putin’s treatment of the oligarchs arose from his grand vision for Russia…” And by my way of seeing this, he is in his own eyes a true Russian patriot. My now deceased Radio Liberty Russian language translator friend once told me, The Russian people are a very warm-hearted people, but they are very security conscious.” Well, seeing that they have been overrun by various national empires, the Teutonic Knights (Germanic) Sweden, Napoleon, Germany twice, finally by Adolph Hitler and Nazi Germany, I can understand their national logic, it just goes without saying. So based on that understanding, let’s read Vladimir Putin’s 10 principles, as explained by Marin Katusa. We see the same historic Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in Vladimir Putin as we saw previously in Nikita Khrushchev and Josef Stalin when it comes to viewing Germany and the West European nations under N.A.T.O. N.A.T.O. still exists and is militarized with tactical nukes. The Warsaw Pact no longer exists, the Russian borders lay exposed to their historic enemy, Germany, now the leading nation in the European Union. Considering Russia’s past, Vladimir’s concerns appear to be extremely valid, historically speaking. [This shows us Vladimir is living in the past, not the present, as up until 2022 Germany has not been a military threat at all, with a stripped down, bare to the bones military. But since president Clinton, who caused NATO to expand eastward by taking on the former Warsaw Pact nations of Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary, and more recently Romania, Vladimir Putin (as Yeltsin before him) became terribly angered by this encroachment of NATO right to the Russian border. Recently, Vladimir’s actions in Ukraine are forcing Germany to re-arm militarily, something he and the world will come to regret.] What follows are Putin’s 10 Principles.  

1. Russia must be secure against attack and intimidation  

2. The country with the greatest material ability for intimidating or attacking Russia is the United States. [Had our State Department practiced a less bellicose attitude toward first the Soviet Union (going back to 1944, cf. Leland Stowe, “They Shall Not Sleep” pub. 1944), and then later the Russian Federation, neither the Soviets nor the present-day Russian Federation would have us listed here in #2, and even with Vladimir in office, Russia would not be viewing us as a threat, and therefore a nation to be destabilized at all costs.]  

3. For the sake of security, countries bordering Russia must serve as buffers against the West; that is, they cannot be aligned with the United States [or N.A.T.O.].  

4. Russia should be prosperous---for the sake of prosperity itself, as a necessary element in achieving security, and for Putin’s personal political survival.  

5. Development of natural resources, especially energy, is Russia’s clearest path to prosperity.  

6. In addition to paying the bills for security (chiefly military expenditures), energy exports support Russia’s security by drawing customer countries into quasi-dependence, disposing them to defer to Russia in international matters. Quasi-dependence is especially desirable in countries that border Russia or are near it [Vladimir and Russia loves Germany’s dependence on Russia’s natural gas]

7. Russian dominance in energy-related industries---refining, processing, shipping---reinforces quasi-dependence, at least for some countries. It gives Russia the power to withhold a needed service from a target country or from the target country’s other suppliers of oil, gas, or uranium.  

8. Speedy development of energy resources requires outside capital and technology, so foreign partners are welcome. But because energy production is part of a strategy for security, energy industries must be under the control of the Russian government.  

9. Russia’s position as an energy exporter implies that disruption of energy production anywhere outside of Russia works to Russia’s advantage. In particular, turmoil in the Middle East is always to Russia’s advantage or can be turned to it. [keep this point in mind as history moves forward.] 

10. Because the United States is the country with the greatest ability to intimidate or attack Russia, anything that weakens the United States leaves Russia more secure. On that principle, Russia should subvert the dollar’s position as the world’s reserve currency, and for that purpose should subvert the petrodollar system.”  

“…Putin is a man of remarkable intelligence, determination, and ruthlessness. In the eyes of many Russians, that last quality is not a fault but a virtue. While our media paint him as a cold-blooded dictator, Russians see him as a man’s man who restored their country’s pride, economy, and position after a humiliating period they’d rather forget.” [ibid. The Colder War, pp. 37-38] That period of time being their “lost decade” spent under the inept leadership of Boris Yeltsin (whose Presidency was backed up by Bush-I and President Clinton, with Clinton’s motive being to help an inept leader stay in power, so American business could prosper from Russia’s economic misfortune).

U.S. Meddling In Ukraine--1991 to 2013

But U.S. actions in Ukraine proved more than Russia could stomach. The Americans, who had been eyeing Ukraine as a potential NATO ally for years, decided to take advantage of growing discontent within that country to wrest it from the Russian orbit and anchor it firmly to the West. Ukrainians’ frustration with economic stagnation and rampant corruption made many receptive to the pro-Western, pro-democracy message emanating from the State Department, which had spent $5 billion on assistance to Ukraine since 1991, and the National Endowment for Democracy, a U.S.-funded nonprofit that had been fanning discontent and cultivating pro-Western activists for years through its sixty-five “pro-democracy” projects in Ukraine.” [ibid. Untold History, p. 678, par. 2]

A Multipolar World Is Back

In February 2018, former NATO secretary general Javier Solena echoed the growing realization that “multipolarity is back, and with it strategic rivalry among the great powers.” He noted that “the re-emergence of China and the return of Russia to the forefront of global politics are two of the most salient international dynamics of the century thus far.” [my close ex-Radio Liberty translator/analyst friend, Joe Scott, told me to watch for this, just before a United States of Europe would form. He died from complications of diabetes and alcohol consumption in 1983, but his wisdom in international affairs lives on, and is scary, especially since he knew that a resurgent Germany would more than likely be leading this U.S. of Europe.] “The process of creating a polycentric world order is an objective trend,” Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov told the United Nations General Assembly during “leaders week” in September 2017. “This is something,” he declared pointedly, “that everyone will need to adapt to, including those who are used to lording it over others.” The sentiment was seconded by Lavrov’s Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi, who told the delegates, “We live in an era that’s defined by a deepening trend toward a multipolar world…that is witnessing profound changes in the international landscape and balance of power.” [ibid. Untold History p.625, par. 1-2] Note: since the collapse of the Soviet Union in December of 1991 to 2008, maybe 40 years, we were the center of a unipolar world of U.S. dominance. But that wouldn’t last forever. And this stuff was occurring long before February 2022 when the war between the Russian Federation and the Ukraine began.

Looking Back

Gorbachev had been promised assurances by Bush-II, West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, West German Prime Minister Helmut Kohl, CIA director Robert Gates, French President Francois Mitterrand, British Prime Ministers Margaret Thatcher and John Major and NATO Secretary Manfred Worner that NATO wouldn’t expand “one inch eastward.” Barely were the words spoken by Secretary of State James Baker before the U.S. policymakers were looking for a way to get around this promise made so loudly by all. In 1995 European nations, taking things slow, started a study on NATO Enlargement, and in 1997 Accession talks began, and in 1999 Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic entered NATO. Seven more countries joined in 2004, and two more in 2009, and Montenegro in June of 2017. All the while the U.S. ran roughshod over Russia under Boris Yeltsin’s leadership, causing economic and social disaster. Yeltsin, a tired man, obviously feeling the severe betrayal of the U.S. (as Gorbachev had), groomed Vladimir Putin as his successor. Putin initially reached out to the U.S. under Bush-II, right after 9/11, offering friendship and assistance--but again, Bush wrecked that with his cancellation of the ABM Treaty, pushing forward with his ABM missile defense system--with reasons for Putin’s anger already explained. Coupled to the U.S.-driven NATO expansion that took place during the mid-to-late 1990s--Putin’s anger toward U.S. actions toward Russia over the decades is understandable. As former Senator Bill Bradley so aptly put it, “We kicked them when they were down; we expanded NATO.” As Bradley pointed out, NATO had already expanded to include seven former Warsaw Pact nations and three former Soviet republics. The week after Bradley made these comments, Russian foreign minister Lavrov called in U.S. ambassador William Burns to make clear that Russia would not, under any circumstances, tolerate NATO expansion to Ukraine, whose geopolitical significance had been laid out by Zbigniew Brzezinski in his influential 1997 book Grand Chessboard: “Ukraine…is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a European empire. However, if Moscow regains control over Ukraine, with its 52 million people and major resources as well as access to the Black Sea, Russia automatically again regains the wherewithal to become a powerful imperial state, spanning Europe and Asia.” Pentagon neocons Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, and Stephen Hadley had recognized the strategic importance of Ukraine in 1991, when the Soviet Union was collapsing. Hadley recalled, “We had a view that without Ukraine, a retrograde Russia…would never become the threat posed by the old Soviet Union because of the enormous resources, population and geography of Ukraine. So that would become an important element of U.S. policy…from a strategic standpoint, an independent Ukraine becomes an insurance policy. Trying to make sure U.S. policymakers understood how seriously Russia took this issue, Burns send CONFIDENTIAL cable #182 back to Washington on February 1, 2008, with the subject line “Nyet means nyet: Russia’s NATO enlargement redlines.” Significantly the cable had been leaked by Private Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning and released to WikiLeaks. [ibid. Untold History, p. 674, par. 1-3] “The West didn’t listen. George W. Bush called for NATO expansion to Georgia and Ukraine. Speaking at the NATO summit in April 2008, Bush “strongly supported” welcoming the two former Soviet states into the Membership Action Plan as a prelude to full membership, a move enthusiastically endorsed by NSC advisor Hadley and other administration neocons, as it was by then presidential candidates John McCain and Barak Obama. Bush saw this as a signal that these countries would also be welcomed into the “institutions of Europe.” [Some European nations had a lot of common sense, as we’ll see.] Germany and France led the opposition, joined by Italy, Hungary, and the Benelux countries, who all saw it as an unnecessary provocation toward Russia, especially with Putin about to attend his first ever NATO meeting that week. [ibid. Untold History, p. 675, par. 1-2, sel. parts] Jack Mattlock, U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987 to 1991 had this to say about Vladimir Putin, “Vladimir Putin was elected in 2000 and initially followed a pro-Western orientation. When terrorists attacked the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, he was the first foreign leader to call and offer support. He cooperated with the United States when it invaded Afghanistan, and he voluntarily removed Russian bases from Cuba and Cam Ranh Bay in Vietnam. What did he get in return? Some meaningless praise from President George W. Bush, who then delivered the diplomatic equivalent of swift kicks to the groin: further expansion of NATO in the Baltics and the Balkans, and plans for American bases there; withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty; invasion of Iraq without U.N. Security Council approval; overt participation in the ‘color’ revolutions in Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan; and then, probing some of the firmest red lines any Russian leader would draw, talk of taking Georgia and Ukraine into NATO. Americans, inheritors of the Monroe Doctrine, should have understood that Russia would be hypersensitive to foreign-dominated military alliances approaching or touching its borders.” [ibid. Untold History, p. 675, par. 5, p. 676, par. 1]

U.S. Arming of Ukraine Under Obama

Under Obama the U.S. provided military equipment and training to the Ukrainian army and national guard, but denied lethal weaponry. But then under Trump in 2017 that all changed, when he authorized the sale of Javelin antitank missiles and sniper rifles to the Ukraine. An unnamed Washington senior congressional official told the Washington Post “We have crossed the Rubicon, this is lethal weapons and I predict more will be coming.” In November 2014 Mikhail Gorbachev in a speech warned that the world was “on the brink of a new Cold War.” He placed the blame for recent tensions on the West, citing “the enlargement of NATO…”

Russia During the Obama Administration

When it came to Obama trying to demonize Putin for taking Crimea and the crisis in the Donbas, Putin came out on top. And then Obama discovered he needed Putin to help him secure his nuclear treaty with Iran, with Putin willingly aiding him in this venture. Also at this time many Europeans thought the Western punishment of Russia was getting out of hand.

Poking the Bear”--Vice President Biden’s Involvement

No one was more invested in seeing Western democracy succeed in Ukraine than Vice President Joseph Biden. Between 2014 and the time he addressed the Ukrainian parliament in December 2015, he had spoken by phone with President Poroshenko forty times and with Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk sixteen times and visited four times.” After reading the riot act to Poroshenko in private, Biden laid out a series of steps the parliament needed to take to eliminate the stultifying corruption and implement political reform measures. But Biden’s credibility was compromised by the fact that his son Hunter had recently become director of a Ukrainian gas company.” [ibid. pp. 687-688, par. 2-3 & 1-2 resp.]

Award-winning journalist Robert Parry, who had worked tirelessly for years to combat false historical narratives, was deeply troubled by the media distortion of what was occurring in Ukraine. He wrote sagaciously, “If you wonder how the world could stumble into world war three—much as it did into world war one a century ago—all you need to do is look at the madness that has enveloped virtually the entire US political/media structure over Ukraine where a false narrative of white hats verses black hats took hold early and has proved impervious to facts or reason.” “The Maidan shifted a gear,” Ben Rhodes told the Atlantic’s Julia Joffe, Putin “went on offense after the Maidan. The gloves were off, in a way.” [ibid. Untold History, p. 688, par. 2-3] From 2016 through 2017 NATO had one of its biggest military buildups since the end of the Cold War, which Russia condemned as well. Russia also complained about the U.S. ballistic missile defense systems being set up in Poland and Romania. In June 2016, Russian historian Gilbert Doctorow had correctly noted, “The risk of accidental war has moved quickly beyond where it was just 18 months ago. Now we are entering upon implementation of very provocative US-directed military expansion of NATO activities at the borders of Russia.” [ibid. Untold History, p. 691, par. 3, sel. parts] And that sets us up for what has just occurred recently, the invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Army.

Chinese-Russian Alliance Starts--New Eastern Axis Forming: Russia, China, & Iran

The two former communist behemoths, who had been antagonists more often than allies over the past 60 years, moved closer together. China had become Russia’s leading trade partner, accounting for 15 percent of Russia’s trade in 2017, an amount that Russia expected to reach $100 billion in 2018. China agreed to increase oil imports from Russia by 50 percent…[This cooperation will only increase, now on steroids, due to Western sanctions against the Russian Federation because of it’s war against the Ukraine. Expect a military-economic Axis to form between Russia, China and Iran.] “In 1997, Zbigniew Brzezinski had warned that such a “grand coalition of China, Russia, and perhaps Iran, an ‘antihegemonic’ coalition united not by ideology but by complementary grievances,” would be “the most dangerous scenario” for American security interests.” [ibid. Untold History, p. 625, par. 3-4, sel. parts] This began as early as early 2014, and has continued to solidify, where in 2018 China’s Xi declared “President Putin and I think that [the] China-Russia comprehensive strategic partnership is mature, firm and stable. It is the highest level, most profound and strategically most significant relationship between two major countries in the world.”…Xi described Putin as his “best, most intimate friend.”

Let’s Understand What Really Happened Recently In The Ukraine (2013-2014)

At one time, Ukraine was Russia. Keivan Rus, the first East Slavic state, was established by the Varangians in the ninth century…At the end of the eighteenth century, Ukraine was partitioned, with a small slice going to Austria/Hungary and the rest to the Russian Empire…Civil war raged from 1917 to 1921, with a host of factions vying for control of the government of the newly proclaimed Ukrainian Republic. That sovereign state proved to be short-lived. Even as Ukraine was asserting its independence in 1918 with its capital in Kiev, Russia was setting up a rival republic with Kharkov as its capital…By 1922, the Russian Empire had overpowered the outmanned Ukrainian army and established the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, one of the founding republics of the nascent Soviet Union.” [ibid. The COLDER WAR, pp. 65-66, sel. parts] Very sadly, Ukraine, just like Poland, a flat plane with no protective mountains, has been overrun, occupied, and for most of it’s long history going back to the 800s AD, been denied nationhood, the ability to be their own nation.

What Putin Wants in Ukraine 

Since the fall of the USSR, Ukraine has again been caught in the middle, with some forces pulling it toward the European Union (EU) and others toward Russia. The country is no prize. Nonetheless, Putin’s Russia is very interested. The interests are:


·         Ukraine should accommodate the movement of natural gas produced in Russia to buyers in Europe.

·         The Russian Navy should be secure in the use of the port of Sebastopol (on the Crimean Peninsula, in the Black Sea).

·         The government in Moscow should be seen as the protector of all Russian people, of whom 8 million, about 18 percent of Ukraine’s population, live in the eastern part of the country.’ [and 90 percent of the population of the Crimea is Russian, not Ukrainian]

·         Ukraine should serve as a buffer that keeps NATO at a distance.” [ibid. p. 69, emphasis mine] [Recent events in 2022 show just how important this is to Russia and Vladimir Putin. Ukraine’s desire to join N.A.T.O. is totally unacceptable to Vladimir Putin and most older Russians. But Putin’s recent war in Ukraine is causing him and Russia to lose Ukraine as a neutral buffer state.]



A presence in Crimea is critical to Russia’s security. [Comment: considering Russia’s past history, and the fact that Revelation shows a United States of Europe will be the first to attack east into Russia in the First Woe, this is not an unfounded fear for all Russians, and it’s why it’s a vital part of their psyche. We must also understand, that the United States, sometimes outright, and a lot of times clandestinely, has been playing the dangerous game of “Poking the Bear”--for 73 long years, from 1947 to present.] Russia’s Black Sea fleet has always been based in Sevastopol’s natural harbor, for access to the Balkans, Mediterranean, and Middle East. After Khrushchev’s 1954 transfer of the region to Ukraine, Russia leased back part of Crimea to ensure the continued use of the naval base. That lease is scheduled to run to 2042, and it authorizes Russia to station 25,000 troops [there].

“There is an energy connection as well, Russia’s South Stream pipe line passes through what formerly were Ukrainian waters… [ibid. The COLDER WAR, p. 68, emphasis mine]  

The Buffer  

It may seem fantastic to a North American reader that in 2014 Russia would fear an invasion by Western forces. [see my comment above.] The Europeans are largely demilitarized, and their populations are focused on enjoying risk-free lives as benefactors of the state…And the Americans, although they often seem careless about joining wars, never did come to direct blows with the Soviet Union, even when it was a mortal threat.

Call it historical post-traumatic stress syndrome. Twenty million Russians (one in eight of the total population at the time) died in World War II, and that wasn’t the country’s first experience with armies from Western Europe” [the Germanic Teutonic Knights, Charles XII of Sweden, 1708-1709, Napoleon Bonaparte’s invasion of Russia, all the way to Moscow in 1812, Germany during World War I, and then Germany under Adolph Hitler initiating a devastating invasion of the Soviet Union (Russia) on the 21st June 1941. Just during the first year and a half of that war, Soviet Russian troops stopped 200 crack German divisions cold, culminating in the Battle of Stalingrad, but during that 1.5 year time-span they lost 5 million soldiers and 10 million civilians doing so. There is good reason the Russians suffer from historic PTSD. Wouldn’t you, if you were a Russian? Read “They Shall Not Sleep” by Leland Stowe, 1944. See the movie, “Enemy at the Gates” staring Jude Law and Ed Harris for a good movie about the Battle of Stalingrad.]. “Reasonable or not, the Russians want neutral countries on their border, countries that are aligned with no one (except perhaps Russia) and that are keen only about not giving offense. Topography adds special sensitivity to Ukraine’s status; the country is an open plain for any force heading toward Moscow. Russia doesn’t want any other country with strong ties to the West on its border that might join the EU or even become a missile-hosting member of NATO. Instead, Russia wants a Ukraine with strong ties to the East that serves as a buffer state.” [ibid. The COLDER WAR, p. 71, par. 2-3, emphasis mine]  

What Happened In Maidan? (2013)

Marin Katusa in his book sheds some real light on the Maiden revolution, and based on what I’ve already shown in this America-ModernRomans series and quotes from “KILLING HOPE”, this should not be surprising. “With the coming of the Maidan uprising came the propaganda. Fed to the American people by its government was the tale of spontaneous revolt by courageous, unarmed pro-democracy citizens against an unpopular tyrant. Tyrant he was, true, and unpopular. But he had in fact been elected by the voters, and the people didn’t all of a sudden decide to rise up and smite their hated ruler because he took an eastward turn.

“The United States and EU had been working for years to pull Ukraine away from Russia. Accomplishing that and placing an antagonistic state on Russia’s border would be a foreign-policy triumph. So, ultimately, the United States would end up spending $5 billion in Ukraine to persuade and then to destabilize.

That’s not a figure invented by the “blame America” crowd. It comes from Victoria Nuland, who at the time was U.S. assistant secretary of state for Europe and Eurasia. In mid-December 2013, she boasted that the United States had “invested” not only the billions of dollars but also “five years’ worth of work and preparation” to help “build democratic skills and institutions” and achieve what she called Ukraine’s “European aspirations.”

“She reported on a two-hour “tough conversation” with President Yanukovych during which she made it “absolutely clear” that the United States required him to take “immediate steps” to “get back into conversation with Europe and the IMF.”

“Or else … what?

“Washington hadn’t gotten what it wanted, so it supported a coup against the elected government. [by the way, who had been the ‘Coup Masters’ in Latin America for over 45 years? see] It was easy. All the elements were in place. The president of the European Commission announced in late November 2013 that the EU would “not accept Russia’s veto” of the EU’s agreement with Ukraine. Protestors streamed into the streets of Kiev, egged on by Hromsake.TV, an online television outlet funded by American money.

“Crowds in Kiev grew into the hundreds of thousands and clashed with police. A movement that began as a call for the president to return to a pro-EU policy morphed into one bent on regime change. People died, some from sniper fire directed at both sides, apparently to stoke the conflict. Eventually, the insurgents seized government buildings. Yanukovych fled in February 2014, and a new interim government was formed.” [ibid. The Colder War, p. 76]

“The Ukrainian revolution wasn’t just about Ukraine. It was a proxy struggle between Russia and the West. And much about it fits badly into U.S. officialdom’s standard “white hat verses black hat” narrative.”

“The Ukrainian revolution was a coup that overthrew a democratically elected president---normally not the sort of thing the United States likes to be seen encouraging.” [p. 71, par. 1-2] [but has helped carry out on numerous occasions, especially in South and Central America (Salvadore Allende ring a bell, anyone? See “Missing” starring Jack Lemon and Sissy Spacek. Ukraine and the Maidan Revolt has CIA fingerprints all over it.]

“The insurgents who drove Yanukovych out of office and out of the country were depicted in Western media as noble fighters risking death to oust an autocrat and build a democracy---which is roughly half of the truth. The ranks of the so-called freedom fighters included some unsavory characters indeed, among them members of the Svoboda Party, an organization whose story line is told in the vocabulary of 1930s-style anti-Semitism. It’s leadership includes the founder of the Joseph Goebbels Political Research Center.

“Washington downplayed the neo-Nazi involvement, of course. But Senator John McCain’s ill-advised December 2013 visit to Ukraine didn’t help. He found himself sharing the stage with Svoboda leader Oleh Tyahnybok---a man who is quick with a Nazi salute, has urged his countrymen to fight against the “Muscoveite-Jewish mafia,” and has called on the government to halt the “criminal activities” of “organized Jewry.”

“The U.S. government saw the neo-Nazis as an asset to be used but contained and kept out of view. Victoria Nuland, presumably as part of her effort to “build democratic skills and institutions,” collaborated closely with Tyahnybok in planning the revolution. Later, leaked phone conversations found her wondering what do with him. Best, she said, to keep him “on the outside” but in close consultation with the new, U.S.-approved president “four times a week.” [ibid. The Colder War, p. 77, par. 3-5] Do you smell C.I.A. here? I do. How do you think Vladimir Putin felt about this? His actions described below are often seen as that of an aggressor, but they were merely reactions to what the United States was secretly, covertly doing in Ukraine, again, playing the dangerous game of “poking the bear.” [For a precise breakdown and explanation of these events that occurred during Maidan Revolt order Oliver Stone’s Ukraine On Fire]

Crimea Comes Home” 

“Putin had reason for mixed feelings about the Maidan Revolution. On one hand, the possibility of NATO moving closer was certainly unwelcome. On the other hand, Ukraine was a money pit he wouldn’t mind leaving for someone else to fill…What Putin could not tolerate, however, was any risk to the naval base in Crimea. Keeping it under Russian control was imperative…Then, nodding to a resolution by Crimea’s parliament to secede from Ukraine, he publicly welcomed a plebiscite to decide the matter.

“Understandably, the region’s Russian population, whose sympathies have always reached eastward, voted to join the Russian Federation. The alternative was to accept a coup co-ventured by the United States and fascist throwbacks. [which at the time appeared to be true.] The voters had reason to fear a new government that included elements who so dislike ethnic Russians that they executed dozens of them during the uprising in Kiev. Joining Russia was an easy choice.

“The process was remarkably quick and peaceful. Unlike what happened in Kiev, not a drop of blood was shed.

“The howling in the West did nothing to slow Putin in welcoming Crimea into the Russian Federation. No amount of scorn, sanctioning, or isolation will turn him from acting in what he believes are the interests of his country.” [“The Colder War” by Marin Katusa, pp. 79-80, par. 3, 5-6 & 1-2 resp.] Marin Katusa is a totally neutral businessman who has no political or national axes to grind against the United States or Russia.

Like I have said before, and it’s the only way to really understand Vladimir Putin, is that he is, in his own eyes, a true Russian patriot, highly intelligent, and yes, when he needs to be, ruthless. Is Vladimir Putin to be feared by the U.S.? Most certainly. But whose fault is that? It is not Vladimir Putin’s fault. The United States, the Modern Romans, has been a very belligerent Empire indeed, as we never really stopped our Cold War tactics toward the Russians, even after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

How does what Vladimir Putin is currently doing in 2022 shake out toward the fulfillment of the dire Bible prophecies about a rising United States of Europe, a military superpower that will stun the world, and end up initiating World War III (this being prophecied in Daniel 7 and Revelation 13 and 17)? Often when you threaten a country or group of nations, an equal and opposite reaction will occur (called “blow-back”). Our actions toward the Soviet Union and Russian people from Harry Truman onward to the present have inspired Russia to take a hard-line toward the United States, and their own security concerns. This whole article has proven that point quite clearly. Now as a result of our continued belligerence toward the Russian Federation, this article proves my point, Vladimir is pursuing a path that will threaten the European nations under NATO, as he directly tries to divide the NATO alliance. As stated in a very recent article titled “Special Ops Chief: Russia aims to divide NATO, poses ‘existential’ threat to US” The beginning of the article states this, “Russia seeks to test the United States at every opportunity and divide the NATO alliance, posing the most significant long term threat to US national security [to say nothing of European security], the head of the U.S. Special Operations Command, General Joseph Votel, told the Aspen Security Forum. “Russia is looking to challenge us wherever they can,” Votel told Fox News’ Catherine Herridge. “The intent is to create a situation where NATO can’t continue to thrive.”” These very actions of Vladimir Putin and the Russian Federation then as well as what is currently going on in the war between the Ukraine and Vladimir Putin’s Russian army will most definitely play directly into the formation of what the Bible calls “the Beast Empire,” a United States of Europe superpower.

For those who have read this far, we’ve just taken a hard look at some of that history behind this conflict. Now let’s take a hard look at some very recent history, leading up to a hot war that has just broken out between the Russian Federation and the Ukraine. As Mikhail Gorbachev struggled from 1987 through to December 1991 to create a nuclear-disarmed, peaceful and friendly Soviet Union, Bush-I cut him off at the knees politically by backing up Russian Federation president Boris Yeltsin, causing the collapse of the Soviet Union and Mikhail Gorbachev’s Grand Design for a peaceful Soviet Union. And as we’ve just read through this section of America-ModernRomans, the 10 years of poverty and political bumbling and mismanagement of Boris Yeltsin brought on the dictatorship of Vladimir Putin. Under the past 23 years of Vladimir Putin, the Russian Federation’s military has been transformed from a second-rate power to that of a near first-rate fighting force. Vladimir’s current sabre-rattling and threats against the Ukraine (which as we’ve just read are totally justified in Mr. Putin’s eyes as he attempts to keep the Ukraine out of N.A.T.O.), along with America’s wimpy response has left the European nations feeling more isolated and vulnerable than they’ve felt since the end of World War II. Continue reading for some timely newspaper quotes about the ongoing Russian-Ukrainian crisis (which has now led to open warfare between the Ukraine and the Russian Federation). One thing that has angered Vladimir Putin since 2008 is found in a quote from a recent New York Times article which states, “NATO expansion eastward after the fall of the Berlin Wall was designed to secure and safeguard the freedom of 100 million central Europeans who had escaped the Soviet imperium. [technically they hadn’t escaped, Mikhail Gorbachev had freed them, let them go.] It worked. One thing Mr. Putin has not done is threaten Poles or Romanians with renewed Russian subjugation. Its price, however, has been the festering alienation of Russia, which felt it had been betrayed by NATO at its border. This anger was redoubled in 2008 when NATO leaders issued a summit declaration in Bucharest saying that Ukraine and Georgia, once part of the Soviet Union, “will become members of NATO.”

The Russian Federation’s and Mr. Putin’s Darkest Fears (Excerpted from a NY Times article)

The fence is the outer perimeter, guarded by Polish soldiers, of a highly sensitive U.S. military installation, expected to be operational this year, which Washington insists will help defend Europe and the United States from ballistic missiles fired by rogue states like Iran.” [Iran, by the way has a hard time reaching Israel with a viable ballistic missile] But for Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, the military base in Poland, and another in Romania, are evidence of what he sees as the threat posed by NATO’s eastward expansion—and part of his justification for his military encirclement of Ukraine. The Pentagon describes the two sites as defensive and unrelated to Russia, but the Kremlin believes they could be used to shoot down Russian rockets or to fire offensive cruise missiles at Moscow.” … “Mr. Putin has been fuming about American missiles near Russia’s border since the Romanian site went into operation in 2016, but the Polish facility, located near the village of Redzikowo, is only about 100 miles from the Russian territory [border] and barely 800 miles from Moscow.” … “The Polish base, the heart of which is a system known as Aegis Ashore, contains sophisticated radars capable of tracking hostile missiles and guiding interceptor rockets to knock them out of the sky. It is also equipped with missile launchers known as MK 41s, which the Russians worry can be easily repurposed to fire offensive missiles like the Tomahawk.” … “Russia had stoked unease by exaggerating the threat posed by NATO, BUT, both sides have created a “self-propelling machine of fear” fueled by nerve-jangling uncertainty over what the other is up to.” “Thomas Graham, who served as senior director for Russia on President George W. Bush’s National Security Council, said Moscow had never believed Washington’s assurances that its missile defense system was aimed at Iran, not Russia.” … “The current crisis is really much broader than Ukraine,” Mr. Graham said. “Ukraine is a leverage point but it is more about Poland, Romania and the Baltics. The Russians think it is time to revise the post-Cold War settlement in Europe in their favor.” … “Missile defense has long been viewed by Russia as a dangerous American attempt to degrade the main guarantor of its great power status—a vast nuclear arsenal. The possibility that the United States could shoot down Russian ballistic missiles undermines the deterrent doctrine of mutually assured destruction, which posits that neither of the two biggest nuclear powers would ever risk a nuclear war because it would mean both get annihilated. During the Cold War, Russia and the United States both worked on developing antimissile defenses, but agreed in 1972 to abandon their rocket shield programs so as to preserve mutual vulnerability and, they hoped, peace. It worked for nearly 30 years. But, at the end of Mr. Putin’s second year as president in December 2001, President George W. Bush infuriated the new Russian leader by pulling out of the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty and directing the Pentagon to build a system to ward off the possible threat of missiles from Iran… “We tried for a long time to persuade our partners not to do this,” Mr. Putin said this month in the Kremlin. “Nevertheless, the U.S. did what it did—withdrew from the treaty. Now antiballistic missile launchers are deployed in Romania and are being set up in Poland.” “Should Ukraine draw closer to NATO,” Mr. Putin thundered, “it will be filled with weapons. Modern offensive weapons will be deployed on its territory just like in Poland and Romania.” … “Some independent experts, however, believe that while requiring a rejiggering of software and other changes, the MK 41 launchers installed in Poland and Romania can fire not only defensive interceptors but also offensive missiles. Matt Korda, an analyst at the Federation of American Scientists, said that “without visual inspections, there is no way to determine whether or not this Tomahawk-specific hardware and software have been installed at the Aegis Ashore sites in Europe.” [Excerpts taken from “On the Edge of a Polish Forest, Where Some of Putin’s Darkest Fears Lurk” (New York Times online article, 16 February 2022)]

What follows are some pertinent quotes from Oliver Stone, showing the other side of the equation, showing Vladimir Putin’s and Russia’s side. Remember, there are always two sides to a story, and if Oliver Stone is correct, some of the evidence has been hidden from us, some key facts. In my eyes, it doesn’t justify the slaughter of innocent people, and to me, war is never the answer.

3 March 2022 Oliver Stone’s Facebook page post:

Although the United States has many wars of aggression on its conscience, it doesn’t justify Mr. Putin’s aggression in Ukraine. A dozen wrongs don’t make right. Russia was wrong to invade. It has made too many mistakes--1) underestimating Ukrainian resistance, 2) overestimating the military’s ability to achieve its objective, 3) underestimating Europe’s reaction, especially Germany upping its military contribution to NATO, which they’ve resisted for some 20 years; even Switzerland has joined the cause. Russia will be more isolated than ever from the West. 4) underestimating the damage to its own economy and certainly creating more internal resistance in Russia, 7) creating a major readjustment of power in its oligarch class, 8) putting cluster and vacuum bombs into play, 9) and underestimating the power of social media worldwide. But we must wonder, how could Putin have saved the Russian-speaking people of Donetsk and Luhansk? No doubt his Government could’ve done a better job of showing the world the eight years of suffering of those people and their refugees--as well as highlighting the Ukrainian buildup of 110,000 [Ukrainian] soldiers on the Donetsk-Luhansk borders, which was occurring essentially before the Russian buildup [in February 2022]. But the West has far stronger public relations than the Russians. Or perhaps Putin should’ve surrendered the two holdout provinces and offered 1-3 million people help to relocate in Russia. The world might’ve understood better the aggression of the Ukrainian Government. But then again, I’m not sure.” (Oliver Stone on his public Facebook page, 3 March 2-22) [emphasis mine]

Quote from “Oliver Stone: Vladimir Putin and War in Ukraine/ Lex Fridman Podcast #286”

On February 24, the day before [February 23, 2022], if you check the logs of [the] European Organization that was supervising, that was in the field in Ukraine, [the OSCE: Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe—Special Monitoring Mission in Ukraine] they were seeing heavier and heavier artillery fire going into the Donbas from the Ukrainian side. So they had, apparently Ukraine had 110,000 troops on the border. They were about to invade Donbas, that was the plan, that’s what I think. Russia, because of the buildup on the border of Donbas brought 130,000 troops to the area near Donbas. Right? So you have buildup on both sides, but you didn’t know that from reading the press in the West, you’d believe that the Russians suddenly put all these men into the situation with the idea of invading Ukraine, not only Donbas, but invading all of Ukraine, and getting rid of, decapitating the government there. Which is all assumption, we don’t know what they intended to do.” [end of quote] So there seems to be an obvious but “unreported” two-part smoking gun here, first Ukraine’s buildup of 110,000 troops on the border of Donetsk-Luhansk which caused the Russians to encircle Ukraine with 190,000 troops, and then the cause for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the heavier and heavier artillery fire going into the Donbas from the Ukrainian side. If this indeed proves to be true, there is apparently justification for Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, but it doesn’t justify the sheer stupidity of it, and the cost to both the Ukrainian and Russian people as a whole. (For Oliver Stone’s research click here) My dad, God rest his wonderful soul, always (and repeatedly) told me, “It takes two to make a fight.” Another excellent independent analysis shows the Russian Federation under Vladimir Putin has been in an undeclared war with the Ukraine since before 2014. Watch his short history of Ukraine going back to before the year 2004.


Where Does This “Poker Game” Lead--Now After A Hot War Has Erupted Inside The Ukraine Between Russia And Ukraine?

This “armed poker game” as Igor Novikov calls it, if it goes on unabated, with or without a negotiated end and withdrawal of the Russian military, is providing Europe with the very strong incentive to go far beyond its current sloppy form of unity and become fully federalized into some form of a United States of Europe wielding an economic and military force of its own that would rival that of both the United States and the Russian Federation, becoming Mr. Putin’s worst nightmare (and ours as well). My statement “if it goes on unabated” is backed up by a statement by Jeremy Bash, former chief of staff at the CIA and the Defense Department under President Obama, commenting on the present situation, where he said “This crisis and this mode of a standoff with Russia is going to be around for months and years, not days and weeks.” Up until the 24th of February 2022 Russia had 190,000 troops, along with supporting tanks and mechanized vehicles, aircraft and naval units surrounding Ukraine. What the Russian Federation and Mr. Putin wanted was to have a neutral Ukrainian government that has no intention, hidden or open, of joining NATO, and a withdrawal of our antiballistic missile sites in Poland and Romania. President Zelensky may yet agree to this demand of Mr. Putin and the Russian Federation in some form of negotiated peace settlement, but that remains to be seen, especially as the slaughter of innocent Ukrainian civilians hardens the average Ukrainian and Zelensky himself against any concession toward Russia’s desire for a neutral Ukraine. As of right now, beginning on the 24th of February 2022, Vladimir Putin ordered his military forces he had lined up on the Ukrainian border to attack the Ukraine. As of this writing, over two months of intense battles and warfare have taken place, with no resolution in sight, as the Ukrainians are putting up one hell of a fight and have slowed the Russian invasion to almost a standstill. Right now the situation is fluid, and could go in either direction. On the other hand, before Vladimir Putin’s invasion of the Ukraine the 28 individual nations that make up N.A.T.O. were happily sleeping amidst their various levels of prosperity. The western nations making up N.A.T.O. often called their eastern (former Warsaw Pact member) nations alarmists when they voiced their fears over a resurgent Russia. After Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, as the invasion slowly and mercilessly surrounded, bombarded and destroyed city after city, all these sleeping member nations of the N.A.T.O. alliance woke up, activating their military forces on Europe’s eastern border. Both major and minor nations of N.A.T.O. started shipping all kinds of armaments, including Stinger antiaircraft missiles and Javelin antitank missiles across the Polish-Ukrainian border. While this may bloody the Russian advance through the Ukraine (the war is ongoing as of this writing), it may not stop it. This slow slaughter of the Ukrainian nation and its citizens is waking up the EU, the European Union and members of N.A.T.O. in ways not seen since the height of the Cold War (and a retired U.S. General shows how long and drawn out Putin’s invasion could be here, also: MSNBC piece titled “How The War In Ukraine Could Turn The European Union Into A World Superpower.”) But awake and united as N.A.T.O. has just become--its united resolve and huge clandestine supply of defensive weapons systems and missiles to the Ukraine has not proven sufficient to save the Ukraine or stop Russia’s invasion up to the time of this writing. Regardless of the eventual outcome of this war, Europeans have just been brought to painfully see their own vulnerability to an aggressive Russian Federation led by Vladimir Putin. As a result of all this, should Europe morph into this superpower on Russia’s western border, the poor Russians will need a neutral and friendly Ukraine on their southern border, that’s for sure--but how friendly is a subjugated Ukraine or if Ukraine should win, a fully-armed NATO-friendly Ukraine going to be to the Russians? In the end, Vladimir Putin will have only himself to blame for the blowback from this latest adventure of his, which will come as an economic-military superpower forming on his western border, a United States of Europe. This just appeared in the May 8, 2022 New York Times (the title is mine):

The Coming United States of Europe

Quotes from 8 May 2022 NYTimes Article

May 9 will be marked otherwise in Western Europe. President Emmanuel Macron will salute Europe Day in Berlin and Strasbourg, seat of the European Parliament, laying out his ambitious vision of a 27-nation European Union now compelled to move beyond mere economic heft toward becoming a more federal, and more forceful, world power…On May 9, 1950, Robert Schuman, the French foreign minister, proposed fusing French and German steel production so that “any war between France and Germany becomes not merely unthinkable, but materially impossible.” So was the seed of a borderless Europe with a single currency planted and the Continent’s repetitive suicides ended. It is this anniversary that Mr. Macron will recognize on Monday, in a Europe where hymns to bloodshed are shunned.”

This wider war [in Ukraine] promises to be a long one, obliging Europe to restore at least some of the military focus it has largely shunned in the more than three decades since the end of the Cold War. War in Ukraine has galvanized Europe. It generally views with urgency bringing Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova into the European Union. Calls are multiplying for an acceleration of decision-making on foreign and defense policy. Mario Draghi, the Italian prime minister, called this month for “pragmatic federalism” in defense and other areas…Federalism, a word associated with the idea of a United States of Europe, eventually under a federal government of some kind, suggests fast-forwarding European unity in ways that have seemed unthinkable for many years. “We must overcome this principle of unanimity, which leads to a logic of crossed vetoes, and move towards decisions taken by a qualified majority,” Mr. Draghi said, alluding to a procedure that would allow approval once a certain threshold of support is attained. He added: “Protecting Ukraine means protecting ourselves and the project of security and democracy we have built together over 70 years.” Germany’s coalition government under Chancellor Olaf Scholz supports majority voting on security and defense policy, but France is more hesitant…Russian aggression has shifted Poland toward support for strengthening the union. Mr. Macron’s defeat of Marine Le Pen, the nationalist friend of Mr. Putin, in the presidential election last month has isolated the illiberal Hungarian leader, Viktor Orban, in his connivance with Russia. The European Union, always querulous, seems bent on transformative change…“It’s a spectacular coincidence of dates,” Dominique Moïsi, a French political scientist, said of May 9. “What is more real? Russian might and Mariupol destroyed, or normal European life in Strasbourg? We will have to fight like hell to stop him, as if our very future is at stake.”…Mr. Macron has been the leading proponent of a sovereign Europe, independent enough to claim “strategic autonomy,” and backed by the bolstering of European military power alongside and in coordination with NATO…It appears certain that Mr. Macron will use May 9 to elaborate on this vision and to make clear the contrast between Mr. Putin’s model of war and the European peace magnet Mr. Schuman set in motion 72 years ago.” [8 May 2022 New York Times article] I bought Marin Katusa's book “The Colder War” back in 2015 when it was first published. In it, Mr. Katusa said Vladimir Putin was trying to find ways to undermine our Petro-Dollar as far back as then, 2015, and right now with president Putin’s present deals and friendship with Saudi Arabia, he may be close to doing this (he’s been trying to do this for over 7 years now). Without the Petro-Dollar, the US economy as we know it would disintegrate, and the US would cease to be a superpower. And this apparently is our motive for trying to defeat Vladimir Putin through our support of the war in Ukraine, by investing, so far, over 18 billion dollars in aid and weapons, hoping to bring the downfall of Vladimir Putin, before he brings an end to the US as a superpower, without firing a direct shot at us militarily. Mr. Putin is not stupid, and Mr. Katusa saw this coming 7 or 8 years ago. This short video is an interview with Mr. Katusa explaining this danger to the Petro-Dollar, and why we've fought various wars, against Libya and Iraq, to name two, to defend the Petro-Dollar. I’ve known this since I first read his book in 2015, but didn’t quite connect the dots as to why we’re giving so much support to Ukraine, to the point, and in the hopes of bringing down Vladimir Putin as president of the Russian Federation. This video below is a Trailer filmed back in 2014 to promote Marin Katusa’s book, The Colder War, and explains the Petro-Dollar and why Putin is trying to destroy it.


Should the United States let down the Ukraine and start to deny them the continual flow of weapons and money they need, leaving the Europeans in the lurch, having to pick up those expenses, their anger toward the U.S. will be great. Also, their need to defend themselves against a Russia turned enemy, will push them into becoming a superpower of their own. Amazingly enough, Bible prophecies found both in the Book of Daniel and the Book of Revelation predict this end-time resurrection of the Holy Roman Empire, which will appear in Europe as ten nations united as one, under a strong dictator, united into this superpower that will awe the world and scare the daylights out of Mr. Putin, if he is still alive when it occurs. And let’s not forget Mr. Putin’s actions have been reactions, blowback to American clandestine activities spanning nearly 75 years in that region, as this series on American-ModernRomans has proven. To learn more about what Bible prophecy has to say about where the dangers of this current situation in Ukraine is leading to and what it will help bring about in Europe see

UK Defense Intelligence map for 16 March 2022

related links:

:Andrew Bacevich: Ukraine is Paying the Price for the U.S. “Recklessly” Pushing NATO Expansion:

:A retired U.S. General shows how long and drawn out Putin’s invasion will be:

:MSNBC “How The War In Ukraine Could Turn The European Union Into A World Superpower.”:

:How the Ukraine war has shifted German foreign policy - BBC Newsnight:

:True causes and consequences of the crisis in Ukraine:

:Marin Katusa’s book The Colder War:

From the view of Bible prophecy, where does all this lead us in Europe? Answer: The Coming European Superpower, the United States of Europe, see

To read Victor Kubik’s and the United Church of God’s booklet about Russia in Bible Prophecy, see

Quote from the pastor-rabbi of congregation Or-haMeschiach, a Messianic Jewish congregation in Odessa, he said on the 5th day of the Russian-Ukraine war “at Odessa, which was the main focus of the Russian army, 13 warships, they just crossed the harbor, just to invade, suddenly there was a storm (that lasted five days), and they could not come in--so that was a miracle that we received at that moment…” Just in case you may be wondering whose side God is on at this moment during this war between the Russian Federation and the Ukraine. But realize, God does not hate the Russians, and he doesn’t love the Ukrainians more. He is merely doing a work in Ukraine at present, as far as I can see, that is all, a work God wants to do in Ukraine before WWIII strikes the world.

In Summation For These Five Chapters of America-ModernRomans

Every time somebody comes into office and attempts to bring about world peace & nuclear disarmament, that individual world leader is either politically or literally killed--taken out of office. Three men have given the world three chances for total world peace: first through Henry A. Wallace, next through President John F. Kennedy, third, through Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev. What Sergei Khrushchev said about President Kennedy applied to all three men, Sergei said, “I think if Kennedy had lived, we would be living in a completely different world.” Elements, covert and otherwise within the U.S. Government killed the efforts of those three men. So what pattern have we seen in the United States that keeps repeating itself? Let’s look at three great leaders who attempted to bring peace and disarmament to the world.

1st in line Henry A. Wallace, following in the steps of F.D.R. wanted to continue the friendly alliance with the Soviet Union, encouraging each superpower to share and learn from each other’s political-ideological strengths, in friendly economic and political cooperation with each other. But the political and military-industrial-complex powers that be removed Wallace from being FDR’s V.P. for his 4th term in office and put in his place Harry Truman, who then created the C.I.A. and started the Cold War through nuclear blackmail against the Soviet Union and Joe Stalin. So the first potential Presidential candidate that wanted to promote world peace and a nuclear disarmament, and prevent an arms race was Henry A. Wallace (see

2nd in line in the spirit of Henry A. Wallace was President John F. Kennedy. As we have seen, Nikita Khrushchev, Joe Stalin’s successor, tried to get President Eisenhower to end this insane Truman-created Cold War and nuclear arms race. Ike wouldn’t buck the military-industrial-complex and go for it (even though three days before JFK took office, in his last address to the nation he warned the nation about the dangers of letting the military-industrial-complex get too much power over the nation). But the next President, John F. Kennedy, right after the Cuban Missile Crisis had scared the daylights out of him and Nikita Khrushchev, tried to work with Khrushchev to end the Cold War, get us out of Vietnam before it became a full-blown war in Southeast Asia, and make genuine peace and friendship treaties with the Soviet Union and Fidel Castro’s Cuba. For his efforts President Kennedy died in a hail of bullets, in a Coup d’ Tat, on the 22nd of November, 1963. Nikita Khrushchev was taken out of power one year later (see

3rd in line in the spirit of Henry A. Wallace, was a Soviet Russian Premier Mikhail Gorbachev. He actually, for a short space of time, brought the Cold War to a screeching halt, attempting to disarm the world of its nuclear arsenals and create a friendly Soviet Union composed of 15 semi-autonomous republics all under a strong Center in Moscow. This brought a peace initiative to the world powers which resulted in the U.S. Congress voting to cut the U.S. military budget by either one third or two thirds. Bush-I was president at the time, and he needed a war, and fast, to restore the U.S. military budget (Bush-I was a former head of the C.I.A.). Saddam Hussein, president of Iraq, had just invaded Kuwait, a tiny nation on the southern border of Iraq, because Kuwait had been secretly aiming it’s drilling shafts under the Iraqi border into Iraqi oil reserves. Saddam’s war against Kuwait was justified, even though it was brutal. Bush-I had his war, and he counter-invaded Iraq, conquering the Iraqi army, but stopping short of taking Baghdad or toppling Saddam’s government. In the process of this war and in preparation for it, a huge American army and tank force camped out in Saudi Arabia. The blow-back from all of this unwanted strong-armed American presence in the Middle East and the subsequent slaughtering of Iraqi Sunni and Shiite Muslim soldiers in Iraq brought about the radicalization of Osama bin Laden. In 1993, at the end of Gulf War-I an early associate of Bin Laden attempted to blow up the World Trade Center Towers. Then in the late 1990s Bin Laden and his Al-Qaida blew up two U.S. Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and in Tanzania, along with the attempted blowing up of the U.S.S. Cole in a Yemeni harbor. Then Osama bin Laden’s group successfully destroyed the Trade Towers in NYC on 9/11. The American public did not see this as blow-back to Bush-I’s previous invasion of a Muslim nation, but it certainly was. And the American reaction, or counter-blow-back under Bush-II, turned what one reporter/author termed as a U.S. “Reign of Terror” against what amounted to the entire Muslim world. This “reign of terror” started under the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld presidency-administration and continued under the presidency of Obama and carried on through Donald Trump’s presidency without letup. (If interested in the specific details, order and read Spencer Ackerman’s “REIN OF TERROR HOW THE 9/11 ERA DESTABLIZED AMERICA AND PRODUCED TRUMP” Viking Press)

Related links:

For William Blum’s complete account of our totally unnecessary war in Iraq, log onto

Trailer to “SHOCK and Awe”

source material used for this whole America-ModernRomans series:


 “KHRUSHCHEV: THE YEARS IN POWER” (by the Medvedev brothers, 1978)

  “KHRUSHCHEV REMEMBERS” by Nikita Sergeyvich Khrushchev


  “Missing” (DVD by Costa-Gavras, coup d’etat in Chile)

  “Salvador” (DVD by Oliver Stone, CIA in El Salvador)

  “THIRTEEN DAYS” (DVD movie, about the Cuban Missile Crisis)

"JFK, The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy" by L. Fletcher Prouty

JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE, WHY HE DIED AND WHY IT MATTERS” by James W. Douglass (really connects all the dots in the assassination of JFK, very thorough)

  Oliver Stone’s “JFK”  

The COLDER WAR” by Marin Katusa  

KILLING HOPE: U.S. MILITARY AND CIA INTERVENTIONS SINCE WORLD WAR II” (by William Blum, about the CIA covert ops in Latin America)


I highly recommend all these sources, especially the DVD’s, which can be easily watched. “Oliver Stone’s UNTOLD HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES” is highly educational and well-documented, I highly recommend it. The printed version is updated to 2020. If you want to really understand Vladimir Putin, Marin Katusa’s “The COLDER WAR” is an excellent resource, and is fairly short, 221 pages. William Blum’s ‘KILLING HOPE: U.S. MILITARY AND CIA INTERVENTIONS SINCE WORLD WAR II” is a thoroughly documented resource detailing just what the title says, U.S. military and CIA interventions since World War II. It’s about an inch and a half thick. Online Version -

Who Is On The Right Side Of History, Putin or The United States?

1. President Truman, historically a Russia-hater, tried to blackmail Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union with nuclear weapons, starting the Cold War and the Nuclear Arms Race. He also created the C.I.A., incorporating clandestine and covert activities into its structure. The C.I.A. itself early on, right after World War II, absorbed some of the remaining Nazi intelligence infrastructure and personnel into it to help Truman wage his new Cold War and Nuclear Arms race against the Soviet Russians.

2. As we have read in this series, Nikita Khrushchev tried to end the Cold War and Nuclear Arms Race, twice, once by reaching out to President Eisenhower, and then again by reaching out to President Kennedy. For their efforts President Kennedy was assassinated on the 22nd of November 1963, and Khrushchev was removed from power one year later. Kennedy and Khrushchev were going to end the Cold War and Nuclear Arms Race, and Kennedy with the aid of Khrushchev was going to get the U.S. out of Vietnam and usher in a peaceful solution, probably a neutral Vietnam as he tried to do in Laos. He was also going to befriend Fidel Castro’s Cuba, ending hostilities there. The CIA ended up getting their war in Vietnam after Kennedy’s death, and the Nuclear Arms Race continued unabated.

3. The United States and its ignorant historians (patriotically blinded) like to say (under President Reagan, but the lie continues) that they defeated Communism and ended the Cold War. Nothing could be farther from the truth. It is a half-truth, if that. We did spend the Soviet Union into poverty over the years with our superior ability to spend on arms, culminating in Reagan. But it was Mikhail Gorbachev who ended the Cold War and sought mutual nuclear disarmament, beginning that disarmament unilaterally when Reagan balked. Gorbachev also strove mightily to create a new peaceful and friendly Soviet Union, to be composed of its 15 Republics, each having its own democratic constitution, coming under a strong Center in Moscow for national defense and foreign policy. Bush-I cut Premier Gorbachev off at the knees politically by supporting a new Russian Federation and its newly formed alliance, called the C.I.S. states. As a result of the destruction of the Soviet Union and Gorbachev’s dream, the Russian Federation went through ten long and extremely painful years of total inept leadership under Boris Yeltsin, years of extreme poverty and political turmoil for the average Russian citizen (1991-2000). In desperation, both Boris Yeltsin and the Russian people turned to Vladimir Putin, a dictatorial, autocratic, and in his own eyes, Russian patriot. As described earlier in my quotes of Marin Katusa in his book, Vladimir is a cunning, shrewd leader, who understanding the past history of how the U.S. has treated Russia and the Soviet Union, has no love for the U.S. Marin Katusa is totally accurate in his description of Vladimir Putin, and the invasion of Ukraine which just took place is totally in line with Mr. Katusa’s description of Putin. Vladimir helped bring the Russian people and Russia itself back to prosperity and a form of political stability, even though that was an autocratic and dictatorial stability. Also, there was, up until now, far more individual freedom under Putin’s government than there ever was under the Soviet Union until Gorbachev. Vladimir also restored the Russian military to what he believed was that of a first-rate power. But this war he just recently declared in Ukraine threatens to destroy all those economic and military gains he brought to pass in the Russian Federation. One news commentator said Vladimir Putin just destroyed 23 years of progress within the Russian Federation.

4. The Ukraine, having a long history going back to being the founder state of Russia, the Keivan Rus, in the 800s AD, was also a founding state within the fledgling Soviet Union. During the Cold War, first under Khrushchev, the Ukraine came under repeated clandestine attacks from the C.I.A. including some of its absorbed post-Nazi operatives still functioning in Ukraine from the end of World War II. Descendants from this ugly network surfaced as recently as during the Maiden Revolt of 2013, working to overthrow President Yanukovych, in a coup with CIA fingerprints all over it. CIA, U.S. and Western European meddling and attempts to draw Ukraine out of its Russian sphere of influence, with open desires to have it incorporated into N.A.T.O. over the years has angered Vladimir Putin to no end, right up to the boiling point, to where in my opinion, he “lost it” mentally speaking. Remember, historically, Ukraine and its territory has always been a MAJOR buffer state, protecting Moscow from a land invasion. Hitler’s armies tried to drive to Moscow from both Poland and the Ukraine, flat plains with no real obstructions, such as mountains, pointing straight for Moscow. Also Ukraine opens up and points to Stalingrad, now Volgograd, and the Baku oil fields. Ukraine’s neutrality inside a Russian sphere of influence is crucial, even today, to Russian security. The Russians remember the Nazi invasion and war like it was yesterday. So as ruthless and evil as Vladimir may seem, he is on the right side of history. But remember, Joseph Stalin while he was fighting Nazi Germany was also on the right side of history. So morally, Vladimir Putin is on the wrong side of history in his army’s indiscriminate bombardment and slaughter of innocent Ukrainian civilians and hospitals. For the United States, we’ve been on the wrong side of history as well, but this has mostly been hidden from public view because it is clandestine history recently revealed, and America loves to whitewash itself with its own version of the history it participates in. But was Vladimir Putin “poked, provoked” into acting rashly, yes, stupidly, without intelligence, in starting a war with Ukraine? I believe that is a HUGE part of the explanation for what has taken place. Historically speaking, if we hadn’t messed over Gorbachev we wouldn’t be in this mess. And before that, if we hadn’t killed our own President Kennedy, again, we wouldn’t be in this mess. So who do we have to blame for Vladimir’s invasion of Ukraine this February of 2022? The Ukrainians are just innocent people caught in the middle of a superpower rivalry that has gone on since the late 1940s, first between the United States and the Soviet Union, and then between the United States and Russian Federation. In essence this is just a huge proxy-war being waged between the U.S. (and its NATO allies) and the Russian Federation. What about the Ukraine? Due to a huge effort within the Ukraine with European “help,” the Ukraine has become a blossoming free democracy, fast developing into a free and prosperous nation all on its own, separate from Russia and Russian influence. It is more of a fully Christian nation than most people realize, and even has about 12 Messianic Jewish congregations within the nation. Since 2014 to the present the Ukraine has gone through a steady process of democratization and modernization, aided by western Europe and the U.S. Everything from infrastructure, small business, modernization of its small military, many reforms initiated and aided by Ukraine’s present President (see Caught in the middle of this immense power struggle between the West and Vladimir Putin’s Russian Federation and now suffering immensely from the military aggression of the Russian Army are the totally innocent Ukrainian people. The Russian military Unable to mount a quick takeover of the country by air, land and sea, Russian troops have deployed missiles, rockets and bombs to destroy apartment buildings, schools, factories and hospitals, increasing civilian carnage and suffering, and leading more than 2.5 million people to flee the country.” [NYTimes, 13 Mar. 2022] Quote from the pastor-rabbi of congregation Or-haMeschiach, a Messianic Jewish congregation in Odessa, he said on the 5th day of the Russian-Ukraine war “at Odessa, which was the main focus of the Russian army, 13 warships, they just crossed the harbor, just to invade, suddenly for 5 days there was a storm, and they could not come in--so that was a miracle that we received at that moment…” Just in case you may be wondering whose side God is on at this moment during this war between the Russian Federation and the Ukraine. But realize, God does not hate the Russians, and he doesn’t love the Ukrainians more. He is merely doing a work in Ukraine at present, as far as I can see, that is all, a work God wants to do in Ukraine before WWIII strikes the world.

related links:

Why Is The Ukraine The West’s Fault? (incredible lecture from a history professor)

Why Putin Is Invading Ukraine-What He Wants Out Of It

Andrew Bacevich--Ukraine is Paying the Price for the U.S. “Recklessly” Pushing NATO Expansion

Who is Volodymyr Zelenskkyy?

The 20th Century History Behind Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine”

(short comprehensive Smithsonian article, good short history)

Who (really) caused the crisis in Ukraine – True causes and consequences of the crisis in Ukraine


Jacques Baud is a former colonel of the General Staff, ex-member of the Swiss strategic intelligence, specialist on Eastern countries. He was trained in the American and British intelligence services. He has served as Policy Chief for United Nations Peace Operations. As a UN expert on rule of law and security institutions, he designed and led the first multidimensional UN intelligence unit in the Sudan. He has worked for the African Union and was for 5 years responsible for the fight, at NATO, against the proliferation of small arms. He was involved in discussions with the highest Russian military and intelligence officials just after the fall of the USSR. Within NATO, he followed the 2014 Ukrainian crisis and later participated in programs to assist the Ukraine. He is the author of several books on intelligence, war and terrorism, in particular Le Détournement published by SIGEST, Gouverner par les fake news, L'affaire Navalny. His latest book is Poutine, maître du jeu? published by Max Milo.

This article [linked below] appears through the gracious courtesy of
Centre Français de Recherche sur le Renseignement,Paris., and also, True Journalism is just about dead, ‘This is a war of propaganda’ John Pilger on Ukraine and Assange:



Continue to End Click Here to Print





content Editor Peter Benson -- no copyright, except where noted.  Please feel free to use this material for instruction and edification
Questions or problems with the web site contact the WebServant - Hosted and Maintained by CMWH, Located in the Holy Land