March 7, 2015
Translated by Kristina Rus
Originally published March 1, 2015
The murder of Nemtsov and the subsequent march to the walls of the Kremlin is not the thing in itself. It is a part of a process.
Lets examine under which circumstances did Nemtsov’s murder take place? He was not killed in a vacuum, but in the framework of a most intense political process, right?
Boris Nemtsov actively spoke out about the Ukrainian issue, so let’s start there.
Americans do not hide the fact that they helped the [Kiev] junta accomplish a coup d’etat in Ukraine. On this account, US President Obama made the following statement:
“President (Vladimir) Putin made a decision about Crimea and Ukraine, not because of some grand strategy, but because he was caught off guard with the protests on the Maidan and the escape of (ex-President of Ukraine, Victor) Yanukovych, after we helped in the transfer of power (in Ukraine)”.
The coup d’etat in Ukraine quickly turned into a cold war of unprecedented intensity waged by the US against Russia. Euromaidan, which became, according to the announcements of the American elites, a link in the chain South Ossetia – Bolotnaya protests in Moscow – Magnitsky list and the law of Dima Yakovlev – Syria – Ukraine , and was the first phase of the new stage of the war.
Euromaidan was followed by the reunification of Crimea with Russia, and a desperately wicked unleashing of war in Donbass by the junta (recall the statement of Bezler that his weapons were sold by Poroshenko). And now, Donbass which seemingly was following the script #PutinDumped, the junta and the United States instead of a planned transfer of tension to Russia, received the following picture:
1) The militia in a military sense became so strong that it is able to smash UAF, arranging many cauldrons
2) The defeat of UAF in the form of Debaltsevo cauldron resulted in political capitulation of the junta in Minsk. Lavrov mentioned it briefly and succinctly:
RT Russian: Sergey Lavrov: Minsk talks “are going better the super”
So what should the junta and the United States do next? If they will comply with Minsk-2 agreements, it automatically means the collapse of the junta and, accordingly, the collapse of American policy in Ukraine. And the U.S. can’t lose Ukraine, the stakes are too high, not to mention the fact that they already severely damaged their reputation by defeats in South Ossethia and Syria.
Can they achieve a military victory in Donbass? No. They can only achieve a sequel of the series Izvarino-Debaltsevo-… And weapons supply from the US (and the Americans will definitely begin to openly sell arms to the banderites) will not solve anything. The militia will have something to answer with (will get more weapons in the new cauldrons). What if the U.S. will send instructors to the junta, unable to cope with the new weapons? The militia will also get instructors. What if the US will send in private military companies? It will not change anything. What if the US will bring in the troops? Russia will then bring in the troops in response. And the result of this chain – a nuclear war. And the Americans loose all the prior stages.
Political war? Putin has made it clear that he will not give up Donbass. Here the junta and the United States have no options.
Economic war? Obama has already stated that “the sanctions of the West tore the Russian economy “to pieces”.” And the US contribution to the economic turmoil in our country is really great, but everyone understands that the economy of the junta either way will collapse first. Therefore, they cannot rely only on the economic war.
So what should they do? Can anybody explain a real way out of the situation for the junta and the United States?
They have only one choice – to remove Putin, who did not dump [Donbass]. And force the pro-Western Russian elite to dump Donbass.
But how can the junta and the United States remove Putin? What tools do they have? They can march with baloons on Bolotnaya, as in 2011-2012 until the second coming of Christ. The Bolotnaya rallies 3 years ago were one big show for Medvedev, who was supposed to sign one signature. But he did not. But today, there is no one to sign – Putin is the first person in the state.
Thus, a relatively peaceful street is a thing of the past. But the street factor is not removed from the agenda, this is what Nemtsov said about it on January 25, 2015 on “Hromadske.TV”:
“I think the problem, including of peace with Ukraine, is decided by the street. If out on the street, to the anti-war march came out a million people… I think it would solve the problem…”.
The Americans need the street, but it must be a new street a la Grushevsky in Moscow.
To ensure that the street is not peaceful, a radicalization of the protest is required. Please note that all the talking heads at Nemtsov’s march talked about the “terrible atmosphere in the society, that Putin, even if not involved in the murder of Boris Nemtsov, is still to blame, since he contributed to the creation of the atmosphere of intolerance and violence in society”, etc. Here is an example from Maksim Katz:
“Putin is to blame. If he is the customer, then it’s his fault as a customer. If not, as an instigator of hate, hysteria and anger in the society”
[It is interesting that these same words are coming from the State Department, Western media, Ukrainian media and Russian opposition media – is it because it comes from one source, from which they all take their orders? – KR]
In addition, they passionately threaten each other with stories about “the raging black hundreds, nurtured by Putin”. That is, de facto reproduce the rhetoric of Euromaidan about “titushki” [Ukrainian anti-maidan activists labeled as a street muscle of Yanukovich – KR].
And what are the talking heads referring to? Right, the “Antimaidan” march. We think the participants of “Antimaidan” are sincere, concerned patriots of our country, for which they only wish all the best. But in politics sometimes you try for the better but it turns out… otherwise.
So let us analyze the Antimaidan march (again emphasizing that we believe its members are sincere patriots of our country), as a political event:
1) Antimaidan came out on the streets of Moscow before Maidan. Not at the same time, not after, but before! So who did they resist in the absence of Maidan?
2) The situation in principle did not require taking to the streets, especially in this manner. At that time the potential Maidan had planned to take to the streets on the outskirts of Moscow, and it’s not very clear, how it could be dangerous? They can protest in Maryino until eternity with a zero (or negative) political result.
3) The political result of Antimaidan automatically became a warming up of an upcoming Maidan, which used the event in it’s favor
4) The Antimaidan arranged something like a festival, with a show for flexing the muscles. That is introduced to the agenda a radicalization and a picture for propaganda on the subject of “black hundreds”.
Antimaidan march in Moscow:
The participants of Antimaidan certainly did not want to get such a political result. But someone wanted. Someone initiated it. And this was hardly Chubais. Somehow it’s hard to imagine Chubais, walking the corridors of the Kremlin, asking: “how do we organize Antimaidan”?
So this event had to be created (not necessarily directly) by someone not liberal, i.e., simply speaking, conservative, right?
That is, the liberals received an active conservative partner. The partner appeared, but the problem called “Maryino” remained. To arrange Maidan on the outskirts of Moscow – is a strange endeavor. They needed the very downtown Moscow, and they got it.
Nemtsov was killed in a manner that would bring maximum political result for [the Russian] Maidan. The theory about amateur black hundreds in principle is excluded. No amateurs can execute this near the walls of the Kremlin. A theory that “Putin ordered Nemtsov” is even more delusional. It is unclear how a long ago recycled politician could be a threat to Putin. Not to mention the fact that if it was not organized by Putin’s enemies, then they would minimize the political costs, and not explicitly maximized them.
In the end, the murder of Nemtsov became a factor, transforming Maryino into Vasilyevsky Spusk and sharply radicalizing the street.
Moscow Maidan is rapidly moving towards “Grushevskogo” in Moscow. Even the bloody Euromaidan did not begin like that. Compare the degree of intensity of the first phase – #TheyAreJustKids vs. the murder of Nemtsov at the walls of the Kremlin.
On Grushevskogo, as everyone knows, worked the Banderites, and not liberals, who stood at that time on the square with flags. That is a coup d’etat in Ukraine was possible only because of a union of the Ukrainian liberals and Ukrainian fascists. A fascist partner is needed by the liberals in Russia. Nothing sticks without it. If on Grushevskogo in Kiev worked the banderites, then on “Grushevskogo” in Moscow should work the vlasovites [the followers of Vlasov, who cooperated with Hitler – KR]. But only fascists are not enough, they still need to disable the law enforcement. And this can be done only by the law enforcement themselves, playing on the side of the rebels.
So who is the security or if you will, the conservative partner of the liberals? What is the conservative wing of the coup d’etat, existing together with the liberal wing?
Let’s give a word to Nemtsov:
“If not the opposition, but a veteran of KGB and soviet politics, Primakov, talks about the need for decentralization, autonomy of the regions and better relations with the West, then it is a diagnosis: “Evgeny Primakov offered a liberal way out of the crisis: more money to the regions””
Nemtsov directly connects the speech of Yevgeny Primakov at the “Mercury Club” with the basic requirements of the white-ribonnists – decentralization and normalization of relations with the West (i.e. capitulation before the West). In fact we are talking about the liberals and conservatives solving the same problem with two hands. These are the words of Nemtsov (we don’t blame Primakov for anything), whether he was right or not, but Primakov, in any case, can not play the entire combination on his own.
In order to try to understand who is the conservative counterpart of the liberals working on the coup d’etat, we should look at the interview of Borodai, published in “Expert Online”. The first Prime Minister of DPR made a number of important statements, to discuss which on a level “can you criticize Strelkov or not” is an insult to the patriotic line. We urge you to consider Borodai’s interview not as a personal issue, but as part of the ongoing process from a perspective of a person close to Strelkov.
Borodai and Strelkov before the war in Donbass worked for oligarch Malofeyev. Boroday – as a PR consultant, and Strelkov – as a head of security. Then, according to Dugin, Malofeev received a “mandate for Novorossia” and became “a shadow, but the key figure” of the game in Donbass. This is how Dugin explains the fact that Malofeev’s PR consultant, Muscovite Borodai, who had no relation to Donbass, became the first Prime Minister of DPR, and the head of Malofeev’s security service, not related to Donbass Muskovite Strelkov became the first Minister of Defense of DPR. Quoting Dugin:
“At the level of big business among the Orthodox magnates, close to Putin, one of the important figures, who from the outset took a strictly Patriotic position, was Konstantin Malofeev, previously known more for his links with the Orthodox Church and charitable projects (Basil the Great Foundation)… He and his close friends and colleagues, Igor Strelkov and Alexander Borodai took a very active part in the Crimean events … This explains Strelkov and Boroday, polite people in Slavyansk and the subject-matter of Orthodoxy, Russian identity and Eurasian geopolitics, which dominated in Donetsk Revolution. Malofeyev was though a shadow, but a key figure in continuation of the Russian Spring… the mandate of Malofeyev to Novorossia was recalled.”
Boroday and Strelkov hold a joint press conference in Donetsk:
In an interview published in “Expert Online”, Borodai states the following:
“He [Strelkov] simply felt that he had done too much to simply die. He craved glory all his life. Military honors, accolades. Not for nothing he was so angry at his agency, which prior to the events fired him “without the right to wear the uniform”. And at the arrival to Donetsk he had already earned his glory. But he wanted “to touch the glory” with his hands. And he had a very exaggerated idea of how he will be greeted in Russia. I know his hopes and dreams. This is what he wanted: “Kremlin. St George’s hall. Igor stands tall in a brand new navy uniform of a general. The President approaches him. Awarding a star of the Hero of Russia. Then hugs him and shedding a man tear, whispers, “Thank you, son.” Then turns to the audience and says, “Now I know who I can leave Russia to.” The audience gasps, stunned and envious…”. Something like that. Well, it did not come true… why try to avenge the unfulfilled fantasy? It hurts the mission. The same mission, for which he risked his life, for which people were killed…”
Let’s leave aside the “man tear”, and focus on the fact of Borodai’s statement about Strelkov’s presidential ambitions. Regarding the overall painful ambition of offended Strelkov, then we can see it clearly without Borodai. Sufficient to read Strelkov’s comments on the forum of re-enactors.
Next Borodai clarifies what price Strelkov is willing to pay for his ambitions and describes the specific plan of Strelkov:
“I need to point to one more fact. Igor made some things happen in recent months. He had finally become a political figure of a national scale. Whether they want to notice it at the Kremlin and the Old square or not. Another thing is that he is not just an oppositional politician, but extremely destructive. His calculation is simple: the country is in crisis, the authorities will not last long, and in the inevitable civil war Igor Girkin-Strelkov will lead the part of the “patriotic forces” and will become a dictator of what will remain of Russia. Personally, I think the chances for the implementation of this simple program are quite minimal. But, unfortunately, they are still there. I think some readers will wonder whether this option is that bad? Bad. Not least because, firstly, the realization of Igor Strelkov as a full-fledged political leader is only possible through a bloody civil war. And secondly, Igor will be a very low quality dictator”.
In this context, we cannot skip the following quotation from a speech of Khodorkovsky called “Russia before and after Putin”:
“Does this group have enough forces to become the engine? How much? We can rely on data from different studies. For example, the annexation of Crimea, in the form chosen by President Putin, when he openly lied about the presence of the military at the peninsula, when members of parliament, in violation of all norms of international law were encouraged to vote by armed men. Now, the people who support the idea of the rule of law, despite the aggressive propaganda, the pressure of the society, according to various estimates, number from 10 to 16%. This is 11-17 million. If you think about it, just of these people we could make a successful and not the smallest European country“.
In fact we are talking about the same scenario under the name “Russia before and after Putin”. After Putin both conservatives and liberals are counting on the coming to power thanks to a collapse of the country. The junction of their aspirations creates a scenario in which Strelkov becomes a dictator of a not very small European country (what will remain from Russia). Would you say, postmodern nonsense? Of course, postmodern. Why, is the contemporary world politics, in the style of “Je suis Charlie” not a postmodern nonsense, connecting with the contra-modern?
Next Strelkov’s partner [Borodai] describes how “the Malofeyev team” implemented this scenario:
“Strelkov said in an interview with Prokhanov that before retreating from Slavyansk he had a phone conversation with someone who gave him strict orders not to pull out from the city. He was promised help in deblocking of Slavyansk. But to his question, when will the help come, he did not receive a good answer. And that’s when he decided to retreat. Why, in this case, if Strelkov retreated from Slavyansk without an order there were no consequenses?
– As you understand, Igor did not speak with me.”
Strelkov in an interview to the newspaper “Zavtra” (Prokhanov) stated that he abandoned Slavyansk despite the order. Quote:
“I had a categorical order – not to leave Slavyansk. And when I reported that I intend to leave, they repeated several times not to go, to defend Slavyansk to the end.”You will be deblocked, defend Slavyansk”. I ask: “How will you help?” Silence. And I have a thousand people and thousands of their family members. I did not have a right to sacrifice them. So I decided to break out”.
History has shown that the unblocking would have happened in the beginning of August, when the second wave of militia came. But by that time Strelkov already, contrary to the order and his own word, surrendered Slavyansk. But it was not limited to just Slavyansk, Strelkov consequently surrenders all the cities under his control: Kramatorsk, Druzhkovka, Konstantinovka, and so on (in total, half of the territory of Donetsk Republic) and runs to Donetsk. To illustrate, citing Boroday:
“To understand, “how it was” we should start from the arrival of Igor from Slavyansk. He then also liberated from our presence not only Slavyansk, but a huge part of the territory of DPR, many large settlements: Kramatorsk, Druzhkovka, Konstantinovka, Artemovsk. With a large population. In some cases, with convenient defense positions.”
The fact of giving up of half the size of DPR is obvious, and needs no sources. What is important that Strelkov abandoned half the territory of DPR despite the order of not Borodai, but someone else. And can you guess where such orders could come from?
In his interview Borodai modestly skips the war between Malofeyev’s team (Strelkov, Boroday) and Besler, which was to result in carnage between the militia and, in conjunction with the retreat from territories, to bury the anti-fascist resistance of Donbass. Instead of a serious consideration of this fact, Borodai just says:
“By the way, after leaving Slavyansk, he was not going to Donetsk. He planned to stay in Gorlovka. But it did not happen. “Bes” (Besler) was not hospitable enough”.
Forgetting to mention about how he (Borodai) in early July (prior to leaving half the territory of DPR) announced … ATO against Besler! And DPR TV announced that Besler’s militia should disarm, otherwise they will be destroyed. Read more about it here – http://ruskom.livejournal.com/567981.html
Borodai near police HQ in Donetsk, July 1, 2014:
Later Kotych (aka Strelkov aka Girkin) wrote that Borodai had a problem with Besler:
Strelkov: “Jesus Christ! Just watched the interview of Borodai together with Besler on Day TV. What a surprise! Borodai, who in Donetsk considered Besler his “worst enemy” and was constantly afraid that Besler will “sweep” him (for Borodai Besler was his worst nightmare) now is sitting down discussing the perspectives of Novorossia! And both are full of sh$t”
“Vostok” (Hodakovsky) and “Oplot” (Zakharchenko) then refused to execute the order of Boroday to sweep Besler, realizing that a fight between militias will only lead to one result – banderite entry into Donetsk. After that, Strelkov, despite the order, gives up Slavyansk and goes to sweep Besler, but… breaks his teeth. This is what a militiaman from Gorlovka wrote about this:
Evgeny Kryzhin: In our HQ no one fights with anyone. But everyone remembers well how Vsevolodych (Strelkov) sh#t himself when his column tried to dig in in Yenakievo, but was forced to run to Donetsk, or else would have to be buried there in it’s entirety.
Responding to your question, he went to Yenakievo first, before Gorlovka. Tried to dig in, but was politely told to go f#ck himself.
Well.. first Miner’s division came to Yenakievo. And after a certain time, after the final surrender of Slavyansk – came Strelkov with his entourage. Tried to arrest grandpa and everyone [Besler]. Was unpleasantly surprised by a number of weapons, pointed at him immediately, and quickly left for Donetsk.
Read more about it here – http://friend.livejournal.com/1530728.html
The fact that Strelkov was going to power sweep Donetsk, is clear from the screams of Strelkov’s PR helpers, who a few days before (!) him capitulating half of the territory of DPR, loudly howled that “Donetsk is rotten”, and then transferred this howl into the format “Strelkov ingeniously-heroically left half the territory of DPR and now is going to clean up the rotten Donetsk to take the power into his own hands”. Strelkov himself, if you remember, on the day of retreat from Slavyansk, only just escaping to Donetsk, immediately declared himself a military dictator of Donetsk. Appointing himself a military dictator, Strelkov continues to give up the territory in the area of Donetsk (Karlovka, for example) and even in LPR. Thus Mozgovoy, on the order of Strelkov, gives up Lisichansk. And all this happened under a red-hot howl of Strelkov PR pool (uniting most of the talking heads of the Patriotic Runet [Russian Internet]) on the subject of #RussiaIsNotHelping, #PutinDumped and #B%chBringInTheTroops.
|Boris Rozhin aka blogger Colonel Cassad|
For example, here’s what the official Strelkov’s PR “rep” Colonel Cassad (whom Borodai calls an SBU agent) wrote on the night from July 4th to 5th (at the moment when Slavyansk was surrendered, but no one knew about it):
“Against the background of the deteriorating situation near Slavyansk, in the Russian social media continues to grow a wave of misunderstanding and frustration turning into hatred. Statements of Strelkov about the imminent fall of Slavyansk, brought to the foreground the issue of “Russia’s silence” or the so-called PCP [Putin’s Clever Plan]. In front of our eyes in the information space unfolds a division of the post-Crimean pro-Putin patriotic majority, when one part accuses the other of treachery and treason, and the other – of the work for the State Department. If we consider the situation from the point of view of the United States, which some patriotic circles are very afraid of, that in itself this discourse is an enormous achievement, as in just a few months they managed to reverse the situation so that instead of a universal support, they effortlessly got the situation in the spirit of rhetorical questions of Milyukov: “Is this stupidity or treason?”
Against the background of what is happening in Donbass, first comes a disappointment, then public rifts, when persons like Dugin are already openly screaming about a betrayal.
The authorities themselves will survive the loss of illusions of this section of the patriots and their possible retreat into opposition. This is not the problem, in the event of defeat in Donbass, Russia without participating directly, will actually bury the ideological line of the last 3 years, when the public form of ideological mainstream will part with the real content and no “Crimea-is-ours” will help here, because those who shouted it in March, will always remember the slogans in the spirit of “Putin-Dumped”. For the patriots, it will be an open wound in the spirit of 1993, the consequences of which will be felt for decades, regardless of who will rule in the Kremlin. And what conservative-right ideology can then be discussed if the right-wing conservatives are now the first ones screaming about betrayal?
Moreover, the misunderstanding of Russian policy in Ukraine, affects not only the most recent followers of Putin, but also the old sympathizers, for whom the situation in Donbass is even more important than Crimea, which is not surprising in light of the terrible scenes of genocide, which are shown in the media and the blogosphere. I have already seen similar processes during the Libyan war, but that war was far away and not about us, when this war is close and they are killing our own. Then the officialdom clearly hung it on Medvedev, blaming him. Now there is no such scapegoat.”
Here Rozhin is simultaneously accusing Putin for betraying Libya, says that Strelkov’s Slavyansk epic ultimately has the following result:
“From the point of view of the United States… in itself this discourse [defined by Strelkov’s PR helpers – Friend] for them is a huge achievement, as in just a few months they managed to reverse the situation so that instead of a universal support, they effortlessly got the situation in the spirit of rhetorical questions of Milyukov “Is this stupidity or treason?””
Strelkov rally in Moscow: “Betrayal is worse then sanctions”:
“Convenient for the Kremlin situation, when the lack of assistance could be attributed to the confusion and vacillation among the militia, and along the way to give money to people like Tsarev on loud but meaningless activities, risks to swiftly terminate after the beginning of active hostilities in the suburbs of Donetsk… the point here is that if the junta will really unleash mass terror, then in accordance with the growing disappointment in PCP [Putin’s Clever Plan], these victims will be blamed not on Strelkov. Strelkov clearly said that the point of holding on to Slavyansk was that we held the city (which intercepts communications of the junta on the Northern borders of DPR) and await the arrival of the Russian troops.”
Similar statements were made by Gubarev, who, together with representatives of Strelkov’s general staff asserted that #RussiaIsNotHelping (against the backdrop of picturesquely shaking a rusty gun) and charged Putin with responsibility for Strelkov abandoning half of the territory of DPR, quote:
“The responsibility is now on of the respected by me authorities of Russia for this, a heavy responsibility”:
[In the above video Kurginyan also speaks about his prior experience in South Ossethia and Transnistria, and his genuine shock about Strelkov’s departure from Slavyansk, because he, Kurginyan, knows, that Strelkov had plenty of ammo (and knows how much), calling Strelkov a liar for saying he had received no weapons (and for blaming Putin). Kurginyan also talked about the fact that Russia cannot help the militia officially, but that’s were Russian civic organizations, like his own “Sut Vremeny” (“The Essence of Time”) come in, and modestly said that he played no small part himself in supplying the militia with everything they needed (including his own small private military company based on his own organization “Sut Vremeny”, which he said he could have never imagine he would be engaged in before). Later in another video he mentioned that he is not a fan of the term “Voentorg”, all of which makes you wonder if Kurginyan himself was the face of “Voentorg,” at least at that stage.
Also in video you can spot Cassad aka Boris Rozhin (claimed to be Strelkov’s PR aid) listening in the background – KR]
In all the media paints the following picture:
1) Strelkov came to Slavyansk, only in order to provide a springboard for the arrival of the Russian troops. #B$tchBringInTheTroops!
2) Strelkov is heroically fighting in Donbass, but #RussiaIsNotHelping!
3) Strelkov gives up half the territory of DPR and is going to take Donetsk, but its all Putin’s fault. Strelkov have warned him that he is unable to fight on his own and demanded to bring the troops, but Putin did not listen. #PutinDumped!
The expected result is “the junta will really unleash mass terror… in accordance with the growing disappointment in PCP, these victims will be blamed not on Strelkov“, they will be blamed on Putin. Which will lead to “the division of the post-Crimean pro-Putin patriotic majority” and “no “Crimea-is-ours” will help here, because those who shouted it in March, will always remember the slogans in the spirit of “Putin-Dumped””.
The beneficiaries of all this are the United States which “just in a few months managed to reverse the situation so that instead of a universal support, they effortlessly got the situation in the spirit of rhetorical questions of Milyukov “Is this stupidity or treason?””.
The reasons for the failure of the “Borodaev’s ATO” (i.e. the artificially organized in-fighting between militia, in which, besides Bezler, Strelkov had to sweep “Vostok” and “Oplot”) are clear (in particular, without shedding the light to this, it wouldn’t be stopped):
[In the video above Kurginyan passionately asks a few questions:
1. What was the reason for Strelkov to give up Slavyansk?
2. What about the people who are being slaughtered there now?
3. Who gave him a corridor and were did the negotiations took place? (and everyone knows about it, he retreated without losses, indicating it was arranged)
4. Why did Strelkov give his word that he will stay there until the end?
5. I (Kurginyan) give my word, that Strelkov got everything (artillery, anti-tank etc) he needed, there is no longer a technical imbalance, so why is he crying that there is no aid???
6. Why did he depart at the very moment when the technical imbalance dissipated, and when there was no pressure on the city from the Ukrainian side? [also the word is all that aid was left behind for the Ukrainians]
7. Three days before the surrender, the Ukrainian side began preparing camps for the residents/militia of Slavyansk, how did they know about the upcoming withdrawal?
8. Why are the commanders being pushed against each other? (a classic method of victory without battle)
9. Why was Strelkov supposed to (trying to) perform some punitive functions against the other militia groups immediately after the departure from Slavyansk?
Conclusion: This was a military crime, and Strelkov has to answer for it. The situation is dire, but it needs to be brought before the masses, and it can be reversed.
Elsewhere, Kurgynyan also wondered why was Strelkov the only commander who got so much attention in the media and blogosphere? And why promote someone as if for an election, when the nearest election was several years away, unless there would be an early election? -KR]
However, the team of Malofeyev tried to bring their blitzkrieg in Donbass to the end – Strelkov tried to surrender Donetsk, citing Borodai:
“Antyufyev has the documentary evidence of the attempts to surrender Donetsk by Strelkov. Besler says that he has the document of Strelkov’s order to surrender Gorlovka (which was sabotaged by Bes (Besler)). Khmury, aka General Petrovsky, ” a man of Strelkov”, remembered how Igor gave him the order to go along with spetsnaz to Snezhnoye, which had to be held until the approach of the main forces of the legion running from Donetsk, headed by the Minister of Defense of DPR. Khmury also did not appreciate the greatness of the idea and refused to obey the order… And there is Zakharchenko, Khodakovsky, Kononov… All these people were then the “military elite” of DPR. So why don’t the adepts of Strelkov, if they are so sure of his infallibility, ask each of them a direct question: “Was there an attempt to surrender, or not?”
However there is no need to ask anyone. Strelkov himself said that he had given the order to surrender Donetsk, but the militia did not obey. Read more about it here –http://friend.livejournal.com/1576692.html
And then… then there was the Boeing and reports in some federal mass media that the junta in reality wanted to shoot down the Aircraft No. 1 [Putin’s plane], i.e., to destroy Putin:
If they succeeded, then Russia would have passed to the stage of “Russia: before and AFTER Putin”. But this plan failed. Read more about it here – http://gurianov-pavel.livejournal.com/62587.html
Resignation of Borodai and Strelkov was the final stage of the loss of this dirty game in Donbass, which was aptly described by Strelkov’s PR aid. But this does not mean that the subject moving the figures of Boroday and Strelkov in Donbass, was eliminated from the game.
Strelkov, after the resignation, announces about the establishment of the movement “Novorossia”, which was actually created on the basis of Cassad’s media group. From this stage they place the focus on the information war against DPR, LPR and Russia. While retaining positions in Donbass. For example, the media group “Cassad”, according to its own statements, created a website for the official government news of DPR and started pursuing information war against Zakharchenko, and using him to target Putin: http://friend.livejournal.com/1560203.html
Insults of Putin are now covered with a fig leaf of “Putinism”. It looks like this: “I am for Putin, but he understands nothing, he is surrounded with bastards and traitors, who constantly mess with his head”. For clarity, here are a few comments of Kotych (Strelkov-Girkin) about Minsk-2:
“How long do you think Putin will put up with reports that the daily shelling of Donetsk is done by the militia? 1) a week 2.) a month 3) 3 months 4) until Surkov’s resignation 5) I am a conscious ukrop and I will never cease the shelling”
Emelya: “Glad the US is not participating in these talks. When they divided Yugoslavia, the Yankees not only shoved their nose everywhere, but also put their feet on the negotiating table. Is Europe really shaking the America off?”
Kotych: “The master usually sends his servants to the talks with the street vendors”
“The agreement is a meaningless peace of paper. Donetsk is still under fire. Russian media is silent. Ukrainians are not moving the heavy equipment. LPR and DPR are… In reality this peace of paper is worth nothing to the Ukrainians. The war will go on, but the peacemaker-bureaucrats have transferred to Putin personally the responsibility for each ripped arm and leg, for each “ceasefire” shelling. And when Minsk-2 will be drained down the toilet just like Minsk-1, the president will be personally held accountable. Is this an achievement? I think it’s a betrayal”
“They will not withdraw the heavy equipment, because “to promise – is not to marry” Mobilizations are not done for peace. We can only guess – when will Minsk-3, Minsk-4 take place. Because dances on rakes have firmly entered the foreign policy of the Kremlin. Or simply, someone really likes travelling to Minsk”
Don’t you think that these “Putinists” are depicting Putin as completely inadequate, not only as head of state, but just as a person?
In fact, the “Putinists” in “Strelkov and Co.” on equal footing with the liberals have created a framework in which ANY step of Putin is interpreted as a betrayal. And it is interpreted as such from both sides, as from a liberal, and from the “patriotic-pro-Putin” side. You are not dumping Donbass, and with it, Crimea and the entire Russia? Then you are smeared by the liberals. You are not bringing in the troops, that is, in the end, are not dumping Donbass? Then you are smeared by the “patriots-Putinists” (strelkovtsy).
But the question arises. How can they get away with it? Who is the owner of the project? Clearly not Malofeev, who in principle can not exercise this on his own.
It requires a subject with fundamentally different capabilities. Something about such subject mentioned Maxim Kalashnikov, stating that:
“Konstantin Malofeev, in fact, started a rebellion in Donbass, parachuted Strelkov, by the decision of one of the towers of the Kremlin. Do you understand that there are a few towers in the Kremlin, as there are several politicians in the Kremlin. Which tower, I can’t say for sure, but Malofeyev, in fact, spent his money under the guarantee of one of these towers”.
Read more about it here – http://friend.livejournal.com/1734363.html
So what is this tower of the Kremlin, under whose direction operates Malofeev? It is unlikely that we are talking directly about the liberals, right?
Above: Maxim Kalashnikov speaking at the congress of the movement “Novorossia” with a proposal to create in Russia the “National guard,” uncontrolled by the president and headed by Strelkov
Anti-Putin and, ultimately, an obviously anti-Russian union of the conservatives and liberals under the general supervision of the U.S., is only possible with the building of corresponding bridges between these groups. The bridges, leading to the destruction of our country.
About what kind of bridge it is explained Strelkov’s curator, retired major-General of the FSB Gennady Tendetnik (known in Live Journal as @detnix), who served in the 5th Directorate of the KGB, later renamed to the “Z” department (Protection [Zashita – Russian] of the Constitutional Order).
The son of Tendetnik, Pavel, is the head of the office of military cooperation at the U.S. Embassy in Turkmenistan (that is intimately associated with US intelligence).
In the interview with “Nezavisimaya Gazeta” Tendetnik stated the following:
“During Soviet times, we have always kept track on the smart, talented people and always in one way or another had made contact with them. Mandatory. And we almost had no recruits for blackmail or money. 98% were recruited, as we used to say, on a “moral and patriotic” basis. When I left Novosibirsk, I had nearly 30 agents, and these were very important and worthy people. I had to say goodbye to all of them. I was drunk for 30 days in a row. Then many of them came to Moscow for a visit with families.
I will tell you more. The democratic revolution of 1991, all of these democratic unions, and so on. This is 50% – active agents of the 5th Directorate of the KGB, the”Z” department (Protection of the Constitutional Order). They were told, “okay, you guys, democracy is here. We have to let you go”. And we took the most intelligent, courageous, beautiful, interesting. Naturally, they took charge of this process. But not under our guidance.”
Do you understand that now the march for Nemtsov brings out literally the same “released” agents? So one hand is protesting against the war in Donbass, and the second hand is stirring the pot in Donbass.
And how can anyone say after that, that agent Girkin [Strelkov] is not connected by any bridge with agent Navalny?
KR: And who was the most talented, handsome, intelligent, bright and promising in Russian politics in the 1990’s? That’s right, the straight A student, physical scientist/turned governor at 32 years old, Boris Nemtsov. A “freedom fighter” who lived in a two level penthouse with the view of the Kremlin and was friends with John McCain until a week ago…