NATO Broke the Agreements With Russia

While NATO officials make every effort to highlight how Russia broke agreements, they fail to mention that they were FIRST to break them and Russia only reciprocated

Languages: UA | RU || BG | CS | DE | EL | ES | FR | HR | HU | IT | PL | RM | TR |

The West has ‘grossly violated’ NATO promises - Lavrov to RT (video)

Welcome to the peace initiative for Ukraine in which you can contibute by raising your awareness as well as your consciousness^[+] and spirit to the modes^[+] of neutrality^[*^], decency, respectfulness, wisdom^[*^], objectivity, mastery of the intellect, surrender (ego and mind to God’s will), and finally peace (inner then outer). To properly grasp everything, we recommend reading the articles of this peace initiative in the order that we^[*^] designed it, which is listed in the CONTENTS. So if you haven’t read the previous articles, we urge you to do it, please. With this article we continue the “Meeting the Demands for Ending the War” segment with a focus on Why should Ukraine guarantee that it would not join NATO?

Before we get serious, a moment of fun:

How many NATO generals does it take to change a lightbulb?

Nobody knows, they're still waiting for a consensus from all 32 member states, and then they'll form a committee to study the feasibility of a joint lightbulb-changing task force, pending budget approval for next fiscal year. By then, the Russians will have already installed LEDs😊.

NATO and Kyiv officials claimed that Russia broke the law and agreements with both NATO and Ukraine but they omitted to mention that they broke all those agreements and laws first, which is why Russia had the legal right to reciprocate breaking their own end of those deals. In a previous article^[*^], we listed all the evidence of Ukraine breaking treaties and agreements with Russia, and now here, we provide the evidence for NATO doing the same, breaking agreements with Russia.

NATO broke several agreements with Russia, so let's start with the first one:

NATO Broke the Promise to Soviet President Gorbachev

Apart from Ukraine promising to remain neutral in its 1991 Declaration of Independence and in treaties with Russia, this Russian demand for Ukraine not to join NATO is in accordance with NATO's promise to Soviet President Gorbachev and Soviet Foreign Minister Shevardnadze that brought an end to the Cold War: “There would be no extension of NATO’s jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east”^[+pg.6]. NATO violated the agreement made with Russian Soviet leaders in 1990 and Russia wants NATO to stand by its word about not extending one inch to the East.

Thirty different declassified documents show evidence of security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner.^{[+][+][+pg.6]}

All those dozens of declassified documents are memorandums of conversations and not signed agreements or treaties. Russia was given recorded verbal assurances about the limits of NATO’s expansion, but no written guarantees. This is the main justification NATO leaders use all these years to demean those promises. In other words, NATO leaders are saying our spoken word means nothing, we are not obliged to stand by our words just because it was not written down. In NATO, a gentlemen's agreement has no value, as it turns out. A handshake deal with NATO seems about as binding as a toddler's pinky promise after getting a shiny toy😊.

Russia is suggested to be a fool to believe the spoken promises by then NATO leaders. The fact that NATO leaders have no honor and dignity to stand by the documented spoken words of their predecessors says volumes about who is right and who is wrong in this conflict.

Further proof of this agreement are:

➡    this video^[»] below from 1990 proves that in exchange for the unification of Germany, Germany and the US promised not to expand NATO to the east! Then-German Foreign Minister Hans Dietrich Genscher said to the journalists: “We agreed not to extend NATO's defensive area to the east. And this applies not only in relation to the GDR – but in general.”

➡    In July 2023, 56th US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger confirmed^[»] "Yes, I think it's true. I know it's true" that the 61st US Secretary of State James Baker promised Gorbachev not to expand NATO to the East. "This has never been recorded in writing. But that was part of Secretary Baker's commitment. This issue was discussed."

➡    On 18 February 2022, German magazine Der Spiegel published^{[+][ꚛ][ꚛ]} an investigation of the British National Archives in which Joshua Shifrinson (Boston University) discovered a memo classified as "secret" dated 6 March 1991 (approximately five months after the international agreement that allowed the reunification of Germany, a.k.a. 2+4 Agreement^[+]). The memo is about a meeting of the directors of the US, UK, French, and West German foreign ministries in Bonn. According to the memo, Jürgen Chrobog, the Western German representative, stated that "We made it clear in the two-plus-four negotiations that we do not extend NATO beyond the Elbe. We cannot therefore offer Poland and the others NATO membership." Chrobog may have confused the Elbe for the Oder, to which NATO was supposed to extend upon German unification but the main point is clear: Russians are right, they did promise not to expand eastward!

Germany and NATO not only broke the 2+4 treaty^[+] by NATO's expansion but also by their participation in the war in Yugoslavia and bombing Serbia as well as by proliferation of nuclear weapons by giving Israel submarines with nuclear rocket launching capabilities and nukes.

Another justification some NATO leaders and their proponents used to demean those promises is that it was allegedly meant for the territory of East Germany only. Clearly, they have not read those documents that provide evidence to the contrary, as there is no word about the assurances being limited to East Germany but were given "to the countries in the East"^[+]. With the reunification of Germany^[+] (between 1989-1991), it was obvious that East Germany would become part of NATO, which to those who use their brain cells means that the promise about not moving an inch eastwards can't possibly be meant for East Germany.

The sentence with the promise goes "If we maintain the presence in Germany that is part of NATO, there would be no extension of NATO’s jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east". “Presence in Germany” logically means the whole of Germany, otherwise it would be specified as West Germany as it was called before the reunification. Germany was in the process of reunification since 1989 and as a reunified country, the whole of Germany naturally belonged to NATO. NATO doesn't admit half of the countries into Alliance.

Also, those who use their brain cells may use logic, too, to question why should Russia care if NATO was in Eastern Germany, which is 1.300 km to the nearest Russian border, and make demands about it. The whole point of asking NATO not to expand eastwards was a security assurance for Russia! With NATO expansion^{[ꚛ][ꚛ][+]} and the US withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty^[+], this was clearly violated, regardless of how NATO officials try to justify it.

But even if it was true that NATO’s, particularly US Secretary of State James Baker’s promise was meant only for East Germany, that would also mean that NATO broke that promise too, as it did move eastwards to the eastern part of Germany. The whole of Germany is part of NATO, including the eastern part of Germany.

After the deconstruction of the USSR, NATO then made the same promise a second time to Russia.

Another justification some NATO leaders and their proponents used to demean those promises is that it was an antiquated agreement that needs to be completely re-examined. It is a fair argument but it was not re-examined; it was blatantly violated without any examination of possible consequences and Russia’s response to their security being threatened by it.

---

There will be always some who will undermine and reinterpret that particular NATO promise to Russian leader Gorbachev, which is why we stress that Russia's demand is not founded only on that, so anyone who wants to further disregard it, may do so but has to regard the legally binding promises that NATO made and then violated:

Charter for European Security Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe

➡    In the 1999 Istanbul Summit^[+] of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the Istanbul Summit Declaration was adopted with the signing of the Charter for European Security Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). All participant states signed that document that, among other provisions, states^[+]:

“Each participating State has an equal right to security... Each participating State will respect the rights of all others in these regards. They will NOT strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other States. Within the OSCE no State, group of States or organization can have any pre-eminent responsibility for maintaining peace and stability in the OSCE area or can consider any part of the OSCE area as its sphere of influence.”

This was repeated in another OSCE Summit^[+] in 2010 in Kazakhstan. OSCE countries committed to not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other States, including Russia but they expanded NATO anyway and weaponized Ukraine to fight Russia. NATO states violated the OSCE’s Charter for European Security.

---

NATO states violated UN Resolution 2202

➡    The other legally binding document that NATO states violated was the UN Resolution 2202 (2015)^[+][+], Security Council Calls on Parties to Implement Minsk Accords Aimed at Peaceful Settlement in Eastern Ukraine. All who signed the Minsk agreements^[+] have publicly revealed that they never intended to implement those agreements and that UN resolution. By their own admission (former German Chancellor (2005-2021) Angela Merkel^[+] and former French President (2012-2017) Francois Hollande^{[»][»][+][»]}), they were just deceiving Russia and Putin^[»] to buy time to empower and arm Ukraine to fight Russia.

---

NATO violated the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and Russia

➡    The third legally binding document that NATO states violated was the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation^[+]. NATO claims that Russia violated it by invading and annexing Crimea but as we already explained, Russia did not invade it^[*^]¹ but prevented a war there without shooting a single bullet, which was in line with the Act's commitment to “build a stable, peaceful, and undivided Europe”, and more importantly, it was NATO that violated that treaty first since 1999 on many occasions by:

• continuously expanding and enlarging its military alliance to intimidate and threaten Russia's security despite pledging in May 1997 to “strengthen mutual trust and cooperation” and committing to “building a stable, peaceful, and undivided Europe”. Two years later, in 1999, NATO expanded^[+] eastward and continued to do so in the next years, thereby destroying “mutual trust and cooperation” and destabilizing Europe.

• destabilizing the security situation in Europe by deploying both long-range ballistic missiles^[+] and nuclear weapons^[+] in Europe posing a threat to Russia's security. By militarizing and provocatively demonstrating its military power, placing a significant part of the armament near Russia’s borders, NATO intimidates Russia and threatens its security despite pledging^[+] in 1997 to “strengthen mutual trust and cooperation” and committing to “building a stable, peaceful, and undivided Europe”.

For instance, in April 2007, NATO's European allies called for a NATO missile defense system, which was against the Founding Act and CFE treaty² so Russia objected and warned it would suspend the CFE treaty then, nevertheless in August 2008, NATO announced deploying long-range ballistic missiles in Poland^[+], then in 2010 in Romania, in 2017 they were deployed in the Baltics^[+]… As of November 2009, Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey are hosting US nuclear weapons as part of NATO's nuclear sharing policy^[+].

• destabilizing the security situation in Europe by bombarding other countries that are either insubordinate to the US or Western agenda or allies with NATO's rivals (such as Russia and China). For instance, in 1999, NATO bombarded former Yugoslavia^[+] and many other countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya^[+] in 2011, and Syria³^[+][+][+][+], causing a huge influx of refugees destabilizing Europe.

• NATO's double standards and arbitrary military interventions such as in the case of taking Kosovo from Serbia, infringing on the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Serbia by recognizing Kosovo's independence in 2008, whereby NATO breached its pledge to “build a stable, peaceful, and undivided Europe.” Why then not recognize the independent status of Ukraine's republics that also claimed independence and suffered humanitarian crises, such as Crimea, Donetsk People's Republic, and the Luhansk People's Republic in 2014?!

• destabilizing the security situation in Europe by orchestrating and funding regime changes in Russia (2011-2013^[+], 2017/2018^[+], 2019^[+], 2021^[+]) and in Eastern Europe, including countries across Russia’s borders, toppling pro-Russian governments with violent US-funded, CIA-staged^[+] coups or color revolutions^[+], despite pledging^[+] in 1997 to “strengthen mutual trust and cooperation” and committing to “building a stable, peaceful, and undivided Europe”. These include regime change in Serbia in 2000, the Rose Revolution^[+] in Georgia in 2003, the Tulip Revolution^[+][+][+][+] in Kyrgyzstan in 2005, in Ukraine Orange Revolution^[*^][+] in 2004/2005 and Maidan Revolution^[+] in 2013/2014, Velvet Revolution^[+] in Armenia in 2018, in Romania in 2017-2019^[+], in Bulgaria in 2013^[+] and 2020/2021^[+], as well as failed attempts, besides in Russia, also in Belarus in 2005^[+], 2006^[+], 2011^[+], 2017^[+], and 2020/2021^[+][+], Hungary in 2006^[+], 2011^[+], 2014^[+], 2018^[+], and 2024^[»], in Moldova in 2005^[+] and 2009^[+], and Turkey in 2016^[+] and 2023^[+][+], Kazakhstan in 2022^[+], Georgia in 2023^[+] and 2024^[+][+][+], Serbia in 2023^[+][+] and 2025^[+], Slovakia in 2025^[+][+]… After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, millions of Russians living in former Soviet Republics found themselves living in foreign countries and being absorbed by the Western powers imposing Western ultraliberal values and discriminating against the Russians, as well as killing and terrorizing them. And before 2000:

  

• in April 2008 NATO crossed the red line by promising to also take in Ukraine and Georgia, which Russia strongly opposed because further stationing NATO's military bases on Russia's borders poses a threat to Russia's security, which Russia would not allow – Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov (a.k.a. diplomatic rockstar^[»]) warned NATO about the dire consequences for stability in the region if NATO proceeds with it. With it, NATO breached its Founding Act pledge^[+] to “strengthen mutual trust and cooperation” as well as its commitment to “building a stable, peaceful, and undivided Europe.”

  

Like Ukraine, Georgia is a former Soviet Republic (but not Slavic) that is also on the Black Sea (between Russia and Turkey), which is an area of critical geostrategic importance that NATO^[+][+], or better said – the US seeks to dominate and for that, it needs Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO to allow NATO navy there. Turkey has been in NATO since 1952 and in March 2004, two other Black Sea countries – Bulgaria and Romania were absorbed by NATO, which left only Ukraine and Georgia to be taken in to complete the Black Sea^[ꚛ] dominance and so beat Russia. NATO, or better said the US globalists feel the need to conquer the Black Sea region so as to contain Russia (so that it doesn't challenge American hegemony), have power over the Middle East, the major trade routes, and ultimately the whole of Eurasia.

As a result of NATO changing regime by force in Georgia deposing democratically elected pro-Russian President Shevardnadze in 2003 so that the new NATO-puppet President would convince the public and parliament in January 2008^[+] to apply to join NATO, which NATO accepted in April 2008, Russia (with new President Medvedev since May 2008) revenged by lifting economic sanctions, officially recognizing^[+], and backing Georgia's breakaway Republics of South Ossetia⁴ and Abkhazia⁵ (and many other countries did it from then on, too), which separated from Georgia in the 1990s (but the international community didn't recognize them standing by Georgia's claims of territorial integrity). Ethnic Russians^[+], Ossetians⁶, and Abkhazians⁷ were being killed and terrorized because they refused to recognize the authority of US puppet President Saakashvili (just like ethnic Russians in Ukraine refused to recognize the authority of presidents that the West installed as its pawns since 2014). In August 2008, as upset ethnic Russians, Ossetians, and Abkhazians opposed the prospect of Georgia joining NATO with NATO troops and military bases there, and encouraged by the world's recognition of Kosovo’s independence in February 2008, they rose in protest^[+]. But the Tbilisi⁸ regime sent Georgian army units to kill them, which is why they asked Russia for protection. Russia intervened in a "peace enforcement"⁹ operation to coerce Georgia to peace. The armed conflict^[+] was resolved in just five days with Russian, South Ossetian, and Abkhaz victory. Russia hasn't occupied or annexed any Georgian territory but Ossetians and Abkhazians consolidated their independence in those two regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as they didn't want anti-Russian NATO or US troops and military bases near their homes when Georgia joins NATO. If NATO hadn't changed Georgia’s regime by force in 2003 and if in 2008, Georgia hadn't applied to join NATO or if NATO hadn't accepted the application and recognized Kosovo's independence, ethnic Russians in Georgia wouldn't have felt threatened, and would not have risen in protest. NATO's inconsideration for Russia's security concerns has cost many hundreds of Georgian lives and hundreds of thousands of Georgians were forced to flee their homes, and for what??? For NATO's expansion.

• since 2013, NATO has been arming Ukraine first to stage a coup^[*^] and then to kill Russians living in Donbas, thereby breaking the pledged^[+] commitments to strengthen mutual trust and cooperation as well as to build a stable, peaceful, and undivided Europe. In 2014, Russia legally and peacefully annexed Crimea as requested by Crimeans through a democratic referendum whereby Crimeans exercised their right to self-determination as enshrined in the UN Charter and affirmed by Kosovo independence precedent^[+].

• since 2014, NATO has deployed an additional substantial number of more than 4.500 troops to the states on Russian borders – Baltic states and Poland, despite NATO’s pledge in 1997 not to do "additional permanent stationing of substantial combat forces" in new member states. This is as unacceptable as if Russia deployed its troops in Mexico and Cuba, for instance. What would the US do if Russia deployed thousands of their permanent or rotational troops in Mexico and Cuba? Just take it? Slovak Prime Minister Fico asked^[»] the US authorities the same thing: "Imagine Mexico, which is next to you, imagine that the Mexican Ministry of Defence will become completely under the control of Russia. What would you do?” The US should follow the Golden Rule^[+] of not doing to others that which they do not wish to be done to them!

• since April 2014, Operation Atlantic Resolve^[+] provides rotational deployments of combat-credible forces to Eastern Europe to show the US commitment to NATO, despite NATO’s pledge in 1997 “not to move its military infrastructure on the territory of new members”

  

  Atlantic Resolve Infographic - July 2021

• since 2014, annual military Spring Storm drills every year in Estonia^[+][+][+] also violate a key part of the Russia-NATO Founding Act, as NATO pledged “not to move its military infrastructure on the territory of new members”

• Anaconda 2016 Polish-led military exercises^[+] involving 31.000 military personnel from 24 NATO and non-NATO countries, also violate the Founding Act, as NATO pledged “not to move its military infrastructure on the territory of new members”

• NATO military exercises in the Black Sea^{[+][+][+][+][+]} also violate a key part of the Russia-NATO Founding Act, as NATO pledged “not to move its military infrastructure on the territory of new members”

• in the July 2016 NATO Summit in Warsaw, NATO leaders pledged to increase alliance presence in the Black Sea region with the Tailored Forward Presence^[+] and so violated a key part of the Founding Act, where NATO pledged not to do "additional permanent stationing of substantial combat forces" in new member states.

• in February 2017, the NATO Defense Ministerial Meeting^[+] approved a maritime coordination function between NATO Standing Naval Forces and NATO allies in the Black Sea region to enhance cooperation and bolster NATO’s presence in the Black Sea region with the increased military presence of the United States in Europe.

• in October 2019, the Iron Spear military exercise in Latvia^[+], with 28 tank crews from eight countries took part in maneuvering, targeting, and shooting exercises, despite NATO’s pledge in 1997 “not to move its military infrastructure on the territory of new members”

• on 4 February 2022 (20 days before Russia launched its SMO in Ukraine), the US sent its troops – 3.000 new soldiers^[+] – to NATO states on Russian borders and Germany even though Russia had not threatened any NATO states in any way. This was clearly not meant to defend NATO as there was never any imminent threat to any NATO member but an utter intimidation and threat to Russia's security. However, NATO pledged in 1997 not to do "additional permanent stationing of substantial combat forces" in new member states.

• by 18 February, 6.000 American service members^[+] – to NATO states on Russian borders and Germany even though Russia had not threatened any NATO states in any way. This was clearly not meant to defend NATO as there was never any imminent threat to any NATO member but an utter intimidation and threat to Russia's security.

  The US and NATO as a whole thereby again violated the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation^[+], under which the alliance pledged not to do "additional permanent stationing of substantial combat forces" in new member states since 1997.

International peace depends on whether the rules that apply are those framed within international law, based on bilateral treaties and drawn up collectively, or those that have been designed by the collective West alone. It is not only NATO’s expansion to the East that is at issue, but the violation of the multiple written commitments such as:

• In 1947, Finland pledged in writing to remain neutral. Its NATO membership is therefore a violation of its own signature.

• At the time of their creation, in 1990, the Baltic States undertook a written commitment to preserve the monuments honoring the sacrifices of the Red Army. Their destruction is therefore a violation of their own signature.

Why is nobody condemning and holding NATO accountable for violating the commitments of those legally binding documents? Doesn't international law apply to NATO states or do we have yet another case of exceptionalism here? Russia is confronting the violations of law and double standards of NATO, which is why NATO hates Russia and uses Ukraine to ruin it but, as it turns out, it digs its own pit^[+], since NATO states are being ruined.

So, NATO violated not just oral commitments to Gorbachev in 1990^[+pg.6] about NATO not expanding one inch eastwards but also legally binding commitments^[+][+][+].

But that is not all, as there are further points regarding NATO's antagonistic actions:

➡    in 2002, the US withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty^[+] for disarmament and nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction, which has been plausibly an additional concern of Russia^[+] as it threatens Russia’s security since in 2014 the US started a proxy war in Ukraine against Russia. This was not a smart move because Putin responded to the withdrawal by ordering a build-up of Russia's nuclear capabilities, designed to counterbalance US capabilities

➡    all this was accompanied by NATO beefing up the Ukrainian Army at the expense of Russian security whereby violating the OSCE Summit^[+] commitment to not strengthen their and Ukrainian security at the expense of the security of other States, including Russia but they expanded NATO anyway and weaponized Ukraine to fight Russia to seize Crimea – this intention is evident by Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council Decree no. 117/2021^[+], which Ukraine’s President Zelensky signed on 24 March 2021, to prepare and implement measures to ensure the de-occupation and reintegration of the Crimea peninsula, including military measures^[+][+]; in August 2021, Zelensky echoed it by pledging^[+][+] to return Russia-annexed Crimea and amassing troops for an offensive. Russia responded to Ukraine’s threats and provocations by amassing 122.000^[+] troops near Ukraine's border since November 2021. By early Dec 2021, the NATO-backed Armed Forces of Ukraine amassed 125.000 troops^[+][+]

➡    in early December 2021, it was reported^[+][+] that the NATO-backed Armed Forces of Ukraine amassed 125.000 troops against the Russian ethnic minorities at the borders of Donbas¹⁰^[+], not at the borders with Russia to defend from an alleged Russian threat but at the borders of Donbas with the obvious intent to increase the attacks on the ethnic Russians there, which they then started mid-February, according to OSCE Special Monitoring Mission^[+][+]. Only then Russia launched its SMO on 24 February to defend the millions of ethnic Russians living in Ukraine. The Western mainstream media only reported (somewhat hysterically) about the Russian buildup of armed forces across its borders but omitted to mention that Ukrainians did it first with an ill intent – a major attack against Donbas residents who were mostly ethnic Russians. This intention was revealed in early December 2021 by Russian MoD^[+] that made public the secret undisputable documents^[+][+] from Ukrainian National Guard containing their original combat order for an attack on Donbas in March 2022 proving covert preparations by the Kyiv regime of an offensive operation, which Russia felt compelled to prevent by striking first – Russian Armed Forces have shattered these plans, said Putin^[+]

➡    in the beginning of February 2022 (before Russian SMO), OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine reported^[+] a massive increase^[+] in Ukrainians shooting at Russian ethnic minorities in Donbas, who were in their homeland, whereas the aggressors were coming from other regions of Ukraine (on 13 February 2022, OSCE had to withdraw from Donbas due to deteriorating security conditions to them but much worse were security conditions for the locals of Russian ethnicity).

All these, especially the massive buildup of the NATO-backed Ukrainian Armed Forces, a massive spike^[ꚛ] in Ukrainians shooting the Russians, and the withdrawal of Western OSCE officials caused serious concern for Russia as it all suggested an imminent massive attack by AFU¹¹, which is why Russia felt the need to counteract by providing military support to their folk in Donbas^[+] with troops engaging in the SMO¹²^[+]. Russia had to defend its folk in Donbas to whom it was denied by new legislation in 2014 to use their native Russian language in education, media, culture, business, and so on. Russians naturally protested this discriminatory and illegal legislation (violates the international law on human linguistic rights) and the new regime treated them as terrorists although it was the new regime with their neo-Nazi battalions that terrorize them in their own homes (Russian ethnic groups never acted outside their own homeland territories). Minsk agreements were supposed to stop the conflict by allowing Donbas residents the special status so that they could use their native Russian language that they used their whole life but Ukraine and their NATO allies violated those agreements that were also sealed with a UN resolution. They need to be held accountable for it.

After all these legally binding and oral promises being broken by NATO, and Ukraine violating all the treaties and agreements it had with Russia, Russians have come to the plausible conclusion that both Ukraine and NATO are not to be trusted, which is why they no longer seek any security guarantees from them and are taking the matters into their own hands. Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told RT in June 2023^[+]:

“We won’t be prepared to let security guarantees be based on more pledges and promises or even documents the West may offer us. We must guarantee our national security on our own. We fully understand that we can only rely on ourselves and build relations only with countries open to an equal and mutually beneficial partnership. This is not what we see in the West these days.”

NATO's priming the country of Ukraine with millions of Russians living there to join the alliance was the last straw and instead of continuing with kindly asking Ukraine to be neutral and NATO to leave it neutral, Russia is taken upon itself to neutralize it.

Judging from the way the whole issue is turning in Russia's favor, not just because Russia is winning NATO's proxy war against it but especially because the majority of the world leaders are taking Russia's side, it looks like this time, it will be NATO who will be asking for security guarantees from Russia.

“The West will ultimately want to discuss the security guarantees it had once rejected” – Russian President Vladimir Putin said at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) in June 2023^[+]

In 1997, before Americans had ever heard of Vladimir Putin, 50 former US senators, retired military officers, diplomats and academics wrote^[+] to President Clinton to oppose NATO expansion, calling it a policy error of “historic proportions.” Elder statesman George Kennan condemned^[+] it as “the beginning of a new cold war.”

NATO provoked Russia by its open-ended assurance to Ukraine in 2008^[+] that it would become a member of NATO. William Burns, who was then the US Ambassador to Moscow and is now the CIA Director, warned in a State Department memo^[+], “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all red-lines for the Russian elite (not just Putin).”

NATO has admitted 14 new members from Eastern Europe and the Balkans from 1999 till the beginning of the war in Ukraine, and one more recently, turning all these countries against Russia by demonizing Russia and convincing them about the threat to their national security from Russia despite having no evidence for that. Actually, there was more evidence that NATO states could have attacked them as the US and UK have a long history of invading countries, unlike Russia^[*^]. At the Bucharest Summit^[+] in 2008, NATO allies agreed that Ukraine, together with Georgia, would join the bloc in the future.

Watch this one-minute short video^[»] to gain insight into NATO's expansionist^[+] ambition, the very thing they accuse Russia of. Here is another video^[»][»] showing 35 years of NATO expansion in 40 seconds and gifs^[ꚛ], how the NATO bloc aggressively approached the Russian borders. And here it is in image format^[ꚛ]

Never forget, it was NATO, the laughably named "Defensive Alliance" that offensively expanded onto Russia’s borders and not the other way around, so make your own conclusion who are really the bad guys here.

---

“Open-Door Policy” Narrative

For those who say NATO is entitled to invite any state to join, Putin also argues that the “open door” policy^[+] is conditioned by a second principle, which NATO states have accepted: namely that the enhancement of a state’s security should not be to the detriment of the security of other states (such as Russia). NATO's 'Open Door' seems more like a revolving door for arms dealers and a trap door for regional stability😊.

NATO leaders keep using the phrase ‘open-door policy’^[+] as justification for expansion, but such policy is not at all enshrined in NATO's Alliance’s founding document, the North Atlantic Treaty. Quite the opposite: there are certain conditions, so no state may freely enter it. Open door means open door rather than conditional entry. When confronted with that fact, NATO’s representatives claim that “open-door policy” is based on Article 10 of the Alliance’s Treaty^[+], not that it is in that article, so it is just an interpretation of one article, not a de facto policy because thatarticle includes restrictions, which would mean that it is not open but restricted or conditional.

Article 10 of the Treaty states that NATO membership is open to any “European state in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area”. So, the question is, how exactly would Ukraine further the principles of this Treaty and contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area? For Ukraine to be allowed to enter NATO, it should be able to pass these two restrictions or conditions but as for at least the latter one, Ukraine clearly does the opposite – Ukraine does not contribute to the security of NATO but it threatens it because of Russia, which is why NATO’s door can’t remain open to Ukraine! It is difficult to see how adding Ukraine to NATO could enhance the region’s security. More likely, it would further antagonize Russia and increase, rather than reduce, the risks of some type of conflict. It is undeniable that Ukraine has contributed to NATO's insecurity or danger even without being its member, and without any NATO military bases, as NATO states have suffered enormously because of Ukraine. Moreover, Ukraine does not further the principles of NATO’s Treaty in any way.

It would be best to use an analogy for an open-door policy to make the point on how ridiculous is to cling to that argument. NATO is far from heaven but since many Ukrainians perceive it as such, we will use that. Heaven has an open-door policy but do sinners get an invitation? The fact is, Ukraine does not fulfill most of the criteria to be admitted into that club, including corruption, abuses of the human rights of ethnic minorities, and unresolved territorial disputes. Everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die. Everybody wants to live in paradise but nobody wants to pay the price for the ticket to it or give up transgressing. Most people desire the rewards or benefits or protection of belonging to an exclusive club but are unwilling to make the necessary sacrifices or put in the effort required to achieve it. Since 2008, Ukraine first applied to join NATO but to this day has failed to comply with its requirements. Nevertheless, Kyiv authorities keep blaming NATO authorities for being afraid of Russia rather than accepting that they are simply not worth it. Just as knockin on heaven's door refers to death, so does knocking on NATO's door, as Ukrainians are dying for it. As NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg confirmed^[»], the war in Ukraine would have been prevented had NATO and Ukraine promised not to join.

According to many scholars, including the Massachusetts Institute of Technology^[+], there is no NATO open-door policy (at least not on the unconditional terms that are often implied when that concept is invoked), nor is there anything in the 1945 United Nations Charter that provides countries any automatic rights to join security organizations of their choosing (that treaty only ensures membership in the UN).

Furthermore, to join the Alliance, nations are expected to meet certain political, economic, and military criteria, set out in the Alliance’s 1995 Study on Enlargement. These criteria include fair treatment of minority populations and a commitment to resolve conflicts peacefully, among others. With the Ukrainian Army tyrannizing and killing thousands and forcing millions to flee, it is clear that Ukraine doesn't meet the criteria for accession. Nevertheless, NATO has done nothing to oblige Ukrainian authorities to fairly treat ethnic minorities (apart from Russian, also Hungarian, Romanian, and Roma ethnic minorities^{[+][+][+][+][+][+][+]} were discriminated against and repressed with the new language laws, Ukrainization measures and harassments) and to commit to resolving conflicts peacefully – quite the opposite, NATO has been providing weapons to the troops, including neo-Nazi battalion, who were killing rebels and civilians in Donbas^[+]. Interesting how NATO loves "rebels" when they're in Syria but hates rebels when they're from Donbas🤔.

Furthermore, NATO’s representatives point out free choice and the right of every country to choose its own security arrangements. And they emphasize that NATO membership is not imposed on countries, which is not true. So, let's discuss these two points but we can also skip all the debates and put an end to this issue with a single question: what would the US do if Russia would not impose but invite Mexico to its military alliance and if Mexico accepts, would the US do if Russia set up military bases in Mexico across the US borders? Mexico has a free choice, too. How would the US react? Would that be a very hostile move on Russia's part? The same question could be put to any other NATO states.

Slovak Prime Minister Fico asked^[»] the US authorities the same thing: "Imagine Mexico, which is next to you, imagine that the Mexican Ministry of Defence will become completely under the control of Russia. What would you do?”

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico said^[»] Kyiv is “completely under US control.” He sees this as the reason for the Russian invasion in February 2022. “In 2014, after the Maidan, Ukraine became completely under the control of the United States. Why did the Russian president give the order to use military force in Ukraine? Imagine Mexico right next to you and its defense department becoming completely under Russian control, as well as the entire political scene, including the president and government. Now imagine that Mexico is included in a military organization in which Russia plays a decisive role. What would you do? This argument is rational! Ukraine is not a sovereign and dependent country. Ukraine is under full US control.”

So, free choice argument goes out of the window when a country is fully under control of NATO! And it is not that the government officials and institutions have been controlled by NATO but also the public at large through the US-funded media^[+][+][+].

“Nearly 90% of Ukrainian media survived thanks to USAID^[+] grants.”^[+] – Oksana Romaniuk, director of the Institute of Mass Information (IMI) from Ukraine. In other words, Ukrainians have been fed with NATO-sponsored information, so no wonder they turned into NATO-supporters and Russophobes.

Also, while countries may be free to make their own decisions about their security and which political-military structures to join, they needed to keep in mind the impact on their neighbors, according to Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov who stressed^[+] that Russia had to view continued eastward expansion of NATO, particularly to Ukraine and Georgia, as a potential military threat. While the West makes statements that NATO was not directed against Russia, when one looked at recent military activities in NATO countries, they had to be evaluated not by stated intentions but by potential. Lavrov said that maintaining Russia's "sphere of influence" in the neighborhood was anachronistic, and acknowledged that the US and Europe had "legitimate interests" in the region.

Russia wants Ukraine to be neutral, a buffer zone between Russia and NATO just as John Kennedy wanted a similar cordon sanitaire when Khrushchev tried to put nuclear missiles in Cuba in 1962. Cuba or any other country neighboring or near the US could use now the same rationale that is used for Ukraine nowadays – the US neighbors have the right to join Russia and station Russian missiles there pointing at the US.

So, it is not about the rights but about the appropriateness and about NATO sticking to its promises not to expand an inch eastward since the end of the Cold War.

So, this issue is not about free choice and rights but about NATO's hostility.

Regardless of what neighbors of your adversary want, you don't expand to the borders of your adversary unless you have bad intentions.

Russia has land borders with 14 countries. Five of them are NATO members and all of them have stationed military bases near the Russian borders with ready-to-use missile systems with nuclear capacity. Unlike the other nine neighbors, NATO states are conducting military drills and other intimidating courses of action, which is like waving a red flag to a bull or poking a bear.

When it comes to alleged free choice and the right of every country to choose its own security arrangements, if Ukraine has that right, then surely Cuba has the same right too, right? There is no double standards in international law, therefore, this not even a question. The point is, if the US does not want the sovereign country of Cuba to exercise its right to choose its own security arrangements, such allowing Russia, China, Iran, North Korea or whichever other country to deploy their troops and weapons on their soil, then Russia reserves the same right to demand the same.

They’ve gone through all this once already with the Cuban missile crisis in 1962^[+] when American deployments of missiles with nuclear warheads in Italy and Turkey were matched by Soviet deployments of similar ballistic missiles in Cuba, which unleashed a huge panic in the US. Having nuclear missiles off the Florida coast just minutes away from Washington is just as bad as nuclear missiles on Russian borders (in Poland and Romania) now again just minutes away from Moscow. Putin was not as retaliatory as Soviet leader Khrushchev was in 1962 but he made it very clear that he draws a red line at Ukraine, where Russia does not allow any NATO military arsenal.

This could have been probably solved the same way as it was solved in 1962 with Russia deploying their military and nuclear arsenal in Cuba or elsewhere again to frighten the US and teach them a lesson once more but Putin and current Russian leadership play it differently. Nowadays, Russia does not need Cuba as its modern long-range missiles^[+] have much more capabilities and can strike any NATO state, including the US, directly from home, as their new missiles can fly up to 16.000 km plus they have hypersonic missiles, which no air defence in the world can shoot down.

This is why NATO is afraid of Russia and will never directly engage against it. All NATO can is talk, show off, and lead the ignorant Ukrainians on. If NATO could defeat Russia, it would already do so, or at least it would start attacking Russians in Ukraine with their own troops like they do it in many other small and vulnerable countries, playing a bully and an aggressor to intimidate them into submission.

Whenever Russia or Russian mercenaries come to rescue, NATO can’t achieve their main goals, like in African countries such as Syria, Niger, CAR, Sudan, etc. Many African countries perceive Russians as their liberators from the Western (neo)colonialism and exploitation of their natural and human resources.

Besides reciprocity principle, unlike Cuba, Ukraine has pledged neutrality in many legally binding signed documents, thus has far less right than Cuba to strengthen its security at the expense of the security of other states, such as Russia.

When it comes to the free choice and the right of every country, including Ukraine, to choose their own security arrangements, here is the question for all NATO officials and backers: if this is your main and only argument, how come only your allies have that right but no one else??? Why, for instance, the hypocrite NATO leaders do not grant the same right to China, Iran, Cuba, and over hundred other countries but sanction them if they freely choose to join the military alliance with Russia??? Who gives the right to NATO countries to determine which countries have that right and which countries do not have that right? Do you see how their hypocrisy and double standards are crooked as a dog's hind leg? Such a foul play is what has turned the world against the NATO countries, especially against their leader, the US.

So, when it comes to alleged free choice and the right of every country to choose its own security arrangements, Ukraine has the right to choose its own security arrangements but not the right to join NATO or any other military bloc hostile to Russia, which was agreed by at least four legally binding documents. By law, Ukraine had no free choice to join NATO because it obliged itself to honor these agreements:

1.    The Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation^[+][+] in 1997 – Article 6: Ukraine “shall not conclude any treaties with third countries against the other Party (Russia). Neither Party shall allow its territory to be used to the detriment of the security of the other Party”. Russia honored its part of the deal whereas Ukraine did not – by applying to join NATO in 2008. In 2018, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko signed a decree not to extend that treaty, which is why this treaty was then officially no longer in effect but it was in effect in 2008 when Ukraine applied to join NATO, which means that Ukraine violated that Treaty and had to pay a price for it (Georgia did the same and paid by losing two territories right after that in 2008). Russia gave warnings to Ukraine and therefore the next President Yanukovych revoked the application in 2010 but in June 2017, the parliament passed a law making integration with NATO a foreign policy priority^[+], and on 7 February 2019, Ukrainian parliament amended the constitution to state Ukraine's strategic objective: joining the NATO^[+][+], which was a clear and very stupid provocation against Russia by heedless fools who thought they could poke a bear and not get hurt. Zelensky reapplied^[»] in 2022, which was illegal also due to Ukrainian Declaration of Independence and another treaty with Russia, as well as the OSCE Charter:

2.    1991 Declarations of Independence and Sovereignty^[+][+][+] – Ukraine also violated Kyiv's pledges enshrined in its Declarations which contain the commitment that they will stay neutral. The declaration (with a preamble and ten chapters^[+]) proclaims^[+][+] that Ukraine is "a permanently neutral state that does not participate in military blocs." That means that according to it, Ukraine had right to choose its own security arrangements but no right to join NATO or any other military alliance.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated in September 2023^[»][+]:

“Of course, in 1991, we recognized the sovereignty of Ukraine on the basis of the Declaration of Independence^[+][+][+], which Ukraine adopted when leaving the Soviet Union. The declaration contains many positive aspects, including the fact that they will respect the rights of citizens minorities, and the rights of the Russian language^[+] and other languages. Then all this was included in the constitution of Ukraine. But in the Declaration of Independence, one of the main points^[+][+] for us was that Ukraine would be a non-aligned country and would not enter into any military alliance. In that version, under those conditions, we support the territorial integrity of Ukraine.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin also spoke^[+] about the principled nature of Ukraine's neutral status: "Kiev gained its independence and autonomy during the collapse of the Soviet Union on the basis of a declaration of independence, and in this declaration it was written in black and white that Ukraine is a neutral state^[+][+]. This is of fundamental importance for us.”

3.    Partition Treaty on the Status and Conditions of the Black Sea Fleet^[+][+] signed in 1997. Ukraine agreed to lease Crimean naval facilities to Russia for 20 years until 2017, with an automatic 5 years renewal option. So, Russian troops were legally in Crimea since 1783 – until 1954, Crimea belonged to Russia but then in the Soviet Union, Russia ascribed it to Kyiv administration¹³ under the condition that Moscow continues to govern it (together with all other USSR territories, including the whole of Ukraine). So, in 2008, Ukraine had no right to apply to join NATO because part of Ukrainian territory (Crimea) was leased to Russian military. Also, in 2014, the new US-puppet regime, which came to power by violence rather than democratic means, indicated that it would reapply to join NATO and terminate that treaty although it had no right to terminate the lease agreement until 2017, which is why both Crimea residents (mostly ethnic Russians) and Russians took action to disable Ukraine to allow NATO and US troops to be stationed there and take over their place. It is, of course, impossible for the adversaries, Russia and NATO, to share military bases. Logically, Russia would not allow the US to kick it out of its rightful place, so it annexed Crimea AFTER the Crimea residents voted in a referendum to rejoin Russia. As explained, until 2017, Ukraine had no free choice and the right to choose its own security arrangements, which would be in contrast to the rights of Russia to keep its military in Crimea. Even after 2017, Crimea residents (mostly ethnic Russians) would never allow anti-Russian NATO troops to be stationed in their homeland. Would Americans allow Russian military bases in Alaska or anywhere across US borders? So, let's all be reasonable.

4.    the Charter for European Security Organization for Security and Co-operation^[+] – like all other participants, Ukraine signed the Charter at the OSCE Summit in 1999 and reconfirmed it in the 2010 OSCE Summit^[+]: Ukraine will not strengthen its security at the expense of the security of other States, including Russia. Strengthening Ukrainian security since 2014 with many OSCE states massively militarizing Ukraine to kill Russians^{[+][»][»][+]} came at the expense of the security of Russia, which was a huge violation of that treaty and international law.

Like in all relationships, one needs to respect each other but Ukraine has been very disrespectful towards Russia, not honoring any of the major agreements with Russia, which is why it has to deal with the consequences of such behavior. All the Russian regions that were ascribed to Ukraine during the Soviet Union, Ukraine should have returned to Russia upon disintegration of the Soviet Union if they refused Moscow authority. Russia only ascribed them to Ukraine under the condition that these regions, like the whole of Ukraine, would continue to be under Moscow governance but since this was no longer the case, all those historically Russian regions with majority of inhabitants being ethnic Russians, Ukraine should have given back to Russia or Russia should have taken them back in 1991. Russia reckoned Ukraine should have split up in 1991 by going out only with that, which it came with in 1922. But Russia did not insist on that under certain conditions that were written in the Ukrainian Declaration of Independence (more precisely, in its component – the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine^[+][+]) as well as in treaties or agreements between two states, which Ukraine breached and therefore had no right to expect everything would stay the same as it was before.

Never before 1991 was Ukraine a sovereign state, so for it to be able to gain statehood and take away property from Russia, Ukraine should have given Russia something in return and share the Soviet Union debt.

By the end of 1991, the USSR owed some $100 billion to other countries and international funds. Initially, there was an idea that all former Soviet republics will pay back these loans together, in the spirit of solidarity and proportionally to their economic potential. However, Russia undertook to pay back all Soviet debts and in exchange for that, among others, Ukraine had to hand over to Russia part of the Soviet assets, which was agreed in December 1994 but Kyiv refused to honor the agreement by making demands for a share of former USSR assets. This is how Ukraine is.

Russians were kind and generous enough to let Ukrainians have their state without asking for any monetary compensation for keeping those Russian territories (with mostly ethnic Russians living there) – all it asked Ukraine is to honor its agreements with Russia but Ukraine has not been honorable enough to honor those agreements.

Four most important ones were that Ukraine stays neutral^[+][+] (does not join NATO or any other military bloc that is hostile to Russia) and nuclear-free, respects human rights of ethnic minorities^[+] (including the right to freely use their native languages ​​in all spheres of society and life), and allows Russians to use their military bases in Crimea (legally there since 1783, and also certified per the Treaty^[+] signed in 1997).

Ukraine has officially started to violate these agreements in 2008 (in effect even years before after the Orange revolution that installed a US-puppet regime) and escalated since February 2014 when a US-puppet revolutionaries seized power, which is why ethnic Russians protested and when they were met with violence, discrimination, and oppression, first Crimea residents decided to secede in March and Donbas residents did the same in May, after Kyiv declared them as “terrorists” and started killing them in April 2014.

There were more than these four mentioned legally binding documents that Ukraine first violated and then terminated all of them apart from its Declarations but those mentioned violations already suffice to understand why Russia took actions that it did. Ukraine can't just break its commitments at Russia's costs and get away with it, and then even expect Western countries to save it from consequences of its disrespect and bad choices. Russia recognized the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine on the basis of those agreements, so when Ukraine broke them, it broke also Russia's commitment to honor its part of the deals. The principle of reciprocity in the Law of Treaties dictates that the injured party (in this case Russia) should not be called upon to comply with its obligations under any treaty when the other party (in this case Ukraine) fails to comply with those obligations which it undertook under the same treaty. In other words, legally, Russia was not obliged to comply with its obligations under any treaty as soon as Ukraine failed to comply.

Why is the West not condemning Ukraine for violating all these agreements with Russia and even supporting it? Because it suits Western economic and political interests to harm Russia and to seize power in Ukraine. So, it is not about justice or democracy but about avarice and malice.

---

Furthermore, when it comes to the free choice and the right of every country to choose its own security arrangements, as well as NATO membership being not imposed on countries – all this is an illusion perpetrated by the US warmongers and fearmongers, who are using all sorts of manipulative techniques to spread Russophobia^[+] and convince many countries that Russia has plans to attack them so as to get them to seek protection from NATO by joining the Alliance.

Fearmongers at NATO even mastermind and orchestrate all sorts of divisive plots triggering Russophobia to turn European countries against Russia, so that they would feel threatened and therefore apply to join NATO. Russia has never done anything to threaten to attack Sweden and Finland, so why did they apply to join NATO?

Finland Case

1947, Finland pledged in writing to remain neutral, therefore its NATO membership is a violation of its own pledge. Finland had no motive to violate it or change its mind as there had been no territorial disputes or any unresolved bilateral issues with Russia and no threats from Russia. Prior to Finland’s decision to join NATO, the two countries enjoyed “the most cordial” relationship^[+] as neighbors who shared an over 1.300km border. Unlike Kyiv, the Finish government has not been oppressing or persecuting ethnic Russians in Finland, so there has been no need for any grievances let alone a military intervention in Finland.

There would be no independent Finland, if it weren't for Russia rescuing the Finns from Swedish slavery that lasted 600 years and giving it its independence in 1917. Russia captured the region of Finland from Sweden in 1808–1809 when Finland became an autonomous part of Imperial Russia^[+]. During the Russian rule, Finland was autonomous, highly developed and built (Helsinki city center was built during Russian rule), much advanced, got its own currency, women rights, and the new Russian Bolshevik government that seized power in the October Revolution recognized Finnish independence on 31 December 1917. Instead of maintaining friendly relationship with its liberator and neighbor, under NATO&WEF-puppet^[+][+] PM Sanna Marin (December 2019 – June 2023), Finland decided to start a hostile relationship for no valid reason. After becoming a NATO member, Helsinki opened 15 zones across the country in which Washington is provided with “unimpeded access and use,” and so the US occupation of Finland began. This clearly indicates that Finns, who so willingly gave up their sovereignty, are victims of the US manipulation and neocolonialism. Oddly, Finland's public didn’t have any say in this matter, as no referendum, polls, or any other democracy instruments were used, which means that the leaders who decided to breach Finland’s neutrality pledge must have been bribed or fearmongered to do so, despite the fact that Russia posed no threat whatsoever. Finish Prime Minister Sanna Marin, who led her country into NATO (and is a participant^[+][+] of the Young Global Leaders program^[+][+] of the World Economic Forum¹⁴ and is known for her inappropriate behavior^[+]) was endorsed by WEF and NATO to become Finland’s Prime Minister, despite her being too young, inexperienced, and incompetent, probably for the sole purpose to push her country into NATO, just like with US puppets¹⁵ Yushchenko and Zelensky in Ukraine, both of whom applied to join NATO (first time in 2008 was revoked due to disapproval from opposition parties and the public^[+]). Marin was then punished by her people as she was defeated in the April 2023 election, ironically the same month Finland became an official member of NATO. The fact that she quit politics and left the country right after Finland entered NATO suggests that she got into politics only to steer the country into NATO.

German founder of World Economic Forum (WEF), Jesuit-educated^[+][+], Klaus Schwab has helped to instate many of his puppets (participants of the WEF “Young Global Leaders” program^[+][+]) as heads of state through WEF endorsement, including, besides Sanna Marin^[+][+] in Finland, the EU Presidents Ursula von der Leyen^[+] and Jose Manuel Barroso^[+], Trudeau^[+] and Freeland^[+] in Canada, Sarkozy^[+] and Macron^[+] in France, Boris Johnson^[+], Truss, and Sunak^[+] in the UK, Rutte^[+][+] in the Netherlands and as NATO chief, Ardern^[»] in New Zealand, Lula da Silva^[+] in Brazil, former Chancellor Angela Merkel^[+] and Annalena Baerbock^[+][+] in Germany… Zelensky is also an acolyte^{[+][+][+][+][+][+][+]} of Klaus Schwab’s WEF, implementing its anti-democratic globalist ‘Great Reset’ agenda of technocratic totalitarianism.

Also other leaders such as Laurence D. Fink^[+] - BlackRock Chairman and CEO, Kristalina Georgieva – IMF Director, Christine Lagarde^[+] – President of European Central Bank, Sadhguru^[+], etc.^[+][+]. Schwab's organization has infiltrated in many governments and the UN^[+] to execute “The Great Reset”^[+][+] as part of its globalist, liberal or NWO¹⁶ agenda, but the merger of corporate and government power is known as fascism. With all the sophisticated tools to manipulate the public opinion and rig elections, as well as the value of campaign funding or sponsors, there are no elections; only selections.

However, Finns don't want to fight NATO wars. The number of people leaving the Finnish reserve has swelled to thousands^[+] after the country joined NATO! The number of people that have left Finnish army reserves equals 40% of Finnish total military strength. That is huge!

Finland has absolutely nothing to gain from joining NATO and has much to lose. Counting their losses, apart from the loss of land (giving 15 territories across the country to Washington), and the humongous costs of annual NATO membership (membership costs Finland 2,3% of GDP) and of building new fortifications across 1.300 borderline with Russia, in April 2023, Russia naturally retaliated or reciprocated for its frozen assets in the EU (of which Finland is part of) targeted the electricity assets^[+] of Finnish company Fortum, which is majority owned by the Finnish government, whereby Finland lost more than 10 billion euros in 2022 alone^[+]. To join this military alliance, Finland agreed to pay 2,3% of its gross domestic product (GDP) a year, which is $6.48 billion^[+] in 2024, which directly or indirectly goes mostly to the US military industry and troops. On top of it, Finish annual defense spending increased by nearly $3 billion¹⁷ in comparison to 2021, which means that abandoning its neutrality status, joining NATO, and Russophobia or being against Russia costs Finland almost $20 billion every year! And for what?! Finland got increased tensions, extra border security costs, and a new nemesis across its border. Just a border-reinforcement with the new “smart” fence erected at strategic points along the Finnish-Russian border costs almost $500 million! All in all, Finland is a big loser since it became hostile to Russia and joined NATO.

NATO might have gained by luring Finland into it but it lost more because as a result of NATO's actions and expansion, Russia got much more powerful allies such as China, Iran, North Korea, Middle East, India, Brazil, whole of Africa… Also, Finland's accession to NATO and the procedure of Sweden's admission were "the final straw" and made Russia's withdrawal from the Agreement on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe!

Sweden Case

When it comes to luring Sweden into NATO, NATO officials bribed the local politicians to fearmonger the public based on absolutely no evidence. So, in June 2023, the Defence Committee of the Swedish Parliament has declared^[+] that Russia may launch a military attack on the country – based on what?! Why should Russia attack Sweden and what is the evidence for it? See if you can find any statements and actions from Russia that would make Sweden feel threatened by Russia. You won't find any because Russia never made any such threats, so where do this fear of Russia’s military attack and the urge to join NATO come from? From the US psyop and bribing corrupt Swedish politicians. Swedish Parliament gave^[+] no justification or evidence for their claim whatsoever. A Swedish peace activist explains in this video^[»] below how Sweden was tricked into applying for NATO membership in May 2022 with dirty tactics, such as anti-Russian NATO disinformation (alleging Russia's plans to attack Sweden^[+][+], lying about polls and public support for NATO^[+]) in the media and a false flag operation with some mystery drones^[+] above Sweden that conspiracy theorists posing as “experts” said were most likely Russian but provided absolutely no motive or evidence for their “expert” evaluations, nevertheless Swedes were panicking.

On top of fearmongering, there came the info that Finland was applying to join NATO, which pushed the Swedes further towards considering it, too. Also, due to the upcoming elections, some Swedish parties made an issue of it, which made some fervent NATO opposers among parliamentarians to switch, enabling a turning point. Majority of parliament members and public were against joining NATO and a Swedish foreign policy tradition was based on a deeply rooted neutrality as its political identity. Without any valid and legal justification, fearful and corrupt Swedish government officials violated its 200-year-old policy of neutrality/non-alignment^[+] by the deci­sion on 27 February to supply weapons to Ukraine and in May 2022 by applying to join NATO.

The main or only reason why countries applied to join NATO after the Cold War finished is because the US bribed or coerced their corrupt leaders to do so.

Croatia Case

The only exception might be Croatia, which, according to President Milanović^[+], joined NATO in 2009 (joined Partnership with NATO in 2000) only as a gesture of gratitude for the US support in the Croatian War of Independence (1991–1995) against Serbia (former Yugoslavia). And, it could have applied only because there was no referendum about it (the majority of public opposed it).

However, the US only helped Croatia because it wanted the communist Yugoslavia to dissolve like the Soviet Union (because the communist system foiled the US from exploiting and dominating such countries) and to indebt Croatia to become an American vassal state of sorts. The US wanted to lure Croatia to become part of the US-led NATO military alliance so that, like all NATO countries, Croatia would provide manpower and pay (membership costs 2% of GDP) for the American wars^[+] aimed at securing American hegemony in the world. Naive Croatia fought for independence only to change its master and become dependent on the US and the EU. Croatia lost its independence and sovereignty to the West when it joined the EU and NATO, and especially when it abandoned its currency.

Russia never posed any threats to Croatia whatsoever, therefore, there was no need for Croatia to join NATO, especially given the high cost of membership (2% of GDP) and the obligation to go into NATO wars, losing precious lives for the interest of others, like in Kosovo and Afghanistan. A referendum was not organized because politicians knew public opinion, as the majority was against NATO.

Ukraine and Georgia Cases

The only reason Ukraine and Georgia applied to join NATO in 2008 is that the US changed regimes in those countries through violent, undemocratic CIA-staged^[+] coups or so-called color revolutions^[+] through which then US puppets became presidents, who then applied to join NATO as the US wanted – because it needs 1) their territories (that are on the border with Russia) to deploy NATO troops there and so intimidate, threaten, and contain Russia as it is the main NATO rival and it challenges American world domination; 2) their money – NATO membership costs 2% of GDP annually; 3) their soldiers to fight American war across the globe aimed to serve American economic and political interests and preserve American hegemony.

Through the US-backed Rose Revolution^[+] in Georgia in 2003, US puppet Saakashvili came to power, and through the US-backed Orange Revolution in Ukraine in 2005, US puppet Yushchenko came to power. Both then applied to join NATO in 2008.

Two years later in 2010, the new anti-NATO President of Ukraine Yanukovych revoked the application^[+], therefore he was deposed with the help of NATO countries in 2014 again by a US-funded coup called Maidan Revolution in 2013-2014 when a new US puppet regime started ethnic cleansing of ethnic Russians who opposed Ukraine joining NATO. In June 2017, the parliament passed a law making integration with NATO a foreign policy priority^[+], and in February 2019, Ukrainian parliament amended^[+][+] the Constitution to state Ukraine's strategic objective as joining the NATO. In September 2022, Zelensky reapplied^[»] to join NATO without a referendum. Until 2022, Ukraine could not re-apply to join NATO because the majority of the public was against it. So, NATO needed to provoke Russian invasion to get Ukrainians to apply for NATO membership.

Georgia's NATO aspirations are simply a way to solve its problems in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and Russia would be put in a dangerous situation were that to ensue, which is why it is against it, against NATO troops and missiles on more of its borders, encircling Russia. Georgia's background is very nicely explained by an international relations analyst from Georgia (living in the US) in this video^[»]:

There it is also explained (at 24:24^[»]) how, after Georgia was given a promise to join NATO in 2008, President Saakashvili got embolden to invade two rogue provinces in Georgia despite knowing that Russia would come to their rescue, so Saakashvili de facto started^[ꚛ] a war with Russia but he naively counted on NATO help, which did not happen and so Georgia lost these two provinces (Russia backed the division there so as to prevent NATO to admit Georgia because by its Treaty, NATO cannot welcome any countries with unresolved territorial disputes). In other words, applying to join NATO has costed Georgia those two regions – a bad move.

For both Ukraine and Georgia, this decision to apply to join NATO and NATO's promise to accept them soon, it turned out to be one of their worst decisions strategically speaking as it got both these countries into a war (Georgia 2008, Ukraine 2014) and left them in ruins. NATO has not admitted them to this day but it used and sacrificed them as mere pawns in their geopolitical chess-game to beat Russia, which Russia won. NATO did not flinch to send half a million Ukrainians to their graves and were eager to do the same in Georgia, to open a second front in Georgia, just to weaken and defeat Russia. The stupidity of Ukrainians to play that game was much higher than that of Georgians who were equally blinded by the West but smart enough to step away from the brink of the abyss, unlike Ukrainians, which has to do with the leadership. Having a jester for a leader, it certainly did not do any good to Ukraine.

According to the polls^[+] conducted by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) only a minority supported Ukraine joining NATO. In February 2014, the support for joining NATO fluctuated between only 15-20%. However, the separation of Crimea and the war in Donbas influenced a sharp increase in support for joining NATO, nevertheless as of 2021^[+], in the event of a referendum, 48% would support it – still a minority. Moreover, it must be said, that even of that minority, many of them did not even know what NATO is, much less the consequences of joining NATO (the costs and obligations) but were supporting it just because the authorities were pushing for it (oblivious to mind control methods and perception management).

For instance, have a look at this video^[»] in which in 2023 a couple of dumb NATO supporters were asked what NATO is and they shrugged not sure what it was, and then one of them said that NATO was a humanitarian organization of strong countries.

Logically, after Russia seized much of Ukraine in 2023 and NATO provided Ukraine with military and humanitarian aid, most Ukrainians grew fond of NATO and wanted to join it. But again, out of sheer ignorance because if they knew that it was NATO that got them into this mess, they would surely think otherwise.

If they knew that NATO was using them to fight its proxy war^[+][*^] against Russia and if they knew that the war could have been totally prevented^[»] if only NATO ended its expansion to Russian borders and abided by the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act^[+], hardly any Ukrainian would support Zelensky's bid to join NATO.

Before countries joined NATO, Russia never posed any threat to any of them, therefore there was no need for them to join a military alliance that has been antagonistic toward Russia. It is obviously all an effect of the Russophobic campaign in an attempt by the US to pull more European countries into its orbit, into its military alliance to recruit more troops and gain more allies, manpower, weapons, and funds for their wars that only serve American economic and political interests and preserve American hegemony. If countries are knocking on NATO’s door wanting to join in, it is only because they were falsely led to believe by US-led NATO officials that there is an imminent threat of Russia's attacks or invasion on them.

NATO Campaigns: Modern Crusades in Disguise?

The best way to understand the NATO expansion phenomenon is to see it as a secular religion^[+]. NATO’s credo is somewhat Calvinistic – a credo for and by the “elect” or the select. And by own definition, the West are the “chosen-ones”, which means “the good guys” or the force for good while all others who do not bow to them and worship Western hegemons and idols are the “bad guys”. Any leader who rejects their agenda, bribes, and ultraliberal values is labelled as evil dictator. Only the adherents of NATO shall have salvation and be saved from evil (Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, terrorists from the Middle East…). Their fictional narratives are taken on faith rather than facts, such as who is dictator, what governments are authoritarian, Al-Qaeda motives for 9/11 attacks¹⁸^[»]¹⁹ Iraq's WMD²⁰ lies in 2003, and all ridiculous “Russia did it” narratives^[*^], to name just a few. Their double standards are somehow not immoral due to assumed white supremacy and 'American exceptionalism'^[+], whereby only they are allowed to have and use WMD or depleted uranium or cluster bombs as well as invade other countries, no one else. Insane. NATO builds on the “exceptionalist” dogma practiced by the United States for more than two centuries. Exceptionalism is another expression for the Roman slogan "Jupiter^[+] may do what cattle may not"^[+]. Pursuant to the doctrine of exceptionalism, the US and NATO are both above international law (the ICC Statute…), even above natural law of reaping what they sowed.

NATO has emerged as the perfect religion for bullies and warmongers. When we look at NATO as a religion, we can better understand not only its expansion agenda but also certain political developments in Europe and the Middle East, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine as all NATO military campaigns there were showcased as crusades and fight between good and evil. NATO’s ideology is influenced by Jesuits, which we explained in a previous article^[*^]. NATO's military command is in Washington but the ideological command is in Rome with the Black Pope²¹ – Jesuit Superior General Arturo Sosa (since 2016) as a head. Jesuits are masters of indoctrination, mind control, and psyops^[+][+], which they run through education institutions, intelligence agencies, and secret services (NSA, CIA, MI6 MI6, MI5, FSB, Scotland Yard, Mossad, and ASIO are controlled by Jesuits and directed by guys who attended Jesuit schools or scholarship), all of which are connected to NATO.

Crusades Then, Crusades Now?

NATO’s military campaigns over the past two decades bear an uncanny resemblance to the infamous Christian Crusades of the 11th to 13th centuries. The key difference seems to be religion – or does it? In a secular age where few are swayed by promises of salvation or martyrdom to reclaim a “Holy Land” from an “evil rival,” NATO’s puppet masters have swapped the cross for a new banner: democracy, human rights, and Western liberal values. Take Crimea since 2014: it’s been cast as a quasi-holy land unjustly seized by “evil” Russians, despite Ukraine’s decades-long neglect of the region – evident in its poverty and decay before Russia’s annexation.

Knowing religious propaganda wouldn’t fly in this day and age and that “crusade” is a dirty word, NATO cloaks the same ideology in modern terms, posing as a defensive alliance focused on security and stability fighting for democracy, human rights, and Western liberal values. But beneath the surface, it’s the same old game: conquest and conversion, this time to ultraliberalism and so-called democracy – fertile ground for Western neo-imperialists to exploit and neo-colonize the globe. Under a pretense of making a grand concerted effort toward some purportedly worthy cause, both the Crusades and NATO campaigns have had the same political ambitions and means of using hot button issues to galvanize the foolish masses into dying for the enrichment of war profiteers and ruling classes.

Same Strings, Different Puppets.

Just as Crusaders were lured with plenary indulgences – full forgiveness of sins and a ticket to heaven – making the risk of death a spiritual gamble with eternal rewards, so are today Ukrainians in NATO’s proxy war fed parallel promises: freedom, independence, and a “better life.” While Medieval Christianity emphasized sin, redemption and salvation, for knights and peasants alike, who often lived violent or morally fraught lives, offering the Crusade as a tangible way to atone, NATO, too assumes moral superiority and emphasizes the same things but in modern slogans – instead of sin, redemption and salvation, NATO propagandists highlight Russian sins and fighting for freedom, democracy, and liberal values, appealing to the “freedom fighters” love for junk food^[»], Hollywood blockbusters, and sex. So, the pitch has just been updated – swap redemption for McDonald’s cheeseburgers^[»], premium Netflix subscription^[ꚛ], exclusive access to OnlyFans^[»], Robux²²^[ꚛ], or Philadelphia sushi rolls^[ꚛ]. Are these trappings of American consumerism worth dying for? NATO’s propagandists say yes, sanctifying the killing of Russians as a noble cause, flipping the sin of violence into virtue just as the Church did with Muslims centuries ago.

🇺🇦MoD recruiting ads luring the Gen Z with fine American staff of all things because, well, who wouldn't want to risk life and limb for those American things😆!

Freedom’s Price: A Burger and a Subscription.

The difference between NATO and Russia in that sense is that Russia fights to secure its borders and protect its struggling ethnic minorities while NATO does it to conquer or neo-colonize much of the world and convert it to their religion of ultraliberalism, unlike Russia that never attempts to impose its conservative values globally; plus NATO uses proxies like Ukraine to fight its wars of neo-colonization whereas Russia does not.

Furthermore, joining a Crusade was a way to gain prestige among peers, lords, and the Church and elevate one’s status; refusing risked shame in a society where honor was currency. Similarly, enlisting in Ukraine’s NATO-backed forces offers Western veterans and “losers” a shot at status and glory. Opting out? That’s a sure ticket to brings shame^[ꚛ] or ostracism in a culture still trading on honor. The playbook hasn’t changed – only the uniforms have.

Medieval Crusades masterminds used sermons and tales of Muslim “desecrators” and “oppressors” to paint an existential threat, stoking righteous fury. Fast-forward to NATO: leaders whip up fervor with tales of Russian atrocities, echoing Nazi rhetoric about Jews and Slavs as subhuman. Emotion trumps strategy in this proxy war, but it’s built on a lie. NATO accuses Russia of the very sins it commits on a grander scale –plundering resources under the guise of fighting for democracy, just as Crusaders did using Christianity as a guise. While Russia defends its harassed minorities and confronts the neo-Nazism and NATO expansionism, NATO seeks global domination for profit and prestige.

Also, for some , the journey was a break from dreary lives – a chance for glory and a glimpse of the world beyond their villages – an intoxicating draw in an era of limited mobility. Today, foreign fighters join Ukraine’s ranks for the same thrill. Though mobility has evolved since medieval times, many still lack the means for travel or adventure, thus war becomes their ticket out.

The Crusades were driven by a blend of religious zeal – reclaiming the Holy Land for Christianity – and political ambitions of European powers. NATO swaps that zeal for virtue signaling, driven by geopolitical agendas of a handful of states (the US, UK, France, Germany, Poland, Baltics) devised by their globalist masters^[*^].

NATO campaigns, particularly since the Cold War’s end, always carry some ideological banner such as defense, peacekeeping, spreading democracy, human rights, or Western values (e.g., military interventions in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya) but it’s all just neo-imperialism in disguise – securing oil (Syria, Libya) or containing the rivals such as Russia (Eastern Europe). While the Crusades were explicitly religious, NATO’s ideology is secular but similarly framed as a moral imperative. The parallel lies also in how both reflect Western powers projecting force abroad under unifying and moral banners, with dire results.

Commonalities between the Crusades and NATO campaigns are abound such as:

• ideological motivation – Crusades had religion; NATO has secular liberalism

• coalition warfare – alliances of multiple powers pooling resources and troops for shared goals despite internal rivalries

• intervention in foreign, culturally and geographically distant lands – distant lands are targeted with little regard for sovereignty bypassing local consent

• economic and political gains – material interests (trade routes and resources) and geopolitical leverage lurk beneath

• propaganda and justification – relying on (im)moral tales, from indulgences to humanitarian spin to rally support and legitimize their military interventions, shaping public perception to frame interventions as righteous or necessary

• controversial outcomes – both have faced criticism for overreach and collateral damage, as well as civilian massacres, destabilization, leaving chaos in their wake, and lasting enmity with the Islamic world.

economic motives behind the ideological banners - Spoils of War, Past and Present

As with every religion, the NATO religion has its own dogma and lexicon. In NATO’s Lexicon, their wars are “just wars” while anyone else's is “an illegal war”, a coup d’état is called a “revolution”, humanitarian intervention entails “regime change”, “rule of law” means their rules, Putin and Xi Jinping are present-day Satan and Lucifer, democracy is coexistent only with capitalism, and so on. According to the mainstream narrative, the crimes committed by NATO over the past 73 years are not crimes but regrettable errors.

NATO leaders (who graduated from Jesuit-run universities) push the progressive and liberal ideas^[+] and values of the progressive religious order of Jesuits – the virtues of obedience, flexibility, solidarity, and kinship are mostly valued. Obedience is induced through the education system^[+] (most renowned secondary schools, colleges, and universities around the world were founded by Jesuits and funded by their ruling proteges) along with mass media and expected from all adherents and allies while flexibility is cultivated through adaptability and modernization approaches, which extend to openness ("open-door" policy), and endless dialogue. Solidarity and kinship are advocated by both Jesuits and NATO as means of expanding and manufacturing consent to their agendas such the military support for Ukraine.

The Jesuit Oath^[+]: “…I promise and declare that I will, when opportunity presents, make and wage relentless war secretly or openly, against all heretics…, as I am directed to; extirpate them from the face of the earth; and that I will spare neither age, sex, or condition, and that I will hang, burn, waste, boil, flay, strangle and bury alive those infamous heretics; rip up the stomachs and wombs of the women, and crush their infants’ heads against the walls in order to annihilate their inexorable race. That when the same cannot be done openly, I will secretly use the poisonous cup, the strangulating cords, the steels of the poniard, or the leaden bullets, regardless of the honor, rank, dignity, or authority of the persons, whatever may be their condition in life, either public or private, as I at any time may be directed to by any agent of the Pope, or the superior of the Holy Father of the Society of Jesus.”

The two main organizations that control most of the world's affairs are the Jesuit Order^[+] and the black nobility banking families of Europe – Knights of Malta^[+][+] (a Catholic lay religious order, traditionally of a military, chivalric, and noble nature, with the seat in Rome since 1834).

The well-known Knights of Malta: Jose Barroso (former EU President that sparked the conflict between Ukraine and Russia in 2013), Michael Bloomberg, Rupert Murdoch, David Rockefeller, Tony Blair, Fidel Castro, Nelson Mandela, Ronald Reagan, Rudolph Giuliani, Ted Kennedy, Winston Churchill, Juan Carlos of Spain, George H. W. Bush…

The financial and political power of the Knights of Malta and their central bank systems encompasses subversive control of central banks worldwide, and fiscal policy via members. Thus, it controls the Group of 20 (G-20) powers as well as all lesser nations.

When it comes to the NATO proxy crusade in Ukraine, it must be noted that Ukraine had several previously accepted international obligations, such as those per treaties with Russia, which NATO disregarded when in 2008 it welcomed Ukraine’s application to join NATO^[+] agreeing that it will become a member of NATO. Those obligations included Ukraine remaining neutral, as in not ever joining NATO, allowing Russian troops in Crimea, and respecting the rights of ethnic minorities, including Russian one.

The neutrality was in the Ukrainian constitution until the “coup” that toppled the Yanukovych government in 2014 and brought pro-US, anti-Russian nationalists to power. Before the Maidan revolution in 2014, a majority of Ukrainian MPs believed that the country’s fragile unity would be more secure if it was not pulled and pushed by rival pressures from Russia and NATO.

Convinced that NATO will eventually accept Ukraine’s membership, in February 2022, Putin has taken steps to block it by military intervention and creating a “frozen conflict”, knowing that NATO cannot admit countries that don’t control all their borders.

The idea that the Soviet Union was tricked in 1989-90 is at the heart of Russia’s confrontation with NATO. Russians believe that the West tricked the former Soviet Union by breaking promises made at the end of the Cold War in 1989-1990 that NATO would not expand to the East. In his now-famous 2007 speech^[+] to the Munich Security Conference, Vladimir Putin accused the West of forgetting and breaking assurances, leaving international law in ruins.

NATO’s betrayal fuels distrust and feeds Russia’s cynicism about international law. In 1993, Boris Yeltsin wrote to President Bill Clinton to argue any further expansion of NATO eastwards breached the spirit of the 1990 treaty. From the mid-1990s, Boris Yeltsin and all of the Russian political elite had been calling for a reversal of NATO’s extension to no avail, so now, Russians are not calling for it any longer, they are demanding it. The gloves are off. All the diplomacy failed to bring any results and NATO has been expanding ever more by fearmongering many states to join the alliance deceiving them about an imminent threat from Russia.

Russia feels threatened by the US Military Industrial Complex’s thirty-year pattern of unreasonably aggressive behavior toward it and other nations. Russia never threatened the US.

Buried deep in the Russian psyche is an absolute dread of invasion that goes all the way back to the days of the Mongol Hordes. Russian imperial expansion in the 19th century was driven always by the need to protect the country’s borders – the buffer states were created to protect the borders of Russia. This fear of encirclement informs Russian political thinking to this day, a fact that the West appears unwisely to have overlooked in its dealings with Ukraine.

Thank you for reading this article and participating in this peace initiative by raising your awareness and, hopefully, your consciousness and spirit. To properly grasp everything, we^[*^] recommend reading the articles of this peace initiative for Ukraine in the proper order, which is listed in the Contents. So if you haven’t read the previous articles, we recommend that you do. When you are ready, please proceed to the next article in this “Meeting the Demands for Ending the War” segment: “Why should Ukraine guarantee that it would not join NATO?” in which we reveal the NATO provocations

1. Russia did not invade Crimea as not a single shot was fired, Russian military was legally there since 1783 and per a treaty with Ukraine, and Crimeans requested annexation after they declared independence and voted for it in a referendum as UN Charter and Kosovo independence precedent gave them the legal right for self-determination

2. Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe^[+] - limits military deployments across Europe; signed in 1990 and adapted in 1999

3. the war in Syria started in 2011, first CIA involvement was in 2012, first official interventions of the US and allies was in 2014, first official attacks in 2017

4. South Ossetia^[+] is on Russia's border; Ossetians originate from a nomadic Iranian tribe, population of just over 56.500; established by Soviet authorities in 1922, declared independence from the Georgia in 1991.

5. Abkhazia^[+] is also on the Black Sea and on Russia's border

6. Ossetians^[+] originate from a nomadic Iranian tribe

7. Abkhazians^[+] are a Caucasian ethnic group, not Slavs, a majority is Muslim and lives in diaspora in Turkey, Syria, Jordan...

8. Tbilisi is the capital of Georgia

9. "peace enforcement"^[+] - the use of military force to compel peace in a conflict, generally against the will of combatants

10. Donbas^[+] is a coal mining region that was part of eastern Ukraine from 1922-2022 (now part of Russia) consisting of two Republics - Donetsk and Luhansk - where most residents have been Russians for centuries. In 2022, after Bolsheviks defeated the Ukrainian nationalists, Lenin gave that part of former Russian Empire with mostly ethnic Russian residents to the Soviet Republic of Ukraine under condition that it remains part of the Soviet Union and under Moscow governance (Kyiv administration) but in 1991, Ukraine violated that agreement by breaking off from the Soviet Union and from Moscow, and since 2014, Ukrainians had been demolishing all Lenin's monuments, therefore they have no rights to claim the territories he conditionally granted them. Since Ukrainians hate Lenin and Stalin so much that they demonize them, then in the Russian view^[+], it is only fair to give back all the land^[ꚛ] that Lenin and Stalin allocated to Soviet Ukraine, without even asking the locals’ permission (the majority were Russians in Donbas).

11. AFU = Armed Forces of Ukraine

12. SMO = Special Military Operation

13. geographical location made it easier for Kyiv to run the administration and logistics espacially because Ukraine provided Crimea with water and electricity. In 1954, Kakhovka Dam was being built since 1950 which was going to supply water for Crimea.

14. World Economic Forum^[+] or WEF, founded by Klaus Schwab, is a billionaire club of far-left, globalist oligarchs with huge influence on world governments and UN; meets once a year in Davos, Switzerland. Agenda: the Great Reset, NWO, one world government, depopulation, CBDC...

15. The US and his American wife helped him scheme a smear campaign against the rival Yanukovych and to run the Orange revolution in 2004/2005 to force a third round of election, which got him elected

16. NWO = New World Order (a totalitarian world government run by the globalists)

17. in 2021, Finland spent about $3.8 billion on defense and its 2023 defense budget was about $6.3 billion and rose to $6.6 billion in 2024^[+]

18. When explaining why al Qaeda attacked and hates Americans, Bush lied "They hate our freedoms - our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other." Click here for evidence^[+]

19. Osama wrote^[+] it was because the US has killed millions and displaced millions more of Muslims so as to justify Israeli illegal occupation of Palestine since 1948 as the US uses Israel to contain the Middle East & exploit its natural resources for decades

20. WMD = weapon of mass destruction

21. Black Pope^[+] – the Black Pope is called black because he is always dressed in black, as opposed to the White Pope who wears white garb.

22. in-game virtual currency used in the American online gaming platform Roblox