The Rewriting of Ukrainian History

What a difference a day makes.

On Monday, we all woke up to the news that the Russians had unleashed hundreds of missiles all over Ukraine.  Even Lvov in the far west was hit.  Blessedly, casualties have been surprisingly light.

We were all wondering when the Russians would react to the bombing of the Kerch bridge, or the Nord Stream pipelines, or the murder of Darya Dugina.  Now we know.

The Zelensky regime had its day in the sun with their three counter offensives in Kharkov, Kherson, and Lyman.  The Western media reacted with baited breath to each square mile of empty territory that were taken back from the Russians.  We were told that this was the turning point in the war and any day now, St. Zelensky would be at the gates of the Kremlin taking Putin out in chains.

Nobody is talking that way now.  

This war brings us no pleasure.  The fratricidal killing on both sides is an abomination which stinks to high heaven. 

Unfortunately, however, there can be no doubt that certain ultra-nationalist elements on the Ukrainian side allowed themselves to be used as proxies by Western warmongers.  They forgot the warnings that thoughtful people tried to tell the Ukrainian nation from the outset:  the West will fight Russia to the last Ukrainian. 

This bears repeating:  the provocation came from the West and  Zelensky foolishly allowed his country to be the stick that NATO used to poke the Russian bear. 

In other words, their young men have been used as cannon fodder, this is obvious to all by now.  And it’s pathetic.  It didn’t have to be this way.  As early as last March, negotiations were taking place in Istanbul.  President Zelensky had agreed to all of four conditions that President Putin had laid out.  Unfortunately, Prime Minister Boris Johnson flew into Kiev and put the kibosh on it. 

Maybe, it’s not a good idea to elect as your president a coke-up, failed actor/comedian who dons tights and high heels for entertainment.  I dunno.  (I wonder what else they have on Zelensky?)  Just sayin’.

Think of it.  Had Zelensky stood up to BoJo and said something like, “You want me to fight the Russians?  How about you put on your combat boots and send me a couple of brigades of British soldiers to help us out?”  The war would have ended and Ukraine (sans Crimea) would be intact right now.  Instead, not only has Ukraine permanently lost the Crimea but now they’ve permanently lost Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporizhia, as well.  And now they are in danger of losing more than that. 

In other words, they could have come to favorable terms for Ukraine but now it is Russia dictating the terms.

This is beyond sad.  It didn’t have to be this way.  Too many fine young men have died –unnecessarily.  

We will be writing about the war in the days ahead.  There is no doubt that further surprises lie ahead.  Instead, I would like to draw your attention to the propaganda that has been used by some of the nationalists on the Ukrainian side.  (It ain’t pretty.)  Specifically by those who support the schismatic sect which was created by Patriarch Bartholomew.

Thus, I draw your attention to this thoughtful column by Nadya Bazuk (a Ukrainian journalist and contributor to this website); it is entitled “Is the Orthodox Church of Ukraine Rewriting History?”


  1. The OCU itself is a rewriting of history. The Ukraine is the canonical territory of the MP. Has been for hundreds of years and this has been consistently and recently affirmed by all parties involved. It is only in the last few years that the Fanar has joined the Empire of Lies in its Ukraine project. And, yes, this is sad. Very sad for the people of the Ukraine.

    This will all be settled by force. Specifically, Russian force. Russia can’t ignore an anti-Russian coup d’etat on its front doorstep. We are fortunate that Trump ripped the mask from the Uniparty or we might be tempted to take the Ukro-NZ side in this affair. Of course, I personally would not. I got banned from RedState as far back as 2008 as a “Putin stooge” during the Russo-Georgian affair.

    Regardless, the last few years have made it easier for everyone to see that nothing but lies emerges from the Swamp. Russia is going to win this conflict and all the propaganda, projection and self-delusion the West can muster will be unable to change that eventuality. And when it is over, everyone will understand that the US is no longer in charge of the world.

    As George said, the real tragedy is the fratricide of what is essentially a civil war.

    “The difference between treason and patriotism is only a matter of dates.” – Alexandre Dumas

  2. Nadia Bazuk: “Putin’s imperial ambitions are obvious.
    The recent ceremony of “annexation” of the occupied
    Ukrainian territories is proof of this.”

    This ‘proof’ is unconvincing…

    Putin spent eight years trying to prevent a war.
    Had Kiev, USUK and NATO done the same,
    and had the Minsk accords been enacted
    the Donbass, Kherson and Zaporozhye
    would all still be part Ukraine.

    • George Michalopulos says

      Brendan, you are correct regarding the political aspects of this present unpleasantness: Putin did what he could to prevent war for 8 years. He even refused to recognize the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk when they declared it in 2014. He worked in good faith with Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron with the Minsk Accords.

      The Ukrainians under Poroshenko had no intention of honoring those accords. As for Zelensky, I think he really wanted to be the peace president. Unfortunately, the Ukronazis rule the street.

      As I understood Miss Bazuk’s thesis, she rightly pointed out the rewriting of Ukrainian history, especially the whitewashing of the Banderists.

      I am curious as to how many of the Ukrainian people are still under Onuphriy, the canonical metropolitan of Kiev. Any info on this would be most appreciated.

  3. George Michalopulos says

    Must be nice making that kind of coin. All you have to do is play a guitar while you’re naked. (And then make your country a puppet of the Globalists.)

  4. George Michalopulos says
  5. Nate Trost says

    Russia’s little missile mini-campaign continues a string of bad strategic decisions. Their target set had little to no military significance and did zero to impair Ukraine’s current counteroffensive campaign. They further depleted stocks of very limited precision munitions which are their only deep strike capability. They had to mix Iranian drones in, which is telling. And it is only going to accelerate Ukraine acquiring more advanced western IADS systems. Which will make Ukrainian airspace even more hazardous for the Russian air force than it is already, which is a lot.

    I’m not sure how it’s going to shake out yet, but after the bridge incident, word on the street is the Russian MoD is tired of the ultranationalist Russian warbloggers critical commentary and the whip is getting cracked. Those are some tea leaves to read.

    Considering Russia has been rushing some of the mobilized to the front in an effort to slow down Ukraine, and some of those mobilized are already coming back in body bags, such a crackdown is probably going to be counterproductive.

    Meanwhile, the Swedes also have one of those age old intelligence dilemmas, they reportedly know Russia bombed Nordstream (see aforementioned string of bad strategic decisions) and how they did it. But they do not want to disclose the technical means and capabilities that allowed them to make that assessment. But at the end of the day, everybody knows.

    • George Michalopulos says

      Really Nate, the Russians bombed their own pipeline? A major “off-ramp” which the Germans could take should they come to their senses?

      Not that it’s working: President Macron of France said that France “would not use nuclear weapons” against the Russians should Putin use a low-yield tactical nuke on the Ukraine. Italy, Hungary and Austria are getting on the off-ramp. Bulgaria is “revisiting” its sanctions on Russian LNG. As for the Greeks (notice I did not say “Greece”), the shipowners are telling the West that they will continue to transport Russian oil to wherever they want and whoever needs it (thank you very much).

      That said, the Germans are still brainwashed and the Poles, well, there’s just a whole lotta bad blood there with the Russians. I doubt they’re bellicosity will carry the day, especially now since the Russians and the Byelorussians have increased their troop presence on the Polish/Byelorussian border in the west of the Ukraine. Think of it as a rook serving as a check on the grand chessboard.

      (Personally, if I were Putin I’d leave the door in the west a little ajar, just to whet the Poles’ appetite. I also understand that Romania and Hungary are starting to say “hmmmm…” when it comes to the western third of that country.)

      • It is amazing what liberals will tell themselves to avoid reality.

        • Yeah, apparently the RF armed forces are issuing Viagra to the soldiers to encourage the mass rape of Ukrainian woman. LOL! Where have we heard this atrocity propaganda before?

      • Here is what the Ukrainian government is really like. It’s The New Atlas discussing the Mirotvorets site.

      • Nate Trost says

        This year has been all (attempted) compellence, no off ramps. Once you decide to use gas cutoff as a weapon for a year or two, you might as well eliminate the temptation to give into that $100 billion+ of irreplaceable revenue by temporarily burning the ships, so to speak. Sorry, no can do, the ‘west’ broke it! Plus the hail-mary attempt to cause fractures in the west by attempting to attribute the US. When all is said and done, the pipeline is fixable, the supplier reputation is not.

        Macron was merely keeping to French nuclear doctrine, which is crystal clear and hasn’t changed like six decades. Russia using nukes in Ukraine (which is very very very unlikely) does not in and of itself constitute an existential threat to the French state, which is required for the French to use their nuclear arsenal.

        The fantasy in the Russosphere was Poland annexing western Ukraine. The reality was Poland giving Ukraine roughly a quarter of their T-72M1/M1R tank fleet. Mind you, Poland is replacing those with shiny new M1A2 SEPv3 Abrams.

        • George Michalopulos says

          Nate, regarding “no off-ramps,” that’s simply not true. Maybe the State Dept is operating under this delusion but not the European countries who have been dragooned into the Great Norther Crusade Against Russia.

          At the end of the day, it’ll just be the Poles who are screaming for blood. Even the Baltic states are having second thoughts.

          The biggest off-ramp will be the one that Turkey gets off as it eventually departs NATO for the Eurasian conglomeration.

    • I have read your comments and you seem to accept completely the mainstream media’s version of events in the Ukraine. Many other reliable sources, some of whom are actually in the Donbass ( not cowering in Kiev,) state that Russia’s SMO has been successful. What makes you certain that the reports you rely on are true? I want the truth, whatever it may be.

      • George Michalopulos says

        That’s a very good question that Katherine is asking.

      • Nate Trost says

        I spent a not insignificant amount of time looking at raw feeds and translations or meta analysis of said feeds (which in this day and age is mostly telegram and vk). There are a wide variety of subject matter experts I whose musings I keep an eye on, as well as devoted hobbyists, whose quality varies. This gives about as best a picture as one can manage of the ongoing who, what and where.

        I don’t necessarily recommend this for the average person, because even much of it at a remove, I’ve still witnessed thousands of people die this year on video, and no small amount of even more gruesome aftermath footage of post combat assessment.

        If I’m going to make a generalization about the mainstream media coverage of the war, it’s been generally pretty accurate in broad strokes, but usually lagging slightly behind on current events and lacking in detail. However, large mainstream outlets do periodically publish exhaustively researched reports on past events, such as the battle for Kyiv. They also are capable of getting off the record or background statements from officials that provide useful information.

        My question for you Katherine would be, if you evaluate my comments about the war, especially those from March-May and contrast them to others, whose have aged better in terms of accuracy or outlook?

        • My honest assessment is that others have been more accurate. I don’t want to be argumentative but you say you have witnessed thousands of deaths. Are you in the Ukraine or have you just watched media reports, many of which are staged? You state there was a “Battle for Kiev.” Most analysts now accept that this was simply a feint by the Russians to buy time for the attack on Mariupol (which they won.) I see large swathes of land now in Russian control and the people in the Donbass happy about that.

  6. How many more years will our leaders engage in the mass murder of humanity? When will they choose to use non violent communication to settle differences?

    Today, American troops — special forces — are on the ground in Ukraine showing Ukrainian forces how to use American weapons to kill Russian troops. This was done by a secret presidential order that has never been publicly acknowledged. These bullied and terrified Russian conscripts pose no threat whatsoever to life, liberty or property in America. But presidents kill because they can get away with it.
    Judge Andrew Napolitano

  7. The issue with the perspective Russia = bad, is that it removes the US as being an imperial power. Our closest non-Anglo “allies” are Germany, Japan, and South Korea. Each of these countries have had 20,000+ US troops there during peace time. We invade and bomb anyone who disagrees with our business policy (Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc.) or support coups (Nicaragua, Chile, Indonesia, etc.). We are the only country that has used nuclear weapons and we used them to threaten the Soviets and the rest of the world to do our bidding. If we are going to fight against imperialism, then we need to start by admitting that we have benefited economically from U.S. imperialism and stop supporting “democracy abroad” or “support our troops” nonsense. The U.S. is not defending itself. It is the imperial aggressor that is afraid of losing power. Our cheap gas and food (compared to the rest of the world) and ability to sign trillion dollar spending bills, is the result of being the imperial master of the world.

    We need to be real with ourselves first before throwing stones at Russia or anyone else.

    • George Michalopulos says

      Thanks for this analysis. If I may, I am rather conflicted about whether our imperialism is actually helping the average American. I realize that the present sanctions regime is not hurting Russia and is hurting Europe. Speaking cynically, it has depleted the euro and the pound sterling for the first time in history. In other words, the dollar is more powerful than these two currencies. (And the pound has always been stronger than the dollar. John Bull is turning in his grave.)

      So that’s a “win” for us but only at the expense of the Europeans. (I have European friends and relatives and I can tell you that things are getting worse there by the day.) This sanctions regime is artificially propping up the dollar, so that’s all to our good (not their’s). BTW, if you’re wondering why the European governments continue to support the insane sanctions war against Russia, thereby hurting their own people, it’s because America has them by the cojones.

      That said, this is a terrible way to run an empire. In the past, the great empires benefitted their native populations. One can think of the roads that Rome built and how the Roman navy cleared the Mare Nostrum of pirates. This was great for business. (On a good day, a ship could travel from Athens to Ostia in less than 36 hours if the winds were right.)

      Now compare this with two post-war American scenarios:

      1. Post American Civil War, the “American System” was back in play and it was driven by high tariffs which completely funded the Federal government. (One reason the ACW was fought was because the South was a free-trade zone which allowed foreign shipping to import and export freely.) In any rate, from 1789 to 1913, there was no Federal income tax (except for a brief time during the ACW). One dollar in 1789 equaled one dollar in 1912.

      This “American System” made possible the growth of the United States. Post ACW, this went into overdrive with the Gilded Age and its Robber Barons and it made possible the explosive growth in immigration from Europe. Of course, there were severe inequalities but America at this time replaced the UK as the largest economy on earth. From 1880-1980 was the Golden Age of “manufacturing capitalism.”

      All in all, this was a net positive for the average American.

      2. Post-WWII. The demobilization of the American forces and a reversion of the Congress to the Republican Party only increased American’s economic dominance. A family man could graduate from high school, marry his sweetheart and buy a cottage/bungalow in a nearby suburb.

      That said, it was during this time that President Eisenhower and Senator Al Gore, Sr came up with a plan to create an interstate highway system. This helped the economy in more ways than one. Then when JFK became president, he inaugurated the space program, another government program which helped employ thousands of people. In the 1980s, Reagan began a massive military buildup, a program that eventually collapsed the Soviet Union.

      What’s my point? Leaving aside the morality or ethics of these programs (e.g. we employed a lot of ex-Nazi scientists in the space program), it is my contention that during these three presidencies, the American Empire actually did something for the American people. No such thing is going on now. Instead, we are creating ever-clever financial instruments which we buy and sell to each other.

      This is “finance capitalism.” With manufacturing we were exploiting and/or creating newer and more inventive commodities. Things like oil, electricity, air conditioning, pasteurization, nitrogen-reclamation (which is necessary for fertilizer), etc.

      Yes, we are “strengthening” our economy at the expense of the Europeans but there are no “great works” projects which can employ tens of thousands of young men or create a new infrastructure which will enable faster travel or otherwise benefit the populace as a whole. (China for instance has high-speed rail all over its territory.)

      In other words, we are shoring “finance capitalism” at the expense of “manufacturing capitalism.” And as long as the dollar remains the reserve currency, we can delay the inevitable for a generation or two. As for the petrodollar, there are “low friction costs” which continue to make it easy to trade in this currency. However, we ripped the mask of the “rules-based” financial regime when we confiscated $300 billion of Russia’s foreign gold reserves. This has had the effect of pushing the other countries of the world to reclaim their gold reserves and push bilateral trade to be conducted in local currencies.

      That said, given the “friction costs” of trading in other currencies, this can keep the petrodollar afloat for awhile. I’d say that now about 20% of bilateral trade between other countries is now done in their local currencies. I imagine there will be a point in which the petrodollar will no longer be as attractive. At that point, the dollar will become worthless and hyperinflation will happen in America.

      • George, I agree with you completely. The US doesn’t build anything and is a banking cartel. A lot of the benefits that we have are the result of our previous prosperity. I pray and hope for our leadership to abandon the empire and stop spending on credit we no longer have. As God wills.

      • Here is an excellent Gaullist analysis
        of what is going wrong and why:

        Can Europe Exist without Russia?

        • Thank you, Brendan. It is an interesting article. And it asks the correct question, which is not, “Can Russia exist without Europe?”. We have a definitive answer to that as a result of the present conflict.

          And that is the crux of the matter. All the power in a relationship lies with the party who cares the least. Europe can’t afford to care the least.

          What we are witnessing is a seismic shift in the kinetic raw power distribution among nations. Due to its focus on commodities, energy being the most significant, and sheer military might, Russia is becoming a pole in Eurasia. With China and India, it is unstoppable. The West has been unprepared to fight this type of war (artillery and air dominance) in this location (the Ukraine). They’ve exhausted themselves and Russia has barely broken a sweat.

          That’s a manifestation of real power, the only type that really matters. Anyone can moralize, but in this world might is decisive. Russia has a larger and more tactically flexible nuclear arsenal than the West as well as an army that can plausibly defeat NATO if need be. It has made allies of China, India and now Turkey.

          The world is changing rapidly and the locus of dominant power is migrating east to Eurasia. One can see the economic manifestation of this if one looks at, for instance, Shanghai. Google “Shanghai skyline”. This is a next generation city with a positively futurist feel.

  8. People used to make money by making things.
    Now some people make money by making money,
    which inflates the price of things
    and drives the rest of the people into poverty.

    • George Michalopulos says

      What you are describing is usury. What makes usury evil in the eyes of the Bible (and philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle), is that it makes currency a good, a commodity, instead of a mere method of exchange.

      That leads to manipulation, betting and speculating on the coin itself rather than the product (such as wheat, oil, wine, meat, etc.)

    • This article gave me a small jolt when I read the following line:

      “China’s current position in Russia’s foreign policy interests is determined by two factors. First, due to its geopolitical position, relative lack of resources and its foreign trade structure, Beijing cannot be regarded as a potential challenge to Moscow – even in the long term.”

      At first, it seemed counterintuitive. In the West, China is looked at as a monolithic financial giant, directly competing with the US as the leading world economy. However, from the Russian perspective, the situation appears otherwise. This is because the Russians, on principle, take resources (energy, commodities, etc.) as the true measure of real wealth rather than the financial status of one’s economy. I.e., one cannot eat dollars or yuan, nor do they provide much heat in the winter or light in the dark.

      The present world controversy is actually a commercial for the soundness of the Russian attitude and the weakness of the Western one. And it should settle the question posed by some as to whether China is the senior partner in the alliance. Russia is taking all the risks because it is leading the troika (Russia, China and India).

      • George Michalopulos says

        Agree on all points. Russia’s reliance upon the three Fs: food, fuel & fertilizer will be the future.

        Our own wealth at one time was also based on the exploitation of commodities. Now it’s FIRE (Finance, Insurance & Real Estate). Therefore Russia is primed for victory all things being equal.

        What worries me is the possibility of GAE (the Global American Empire) will lash out in desperation to prevent that outcome.

  9. George Michalopulos says
  10. George Michalopulos says

    This is a really good interview by George Szamuely (interviewing Andrei Martyanov). It’s an hour long but it’s worth it.

  11. Jim Tzalifas says

    Those who say Ukraine belongs to Cossacks also say Balkans belong to Albanians

  12. George Michalopulos says

    For those of you who are wondering why the RF is insisting that civilians evacuate Kherson and other regions, it’s quite simple: NATO is considering blowing up a dam which would devastate over 50,000 Ukrainian civilians:

    “Immediately, there ARE plans to blow Kahovskaya Dam up. These are plans by Pentagon and VSU is preparing them. Here is how it will look like.

    “More than 50,000 people will be swept away by a monstrous flooding. But then again, crimes against humanity are increasingly the MO of the combined West. This is why evacuation of civilians is declared from Kherson and Kherson area.
    Posted by smoothiex12 at 12:25 PM 175 Comments”

    Isn’t that special?

  13. This from McGregor is quite good. The American Elite will regret their involvement in the Ukraine. Despite all the delusional propaganda to the contrary, it is only making America weaker and Russia much stronger.