Ukraine: The Road to War Pt. I
1991-2009: Western Promises, Pristina, NATO Expansion, Russo-Georgian War
Since February 2022 Americans have been told that Russia is a backwards, pseudo-fascist state led by a paranoid psychopath who, in a bid to restore the Soviet Union, has launched an unprovoked and near suicidal assault on a Western democracy. After several years of anti-Russian rhetoric from politicians, diplomats, and media outlets, many have bought this narrative. This narrative is not only ahistorical, but baffling to anyone who is even remotely familiar with the timeline of decisions made in Washington and Brussels and their impact on Russo-Occidental relations.
We seem to have forgotten that not long-ago Russo-Occidental relations were sunny, warm, and both sides looked forward to era of cooperation and interoperability. Even Vladimir Putin was viewed as the man of the hour, the man Russia needed to emerge from its post-soviet chaos. While the events we will cover do not justify Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, they shed important light on the culpability of NATO which must be recognized if we desire a peaceful resolution to the conflict and the avoidance of further conflict with Russia.
In this two-part series we will discuss the shameful descent from the optimistic cooperation of the 1990s to the return of cold war narratives and brinkmanship which led to the greatest tragedy of our lifetime: the war in Ukraine. This overview of events will be supplemented by commentary of a historical, cultural, and geopolitical nature to give more context to events when necessary.
In part one, we will discuss events from the hopeful optimism of the 1990s, to the color revolutions and growing suspicions of the 2000s, culminating in the Russo-Georgian War in 2008.
A Breakdown of Relations
During the negotiations which led to the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and USSR, US diplomats made, according to an analysis done by the National Security Archive of George Washington University, “a cascade of assurances” to Moscow that NATO would not expand beyond Germany.1 These assurances were made, implicitly and explicitly, to both Gorbachev’s Soviet government and Yeltsin’s Russian government.2 Russia clearly believed these assurances and welcomed the West in with open arms.
But by 1997, NATO was already expressing its desire to move into Eastern Europe.
Many of those involved in negotiating the end of the cold war and dissolution of the Soviet Union were horrified, calling it a tragic mistake. Among them were Robert MacNamara, former Secretary of Defense (Vietnam War); Paul Nitze, former Secretary of the Navy and Defense; Robert Gates, former CIA chief, future Secretary of Defense; and Jack Matlock, former ambassador to the USSR.
Shortly after the Senate’s ratification of NATO’s plans for expansion George Kennan, renowned American statesman and witness to the creation of NATO, summed up the implications of NATO expansion, and the results which we ourselves see today, in almost prophetic terms…
“I think it is the beginning of a new cold war. I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies… I was particularly bothered by the references to Russia as a country dying to attack Western Europe... Don’t people understand? Our differences in the cold war were with the Soviet Communist regime. And now we’re turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime...”
“… It shows so little understanding of Russian history and Soviet history. Of course there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that ‘we always told you that is how the Russians are’ -- but this is just wrong.”3
These warnings were ignored by a US Senate little interested in foreign affairs, and an American public who were none the wiser. But Russia still believed that it was an American partner; the Russians were working hand in hand with NATO on the troubling situation in the Balkans and there were even talks of Russia joining NATO. In time, however, Kennan’s prophecies would become realities.
Timeline of Events
1999: (March) NATO admits Poland
(June) Pristina Airport Incident in Kosovo
2001: US withdraws from the Antiballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty
2002: US announces talks to place ABM systems in Poland and Czechia. Polish public opinion highly unfavorable.
2004: NATO admitted a number of Eastern European nations, including the Baltic nation of Estonia, which borders Russia directly.
NATO announces a new top priority of establishing partnerships in Central Asia and the Caucasus. 4
2008: US plans to place Antiballistic Missile (ABM) systems in Poland and Czechia announced.5
NATO summit in Bucharest, Romania, NATO announced its intention to admit Georgia and Ukraine to the alliance.
Russo-Georgian War
1999: Poland Joins NATO
When Poland was admitted to NATO Russia expressed immediate concern. This was not because the Russians’ believed NATO was, at this time, hostile to Russia, but because of Poland’s historical hostility Russia. While Americans are often told how Russia participated in the partitions of Poland, the lack of Soviet support for the Free Polish forces during the Warsaw Uprising, Soviet persecution of Poles, etc… they are far less, if at all, familiar with the earlier history which is crucial to understand Russo-Polish relations.
From the high Middle Ages to the early modern era, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was one of the most powerful states in Europe. The Poles, taking advantage of the Mongol invasions of Kievan Rus, had invaded and conquered the western territories of Rus which today make up Right-Bank Ukraine and Belarus.
The zealous Catholic government brutalized the Orthodox Russians, or Ruthenians as they are sometimes called.6 After centuries of persecution, the Polish authorities were able to persuade some Orthodox Bishops to sign a union with Rome in exchange for property rights and accept a salary. The Union of Brest was supported by four of the nine Orthodox Bishops in Commonwealth lands, as well as much of the nobility in Galicia, which had been under Polish domination for longer than the rest of West and Southern Rus.
The middle and lower classes, however, resisted Latin subjugation. The Polish authorities sent knights to Russian villages, gathering the people in their churches and giving them the choice to submit to Rome or burn to death in their churches. This culminated in popular revolts across the Russian lands of the Commonwealth. These divisions last to this day.7
During the Russian Time of Troubles, which followed the death of Tsar Ivan IV, the Polish invaded Muscovite Russia, attempting to seize the throne. They were eventually expelled by an alliance of Russian nobles, leading to the enthronement of the Romanov Dynasty.
This is of course not to say that the Russian Tsars were innocent or didn’t retaliate, certainly both sides acted less than Christian towards one another. We are merely pointing out that there is a long history of suspicion, betrayal, and violence between the two nations, why this would have been a concern for the Russians, and why it should have been a cause for pause in Washington and Brussels.
Poland has since played a key role in stoking tensions between the West and Russia and the most zealous supporter of direct NATO action in Ukraine. When the US began drawing down its forces in Germany, Poland protested and asked for those forces to be moved to Poland. During the Trump administration, two new military bases were established in Poland with the express purpose of acting as a deterrent to Russia - this will be discussed further in part two.
1999: Pristina Airport Incident
Just three months after Poland’s entry into NATO there were clear signs of the problems NATO involvement in Eastern Europe could lead to.
NATO’s Operation Allied Force in Yugoslavia is a perfect case study. Russia played a crucial role in ending the conflict in Kosovo and agreed to a joint peacekeeping operation with NATO forces. The Russian contingent arrived at the Pristina Airport to discuss operational sectors and deploy to their assigned sector when NATO reneged on Russia being assigned its own peacekeeping sector in line with the peace treaty.8
When the Russians protested, NATO supreme commander General Wesley Clark was given the authority (by NATO Secretary General Javier Solana) to seize the airport from the Russians by force.
Only the better sense of the operation’s British commander, General Sir Mike Jackson, prevented NATO troops from firing on Russian soldiers. When ordered to seize the airport, Gen. Jackson told Gen. Clark “I’m not going to start the Third World War for you.”9
This incident, in addition to NATO’s targeting of the Chinese Embassy in Sarajevo on behalf of the CIA10 and the confirmed targeting of Serbian civilians (accounting for one-third of total casualties) including the bombing of packed Churches on Easter, greatly impacted opinions of the West among the Russian population.
Shortly after the war, the first of the Color Revolutions broke out in Serbia. Serbia’s Bulldozer Revolution removed then President Slobodan Milosevic from power. After being on the run for a number of years, he was arrested and turned over the ICC for war crimes.
2001: US Withdraws Unilaterally from the Antiballistic Missile Treaty
Just two years later, George W. Bush would withdraw the United States from the Antiballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. A year later in 2002 Romania would be admitted to NATO. While Russia would express dissatisfaction with the withdrawal from the ABM treaty, it took no major steps to break with the United States over it.
With the exception of the Pristina incident, Russo-Occidental relations had been almost entirely sunny, and both nations were enjoying the emerging bromance between Vladimir Putin and George W. Bush.
In the wake of Al-Qaida’s attacks on September 11, 2001, the Russians offered their unequivocal support for the American fight against terrorism, leaving its military and intelligence assets at our disposal. Spontaneous acts of solidarity and consolation broke out across Russia, going so far as to donate a monument in memory of those lost. This memorial was, of course, ridiculed by those in the US media.
Shortly thereafter, Vladimir Putin released a joint statement with President George W. Bush expressing their unity of mind in the need for Sadaam Hussein to be brought to justice in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1441. There were a number of economic and energy agreements being signed as well.
Some have tried to claim that this lack of immediate reaction on the part of Russia proves they never really had an issue with NATO expansion and are only using it now out of convenience to justify their sudden imperialistic revivalism. Such voices are either incapable of an informed, nuanced understanding of Russo-Occidental relations, or are intentionally deceitful.
Russians, especially those in the political establishment, military and academia, were raising the alarm that NATO was encircling and isolating Russia. Vladimir Putin simply ignored these voices, choosing instead to pursue increased trade and cooperation with the West.
When the plan to place missiles in Poland was announced, Putin called President George W. Bush, and they negotiated. Missiles would not, for now, be placed in Poland. As late as June 2002, Putin had stated publicly that NATO expansion in the Baltics was “no tragedy” so long as no military hardware was introduced.11
While it’s almost certain that Putin regrets these comments today it shows that up until that time, he still believed that the Russians and Americans were partners, and that the West would listen to Russia’s concerns if they made it clear something was unacceptable. Putin was, at least until the end of Bush’s first term, an American ally.
2004: Admission of Estonia to NATO
With the addition of Estonia, the alliance had now pushed more than one thousand miles east to the very border of mainland Russia. Sovereign Russian territory was now surrounded by NATO in the Kaliningrad Oblast.12
Coupled with the renewal of discussions surrounding ABM installations in Eastern Europe, Russia expressed serious concerns about the expansion of both membership and weapons systems, which were largely dismissed with indifference by the West.
The problem with admitting the Baltic states, like Poland, is that Americans are almost universally ignorant to the long history between these states and Russia, and the simmering diplomatic issues extending even to the present day.
For example, when Latvia and Estonia gained independence they refused citizenship to ethnic Russians, depriving them of education, medical insurance, etc.
These people considered themselves to be Estonian/Latvian and did not have Russian citizenship. This has led to a great deal of tension between Russia and the Baltic states, with progress and setbacks along the way. In 2005, 2013, and 2018, the Latvian government determined it would shut down all Russian schools and ban Russian language being learned as a second language in schools. Russia cut off gas to Latvia in protest each time. The Western Media however, spun this as Russia attempting to force the Baltic states to adopt Russian as their official language.13
The Latvian government went so far as to force the Orthodox Church in Latvia to break communion with the Russian Church and set up a state church14 with the support of Constantinople, similar to what we are seeing in Ukraine today.
As noted above, NATO had moved east by over 1,000 miles to Russia’s borders by 2004. With each new NATO acquisition in Eastern Europe, each new placement of nuclear capable missile systems in those countries shortly thereafter, Russia’s objections became increasingly firm.
These objections were regrettably met with derision and wanton disregard for Russia’s legitimate national security concerns.
In 2007, Russia made itself absolutely clear, stating that it would accept no further expansion of NATO in Europe.
2008: NATO Summit in Bucharest
At the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest, NATO announced its intention to admit Ukraine and Georgia into the alliance.
Russia was understandably blindsided by this announcement. And to be fair, every foreign policy expert, diplomat, and intelligence expert for the last 30 years has said that trying to pry Ukraine from Russia’s sphere of influence would result in a direct military conflict.
Russia considered the entry of Ukraine and Georgia into NATO to be a Red Line not to be crossed. Ukraine shares a 1,200-mile border with Russia, some of which is only 400 flat open miles from Moscow.
For Russia, this is an existential threat, and we knew that.
The then US ambassador to Russia - and current Director of the CIA - William Burns sent a cable to Washington entitled “Nyet means Nyet,” or, No means No, outlining Russia’s position and concerns in no uncertain terms.
“Ukraine and Georgia's NATO aspirations not only touch a raw nerve in Russia, they engender serious concerns about the consequences for stability in the region. Not only does Russia perceive encirclement, and efforts to undermine Russia's influence in the region, but it also fears unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would seriously affect Russian security interests. Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face.”15
The National Intelligence Council had reported in early 2008 that NATO’s open-door policy for Ukraine and Georgia was likely to result in a preemptive military action against Ukraine and Georgia.
It’s important that we pause here in light of this information.
If in 2007 and 2008 the US government knew that offering NATO membership to Ukraine and Georgia would not only result in the souring of Russo-Occidental relations but would lead to war… then we must ask whether or not NATO moved forward with the Bucharest agenda with the express intention of turning Russia into an enemy, and thereby justifying its continued existence - which up to this time was being seriously questioned.
One thing is for certain: Russia’s concerns about regional destabilization would quickly, and repeatedly, be vindicated.
2000s: Color Revolutions & Mikhail Saakashvili
Before we get to the Russo-Georgian War of 2008, we need to discuss the man who would be President of Georgia when it occurred: Mikhail Saakashvili.
Mikhail Saakashvili was educated at George Washington University - common for US backed foreign leaders - and Columbia University. His tenure as President of Georgia was marked by a level by bribery, corruption, intimidation and torture almost comical in its severity.
Saakashvili came to power as a result of the Rose Revolution in 2003. This was one of the many color revolutions instigated by the US State Department during the 2000s.
Beginning with the so-called Bulldozer Revolution in Serbia - which removed NATO arch-enemy Slobodan Milosevic from power - the State Department directed a series of pro-Western coups in former Soviet states. This was done through a series of quasi-private foundations - with the backing of much of the US military-industrial complex, as revealed by Wikileaks16 - who would select, fund, train, and direct local dissident groups willing to align with Western interests.
Capitalizing upon some divisive issue or action by the government, these foundations and their local partners would organize mass protests, largely through the internet and social media, seeking an overreaction from government police and military trying to contain the protests which could be exploited to overthrow the regime.
Successful Color Revolutions occurred in Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Armenia, and notably in Ukraine in 2004. The 2004 Orange Revolution in Ukraine is notable as it was launched against the same president (Viktor Yanukovych) who would be toppled in the Maidan coup in 2014. Both occurred on the Maidan square. Similar revolutions, though unsuccessful, occurred in Belarus in 2005 and 2020, Moldova in 2009, Russia in 2011.
The overall purpose of these revolutions is obvious. If a country within Russia’s sphere of influence can be overthrown, it opens them up to NATO and EU integration.
This creates massive opportunities for Western banks and mega-corporations, as well as US arms companies, who gain contracts to refit these forces with US supplied equipment.
… In the small Christian nation of Georgia, nestled in the Caucus Mountains on Russia’s southern border, this is precisely what had been taking place…
2008: Russo-Georgian War
Georgia is home to many small ethnic groups, each with a fiercely independent nature and a long history of playing world powers off of one another to maintain a level of autonomy. One of these groups, the Ossetians, straddle the Russo-Georgian border; after an attempt to break away from Georgia in the 1993 South Ossetian War, Russia deployed peacekeeping forces South Ossetia to prevent a resumption of hostilities. A similar situation had played out in Abkhazia, along the shores of the Black Sea.
When Saakashvili came to power, he promised to subjugate these breakaway territories to the government in Tbilisi. As he solidified Western backing, he grew increasingly bold in his rhetoric. After the Bucharest declaration, he began shifting military units north to the Ossetian border.
In the wake of the July 2008 NATO exercises in Georgia, President Mikhail Saakashvili ordered the Georgian Army to retake the breakaway territory of South Ossetia in the north of the country along the Russo-Georgian border.
“The shelling of Tskhinvali by the Georgian armed forces during the night of 7 to 8 August 2008 marked the beginning of the large-scale armed conflict in Georgia.” - Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia (EU), pg. 11
After killing a number of Russian peacekeepers in the artillery assault on Tskhinvali, the Georgian army moved into South Ossetia.
In response, Russian President Dimitry Medvedev deployed units of the Southern Military District, now fighting in Ukraine, to Georgia. These units surged through the Roki-Nizhy Zaramug Pass and quickly halted the Georgian maneuver before advancing on Tbilisi.
A ceasefire was signed, and Russian troops withdrew under the agreement that Georgia would make no further attempt to seize South Ossetia by force. The Russian Duma announced official diplomatic ties with South Ossetia, and deployed FSB border guards to assist in border integrity. Georgia pulled back from pursuing NATO membership.
Caught off guard by the incident, Western media reacted as they always do, i.e., by parroting the talking points handed them by the State Department and CIA. Western media and diplomats made claims that this was proof Russia was an aggressive nation willing to use its military to enforce its political aims. The irony and lack of self-awareness in this statement coming from American diplomats and journalists in the midst of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan should have been apparent to everyone.
Consider this: the intervention into Georgia was the first external deployment of the Russian military since it became an independent state in 1991. This 17-year period devoid of foreign military intervention is longer than virtually any single period of peace in the history of the United States.
Mikhail Saakashvili & Ukraine
Saakashvili’s story doesn’t end there though. After losing power and being charged for his criminal actions while in power, Saakashvili fled the county, taking refuge in Brooklyn NY.
Interestingly enough, just months after fleeing to America, Saakashvili flew to Ukraine. Shortly after arriving he was granted Ukrainian citizenship and, being a Ukrainian citizen for a whole day, he was appointed Governor of Odessa Oblast by Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko.
Totally normal…
Odessa had been both a stronghold of support for ousted president Viktor Yanukovych, and home to the most zealous supporters of the Tsarist government.17
Saakashvili launched a reign of terror on citizens of ethnic Russians and Russian speaking Ukrainians, permanently changing the demographics of Odessa. Following this, he betrayed Poroshenko and announced his candidacy for President of Ukraine, before eventually attempting to return triumphantly to Georgia… in the back of a milk truck. He was detained by the Georgian government, who charged him with treason.
The Georgian government claims Saakashvili was colluding with the Zelensky regime and Georgian Volunteer Corps to overthrow the lawfully elected government, who has remained largely neutral in the ongoing Russo-Occidental struggles…
Aftermath and Reactions to the Russo-Georgian War
After the 2008 Russian intervention in Georgia, all those old Cold War feelings of distrust and hatred towards Russia were fully mobilized by politicians in the West.
Georgia was sold to the American people as a sort of long lost relative of the Western family of nations which after decades of brutal Soviet rule was finally coming home; but Russia wouldn’t let Georgia embrace freedom and democracy, because it hates those things.18
Washington was seemingly in no mood to admit that, perhaps, Burns’ memoranda was right and Russia’s concerns were legitimate - they had been vindicated after all. Instead of seeking an understanding of why Russia opposed these moves or why they felt it would destabilize the region, the West simply doubled down.
Russia had reached a point where it could no longer allow itself to be surrounded by a military alliance and infrastructure which was increasingly hostile to it. It certainly could not, once those nations had been admitted to the alliance, allow for nuclear capable missiles to be placed on their territory. Georgia is a perfect example of what Russia was concerned NATO expansion among their neighbors could lead to and should have been a clear warning to the West to change course.
This all should have been self-evident to the West; Russia did everything it possibly could to inform the West that it could not accept these actions.
But the Western reaction wasn’t to stop eastward expansion, but a naive attempt to “reset” relations before continuing to force through plans which Russia could clearly never accept. Contrary to the early 2000s, wherein President Bush gave great attention to nurturing Russo-American relations (whether or not the same could be said for Europe, with its more old-world way of thinking, is another question) Obama had neither the personable nature nor trustworthiness of his predecessor. The addition of Hilary Clinton as Secretary of State was likely decisive.
Many Russians felt, in retrospect, that the Clinton administration had exploited Yeltsin and the chaos of Russia in the 1990s for their own gain. To be fair, a tremendous amount of wealth and resources were plundered by Western corporations and investors during the early to mid-nineties… They never forgot how the West was willing to bomb Serbians in their Churches on Easter, and their willingness even to attack Russian soldiers for demanding a treaty be upheld. By 2008, they were well aware that the collapse of ally after ally in the color revolutions of the last several years was not by accident, but a deliberate undertaking of US intelligence agencies and their subsidiaries.
The worst fears of Russia appeared to be an emerging reality. In response, Russia announced an ambitious military modernization program, Kennan’s prophetic words were finally coming to fruition.
One year after this announcement, the last of the US sponsored color revolutions would break out in Russia herself. The New Cold War had begun.
There’s an old Russian proverb: the truth has seven sides. I say this to the many people who will say this article is biased towards the Russians. I am not trying to absolve Russia of her sins; they are hers alone. We already know the American side of the story. My goal, as stated in the introduction, is to explain how the Russian’s have interpreted the events of the last thirty years so that you, dear reader, may have a more complete view of the truth. Only when we understand the way the “other side” views these events can we understand how we got where we are, and how to get through the other side in a mutually agreeable, mutually beneficial manner.
In part two, we will focus more heavily on the background and key players in the First Donbass War, as well as the Minsk Accords and how intentional violations of these fragile peace accords led to the tragedy we are now watching unfold in Ukraine. Please like and consider sharing this information with friends and family. The only way we can successfully negotiate a meaningful, lasting peace, is by understanding the motivations and mistakes of the past.
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early
Examples: James Goldgeier, ‘Promises Made, Promises Broken? What Yeltsin Was Told About NATO in 1993 and Why It Matters’, War on the Rocks blog (12 July 2016); Mary Elise Sarotte, ‘A broken promise? What the West really told Moscow about NATO expansion’, Foreign Affairs (September/October 2014); Kristina Spohr, ‘Precluded or precedent-setting? The “NATO enlargement question” in the triangular Bonn-Washington-Moscow diplomacy of 1990–1991’, Journal of Cold War Studies, 14:4 (autumn 2012), pp. 4–54; Steven Pifer, ‘Did NATO Promise Not to Enlarge? Gorbachev Says “No”’, Brookings Up Front blog (6 November 2014); and Joshua R. Itzkowitz Shifrinson, ‘Deal or no deal? The end of the Cold War and the U.S. offer to limit NATO expansion’, International Security, 40:4 (spring 2016), pp. 7–44.
https://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/02/opinion/foreign-affairs-now-a-word-from-x.html?smid=url-share
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_107957.htm
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/15/poland.us.shield/index.html
“Ruthenian” is a term devised by Western political forces and historians to distinguish (and thus divide) those Russian peoples subjugated by Western, Catholic kingdoms from those still living within the various independent Rurikid Kievan Rus principalities. It is, unfortunately, supported by some of the foremost historians of our times who are more interested in pushing Russophobe narratives than actual history and ethnology. Vanished Kingdoms by Norman Davies is a perfect example of this.
The Slavs in European History and Civilization, by Francis Dvornik, pg.47
NATO commanders claimed that they were concerned this would lead to a permanent division of Kosovo. This ignores the fact that Kosovo would remain under a single, united government. Here we see the creeping in of old cold war presuppositions.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/671495.stm
It was believed that the Serbs had given what was left of a downed F-117 stealth aircraft to the Chinese government, and these were being stored in the Chinese embassy. The CIA made a direct request, bypassing NATO command structure and protocols, for the embassy to be bombed to prevent stealth technology from falling into the hands of the Chinese. Multiple Chinese nationals were killed in the bombing and the PRC protested adamantly. NATO claimed it was an accident. It is believed this technology is what allowed, in part, for the Chinese to develop the Chengdu J-20 aircraft.
Marcus Warren, ‘Putin lets NATO “recruit” in Baltic’, The Independent (25 June 2002)
Many have written off Kaliningrad because it had been the Prussian city of Konigsberg prior to the end of World War II. But before its life as Konigsberg, it was a Russian outpost known as Kaliningrad, so the Russians had a claim to the territory just as much as the Germans - or the Poles for that matter. History is messy at times.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/03/21/
https://orthodoxtimes.com/orthodox-church-of-latvia-seceded-from-moscow-it-was-a-matter-of-national-security-says-the-president/
Nyet means Nyet: Russia’s NATO Enlargement Redlines. February 2008; Cable: 08MOSCOW265_a (wikileaks.org)
https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/17/1730002_colored-revolutions-a-new-form-of-regime-change-made-in-usa-.html
This zealous support for the Tsar and deep religiosity of the region was a primary concern for the Soviet authorities, who attempted to starve the Ukraine into submission in what has come to be known as the Holodomor. To be clear, the Holodomor was not “ethnic Russians brutalizing ethnic Ukrainians” as the modern narrative goes. It was the Bolsheviks, Communists sent from Germany, brutalizing Russian Christians. The majority of people in the Ukraine at the time, even if they were ethnically “Ukrainian” saw themselves as Russian first. We will cover this in depth at a later time.
To be clear, I do not say this as someone against Georgia in any way. Georgia is a beautiful nation with an ancient and deeply pious Christian culture. My problem is only with the Western narrative about Ukraine, and attempts to subvert its Christian culture with decadent, degenerate, modern Western “values.”