Two from Russian military journalist Boris Rozhin:
[ColonelCassad] Agent Donald is smooth sailing.
They defeated Hitler and Napoleon. If Russia wanted to continue the war in Ukraine, it would be a big problem for the United States:
I think he wants to stop fighting. They have a big, powerful military machine, you understand that. They defeated Hitler and they defeated Napoleon. They have been fighting for a long time. They have done it before. But I think he would like to stop fighting.
That was my question to him, because if he continues, it will be a big problem for us. And it will create a big problem for me.
No, I do not agree (that Russia is a threat to NATO), not even a little bit.
(c) Trump
People have always been and always will be stupid victims of deception and self-deception in politics, until they learn to look for the interests of certain classes behind any moral, religious, political, social phrases, statements, promises.
(c) Lenin
So, believe only in deeds and look at the interests of American imperialists. And there have already been beautiful phrases about American-Russian friendship.
And it ended badly.
For us.
Against the backdrop of rumors that Trump was ready to withdraw American troops from the Baltics, consistent refusals by European countries to send troops to Ukraine, threats by an Estonian MP to impose sanctions against Trump, and statements by Slovakia that it would never agree to Ukraine's admission to NATO, the Russian delegation with Lavrov flew to Riyadh.
After the talks, some things will become clearer regarding what of Trump's chatter should be taken seriously.
At the same time, it is obvious that hostilities will not stop until some treaty that suits the Russian Federation is signed.
P.S. The head of the Munich Security Conference, Heusgen, burst into tears during his speech, declaring that the new US government lives on another planet. Cry-cry.
Nebenzya on the parameters of negotiations in Ukraine
1. Ukraine has irrevocably lost the DPR, LPR, Kherson and Zaporizhia regions.
2. The implementation of new agreements on Ukraine should be handled by the government in Kiev that will emerge as a result of democratic elections.
3. The future Ukraine should be a demilitarized, neutral state, not a member of any blocs or alliances.
4. The EU countries and Great Britain are absolutely incapable of reaching an agreement and cannot be a party to any future agreements on Ukraine. So to speak, the framework conditions of the Russian Federation before the negotiations.
The Americans are still being opaque with their conditions.
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited. by Daniil Zhuravlev
[REGNUM] After a “five-day unprecedented assault” in the harsh mountain winter, on February 16, 1916, the Caucasian army, led by General Nikolai Yudenich, entered the ancient fortress city of Erzurum.
Russian soldiers resting near a combat weapon after the capture of the Erzurum fortress during World War I.
“From now on, Armenia is freed from the most terrible Turkish yoke, and the Armenian people, blessing your name as holy, pass it on to their future generations,” this is how the head of the Armenian diocese in Georgia, Mesop, responded to the capture of the stronghold.
The aspirations of the Armenians were shared by the Russian state, which sought, however, not only to satisfy their national interests (and military ones - the Southern Front), but also to protect and strengthen the Christian civilization of Western Asia with subsequent plans to advance to the eastern Mediterranean and the long-awaited Constantinople.
“May the Lord help us, for the common good, to forever secure Erzurum as part of a single Russian state and thereby put an end to the centuries-old suffering of Christians under Turkish oppression,” the governor of the Caucasus, Grand Duke Nikolai Romanov, responded to Mesop.
But for the Russian Empire this was not only a military goal, but part of a larger, messianic project: the liberation of the Christian peoples of the Ottoman Empire and the return of Constantinople, the “godfather.”
The interests of Russia as an empire in Western Asia were in unison with the all-Russian model of the “Third Rome”, Rus' the protector and patroness of Christians.
And Yudenich’s campaign was in many ways part of this large-scale plan, which was not fully realized, but allowed the Christians of the Caucasus to survive and not disappear under the Turkish knife.
CROSSROADS OF WORLDS
The first mentions of the city appear in the 2nd century AD, when the Armenians called it Karin and it was the capital of the region of High Armenia. With its decline and division in 387 between the Eastern Roman Empire and the Sassanid Empire (Iran), this land became a battlefield for the two most powerful states in the region.
The Christian civilization of Byzantium encountered the East in the South Caucasus, and Feodosiopolis became a powerful fortress and the center of Byzantine Armenia, later in Western historiography the city will be called its capital.
The Arab Golden Age put an end to the Sassanid Empire and also undermined the position of Byzantium; Theodosiopolis passed into the possession of the Umayyads, after which a reshuffle of rulers began.
Arabs, Byzantines again, Seljuk Turks (under whom the city acquired its modern name), Timurids, Sevefids, until the city finally secured the Ottomans. The Turks made the city the main military base for operations against Georgia and Persia for many centuries.
So it can be said that Erzurum, located on the Anatolian plateau, was a magnet for peoples seeking control over Western Asia. The vast and fertile Karas River valley provided the opportunity to feed a large population and supply armies, which was critical for conducting military campaigns.
To the north rise the Kysyr Dağ Mountains, which served as a natural barrier and an excellent observation point. To the south lie the Palandöken Mountains, known for their steep slopes and narrow gorges, such as the Ispir Gorge, which provided control over one of the few convenient passes through the mountains. These mountain ranges, in turn, complicated logistics, but allowed for an effective defense.
The most important branches of the Silk Road passed through the village, linking Persia and Central Asia with Black Sea ports like Trebizond, from where goods were sent to Europe. Another important route, the "Persian Road", connected the city with the interior of Persia, ensuring the flow of eastern goods to Anatolia and beyond.
Control over these trade routes not only brought economic benefits, but also allowed the collection of information about troop movements and the plans of neighbors.
The Russian soldier first saw the walls of Erzurum during the war with the Turks in 1828–1829, when, after bloody battles, the fortress fell under the onslaught of the troops of General Ivan Paskevich.
This episode, although short-lived, lit a spark in Russia's geopolitical ambitions: control of the city opened the way to domination in Eastern Anatolia and, more broadly, the entire Middle East.
At that time, the idea of restoring Greater Armenia under Russian protectorate was actively discussed in the circles of the Russian intelligentsia and government.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Empire, Prince Alexander Gorchakov, repeatedly stated the need to protect the Christian population of the Ottoman Empire, seeing this not only as a moral duty, but also as a tool for advancing Russian interests.
Erzurum was considered the capital of Armenia for some time
“We must become the defenders of oppressed Christians, ” he said, “and then Russia’s influence in the East will grow incredibly.”
These plans, in turn, were part of a more grandiose plan - the return of Constantinople, the ancient center of Orthodoxy, the long-awaited unification of Russia with the "godfather".
The capture of the ancient fortress was considered an important step towards this cherished goal. The restoration of a strong Christian state in the South Caucasus became an integral part of the entire Russian Orthodox and geopolitical mission in the Byzantine ecumene.
However, even before the Feodosiopol triumph, Russia had taken many actions aimed in this direction.
Thus, at the end of the 18th century, Georgia became a subject of Russia. As a result of the Russo-Persian and Russo-Turkish wars that lasted throughout the first third of the 19th century, Russia expanded its possessions in Transcaucasia, annexing significant parts of historical Armenia, which became the Erivan Governorate. And the Christians of Turkey and Armenia migrated en masse to the regions liberated by the Russians as the only safe haven.
In the Balkans, this manifested itself in support for the Greek struggle for independence in the 1820s, as well as in the wars that led to the liberation of Bulgaria and the expansion of autonomy in Serbia, Montenegro and Romania.
And the dreams of a free Constantinople, which began to take shape during the time of Catherine II’s “Greek project,” with the division of Turkey and the creation of an independent Greek state with its capital in Constantinople, survived until the First World War.
Moreover, the Turks did everything they could to preserve them, subjecting Christians in their possessions to a systematic policy of Ottomanization. Churches and monasteries were destroyed, confiscated, and turned into mosques or warehouses.
Clergy were oppressed and deprived of the opportunity to perform religious rites, which led to the decline of the spiritual life of Christian communities. Forced conversion to Islam, although more often applied to Armenians, affected other Christian groups as well.
Armenian, Assyrian, Greek literature was destroyed, every step of Osman served to unify the subjects. Turkey, like Russia, felt itself the successor of Byzantium, but in a completely different sense, having removed from the state tradition the excessive faith, culture, aristocracy.
Already during the First World War, the Ottomans drew a vivid and horrific conclusion to their entire centuries-long imperial policy. In 1915, under the pretext of fighting “internal enemies,” the Turkish government, led by the triumvirate of Enver Pasha, Talaat Pasha and Djemal Pasha, began the mass murder of the Christian population.
Hundreds of thousands of Armenians, Greeks, and Assyrians living in the Ottoman Empire, including the Erzurum Vilayet, were deported to the desert, where most of them died from hunger, disease, and violence.
Long before the infamous Japanese “Unit 731,” Turkish infectious disease medicine used members of minorities, mainly Armenians, for its experiments, implanting smallpox, typhus, and other diseases.
Thus, the actions of the Caucasian Front of the First World War were motivated, among other things, by Russia’s long-standing goal of saving its brothers in Christ from merciless extermination.
ERZURUM OPERATION
After the bloody but fruitless Sarikamish and Alashkert operations of 1914–1915, Russian troops under General Yudenich consolidated their positions in the Kars and Sarikamish region. Suffering heavy losses, the Turks clung to the Erzurum fortress, which blocked the road into Anatolia.
The Russian military leader, a talented strategist who continued the fight later on the fronts of the Civil War, understood that without taking the fortress there was no point in talking about any decisive success. The decision to attack was made despite extremely difficult conditions - deep snow in the mountains, winds and severe frosts
The general counted on the endurance of his soldiers and the weakness of the Turkish army, demoralized by previous defeats and serious supply problems. It was important to begin acting before the forces freed from the Dardanelles operation arrived.
The plan was daring: to bypass the main Turkish fortifications, strike at the enemy's flanks and rear, and complete the encirclement.
On January 10, 1916, Cossack detachments and mountain rifle battalions were in the vanguard of the offensive, which was supposed to reconnoiter the situation and engage in battles with the Turkish advance units. The main blow was delivered to the Turkish positions in the area of the village of Keprikey, after the capture of which the fortress of Tafta, considered impregnable, fell. The Turkish defense began to crack at the seams.
By February 15, Russian troops approached the walls of the fortress city, the garrison of which was no longer able to put up serious resistance, leaving its positions the next day.
This was the greatest victory on the Caucasian front. The Turkish 3rd Army, which had 78,000 bayonets before the operation, effectively became a 14,000-strong corps. The way to the Euphrates Valley, Trebizond and further into Anatolia was opened.
Yudenich, like the Crusaders of Jerusalem, broke through the north-eastern Herod's Gate of Western Asia, and it seemed that the old dream was already here, close by.
The long-suffering city has been liberated, Christian nations thirst for justice and freedom, Russia has protected them, and ahead lies the restoration of the ancient Armenian statehood, control over the Middle East, and the liberation of Constantinople!
In general, a new milestone in the development of Eastern Christian civilization.
But these plans did not come true. The state was torn apart by a series of revolutions and the Civil War, the new Soviet Russia abandoned the messianic mission in the south, although by inertia it continued to maintain Russian possession in the Caucasus.
The Soviets supported the revolutionary movements in the newly formed national democratic republics of Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia, incorporating them into the first proletarian state. Armenia quickly lost all of its liberated territories during the Turkish-Armenian War, but thanks to Soviet influence and diplomacy, a treaty of friendship and support was signed with Kemal's national revolutionary forces. Turkey renounced the occupied lands of the Erivan Republic, which eventually became part of the Soviet Union.
It was in the interests of the Bolsheviks to “indigenize” Transcaucasia for the loyalty of the local population; each nation received its own republic, the development of language, writing, and spiritual culture in general.
Therefore, to this day, Armenians and Georgians are alive and preserve their lands, where Greeks, Assyrians, Kurds and other peoples of the former Turkish Porte also live compactly.
Yes, history has not yet ended, and the Transcaucasian conflict, frozen in time, has resulted in a series of ethnic wars, purges and redistributions, which have also fallen on the shoulders of the Russian Federation.
Text taken from the V Kontakte page of GREAT PATRIOTIC WAR Meanwhile, almost the entire front line was under fire, with 100 to 160 guns and mortars per kilometer. Such a hurricane of fire brought to mind images of the First World War. It seemed that the Soviet generals were planning a veritable end of the world. The combat diary of the hussar division described the breakthrough of positions near Kapolnashnek, a town located at the very spearhead of the Soviet offensive. “The Soviet infantry rushed into the breach, acting so quickly that we did not have time to explain anything to our hussars in the trenches. They managed to notice the Russians literally a few seconds before they were killed or captured… It was too late to jump out of their houses and ask what had happened, since many houses were collapsing, burying their inhabitants.”
The third stage of the encirclement of Budapest. Soviet troops encircle from the north and west
But in the end, the Soviet infantry managed to advance only 5-6 kilometers on the first day of the offensive. The Jassy breakthrough was stopped by a counterattack by German tanks. During this German sortie, about 30 Soviet tanks were destroyed. However, the onslaught of the Soviet rifle corps was able to break through the German-Hungarian defense. In fact, the Germans and Hungarians did not have enough infantry to hold the positions they had won back. On December 23, 1944, Marshal Tolbukhin gave the order to send mechanized units into battle. This was supposed to finally crush the enemy defense. His plan proved effective. Literally the next day, 82 tanks from the 2nd Mechanized Corps and 228 tanks from the 18th Tank Corps made a powerful attack to break through the defense on a 60-kilometer-wide section of the front, penetrating 30 kilometers into the enemy positions. The situation became critical for the Germans near Székesfehérvár, which was attacked by the 20th and 31st Guards Corps, supported by the 7th Mechanized Corps of the 4th Guards Army. A total of 107 tanks and self-propelled artillery units took part in the assault on the city. On the same day, Soviet troops were able to penetrate the city. Bloody street battles ensued. The German command decided to use special units dressed in Soviet uniforms (they even had several T-34s in their arsenal). These units, formed for their own German offensive, were able to hold back the Soviet advance only for a short time.
However, the breakthrough of the German-Hungarian line of defense proceeded more slowly than planned by the Soviet generals. The lack of reserves, especially infantry units, began to tell. However, Fretter-Pico's army group was unable to take advantage of this circumstance. Only immediately before Székesfehérvár was it possible to slightly hold back the avalanche of Red Army units. On December 21, 1944, Marshal Tolbukhin, based on the information available, came to the conclusion that it would be very advantageous to accelerate the offensive on the right flank of his sector of the front. For this reason, he gave the 2nd Guards Mechanized Corps the order to avoid the battles imposed on it and to advance north as quickly as possible. By the evening of December 22, these troops were to capture the Etyek district, the Herceghalom railway station and the town of Bicske. At the same time, the Soviet infantry was to reach the Pusztazamor - Alcsut line. From these positions, the attack on Lovasberény was to be carried out. In essence, the idea was to make a small detour of 10-15 kilometers and reach Budapest from the west.
On December 22, 1944, Soviet troops came close to the settlement of Bicske, which was an important railway junction linking Budapest with Eastern Hungary. In addition, the Red Army took Vertesacsa, where all desperate counterattacks undertaken by the forces of the 8th Panzer Division were repelled. The next day after that, Pál and Bicske. The road to Buda was virtually free.
THE DILEMMA FACING THE GERMAN AND HUNGARIAN LEADERSHIP
Unlike the military command, neither the German nor the Hungarian political leadership could accept the idea that Budapest could become a frontline city. Almost immediately after coming to power, Ferenc Szálasi voiced his own concept of government: “I am inclined to worry about the defense of Budapest only when offensive operations are underway in its vicinity. But if this happens, the Budapest population must be evacuated, after which it is necessary to retreat to the militarily advantageous Danube Mountains.”
Like many fanatical fascists, Szálasi was a dreamer who, like the officers of the General Staff, could not realistically assess the situation. This is evidenced by at least one of the answers that came from his lips at a press conference held in November 1944. “By defending Budapest, the Germans want to gain time,” Szálasi told the editor of one of the newspapers.
On November 2, Szálasi convened a council in the palace castle. After he had sworn an oath to the Hungarian nation, a very long report was read on the proposed development of Japanese-Hungarian relations (!). Virtually not a word was said about martial law. The dumbfounded people present at this event could see how Szálasi and his retinue left without giving an intelligible answer to the most pressing questions. Meanwhile, even in the castle one could hear the cannonade of guns approaching each day.
The next day, Szálasi took the liberty of calling Colonel General Friessner. The German military man was asked to forward his statement to the highest authorities in Germany. Friessner recalled on this occasion: "In view of the fact that fighting was already underway on the approaches to Budapest, he considered it necessary to emphasize that this was not his fault, but merely a legacy inherited from the previous regime. "Horthy's unfortunate domestic and foreign policy activities had paralyzed the will of the nation and the army. He regretted that Germany had intervened too late in Hungarian affairs. Now his government could only correct individual shortcomings. As long as the struggle for the nation was going on, genuinely restorative measures were impossible."
At the same time, Szálasi did not limit himself to angry reproaches addressed to his predecessor. He assured that he could mobilize 300 thousand people, provided that Germany would arm them. Szálasi was not focused on the defense of Budapest. This was connected not so much with the possible destruction of the city, but rather because of the population (in his jargon "the rabble of the big city"), which could strike the defenders of Budapest in the back, and there would be no forces to suppress this resistance. In addition, to protect the Pest side, military units would be needed, which the Germans so badly needed to resist Tolbukhin. This point of view was understood by the command of Army Group South.
On November 26, 1944, a request was even sent to the Supreme Command of the German Ground Forces about whether German units should participate in the suppression of civil unrest if any occurred. The answer was not encouraging: the "rabble of the big city" had to be evacuated promptly or kept under constant control. Friessner was not enthusiastic about this idea. He did not have enough troops to carry out this task.
As a result, he turned to SS General Winkelmann, who had once headed the management group of the Main Directorate of the Order Police. This SS man knew more about restoring order in cities than a career soldier. In addition, Friessner significantly hinted that he "would not be hurt by sapper-assault battalions similar to those operating in Warsaw." In addition, Friessner asked the Supreme Command to withdraw German troops to the western bank of the Danube in the event of a breakthrough of the defensive line by units of the Red Army. He was refused. Friessner tried at all costs to avoid protracted and bloody street battles. As a pretext, he used the anti-German sentiment that reigned among the inhabitants of Budapest. But in this situation he should have emphasized military reasons, since the responsibility for the fall of Budapest would have been placed on him, and not on the abstract "population". But apparently Friessner lacked the courage to admit this to himself.
The Hungarian military command also considered the defense of Budapest possible only in the defensive zone of the "Attila Line". It intended to refrain from street fighting as a matter of principle. In early December 1944, it even gave orders to army units to disarm public service employees (transport workers, firefighters, etc.). All this was to take place under the pretext that Budapest was to remain a free city under any circumstances. In December, Szálasi once again raised the question of whether the defense of Budapest was really necessary. He pointed out that the destruction of the river bridges could have stopped the Red Army. His question, naturally, remained unanswered. Read the rest at the link
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited. by Mikhail Kucherov
[REGNUM] The disappearance of the Polish state from the map of Europe for 123 years is somehow by default associated with the imperial ambitions of its neighbors - Russia, Prussia and Austria.
On February 17, 1772, a Russian-Prussian agreement was concluded in St. Petersburg, preceding the first partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
And as a result of the two subsequent ones, the last of which took place in 1795, it ceased to exist as such, returning to the political space only after the First World War.
Of course, in Poland the main culprit is called the Russian Empress Catherine II, and the experienced hand of propagandists easily draws a line of succession to the modern “aggressive aspirations of Russia.”
However, if we do not consciously turn history into politics, then every event has a whole complex of causes and consequences from incorrectly made decisions.
Thus, in the division of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Polish elites played a significant role, and the decision on this was a forced measure to ensure security in Eastern Europe.
As unpleasant as this may sound to experienced propagandists.
AGGRESSOR COUNTRY
As is well known, the state that emerged in 1569 as a result of the Union of Lublin, when the Crown of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania formed a federation, was one of the largest in Europe. Kings were elected, not inherited, and their powers were severely limited in favor of the noble elites - magnates and gentry.
For the time when absolutism reigned everywhere, the Polish system of decision-making at assemblies and sejms, when any free nobleman could block the discussion of issues, was not exactly advanced, but very unusual. At the same time, there was no democracy for the "national minorities".
In fact, only Catholics had all rights, including voting rights, and joining the system, for example, of city law for a conventional Russian (and no one knew the word "Ukrainians" at that time and the concept of nationality had not been formed in principle) or Armenian community meant the need to accept Catholicism. It was imposed forcibly, as a state religion.
"For twenty years now, at every Diet, at every Sejm, we have been begging with bitter tears, but we cannot beg for them to leave us with our rights and liberties. If even now our desire is not fulfilled, then we will be forced to cry out with the prophet: "Judge me, O God, and judge my case," - that is, judge the dispute with people who insult me, with my persecutors and enemies, as one of the Volyn Orthodox deputies wrote in 1620.
At the same time, Poland demonstrated an unquenchable desire for expansionism, showing aggression with the support of the Pope and Austria. The militant mood of the Polish gentry was so strong that at the beginning of the 17th century, Russia almost lost its sovereignty during the invasion of its neighbor's troops.
In 1610, at the height of the Time of Troubles, with the help of the "Semiboryashchyna" the Poles even entered Moscow, and the plans were far-reaching - King Sigismund III wanted to rule Russia. To do this, he sought to put his son Vladislav on the Russian throne.
Having frightened the boyars with the arrival of False Dmitry, the Polish troops received the right to "guard" Moscow and settled in the Kremlin. Crown Hetman Stanislav Zholkevsky soon left for Poland, allegedly for a conversation with the king, leaving Colonel Alexander Gosevsky in Moscow, who ruled the city in a very unceremonious manner of an occupier. How it all ended is well known - on November 4, 1612, the capital was liberated thanks to the militia of Kuzma Minin and Dmitry Pozharsky.
More precisely, it did not end, since the difficult wars with Poland (whose border ran immediately beyond Velikiye Luki, and Smolensk was considered “originally Polish”) continued for many years after the Zaporozhian Host, despairing of finding a common language with the crown, went under the hand of the Moscow Tsar.
All this became known in history as the "national liberation war led by Bohdan Khmelnytsky ", in which the Russian state also had to participate. This continued until the change in the international situation and the conclusion of the Andrusovo Truce first, and then the "Eternal Peace" in 1686. Moscow received back "the place where the Russian land came from", Kiev, which was a long-awaited event.
Poland emerged from these wars weakened and in the status of an ally. Peter I hoped that Warsaw would help him in his fight against Sweden, but King Augustus II (the Strong) wavered between him and the Swedish King Charles II. Having entered into peace agreements for the sake of fighting common enemies, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth showed itself to be an unreliable comrade. And it was precisely during this period that inter-elite discord, which slowed down the country's development, firmly entered its domestic political life.
Royal power was losing ground.
Under Augustus II, 18 Sejms were held, 11 of which were disrupted and two more ended without significant results. The number of royal troops at that time was 12 thousand people with a population of 11 million: some magnates could have an army larger than the king.
The nobles were constantly fighting with each other - they organized robberies and plunder, forcibly took away serfs, and the oppression of the Orthodox continued.
In turn, Russian rulers repeatedly tried to stand up for them. In 1708, Peter I stood up for the Galicians before his Polish colleague. The issue was about the Lvov Brotherhood, a national-religious public organization of Orthodox townspeople, which was forcibly annexed to the Union.
The new king, Augustus III, announced at the Diets of 1734 and 1736 that he would take the request into account, but he was politically weak, and so the persecution did not go away.
After the king's death in 1763, one faction wanted to establish his heir as the successor to the Polish throne - in such a scenario, the country would have fallen under the influence of France and Austria.
Then, concerned about the constant unrest in her neighbors, Catherine II began to rapidly promote her favorite, Stanislav Poniatowski, who was also supported by Prussia, and the following year the Sejm voted in his favor.
And from this point on, a movement began towards decisions to get rid of Poland altogether as a powerful irritant and source of headaches, instead of trying to deal with its unsolvable problems.
"GOLDEN LIBERTIES"
The new king immediately took the simplest and most logical path, as any leader should: to implement reforms that would give him more authority in decision-making. And this categorically did not suit the gentry.
At the same time, another powerful irritant arose: the project of granting political rights to “dissidents,” non-Catholic religious denominations, supported by Protestant Prussia and Orthodox Russia.
It is important to note here that the demands were legal: the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had already taken on obligations regarding freedom of religion for the Orthodox in the treaty of 1686, while also recognizing Russia’s right to represent their interests before the Polish government.
So these were a kind of “Minsk agreements” of the 17th century - they signed them, but had no intention of implementing them.
But now that Russia had come into power, it had already decided not to waste time and resources trying to out-scream the gentry with their precious "personal freedoms" at the Sejms and Sejmiks. The Russian envoy to Warsaw, Prince Nikolai Repnin, created an Orthodox and Protestant confederation by force.
On October 14, 1767, Russian soldiers even kidnapped Polish senators, including the Krakow bishop Kajetan Soltyk, who spoke out against religious freedoms of dissidents (and bishops were automatically included in the Senate).
On February 24, 1768, a treaty was signed on the "eternal friendship" of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Russia, turning Poland into a Russian protectorate. And two days later, the Orthodox and Protestants received freedom of worship, were freed from the jurisdiction of Catholic courts, and received partial equalization in civil rights. All this looked extremely offensive to the gentry.
Rejecting any reasonable compromises in the religious and cultural sphere for literally centuries, not wanting to share power with the king and maintain at least some kind of balance, she perceived coercion as a violation of noble dignity, which cannot be forgiven.
In response, on February 29, 1768, the Bar Confederation was organized in the city of Bar in today's Vinnytsia region. It advocated the preservation of previous rights and privileges, the repeal of the decisions of the February Sejm, and effectively declared "the last religious war," trying to enlist the support of France, Saxony, Austria, and Turkey. The latter was generously promised Podolia and Volyn for help.
And all this was clearly too much – as was the attempt to kidnap King Stanisław August in November 1771.
The fighting, in which Major General Alexander Suvorov, who stormed Krakow, and Major General Pyotr Golitsyn, who captured the Czestochowa fortress, took an active part, lasted for almost five years. Enough time to realize the need to solve the problem in a radical way.
So, in the summer of 1772, all contentious issues between Austria, Russia and Prussia were agreed upon, and on July 25, two secret conventions were signed in St. Petersburg: one between Russia and Prussia, the other between Russia and Austria.
As a result of the first partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Eastern Belarus and part of Livonia went to Russia, and the Bishopric of Warmia, the Pomeranian (excluding Danzig), Malbork, and Chełmin (excluding Torun) voivodeships, as well as part of the Inowrocław, Gniezno, and Poznan voivodeships went to Prussia.
Part of Lesser Poland (without Krakow) and Galicia went to Austria, where, however, the Austrians recognized Polish primacy, retaining the Polish language in the administrative system.
The European powers reacted to the partition with indifference, so in September the plenipotentiary delegation of the Sejm accepted the terms of the partition, and they were ratified.
But, contrary to popular belief, by 1795, as a result of three partitions of Poland, Russia had not received a single piece of the original Polish territories. It received lands inhabited by Ukrainians, Belarusians, Lithuanians and Latvians - that is, Orthodox and Protestants, in accordance with the stated claim.
And it is highly unlikely (if such a question were even raised) that modern national states populated by the aforementioned peoples would agree to a revision. In many ways, they emerged due to the fact that, in isolation from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, processes of national self-identification began to develop, and languages that the Poles considered despised dialects of villagers began to develop.
But in Polish elites and expert circles, of course, this is still perceived as a trauma and a loss of the chance to become an empire. They cannot admit defeat, as, for example, Sweden did.
Although history shows that the responsibility for the decline and disappearance of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth cannot be shifted to the actions of external players.
The furious desire to impose its “only true” vision of the world could not be endless and met with resistance – so strong that it left no trace of its former power.
#1
I'm waiting on DOGE's, yet to be announced, quietly conducted investigation into congressional member's personal and family asset enrichment while in office.
Things like Graft, Bribes, Family Rewards, Kickbacks from SIG's getting taxpayer $$$$, & various other Skimming Operations.
#2
They lose track of stuff. We were deploying a new automated system through our division and attached units. Normal supply receipts went to each unit though channels. Got a direct call from a depot to pick up over a dozen more new system computers, went down and picked them up. My offices got them to the units that needed them but we skipped the entire property book accounting system. Those disappeared off the books but still got to those it was intended. Technically a 'black hole'.
#3
At #2: Interesting. I did a similar "pre-property book distro" with Selectric-III's many. many years ago. The PBO was not happy, but the troops got their gear. I gave the PBO a copy of the bill of lading told him to visit the units and enter the SN's as appropriate.
#4
Re #1: Agreed, Many N's, that would be of strategic importance. Tactically, however, a look into the financial connections of the current crop of activist judges would yield more immediate help to the overall process.
#7
a simultaneous, 100% inventory of a ... mechanic's tool box
I remember Pan's fury when, during a walkthru at shift change, he saw a 'Snap-on' tool tray missing a wrench.
Specialty trays with foam cut for each tool.
A 100% visual inventory by both EoS and SoS techs, neglected.
Kinda like when TSA freezes the discharge line until a bag's owner is identified.
[Federalist] The FBI doesn’t just have a transparency problem. They’re actually distorting data to skew important crime statistics.
There is a lot of attention on the Trump administration removing dozens of Department of Justice (DOJ) and FBI officials involved in charging 1,500 Jan. 6 defendants, but one area of politicization in the FBI and DOJ that isn’t getting attention: crime data.
The ability to manipulate and distort crime data allows those distorting the data to control the political debate.
I’ve seen many cases of politicized data. Until January 2021, I worked in the U.S. Department of Justice as the senior advisor for research and statistics in the Office of Justice Programs, and part of my job was to evaluate the FBI’s active shooting reports. During my time with the DOJ, I discovered that the FBI either missed or misidentified many cases of civilians using guns to stop attacks. For instance, the FBI continues to report that armed citizens stopped only 14 of the 350 active shooter cases identified between 2014 to 2023.
The Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), which I run, has found many more missed cases and is keeping an updated list. As such, the CPRC numbers tell a much different story: Out of 515 active shooter incidents from 2014 to 2023, armed citizens stopped 180, saving countless innocent lives. Our numbers even excluded 27 cases where a law-abiding citizen with a gun stopped an attacker before he could fire a shot.
Overall, the CPRC estimates that law-abiding citizens with guns have stopped more than 35 percent of active shootings over the last decade and 39.6 percent in the last five years. This figure is almost nine times higher than the four percent estimate made by the FBI.
This figure increases even more when looking only at areas where citizens are legally allowed to carry a firearm. After all, you can’t expect that law-abiding citizens will stop attacks in gun-free zones. In places where law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry firearms, we estimate that armed civilians stopped 51 percent of active shootings over the past decade.
Unfortunately, the FBI dataset is missing so many defensive gun uses that it’s hard to believe it is accidental, and especially as they also never corrected mistakes that I brought to their attention. Since we list out each case and link to the underlying sources, no one needs to take our word for these missing or misidentified cases.
The FBI also has a big transparency problem, and their actions came to a head during last year’s presidential election. For a year, the media used the FBI’s estimates of reported crime for 2022 to claim that crime was falling under the Biden administration. Relying on the 2022 data, news headlines like NPR asserted: “Violent crime is dropping fast in the US — even if Americans don’t believe it.”
Posted by: NoMoreBS ||
02/18/2025 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11130 views]
Top|| File under: Tin Hat Dictators, Presidents for Life, & Kleptocrats
#1
Seems like a lot of turnover in our corrupt institutions. We may have to borrow bureaucrats from the UN on an emergency basis to shore up our scams and boondoggles.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
02/18/2025 5:00 Comments ||
Top||
In some minor defense of the Dept Of Justice and FBI.
In 2021, after Biden controllers stole the 2020 election, and quickly took control applying coup type edicts via Federal agency figurehead installed leaders.
It was clear the LSD's then quickly took steps, to do a political CYA for their crime-ridden politically controlled Metro's and states. All while they were screaming, DEFUND THE POLICE, and hamstringing Police.
Of course Hamas was, and is. But does he honestly believe the Biden administration was supportive of Israel rather than existentially dangerous, or is he trying to cover for the fact that President Trump is actually turning the situation around by doing everything opposite?
[IsraelTimes] Former White House Mideast czar Brett McGurk pens his first op-ed since leaving government, defending the Biden administration’s handling of the hostage negotiations and insisting that Hamas was consistently the obstacle to an agreement.
“We have been criticized for failing to adequately pressure Israel to end the war in Gaza — a war that Hamas itself started on Oct. 7, 2023.
You’ve also been criticized for pressuring Israel instead of Hamas, given that had Hamas done nothing there would have been no war, had Hamas not continued fighting the war would have ended, and had Hamas not taken hostages the current nonsense would have been entirely unnecessary. Equally, had you not held Israel back with open threats in an effort to protect Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran from the consequences of their actions, Israel would have won the Gaza war in only a few months, followed by Hezbollah and Iran — and probably with considerably less destruction.
But throughout the ceasefire negotiations, Hamas consistently held back on a commitment to release hostages and aimed to ensure it remained in power after the war ends,” McGurk writes in the Washington Post.
“These latest threats (from Hamas not to release hostages) are part of the same pattern. President Joe Biden was right to stand firmly by Israel and demand the release of hostages by Hamas. And President Donald Trump is right to do the same,” McGurk argues.
He says that Iran sought to take advantage of Israel’s vulnerability after Hamas’s October 7 onslaught, which led Biden to warn adversaries not to take advantage of the situation in addition to significantly bolstering US troop presence in the region.
The US faced the potential of a multi-front Mideast war, mounting pressure for Israel to accept a ceasefire on Hamas’s terms, calls to restrict aid to Israel, and efforts to isolate Jerusalem in international forums.
“Heeding such calls would have done nothing to stop the war. It would have instead led to an even longer and costlier one,” McGurk argues. “Therefore, we in the Biden administration concluded that the only way to realistically wind down the war was through firm support for Israel, while we worked on a ceasefire deal to release hostages on terms not dictated by Hamas and sought to mitigate the humanitarian consequences of the war.”
#1
He is lying. In the wormiest way. Hamas never stopped receiving millions from the U.S. even after they murdered U.S. civilians and even whilst they still are holding U.S. civilians in captivity.
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/18/2025 5:39 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Hamas never stopped receiving millions from the U.S. even after they murdered U.S. civilians and even whilst they still are holding U.S. civilians in captivity.
The German government in contrast increased Hamas' allowance after they murdered German civilians and even while they were holding German civilians in captivity.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Meanwhile, almost the entire front line was under fire, with 100 to 160 guns and mortars per kilometer. Such a hurricane of fire brought to mind images of the First World War. It seemed that the Soviet generals were planning a veritable end of the world. The combat diary of the hussar division described the breakthrough of positions near Kapolnashnek, a town located at the very spearhead of the Soviet offensive. “The Soviet infantry rushed into the breach, acting so quickly that we did not have time to explain anything to our hussars in the trenches. They managed to notice the Russians literally a few seconds before they were killed or captured… It was too late to jump out of their houses and ask what had happened, since many houses were collapsing, burying their inhabitants.”
[Federalist] The FBI doesn’t just have a transparency problem. They’re actually distorting data to skew important crime statistics.
