This article was originally published in Danish on March 10, 2024.
By Povl H. Riis-Knudsen
Anything that does not align with the views of those in power is routinely labeled as disinformation, science denial, offensive speech, or hate speech. In short, it is something “one” should not listen to. However, none of the mainstream media ever attempts to look beyond the narratives of those in power. This is the case when it comes to immigration, Islam, COVID-19 and vaccinations, climate hysteria, and not least the war in Ukraine. Here, Russian media have been banned, and access to Russia Today has been made difficult—not to mention other Russian electronic media. They allegedly spread Russian propaganda. Granted, I have no doubt that they present the Russian version of the story, but that is also important for understanding Russia. If you don’t understand Russia, you can’t help but draw the wrong conclusions, and that is exactly what we are seeing today. During the Cold War, we could easily listen to Moscow Radio’s Danish broadcasts, which could certainly be classified as propaganda, just as one could buy Russian newspapers and magazines. Yes, sporting and cultural exchanges were actively supported. There was no talk of isolating the Soviet Union or imposing sanctions against the country. What has happened?
The only answer is that the picture the Western media paints of the conflict in Ukraine is so flawed and so wrong that it cannot withstand any qualified objection. Danish media simply parrot the strictly government-controlled Ukrainian press, which, for heaven’s sake, doesn’t exactly have Moses coming down from Mount Sinai every day—even though Moses’ descendants certainly have a hand in it. The Ukrainian narrative is wrong in every way—and it’s meant solely to give the impression that the Ukrainians are winning and just need a little more help, preferably troops, of course, but money will do as well, because then Zelenskyy and his backers can line their pockets even more. Win? Just tell me, how does one defeat a nuclear power? It’s impossible. That’s why every country wants nuclear weapons, but we’re not talking here about modest stockpiles on the scale of France or the UK, for which the European third-world countries in question likely don’t even have functional delivery systems. Both the U.S. and Russia could lay waste to the world multiple times over. I grew up during the Cold War, from the Korean War onward. Back then, we learned to fear the atomic bomb. Today, we have politicians who simply shrug their shoulders and claim that we shouldn’t fear it. They, of course, have their nuclear-proof shelters—the shelters for the general population are gone. But never mind that. After a nuclear war, the survivors will envy the dead. And if the U.S. and Russia were to detonate just a quarter of their stockpiles, a nuclear winter would descend upon the globe, as no sunlight would penetrate the dust and temperatures would never exceed -7°C anywhere on Earth for several years. Naturally, a dream scenario for climate fanatics, but it would mean that nothing can grow, and that we all die of hunger and cold, because we have no energy infrastructure left. And who would even want to live in that world?
Our politicians are so narrow-minded, ignorant, and incompetent that they think they can control everything—the climate, people’s genders, etc. They can’t. Even in peacetime, they can’t get the trains running or build a hospital. After a nuclear war? Forget it!
Zelenskyy is a born liar, a comedian who can’t do much else besides read from the script written for him in Washington. But he isn’t even a good liar. No one can really believe the story about the 31,000 killed in the war. Especially not when the former head of the Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs, Yuriy Lutsenko, has cited a figure of 500,000. “It will be a shock to the population when they find out how many have actually fallen,” he said. That was around New Year’s. The actual figure today is closer to 600,0001. People who count graves arrive at a much higher number, but 600,000 is frightening enough. We hear from the West about “enormous” Russian casualties. That figure is harder to pin down, but I have reasonably good sources. Before the Russian offensive, the estimate was 40,000 killed. That is also a large number, but it is less than 10% of Ukrainian casualties. Now that the offensive has begun, we must assume rising casualty figures on both sides. According to the Russian Ministry of Defense’s daily reports, Ukraine is currently losing between 1,000 and 1,500 men a day. In addition, the Russians are later finding large numbers of dead Ukrainian soldiers left behind or simply buried in unmarked mass graves. The Ukrainians report people dead by the week. Officially, they are merely listed as missing, because then their families would not be entitled to compensation. The high numbers are primarily due to poor training and incompetent officers. In any case, an entire generation of Ukrainian men—and more recently, women as well—is being wiped out. That is what sending money to Ukraine achieves: more killed and maimed. The U.S. admits it without shame: We are weakening Russia without losing American lives, “only” Ukrainians. And the money goes to the American arms industry, owned by the Jewish-controlled Blackrock, which, incidentally, also owns 33% of Ukraine’s farmland. There is a connection here, and the list of warmongers in Ukraine and the U.S. reads like the Jerusalem phone book.
The Danish Broadcasting Corporation ran a sensational article in January from their correspondent in Russia, Matilde Kimer, who certainly hasn’t invented the wheel—or is simply following orders. The headline reads: Russian egg crisis puts pressure on Putin and Russian consumers: “Impossible to get anything to eat because it’s so expensive”. I just had to look into that story. It’s true that there was suddenly a shortage of eggs—and of course, prices rise in any capitalist society. The reason for the shortage was that bird flu had broken out, and they simply weren’t prepared and didn’t have enough vaccines. So they had to cull a number of flocks. This was around New Year’s, which in Russia is celebrated somewhat in the same way we celebrate Christmas. Lots of food, lots of salads with eggs. The shortage lasted two days, and it wasn’t as if you couldn’t get eggs—they just became more expensive. After two days, supplies arrived from Belarus and Turkey (wittily referred to as Erdogan’s “eggs” and Lukashenko’s “eggs”), and the “crisis” was over. The segment was illustrated by a picture from a supermarket with stocked shelves and plenty of eggs. Matilde had also managed to get hold of a supposedly random Russian, who compared the situation to conditions in the Soviet Union—and the dreadful Yeltsin era in the ’90s.
Matilde Kimer was born on December 23, 1980. She has no memory of either the Soviet Union or the Yeltsin era—and neither, apparently, does her “random” Russian, or perhaps he isn’t so random after all. I, however, do! The Soviet Union was what it was. Shortages of goods due to ideologically driven poor organization, but prices were quite moderate. I remember that very well. And I remember the Yeltsin era particularly well—I was able to observe it from the front row. Back then, there were no goods. Supermarkets gaping with emptiness and restaurants without food. The result of American colonization. As usual, they hadn’t familiarized themselves with local conditions. They just thought they could do things exactly as in the U.S. Today, a Russian supermarket is exactly like a Western supermarket—just as full of goods and at very moderate prices. I just checked the price of one egg: 0.09 euro. At my local grocery store in Denmark, that’s somewhere between 0.37 and 0.5 euro per egg, depending on size, free-range eggs, organic eggs, etc. Just like in Russia. Bananas, oranges, etc., are also mentioned. But listen up: the country of origin for many of these fruits is seasonal. In winter, they’re more expensive than in summer. That’s just how it is. This year’s supply, however, has been far more varied, as large quantities of tropical fruits have been purchased from India in exchange for oil—probably not the best deal the Russians have made.
There has indeed been inflation in Russia—just like here, but for different and more tragic reasons. They have mobilized 300,000 men. Depending on where they live, these men receive between approximately 18,000 and 26,000 DKK per month. Survivors of the fallen receive between approximately 1.8 million and 3.6 million kroner, again depending on where they live. Life in Moscow and St. Petersburg is significantly more expensive than in a remote corner of the province. If we assume 40,000 casualties, that still amounts to a lot of money, especially in Russia, where prices are still quite moderate. Russians have had bad experiences with banks. Twice during the Yeltsin era, they lost their savings. They therefore spend their money as soon as they receive it—on durable goods and good food. When such sums are injected into the economy, prices rise. The government has therefore launched a campaign to get people to put their money in the bank, and it is slowly helping. At the same time, the minimum wage has been raised by, as far as I recall, 14%, and pensions by about half that amount.
There is, of course, no shortage of goods, not even when it comes to Western goods, but they have become more expensive. Especially cosmetics, liquor, and the like. People are buying them anyway, though. Putin is under no pressure whatsoever. This was the work Matilde Kimer should have done!
Today, Russia is seen as an enemy, but one should know one’s enemy—one could almost say: one should know an enemy especially well.
In that context, I can only note that our so-called experts, for example at the Royal Danish Defence College, are completely clueless. They can only think in American terms, because that is where they receive their education, and it is American material they study.
People simply do not understand what this conflict is about. There are two main points: Ukraine’s NATO membership and the treatment of the Russian population. The conflict was not triggered by the Russian invasion two years ago, but by the American coup d’état in Kiev ten years ago, in which the country’s legally elected president was deposed because he saw what EU membership would mean for Ukraine’s economy. Total bankruptcy, just like in the GDR. He would only accept EU membership if he could simultaneously trade with Russia on Russian terms. That was not possible. Ukraine’s industry did not meet European standards. To achieve that, it would have to be privatized—and we know what that means. Stolen, just like in the GDR. Helmut Kohl was boundlessly corrupt, but he was a model Sunday school boy compared to Ukraine’s oligarchs. Yanukovych was smart—but that wasn’t what the U.S. wanted. Afterward, the constitution was amended so that Russians in Ukraine became third-class citizens, who were eventually no longer allowed to use their own language. People in Crimea, which was an autonomous republic within Ukraine, demanded to return to Russia. The population of Crimea has never been Ukrainian. It went entirely by the book. First, they severed ties with Kiev; then they sought admission into the Russian Federation. In Donbas, the population also did not want to be part of American-controlled Ukraine. They declared themselves independent (just as Kosovo declared itself independent from Serbia). In response, the puppet government in Kiev began waging war against its own people. 14,000 civilian casualties over 8 years prompted the Russians to intervene (do you recall that the U.S. bombed Serbia’s civilians because of Kosovo?). Today, Ukraine continues these bombardments, now also targeting the Russian hinterland. There is no military presence here. All casualties are civilians. Losses average 1–2 per day. The Western press remains silent, but it reports triumphantly when Ukraine shoots down 15 Russian drones in a single night. Russia shoots down between 100 and 150 Ukrainian drones a day.
What was NATO doing in Ukraine? Contrary to all promises, NATO was pushed all the way up to the Russian border. Russia even accepted the Baltic countries becoming members of the alliance, but Ukraine (and Georgia) was the red line. When you look at the map, it makes perfect sense. Ukraine cuts right into Russia’s heartland. The Baltic states are not a problem in and of themselves. They are of little significance to Russia. They only became Russian in 1721, but Estonia and Latvia have a very large Russian minority, which they would probably be wise to treat properly if they want a normal relationship with Russia. The last two years have only reinforced the Russians’ belief that NATO is not a defensive alliance, but that its purpose is an attack on Russia, whose raw materials the U.S. covets.
For the Russians, Ukraine is not a foreign country. The family ties between the people are too close, and their shared history stretches back more than 1,000 years. Western Ukraine, which until 1945 was partly part of Poland and previously of Austria, is different. That is where the Ukrainians live. The Russians are pretty indifferent to them. But southern and eastern Ukraine are a different matter. They have always been populated by Russians, ever since they were ceded by the Turks. The Russians have no trouble living in multinational states—Russia itself is one—but they simply want to be treated properly.
There were negotiations in Minsk, where an agreement was reached under which Kiev retained control over everything except Crimea in exchange for granting the Russians cultural autonomy. Both Merkel and Hollande have since stated that the West was only negotiating for show in order to have the opportunity to arm Ukraine for a war against Russia. After the Russian invasion, there were further negotiations in Minsk and Istanbul. Once again, Russia offered the Ukrainians a highly favorable agreement, which the Ukrainians accepted, but Boris Johnson talked them out of it by promising them military aid. How can the Russians ever trust the West after this?
As a sign of goodwill, the Russians withdrew their forces from Kiev. This was interpreted as Russian weakness. Well, it was not Russia’s intention to occupy Ukraine. Far too few troops had been sent for that—a few hundred thousand. When Hitler invaded Poland in 1939, he sent 1.5 million men. That is the scale we’re talking about if you want to occupy a country, and the Russians know that, of course. But they were counting on reason to prevail.
And let’s be completely honest. The Russians could do to Ukraine exactly what Israel does to Gaza without facing much criticism. But what an outcry there would be if it were Russia acting that way. But Russia won’t do that, and that is not a sign of weakness. Ukraine is not a foreign country; both Kiev and Odessa are historic Russian cities. You don’t bomb them. But the West still believes that Russia is weak, and that will prove fatal. Germany has just shown that it is once again planning a war of aggression against Russia. That is illegal, and it violates the agreements on German reunification. Legally speaking, Germany and Russia are thus at war, and legally, Russia has the right to reoccupy the GDR. If Russia decides to retaliate against Germany, the gloves will come off, and Germany will experience a repeat of 1945. Mette Frederiksen had better buy a photo album of that, because that will also be Denmark’s fate if Russia responds to Germany’s de facto declaration of war. And that’s even before the war turns into a nuclear war. This is serious. Mette Frederiksen intends to get us all killed.
She will defend herself by saying that we must defend democracy, and that Putin will come here otherwise. The woman is dim-witted, but we know that already. The latter first. That is Cold War thinking. The Soviet Union wanted to spread the blessings of communism to the whole world. The world revolution was the stated goal. It was an ideological issue. Putin has no ideology he wants to spread. He thinks rationally and practically. What would he be doing here? Russia isn’t fighting to gain territory. Russia is more than big enough. Ukraine is not a matter of land; it is a matter of ensuring that Russians can live in peace. We have practically no Russians here. What would be the point of occupying Western Europe? We have nothing but foreigners, of whom Putin already has enough. We have a population of drones who do nothing; we have no industry left, and we have no raw materials. Russia has it all. Western Europe isn’t worth a single Russian life. And where is the evidence that Russia would come here? It doesn’t exist. But if Western Europe threatens Russia, Western Europe will be annihilated—above all, Germany. The danger that people imagine as justification for the latest NATO expansion only arose with the expansion itself. Sweden and Finland have never been a problem for Russia. They have become one because they are now American colonies—along with Denmark. So now we have to spend all the money we don’t have to arm ourselves—to no avail. But it’s good for Blackrock. We are ruled by imbecile criminals. I look forward to a Nuremberg 2.0. In version 1.0, the charge of planning a war of aggression was a major count, for which one was hanged slowly. Perhaps Mette Frederiksen should read a bit about the Nuremberg trials and study the photos of those who were hanged.
As I said, Putin has no ideology to spread, but Mette Frederiksen apparently does. She wants to fight for democracy in Ukraine. That’s quite a task, since there is no democracy in Ukraine. North Korea is more democratic than Ukraine. In Ukraine, elections have been canceled, the opposition banned, the press under strict government control, minorities oppressed more violently than in any other European country—and the population has fled. An estimated 20 million, and they will never return, perhaps with the exception of the Russians from the areas that now remain Russian. And we are openly talking about sending European troops to reinforce Ukraine, while millions of Ukrainian men of conscription age are enjoying the good life at the expense of Western taxpayers. Our politicians belong in an asylum!
But doesn’t Russia have democracy? Elections do take place there, after all; they have a free parliament and a (mainly communist) opposition that, on certain occasions, makes no secret of its criticism. But when it comes to the nation, they work together. You shouldn’t disagree just for the sake of disagreeing. In Russia, things are going well—unlike here. So what on earth is there to disagree about? When we get more and more parties in this country, it’s just a show for the gallery. They all vote for the budget, after all—and that’s the most important law. The opposition in this country isn’t allowed to speak. It’s consistently silenced. I speak from experience. Is that democracy? Or what about the U.S.? What we’re seeing there right now certainly isn’t democracy either. But the American people have guns and can do something about it. We can’t.
But setting that aside. What gives Mette Frederiksen and the U.S. the right to want to impose their own incompetent system and the accompanying insane ideology on other countries? What kind of “rules-based order” is that? The U.S. can attack foreign countries in other parts of the world, resulting in enormous civilian casualties, but apparently that doesn’t matter. Ask the people of Serbia, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Vietnam, Libya, Afghanistan, etc. Supposedly to create democracy and respect for “human rights” by killing a sufficiently large portion of the population. When Russia intervenes in affairs in its own backyard, albeit far more sparingly, all hell breaks loose—suddenly it’s a “war of aggression.” The U.S. is the world’s biggest criminal state!
Note
- See Douglas Macgregor, Scott Ritter, and John Mearsheimer on YouTube. ↩︎