If you want to understand deeply why the Western countries tried to cancel Russian culture and the "Idea of Russia" along these past years since 2000, you need to read the last book of Professor Andrei Tsygankov, "Canceling Russia: the Ukraine War and the rise of the Western hawks".
And in this video, Norwegian Professor Diesen talks with Mr. Tsygankov about his last brillian work.
Since "Euromaidán", 12 years ago, extreme right government usually built a discourse that privileged the necessity of deconolonization and decommunization, in a way of separate its history from the USSEold Empire and obviously, Russia.
But in this effort, they can not convince us that Ukraine was part of USSR so it was victim but also executioner of crimes against Poles, Jews and Germans, who were victims of genocides of the Bolsheviks, including Ukrainians. Obviously, independently of the crimes of UPA and Stepan Bandera, colaborationist of Nazis. And also receiving the rich and diverse cultural and social heritage from Lviv, Odessa and the entire regions of Galitzia, Transcarpatia, Volyn, etc., in other words, now, the Western Ukraine, today aligned with "European Union".
In this video, Professor Andrii Baumeister shows us how Kiev manipulates history in order to create a russophobic propaganda, one of the ways necessary to fight in mediatic terms, with Russia.
In these times of Climate Change, the Arctic has been object of growing relevance for the Great Powers, including, obviously Russian Federation. It has an important part of its entire history about the conquer of the Arctic and the initial period of this long way has been described in the film "Los primeros" -en ruso, "Pervye", 2018-. So, I recommend you to watch this film directed by Dmitri Suvorov, in order to admire the big adventures of Vasily Pronchishchev and Vasily Chelyuskin, young lieutenants of the Russia fleet, who set out from Yakutsk along the Lena River to the Arctic Ocean on a sailing ship under the leadership of the commander Vitus Bering in the summer of 1735.
HUNGARY'S REJECTION OF CONFRONTATION WITH RUSSIA
TRENDS RESEARCH & ADVISORY, OCTOBER, 26, 2025.
CEO of Gulf State Analytics - USA
Since Russia launched its “special military operation” in Ukraine in February 2022, most European Union (EU) and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member states have aligned behind a common policy of supporting Kyiv and confronting Moscow through economic sanctions, military assistance to Ukraine, and diplomatic isolation. Yet Hungary, under Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, has consistently diverged from this “consensus” and emerged as the EU and NATO’s most prominent advocate for a more cautious approach to Russia. Budapest has resisted strict sanctions, maintained close economic ties with Russia, especially in energy, and advocated dialogue over confrontation. In doing so, Hungary has carved out a distinct and complex role within Europe’s evolving geopolitical landscape: one that presents itself as a moderating voice amid growing East-West polarization, but often at the cost of alienating Western allies who see Budapest’s stance as undermining the unity needed to counter Russia in Ukraine.
As a frontline NATO country bordering Ukraine’s western flank, Hungary occupies a strategically sensitive position in the alliance. At the same time, its heavy dependence on Russian energy significantly constrains its foreign policy options and grants Moscow a degree of leverage over Budapest. Hungary’s position illustrates the internal frictions within NATO and the EU, where divergent national interests complicate efforts to present a unified front against Russia amid this ongoing war in Ukraine. More broadly, Budapest’s approach reflects deeper tensions within the West about how to balance national sovereignty, economic pragmatism, and collective security commitments in an era of renewed geopolitical confrontation between great powers.
From Soviet Satellite to NATO Member
Like many nations in Central and Eastern Europe, Hungary spent the decades following World War II firmly under the Soviet Union’s authoritarian grip. Yet by the 1970s, a distinct shift in national discourse had emerged, increasingly oriented toward engagement with the West.[1] This pivot was closely tied to Hungary’s neo-liberal economic policies, which sought growth through limited market reforms and greater openness to Western trade and finance.[2] The 1980s marked a deepening of this Western orientation. Hungary joined the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, and despite opposition from Moscow, it established formal diplomatic relations with the European Economic Community—the forerunner of today’s EU.[3] These moves signaled Budapest’s growing desire to assert a more autonomous foreign policy, particularly during the twilight years of Soviet rule, when Mikhail Gorbachev’s policies of Glasnost and Perestroika loosened Moscow’s hold on its satellite states.[4]
Capitalizing on this moment of relative liberalization, Hungary accelerated its westward turn. The watershed moment came in 1990, when the country held its first multi-party democratic elections in over four decades.[5] Under Prime Minister József Antall, the new government prioritized Euro-Atlantic integration as a pillar of its foreign and security policy.[6] While NATO membership remained a longer-term ambition at the time, the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in 1991 was a pivotal turning point that cleared the way for Hungary to pursue deeper strategic ties with the West.
This trajectory culminated on 12 March 1999, when Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic became the first former Warsaw Pact members to join NATO.[7] Its accession marked both a symbolic and practical transformation in Hungary’s security posture—from a Soviet satellite to a committed member of the Transatlantic Alliance. In the years that followed, Hungary actively participated in NATO-led missions, including the Kosovo Force (KFOR) and the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan after the launch of the U.S.-led “War on Terror” in 2001.[8] Today, Hungary remains one of only a handful of NATO countries to meet the alliance’s two percent GDP defense spending benchmark.[9] This legacy of westward integration continues to shape Budapest’s strategic outlook, including its complex stance on the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.
Despite Hungary’s membership in NATO and the EU since 1999 and 2004, respectively, there are multipolar dimensions to Budapest’s foreign policy with Orbán at the helm.[10] Hungary’s ties with the Organization of Turkic States (OTS), which is part of its “Eastern Opening” policy aimed at diversifying international partnerships beyond the EU, is one case in point.[11] In a grander geopolitical and geoeconomic context, Hungary aspires to act as a “keystone state,” skillfully navigating the competing interests of major global powers—namely the United States, Russia, and China—while at times positioning itself as a bridge among them.[12] This strategic posture aims to enhance Hungary’s autonomy and consolidate its role as a sovereign actor within a shifting geopolitical landscape. Hungary’s geography lends itself naturally to this ambition: situated at the crossroads of East and West, the country is well-placed to serve as a critical gateway for energy transit and trade routes essential to the broader project of Eurasian integration. Infrastructure initiatives such as the Budapest-Belgrade-Piraeus cargo railway and the East-West Gate Terminal exemplify Hungary’s efforts to cement its status as a logistics and commercial hub connecting European markets with Eurasia’s expanding economic networks.[13] In times of geopolitical volatility—particularly in the wake of the Ukraine conflict beginning in February 2022—Hungary’s role as a Central European transit point pursuing a “connectivity-based strategy” becomes all the more strategic, enabling it to leverage both geography and diplomacy to maintain relevance and flexibility on the international stage.[14]
This is one more example of disinbformation.
Everything is possible un the Trump's real world. In less than a week, we can go from a possible Summit with Putin in Budapest -Hungary- to new sanctions on Russian economy -added to the 19 th battery of new ones from Brussels-. Sooner, he menaced Moscow with the decision of providing Tomahawks to Kyiv.
Differently, Putin sent his peace adviser Kirill Dmitriev once again to Washington and minimized the impact of Western sanctions.
From Europe:
German Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt said Friday that the temporary closure of Munich airport after drone sightings was a "wake-up call" about the threat from drones, which have caused a string of similar aviation disruptions across Europe. Airports in Denmark, Norway and Poland have recently suspended flights due to unidentified drones, while Romania and Estonia have pointed the finger at Russia, which has brushed off the allegations.
Internet blackouts have become a fact of daily life in the Russian city of Sochi, which is coming under increasing threat of retaliatory Ukrainian drone strikes. Russia's authorities have tried to shield their citizens from the Moscow's offensive on Ukraine, launched in 2022, but as Kyiv ups its own long-range drone attacks on Russian territory, disruptions to daily life have become more and more frequent.“The last few months have been difficult. We are being constantly disconnected. Usually during the night and morning, there are alerts about drones,” Nadezhda Gorshanova, a 23-year-old sports coach from the city told AFP.
THE "ATLANTICIST" PARTY IN EUROPE
According to the Institute for Study of War, Putin announced on September 22 that Russia will adhere to the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) for one year following its expiration in February 2026 and used threats to urge the United States to do the same.
Putin blamed the West for undermining Russian-US arms cooperation and violating bilateral arms agreements—ignoring how Russia has violated numerous multilateral and bilateral treaties in the past decades.
Putin is attempting to pressure the Trump administration to engage in arms control talks to facilitate US-Russian rapprochement and extract concessions from the United States about the war in Ukraine, as ISW forecasted Russia would in August 2025.
Ukrainian forces recently advanced in the Dobropillya tactical area. Russian forces recently advanced near Lyman and Pokrovsk and in the Kostyantynivka-Druzhkivka tactical area.
Receiving in these times, US loan from Trump Administracion, is not free of charge. It is similar to the situation faced by Ukrainian President Voldymyr Zelensky last February when he was under siege by the American leader, in order to exchange its "rare earths" by arms, for continuing the war against Russia.
Now, Argentina of Javier Milei probably needs an urgent financial help from Washington but instead of a swap or other kind of support, national government is ready to auction everything, including our sovereignty?
Once again, leaders of European Union sanctioned and "demonized" Russia, because of drones fall in Pd and Baltic States. But Russia has no any motivation to entering in war with NATO neighbours.
SCOTT RITTER AND GEORGE GALLOWAY ABOUT THE FALSE FLAG OPERATIONS
Sometimes, I believe that in our "posttruth era", human beings have lost the capabilities to talk in a civilized manner and maybe, agree, though their differences.
By then, it is necessary to rescue from You Tube, two relevant dialogues. One, between the British philosopher John Gray and the American intellectual and former officer of the Reagan Administration, Francis Fukuyama, talking inside the liberal tradition,about the Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Here is this interesting debate.
And, secondly, I present a diplomatic meeting between former Chancellor of Reagan Administration, George Schultz and the last Soviet President, Mikhail Gorbachov.
Certainly, times of Cold War and ideologival battles are over but war winds threaten the whole world, so, listening those wise men, maybe brings reason and another spirit to fight with the menace.
During the last personal meeting of our Club, September 17th, Former Argentine Ambassador Pedro Von Eyken exposed his point of view about a comparison between Germans and Russians, through the lens of History.
BY KONSTANTIN VON HOFFMEISTER
LINK: https://www.eurosiberia.net/p/germany-in-chains
Germany drags a weight across its soul, a colossal anchor created from rubble and tribunals. The nation lives inside a mirror where every reflection shows a shadow in uniform. Every law scribbled across paper bows before that image. The Grundgesetz (Basic Law) speaks of liberty, but the words are an incantation written by the victors, a charm against resurrection. Citizens march through streets lined with cameras and prosecutors. Speak too freely and you summon phantoms; the phantoms do not vanish, they call the police. This is the fake democracy of chains.
The guilt complex has grown into a sacred totem. Schools feed it daily, churches kneel before it, newspapers chant it. The totem requires sacrifice: expression must bleed. To question, to laugh, to remember differently: that is profanation. The state protects the totem with penal codes sharper than swords. The soul of Germany is pressed flat under this idol, the way wheat is ground into powder for bread. The idol is fed endlessly, and yet its hunger grows.
Every decade, politicians perform ritual penance, speaking with grave lips about responsibility that can never end. They tell children they are heirs of darkness. They tell poets their language must tread carefully. They tell comedians that certain laughter carries punishment. An eternal courtroom stretches across the landscape, and every citizen is both a defendant and a witness. The process never closes; the sentence is permanent.
Free speech becomes a decorative mask in this theater. Article 5 of the Grundgesetz holds the mask high: “There shall be no censorship.” Yet beneath the mask lies a courtroom docket filled with names, charges, and sentences. Speak of history with the wrong intonation and you are marked. Display symbols with the wrong geometry and you are marked. The promise of “freedom” is ritual theater; the reality is a litany of prohibition.
Germany’s intellectuals live in a paradox. They proclaim openness, diversity of voices, and endless tolerance. Yet the chorus must always sing the same hymn of guilt. Dissonance is heresy. The universities hum with this dogma. Students learn early: some books are doors to prison and some phrases are stones too hot to touch. Ideas are filed into categories of safe and unsafe, usable and radioactive. Knowledge becomes a minefield patrolled by guardians of memory.
The guilt complex does not dissolve with time; it mutates into ideology. It travels into debates on immigration, identity, and Europe. Every argument carries a subterranean current: Germany must atone, Germany must atone again, Germany must atone forever. Policies bend towards submission, and speech bends with them. When people resist, they are labeled ghosts of the past, reminders of the forbidden era. The past is treated as a demon that must be exorcised daily, so the priests of democracy wave their censuring torches across public discourse.
The myth of guilt becomes an industry. Museums, foundations, institutes, and memorials multiply. Each demands reverence, each consumes state funds, and each produces literature reminding citizens of their inherited debt. The culture of remembrance becomes the culture of constraint. Freedom is traded for contrition. Speech is shackled in the name of “healing,” but the wound is never allowed to close. A healed wound would silence the industry, and so it must stay open, bleeding in perpetuity.
Germany’s citizens live with two tongues. One tongue speaks in public, careful, filtered, and adorned with the proper rituals. The other tongue whispers in kitchens, pubs, and encrypted channels. The public tongue feeds the system; the private tongue keeps a fragment of truth alive. This dual speech corrodes trust, as neighbors wonder which tongue you truly speak with. Surveillance grows, suspicion grows, and the air thickens with self-censorship.
Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, Americans wave flags and declare speech absolute. Germany watches with envy and terror. Envy, because such liberty radiates vitality. Terror, because such liberty might awaken the sleeping forces of history. The German elite insists: America does not understand, Germany cannot follow. So the divide grows: between a people who crave release and a leadership that fears resurrection.
The guilt complex is an iron garment. Every German wears it at birth, stitched by the schools, reinforced by the courts, and decorated by the media. To remove it is unthinkable. To question its weight is dangerous. Yet the garment suffocates. Artists gasp under it, thinkers shrivel under it, and ordinary citizens stumble beneath it. Freedom struggles to breathe inside this garment, but the garment clings tighter with every movement.
The cycle becomes circular: guilt demands silence, silence produces resentment, and resentment strengthens the guardians of guilt, who demand more silence. Germany spins inside this circle endlessly. The promise of free speech becomes a ritual chant at the center of the circle, a chant no one believes but everyone repeats. The contradiction is sacred. The lie is sacred.
Germany once produced poets who bent language into worlds, philosophers who split reality with words, and revolutionaries who forged destiny with speeches. Now the poets must sign disclaimers, the philosophers must submit footnotes, and the revolutionaries must censor their own manifestos. Speech becomes anemic, stripped of fire. Yet beneath the surface, pressure builds. History has shown: pressure always finds cracks.
The guilt complex seeks to bury the past beneath prohibitions, yet by obsessively policing the past, it keeps the past alive. Citizens who would forget are reminded daily; citizens who would forgive are forbidden to. The state that claims to protect democracy builds walls around thought, as if ideas were contraband. A democracy that fears words is a democracy chained to fear.
The chains clatter across the cobblestones of Berlin, across the classrooms of Munich, and across the stages of Hamburg. Germany carries them with solemn pride, as if chains themselves were proof of virtue. Yet chains, however polished, remain chains. Speech under chains is a dull refrain. True freedom does not live in Germany; it waits at the margins, in exile, and in dreams of another dawn.
