Authored by Peter Hanseler via VoiceFromRussia.ch,
In order to understand Russia’s current strength, stance, and strategy, it is necessary to understand developments since 1990. Only then will it become clear why President Putin is doing what he is doing and why he will be successful.
Development since 1990
When the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia was devastated. Boris Yeltsin, Russia’s first president, did not succeed in lifting the country out of its misery. There were solid reasons for this, both inside and outside Russia.
In an article by Professor Jeffrey Sachs and Matt Tahibi entitled “Economist Jeffrey Sachs Reveals How Neocons Subverted Russia’s Financial Stabilization In Early 1990s”, the explosiveness and importance of which cannot be overestimated, both transparently reveal the US strategy towards the Soviet Union and Russia from 1990 onwards.
The West – under the leadership of the US – pursued an unequivocal strategy of destruction. Sachs provides first-hand evidence that Poland, which later became an EU and NATO member, was helped back on its feet from 1989 with billions in aid from the G7, the IMF and other Western institutions – and very successfully so.
The approach to Russia was completely different. Russia was never supposed to become a partner of the West and Professor Sachs shows how, as an advisor to Gorbachev and then Yeltsin, he failed to organize support from the West. The US’s goal was not the recovery of Russia, but the disintegration of the country into small, digestible portions, which would then be taken over by puppets from the US. This plan is still being pursued today with enormous effort and is currently culminating in the war in Ukraine. We already reported on this last summer in an article entitled “The planned dismemberment of Russia”.
Russia after the planned dismemberment
The high point on the road to Russia’s destruction came in the late summer of 1998 when Russia’s economy collapsed, the ruble lost 99.9% of its value, and the state could no longer service its debts. The US was almost at the end of its rope.
Things turned out differently – a previously inconspicuous and little-known man came to the levers of power – Vladimir Putin.
Russia’s development under President Putin
President Yeltsin first appointed Vladimir Putin as Prime Minister in 1999. On the last day of the same year, he was then inaugurated as President of the Russian Federation.
Vladimir Putin, the new president, was faced with the ruins of a once dreaded world power. The economy was in ruins, the infrastructure practically non-existent, the people disillusioned. A few oligarchs who, with the help of American investment banks, had snatched up Russia’s prime assets, controlled politics in order to steal even more at the expense of the general public. The army – at all times the backbone of the Russian state – was a mere shadow of its former self and NATO’s eastward expansion was in full swing.
In short, Russia was in a deplorable state, and many observers did not give the country much chance of survival as an entity.
President Putin achieved the almost impossible. First of all, he removed the oligarchs from power politically in a way that was highly publicized. He ensured that wages, salaries and, above all, pensions were gradually paid again – regularly and in accordance with the law. In doing so, he created a basis for later trust. As a result, the foundations were laid in all areas of life and the economy, which enabled the subsequent upswing.
These few words describing this unprecedented process of change do not begin to convey the colossal problems that had to be solved. It took years for the first successes to become visible and tangible for the population, and this development continues to this day.
The course of the young president’s first years in office is the source of the phenomenon that the political West simply cannot understand and is not willing to comprehend, and which can be described in its way as basic trust in Putin. Putin ensured wages, pensions, food, basic compliance with the law, stability, and prosperity – the basis for modern Russia.
In terms of foreign policy, President Putin initially sought proximity to the West and pursued a policy aimed at making Russia a partner of the EU on an equal footing and developing friendly relations with the US. After 9/11, Putin even allowed the US to use Russian airfields.
Munich speech – Georgia – Maidan – Syria
In his famous address in Munich on 10 February 2007 at the Munich Security Conference, President Putin criticized for the first time the monopolistic dominance of the US and its almost unchecked use of force in international relations as well as the unstoppable eastward expansion of NATO. A surprising turn of events for the West. It was forced to acknowledge that Russia would no longer accept this development.
Georgia’s 2008 attack on its breakaway territories under Russian patronage – organized and orchestrated by the US – meant that Russia was forced to reassess the structure and armament of its military in light of the given threat situation. Under the pretext of reclaiming former Georgian territories, the real aim of the aggression was to create the conditions for the admission of new countries to NATO – namely Georgia and Ukraine and thus, above all, to weaken Russia.
The admission of Georgia and Ukraine was to be approved at the NATO summit in Bucharest in 2008. Surprisingly, Russia was also invited to the summit as a guest – proof of how weak the US considered the Russian Federation to be at the time.
All these events forced Russia to devote a great deal of energy to rebuilding its military.
This became possible due to the establishment of economic and political conditions. The events of Maidan 2013/14 and the subsequent covert war in Donbass by the West affirmed Russia’s decisions made in 2008. The failure to comply with the Minsk agreements eroded Russia’s trust in Western leaders and diplomacy. Russia showcased its military strength in Syria in 2015, thwarting American plans to destroy the country. President Putin’s clear strategy has been consistently executed, highlighting Russia’s strength and resilience. Despite facing Western sanctions, Russia has thrived economically and socially, emerging as a global heavyweight alongside China. The recent attack on the Kursk region by Ukraine, with potential Western support, failed to deter Russia’s resolve. The conflict may escalate further with potential American involvement. Depending on its design, this weapon has the potential to reach Moscow, although it would require bringing an F-16 to the east of Ukraine, which poses challenges due to Russian air defense systems. Without Western logistical support, this mission would be impossible. Despite the hype surrounding long-range weapons as game-changers in war, history shows that they ultimately have little impact on the overall outcome of conflicts.
President Putin’s strategic approach is often described as patient, but it goes beyond mere patience. Like a skilled chess player, Putin carefully implements his strategies to secure victory for Russia. He will not be swayed by emotional provocations, as he remains focused on Russia’s long-term interests and strategic goals.
In the face of global challenges, Russia’s next steps must be viewed within the context of its overarching objectives in Ukraine. Putin’s clear goals include denazification, demilitarization, and neutrality for Ukraine, as well as the retention of Crimea and other regions by Russia. Negotiations will only occur once these objectives are met, with Russia unwilling to agree to a ceasefire before then.
Diplomatically, proposals for peace in Ukraine may involve demarcation lines, guarantees of neutrality, and financial support for rebuilding. By November, it is likely that Russian forces will have advanced to the Dnieper, achieving their territorial goals before negotiations even begin. President Zelensky, facing a loss of popular support and a failing war effort, may find himself in a precarious position as these plans unfold. Whoever thinks they can live a luxurious life in exile, like in Miami, with stolen billions doesn’t understand Americans. The US no longer needs the heavily cocaine-addicted Selenski in Kiev, and he may meet the same fate as Ngo Dinh Diem, who was likely executed on US orders in 1963. Problem solved.
Europe, particularly Germany, will be outraged. As a loyal supporter of US interests in Ukraine, Germany has financially and socially ruined itself while contributing to Ukraine’s destruction. If Trump wins the presidency, he may leave Germany with the bill for reconstruction.
The peace plan is a disaster for Selenski, Europe, and the US deep state. Trump realizes the US cannot afford a war with Russia, but the deep state disagrees. The US is pressuring BRICS countries, especially Brazil and India, to negotiate with Russia. China, under pressure, is disrupting payment transactions with Russia.
Russia is taking diplomatic calls seriously but will not change its strategy. The recent attack on the Kursk region led to the destruction of a NATO training center in Poltava, killing hundreds of NATO officers. President Putin sees Western involvement in Ukraine as a declaration of war against Russia and has threatened appropriate action. President Putin has the option to act at any time, although he is not obligated to do so. It is evident that he is well aware of the U.S. strategy to dismember Russia in the long term. Over his tenure, Putin has primarily utilized diplomatic means to address this issue, abstaining from armed force until February 2022. Despite criticism from both the West and his own ranks, Putin’s strategic approach has yielded significant economic and social progress for Russia, comparable to Germany’s post-World War II recovery. Russia’s resilience in the face of Western sanctions, coupled with its military superiority, positions it favorably in the ongoing conflict. The possibility of a Russian attack on a NATO base outside of Ukraine remains, although it is currently deemed unlikely. Nevertheless, unconventional reactions from the Russian side cannot be discounted. It is crucial for Western decision-makers to exercise restraint in order to prevent further escalation of tensions.