Russian Dominated

⚡ ALL INFORMATION CLICK HERE 👈🏻👈🏻👈🏻

Russian Dominated
To what extent was the Soviet Union dominated by Russia?
read a thing or two about USSR · Author has 1.1K answers and 2.5M answer views · 11 mo ·
What did the Soviet Union take from Russia?
Why did Russia join the Soviet Union?
When did Russia leave the Soviet Union?
Was Russia part of the former Soviet Union?
Was Russia much better under the Soviet Union?
Former Served in the Russian Airborne Troops - VDV ( 1994 – 1999 ) · Author has 2.4K answers and 22.5M answer views · 11 mo ·
Конституція (Основний Закон) Української Радянської Соціалістичної Республіки
Конституція; Україна від 30.01.1937
https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/001_001/ed19370130#Text
The Affirmative Action Empire: Nations and Nationalism in the Soviet Union, 1923–1939 (The Wilder House Series in Politics, History and Culture): Martin, Terry: 9780801486777: Amazon.com: Books
https://www.amazon.com/Affirmative-Action-Empire-Nationalism-1923-1939/dp/0801486777
What did the Soviet Union take from Russia?
Why did Russia join the Soviet Union?
When did Russia leave the Soviet Union?
Was Russia part of the former Soviet Union?
Was Russia much better under the Soviet Union?
How did the Soviet Union "fall" if Russia still exists today?
How powerful was Russia in the Soviet Union?
What did the Soviet Union have that Modern Russia doesn't?
Why did Russia create the Soviet Union?
Who ruled Russia before the Soviet Union?
Is Russia likely to disintegrate like the Soviet Union?
Was Russia still its own country while in the Soviet Union?
What countries were in the Soviet Union besides Russia?
From 1922-1991, was the Soviet Union considered Russia?
Does Russia fit into soviet position?
What did the Soviet Union take from Russia?
Why did Russia join the Soviet Union?
When did Russia leave the Soviet Union?
Was Russia part of the former Soviet Union?
Was Russia much better under the Soviet Union?
How did the Soviet Union "fall" if Russia still exists today?
How powerful was Russia in the Soviet Union?
What did the Soviet Union have that Modern Russia doesn't?
Why did Russia create the Soviet Union?
Who ruled Russia before the Soviet Union?
Something went wrong. Wait a moment and try again.
In 1990 GNP of Russia was $17.500 per capita while consumption only $11.800 per capita. Georgia had GNP of $10.600 and consumption of $41.900.
Somehow they thought that was because of their unique productivity and industirous hard work.
Turned out that was communist relocation of wealth from core Russia.
Russia and Belarus were economical donors. Other republics had negative balance. The first column shows production, the second column shows consumption (GDP per capita, thousand USD). In 1990 only Kirghizia had lower level of consumption than Russia.
Ukraine was slightly better off than Ru
In 1990 GNP of Russia was $17.500 per capita while consumption only $11.800 per capita. Georgia had GNP of $10.600 and consumption of $41.900.
Somehow they thought that was because of their unique productivity and industirous hard work.
Turned out that was communist relocation of wealth from core Russia.
Russia and Belarus were economical donors. Other republics had negative balance. The first column shows production, the second column shows consumption (GDP per capita, thousand USD). In 1990 only Kirghizia had lower level of consumption than Russia.
Ukraine was slightly better off than Russia and Belarus. Moldova also had fairly low level of deficit. However, Baltic States consumed way more than they produced.
Here are the numbers (production - consumption): Russia: 17.5 - 11.8 Belorussia: 15.6 - 12 Ukraine: 12.4 - 13.3 Kazakhstan: 10.1 - 17.7 Uzbekistan: 6.6 - 17.4 Lithuania: 13–23.3 Azerbaijan: 8.3 - 16.7 Georgia: 10.4 - 41.9 Turkmenia: 8.6 - 16.2 Latvia: 16.5 - 26.9 Estonia: 15.8 - 35.8 Kirghizia: 7.2 - 11.4 Moldavia: 10 - 13.4 Armenia: 9.5 - 29.5 Tajikistan: 5.5 - 15.6
Russia did not have its own Communist Party and no Soviet leader except Lenin was ethnic Russian (Gorbachev was only half Russian).
Russia was the milking cow of the Soviet Union, the one who had to support all the others. That was the pretext used by Boris Yeltsin to dismantle the Soviet Union after all.
Actually the opposite is true. In the minds of most of the inhabitants, the USSR consisted of 14 national republics and some kind of "common" place in the middle. In accordance with Lenin's ideology, the Russians, as a former imperial people, must repay the debt for the oppression of other peoples in the Russian Empire. This was officially spelled out in the constitutions of 14 Union republics (excluding the RSFSR). For example, Article 2 of the so-called "Stalinist" Constitution of the Ukrainian SSR of 1937:
СТАТТЯ 2. Політичну основу УРСР становлять Ради депутатів трудящих, що виросли і зміц
Actually the opposite is true. In the minds of most of the inhabitants, the USSR consisted of 14 national republics and some kind of "common" place in the middle. In accordance with Lenin's ideology, the Russians, as a former imperial people, must repay the debt for the oppression of other peoples in the Russian Empire. This was officially spelled out in the constitutions of 14 Union republics (excluding the RSFSR). For example, Article 2 of the so-called "Stalinist" Constitution of the Ukrainian SSR of 1937:
СТАТТЯ 2. Політичну основу УРСР становлять Ради депутатів трудящих, що виросли і зміцніли внаслідок повалення влади поміщиків та капіталістів, завоювання диктатури пролетаріату, визволення українського народу від національного гніту царату та російської імперіалістичної буржуазії
ARTICLE 2. The political basis of the Ukrainian SSR is the Soviets of Workers' Deputies, which grew and strengthened as a result of the overthrow of the landlords and capitalists, the conquest of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the liberation of the Ukrainian people from national oppression of Tsarism and the Russian imperialist bourgeoisie.
The RSFSR was the only Soviet republic that did not have its own communist party. In the USSR, there was the Estonian Communist Party, the Ukrainian Communist Party, the Tatjik Communist Party, but there was no Russian Communist Party. That is, the RSFSR did not have a political body that lobbied for its interests in the leadership of the Union. The attempt after WW2 of a group of Leningrad high-ranking officials to decide to have their own communist party communists to declare that the Russians, with their huge sacrifices during the war, atoned for imperialist sins and they can be allowed to have their own communist party, led to the destruction of the entire communist leadership of Leningrad. Google Leningrad ( or Russian ) affair.
The RSFSR, unlike other Soviet republics, did not have its own Academy of Sciences. There was the Latvian Academy of Sciences, the Uzbek Academy of Sciences, but there was no Russian Academy of Sciences. Russians were even forbidden to have their own Writers' Union until the death of Stalin and the Khrushchev thaw.
The territories of other republics were formed at the expense of the territory of the RSFSR (transfer of Southern Siberia to the Kazakh SSR, Crimea and Donbass to the Ukrainian SSR, etc.).
All Soviet republics were unitary states (with the exception of the Ukrainian SSR with the Crimean autonomy). The RSFSR was further divided into dozens of ethnic autonomies.
Only the RSFSR and the Byelorussian SSR were donor republics in the USSR, that is, they gave more to the union budget than they received from it. The BSSR was a donor because it was the "assembly shop of the Union" and produced many goods with high added value.
Supply map in the USSR. Colors Top to bottom supply categories, from highest to 4th.
If someone has forgotten or simply does not know, then I will remind you that the USSR had a planned economy.
There was no market (white-official) as such. Everything was decided by the party. Gosplan planned what and how much to produce or buy abroad, and Gosnab distributed the goods produced throughout the country. The entire Soviet Union was divided into regions and each was assigned a supply category. There were five of them (highest, 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th). The regions of the highest category were supplied with goods of the highest quality and in sufficient volume. Deficits in these parts of the country are rare. The regions of the fourth category were "eating up scraps." What remains will be supplied. If it stays. These regions had the most acute shortage of goods and the lowest quality.
The highest category of supply was assigned to the Baltic republics, Transcaucasia and the North Caucasus, Western Ukraine, Moldova, Central Asia and, of course, Moscow and Leningrad. Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and the Volga republics of the RSFSR were supplied somewhat worse, but they were included in the first category. But the regions of the fourth category were almost the entire territory of Russia, Northern Kazakhstan ( populated mostly by ethnic russians) and Belarus.
The same planned approach was in the financing of social services and infrastructure. Russian regions were financed on a leftover basis.
A good book on Stalin's nationality policy.


Washington acts based on ad-hoc rules that violate international law, foreign minister claims

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. © Global Look Press / MFA Russia

You can share this story on social media:

Subscribe to RT newsletter to get news highlights of the day right in your mailbox
Mutuality of harm? Henry Wang, Founder and President of the Center for China and Globalization
Russia's military action in Ukraine is meant to put an end to the US-dominated world order, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has explained. Washington has been seeking supremacy by imposing ad-hoc rules and violating international law, he claimed, in an interview aired by Russian television on Monday.
He was referring to America's attempts to impose its own so-called “rules-based international order,” which have met with strong resistance from Moscow and China.
“ Our special military operation is meant to put an end to the unabashed expansion [of NATO] and the unabashed drive towards full domination by the US and its Western subjects on the world stage, ” Lavrov told Rossiya 24 news channel.
“ This domination is built on gross violations of international law and under some rules, which they are now hyping so much and which they make up on a case-by-case basis ,” he added.
Russia is among the nations who would not submit to Washington’s will, the Russian diplomat added. It will only be part of an international community of equals and will not allow Western nations to ignore its legitimate security concerns, Lavrov said.
Lavrov blasted EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell for appearing to encourage more fighting in Ukraine. The bloc’s top diplomat said the conflict “will be won on the battlefield” as he announced more military aid to Kiev last Saturday. Lavrov called the statement “ outrageous .”
“ When a diplomatic chief … says a certain conflict can only be resolved through military action… Well, it must be something personal. He either misspoke or spoke without thinking, making a statement that nobody asked him to make. But it’s an outrageous remark ,” Lavrov added.
The EU's role has shifted during the Ukraine security crisis, the minister believes. Previously it didn’t act as a military organization “ fighting collectively against an invented threat .” Lavrov said the change was the result of pressure put on the bloc's members by Washington, which has pushed it closer to NATO.
For its part, Russia wants to negotiate peace with Ukraine, Lavrov added.
Moscow attacked its neighbor in late February, following Ukraine’s failure to implement the terms of the Minsk agreements signed in 2014, and Russia’s eventual recognition of the Donbass republics in Donetsk and Lugansk. The German and French brokered protocols had been designed to regularize the status of those regions within the Ukrainian state.
Russia has now demanded that Ukraine officially declare itself a neutral country that will never join the US-led NATO military bloc. Kiev insists the Russian offensive was completely unprovoked and has denied claims it was planning to retake the two republics by force.
© Autonomous Nonprofit Organization “TV-Novosti”, 2005–2022. All rights reserved.
This website uses cookies. Read RT Privacy policy to find out more.

We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason. You can un-subscribe at any time.
Advice to help you protect your assets
Helping You Prepare For Emergency Situations
Don’t worry, your previous signup will not be duplicated.
Claim The Ultimate Privacy Guide (a $79.95 value) FREE when you subscribe to Personal Liberty Digest™ today.
Numerous cultures have had holidays dedicated to the celebration of pulling the wool over the eyes of others, from the ancient Romans, to early Muslims, to medieval Christians, to Americans and Europeans today. As April begins, we once again turn a mischievous eye to the concept of the fool and, as always, each person seeks to be the prankster and never the victim.
Unfortunately, even the most vigilant of Americans can sometimes be led astray by a clever ruse, and I believe this is taking place today in the liberty movement’s perception of the rising “tensions” between Russia and the West.
In my article Ukraine Crisis: Just Another Globalist-Engineered Powder Keg , I outlined the history of false paradigms and engineered conflicts between numerous nations, including how these conflicts are exploited by global money interests to consolidate and centralize social and political power. The birth of communist Russia, in particular, was directly funded by Western banks and supported with arms and military aid from the U.S. government itself. These sorts of startling facts are not taught in schools and universities exactly because the continued dominance of the money elite relies on continued misrepresentations of legitimate history.
Many in the liberty movement have studied and are well aware of the central banking cabal and its stranglehold on the U.S. and Europe. But strangely, some people refuse to acknowledge the substantial possibility that global bankers are also in control of Russia and are playing both sides of the burgeoning economic war.
As the Ukrainian crisis festers and other dangers in the Pacific and the Mideast grow, an odd consensus among alternative analysts is taking hold — namely the belief that President Vladimir Putin and Russia represent some kind of opposition to globalization and the rule of corporate financiers. Perhaps moments in Putin’s rhetoric and the existence of media outlets like RT have seduced elements of the liberty movement into assuming that Russia is a “victim” in the grand schemes of Western oligarchy and that Russia is truly the white knight, the underdog willing to stand up against the New World Order. I’m sorry to say that nothing could be further from the truth.
Russia is just as much a tool of the global elite today as it was after the Bolshevik Revolution, and Vladimir Putin is just as much a socialist puppet as Barack Obama. Let’s start from the beginning of the rebirth of Russia as a regional confederacy in the 1990s after the fall of the Warsaw Pact.
Mikhail Gorbachev, the leader largely credited with the ultimate dismantling of the Soviet Union and the rise of the “new” Russia, has long been a proponent of the “New World Order” (his words) and centralized global government. In an address entitled “Perspectives On Global Change” to the students of Lafayette College in Easton, Penn., Gorbachev argued that such a solution was necessary to safeguard “freedom.”
“The opportunities that existed after the end of the Cold War… were not used properly. At that same time, we saw that the entire world situation did not develop positively. We saw deterioration where there should have been positive movement toward a new world order.”
He continued: “But we still are facing the problem of building such a world order. We have crises: we are facing problems of the environment, of backwardness and poverty, of food shortages. All of these problems are because we do not have a system of global governance.”
When asked in 1995 by San Francisco Weekly what Gorbachev meant by the phrase “New World Order,” Jim Garrison, the executive director of the Gorbachev Foundation stated, bluntly that Gorbachev wanted nothing less than global government.
Over the next 20 to 30 years, we are going to end up with world government. … It’s inevitable. It will happen and become just as normal to have a relationship with the rest of the world as we now have, say, if you are a Californian and you go to Vermont.
Gorbachev saw this global government being achieved through international organizations like the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. But is this vision of the New World Order limited only to Gorbachev and his inner circle? At the Gorbachev-led State of the World Forum in 1995, Council On Foreign Relations member Zbigniew Brzezinski had this to say: “We do not have a New World Order. … We cannot leap into world government in one quick step. … In brief, the precondition for eventual globalization — genuine globalization — is progressive regionalization, because thereby we move toward larger, more stable, more cooperative units.”
In Zbigniew K. Brzezinski’s book Between Two Ages: America’s Role In The Technetronic Era , he elaborates on the ideology behind what brand of government the New World Order would be:
The nation-state is gradually yielding its sovereignty… More intensive efforts to shape a new world monetary structure will have to be undertaken.
National sovereignty is no longer a viable concept… Marxism represents a further vital and creative state in the maturing of man’s universal vision. Marxism is simultaneously a victory of the external, active man over the inner, passive man and a victory of reason over belief…
Brzezinski seems to be in total agreement with Gorbachev, but why should anyone care what Brzezinski thinks about the future of American sovereignty? Perhaps it’s because he is a close and influential foreign policy adviser to Obama .
So we have now established that political interests on both sides since the 1990s have called for a New World Order and global government taking a decidedly socialist or Marxist form. Some people might applaud this kind of future, or they might despise it; but the fact remains that this plan is indeed being openly promoted and implemented by government officials and elitists in the East and the West. It is undeniable.
From its very inception, the new Russia was designed to become a catalyst for global governance, but global governance by whom? As they say, always follow the money.
Russia is more beholden to international bankers than perhaps any nation on the planet. After the collapse of the Russian economy and the dissolution of the old Soviet Union, the country was in dire straits. From 1992 to 1996, the IMF intervened in the Russian economy, offering more than $22 billion in aid (officially). This first loan package was presented as a failure when Russia defaulted on its debts, and loans from the IMF restarted through the late ’90s until this very day.
Many people are aware of the IMF involvement in Russia, but few know about the scandal surrounding where those IMF funds specifically went. In 1999, information was made public on the diversion of IMF cash into the coffers of Russian corporate elites, politicians and even mobsters. This money was supposed to go toward the rebuilding of Russian infrastructure and economy. Instead, the aristocracy and criminal underwo
Smd Outdoor Led Display
Voyeur Piss Granny
Full Public Sex